Russian President Vladimir Putin is no admirer of President John F. Kennedy.
Yet he would no doubt agree with the spirit of the poem that Robert Frost intended to read at Kennedy’s 1961 inaugural.
Entitled “Dedication,” the poem went unread because the sunlight reflecting off snow blinded the elderly poet. So Frost relied on memory to recite an earlier creation: “The Gift Outright.”
“Dedication,” however, was far more in keeping with the upcoming aggressive hubris of the Kennedy years:
It makes the prophet in us all presage
The glory of a next Augustan age
Of a power leading from its strength and pride,
Of young ambition eager to be tried,
Firm in our free beliefs without dismay
In any game the nations want to play.
On September 30, Putin embarked on a game of big-power politics. He started launching airstrikes against Syria.
The objective: To bolster the dictatorship of Russia’s ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who is now caught up in civil war.
This began on March 15, 2011, triggered by protests demanding political reforms and the ouster of al-Assad. More than 310,000 people have been killed in the fighting.
The Obama administration is worried about Russian intentions. And Republicans are furious, demanding that American military forces directly confront those of Russia.
Yet despite Right-wing fears about Russia, there is no reason for alarm–by Americans.
Putin’s intervention in Syria’s civil war offers three possible outcomes for the United States. And they’re all positive.
Vladimir Putin
First, the Russians will kill thousands of America’s sworn enemies.
Russians are well-known for their disregard for human life. During their invasion of Germany in 1945, Russian soldiers literally nailed civilians to barn doors, squashed them under their tanks, and raped countless women of all ages.
In Syria, they will slaughter everyone who gets in their way. Thus, they will kill far more of America’s Islamic enemies than even our own military–hamstrung by do-gooder “rules of engagement”–could possibly eliminate.
Second, Russia will replace the United States as “The Great Satan” in the eyes of most Islamics.
The Soviet Union waged a ruthless war against Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989. Out of that war grew Al-Qaeda. Millions of Islamics still hate Russians for their brutalities.
From 1999 to 2009, Russia fought a brutal war against Islamics in Chechnya. Chechens responded with terrorism across Russia.
Russia’s intervention in Syria will only harden its image as an enemy of Islam–even if it’s supporting one group of Islamics (the Assad regime) against others.
If Islamic terrorism starts raging throughout Russia, Putin may be forced to back down from his military moves against Syria and Ukraine.
Third, if Russian planes get shot down or Russian soldiers killed, Russia will suffer the casualties–not the United States.
The Soviet Union never fully recovered from its losses in Afghanistan–13,310 soldiers killed, 35,478 wounded.
If Russia starts taking heavy losses in Syria or at home through terrorism, this could lead to widespread unrest. Even Vladimir Putin could find himself in danger of being replaced.
And for Russia, the chicken Kiev has already come home to roost.
On October 31, Airbus A321, a Russian airliner, broke up in mid-air, then crashed in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, killing all 224 people on board.
The plane was carrying holidaymakers from the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh to St Petersburg when it crashed into a mountainous area of central Sinai.
In Egypt, a militant group affiliated to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) claimed that it had brought down the plane “in response to Russian airstrikes that killed hundreds of Muslims on Syrian land.”
On November 19, ISIS published an online photo of a soft drink can and two components–a detonator and a switch–that it claimed brought down the plane.
The crash has proved emotionally wrenching for Russians.
Flags across Russia flew at half-staff and Russian Orthodox priests conducted services to pray for the victims.
President Putin declared a nationwide day of mourning. In St. Petersburg, home to most of the victims, authorities ordered the mourning to last for three days.
Flag of ISIS
And, on November 24, another such loss occurred: A Russian fighter was shot down on the Turkish-Syrian border by two Turkish F-16s.
Turkish officials claimed that it had violated Turkish airspace 10 times within a five-minute period.
This marked the first time in a half-century that a member of NATO–in this case, Turkey–has downed a Russian plane.
Vladimir Putin quickly called the shootdown a “stab in the back committed by accomplices of terrorists.”
And he warned: “The tragic event will have serious consequences for Russian-Turkish relations.”
With the armed forces of so many Great Powers–France, Russia, Britain and America–now crowding into Syria, such an outcome was probably inevitable.
It was exactly that scenario–Great Powers going to war over conflicts involving their small-state allies/clients–that triggered World War I.
A conflict between Russia and Turkey–a member of NATO–could easily trigger World War III.
.jpg)
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
60 MINUTES, 9/11 ATTACKS, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AFGHANISTAN, AL QAEDA, AYATOLLAH RUHOLLAH KHOMEINI, BARACK OBAMA, BASHAR AL-ASSAD, CARL VON CLAUSEWITZ, CARLOS THE JACKAL, CBS NEWS, CIA, CNN, FACEBOOK, HARRY TRUMAN, IMPERIAL HUBRIS, IRAN, ISLAM, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT, ISRAEL, MARCHING TOWARD HELL, MICHAEL SCHEUER, MUSLIMS, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, RUSSIA, SHAH OF IRAN, SOVIET UNION, SYRIA, TERRORISM, THE CHICAGO TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, USA TODAY, VIETNAM WAR, VLADIMIR PUTIN, WORLD WAR 1
GOODBYE TO ALL THAT: PART THREE (END)
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary, Uncategorized on November 19, 2015 at 12:14 amAccording to Micheal Scheuer, America needs to end its role as Israel’s permanent bodyguard.
Scheuer is a 20-year CIA veteran–as well as an author, historian, foreign policy critic and political analyst.
Testifying before the House Committee on Homeland Security on October 9, 2013, Scheuer warned:
“If it was up to me, I’d dump the Israelis tomorrow. All I worry about is that continuing preaching of American politicians to the American people that our relationship with the Israelis doesn’t cause us to have dead Americans and extraordinary expenses in fighting the Muslim world.”
Michael Scheuer
For decades, the United States has pursued two policies in the Middle East, one based on relations with the Arab world and the other based on relations with Israel.
Policy 1: Maintaining access to vast amounts of Arab oil at low prices.
Policy 2: Maintaining the security of Israel.
Since the Arabs and Israelis hate each other, each side constantly tries to sway American support in its direction.
Every step the United States takes to defend Israel–diplomatically or militarily–ignites hatred of Americans among Islamics.
And every step–diplomatically or militarily–the United States takes to improve its relations with Islamic countries convinces Israelis that they’re being “sold out.”
President George W. Bush tilted strongly toward Israel. That convinced Israelis to go on building settlements in occupied Arab territory–and alienated the Arabs.
President Barack Obama, seeking a balanced approach, leaned heavily on Israel to stop building settlements. Israel has continued doing so–thus alienating the Israelis while leaving the Arabs enraged.
In short: The United States is like a giant who has one foot stuck in Israel and the other stuck in any Islamic country–leaving his private parts fully exposed to whichever side wants to take a shot at them.
This is not to deny that Israel has a right to exist. Every nation--including Israel–has the absolute right to defend itself from aggression.
But no nation–including Israel–should have the right to expect another nation to act as its permanent bodyguard.
Millions of Americans believe they are morally obligated to defend Israel owing to the barbarism of the Holocaust. America, however, was never a party to this, and has nothing to atone for.
But there is another reason many Americans feel committed to Israel. And it has nothing to do with concern for the fates of Israelis.
It lies in the mythology of the Christian Right: Many fundamentalist Christians believe that, for Jesus Christ to awaken from his 2,000-year slumber, Israel must first re-conquer every inch of territory it supposedly held during the reign of Kings David and Solomon.
Right-wing Christian fantasy: Dead man hovering
After Christ returns, they believe, the Jews will face a choice: Become Christians or go to hell. For evangelical Christians, Jews remain the eternal “Christ killers.”
And if Jews must assume temporary control of the Middle East to bring about the return of a man who died 2,000 years ago, so be it.
This is also the view of many Right-wing members of the House of Representatives and Senate. Clearly, people who hold such totally irrational views shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office.
Unfortunately, such unbalanced views are shared by millions of equally irrational evangelical Christians.
During his appearance before the House Committee on Homeland Security, Michael Scheuer absolutely rejected the conservatives’ assertion that jihadists wage war on us because they “hate us for our freedoms.”
SCHEUER: These people are fighting for something substantive, for something religious. ….They are not going to fight us because we have women in the workplace.
That is an insanity. What they are fighting us about is what we do.
…I would draw your attention to the reality that, to the best of my knowledge, neither we nor any of our NATO partners have yet to capture a Western Islamist fighter whose words or documents have shown a motivation to attack based on hatred for liberty, elections or gender equality.
Invariably, they attribute their motivation to U.S. and Western military intervention and support for Israel and Muslim tyrannies.
Scheuer’s take on Israel brought him into direct conflict with Rep. Peter T. King (R-New York).
Congressman Peter T. King
KING: I would just say we would have more dead Americans if we didn’t stand by our allies in the Middle East. We would just be encourage al-Qaeda to take advantage of us.
SCHEUER: You know, you are presiding over a bankruptcy. What can be worse? What has been the goal of al-Qaeda since it was formed? To bankrupt the United States.
Who is winning today, sir? We are done like dinner.
KING: We are winning and we will continue to win unless we take the advice of people like you.
SCHEUER: Sir, you are exactly wrong. We are losing. Two U.S. field armies were defeated by men in the field with weapons from the Korean War.
KING: The fact is we have not been successfully attacked since September 11.
SCHEUER: The fact is, sir, we have had two military defeats overseas, which is far more important.
And, warns Scheuer, more defeats–domestic and international–lie ahead unless the United States radically changes its policies toward the Middle East.
Share this: