" My advice to the Obama administration would be to dissociate itself from the Saudi war and to open its own lines of communication to the Houthis. Seeing the latter as Iranian proxies is a form of geopolitical paranoia, and failing to recognize that Wahhabi proselytizing is a cause of a lot of the problems in the Muslim world is shortsighted on the part of the US."
Has Hillary Clinton or Obama ever been asked: "What is a Wahabi?" What could or would they say? I just read the Wikipedia link as well as the Juan Cole link. What could I say now to explain it to someone? Beats me! Good guys wear white hats, bad guys wear black. What hat does a wahabi wear. The simplicity of binary thinking! Wahabi is either for me or against me! TINA. Yes there is.
What is a Wahabi? What and where is the official .gov website equal to explain this as an official definition and policy toward the problem?
You couldn't handle the explanation! Trust us. We know what is best.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-yousaf-butt-/saudi-wahhabism-islam-terrorism_b_6501916.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html
13 October 2016: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/13/us-enters-yemen-war-bombing-houthis-who-launched-missiles-at-navy-ship
The title of this bog entry references the comedy routine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_on_First%3F.
A popular toast at formal navy functions is: "Confusion To Our Enemies" generally attributed in origin to the British Navy. Another meme that was sometimes used in my navy career: "We have met the enemy and they are us".
This appears to be maybe the best explanation by an expert:
http://eaworldview.com/2016/10/yemen-feature-a-guide-to-the-civil-war/
Darned if I can figure it out!
What ever happened to good old binary war. Good guys vs. Bad Guys? That however never was the case, merely the simply minded perception. It is and always was complicated at the micro and macro analysis level. White and black hats are only for the movies.
Yemen was not mentioned in the 2nd presidential debate. (keyword search of the transcript). The next day an attack on a US Navy ship was reported. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-usa-ship-idUSKCN12A082
This was an interesting find, for what it is worth: Should the U.S. provide military aid to Saudi Arabia during its conflict with Yemen?
https://www.isidewith.com/poll/2533295991
Not the general consistency of response among various sectors favoring to a high degree the reply: Stay out of it!
"As the US meddles in another Middle East war, candidates must address it"."The US is helping Yemen fight a conflict that its ongoing support of Saudi Arabia helped cause. Yet there’s little public disclosure or debate" Read the link. Who is on first and why? Who knows? Ask What! What is where? On second! Who's on second? ....What!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/09/yemen-saudia-arabia-us-military-trump-clinton"The Pentagon quietly announced on Friday that US military troops are on the ground in yet another Middle Eastern country – this time in Yemen – and have been there for the last two weeks. That’s how US wars get started these days: no public debate, no congressional authorization, no presidential address; just an after-the-fact pre-weekend news dump.
This time, instead of Isis, the US military “advisers” (don’t call them “boots on the ground”!) are supposedly assisting Yemeni forces fighting a resurgent al-Qaida organization, the same terrorist group that the US has helped strengthen over the past year by giving Saudi Arabia all sorts of support for their appalling and destructive war against Yemen."
It is a big quagmire and the Big Fool says to push on! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist_Deep_in_the_Big_Muddy
Why? Where is Why? What is That you ask?
That is the big question! Or is it Who?
Who, What or Why is driving this train wreck?
Don't ask.
Don't tell.
You can't handle the truth!
I can't even begin to find it. Maybe I should read this link again:
http://eaworldview.com/2016/10/yemen-feature-a-guide-to-the-civil-war/
http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/country/home/tags/yemen
"The Republic of Yemen is one of the driest, poorest and least developed countries in the world. It ranks 140 out of 182 countries on the UNDP Human Development Index (2009). An estimated 42 percent of the people are poor, and one Yemeni in five is malnourished. Poverty is endemic, particularly in more remote and less accessible areas."
http://www.juancole.com/2016/10/airstrikes-hundreds-civilians.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-yemen_us_57fc1d20e4b0b6a4303504d3?section=&
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/10/photos-show-fragments-of-u-s-bombs-at-site-of-yemen-funeral-masssacre/
A funeral is bombed in Yemen. A wedding party is bombed in Iraq. Aleppo is bombed by Coalition Forces, (Saudi Arbia?) Which one is a war crime?
All the fighting in the Mid-East is done in cities. Civilians live there. It isn't WWI trench warfare of two opposing sides. Basra is (was) a city not the name of some battlefield where wheat or corn was grown. City fighting is what US Forces are trained for in base training mock ups. That is where wars are fought. War crimes committed. Civilians flee or die.
How many US troops or agents or government employed civilians are in Yemen and what are they doing. With and for whom?
May 6 2016: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/05/06/us-reveals-boots-ground-yemen/84024498/ What about now? Was there ever a war where we did not escalate as the level of fighting escalated?
Two days ago: http://news.antiwar.com/2016/10/09/more-us-troops-arriving-in-iraq-ahead-of-mosul-invasion/
The official US Command release says the number is 600 troops: http://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/NEWS-ARTICLES/News-Article-View/Article/958881/carter-600-troops-to-deploy-to-enable-iraqis-to-retake-mosul-from-isil/
Oct 5, 2016: http://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/964518/us-strike-in-yemen-kills-1-terrorist-wounds-another
The title of this blog entry is "Who's on First in Yemen?". Then it expanded geographically to the other nations in the Mid-East. Why are we there at all? Perhaps this is the best statement on the entire history and pathetic situation in the Mid-East.
http://original.antiwar.com/David_Stockman/2016/10/10/truth-war-aleppo/
and this also:
http://johnhelmer.net/?p=16547 : THE BATTLE OF ALEPPO, THE BATTLE OF DRESDEN, THE BATTLE OF MASADA AND THE BATTLE OF BOSWORTH FIELD — WHO LIES, LIES LONGEST
The war in Syria: http://warontherocks.com/2016/10/the-misadventures-of-russia-and-the-united-states-in-syria-complete-strategy-implosion-edition/
I have the highest regard for Ray McGoverns intelligence and dedication: I think that we are heading for trouble fast and like Bush, those that want it are going to get it. What are their goals? Agenda? Self interest? http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/12/russian-throws-down-the-gauntlet-fly-at-your-own-risk/
This is a google search on General Milley
AUSA website: https://www.ausa.org/ausa2016 A non-governmental entity composed of military members beating the drums of war.
The last two links go off on a tangent from the focus of this post but are related. While our forces in the Middle East are the tip of the spear, those teeth are business end supported by a long tail. A tail of logistics that is more than just hardware support. It is political support of the mission in tune with the political party of the day. We have just one party really. A war party, a big business party, a big money party, a capitalist party. It puts the top 1% at the top of the supporting tail.
A top ranking military officer speaking in uniform at a non-military function, I will not even give it the description of quasi-military. Mercenaries are quasi-military. The audience is or was composed of top ranking members of the US Military (plus lower ranks of wannabes and probably their counterparts in the Military/Industrial complex. This does not pass the smell test of honor and integrity beyond reproach consistent with the standard of a higher level of professional performance.
Look at General Dunford, USMC, Chairman, JCS speaking at an AUSA function: https://www.ausa.org/news/dunford-challenges-require-more-%E2%80%98buying-new-hardware%E2%80%99.
What he says treads on the domain of political speech. A boundary that is being push in the same manner as the boundary between the military and industrial complex. Perhaps a search on the term: Military/Political Complex might be revealing? It certainly exists except as an indirect relationship. More money to be made going through the industrial revolving door than the political one.
AUSA images search: ausa association of the united states army https://www.google.com
It even has its own credit card!
This is in my opinion, everything written here is that, an excellent statement on the Military-Political relationship evolving to a role of greater Military power and performance in the Political domain that has sifted the dominant role: https://www.thenation.com/article/the-case-for-demilitarizing-the-military/
Perhaps the last several paragraphs looking at this situation is worthy of a new blog entry.
AUSA Young Professional deserves a critical look. A non-profit.
No comments:
Post a Comment