The Wheat-Field Principle

In 1946 , Juan Perón was elected president of a prosperous country : Argentina .
He promised great social benefits to the common man , under justicialismo ( social justice ) .
This “ justice ” was never actually defined ; it was more implied : If you ’ re a common man , the Perón government will favour you over the “ rich.
” This he demonstrated through forced wage increases and other benefits .
Railroads and utilities were nationalised ( stolen from their owners by the government ) .
In addition , extensive , but often unnecessary , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ethic and personal achievement took a back seat to being well-connected .
Increasingly , success was the result of bribes to government leaders and officials .
The Modern Survival Ma ... Fernando `` Ferfal '' Aguirre Best Price : $ 3.91 Buy New $ 14.95 The overall result of these actions was that the economy sank and the very businesses that were bled to provide the largesse given to the common man were no longer able to pay the ever-increasing cost of entitlements .
This led , not to an obvious reversal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but to an increased reliance on the military and a growing police state .
Constitutional liberties were removed and any opposition was punished .
Although the “ man of the people ” campaign promises from Mister Perón had been welcomed in 1946 , by 1955 , it became apparent that they had led to inflation , increased poverty , corruption and political oppression .
Amid broad public discontent , Mister Perón was ousted from office .
The subsequent government advised the electorate that , for the economy to recover , they must accept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the payback to recover from the mistakes of socialism .
Perón went into exile , but amazingly , he was returned to office by the electorate in 1973 ( and died in office the following year ) .
Since that time , Argentina has gone through cycles that have each begun with a new “ saviour ” candidate promising greater largesse from the government , winning the election , then instituting a revised Peronist model .
In every case , it would end in inflation , increased poverty , corruption and political oppression @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the inevitable economic decline , a more conservative administration would be voted in .
There would be a brief period of correction – fiscally sound governmental polices .
Under such administrations , entitlements would be diminished and Argentina would begin to return to a sound economic footing .
A New Economic History ... Buy New $ 51.36 But these periods of responsible governance would rarely last more than one term .
Before the transition to full prosperity could be completed , the next election would result in a return to the Peronist model @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is .
The cycles have repeated for 73 years , with the odd interruption of military rule .
The result has been that Argentina , a once-highly productive country , has become a banana republic and has remained that way .
There are significant periods of socialism , interrupted with brief corrections – attempts to refloat the economy – only to dive once more , headlong , into socialism .
And yet the Argentine people are , for the most part , educated and industrious .
Why on earth does this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
The answer is human nature .
Once a people have decided to cease to act responsibly , once they ’ ve decided to pass the decision-making to the government , they slide into a childlike existence in which they cease to bother to look any further into the future than their next governmental handout .
Once a people have become this shortsighted , they ’ re easily manipulated into forgetting the pain of past errors and are suckers for renewed empty promises .
It should be borne in mind that those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maintain hope that Argentines will one day “ wake up ” and recognize that the 73-year experiment has only brought repeated hardship ; that they ’ ll return to an understanding that , in order to have a sound economy , they must accept that socialist concepts are invariably doomed to failure .
This hope was particularly high in 2015 , when an accomplished businessman , Mauricio Macri , ran for office at the end of the disastrous reign of Cristina Fernández .
He won the election – the first true conservative candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In Their Own Words Bracken , Donagh Best Price : $ 29.11 Buy New $ 28.94 There were many people who then said , “ Finally – the electorate have seen the light.
” Sorry to say , although I wished that this might be true , on hearing the results of the election , I predicted that Mister Macri would be a one-term-only president .
If Mister Macri were to usher in a new era of fiscal responsibility , he would need at least two terms of recovery to re-stabilise the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more of prosperity for the lesson to sink in – to build up the prosperity .
There was no chance , in my view , that he could complete the task within four years .
Consequently , he ’ d be voted out .
I term this conundrum the “ wheat-field principle.
” The same people who voted for redemption from a failed system will , in a subsequent election , reverse their vote .
So , how does this principle manifest itself ?
Well , the pundits who predict elections tend to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a country have a change of heart and , accordingly , a change of leadership occurs .
If not , the existing leadership remains .
This is never what actually occurs .
Instead , any country will always have a hardcore conservative group – mostly employers and other businesspeople – who almost invariably vote for the conservative candidate .
It will also have the wage earners and the civil service , etc.
, who have a limited ability to increase their own income .
They hope that a liberal leader will provide them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for themselves through their limited abilities and ambitions .
The latter group almost invariably vote for the liberal candidate .
Socialism Under The Mi ... Paul L Williams Best Price : $ 15.25 Buy New $ 14.95 In the middle are a percentage of the electorate – less than 25 % , but often even less , who wave back and forth… like a wheat field .
When a liberal candidate makes empty promises to make life better , they vote liberal .
But when those promises prove to be empty and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reluctantly , vote conservative .
The significance of this is that the wheat field have not ceased to want entitlements .
In fact , they remain hopeful that entitlements can return .
They ’ re uninterested in why socialism doesn ’ t work ; they simply want to be told that things will be better this time .
It ’ s for this reason that , time after time , the Argentine wheat field that voted for a return to fiscal responsibility in one election , become the swing vote again in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again to socialism .
History shows that countries discard socialism only if it has brought the economy to the bottom and kept it there long enough for a fundamental change in thinking amongst an electorate .
If not , the same wheat field that voted conservative in one election will blow the other way four years later – and that will be true in most any country .

In 1946, Juan Perón was elected president of a prosperous country: Argentina.
He promised great social benefits to the common man, under justicialismo (social justice). This “justice” was never actually defined; it was more implied: If you’re a common man, the Perón government will favour you over the “rich.”
This he demonstrated through forced wage increases and other benefits. Railroads and utilities were nationalised (stolen from their owners by the government). In addition, extensive, but often unnecessary, public works projects were undertaken.
Work ethic and personal achievement took a back seat to being well-connected. Increasingly, success was the result of bribes to government leaders and officials.
The overall result of these actions was that the economy sank and the very businesses that were bled to provide the largesse given to the common man were no longer able to pay the ever-increasing cost of entitlements.
This led, not to an obvious reversal of the socially and economically destructive policies, but to an increased reliance on the military and a growing police state. Constitutional liberties were removed and any opposition was punished.
Although the “man of the people” campaign promises from Mister Perón had been welcomed in 1946, by 1955, it became apparent that they had led to inflation, increased poverty, corruption and political oppression.
Amid broad public discontent, Mister Perón was ousted from office. The subsequent government advised the electorate that, for the economy to recover, they must accept a loss of entitlements. Such was the payback to recover from the mistakes of socialism.
Perón went into exile, but amazingly, he was returned to office by the electorate in 1973 (and died in office the following year).
Since that time, Argentina has gone through cycles that have each begun with a new “saviour” candidate promising greater largesse from the government, winning the election, then instituting a revised Peronist model. In every case, it would end in inflation, increased poverty, corruption and political oppression two or three terms later.
Following the inevitable economic decline, a more conservative administration would be voted in. There would be a brief period of correction – fiscally sound governmental polices. Under such administrations, entitlements would be diminished and Argentina would begin to return to a sound economic footing. A New Economic History... Buy New $51.36 (as of 05:00 UTC - Details)
But these periods of responsible governance would rarely last more than one term. Before the transition to full prosperity could be completed, the next election would result in a return to the Peronist model.
If the above description sounds repetitive, it is. The cycles have repeated for 73 years, with the odd interruption of military rule.
The result has been that Argentina, a once-highly productive country, has become a banana republic and has remained that way. There are significant periods of socialism, interrupted with brief corrections – attempts to refloat the economy – only to dive once more, headlong, into socialism.
And yet the Argentine people are, for the most part, educated and industrious. Why on earth does this conundrum continue after so many blatant failures?
The answer is human nature. Once a people have decided to cease to act responsibly, once they’ve decided to pass the decision-making to the government, they slide into a childlike existence in which they cease to bother to look any further into the future than their next governmental handout.
Once a people have become this shortsighted, they’re easily manipulated into forgetting the pain of past errors and are suckers for renewed empty promises.
It should be borne in mind that those who have watched Argentina closely over the years maintain hope that Argentines will one day “wake up” and recognize that the 73-year experiment has only brought repeated hardship; that they’ll return to an understanding that, in order to have a sound economy, they must accept that socialist concepts are invariably doomed to failure.
This hope was particularly high in 2015, when an accomplished businessman, Mauricio Macri, ran for office at the end of the disastrous reign of Cristina Fernández. He won the election – the first true conservative candidate to do so since the early 1940s. In Their Own Words Bracken, Donagh Best Price: $29.11 Buy New $28.94 (as of 06:23 UTC - Details)
There were many people who then said, “Finally – the electorate have seen the light.”
Sorry to say, although I wished that this might be true, on hearing the results of the election, I predicted that Mister Macri would be a one-term-only president. If Mister Macri were to usher in a new era of fiscal responsibility, he would need at least two terms of recovery to re-stabilise the country, then another two terms or more of prosperity for the lesson to sink in – to build up the prosperity.
There was no chance, in my view, that he could complete the task within four years. Consequently, he’d be voted out.
I term this conundrum the “wheat-field principle.” The same people who voted for redemption from a failed system will, in a subsequent election, reverse their vote.
So, how does this principle manifest itself?
Well, the pundits who predict elections tend to imagine that “the people” of a country have a change of heart and, accordingly, a change of leadership occurs. If not, the existing leadership remains.
This is never what actually occurs.
Instead, any country will always have a hardcore conservative group – mostly employers and other businesspeople – who almost invariably vote for the conservative candidate. It will also have the wage earners and the civil service, etc., who have a limited ability to increase their own income. They hope that a liberal leader will provide them with benefits that they cannot create for themselves through their limited abilities and ambitions. The latter group almost invariably vote for the liberal candidate. Socialism Under The Mi... Paul L Williams Best Price: $15.25 Buy New $14.95 (as of 03:47 UTC - Details)
In the middle are a percentage of the electorate – less than 25%, but often even less, who wave back and forth… like a wheat field. When a liberal candidate makes empty promises to make life better, they vote liberal. But when those promises prove to be empty and the economy craters, the wheat field, reluctantly, vote conservative.
The significance of this is that the wheat field have not ceased to want entitlements. In fact, they remain hopeful that entitlements can return. They’re uninterested in why socialism doesn’t work; they simply want to be told that things will be better this time.
It’s for this reason that, time after time, the Argentine wheat field that voted for a return to fiscal responsibility in one election, become the swing vote again in the next election, returning the country once again to socialism.
History shows that countries discard socialism only if it has brought the economy to the bottom and kept it there long enough for a fundamental change in thinking amongst an electorate. If not, the same wheat field that voted conservative in one election will blow the other way four years later – and that will be true in most any country.
Reprinted with permission from International Man.


lewrockwell--2020-08-27--To Capture and Subdue: America’s Theft of Syrian Oil Has Very Little To Do With Money

Near the end of July , one of the most important recent developments in U.S. foreign policy was quietly disclosed during a U.S. Senate hearing .
Not surprisingly , hardly anybody talked about it and most are still completely unaware that it happened .
Answering questions from Senator Lindsey Graham , Secretary of State Pompeo confirmed that the State Department had awarded an American company , Delta Crescent Energy , with a contract to begin extracting oil in northeast Syria .
The area is nominally controlled by the Kurds , yet their military force , the Syrian Democratic Forces ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ auspices and relies on an American military presence to secure its territory .
That military presence will now be charged with protecting an American firm from the government of the country that it is operating within .
Pompeo confirmed that the plans for implanting the firm into the U.S.-held territory are “ now in implementation ” and that they could potentially be “ very powerful.
” This is quite a momentous event given its nature as a blatant example of neocolonial extraction , or , as Stephen Kinzer puts it writing for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vivid throwback to earlier imperial eras , when conquerors felt free to loot the resources of any territory they could capture and subdue.
” Shadow Wars : The Secre ... Davidson , Christopher Best Price : $ 3.89 Buy New $ 14.52 Indeed , the history of how the U.S. came to be in a position to “ capture and subdue ” these resources is a sordid , yet informative tale that by itself arguably even rivals other such colonial adventures .
When a legitimate protest movement developed organically in Syria in early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to destabilize , and potentially overthrow , the government of a country that had long pushed back against its efforts for greater control in the region .
Syria had maintained itself outside of the orbit of U.S. influence and had frustratingly prevented American corporations from penetrating its economy to access its markets and resources .
As the foremost academic expert on Middle East affairs , Christopher Davidson , wrote in his seminal work , “ Shadow Wars , The Secret Struggle for the Middle East , ” discussing both Syria and Libya ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remained that these two regimes , sitting astride vast natural resources and in command of key ports , rivers , and borders , were still significant obstacles that had long frustrated the ambitions of Western governments and their constituent corporations to gain greater access.
” “ With Syria , ” Davidson wrote , “ having long proven antagonistic to Western interests… a golden opportunity had presented itself in 2011 to oust [ this ] administration once and for all under the pretext of humanitarian and even democratic causes.
” The U.S. , therefore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the uprising early on , and soon co-opted the movement along with allied states Turkey , Jordan , Saudi Arabia , the UAE , and Qatar .
Writing at the end of 2011 , Columbia University ’ s Joseph Massad explained how there was no longer any doubt that “ the Syrian popular struggle for democracy [ has ] already been hijacked , ” given that “ the Arab League and imperial powers have taken over and assumed the leadership of their struggle.
” Soon , through the sponsoring of extremist elements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the al-Qaeda variety .
According to the DIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff , by 2013 “ there was no viable ‘ moderate ’ opposition to Assad ” and “ the U.S. was arming extremists.
” Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed that “ although many in the American intelligence community were aware that the Syrian opposition was dominated by extremists , ” still “ the CIA-sponsored weapons kept coming.
” When ISIS split off from al-Qaeda and formed its own Caliphate , the U.S. continued pumping money and weapons into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this aid was going into the hands of ISIS and other jihadists .
U.S. allies directly supported ISIS .
U.S. officials admitted that they saw the rise of ISIS as a beneficial development that could help pressure Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to give in to America ’ s demands .
Leaked audio of then-Secretary of State John Kerry revealed that “ we were watching… and we know that this [ ISIS ] was growing… We saw that Daesh was growing in strength , and we thought Assad was threatened .
We thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — that Assad would then negotiate.
” As ISIS was bearing down on the capital city of Damascus , the U.S. was pressing Assad to step down to a U.S.-approved government .
Then , however , Russia intervened with its air force to prevent an ISIS takeover of the country and shifted the balance of forces against the jihadist group .
ISIS ’ viability as a tool to pressure the government was spent .
The arsonist and the firefighter So , a new strategy was implemented : instead of allowing Russia and Syria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ captured throughout the war , the U.S. would use the ISIS threat as an excuse to take those territories before they were able to .
Like an arsonist who comes to put out the fire , the U.S. would now charge itself with the task of stamping out the Islamist scourge and thereby legitimize its own seizure of Syrian land .
The U.S. partnered with the Kurdish militias who acted as their “ boots on the ground ” in this endeavor and supported them with airstrikes .
The strategy of how these areas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was designed primarily to allow ISIS to escape and redirect itself back into the fight against Syria and Russia .
This was done through leaving “ an escape route for militants ” or through deals that were made where ISIS voluntarily agreed to cede its territory .
The militants were then able to escape and go wreak havoc against America ’ s enemies in Syria .
Interestingly , in terms of the oil fields now being handed off to an American corporation , the U.S. barely even fought ISIS to gain control over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Syria and Russia were quickly closing in on the then-ISIS controlled oilfields , so the U.S. oversaw a deal between the Kurds and ISIS to give up control of the city .
According to veteran Middle East war correspondent Elijah Magnier , “ U.S.-backed forces advanced in north-eastern areas under ISIS control , with little or no military engagement : ISIS pulled out from more than 28 villages and oil and gas fields east of the Euphrates River , surrendering these to the Kurdish-U.S. forces following an understanding these reached with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Syrian Observatory for Human Rights claimed that ISIS preferred seeing the fields in the hands of the U.S. and the Kurds rather than the Syrian government .
The rationale behind this occupation was best described by Syria expert Joshua Landis , who wrote that the areas of northern Syria under control of the Kurds are the U.S. ’ “ main instrument in gaining leverage ” over the government .
By “ denying Damascus access to North Syria ” and “ controlling half of Syria ’ s energy resources ” “ the U.S. will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under-resources.
” So , by “ promoting Kurdish nationalism in Syria ” the U.S. “ hopes to deny Iran and Russia the fruits of their victory , ” while “ keeping Damascus weak and divided , ” this serving “ no purpose other than to stop trade ” and to “ beggar Assad and keep Syria divided , weak and poor.
” Or , in the words of Jim Jeffrey , the Trump administrations special representative for Syria who is charged with overseeing U.S. policy , the intent is to “ make life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cadaver of a regime and let the Russians and Iranians , who made this mess , get out of it.
” This is the history by which an American firm was able to secure a contract to extract oil in Syria .
And while the actual resources gained will not be of much value ( Syria has only 0.1 % of the world ’ s oil reserves ) , the presence of an American company will likely serve as a justification to maintain a U.S. military presence in the region .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anchoring American troops in Syria for a long time , ” Stephen Kinzer explains , one that will aid the policymakers who hold “ the view that the United States must remain militarily dominant in the Middle East.
” The New Rulers of the ... Pilger , John Best Price : $ 4.40 Buy New $ 8.99 This analysis corroborates the extensive scholarship of people like Mason Gaffney , professor of economics emeritus at the University of California , who , writing in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology , sums up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S .
military spending has been largely devoted to protecting the overseas assets of multinational corporations that are based in the United States… The U.S. military provides its services by supporting compliant political leaders in developing countries and by punishing or deposing regimes that threaten the interests of U.S.-based corporations.
” In essence , by protecting this “ global ‘ sprawl ’ of extractive companies ” the U.S. Department of Defense “ provides a giant subsidy to companies operating overseas , ” one that is paid for by the taxpayer , not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimate the exact amount of money the U.S. has invested into the Syria effort , though it likely is near the trillion dollar figure .
The U.S. taxpayer doesn ’ t get anything out of that , but companies that are awarded oil contracts do .
What is perhaps most important about this lesson however is that this is just a singular example of a common occurrence that happens all over the world .
A primary function of U.S. foreign policy is to “ make the world safe for American businesses , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bases the U.S. has stationed across the globe are set up to help protect those corporate investments .
While this history is unique to Syria , similar kinds of histories are responsible for U.S. corporation ’ s extractive activities in other global arenas .
So , next time you see headlines about Exxon being in some kind of legal dispute with , say , Venezuela , ask yourself how was it that those companies became involved with the resources of that part of the world ?
More often than not , the answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company got involved in Syria .
Given all of this , it perhaps might seem to be too mild of a critique to simply say that this Syria enterprise harkens back to older imperial eras where conquerors simply took what they wished : the sophistication of colonialism has indeed improved by leaps and bounds since then .

Near the end of July, one of the most important recent developments in U.S. foreign policy was quietly disclosed during a U.S. Senate hearing. Not surprisingly, hardly anybody talked about it and most are still completely unaware that it happened.
Answering questions from Senator Lindsey Graham, Secretary of State Pompeo confirmed that the State Department had awarded an American company, Delta Crescent Energy, with a contract to begin extracting oil in northeast Syria. The area is nominally controlled by the Kurds, yet their military force, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), was formed under U.S. auspices and relies on an American military presence to secure its territory. That military presence will now be charged with protecting an American firm from the government of the country that it is operating within.
Pompeo confirmed that the plans for implanting the firm into the U.S.-held territory are “now in implementation” and that they could potentially be “very powerful.” This is quite a momentous event given its nature as a blatant example of neocolonial extraction, or, as Stephen Kinzer puts it writing for the Boston Globe, “This is a vivid throwback to earlier imperial eras, when conquerors felt free to loot the resources of any territory they could capture and subdue.” Shadow Wars: The Secre... Davidson, Christopher Best Price: $3.89 Buy New $14.52 (as of 05:01 UTC - Details)
Indeed, the history of how the U.S. came to be in a position to “capture and subdue” these resources is a sordid, yet informative tale that by itself arguably even rivals other such colonial adventures.
To capture and subdue
When a legitimate protest movement developed organically in Syria in early 2011, the U.S. saw an opportunity to destabilize, and potentially overthrow, the government of a country that had long pushed back against its efforts for greater control in the region.
Syria had maintained itself outside of the orbit of U.S. influence and had frustratingly prevented American corporations from penetrating its economy to access its markets and resources.
As the foremost academic expert on Middle East affairs, Christopher Davidson, wrote in his seminal work, “Shadow Wars, The Secret Struggle for the Middle East,” discussing both Syria and Libya’s strategic importance, “the fact remained that these two regimes, sitting astride vast natural resources and in command of key ports, rivers, and borders, were still significant obstacles that had long frustrated the ambitions of Western governments and their constituent corporations to gain greater access.”
“With Syria,” Davidson wrote, “having long proven antagonistic to Western interests… a golden opportunity had presented itself in 2011 to oust [this] administration once and for all under the pretext of humanitarian and even democratic causes.”
The U.S., therefore, began organizing and overseeing a militarization of the uprising early on, and soon co-opted the movement along with allied states Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar. Writing at the end of 2011, Columbia University’s Joseph Massad explained how there was no longer any doubt that “the Syrian popular struggle for democracy [has] already been hijacked,” given that “the Arab League and imperial powers have taken over and assumed the leadership of their struggle.”
Soon, through the sponsoring of extremist elements, the insurgency was dominated by Salafists of the al-Qaeda variety.
According to the DIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by 2013 “there was no viable ‘moderate’ opposition to Assad” and “the U.S. was arming extremists.” Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed that “although many in the American intelligence community were aware that the Syrian opposition was dominated by extremists,” still “the CIA-sponsored weapons kept coming.”
When ISIS split off from al-Qaeda and formed its own Caliphate, the U.S. continued pumping money and weapons into the insurgency, even though it was known that this aid was going into the hands of ISIS and other jihadists. U.S. allies directly supported ISIS.
U.S. officials admitted that they saw the rise of ISIS as a beneficial development that could help pressure Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to give in to America’s demands.
Leaked audio of then-Secretary of State John Kerry revealed that “we were watching… and we know that this [ISIS] was growing… We saw that Daesh was growing in strength, and we thought Assad was threatened. We thought, however, we could probably manage — that Assad would then negotiate.” As ISIS was bearing down on the capital city of Damascus, the U.S. was pressing Assad to step down to a U.S.-approved government.
Then, however, Russia intervened with its air force to prevent an ISIS takeover of the country and shifted the balance of forces against the jihadist group. ISIS’ viability as a tool to pressure the government was spent.
The arsonist and the firefighter
So, a new strategy was implemented: instead of allowing Russia and Syria to take back the territories that ISIS captured throughout the war, the U.S. would use the ISIS threat as an excuse to take those territories before they were able to. Like an arsonist who comes to put out the fire, the U.S. would now charge itself with the task of stamping out the Islamist scourge and thereby legitimize its own seizure of Syrian land. The U.S. partnered with the Kurdish militias who acted as their “boots on the ground” in this endeavor and supported them with airstrikes.
The strategy of how these areas were taken was very specific. It was designed primarily to allow ISIS to escape and redirect itself back into the fight against Syria and Russia. This was done through leaving “an escape route for militants” or through deals that were made where ISIS voluntarily agreed to cede its territory. The militants were then able to escape and go wreak havoc against America’s enemies in Syria.
Interestingly, in terms of the oil fields now being handed off to an American corporation, the U.S. barely even fought ISIS to gain control over them; ISIS simply handed them over.
Syria and Russia were quickly closing in on the then-ISIS controlled oilfields, so the U.S. oversaw a deal between the Kurds and ISIS to give up control of the city. According to veteran Middle East war correspondent Elijah Magnier, “U.S.-backed forces advanced in north-eastern areas under ISIS control, with little or no military engagement: ISIS pulled out from more than 28 villages and oil and gas fields east of the Euphrates River, surrendering these to the Kurdish-U.S. forces following an understanding these reached with the terrorist group.”
Sources quoted by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights claimed that ISIS preferred seeing the fields in the hands of the U.S. and the Kurds rather than the Syrian government.
The rationale behind this occupation was best described by Syria expert Joshua Landis, who wrote that the areas of northern Syria under control of the Kurds are the U.S.’ “main instrument in gaining leverage” over the government. By “denying Damascus access to North Syria” and “controlling half of Syria’s energy resources” “the U.S. will be able to keep Syria poor and under-resources.” So, by “promoting Kurdish nationalism in Syria” the U.S. “hopes to deny Iran and Russia the fruits of their victory,” while “keeping Damascus weak and divided,” this serving “no purpose other than to stop trade” and to “beggar Assad and keep Syria divided, weak and poor.”
Or, in the words of Jim Jeffrey, the Trump administrations special representative for Syria who is charged with overseeing U.S. policy, the intent is to “make life as miserable as possible for that flopping cadaver of a regime and let the Russians and Iranians, who made this mess, get out of it.”
Anchoring American troops in Syria
This is the history by which an American firm was able to secure a contract to extract oil in Syria. And while the actual resources gained will not be of much value (Syria has only 0.1% of the world’s oil reserves), the presence of an American company will likely serve as a justification to maintain a U.S. military presence in the region. “It is a fiendishly clever maneuver aimed at anchoring American troops in Syria for a long time,” Stephen Kinzer explains, one that will aid the policymakers who hold “the view that the United States must remain militarily dominant in the Middle East.” The New Rulers of the ... Pilger, John Best Price: $4.40 Buy New $8.99 (as of 11:05 UTC - Details)
This analysis corroborates the extensive scholarship of people like Mason Gaffney, professor of economics emeritus at the University of California, who, writing in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology, sums up his thesis that throughout its history “U.S. military spending has been largely devoted to protecting the overseas assets of multinational corporations that are based in the United States… The U.S. military provides its services by supporting compliant political leaders in developing countries and by punishing or deposing regimes that threaten the interests of U.S.-based corporations.”
In essence, by protecting this “global ‘sprawl’ of extractive companies” the U.S. Department of Defense “provides a giant subsidy to companies operating overseas,” one that is paid for by the taxpayer, not the corporate beneficiaries. It is hard to estimate the exact amount of money the U.S. has invested into the Syria effort, though it likely is near the trillion dollar figure. The U.S. taxpayer doesn’t get anything out of that, but companies that are awarded oil contracts do.
What is perhaps most important about this lesson however is that this is just a singular example of a common occurrence that happens all over the world. A primary function of U.S. foreign policy is to “make the world safe for American businesses,” and the upwards of a thousand military bases the U.S. has stationed across the globe are set up to help protect those corporate investments. While this history is unique to Syria, similar kinds of histories are responsible for U.S. corporation’s extractive activities in other global arenas.
So, next time you see headlines about Exxon being in some kind of legal dispute with, say, Venezuela, ask yourself how was it that those companies became involved with the resources of that part of the world? More often than not, the answer will be similar to how this U.S. company got involved in Syria.
Given all of this, it perhaps might seem to be too mild of a critique to simply say that this Syria enterprise harkens back to older imperial eras where conquerors simply took what they wished: the sophistication of colonialism has indeed improved by leaps and bounds since then.


lewrockwell--2020-08-27--Liberal Folly Will Have Unintended Consequences

In his 1978 book , Bonaparte , Correlli Barnett deconstructs Napoleon so thoroughly that it reads like a carricature of Napoleon ’ s critics .
The great general ’ s victories are explained away as the results of the blunders of his opponents .
Napoleon was saved time and again by the mistakes of his adversaries .
Barnett does not explain how a man who never made a good decision dominated Europe for two decades .
If Napoleon prevailed time and again despite his bad decisions , what was the quality of his opponents ?
Barnett ’ s Napoleon comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hegemony via violence and not diplomacy .
Napoleon ’ s diplomatic incapacity lost Spain and Portugal to the English and tied down a huge French army in Spain to no effect .
The British do not like Napoleon because he , like Hitler , constituted a grave threat to Britain ’ s hegemony over the European continent .
But Barnett goes to such length in exposing myths of Napoleon ’ s capabilities that it removes all the glory of Wellington ’ s victory at Waterloo .
Bonaparte Barnett , Correlli Best Price : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Napoleon wasn ’ t defeated by Wellington at Waterloo .
According to another English historian , David Howarth in his 1968 book , Waterloo : Day of Battle , Napoleon was sidelined by an extremely painful bladder infection and could not concentrate for more than 3 minutes at a time .
The battle was conducted by Napoleon ’ s Marshall Ney who did not adhere to Napoleon ’ s instructions , some have said in an act of treason .
It was Ney who defeated Napoleon by committing France ’ s last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Prussians under Blucher , who had been driven from the field the previous day by Napoleon .
Barnett dismisses Napoleon as a tyrant and an egoist .
But Napoleon rose from the failure of the French Revolution .
When the social structure that upholds a society is destroyed by revolution , the vacuum is filled by whoever can best use power .
In the Russian Revolution this was Lenin .
In the French Revolution it was Napoleon .
Napoleon became France .
He was the government .
The inability of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endangered France , which could fall again into internal strife or to which the Bourbons could be restored by the English .
Barnett ’ s conclusion that Napoleon ’ s divorce of Josephine was “ one of the most selfish and dishonourable actions of his life ” is untrue .
Napoleon gave up his happiness and life of memories with Josephine in order to produce stability and continuity for the French empire by marrying an Austrian princess who delivered the heir .
Of course , it was all for nothing when Napoleon ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia .
The Red Trojan Horse : ... Elder , Alasdair Best Price : $ 14.85 Buy New $ 14.50 Why am I writing about Napoleon ?
Because reading Barnett brought to mind that revolutions never achieve their ends .
They destroy a civilization .
The result is chaos into which power steps and becomes the basis of government .
Unlike the French and Russian revolutions , the so-called American revolution did not overthrow an established order .
The American revolutionaries merely evicted the British tax collector and took that role for themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Life went on as usual .
It was not a real revolution .
British rule ended , but the society was not overthrown .
Today the US is susceptible to revolution .
Jobs offshoring has destroyed America ’ s economic vitality .
Living standards are falling , and homelessness is rising .
Debt service drains the remaining resources .
The country has become racially diverse and divided by Identity Politics .
The white liberal-left segment is alienated from , and critical of , the country ’ s history which they portray in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a loss of confidence on the part of the original white population and growing assertiveness of “ oppressed ” people of color .
White Americans are being margainalized just as were their counterparts in France and Russia .
In the US today , there is more weakness than strength in the bonds that make a cohesive society .
Today we are experiencing the total failure of enculturation of Western elites in Westerm culture .
Among the elites , Cultural Marxism ’ s march through the institutions has succeeded in destroying the structure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Louis 16th called the Estates-General in 1789 , he did not expect to be beheaded .
When Russian liberals pressured the Tsar during WW I for a constitutional republic , they did not understand that they were destroying the structure of belief in the society , much less expect Lenin to be the result .
There are always unintended consequences .
The folly of America ’ s white liberals will produce its own unintended consequences .
The Best of Paul Craig Roberts

In his 1978 book, Bonaparte, Correlli Barnett deconstructs Napoleon so thoroughly that it reads like a carricature of Napoleon’s critics. The great general’s victories are explained away as the results of the blunders of his opponents. Napoleon was saved time and again by the mistakes of his adversaries. Barnett does not explain how a man who never made a good decision dominated Europe for two decades. If Napoleon prevailed time and again despite his bad decisions, what was the quality of his opponents?
Barnett’s Napoleon comes across as an American neoconservative who seeks hegemony via violence and not diplomacy. Napoleon’s diplomatic incapacity lost Spain and Portugal to the English and tied down a huge French army in Spain to no effect.
The British do not like Napoleon because he, like Hitler, constituted a grave threat to Britain’s hegemony over the European continent. But Barnett goes to such length in exposing myths of Napoleon’s capabilities that it removes all the glory of Wellington’s victory at Waterloo. Bonaparte Barnett, Correlli Best Price: $2.99 Buy New $30.50 (as of 05:02 UTC - Details)
Actually, Napoleon wasn’t defeated by Wellington at Waterloo. According to another English historian, David Howarth in his 1968 book, Waterloo: Day of Battle, Napoleon was sidelined by an extremely painful bladder infection and could not concentrate for more than 3 minutes at a time. The battle was conducted by Napoleon’s Marshall Ney who did not adhere to Napoleon’s instructions, some have said in an act of treason. It was Ney who defeated Napoleon by committing France’s last reserves just prior to the unexpected return of the Prussians under Blucher, who had been driven from the field the previous day by Napoleon.
Barnett dismisses Napoleon as a tyrant and an egoist. But Napoleon rose from the failure of the French Revolution. When the social structure that upholds a society is destroyed by revolution, the vacuum is filled by whoever can best use power. In the Russian Revolution this was Lenin. In the French Revolution it was Napoleon.
Napoleon became France. He was the government. The inability of his beloved wife Josephine to deliver an heir endangered France, which could fall again into internal strife or to which the Bourbons could be restored by the English. Barnett’s conclusion that Napoleon’s divorce of Josephine was “one of the most selfish and dishonourable actions of his life” is untrue. Napoleon gave up his happiness and life of memories with Josephine in order to produce stability and continuity for the French empire by marrying an Austrian princess who delivered the heir. Of course, it was all for nothing when Napoleon’s willfulness sent him marching off into Russia. The Red Trojan Horse: ... Elder, Alasdair Best Price: $14.85 Buy New $14.50 (as of 03:45 UTC - Details)
Why am I writing about Napoleon? Because reading Barnett brought to mind that revolutions never achieve their ends. They destroy a civilization. The result is chaos into which power steps and becomes the basis of government.
Unlike the French and Russian revolutions, the so-called American revolution did not overthrow an established order. The American revolutionaries merely evicted the British tax collector and took that role for themselves. The same society and law prevailed. Life went on as usual. It was not a real revolution. British rule ended, but the society was not overthrown.
Today the US is susceptible to revolution. Jobs offshoring has destroyed America’s economic vitality. Living standards are falling, and homelessness is rising. Debt service drains the remaining resources. The country has become racially diverse and divided by Identity Politics. The white liberal-left segment is alienated from, and critical of, the country’s history which they portray in the most unfavorable light. The result is a loss of confidence on the part of the original white population and growing assertiveness of “oppressed” people of color. White Americans are being margainalized just as were their counterparts in France and Russia. In the US today, there is more weakness than strength in the bonds that make a cohesive society. Today we are experiencing the total failure of enculturation of Western elites in Westerm culture. Among the elites, Cultural Marxism’s march through the institutions has succeeded in destroying the structure of belief that upholds society.
When Louis 16th called the Estates-General in 1789, he did not expect to be beheaded. When Russian liberals pressured the Tsar during WW I for a constitutional republic, they did not understand that they were destroying the structure of belief in the society, much less expect Lenin to be the result. There are always unintended consequences. The folly of America’s white liberals will produce its own unintended consequences.
The Best of Paul Craig Roberts


lewrockwell--2020-08-27--Americans, War – Slow Learners

Americans, War – Slow Learners

Nothing short of genius can account for losing so consistently given the enormous resources available to American forces .
In light of this very low level of military competence , maybe wars are not our best choice of hobby .
– Fred Reed ( who probably learned this in Vietnam ) According to a popular Internet calculation , the United States of America has not been at war with somebody for only 21 years since 1776 .
Or maybe it ’ s only 17 years .
Wikipedia attempts a list .
It ’ s a long one .
You ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been at war for that much of its existence , would be pretty good at it .
But you ’ d be wrong .
The “ greatest military in the history of the world ” has doubled the USSR ’ s time in Afghanistan and apparently it ’ s unthinkable that it should not hang in for the triple .
Should the President want to pull some troops out of somewhere , there will be a chorus shrieking “ dangerous precedent ” or losing leadership and months later nothing much will have happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reed , Fred Best Price : $ 6.95 Buy New $ 10.95 One can not avoid asking when did the USA last win a war .
You can argue about what “ win ” looks like but there ’ s no argument about a surrender ceremony in the enemy ’ s capital , whether Tokyo Bay or Berlin .
That is victory .
Helicopters off the Embassy roof is not , pool parties in a U.S. Embassy is not , “ Black Hawk down ” is not .
Doubling the USSR ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the status quo ante in Korea is not defeat exactly , but it ’ s pretty far from what MacArthur expected when he moved on the Yalu .
When did the USA last win a war ?
And none of the post-1945 wars have been against first-class opponents .
And few of the pre-1941 wars were either .
Which brings me to the point of this essay .
The USA has spent much of its existence at war , but very seldom against peers .
The peer wars are few : the War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enormous – and at Yorktown probably decisive – help from France ) .
Britain again in 1812-1814 ( but British power was mostly directed against Napoleon ) .
Germany in 1917-1918 , Germany and Japan 1941-1945 .
Most American opponents have been small fry .
Take , for example , the continual wars against what the Declaration of Independence calls “ the merciless Indian savages , whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages , sexes , and conditions “ .
( Starting , incidentally , a long American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law and therefore deserving of extermination . )
The Indians were brave and skilful fighters but there were always too few of them .
Furthermore , as every Indian warrior was a free individual , Indian forces melted away when individuals concluded that there was nothing in it for them .
Because there were so few warriors in a given nation , Indian war bands would not endure the sort of casualties that European soldiers did .
And , always in the background , the carnage from European diseases like the smallpox epidemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Western nations .
Thus , whatever Indian resistance survived could usually be divided , bought off , cheated away and , if it came to a fight , the individual Indian nation was generally so small and so isolated , that victory was assured .
The one great attempt to unite all the western nations was Tecumseh ’ s .
He understood that the only chance would come if the Indians , one united force , showed the Americans that they had to be taken seriously .
He spent years trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end , the premature action of his brother Tenskwatawa led to defeat of his headquarters base in 1811 .
Tecumseh himself was killed two years later fighting a rear-guard action in Ontario .
It is because defeats of American forces were so rare that Little Big Horn has passed into legend ; but the American casualties of about 250 would have been a minor skirmish a decade earlier .
And the victory led to nothing for the Indians anyway ; they lost the Black Hills and were forced into reservations .
Brave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end , no match for industrialised numbers .
The Great Possum-Squas ... Reed , Fred Best Price : $ 7.67 Buy New $ 11.66 The USA fought several wars against Spain and Mexico , gaining territory as it did .
Despite the occasional “ last stand ” like The Alamo , these were also one-sided .
The Spanish-American War is the outstanding example : for about 4000 casualties ( half from disease ) , the USA drove Spain completely out of the Americas and took the Philippines , obliterating the Spanish Fleet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over greatly outmatched adversaries .
The other group of wars the U.S. was involved in before 1941 were the empire-gathering wars .
One of the first was the takeover of the independent and internationally-recognised Kingdom of Hawaii ; the sugar barons organised a coup against Queen Liliuokalani with the help of troops from U.S. warships and no shooting was necessary .
Not so with the long bloody campaign in the Philippines , forgotten until President Duterte reminded the world of it .
And there were many more interventions in small countries ; some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his famous book War is a Racket .
Andrei Martyanov has argued that the U.S. military simply has no idea what a really big war is .
Its peer wars off stage ( since 1812 ) made it stronger ; its home wars were profitable thefts .
It believes wars are easy , quick , profitable , successful .
Self delusion in war is defeat : post 1945 U.S. wars are failure delusionally entered into .
To quote Fred Reed again : The American military ’ s normal procedure is to overestimate American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misunderstand the kind of war it is getting into .
The only exceptions are the Korean War – a draw at best – and trivial successes like Grenada or Panama .
As I have argued elsewhere , there is something wrong with American war-fighting doctrine : no one seems to have any idea of what to do after the first few weeks and the wars degenerate into a annual succession of commanders determined not to be the one who lost ; each keeping it going until he leaves .
The problem is kicked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ block war fantasies , winning hearts and minds , precision bombing , optimistic pieces saying “ this time we ’ ve got it right “ , surges .
Imagination replaces the forthright study of warfare .
Everybody on the inside knows they ’ re lost – “ Newly released interviews on the U.S. war reveal the coordinated spin effort and dodgy metrics behind a forever war “ ; that ’ s Afghanistan , earlier the Pentagon Papers in Vietnam – but further down the road .
When they finally end , the excuses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battle of that war .
Every single one ” , Obama lost Iraq .
War is a Racket : The A ... Smedley Darlington Butler Best Price : $ 6.45 Buy New $ 3.79 And always bombing .
Bombing is the America way in war .
Korea received nearly four times as much bomb tonnage as Japan had .
On Vietnam the U.S. dropped more than three times the tonnage that it had in the whole of the Second World War .
Today ’ s numbers are staggering : Afghanistan received , between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapons releases “ .
26,171 bombs around the world in 2016 alone .
Geological bombing .
Precision attacks , they say .
But the reality is quite different – not all of the bombs are “ smart bombs ” and smart bombs are only as smart as the intelligence that directs them .
The truth is that , with the enormous amount of bombs and bad intelligence directing the “ smart bombs ” , the end result is Raqqa – everything destroyed .
If you want a single word to summarize American war-making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I would suggest rubble… In addition , to catch the essence of such war in this century , two new words might be useful — rubblize and rubblization .
The U.S. Army once really studied war and produced first-class studies of the Soviet performance in the Second World War .
These studies served two purposes : introducing Americans who thought Patton won the war to who and what actually did and showing how the masters of the operational level of war performed .
Now it ’ s just silliness from think tanks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as serious thought is the “ Sulwaki Corridor ” industry of which this piece from the “ world ’ s leading experts… cutting-edge research… fresh insight… ” may stand as an amusing example .
The “ corridor ” in question is the border between Lithuania and Poland .
“ Defending Suwalki is therefore important for NATO ’ s credibility and for Western cohesion ” and so on .
The authors expect us to believe that , in a war against NATO , Russia would have any concern about the paltry military assets in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it had to fight NATO , it would strike with everything it had .
The war would not start in the “ Suwalki Corridor ” – there would be salvoes of missiles hitting targets all over Europe , the USA and Canada .
The first day would see the destruction of a lot of NATO ’ s infrastructure : bases , ports , airfields , depots , communications .
The second day would see more .
( And that ’ s the “ conventional ” war . )
Far from being the cockpit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” would be a quiet rest area .
As Martyanov loves to say : too much Hollywood , too much Patton , too many academics saying what they ’ re paid to believe and believe to be paid .
The U.S. has no idea .
And today it ’ s losing its wars against lesser opponents .
This essay on how the Houthis are winning – from the Jamestown Foundation , a cheerleader for American wars – could equally well be applied to Vietnam or any of the other “ forever wars ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Houthis stems from their leadership ’ s understanding and consistent application of the algebra of insurgency .
The American way of warfare assumes unchallenged air superiority and reliable communications .
What would happen if the complacent U.S. forces meet serious integrated air defence and genuine electronic warfare capabilities ?
The little they have seen of Russian EW capabilities in Syria and Ukraine has made their “ eyes water “ ; some foresee a “ Waterloo ” in the South China Sea .
Countries on Washington ’ s target list know its dependence .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the years and all its wars the U.S. has rarely had to fight anybody its own size or close to it .
This has created an expectation of easy and quick victory .
Knowledge of the terrible , full out , stunning destruction and superhuman efforts of a real war against powerful and determined enemies has faded away , if they ever had it .
American wars , always somewhere else , have become the easy business of carpet bombing – rubblising – the enemy with little shooting back .
Where there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the initial quick win , it ’ s “ forever ” attrition by IED , ambush , sniping , raids as commanders come and go .
The result ?
Random destruction from the air and forever wars on the ground .
There is of course one other time when the United States fought a first-class opponent and that is when it fought itself .
According to these official numbers , the U.S. Civil War killed about 500,000 Americans .
Which is about half the deaths from all of the other U.S. wars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all their wars – Independence , Indians , Mexico , two world wars .
Korea , Cold War , GWOT – other Americans killed about a third of them .
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation .

Nothing short of genius can account for losing so consistently given the enormous resources available to American forces. In light of this very low level of military competence, maybe wars are not our best choice of hobby.
– Fred Reed (who probably learned this in Vietnam)
According to a popular Internet calculation, the United States of America has not been at war with somebody for only 21 years since 1776. Or maybe it’s only 17 years. Wikipedia attempts a list. It’s a long one. You’d think that a country that had been at war for that much of its existence, would be pretty good at it.
But you’d be wrong. The “greatest military in the history of the world” has doubled the USSR’s time in Afghanistan and apparently it’s unthinkable that it should not hang in for the triple. Should the President want to pull some troops out of somewhere, there will be a chorus shrieking “dangerous precedent” or losing leadership and months later nothing much will have happened. Au Phuc Dup and Nowher... Reed, Fred Best Price: $6.95 Buy New $10.95 (as of 08:20 UTC - Details)
One cannot avoid asking when did the USA last win a war. You can argue about what “win” looks like but there’s no argument about a surrender ceremony in the enemy’s capital, whether Tokyo Bay or Berlin. That is victory. Helicopters off the Embassy roof is not, pool parties in a U.S. Embassy is not, “Black Hawk down” is not. Doubling the USSR’s record in Afghanistan is not. Restoring the status quo ante in Korea is not defeat exactly, but it’s pretty far from what MacArthur expected when he moved on the Yalu. When did the USA last win a war? And none of the post-1945 wars have been against first-class opponents.
And few of the pre-1941 wars were either. Which brings me to the point of this essay. The USA has spent much of its existence at war, but very seldom against peers. The peer wars are few: the War of Independence against Britain (but with enormous – and at Yorktown probably decisive – help from France). Britain again in 1812-1814 (but British power was mostly directed against Napoleon). Germany in 1917-1918, Germany and Japan 1941-1945.
Most American opponents have been small fry.
Take, for example, the continual wars against what the Declaration of Independence calls “the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions“. (Starting, incidentally, a long American tradition of depicting enemies as outside the law and therefore deserving of extermination.) The Indians were brave and skilful fighters but there were always too few of them. Furthermore, as every Indian warrior was a free individual, Indian forces melted away when individuals concluded that there was nothing in it for them. Because there were so few warriors in a given nation, Indian war bands would not endure the sort of casualties that European soldiers did. And, always in the background, the carnage from European diseases like the smallpox epidemic of 1837 which killed tens of thousands in the Western nations. Thus, whatever Indian resistance survived could usually be divided, bought off, cheated away and, if it came to a fight, the individual Indian nation was generally so small and so isolated, that victory was assured. The one great attempt to unite all the western nations was Tecumseh’s. He understood that the only chance would come if the Indians, one united force, showed the Americans that they had to be taken seriously. He spent years trying to organise the nations but, in the end, the premature action of his brother Tenskwatawa led to defeat of his headquarters base in 1811. Tecumseh himself was killed two years later fighting a rear-guard action in Ontario. It is because defeats of American forces were so rare that Little Big Horn has passed into legend; but the American casualties of about 250 would have been a minor skirmish a decade earlier. And the victory led to nothing for the Indians anyway; they lost the Black Hills and were forced into reservations. Brave and spirited fighters, but, in the end, no match for industrialised numbers. The Great Possum-Squas... Reed, Fred Best Price: $7.67 Buy New $11.66 (as of 01:55 UTC - Details)
The USA fought several wars against Spain and Mexico, gaining territory as it did. Despite the occasional “last stand” like The Alamo, these were also one-sided. The Spanish-American War is the outstanding example: for about 4000 casualties (half from disease), the USA drove Spain completely out of the Americas and took the Philippines, obliterating the Spanish Fleet at Manila Bay. More easy victories over greatly outmatched adversaries.
The other group of wars the U.S. was involved in before 1941 were the empire-gathering wars. One of the first was the takeover of the independent and internationally-recognised Kingdom of Hawaii; the sugar barons organised a coup against Queen Liliuokalani with the help of troops from U.S. warships and no shooting was necessary. Not so with the long bloody campaign in the Philippines, forgotten until President Duterte reminded the world of it. And there were many more interventions in small countries; some mentioned by Major General Smedley Butler in his famous book War is a Racket.
Minor opponents indeed.
Andrei Martyanov has argued that the U.S. military simply has no idea what a really big war is. Its peer wars off stage (since 1812) made it stronger; its home wars were profitable thefts. It believes wars are easy, quick, profitable, successful. Self delusion in war is defeat: post 1945 U.S. wars are failure delusionally entered into. To quote Fred Reed again:
The American military’s normal procedure is to overestimate American power, underestimate the enemy, and misunderstand the kind of war it is getting into.
The only exceptions are the Korean War – a draw at best – and trivial successes like Grenada or Panama. As I have argued elsewhere, there is something wrong with American war-fighting doctrine: no one seems to have any idea of what to do after the first few weeks and the wars degenerate into a annual succession of commanders determined not to be the one who lost; each keeping it going until he leaves. The problem is kicked down the road. Resets, three block war fantasies, winning hearts and minds, precision bombing, optimistic pieces saying “this time we’ve got it right“, surges. Imagination replaces the forthright study of warfare. Everybody on the inside knows they’re lost – “Newly released interviews on the U.S. war reveal the coordinated spin effort and dodgy metrics behind a forever war“; that’s Afghanistan, earlier the Pentagon Papers in Vietnam – but further down the road. When they finally end, the excuses begin: “you won every major battle of that war. Every single one”, Obama lost Iraq.
War is a Racket: The A... Smedley Darlington Butler Best Price: $6.45 Buy New $3.79 (as of 03:45 UTC - Details) And always bombing. Bombing is the America way in war. Korea received nearly four times as much bomb tonnage as Japan had. On Vietnam the U.S. dropped more than three times the tonnage that it had in the whole of the Second World War. Today’s numbers are staggering: Afghanistan received, between 2013 and 2019, 26 thousand “weapons releases“. 26,171 bombs around the world in 2016 alone. Geological bombing. Precision attacks, they say. But the reality is quite different – not all of the bombs are “smart bombs” and smart bombs are only as smart as the intelligence that directs them. The truth is that, with the enormous amount of bombs and bad intelligence directing the “smart bombs”, the end result is Raqqa – everything destroyed.
If you want a single word to summarize American war-making in this last decade and a half, I would suggest rubble… In addition, to catch the essence of such war in this century, two new words might be useful — rubblize and rubblization.
The U.S. Army once really studied war and produced first-class studies of the Soviet performance in the Second World War. These studies served two purposes: introducing Americans who thought Patton won the war to who and what actually did and showing how the masters of the operational level of war performed. Now it’s just silliness from think tanks. A fine example of fantasy masquerading as serious thought is the “Sulwaki Corridor” industry of which this piece from the “world’s leading experts… cutting-edge research… fresh insight…” may stand as an amusing example. The “corridor” in question is the border between Lithuania and Poland. “Defending Suwalki is therefore important for NATO’s credibility and for Western cohesion” and so on. The authors expect us to believe that, in a war against NATO, Russia would have any concern about the paltry military assets in the Baltics. If Moscow really decided it had to fight NATO, it would strike with everything it had. The war would not start in the “Suwalki Corridor” – there would be salvoes of missiles hitting targets all over Europe, the USA and Canada. The first day would see the destruction of a lot of NATO’s infrastructure: bases, ports, airfields, depots, communications. The second day would see more. (And that’s the “conventional” war.) Far from being the cockpit of war, the “Suwalki Corridor” would be a quiet rest area. As Martyanov loves to say: too much Hollywood, too much Patton, too many academics saying what they’re paid to believe and believe to be paid. The U.S. has no idea.
And today it’s losing its wars against lesser opponents. This essay on how the Houthis are winning – from the Jamestown Foundation, a cheerleader for American wars – could equally well be applied to Vietnam or any of the other “forever wars” of Washington.
The resiliency of the Houthis stems from their leadership’s understanding and consistent application of the algebra of insurgency.
The American way of warfare assumes unchallenged air superiority and reliable communications. What would happen if the complacent U.S. forces meet serious integrated air defence and genuine electronic warfare capabilities? The little they have seen of Russian EW capabilities in Syria and Ukraine has made their “eyes water“; some foresee a “Waterloo” in the South China Sea. Countries on Washington’s target list know its dependence.
The fact is that, over all the years and all its wars the U.S. has rarely had to fight anybody its own size or close to it. This has created an expectation of easy and quick victory. Knowledge of the terrible, full out, stunning destruction and superhuman efforts of a real war against powerful and determined enemies has faded away, if they ever had it. American wars, always somewhere else, have become the easy business of carpet bombing – rubblising – the enemy with little shooting back. Where there is shooting back, on the ground, after the initial quick win, it’s “forever” attrition by IED, ambush, sniping, raids as commanders come and go. The result? Random destruction from the air and forever wars on the ground.
There is of course one other time when the United States fought a first-class opponent and that is when it fought itself. According to these official numbers, the U.S. Civil War killed about 500,000 Americans. Which is about half the deaths from all of the other U.S. wars. Of all the Americans killed in all their wars – Independence, Indians, Mexico, two world wars. Korea, Cold War, GWOT – other Americans killed about a third of them.
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.


lewrockwell--2020-08-27--Face Diapering Under Duress?

Face Diapering Under Duress?

A reader sent in the following , which neatly encapsulates the dilemma so many of us face with regard to Face Diapering .
My reply follows .
I coach track and cross country at the High School level .
Our teams compete at a high level .
We are always in the mix at the State meet .
Many of my kids have gone on to compete in college several even in the Olympics .
I love your site because of the free and open discourse .
It is elevating .
The really horrible thing is that I have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limited way ; if I do not I will be abandoning my athletes .
Fortunately we can doff the Diaper most of the time , hard to breath through a diaper when you are running .
Even us coaches run ; we need to in order to follow our kids .
The point is I could say , “ I will not Diaper ” then they would say fine , you are gone .
I would rather do the de minimus and be there for these 13-19 year old kids .
We do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the kids get it ( that it is moronic ) .
There is hope for the younger generation .
This is a very tough one , as kids are involved .
If you were to refuse to Diaper – and forced to “ retire ” on account of it – you would likely be replaced by an ardent Diaperer ; a person who would don the loathsome cultic symbol because he believed the cult ’ s tenets – and would proselytize them .
The Case Against Masks ... Heckenlively , Kent Buy New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Diaper Dissenter – the kids see an adult whom they know hasn ’ t drunk the Kool Aid .
I am betting that , if asked by one about your thoughts on Diapering and the rest of it , you would give them the right answer .
I would encourage you to be as blatant about your dissenting as you can “ get away ” with , as by using a bandana .
As by purposely leaving your nose free to breath – and so on .
And yet , there is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not – yet – at the stage where feigned obedience is one alternative and the other is a trip to a concentration camp or a ditch .
Diaper Dissenters risk fines , loss of job and the opprobrium of the mentally ill .
It is arguably not a heavy price to pay given the price that will be asked if it is not paid .
The Diaper Pushers ( who are pushing Diapers to demoralize the populace , maintain a state of Sickness Siege and to thereby lay the foundation for the Needling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the complicity of good people such as yourself , who are willing to put up with a despicable thing for the sake of a good thing – i.e.
, being there for those kids .
Your kindness is being used against you , in other words .
In the same way that people ’ s instinctively protective attitude toward the elderly has been used to coerce their donning of the Diaper .
Granny might die .
.
.
and you wouldn ’ t want to be responsible for that , would you ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ New $ 79.99 The Politics of Obedie ... Etienne de la Boetie Best Price : $ 7.00 Buy New $ 7.00 The Vision of the Anoi ... Sowell , Thomas Best Price : $ 1.50 Buy New $ 12.99 The Best of Eric Peters

A reader sent in the following, which neatly encapsulates the dilemma so many of us face with regard to Face Diapering. My reply follows.
I coach track and cross country at the High School level. Our teams compete at a high level. We are always in the mix at the State meet. Many of my kids have gone on to compete in college several even in the Olympics. I love your site because of the free and open discourse. It is elevating. The really horrible thing is that I have to put up with the Diaper in a limited way; if I do not I will be abandoning my athletes. Fortunately we can doff the Diaper most of the time, hard to breath through a diaper when you are running. Even us coaches run; we need to in order to follow our kids. The point is I could say, “I will not Diaper” then they would say fine, you are gone. I would rather do the de minimus and be there for these 13-19 year old kids. We do the minimum of Diapering. Most of the kids get it (that it is moronic). There is hope for the younger generation.
This is a very tough one, as kids are involved. If you were to refuse to Diaper – and forced to “retire” on account of it – you would likely be replaced by an ardent Diaperer; a person who would don the loathsome cultic symbol because he believed the cult’s tenets – and would proselytize them. The Case Against Masks... Heckenlively, Kent Buy New $12.99 (as of 04:52 UTC - Details)
But with you – a Diaper Dissenter – the kids see an adult whom they know hasn’t drunk the Kool Aid. I am betting that, if asked by one about your thoughts on Diapering and the rest of it, you would give them the right answer. I would encourage you to be as blatant about your dissenting as you can “get away” with, as by using a bandana. As by purposely leaving your nose free to breath – and so on.
And yet, there is a counterargument to be made.
We are not – yet – at the stage where feigned obedience is one alternative and the other is a trip to a concentration camp or a ditch. Diaper Dissenters risk fines, loss of job and the opprobrium of the mentally ill. It is arguably not a heavy price to pay given the price that will be asked if it is not paid.
The Diaper Pushers (who are pushing Diapers to demoralize the populace, maintain a state of Sickness Siege and to thereby lay the foundation for the Needling and Tracking they are planning) require the complicity of good people such as yourself, who are willing to put up with a despicable thing for the sake of a good thing – i.e., being there for those kids. Your kindness is being used against you, in other words. In the same way that people’s instinctively protective attitude toward the elderly has been used to coerce their donning of the Diaper.
Granny might die . . . and you wouldn’t want to be responsible for that, would you?
Read the Whole Article
GEER Head Mask Full Fa... Buy New $79.99 (as of 04:45 UTC - Details) The Politics of Obedie... Etienne de la Boetie Best Price: $7.00 Buy New $7.00 (as of 05:45 UTC - Details) The Vision of the Anoi... Sowell, Thomas Best Price: $1.50 Buy New $12.99 (as of 11:05 UTC - Details)
The Best of Eric Peters


lewrockwell--2020-08-27--The Theology of ‘Groundhog Day’

The Theology of ‘Groundhog Day’

Groundhog day with Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell is on many peoples Top 10 favorite movies of all time .
But who knew that the movie has deep philosophical and Christian themes – in fact , it is a very Catholic .
The movie stars Bill Murray as Phil–a weatherman who finds himself re-living a single day of his life–Groundhog Day .
If you haven ’ t seen the movie , you can check out the trailer above .
The movie beautifully illustrates the way Bill Murray discovers true happiness in the pursuit of Aristotle ’ s virtuous “ good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ... Buy New $ 19.97 The article ‘ Phil ’ s Shadow ‘ below is a wonderful movie review from Michael Foley ( Department of Theology , Notre Dame University ) .
His review is entertaining while artfully tying in Catholic theology – including one fun reference of how the movie character Gus symbolizes St. Augustine when he tells Phil to watch his ‘ shadow ’ .
The article ends with tying in the history of Ground Hog day with the Feast of The Presentation of the Lord on Feb 2nd .
Last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intriguing article about a Museum of Modern Art movie series on film and faith .
What attracted the Times to the series was not its pageant of grave Swedish cinema but its opening feature , the 1993 romantic comedy Groundhog Day.The curators , polling “ critics in the literary , religious and film worlds , ” found that the movie “ came up so many times that there was actually a squabble over who would write about it in the retrospective ’ s catalog.
” The movie , the article went on to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favorite of religious leaders of many faiths , who all see in Groundhog Day a reflection of their own spiritual messages.
” A professor at NYU shows it in her classes to illustrate the doctrine of samsara ( the endless cycle of rebirth Buddhists seek to escape ) , while a rabbi in Greenwich Village sees the film as hinging onmitvahs ( good deeds ) .
Wiccans like it because February 2nd is one of the year ’ s four “ great sabbats , ” while the Falun Dafa sect uses the movie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Deciphering which , if any , of these interpretations is correct is no easy task , especially since the director and co-writer of the film , Harold Ramis , has ambiguous religious beliefs ( he is an agnostic raised Jewish and married to a Buddhist ) .
The commentators also seem wedded to a single hermeneutical lens , forcing them to ignore contradictory data .
A more fruitful approach , I suggest , would involve following all of the clues , clues that lead not only to religion but also to the great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so , Groundhog Daymay be seen for what it is : a stunning allegory of moral , intellectual , and even religious excellence in the face of postmodern decay , a sort of Christian-Aristotelian Pilgrim ’ s Progress for those lost in the contemporary cosmos .

Groundhog day with Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell is on many peoples Top 10 favorite movies of all time. But who knew that the movie has deep philosophical and Christian themes – in fact, it is a very Catholic.
The Theology of Groundhog Day
The movie stars Bill Murray as Phil–a weatherman who finds himself re-living a single day of his life–Groundhog Day. If you haven’t seen the movie, you can check out the trailer above. The movie beautifully illustrates the way Bill Murray discovers true happiness in the pursuit of Aristotle’s virtuous “good life”. Groundhog Day: Special... Buy New $19.97 (as of 05:03 UTC - Details)
The article ‘Phil’s Shadow‘ below is a wonderful movie review from Michael Foley (Department of Theology, Notre Dame University). His review is entertaining while artfully tying in Catholic theology – including one fun reference of how the movie character Gus symbolizes St. Augustine when he tells Phil to watch his ‘shadow’. The article ends with tying in the history of Ground Hog day with the Feast of The Presentation of the Lord on Feb 2nd.
Last December the New York Times ran an intriguing article about a Museum of Modern Art movie series on film and faith. What attracted the Times to the series was not its pageant of grave Swedish cinema but its opening feature, the 1993 romantic comedy Groundhog Day.The curators, polling “critics in the literary, religious and film worlds,” found that the movie “came up so many times that there was actually a squabble over who would write about it in the retrospective’s catalog.”
The movie, the article went on to observe, “has become a curious favorite of religious leaders of many faiths, who all see in Groundhog Day a reflection of their own spiritual messages.” A professor at NYU shows it in her classes to illustrate the doctrine of samsara(the endless cycle of rebirth Buddhists seek to escape), while a rabbi in Greenwich Village sees the film as hinging onmitvahs(good deeds). Wiccans like it because February 2nd is one of the year’s four “great sabbats,” while the Falun Dafa sect uses the movie as a lesson in spiritual advancement.
Deciphering which, if any, of these interpretations is correct is no easy task,
especially since the director and co-writer of the film, Harold Ramis, has ambiguous religious beliefs (he is an agnostic raised Jewish and married to a Buddhist). The commentators also seem wedded to a single hermeneutical lens, forcing them to ignore contradictory data.
A more fruitful approach, I suggest, would involve following all of the clues, clues that lead not only to religion but also to the great conversation of philosophy. Once we do so,Groundhog Daymay be seen for what it is: a stunning allegory of moral, intellectual, and even religious excellence in the face of postmodern decay, a sort of Christian-Aristotelian Pilgrim’s Progress for those lost in the contemporary cosmos.
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-08-27--Should Snowden and Assange Pardon the US Government?

President Trump is saying that he might issue a pardon to Edward Snowden .
For some reason , he hasn ’ t said the same thing about Julian Assange .
But a pardon suggests that the person being pardoned has done something wrong .
Neither Snowden and Assange has done anything wrong — at least not in a moral sense .
It is the U.S. government — and specifically the national-security state branch of the federal government — that has engaged in terrible wrongdoing — wrongdoing that Snowden and Assange revealed to the American people and the people of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is : Should Snowden and Assange pardon the U.S. for having destroyed a large part of their lives and liberty ?
Oh , sure , the two of them technically violated the federal government ’ s national-security laws , rules , and regulations against revealing the dark-side , sordid policies and practices of the national-security establishment .
Big deal .
Those laws , rules , and regulations are illegitimate , at least in a moral sense .
Why should the dark-side , sordid policies and practices of a government be immune from disclosure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Crim , Brian E. Best Price : $ 27.15 Buy New $ 20.58 The American people have now become so accustomed to living under a national-security state form of governmental structure that many of them tend toward deferring to the laws , rules , and regulations that come with a national-security state .
Thus , when the Pentagon , the CIA , and the NSA refer to Snowden and Assange as “ enemies of the state ” or “ traitors , ” the tendency of many Americans is to blindly accept their assessment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way under every national-security state .
Look at China , North Korea , Vietnam , Cuba , Venezuela , Russia , Egypt , or Saudi Arabia , They too are all national-security states .
Like the U.S. national-security state , they all engage in dark-side , sordid policies and practices .
And like the U.S. national-security state , they go after anyone who discloses such policies and practices with a vengeance .
And most of their citizens blindly and loyally go along with it all .
The real question , however , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. government .
In fact , the real question isn ’ t even whether it should be a crime for people to disclose the dark-side , sordid policies and practices of a national-security state .
The real question — one that unfortunately will not be discussed in the presidential race — is whether it ’ s time to end America ’ s 75-year experiment as a national-security state .
Permanent Record Snowden , Edward Best Price : $ 8.52 Buy New $ 9.85 A national-security state is a totalitarian form of governmental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to engage , either secretly or openly , in dark-side , sordid policies and practices , such as torture , assassination , coups , murder , regime-change operations , invasions , bribery , kidnappings , indefinite detention , denial of due process , denial of trial by jury , and denial of speedy trial .
Keep in mind that the United States was founded as a limited-government republic , not a national-security state .
In fact , if the Constitution had proposed a national-security state , there is no possibility that the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That would have meant that the nation would have continued operating under the Articles of Confederation , a third type of governmental system under which the federal government ’ s powers were so weak and limited that it didn ’ t even have the power to tax people .
It wasn ’ t until the end of World War II that the federal government was converted into a national-security state .
The rationale was that in order to prevent the communists , especially those that governed the Soviet Union ( which , ironically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ally and Nazi Germany ’ s enemy ) from from taking over the United States , it would be necessary to become a national-security state , just like the communist regimes were .
A limited-government republic , it was said , would be insufficient to defeat a foreign regime that wielded omnipotent dark-side , sordid powers .
The Art of Revolt : Sno ... de Lagasnerie , Geoffroy Best Price : $ 4.95 Buy New $ 12.11 I challenge that notion .
The best way to have opposed communism would have been to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ republic , not by adopting the governmental structure and dark-side , sordid policies and practices of the communists .
Nonetheless , one thing is crystal clear : The Cold War ended in 1989 and so did the justification for converting the federal government into a national-security state in the first place .
By disclosing the dark-side , sordid policies and practices of the U.S. national-security state , Julian Assange and Edward Snowden have performed an invaluable service to the American people .
They have helped remind us that this is not what America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assange and Snowden deserve the praise and thanks of every American .
The best way we can honor them is by dismantling America ’ s Cold War legacy of a national-security state and restoring America ’ s founding system of a limited-government republic .
Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation .
The Best of Jacob G. Hornberger

President Trump is saying that he might issue a pardon to Edward Snowden. For some reason, he hasn’t said the same thing about Julian Assange.
But a pardon suggests that the person being pardoned has done something wrong. Neither Snowden and Assange has done anything wrong — at least not in a moral sense. It is the U.S. government — and specifically the national-security state branch of the federal government — that has engaged in terrible wrongdoing — wrongdoing that Snowden and Assange revealed to the American people and the people of the world.
Therefore, the real question is: Should Snowden and Assange pardon the U.S. for having destroyed a large part of their lives and liberty?
Oh, sure, the two of them technically violated the federal government’s national-security laws, rules, and regulations against revealing the dark-side, sordid policies and practices of the national-security establishment. Big deal. Those laws, rules, and regulations are illegitimate, at least in a moral sense. Why should the dark-side, sordid policies and practices of a government be immune from disclosure? Our Germans: Project P... Crim, Brian E. Best Price: $27.15 Buy New $20.58 (as of 05:05 UTC - Details)
The American people have now become so accustomed to living under a national-security state form of governmental structure that many of them tend toward deferring to the laws, rules, and regulations that come with a national-security state. Thus, when the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA refer to Snowden and Assange as “enemies of the state” or “traitors,” the tendency of many Americans is to blindly accept their assessment.
Of course, it works that way under every national-security state. Look at China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, They too are all national-security states. Like the U.S. national-security state, they all engage in dark-side, sordid policies and practices. And like the U.S. national-security state, they go after anyone who discloses such policies and practices with a vengeance. And most of their citizens blindly and loyally go along with it all.
The real question, however, is not whether Snowden and Assange should pardon the U.S. government. In fact, the real question isn’t even whether it should be a crime for people to disclose the dark-side, sordid policies and practices of a national-security state.
The real question — one that unfortunately will not be discussed in the presidential race — is whether it’s time to end America’s 75-year experiment as a national-security state. Permanent Record Snowden, Edward Best Price: $8.52 Buy New $9.85 (as of 07:25 UTC - Details)
A national-security state is a totalitarian form of governmental structure, one that empowers a government to engage, either secretly or openly, in dark-side, sordid policies and practices, such as torture, assassination, coups, murder, regime-change operations, invasions, bribery, kidnappings, indefinite detention, denial of due process, denial of trial by jury, and denial of speedy trial.
Keep in mind that the United States was founded as a limited-government republic, not a national-security state. In fact, if the Constitution had proposed a national-security state, there is no possibility that the American people would have approved the Constitution. That would have meant that the nation would have continued operating under the Articles of Confederation, a third type of governmental system under which the federal government’s powers were so weak and limited that it didn’t even have the power to tax people.
It wasn’t until the end of World War II that the federal government was converted into a national-security state. The rationale was that in order to prevent the communists, especially those that governed the Soviet Union (which, ironically, had been America’s wartime ally and Nazi Germany’s enemy) from from taking over the United States, it would be necessary to become a national-security state, just like the communist regimes were. A limited-government republic, it was said, would be insufficient to defeat a foreign regime that wielded omnipotent dark-side, sordid powers.
The Art of Revolt: Sno... de Lagasnerie, Geoffroy Best Price: $4.95 Buy New $12.11 (as of 05:05 UTC - Details) I challenge that notion. The best way to have opposed communism would have been to remain a free society and a limited-government republic, not by adopting the governmental structure and dark-side, sordid policies and practices of the communists.
Nonetheless, one thing is crystal clear: The Cold War ended in 1989 and so did the justification for converting the federal government into a national-security state in the first place.
By disclosing the dark-side, sordid policies and practices of the U.S. national-security state, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden have performed an invaluable service to the American people. They have helped remind us that this is not what America is supposed to be all about.
Assange and Snowden deserve the praise and thanks of every American. The best way we can honor them is by dismantling America’s Cold War legacy of a national-security state and restoring America’s founding system of a limited-government republic.
Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation.
The Best of Jacob G. Hornberger