Where did the bombs fall?

A reflection on the past 30 to 40 years

Major General Smedley Darlington Butler was the most highly decorated US marine officer at the point of his withdrawal from the USA military. He remains "the only Marine to be awarded the Brevet Medal and two Medals of Honor, all for separate actions." (Wikipedia)

This is an opinion article, with little source citation as it would take me forever to re-find all the pieces. The focus of the article is the USA's military adventurism after the dissolution of the USSR and particularly, after the crimes of 9/11.

1980's

It is important to consider the Afghan war during the 80's, during which the CIA funds the Mujahadeen, including one Osama bin Laden, to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. It is also important to remember that the Islamic Revolution in Iran had occurred in 1979 and that the USA was also encouraging and supplying arms to Saddam Hussein to invade Iran, a war from 1980 to 1988. Indeed, USA weapons manufacturers also sold some arms to Iran. Hussein used chemical weapons supplied by the West, the Iranian theocratic leadership forbade their use as against religious principles.

Afghanistan and Iran have a very large border. Consider Iran's position here, they're being attacked by Iraq from the west and the USA is supporting an insurgency on their east. As everyone knows, the CIA, with help from MI-6, had overthrown Iran's elected leader Mosaddegh in 1953 and re-established the Shah (monarch) and his repressive security forces, the Savak, which was the whole reason for the revolution in 1979, and the reason for the religious nature of the new government, because all opposition had been pushed into religious structures and out of open society.

[Update: I completely omitted the “off the shelf enterprise” and the CIA using weapons and drug trafficking to fund the Contra death squads in Nicaragua.]

Post USSR

Kuwait were doing diagonal drilling close to their northern border with Iraq and essentially stealing Iraq's oil. This really annoyed Hussein/Iraq and they consulted USA as to how best to deal with this. They were given a "green light" in the form of "this is a local conflict and is of no concern to us" type statement. Iraq invades Kuwait to let them know that this is unacceptable, but also Hussein was a megalomaniac and this played to his political base. All the usual confluences of stupidity.

Getting a country to initiate an aggressive war requires some level of public outrage to support it. The presentation before the USA Congress by a young woman claiming that "babies were being thrown out of incubators" was a complete fabrication, as we now know (she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador and was trained by a USA PR firm), but it was essential for the war.

During the lead up to the war, having "green lit" the Iraqi's a US representative (I think it was Rumsfeld) visited the Saudi's and showed them satellite images of the build up of the Iraqi forces and informed the Saudis that Iraq would not only attack Kuwait but continue onwards to Saudi Arabia. The USA offered to station troops in Saudi Arabia to bolster their defences.

There was a counter offer by Osama bin Laden who said he had 30 odd thousand battle hardened troops from Afghanistan and elsewhere which could brought to Saudi Arabia and warned that if you let these "non-believers" in they will never leave. The Saudi theocratic monarchy fell for the USA bait, and bin Laden loses all faith in Saudi leadership. The attacks on a USA embassy in east Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole follow.

1991

But, before those events, the war against Iraq goes ahead and Operation Desert Storm is a resounding military success. There were declarations of getting over the "Vietnam syndrome". I contest that this is the last successful major military operation by the USA. But, military operations are "politics by another means" and there are political goals. How well were those achieved? The devastating economic sanctions caused the deaths of 500 000 children in Iraq which Secretary of State Madeleine Albright declared a "We think the price is worth it." (Wikipedia). There is only one word for that; Evil.

1999

The next major campaign is the destablilization of the Balkans, and most importantly the rupture of a very successful socialist government administered Yugoslavia. I know that there were some media manipulations but do not know to what degree western military intelligence had a hand in fueling the conflict. But from what I know now, I would be shocked if they were not deeply involved. Meanwhile, Russia is in a disastrous state after the USA brazenly claims their happiness at having manipulated elections in Russia to ensure the return of Yeltsin. During the NATO/Yugoslav war Russia was in complete financial meltdown with a devastating impact on the welfare of its citizens. I'm sure that Russia tried to "stabilize" the situation, but they had far deeper problems with which to deal.

9/11

The USA's official explanation/report on 9/11 is riddled with holes. Most importantly the explanations for the events in New York City are entirely unbelievable. The twin towers were demolished with explosives, likely nano-thermate and other explosives, and Building 7 was obviously a classic controlled demolition. For the twin towers just get videos of their destruction, slow them down, turn off the volume and just look at it.

You need a force to sever and then eject multi-tonne sections of the outer walls sideways. Recall gravity works downwards. If you think compressed air can both separated huge steel structures from their connections and then fling them sideways, you've a little to learn about physics.

If you want an expert opinion by a physicist, I recommend David Chandler. Do your own research. After a decade, I’m finished with mine. I am convinced that the “twin towers” were impacted by aeroplanes, one each, and that all three towers in New York City were destroyed by explosives. I am not convinced that the planes were highjacked, or even civilian. I am convinced that there was a hair brained plot to used planes as weapons, and that the US spies and FBI knew about it, and that Reuters was informed about the destruction of WTC7 at least 20 minutes before it occurred.

Afghanistan, 2001

Operation Enduring Freedom, the USA + UK invasion of Afghanistan, is launched on 7th October 2001, 30 days after the 9/11 crimes. Between 9/11 and the upcoming invasion the USA had demanded that the Taliban, who had recently (a few years earlier) toured the USA and had a meeting in the Whitehouse, hand over Mr bin Laden. The Afghan government (the Taliban) had said yes, so long as they are given the "proofs" (evidence). From this moment to the point when bin Laden was theoretically captured and had his body "buried at sea" the FBI had never issued a warrant for his arrest because "they didn't have the evidence".

It should be noted that "Enduring Freedom" was completely illegal under international law. I have little doubt that Russia's secret services were running "kill or capture" missions in Russia and the Warsaw Pact countries during the Cold War, but post Cold War the USA is now doing them with highly trained soldiers in another country half way around the world.

Now we return to Smedley. What was achieved in Afghanistan in around 20 years? A transfer of wealth from the citizen to the military and various contractors. One of the fun stories is the Unical group trying to lay a pipeline through Afghanistan to the gas fields to the north. They were thought to be huge. It turned out not. So then its about mineral wealth, of which Afghanistan has some.

In the end it seems that the Afghanis have created their own freedom, although it is precarious. It will be interesting to see what China, Russia, Pakistan and Iran can do to stabilise Afghanistan.

Iraq, 2003

I bow to John Pilger. Iraq is one of the greatest media failings of all time to that date. WMD? Nope. Hussein supports Al Quaida? Nope. The whole thing is Nope. Who benefits? Military, military contractors and oil companies. Who loses? USA citizens via national debt, and their poor soldiers, but more than anyone else the Iraqi people.

Again, this invasion is (it still hasn't finished, although may be about to) completely illegal under international law. It has been doubly so after the Iraqi parliament demanded that all foreign forces leave Iraq. This is exactly what's about to happen in Afghanistan.

Libya, 2011

After the Lockerbie incident which was blamed on Ghadaffi, he is finally welcomed back into the international fold. Under his leadership, Libya had a prosperous and stable, if not very corrupt society. Libya has oil reserves somewhere between tiny and small. The French wanted in on some of it. There were shenanigans between Ghadaffi and (then French President) Sarkhozy. Ghadaffi's big, big mistake was his attempt to create an African Union which would use a new gold backed currency, the Dinar. This would have syphoned money away from the USA banks for oil payments (see also "Petro Dollar").

I'm having a little flicker of light in the back of my mind that Hussein was considering a similar non-USD transaction mechanism for his oil sales before the 2003 invasion.

There is an issue around rebels in a province which contains a USA consulate, and the USA with assistance from the UK and France get a UN Security Council resolution for a no fly zone. Neither China nor Russia use their veto, and the whole thing escalates into a full on war with external mercenaries, not the least being Muslim extremists shipped in by Turkey and the whole thing turns from "Right to Protect" "Humanitarian Intervention" via ridiculous claims of Ghadaffi issuing Viagra to his troops to rape, into a bloodbath.

Government institutions are destroyed, central bank gold is looted, and a full on civil war eventuates. With no stable government, refugee flows from western Africa into Italy and onwards into Europe, etc. etc..

A complete debacle.

Meanwhile the Queen of Warmongers is echoing Caesar "We came, we saw, he died" to describe murder; sodomy with blades.

Syria, 2011

The proxy war in Syria funded and armed by the strange bedfellows of USA, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, is almost over. Its denouement will be quite complex and is happening now.

The USA has achieved almost nothing for the billions it has spent except for strengthening the "dictator" it wished to overthrow and bringing into disrepute a very important UN Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons due to the repression and cover up of its interim report on the alleged chemical attacks in Douma. The single dedicated journalist on this international scandal is Aaron Mate. The likely lie had earlier been forshadowed by on-the-ground journalists like Vanessa Beeley, and any commentator with a brain. Why would Assad, after the country’s chemical weapons stockpile had been destroyed on a USA ship following a suggestion from Putin to Obama, use chemical weapons at all, and further more against civilians. It makes no sense at all.

Due to the USA's complete lack of strategic thinking their efforts in Iraq and then Syria have created an "Axis of Resistance" from Iran, through Iraq, to Syria and onwards south to Hezbollah in Lebanon. We are seeing a concerted attack on the stability of Lebanon by the UK especially, no doubt with support from other western "powers". This, of course, is because of the proximity of Lebanon and Syria to Israel, and particularly because this is Hezbollah’s primary base of operations.

Ukraine, 2014

The Maidan protests, backed by neo-Nazis, in Kiev were at least exploited by the USA. Snipers shooting down at both the protesters and police is designed to create news footage. Indeed, we saw the same in Syria a few years earlier. Despite the Ukrainian President of the time calling for immediate elections Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland is caught on the phone selecting the new rulers with a USA counterpart. Whatever. Its just another "colour revolution".

Counter Narrative

What significant extra-territorial military actions have the Russian Federation taken since the dissolution of the USSR?

I count two and a half:

• Russia annexed Crimea immediately when the coup occurred in Ukraine. When the Crimea was intra-USSR transferred from Russia to Ukraine, one place was not transferred, the Russian naval military installation in Sevastapol. I have seen no evidence that the Russian military forces fought the local civilian population. It was not an "invasion". Were there Ukrainian military forces there, then I am sure there were battles between them, if the Ukrainian forces refused to leave. I am very confident that should the Ukrainian forces lay down their arms, the Russians would have guaranteed them safe passage to "mainland" Ukraine (not including the Donbass). This is a classic example of the military as "politics by other means". The Russian military had a specific strategic objective, as directed by their political masters, and this is what they did. Soon after a referendum was organised to provide political legitimacy to the annexation. One could argue about the legitimacy of that referendum. I think the figures may be skewed a bit, but I believe that the majority of the Crimean residents, dominantly Russian speakers, would have been happy to be rejoined into Russia. I should say that the annexation was definitely illegal under international law. The referendum to re-join the Russian Federation is a valid mechanism of political legitimization. If the Kosovars can declare themselves into an independent country, why cant the Crimeans move back to their previous political association, or for that matter the Catalonians declare their independence from Madrid?

• For the "half", it is Russian support of the separatists in the Donbass. No major Russian forces crossed the border to the Donbass, but I am certain that intelligence, military advisors and arms were supplied, constantly and in sufficient volumes to allow the separatists to "hold the line". Again, Russia was not attacking these people but helping them defend themselves against attacks in what amounts to a civil war created by the West. Is this illegal? I don’t know. If one assumes that the separatists initiated the request for assistance? It looks very "grey area" too me. But, one thing is for sure, the Russians could have provided them with completely superior firepower and did not. I surmise that the "completely superior" supply was intelligence and military planning. I also surmise that the separatists could not have effectively handled any “superior weapons”. Its all very operationally practical by the Russians.

• Syria asked for assistance from Russia to deal with the foreign funded and trained, largely foreign terrorists who were trying to destroy Syria. Already with support from their "mutual defence treaty" ally Iran they still needed help, as the logistical corridors between Iran and Syria ran through Iraq which were still significantly controlled by the USA. They needed "big power" support. What ensued was carefully controlled; a "deconfliction" centre was established so that the Russian, Syrians and USA could inform each other of their movements and plans. Nobody wanted WWIII. There were, I am sure, the odd error. The Turks shooting down a Russian plane which had strayed into their territory for a few seconds is an example, and I am sure that the Turks had their heads slapped quite a bit for that.

Summary

Lets do a scorecard of USA/NATO vs Russia since the dissolution of the USSR and look at when major military operations have helped or hindered the nation in which the operation took place.

USA:

Afghanistan: Mostly failure. Some advances in human rights, particularly for women, and some advances in civilian infrastructure (schools etc.). Counter to that is a terrorisation of a huge amount of the population encouraging them to align with local power brokers. Its a military failure and a "hearts and minds" failure, and the slush funds have merely established more corruption.

Iraq: A complete failure. When the government that you have installed tells you to get the hell out of the country, you know you fucked up.

Libya: A complete failure. No government, refugee flows to Europe, slave markets.

Syria: A complete failure. The government survives but is struggling with murderous sanction imposed on it by the USA, the "Ceasar Sanctions". Which idiot thinks that funding and arming religious zealots is going to give one anything other than chaos (*). The one “useful” objective is to deny the Syrian government access to a major component of its own oil supplies, and a major wheat production region in the north east.

Ukraine: A continuing failure. Ukraine is less stable now than when, 7 years ago, the USA instigated the coup. This is quite simply due to hubris. The USA thought it could add the Ukraine to NATO. The Russian Federation said "over my dead body". The same is true of Belarus.

Score: (out of 5 per “war”) 1 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 0, or 2 out of 25, or 8%.

Russia:

Syria: Objective largely achieved. Stable government and the defeat of the terrorists. The government still needs help, and Idlib and the NE still need to be resolved, but this can be managed.

Ukraine: Situation stabilized, and core goal achieved. The two breakaway republics are stable, and it has been proven that NATO will not send troops to die in a war against them. Their existence prevents Ukraine joining NATO. Ukraine is in serious trouble economically, not the least because of the NordSteam II pipeline, but I think Russia is more concerned about the stability of the break away republics than greater Ukraine until its political leadership wakes up to political reality.

Crimea: Success. The military mission was retention of Sevastopol; done. The political mission was legitimacy for the annexation which the referendum provides; done. The construction of the bridge between Crimea and Russia provides the key military and trade access. Thus, the local population have the trade goods they need to keep them happy. To assist this, stupid "HMS Defender" of other incursions into Crimean waters have been sent packing. Thus, the local population feel protected.

Score: (again out of 5) 3 + 2 + 5, or 9/15, or 67%.

Now, you can quibble, but I state that Russia's use of its military forces to achieve political objectives does not kill lots of people, and is very effective. Counter to that the USA/NATO's version kills millions and achieves almost no political objectives.

Do your own research, and come to your own conclusions.

(*) Chaos: many have argued that the purpose of USA/NATO foreign policy is chaos. I disagree. I think they are run by a collection of committees lacking discipline, and with so many forces at hand, both financial and political, they cannot form any effective strategy. Chaos is not the intention, but the result.

Sources

Episode 123 - Meet Smedley Butler, James Corbett, CorbettReport, 2010-03-28