Much of the rhetoric behind the push to create a new Cold War centers on Russian President Vladimir Putin. The complicit media and the Obama Administration have pulled no punches in smearing President Putin and casting him as the most evil of tyrants and a political thug imprisoning opposition, seizing assets, enriching himself on the government’s dime, and intimidating reporters and political dissidents. In fact, much of this is probably true; however, before we cast the first stone and judge Putin as evil incarnate and start World War III, perhaps some national retrospection of our own actions and character would be in order. Let’s step back and evaluate America’s actions and consider whether or not we may have lost the moral high ground and then,…just perhaps, should rethink our policy, attitudes, and actions toward Russia. Read more
Archive for Global War
Putin versus Obama Part I: Are they really so different?
An Open Letter to President Obama and Congress on US Policy toward Ukraine and Russia
As the United States races forward to develop policy to deal with the escalating crisis in the Ukraine, many citizens have been left totally uniformed respective of our regional interests and policies toward it. As a concerned citizen, I am respectfully requesting a pause to allow professional debate on the subject before the Administration effectively locks America into another Cold War with Russia. I, like many Americans, remember the days of the Cold War and do not wish to return to the fear of nuclear annihilation, incredible levels of defense spending, and never ending guerrilla wars across the globe.
Sadly, logic rarely plays any part in policy development and seems to have had almost no impact on the current administration’s policy decisions. Further, as a mere voiceless citizen amongst the masses, I have little reason to suspect my voice matters or will ever be heard in front of our policy makers. As such, I risk being labeled a radical for daring to demand answers to critical questions all Americans should be concerned over as President Obama and the US Congress steer our nation toward a head on collision with Russia. America, as every nation, has made many mistakes in its past. Can we not, at least once, learn from these mistakes and try to get a policy right? Rather than simply complain and point out the failures, I will offer solutions. To that end, I recommend an initial, vigorous, public debate to inform upon and explore all policy options before our political knee jerk reactions land our nation in very dire waters.
I am of the mindset that sanctions are the extreme extent of economic warfare, which is inextricably linked to waging warfare in the classical sense. Therefore, a declaration to destroy a nation’s economy is, in effect, the same as war. To assume otherwise is a dangerous oversight in respect to high stakes political brinkmanship. Perhaps the Russian oligarchs will still have steak and caviar, but sanctions will mean joblessness, hardship, and starvation for millions of Russians. These deprivations upon the public amount to little difference from a shooting war. Russia intimately understands this, but unlike Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, Russia has the ability to effectively fight back against global bullying. Before walking further down this treacherous road with Russia, a formidable adversary I must add, I would like the President, Congress, and ultimately the American public to definitively answer and defend in open debate the following elementary questions:
What and specifically, whose interests are being served by our involvement in the Ukraine? What vital national interests are at stake? What will we receive in exchange for our involvement in Ukraine? What are our policy goals in respect to Russia and Ukraine? What end state do we seek by sanctioning Russia? What is the timeline by which we determine success in our policy? How far are we willing to go to achieve those goals? Will we commit to military action should sanctions fail to achieve our policy goals? Are we willing to risk nuclear war?
What is the projected global economic impact of sanctions on Russia for the US economy? Are sanctions our only tools? What price is the US willing to pay for enacting painful sanctions on Russia? If Europe won’t support sanctions, why should the US? Do we truly have a global economy? If so, wouldn’t hurting the Russian economy also hurt the world economy? If Europe is correct that sanctions would hurt the EU’s economy, wouldn’t it by default also hurt the US economy? Can the US economy afford more negative economic pressure? Is sanctioning Russia over Ukraine worth billions of dollars in losses for the US economy? How many dollars in losses are we willing to endure to achieve our policy goals in Ukraine? Will one billion dollars in loans be enough money to stabilize Ukraine? If not, how much are we willing to spend and what will we expect as a return on investment? What is the actual probability the US taxpayer will be repaid for the loan to Ukraine?
Why can’t Ukraine fight for itself? Isn’t Ukraine a European issue? Why must the US fight Europe’s battles? What are the historic consequences of intervening in Europe’s civil wars? What is the historical precedent for American success in this type of intervention?
Who are the leaders in the Ukraine that we are now supporting? Did they not take power through a violent overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government? Who supported that revolution? Could the Russians have viewed this as a threat? If the tables were turned, would we approve of similar action on our borders? How do we decide who is and isn’t the legitimate government in the Ukraine? Who are we to decide which coups, in a string of overthrows and power grabs, are legitimate after unilaterally deciding the formerly recognized Ukrainian government was illegitimate? How do we know the current regime in power in Kiev will work toward America’s best interests? If the leadership we back in Ukraine becomes unpopular and fails to deliver positive change, will we continue to back the regime? If the leadership we back in Ukraine is itself overthrown, what is the potential damage to US interests in the region?
Will sanctions actually achieve our goals by altering Russia’s decisions or just further alienate a rather large and powerful nation? How long are we willing to continue sanctions before we assess policy failure or success? If sanctions fail to have the desired effect, what are plans B and C? What is the cost of inaction? What would be the benefits to supporting Moscow over Kiev? Have we even considered supporting Moscow? What are the Russian grievances? What does Russia have to gain or lose in Ukraine? How far is Moscow willing to go to defend what it considers its vital national interests in Ukraine? How much pain is Russia willing to endure to achieve its policy goals respective of Ukraine? Are we willing to inflict that amount of pain to force our will on Russia? How much pain will doing so entail for the US?
Are we as a nation prepared to step firmly back into a new Cold War landscape for the indefinite future? Is the US willing to play the game of chicken to its full conclusion? If not, why should we engage in the dangerous game of brinkmanship in the first place? What retaliatory measures will Moscow take in response to sanctions? Where and how could Moscow feasibly hurt America the worst? What are the implications of Moscow shutting down the Northern Supply Route to Afghanistan during our planned retreat in 2014? What are the implications of Moscow authorizing advanced weapons sales to countries like Syria, Iran, and China? What if Moscow attacked the US militarily? What would be the most likely course of action for Moscow? What would Moscow’s most dangerous course of action be? Do Americans realize further escalation could lead to the deaths of many Americans across the world as Russia begins to retaliate? Is this something that America considers an acceptable loss?
I would argue that if these very basic, yet critically important questions were honestly answered and publicly debated, the policy decisions respective of the situation in the Ukraine would be patently clear. What Americans would realize is that intervention in Ukraine is not in our vital national interests. The US could only derive a net loss to our global geopolitical stability, security, and strength. The public would see that US actions will be ineffective, counterproductive, and ultimately futile. Americans would not be willing to pay the true price of a reckless intervention.
Perhaps, I am an unbending ideologue for asking that basic logic to be applied to our policy decisions. Maybe, I am just a blind and backwards isolationist for wanting to avoid more foreign conflict. Certainly, I must be a cold pragmatist for the mere insinuation that one should place American interests before foreign interests. We might as well assume I am also greedy for suggesting I am not willing to have more of my tax dollars looted to pay the debts owed to foreign banks by foreign elites. No doubt I am also unpatriotic for not rushing to arms to support military intervention in the Ukraine. If so, then I stand guilty as charged.
Sincerely,
Guiles Hendrik
April 20, 2014
All rights reserved.
Contact: Please send questions or comments to guileshendrik@gmail.com
Russia Laughs at Obama’s Red Line in Russia: What’s Next for Relations?
President Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry have to be the laughing stock of the foreign policy world. In less than a year they have managed to draw two “Red Lines” only to have them almost immediately ignored, crossed, and forgotten. With this track record the word impotent comes to mind in reference to US Foreign Policy and particularly President (Carter) Obama. Not to be trifled with, President Obama and his partners within the EU managed to order the assets of a handful of Russians frozen, obviously leaving Putin quaking in his finely crafted leather shoes. The act is almost comical in that it seems to show even less resolve than if Obama and the EU had done nothing. After all, freezing the non-existent US assets of a couple dozen Russians long after they hid and/or offshored anything of value can only be viewed in one of two ways. Either the US is as weak as it appears or the US never intended to truly oppose Russia’s aims to annex Crimea and this is all political show so that they can say they “stood up to Putin.” Further, at least one of victims of Washington’s sanctions appears to have nothing to do with events in the Ukraine and everything to do with Russia’s Christian grounded stance against homosexuality, which at least someone high up in the Obama Administration took exception. This random list of targets unrelated to the events in the Ukraine undermines any shred of legitimacy the sanctions purportedly were imbued with. Either way, Putin has to be concluding that at this point the US and the EU have zero resolve when it comes to actually opposing Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Nonetheless, Putin, the same man that would order a former Russian defector assassinated with a rare radioactive isotope placed in his cocktail in a fine London bar, is not likely to take Obama’s cheap shot lightly.
Now that Washington has proved it couldn’t resist taking a cheap shot, what can we expect Russia’s response to be? First of all, Putin has shown that unlike Obama, his actions speak for themselves and he doesn’t need to talk. Since Washington and the EU attacked Russia financially, it is likely Russia will respond financially. Last week, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov declared that any sanctions introduced by Washington against Moscow will have a “boomerang” effect. Senior Russian Presidential Advisor, Sergey Glazyev, one of the individual’s sanctioned by Obama’s executive order, suggested Russia would dump US treasuries and walk away from the US Dollar as a reserve currency. It is questionable how much of an impact this would have, but it certainly wouldn’t help the US economically and add to the growing list of countries dumping the US Dollar as the world’s reserve currency. American businesses operating in Russia may also suffer retaliation in the form of their assets being frozen, confiscated, or shutdown. Further, Russia has the ability to call in billions in debt from the Ukraine and cut supplies of gas to the Ukraine and EU. Cutting gas supplies to the EU would certainly hurt Russia too, but this logic is fundamentally flawed if one believes that it will deter Russia. Russia is renowned for its ability to suffer austerity. In fact, one of the critical failures in US-Russia policy has been the inability of our senior policy makers to recognize Russia’s ability to endure extreme hardships and willingly cut off its nose, leg and hand to spite its face if it means victory can be assured. The US and EU are not willing to go to those extremes so, by that fact alone, Russia will prevail in any developing economic stand-off.
Respective of Russian natural gas and oil, I produced a paper a half a decade ago that looked into the future political ramifications of Russian geopolitical power as Western economies waned and Asian economies waxed. What became apparent was that once Russia completed pipelines in its east that could link their large gas and oil fields to China and coastal ports in the Pacific, Russia would gain significant leverage in what had previously been a status quo relationship with Europe between supply and demand. Until recently, Europe has always felt safe in that at worst, Russia would only cut gas supplies during a political crisis for a short period of time because Russia needed the money as much as Europe needed the gas. However, with pipelines now directly extending supply to China, Russia is more than able to divert supplies from Europe, southeast to China. This is a game changer, which increases Russia’s geopolitical maneuver space. China welcomes this and is happy to buy all of the petrol resources it can obtain from Russia so that its supplies are more reliable. Further, China will be likely to back any move that drives Russia to sell to China at more favorable rates, which to date, have been below what Russia was willing to agree to sell at. China would also see the advantage of a marginalized Russia that dumps the US Dollar and is willing to trade directly in their respective currencies. Remember, China seeks to replace the US Dollar as the world’s reserve currency and sees that transition as critical to achieving super power status and eclipsing the US. Considering the above, it is highly likely that China will not just quietly support Russia, but actively back Russia against the US and EU.
Russia also has the ability to increase the sale of military weapons to countries such as Iran and Syria. In particular, the S-300 air defense system would be a highly sought after leap ahead in technology for both the Iranian and Syrian militaries. This system alone would be penetrable by American airpower; however, it would significantly increase the complexities and cost of carrying out any type of air attack against either nation. Russia could also dangle the idea of selling an even more advanced S-400 air defense system, which if fielded, would mean that US would be at a high risk of losing significant numbers of aircraft in the event they attacked any nation using the system. Respective of countries such as Israel, the S-400 would make it all but impossible for them to successfully carrying out an air attack making any suggestion of the sale of the weapon system a serious threat. Respective of the civil war in Syria, Russia could begin sending ship loads of various weapons and even advisors and troops to support President Assad. This would tip the balance in favor of Assad just as his army is gaining ground on the rebels making it possible to achieve a decisive victory. Ensuring Assad’s victory would have the added benefit of snubbing Washington while stopping Qatari efforts to build a gas pipeline to Europe that would reduce the European reliance on Russian gas.
Finally, among numerous options for retaliation, Russia has the ability to make NATO’s withdrawal from Afghanistan extremely painful. First of all, Russia has the ability to shut down all supply routes to and from Afghanistan from the north. This would disrupt NATO’s ability to sustain the current forces in Afghanistan and retard efforts under way to retreat with all of its equipment in tow. Further, it would force NATO to pay premium prices to Pakistan to move all of its equipment out of the country via Karachi. The Karachi route is extremely dangerous and once it is clear that the US must use this route, the Taliban could concentrate its attacks along the entire stretch of this road network. Even darker is Russia’s proven, albeit very covert ability to provide the Taliban with substantial support and weapons. Should the Russians decide to really make life a living hell for the US, expect to see the Taliban suddenly supplied with more sophisticated weaponry capable of destroying armored vehicles from long range or even engaging NATO aircraft and drones. Imagine what NATO’s retreat from Afghanistan would look like as troop numbers dwindle and the remaining isolated outposts begin to be overrun, supply convoys are wiped out by sophisticated laser beam riding anti-tank weapons, and aircraft are suddenly being shot down by the modern Russian equivalent of the Stinger missile.
In truth, the US is far more exposed than many realize. Should Washington decide to ratchet up pressure on Russia by continuing to try and subvert Russia’s historic sphere of interest, expect Putin to begin playing cards he has so far politely held in reserve. Putin’s trump cards are for, let’s say, more uncivilized forms of diplomacy, which Washington now seems to want to engage. Obama’s thug style Chicago politics may have worked within the confines of the decrepit US political system, but Barry will be sorely mistaken if he thinks he even remotely approaches a match for Putin in the global arena. As Putin has repeatedly demonstrated with very little talk and decisive action, Washington is a paper tiger that not just lacks teeth, but a functioning brain.
By Guiles Hendrik
March 23, 2014
All rights reserved.
As We Predicted: Syrian and Iraqi Civil Wars Merge as President Obama’s Claims of a Defeated Al Qaeda Crumble
Disturbing news continues to poor out of Iraq as it appears Al Qaeda forces in Iraq have transformed from an insurgent force to conventional military force. This is considered the last stage of a guerilla war by Mao Tse-Tung’s guide to guerrilla warfare. The successful takeover of the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi by Al Qaeda forces prove they have continued to organize and gain strength contrary to the lies emanating from President Obama respective of Al Qaeda being nearly destroyed. None of this should come as a surprise. For years I have been tracking this trend and warning that the Islamic radicals fighting in Syria would soon destabilize Iraq and merge the wars. Reference:
- http://www.blackboxwire.com/2013/09/09/media-missed-the-biggest-coup-in-the-middle-east-and-it-wasnt-in-egypt/
- http://www.blackboxwire.com/2013/05/12/iraqs-descent-back-into-violence/
- http://www.blackboxwire.com/2013/02/24/assessing-the-success-of-the-war-on-terror-part-ii-return-on-investment-and-perpetual-war/
If not already bad enough, the Sunni extremists have gained much of this power by way of Washington’s covert aid. Using arms and money from Saudi Arabia and Qatar funneled through Jordan and Turkey the CIA has covertly provided a host of supplies, equipment, and weapons to the rebels. Further, CIA officers on the ground are advising Al Qaeda affiliated rebel factions and providing them with command and control support. With this added lifeline the rebels have regrouped across the non-existent border in Iraq and gained a foothold by seizing the major cities of Anbar Province as well as numerous border towns in Northern Iraq. This sets the stage for a pan-Sunni front rising against Iranian backed Shia forces for a large scale outbreak of warfare in the Middle East.
Make no mistake, by no means is this Iraqi Al Qaeda uprising an organically generated situation. It is merely a symptom of much bigger strategic issues at play in the Middle East. These divisions are deep, complex, and overlapping. Some of these divisions are political, some are economic, some are religious, some are ethnic, but all are divisive. Sunni versus Shia; Saudi Arabia and Qatar versus Syria; Kurd versus Iraqi; Turkey versus Kurdistan versus Syria; Iran versus Israel versus the United States versus Saudi Arabia; the United States versus Russia; and so on. The Middle East has become a chessboard of pawns being manipulated by strategic players from around the world in a very dangerous high stakes game.
The result of this will be, as I have previously predicted, ever increasing violence and bloodshed across the Middle East. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki will most likely be forced to open up greater political and military cooperation with Iran to put down the Sunni uprising in the western portion of the country. This will allow the Kurds to further cement their autonomous nation to the north and possibly absorb Kurdish portions of Syria. This would ethnically redraw the map of the Middle East much to the fear of Turkey, which under those circumstances, might militarily intervene to prevent such a Kurdish unification. Contrary to Washington’s plans to weaken Iran by toppling Assad, the rise of Obama’s Sunni proxies will cause the plan to backfire. Maliki’s requests for support will actually lead to increased Iranian influence and potentially new and more direct military supply lines through Iraq to Iran’s besieged ally Bashar Assad in Syria. This will force Saudi Arabia to become even more overt in its support to Sunni extremists, which will fuel even greater global terrorism and bloodshed in Syria. Saudi Arabia will begin importing greater numbers of foreign jihadists for the fight and likely buy its own readymade nuclear arsenal from Pakistan, which will greatly increase world instability and increase the chances of a larger regional war. Nonetheless, Assad’s government forces will most likely continue to maintain the upper hand for at least the next six months dealing Washington a decisive strategic setback that will weaken Washington’s alliances with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, and Turkey. This will also weaken Washington’s negotiating position with Iran on its nuclear program forcing Obama to pursue appeasement. A peace deal with Iran is not in and of itself disastrous and likely good, but Israel will see this as the last straw and likely initiate unilateral strikes against Iran designed to set back its nuclear progress while forcing the US into an unwanted and unnecessary war. This will be an unparalleled disaster for the US. See:
- http://www.blackboxwire.com/2012/08/19/israels-battle-plan-for-iran-the-war-has-begun/
- http://www.blackboxwire.com/2012/09/13/growing-distance-between-washington-and-tel-aviv-dangerous/
- http://www.blackboxwire.com/2012/10/26/first-stage-of-iran-war-nearing-completion-free-syrian-army-being-used-to-clear-air-corridor-for-attack-on-iran/
As for the biggest players, the US and Russia, Russia will continue its unbeaten streak of foreign policy victories against the amateurish American lineup. Obama and John Kerry are simply outclassed by Putin and Sergei Lavrov. Specifically, Russia and its grand chess master Putin will continue to play all sides against each other for its maximum political and economic profit. Russia will continue to pick off long time US allies such as Egypt as Obama continues to alienate everyone. Russia will also handsomely profit and leverage any outbreak of war to further corner the oil and gas market while enjoying a spike in prices before global economies crash taking the price of oil to lows not seen in years. For Russia, losing Syria is not optional as long as the threat of a Qatari-Saudi gas pipeline through Syria to Europe exists. Russia would lose immense geopolitical leverage over Europe and billions in revenue in the event Assad was deposed without hard guarantees Washington is not likely able to deliver. In the event Obama doubles down and provides enough military support to bring about Syrian regime change, expect the Russians to triple down and bait the US into another disastrous war in the Middle East designed to economically break the back of the US and force us out of the Middle East.
All considered, 2014 is shaping up to be a violent and climatic year across the Muslim Crescent. The civil war in Syria will likely reach a tipping point and Iran’s nuclear program will have to be accepted or destroyed. Iraq will descend into full scale civil war. Jordan will be weakened by growing unrest and Lebanon could once again be split by sectarian violence. As for Americans, expect an increase in Islamic terrorism against US targets. This is a near certainty since vast numbers of radical Islamists have been recently armed, trained, equipped, and organized to fight in Syria by our very own CIA. This latest generation of jihadists will be armed with much more advanced weaponry compliments of the US taxpayer and will ultimately go on to attack the US after they have had their fill of fighting in Syria. Specifically, expect to see the use of improvised nerve gas manufactured by Syrian rebels, man portable surface to air missiles smuggled out of Libya, and antitank missiles provided by Saudi Arabia against US targets. These are just some of the highlights to expect in 2014 so make sure you buckle your seat belts.
For further reading:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/04/al-qaeda-iraq_n_4541855.html
http://www.dw.de/al-qaeda-allies-take-over-fallujah-iraq/a-17341342
By Guiles Hendrik
January 10, 2014
All rights reserved.
The Next Manufactured War: China and the Pacific Theater Take Center Stage
As we have exhaustively written and warned in previous articles, a new war will need to be manufactured to continue to justify the continued redistribution of billions of taxpayer dollars to the military-industrial complex financed by the big banks. The titans of the defense industry and the loan sharks of the banking world cannot afford peace and will stop at nothing to create fear and war to ensure their wealth is secure. The United States economy has not made a true comeback as has been touted by the media and falsified government reports and soon the bubble the Federal Reserve created will have to be deflated. To keep the public distracted and the money flowing, a new plan to create fear, instability, and possibly war in the Pacific has now begun.
It is becoming increasingly clear that no matter what deal is or is not struck in Afghanistan respective of continued troop deployments, NATO and the US forces are going to be forced to retreat within the next 12 to 18 months. The Taliban’s (Pakistan’s) strategic victory is all but assured now, which will make future occupation by U.S. personnel impossible. Further, the movement toward war with Iran by way of Syria has been temporarily checked by Russia until Israel can build enough clandestine support behind the scenes to sabotage any future peace deal or unilaterally attack Iran. As such, the military-industrial complex has turned back to its fear mongering and war propaganda to begin conditioning the public that North Korea and China are again dire threats that must be stopped at all costs and that war could break out at any moment. Of course this hyperbole is used to justify the “need” for new advanced weapons, continued funding of obsolete, redundant, or unnecessary defense systems, and to generally control the masses. As a nation we have witnessed this ploy over and over resulting in unnecessary wars from Vietnam to Iraq that have cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars worldwide. The wanton destruction wrought by these industry power plays can’t be understated. For example, as we reported in the spring of 2013, North Korea was rebranded as a strategic missile threat overnight and then only weeks later forgotten after the defense-aerospace industry scared Congress and the public into refunding their missile defense programs that have been wasting billions of tax dollars and were rightfully on the sequester chopping block. The fact that the bankers and defense propagandists nearly started World War III didn’t matter a bit because no matter whether or not war broke out, it was you and I that would have to bleed, pay, and die for their fortunes. This process of fear mongering and dangerous brinkmanship is a trademark defense industry ploy used to make sure you continue to write them checks for billions of dollars without question. Without question, it is one of the most diabolical, destructive, despicable, and immoral of all lies repeatedly pushed on the citizens of nations.
Fortunately, the American people have to some degree grown war weary and have been sensitized to the lies of war propaganda. This is good and bad. It is good in that the simplest of lies will no longer suffice to convince the American people to once again go to war and bleed and pay for the elites to become wealthier. However, the elites recognize this and will conduct even more aggressive and despicable acts to create the conditions for war. For illustration, just this year in Syria, a false flag chemical weapons attack was launched against innocent civilians in an attempt to frame the Syrian regime and justify the US becoming involved in yet another war in the Middle East. It is important to note that this attack using weapons of mass destruction was resorted to after numerous lesser attempts to “convict” the Syrian regime in the minds of the public and precipitate a war had failed. This included launching mortar rounds into Israel and Turkey, launching air attacks into Syria directly from Israel, directly providing training and weapons to known terrorists operating in Syria, repeatedly violating Syrian airspace so that they would shoot down a NATO jet, and persistently trying to brand the radical Islamic jihadists of the revolutionary forces as a peaceful, unified, pro-US, Free Syrian Army. All of these acts were designed to either directly or indirectly illicit a defensive response from Syria, which Washington could then spin into an act of “aggression” to justify retaliation and war. The Syrian example is just one of many illustrating to what deranged extremes our hijacked government will go to to force the US into another unnecessary war and is a cautionary tale of things to come.
Relative to the recent wars in the Middle East, a war in the Pacific promises to be far more devastating and has the real possibility of involving nuclear weapons and electromagnetic pulses designed to wipe out all unshielded electronics. However, “devastating” translates to windfall profits for the defense industry and their financiers on a scale not seen since World War II. A war or even the threat of war with China would mandate trillions of new defense spending financed through loans to the US government (ironically, this new debt would probably be bought by China). New high tech weapon systems would have to be fast tracked into service and even more draconian surveillance and cyber warfare systems would also be justified to “protect” the homeland. The Defense Department would once again get a blank check unlike any before from Congress to pursue an entirely new portfolio of overpriced defense programs, many of which, would target the American people as much as foreign entities as the current “War on Terror” has demonstrated.
The march toward war in the Pacific will be far more costly and devastating than even the worst case scenarios for the Middle East if allowed to move forward. Not only will the US suffer a total economic collapse, but unprecedented death and destruction if the game of brinkmanship is overplayed and China and or North Korea call our bluff. China is not an ally of the US, but is also not any more of a threat than we decide to create. If you want to check China, it will be best done through effective economic competition and by strengthening our freedoms and liberties at home. Runaway defense spending will only weaken the US. Stop giving China preferential trade status, stop creating massive debt at home, stop educating China’s military scientists, stop allowing China to steal our most sensitive secrets, stop providing China and North Korea aid, and hold the line on our sphere of influence. At home we have to cut taxes on citizens as well as reduce the overwhelming bureaucratic weight of endless regulations and taxes on businesses. We need to protect our workers, our products, our technology, and our industry by not undermining them with imbalanced trade deals favoring offshoring and overseas manufacturing. We also need to secure our borders, dismantle the surveillance state, cut the size of government, wean the population from state dependencies, and become as individuals and a nation much more self-sufficient. Cutting the Defense Budget will go a long way to neutralizing the financial influence the military-industrial complex has over US policy and would strengthen, not weaken the security of the US. All of these actions will go far toward reigning in massive and unnecessary spending and debt. The media must also be returned to its watchdog status of the government and be purged of its recently assumed role as the public relations arm of the political parties. No American interest is served by a biased media. Failure to provide honest, unbiased, and factual news to the American people will lead to further deceit, loss of liberties, degradation of our quality of life, and potentially devastating wars.
Once again we are here warning the public of what is transpiring behind the scenes and are the first to bring it to you. The best way to battle this latest escalation toward war is to become informed, know the facts, and make sure others are educated as well. Neither the media nor the government can lie to you if you independently have sought out and found the truth. Take this truth to the internet, the airwaves, the cable news programs, your local clubs…anywhere you can find an audience. By exposing the lies and replacing them with knowledge and facts you can collectively disrupt and stop the plans of the defense and banking industries and their puppets within the government. Those of you who serve the government; especially in the military, have an obligation to the American people and the Constitution to also speak out, to refuse to become an active participant, and to stop these unconstitutional and thus illegal and immoral actions. Only through action can we overcome these true threats to the US, the gravest of which, have originated internally.
By Guiles Hendrik
December 11, 2013
All rights reserved.
