Syria Attacks: The Official US Line Crumbles; The Deep State Is Further Exposed

My speculative thesis (not mine alone) that Trump and a few ‘white hats’ in the US, along with Russia and Syria by way of back-channels, are attempting to expose the US Deep State by giving them the rope to hang themselves, has been backed up in recent days. In my last posting, I suggested that the “commander-in-chief” was constrained by General McMaster, Jared Kushner, and other neo-con point men in his administration to reverse his campaign positions 180 degrees. He “ordered” an ineffective missile strike that mainly showed how outclassed the US military really is. This followed on a brutal and similarly inept false flag chemical attack, almost certainly perpetrated by the usual suspects, the Western proxy-terror armies operating in Syria and Iraq.

Now this Deep State thesis has received support from an unlikely source: Bashar al-Assad. In an English-language interview with the French AFP, Bashar al-Assad attributes responsibility for Trump’s foreign policy reversals, culminating in the Syrian missile strike, to the US Deep State, or “deep regime”, as he puts it.

(Video of the interview here; transcript here.)

Assad says: “The President is only one of the performers on their theatre, if he wants to be a leader, he cannot, …. if he wants to be a real leader, later he’s going to eat his words, swallow his pride if he has pride at all, and make a 180 degree U-turn, otherwise he would pay the price politically…. As long as the United States is being governed by this complex of military industrial complex, the financial companies, banks, and what you call deep regime, and works for the vested interest of those groups, of course (a further attack on Syria) could happen anytime, anywhere, not only in Syria.”

This was as close as any foreign leader has gotten to pointing fingers at the obvious — but yet unproven — culprits. In recent days, Assad has conducted many interviews, detailing the absurdity of the baseless allegations against him concerning the Khan Shaykun chemical weapons attacks, the supposed rationale for the missile strikes. Indeed, the American thesis has been demolished from all sides, even though it remains impossible to conduct a full-scale investigation, since the area remains in the hands of Jubhat al-Nusra (now Jubhat Fatah al-Sham, formerly al-Qaeda in Syria). Apropos “al-CIAduh’s” links to the US, a Wikileaks email dump has recently surfaced, documenting, once again, the links to Hillary Clinton’s State Department. “AQ (al-Qaeda) is on our side in Syria”, the email reads.

The Khan Shaykun false flag never had a leg to stand on. The West has gotten sloppy due to its almost complete control of its massmedia, or perhaps, it is rushing into these psy-ops unprepared due to its increasing desperation.

A press conference given by the foreign ministers of Russia, Syria, and Iran, lambasted Western presumptions about the chemical weapons attacks, though pulling up short of a flat-out accusation for its instigation. (No one pointed out that John McCain was in Syria speaking to “moderate” head-choppers a few weeks before this and the Ghouta attack.)

In the US, an expert analyst from MIT,  Dr. Theodore Postol (tenured, I hope!) also ripped to shreds the four page document, the White House Intelligence Report, issued on April 11 as “evidence” that Syria was behind the attack.

He said: ” I have reviewed the document carefully, and I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun….”

“In fact, a main piece of evidence that is cited in the document points to an attack that was executed by individuals on the ground, not from an aircraft…

“… the most plausible conclusion is that the sarin was dispensed by an improvised dispersal device made from a 122 mm section of rocket tube filled with sarin and capped on both sides.

“The only undisputable facts stated in the White House report is the claim that a chemical attack using nerve agent occurred in Khan Shaykhun, Syria on that morning. Although the White House statement repeats this point in many places within its report, the report contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft. In fact, the report contains absolutely no evidence that would indicate who was the perpetrator of this atrocity.”

Perhaps a bit of grim humor is appropriate for such a ridiculous story as now circulates in the US mass media. From Fox News to NPR these are suddenly of one voice about the “beauty” of Trump’s missile attacks, and the depravity of the Syrian “Mr. Evil” who, they always fail to mention, handily won elections that were internationally monitored and far more fair than those conducted hier bei uns.

The following video “The Syria Strikes: A Conspiracy Theory” is yet another James Corbett “Conspiracy Theory” Classic, following on his “JFK: A Conspiracy Theory“, “OKC: A Conspiracy Theory” and the exquisite “9/11: A Conspiracy Theory“.

In fast-moving non-sequitors derived from the official narrative, Corbett hilariously sums up the absurdity of the official US consensus regarding the Khan Shaykun chemical weapons attacks.




Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

An Anomalous Attack: Did Trump Just Expose the Deep State with an Ineffective Strike Against Syria?

There are numerous anomalies concerning the US Tomahawk cruise missile strike on a Syrian airbase outside of Homs yesterday — as there are serious questions not being asked by the mainstream media about the chemical weapons attack in Idlib that, the US says, provoked the missile strike.

The chemical weapons attack has been shown from several angles to be a false flag operation, only the most recent in a series of such war-crimes perpetrated by the CIA-backed terrorist groups operating as mercenaries – not radical Islamists – in Syria and Iraq. Only a gullible and strategically-illiterate US public could buy the story that Assad would carry out such attacks on his own people, especially when he is winning the war against the terrorists, as well as for the ‘hearts and minds’ of his population.

The most important precedent for this series of events was in late 2013, when a similar sarin gas attack was carried out in Ghouta, outside Damascus, and the US geared up for war. This was later shown to have been carried out by al-Qaeda, with sarin gas that, according to Sy Hersh, perhaps our greatest living journalist, came from Gheddafi’s arsenal and was shipped by Hillary Clinton’s State Department along the “rat line” through Turkey to be used on Syrian citizens then blamed on Assad. Though pressured by John Kerry, Clinton’s successor at State, Obama finally backed off on missile strikes when the Russians intervened by offering to remove Assad’s chemical weapons.

On the surface, it would seem that Trump took the “red line” more seriously than Obama, even though it was crossed by US proxies, not Syria, and that he did so without the slightest hesitation or compunction about reversing policies on Assad and Russia. Effectively, Trump has carried through on the neo-cons decennial plans for aggressive intervention in a nation they hope to capture so that pipelines from Qatar, a US puppet state, will pre-empt those from Iran, from reaching the European markets.

However, little of this makes sense, if given but a moment’s reflection.

Trump campaigned on promises to repair relations with Russia. Admittedly, this was only after Russian intervention had turned the tide in Syria against the Western terrorist proxies and made it evident to the more rational US war-mongerers that Assad was not going to be overthrown. Now, we seem to be closer to the brink of war with Syria, if not Russia and Iran, than even during the Obama administration.

The most evident explanation is that Trump is not in control, but rather the Deep State, staffed since the Bush-Clinton era with neo-cons, neo-liberals, and “humanitarian” interventionists. It is clear they continue to exercise the same nefarious power they did under Obama.

In his first weeks in office, Trump seemed to stay true to his campaign promises regarding foreign policy, but has reversed course recently, as some of his closest advisors have been sidelined. The most striking instance is that General Michael Flynn, Trump’s chosen National Security Advisor. Formerly the head of the DIA, Flynn was fired, in all probability, not because he spoke with the Russians, but primarily because his son kept tweeting about Pizzagate (at least that is what Hillary Clinton implied in a tweet of her own). Apropos the present situation, Flynn was one of the few high-ranking US military officers publically to admit that the formation of ISIS “was a willed intent” by US strategists, designed to take out Assad. FOIA document releases have shown this was in the works since 2006 at least.

So, it is not far-fetched to say that the Idlib false flag and yesterday’s missile strikes were not Trump’s doing, but merely involved his rubber-stamping. However, the precipitousness of the attack (especially compared to the dilly-dallying in such circumstances of the Obama administration) was very much in Trump’s style.

Indeed, an admittedly hopeful reading, but not an unreasonable one, suggests that Trump did it this way with ulterior motives of his own.

The chemical weapons attack in Idlib and the US military “response” were so poorly executed, so clumsy and heavy-footed, that one might suspect Trump, coerced into this foolhardy provocation, allowed his controllers the rope they needed to hang themselves. He has done the same with the Russiagate scandal that has now turned fully into an Obamagate scandal, with Susan Rice — Obama’s war-mongering National Security Advisor who pressed for Syrian intervention in 2013 — at the center of it.

About the rope to hang oneself, there is some important context: in recent weeks, Trump has granted increased autonomy to both the Pentagon and to the CIA to perform drone strikes and military actions as they see fit.

There are also some oddities about yesterday’s military strike from the world’s preeminent military power on a third-world country:

The strike was singularly ineffective.

The US claimed that 59 Tomahawk missiles were fired, but only 26 found their way to the base. The others, for all we know, just disappeared en route.

Perhaps a half-dozen Syrian soldiers were killed, and maybe that many old MIGs were destroyed. Despite US reports that the base was thoroughly wrecked, the airstrip remains operational, and today Syrian jets were again taking to the air from that location.

The evident reason that damage was so contained is that, according to US sources, the US informed the Russians beforehand of the upcoming strike, and naturally, the Syrians were informed by the Russians. The Russians deny this, but the evidence suggests in this case the US is telling the truth. The operation seems certainly to have been more for show than anything else.

Could it be that Trump rushed into the very action that Obama drug his feet over because he knew that a precipitous but ineffective strike, on the very shoddy grounds of the false-flag Idlib attack, would draw attention to both, and therefore to the nefarious games of the neo-con Deep State?

While it took months and years before the 2013 false flag was unveiled, the false-flag in Idlib is unraveling already. This time prominent American political figures like Ron Paul and Dick Black are speaking about it, though admittedly they get no air time on the mass media. However a congressman from Georgia stunned a CNN reporter into silence with such an assessment. And Tulsi Gabbard seems ready to start telling even more truth than she has already, courageously, revealed. Furthermore, a review of public comments on even mainstream news websites shows that a vastly greater number of Americans now realize that their tax dollars have been funding terrorists than they did in 2013.

Trump has so far shown himself to be a master of a martial art technique of turning an attacker’s violence against the perpetrator. Though the term “fake news” was propagated first by the mainstream media against all websites that support sanity in the world, Trump turned it back on them so effectively that 60% of the US population now has little or no trust in the mainstream media.

The independent alternative media has risen exponentially in the same time, despite being faced off against concerted efforts by the mass media and its search engine and social media allies, Google, Youtube, Facebook, and others.

The alternative media, even that tending to the left, has given Trump chances that no mainstream media would, but now is mostly in dismay over the events of the last few days. Trump seems to be following the same petrodollar imperial pattern of past administrations, which marched in lock-step no matter which party was in power. Now, WW3 seems closer than ever as Russian warships steam to intercept US destroyers in the Mediterranean and the Russian-US ‘de-confliction’ program in Syria and Iraq has been scrapped. What’s more, Syria’s air defenses are being shored up with Russian S-400s, the best anti-aircraft artillery in the world

However, the anomalies suggest something else is happening here. The real damage was, in the end, quite small, especially considering the costs (to US taxpayers) of the 59 cruise missiles. The symbolic aspects, however, are quite substantial.

Though crossed several times, Putin has shown himself to be preternaturally patient with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, all major supporters of the Western terror proxies in Syria and Iraq. Generally, Putin, the consummate chess-player (and martial arts expert), allows his opponents to destroy themselves, often by over-reaching. When Turkey shot down a Russian fighter last year, Russia did not respond militarily, but with an information war, including a day-long press conference documenting Turkey’s oil-for-arms trade with ISIS that directly implicated the Erdogan family.

Could the US be next for such treatment? And might this be what the beleaguered Trump was counting on? A little help from his Russian friends against their common enemies — the war-at-all-costs neo-liberal/neo-cons who have run the show in DC for a generation — should be welcomed by the president, and all Americans sound in mind.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Erdoğan’s Disappointing Trip to Russia: More than a Tee-Shirt, Still…

Expectations were high. Turkish President Erdoğan’s meeting with Putin in St. Petersburg promised a major realignment that, some ventured, would result finally in Turkey’s departure from NATO and a decisive ‘pivot’ to Russia and Eastern alliances such as BRICS, SCO, and so on.

There was some movement made toward reviving a number of mutually beneficial joint economic projects had been set aside due to US and NATO pressure last year. But our greater hopes that Turkey would relent and shift directions on more substantive issues about Syria, Assad, the Kurds, and ISIS, were dashed by an interview Erdoğan gave to Tass the day before he met Putin.

In this interview, Erdoğan continued to insist that “Assad must go”, and blamed the Syrian leader for 600,000 deaths whose blood in fact drips more from Erdoğan’s own hands. Erdoğan continues to push the politics of the very CIA-Gülen-NATO factions he blames, rightfully, for the coup attempt. Perhaps he is still worried about a second coup attempt. Perhaps his principle audience remains in DC. Perhaps he is lying to everybody and trying to protect his own incriminated butt. I will consider these possibilities in the following.

Though the Turkish and Russian press alike played up the landmark meeting before, during and after the event, in fact, it was a great disappointment, especially to Putin, who grimaced as Erdoğan called him friend, and seemed to make clear his impatience with the same ol’ same ol’ offered up by the often-duplicitous Turkish President.

From Hurriyet to Sputnik, promise in several economic fields was touted as heralding a new age in Turko-Russian relations. The Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant that Russia will build  in Turkey, and the TurkStream natural gasline project, head up the list of promising prospects now once again being reconsidered. But what was not talked about — pre-empted by Erdoğan’s Tass interview — was more important: will Turkey cease its support for terrorism in Syria?

Of course, indications that a new tide were truly sweeping through Ankara would come not in so many words, but only with remarks granting support to the democratically-elected president Erdoğan has tried so long to overthrow in Syria. Funny how he forgot that last month. Well, not even kind words were forthcoming, nor were any substantial alterations in Turkish policy made manifest. Turkey just wants Russia to buy tomatoes and send its tourists back.

John Helmer at Dances with Bears was among the few realistic observers of the Russian meeting. (His article was published also at RussiaInsider.) Helmer’ lucid interpretation was accompanied by an analysis of Putin’s body language, eloquent as always. Federico Pieraccini, in Strategic Culture, offered a similar perspective.

A few pseudo-shifts may be considered. Erdoğan now insists he is not interested in the disintegration of Syria. This may be for entirely strategic reasons. Once, perhaps, he hoped to set up Kurdish and Turkman mini-states as a buffer zone in northern Syria. However, the US is now overtly backing the Syrian Kurdish YPG (within the umbrella of the SDF), who are closely associated with Turkey’s PKK, and so now Turkey has no chance of establishing its own “buffer zone” in Syrian territory.

However, “Syria’s unity cannot be kept with Assad,” Erdoğan raved in the interview, arguing the CIA position even more ardently than Victoria Nuland’s, excuse me, John Kerry’s State Department.

Helmer quotes a Russian observer of the talks:

“Erdoğan used the Tass interview to take off the table what the Russians had been hoping might be a breakthrough,” a Moscow observer noted. “He used Tass to out-manoeuvre Putin – it’s clear from the St. Petersburg record Putin wasn’t happy. Putin is the big loser from the Turkish hype – and the Russian propaganda organs, especially the English language ones, are also covering up.”

He continues:

“Greek and Cypriot observers comment that Erdoğan performed predictably and that nothing new has been gained or learned from his visit to Russia. “His real audience was in Washington, Berlin, and Brussels. Who can be fooled by this? ” An influential Cypriot figure added: “Putin allowed Erdoğan to make public Turkey’s support for the Crimean tatars. Why didn’t Putin mention that? Why didn’t Putin condemn the Turkish occupation of Cyprus?”

In fact, many of the topics we hoped would see an Erdoğan pivot were not even discussed. Syria was among the topics “taken off the table” by Erdoğan’s NATO-friendly Tass interview.

For Helmer, a long-time Dancer with Bears, “Not since his press conference in June 2013 with US President Barack Obama has Putin’s body language been as demonstratively hostile to his counterpart.”

Economic issues were the principle topics of productive conversation. Especially the Turkstream and the nuclear plant were ‘back on the table’ after the West forced Turkey to withdraw from discussions concerning these mutually beneficial projects with Russia last year.

But nothing has been signed, and even Turkish tomatoes, once a big export, are looking to suffer more. Russia has spent the last year developing import substitution strategies, including of the construction of thousands of greenhouses.

I tend to agree with Helmer’s conclusion, so different from all the congratulatory press in Turkey and Russia:

“The Russian assessment, openly reflected in Cyprus and Greece, and more discreetly in Washington, is that the Turkish coup isn’t over yet. A Russian analyst asked quizzically. “No member of the General Staff and no intelligence officer can have given President Putin reason to expect any better of Erdoğan, and the Tass interview proved it. What benefit Putin calculated he was gaining by playing along in the charade is not clear. Putin is playing for time, and if Erdoğan runs out of it, the Russian side haven’t made up their minds to be sorry.”

In an attempt to divert attention from his own long-established links with terrorism, Erdoğan’s press is now drawing links between the Gülenist FETÖ, ISIS, Assad, the PKK, and everybody he loves to hate. Of course, there are grains of truth in much of what he says, but just as plainly there are lies and dissimulations.

A CIA Fly on the Wall in St Petersburg?

Erdoğan has gutted the military, the judiciary, the intelligence agencies, the Gendarmie, the universities and other institutions of their vast Gülenist networks. Rounded up as well are many, certainly, with no ties whatsoever to Gülen, but are simply opposition figures who found themselves on the wrong side of a national hysteria whipped up by a guilt-ridden and exposed Erdoğan.

Despite the purges, fears remain stoked that a second coup attempt is in the works. Indeed, highly suspicious characters, like Hakan Fidan, head of Turkish National Intelligence (MIT), have kept their posts.

The MIT has been many times tied to terrorist production in Syria. They were probably responsible for killing US journalist Serena Shim, who was one of several who uncovered this covert support in arms. Turkish journalists, police, judges, and military officers have been prosecuted or persecuted for printing this information or acting on it. They are usually accused of ‘terrorism’ for revealing Ankara’s terror links.

As I have mentioned several times, Fidan and other high-ranking officials were caught red-handed planning a false flag in northern Syria that would justify a Turkish and NATO military intervention. A 2014 audio recording was released on Youtube, then suppressed in Turkey. This plot was developed by Fidan along with Ahmet Davutoğlu, then FM, later PM, and Feridun Hadi Sinirlioğlu, ambassador to Israel between 2002 and 2007, and then Undersecretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Davutoğlu and Siniroglu have been sidelined in the present administration, but Fidan is still at his post, inexplicably so, considering the obvious failures of the MIT preceding and during the coup attempt.

Deputy Chief of Turkish General Staff Gen. Yaşar Güler, also a participant to the notorious 2014 false flag discussions, is still at his post, as well. Supposedly he was taken prisoner by his rebellious staff at the start of the coup, so was incapacitated.

Indeed, in the 2014 false flag discussion Fidan and Güler seemed to be the prime movers of the initiative, with Davutoğlu playing devil’s advocate and arguing the international complications presented to a foreign minister. It seems evident from the talk that Erdoğan was informed of the plot’s proceedings. It also appears that John Kerry was kept abreast. The Turks did not expect any serious fall-out with the US, though Davutoğlu knew he had his diplomatic work cut out for him if they undertook the attack. It was probably called off due to the audiotape’s Youtube exposure.

Perhaps not so surprisingly in retrospect, Fidan accompanied Erdoğan to Istanbul.

Maybe this was Erdoğan’s way of saying to Putin, “I am still controlled: don’t get your hopes up. Its not me, its them.” Of course, with Erdoğan, its always “them”.

The video of their official introductory meeting for the press is as revealing as the press conference afterwards. From the start, Erdoğan detected Putin’s grim business-like incongeniality, but did not seem surprised or nonplussed, presumably since he knew the Russian’s probable reaction to his Tass interview. Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu followed Erdoğan, looking exceptionally cheery and at ease.

But MIT Master Fidan skulked after Çavuşoğlu into the room to meet the Russian leader, who was looking grim and often floorward from the start of proceedings. Putin caught Fidan with a stare from across the room.

fidan putin 1

Putin                                Çavuşoğlu                                    Fidan

Skulking like a schoolboy, nervous, scared, and fidgety, the CIA’s Fly on the Wall looked like Putin held out a Flyswatter when he held out his hand, and quickly scampered to the far side of his own ‘boss’.

The Clinton Connection

To conclude I would like to draw your attention to the last 15 minutes of this Newsbud interview with Sibel Edmonds on the long history and close ties between the Clintons, Fethullah Gülen, and their respective organizations and foundations, and the CIA, its drug-running ops, and Gülen’s CIA handler Graham Fuller.


Edmonds was an FBI translator and saw documents about the relation come across her desk. She was eventually let go by the agency and became the “most classified” or gagged woman in US history when her damning 9/11 testimony was not allowed even to be presented to Congress.

The Gülen US connections go back to the Clinton Presidency in the 1990s. The executive branch and the DOJ, exerting pressure on the FBI, oversaw the entry and green-carding of a man then considered a terrorist and subversive by secularist and still Kemalist Turkey. Now he is considered so by nearly all sides of Turkish politics, including those, like Erdoğan, with whom he was closely allied and in collaboration not so long ago (2013).

Edmonds broke the news on Gülen’s terror and drug-running operations in several articles several years ago, and has since explored the many links between this “moderate” imam, drug-runner, and terror facilitator, the CIA, and the Clintons.

In the first ten minutes of this video, Edmonds comments on the recent Wikileaks dump indicating Gülen links to the Clinton Foundation, the incentive for the discussion. She believes, perhaps over-optimistically, that further exposures from Wikileaks may bring the “crime family” down. In my opinion the evidence is already abundant, and it is abundantly clear.The bucket is overflowing. Do we need more?

The problem is that the evidence — in the emails themselves, not in the question about ‘servers’–  does not appear even in the anti-Clinton mass media. This is for obvious reasons: as concocted in the US party politics and the media divide that follows, left and right are artificial creations, with a unified power structure controlling all. If either McCain or Clinton is shown to have supported ISIS, or engineered “Benghazi”, then the other will be brought down, and with this bi-partisan corruption scandal others will be revealed, and the whole US political sweater, with the exception of Tulsi Gabbard, will be quickly unthreaded and their traitorous profiteering laid bare and naked to view.

But the threads most definitely also string their way to Ankara, as they do to Tel Aviv and other capitals of the US-NATO-Gulf State terror alliance. Erdogan’s trip to Russia bore perhaps more fruit-of-the-loom than the many trips Netanyahu has made to Moscow to test Putin and Lavrov, when he too came home having almost lost his own tee-shirt and gaining little in return. But the two leaders, Turkish and Israeli, seem oddly to share a half-defeated, thoroughly reluctant acquiescence to the convincing testimony of Russian-Iranian-Syrian “facts on the ground.” This alliance intends to remold the MIddle East in an image not made in DC.

For a refresher on the shape of that New World Order, or at least the Eurasian strategy side of it, there is no better source that one of the CIA masters of Gladio B, and Gülen’s evident and obvious handler, Graham Fuller:

fuller guide and us islam v rus and cina.png

Addendum: Here’s another revealing clip: you can practically here Erdogan gulp as Putin makes clear his support relies on Erdogan’s adherence to law and constitutionality, not one of the Turkish leaders stronger points.



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Turkish Coup Attempt Reconsidered

Second Thoughts on the Turkish Coup. 

I have second thoughts on the Turkish coup attempt. I always believed it was a half-authentic foreign-backed coup attempt, but felt it had been usurped by Erdoğan loyalists and re-engineered, “designed to fail”. The fact that it fell apart so quickly, within a few hours, was itself evidence, since the Turkish military is expert at undertaking coups. A very problematic account about Erdoğan journey from his hotel in Marmaris to the airport in Dalaman, and thereafter by plane to Istanbul also seemed ‘staged’, coming off as heroic and full of nick-of-time “gifts from God” in the original.

Indeed, we have yet to receive a coherent story about this journey, nor about the rebel attacks, or lack thereof, on his hotel, his car en route to Dalaman, or in the skies where early reports said rebel F-16s had fixed on the president’s plane but withdrew without firing. I will cover a few versions below.

Notwithstanding these issues, I now see the mechanisms and machinations of the botched coup much the way Erdoğan himself does, with Gülen, the operative of US, CIA, and NATO interests.

However, Erdoğan cannot be trusted. He has a dangerous past that cannot be so easily absolved. He is now systematically shifting blame for a disastrous foreign and domestic policy away from himself onto Gülenists and DC and Langley behind them. Yet he too has been involved in many subversive and violent foreign interventions, particularly in Syria, and often working alongside the same conspirators he has now betrayed.

This is not to say Gülenists, Fetullah Terrorist Organization (FETÖ), aren’t in this up to their eyeballs. But we need to see how the blame game serves to divert attention from the accuser’s own culpability. In the same fashion, some parts of the US establishment are standing behind Trump and flinging mud-that-sticks towards Hillary Clinton, hoping her dramatic and deserved downfall will be contained and not pull them down too.

Erdoğan’s accusations seem correct, as far as they go, but they present a similarly limited picture that neglects crucial larger contexts.

Somewhat surprisingly, the official narrative neglects to discuss in depth the most evident geo-political context, Erdoğan apology to Russia for the downing of their jet over Syria, and more generally his “Asian pivot”, which has seen renewed positive relations also with Iran. Condemnation of the US, NATO, and Gülenist role grabs larger headlines. See articles here, here, and here.

Unsurprisingly, the official narrative neglects the larger, stickier contexts of the “ISIS wars”, which still implicate Turkey as deeply as they do Turkey’s new antagonists, the CIA, NATO, and their Arab allies.

It now appears that the incompetence and confusion in the coup attempt, as well as the viciousness with which the rebellion was carried out in places — as well as equally vicious reprisals were taken in others — that the plot was indeed lurking, exposed, and rushed into action. Now Turkish news reports the attempt was pushed up six hours.

Perhaps Erdoğan anticipated that the precipitating event would be his Russian rapprochement, and triggered the event appropriately when his whereabouts were ‘on the move.’ Among the other glaring holes in the official story is why the MIT, Turkish National Intelligence, was supposedly out of the loop.

Skulking Guilty Suspects

Holes remain in the official story, but evidence now emerging suggests, first, this was a plot developed by the CIA and its large Gülenist network in Turkey, and, second, that it was provoked to hasty and ineffective action by an intelligence breach. Much of the evidence remains circumstantial and contextual, but these indications are plentiful and substantial.

Certainly, Gülen’s ties to the CIA are abundantly proven by a large number of in-depth studies, as I said last time. One can follow them further to the Clinton Foundation and beyond.

The US intel connection was recently reaffirmed by the flurry of essays and op-eds in support of Gülen’s upstanding character that were written in US papers by CIA operatives and “diplomats” of known duplicitous character, such as Eric Edelman and Graham Fuller. (These same signed off on Gülen’s “Green Card” application almost two decades ago. Nice to have such sponsors.)

The coup attempt seems also to have been done with NATO approval, and probably active oversight and involvement.

In fact, the Turkish divisions most implicated in the coup attempt were part of NATO Rapid Deployable Corps. General Joseph Votel, the U.S. NATO commander for Europe was named in Turkish press allegations. He indeed implicated himself when he said “Some of our ally generals and people have been arrested.”

It should be remembered that the most end-times apocalyptic of Pentagon brass, General Breedlove, was until very recently the head of US NATO forces in Europe. Recent email leaks (more likely from Russia than the Clinton or DNC leaks) show Breedlove conspiring to push Obama into war over the Ukraine in 2013.) His successor, General Votel, was the same fingered by the Turkish half-official rumor mill as involved in the plot.

Perhaps the coup’s paymaster was a retired US general, as Yeni Safak alleged. General John Campbell worked under General Petraeus in Afghanistan. Petraeus later went on to head up the CIA and reveal state secrets to his girlfriend/biographer. He’s a friend of Hillary.

Another US “scholar/agent” Henri J. Barkey, formerly CIA and the currently Director of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, has also been named in the plot.

Sibel Edmonds at Newsbud has identified General Campbell as the likely “senior military source” for a false lead disseminated by MSNBC and Stratfor at the start of the coup. This reported that Erdoğan had applied for asylum in Germany. It was contrary to fact and clearly designed to deflate hopes of the loyalists.


Most Turkish allegations have not been proven with documents in the public domain, but they certainly rest on substantial evidence beyond the contextual and circumstantial evidence available to the public. The DOJ is now examining documents — actually for the umpteenth time — evincing Gülen’s subversive work in Turkey.

It also seems clear enough that the coup attempt hinged on Incirlik air base, the principle US and NATO fortress in Turkey. This is where the US stores 90 nukes we are often reminded. During the coup, aerial refueling reportedly was provided from this air base for the rebellious forces, and afterwards much of its staff was arrested. A full third of Turkish generals were detained. Incirlik base is now surrounded by 7000 Turkish police, since the police are more loyal to Erdoğan than the armed forces.

Local businesses, we hear, are hurting for the lack of US customers, even though the US withdrew most of its families from Incirlik as early as March. That is when the US press first started floating stories about “dissension” in the military ranks and the possibilities a coup would be attempted.

Now the US says it knew neither hide nor hair of any such plot even though the coup itself seemed to have been helped along, from the outset, by Western media outlets, and well-placed disinformation, clearly designed to undermine resistance to the coup.

The lethal combination of NATO and the CIA brings to mind a context of terror production of the first order: their collaborative efforts with Gladio and what has been called Gladio B. Operation Gladio illegally and unconstitutionally armed and financed post-WW2 ‘stay-behind’ units in Europe, especially in Italy and Belgium. These consisted of right-wing militants who carried out terrorist false flags, which were then blamed on the left. The Bologna train station bombing and the Milan Piazza Fontana massacre were their handiwork.

Gladio “B” or Gladio 2.0, its post ColdWar successor from the 1990s, used Western and Middle-East allied intelligence agencies to oversee the rise of takfiri terrorist groups in Central Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. Gladio and Gladio B have the same objective: to pursue US global hegemony, or more specifically, to isolate, undermine, penetrate and finally control Russia, China and their allies, and thereby put an end to the threat that cooperative Eurasian alliances will put an end to the Anglo-American maritime, aerial, and financial empire.

Where This Sits in the Wars of Terror and Wars of Drugs

NATO and the CIA are also implicated in the Afghan opium trade, and Incirlik is reported to be a major transfer point for this lucrative, officially-run market in drugs made illegal by the same powers.

This toxic mix, NATO and the CIA, has overseen a tenfold increase in opium production in the original land of the mujahaddin, Gladio B’s first progeny. Since the teetotaling Taliban were ousted, Afghanistan has been reduced to a classic colonial mono-culture, and a purchaser of Western arms. This is an old story. The Opium Wars of the 1830s remind us that the potent poppy has served Western imperial interests for decades and centuries.

According to several reports, Afghan opium is trucked in great quantities through Incirlik and provides massive off-the-books profits to the CIA and its chosen Middle Eastern representatives. In this article, “Rusticus” places Incirlik base very nicely into the global drug trade contexts.

The broader historical contexts again show the culprits long have been at it: The US has been running drugs on a large scale with its own military operations and funded para-military operations overseas since Vietnam and Iran Contra. There is nothing new in these suggestions.

These contexts buttress Erdoğan’s story about who is behind the coup attempt, — but also implicate the president for his past collaboration with these very crime circuits, — so the Turkish press obviously does not ‘go there.’

More pressing and probable a context for the coup attempt than a turf war within the War OF Drugs, remains the Western-sponsored War OF Terror, and in particular, what is signified for Syria by Erdoğan’s recent “Russian pivot” or perhaps “Asian pivot”, if we may mean the opposite of Obama’s Asian pivot. This, of course, struck NATO and the CIA as rank betrayal.

Indeed, Erdoğan’s probably well-deserved paranoia has perhaps contributed to his rampant nepotism As a result, his family seems to have profiteered nicely in the Turkey-ISIS oil-for-terror trade that was decimated by Russian airstrikes. This gives a personal spin to Erdoğan’s ‘Eurasian pivot.’

However, the “pivot” is nowhere near 180 degrees, so far. It may be a “feint.” Turkish news continues to press the NATO line on Syria and Assad, though perhaps with less regularity. As here, there is a basic black-out of information about Syria.

However, everyone recognizes that the US alliance with the Kurds has forced nationalist Ankara and Damascus to come to some agreement. But no opposition in Turkey is willing to go as far, say, as Kelli Ward goes in attacking John McCain for his ISIS patronage, and point out what Zaman, Gülen’s old newspaper, used to print of the Russian revelations about Erdoğan’s terror trade.

The Turkish press, now loyal, loyaler, and loyalest, to il presidentissimo, do not dwell so much on the novelties of Erdoğan’s outreach to Russia and Iran, but rather on their outrage at the US which harbors the obviously guilty Gülen. Now, the beleaguered imam has admitted some of his enthusiastic followers may have joined the coup without his permission.

The US is sending a Department of Justice delegation to investigate Gülen, fresh off their whitewash of Hillary Clinton, a steady recipient of big checks from Gülen. This will be the start of an endless cycle of bureaucratic run-around that will last to the time Gülen kicks it.

I applaud Turkey, and especially the truly democratic public will to resist this foreign subterfuge. But Erdoğan’s past cannot be so easily erased, and if his present actions display an operative rational sense of true national self-interest — in the interest of his early ideal of “zero problems with neighbors” — then an account still must be made of his long involvement with the very characters he now condemns.

The Coup’s World Audience

The foreign-based guilty parties are further confirmed by the widespread disappointment sighed from one side of the NATO alliance to the other in the wake of the coup’s failure. The coup’s failure upset the ‘right’ people, and it pleased those who it pleases me to see pleased, those who are on record as resisting Western imperial reach.

The range of reaction around the world also suggests the coup was precipitated by Erdoğan’s apology to Russia and his Asian pivot.

The Western press, almost uniformly, condemns Erdoğan regularly and many outlets actually entertained the “conspiracy theory”, popular among the Turkish left and the Kurds, that il presidentissimo “staged” the event as bad theater. He certainly was tipped off and pre-empted it, and it is likely he triggered it, but he did not ‘stage’ it.

As mentioned, CIA operative op-eds in the US press vouched for Gülen’s good behavior and protested his innocence while sometimes implying Erdoğan deserved more than he got. These eloquent pens included those of former CIA Vice Chair Graham Fuller, and former ambassador to Ankara Eric Edelman. Ralph Peters ditto.

The coup’s failure greatly upset the House of Sa’ud. A more moderate response came from Israel, with whom Erdoğan has been trying to mend fences as well. As similarly regards the Russian interventions in Syria, the Israeli public stance is somewhat muted. In this case, it comes off much like the patronizing attitude proffered in the shamed and embarrassed US military-industrial spheres: this arose from internal dissension within the military and it makes Turkey look like a Banana Republic. In Israel, as hier bei uns, ome sources consider their first “conspiracy theory” ever, that Erdogan ‘staged it.’

Another former Middle Eastern ally of NATO, Former Emir of Qatar, Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, is now turning on the Saudis, and supports Erdoğan’s victory. Both in theory still support the Syrian opposition.

On the other hand, Egypt’s General Sisi, who overthrew Erdoğan’s Muslim Bro’ Muhammad Morsi, was sorry the military failed. He too has been attributed with CIA-sponsorship. This sympathetic voice must have pleased the West, but Sisi is playing a very thin line too, as the CIA-sponsored ISIS is loose next door in Libya and the CIA has a history of dumping those it once sponsored.

By the same token, Russia and Iran clearly were behind Erdoğan from the start. In recent days Kazakh and Hungarian praise for him made clear the growing eastern consensus. The Kazakh president paid a supportive visit to Turkey. He has pledged his own investigation into the Fetullah Terrorist Organization (FETÖ) network of schools, which are widespread in Central Asia and Africa as well as through the US and in the Middle East. Hungary has followed suit, with a pledge to investigate the organization’s influence.

Of course, the most notable of media notices does not concern its sorry attempts to report the news, but its equally sorry attempts to intervene, clearly on the side of the rebels. Stratfor, often considered a CIA info/disinfo site, but with strong Israeli links as well, carried the faux report that Erdoğan had sought asylum in Turkey. This was carried also on MSNBC and NBC.

Yeni Safak, an Erdogan mouthpiece that gives him plausible deniability, rightly criticized the Stratfor reporting. It was not just the disinformation about a non-existent asylum request which evoked the ire of the Turks, but that Stratfor was publishing continual radar image updates of the location of Erdoğan’s plane. Yeni Safak charged:

“This is not news-gathering, it is directing. By giving the location of the president’s flight they were trying to give directions to coup planes”

The US response was clumsy from the start, and as ill-prepared to handle Turkey’s allegations, or even contemplate that it would fail or DC would stand accused. State Department spokesperson Mark Toner made a fool of himself once again in the attempt to explain Gülen’s continued protected presence. A few days later he broke into hysterics after opening the press conference with a platitude about “this exercise in transparency and democracy”. Right on cue, the US press corps laughed along with him, one piping up “you mean duplicity and obfuscation? hahahaha!”

The Department of State is still beholden to Hillary Clinton’s war-mongering heritage. Indeed, State seems more under the control of Victoria Nuland than John Kerry. If Obama said most with his silence, and State seems unable to mask its disappointment, the Pentagon once again comes across somewhat more adult and reasonable in its “foreign policy”.

General Dunford, with apologetic demeanor, made his way first to Ankara, and contritely affirmed US support for democratic institutions in Turkey, and its legitimately-elected government. Nevertheless, the US continues to resist ever more pressing demands to extradite Fethullah Gülen. Following Erdoğan’s trip to Moscow next week, Kerry will arrive in Ankara on August 24.

Several other succeeding events suggest that the Russian rapprochement was the event that provoked the rebellion, and thus points the finger towards, perhaps we should say, the neo-cons.Erdoğan had already promised to charge the murderer of a Russian fighter shot down over Syria. The two pilots who shot down the Russian jet were arrested as well. At the time, some hypothesized that Erdoğan had lost control of the military, and this was done either without his knowledge or against his consent, in order to provoke a larger war.

Perhaps most importantly, Erdoğan called Hassan Rouhani just after the coup, on Monday. “Today, we are determined more than ever before to contribute to the solution of regional problems hand in hand with Iran and Russia and in cooperation with them,” the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) quoted Erdoğan as saying.

Erdoğan’s Asian Pivot : Trust in Allah but Tie That Horse

The CIA may have just lost a major battle, and it is a good thing their Gülenist ranks in Turkey have been decimated. I also am relieved to see that Erdoğan has made several new moves towards the Russian-Syrian-Iranian camp since the coup attempt, as well as away from the US and NATO. All the worst elements of our globe are morose and in different stages of grief about the failure of the coup, so that grants me some Schadenfreude.

Still, I would like to hold out a red flag of warning, though I am relieved the US, or rather the CIA, did not achieve its coup.

The proof is in the pudding. We await the main indication that Erdoğan is now serious about turning against the NATO-led jihadi wars against Assad and the Russian ‘sphere of influence’. This will come when he takes serious action against the takfiri terrorists that he, his family, and his administration, have long supported. We should not be satisfied till a full account of the enormously lucrative arms-for-ISIS oil trade is made. The Erdoğan family is heavily implicated in profiteering, gaining massive profits in the ‘terror trade’.

Also alarming is the extent to which it is likely that Erdoğan’s reprisals are striking beyond the Gülenist network. To be sure, the hidden Hizmet membership, the FETO, certainly does run through Turkish (and Central Asian, and African) academics, politics, and military. It is not clear to me how ‘dedicated’ its members are for the Gülen schools are ‘innocent’ enough on their outer face. Though realistically true operatives could be in the thousands, Erdoğan is in a paranoiac mood. This, of course, is exacerbated by the fact that someone really is trying to get him.

But he is also in an opportunistic frame of mind, and is now cutting wide swaths for his autocratic impulses. Kemalists and leftists — even “Eurasianists” — are also in danger of his slashing scythe, as are religious minorities, especially the Alevis, and as always, the Kurds. Even though the HDP also condemned the coup, Erdoğan has lumped them with the Kurdish PKK and YPG, who also are infiltrated and controlled by foreign intelligence and military operatives, Erdoğan insists, not completely unrealistically.

Following the coup Erdoğan immediately lumped the Gezi Park protestors with the Gülenists. Engrained AKP hatred for Alevis provoked attacks on their neighborhoods. His thugs lynched innocent soldiers who may have been their own neighbors’ kid, “on an exercise” as many were told. These same thugs had long stormed media outlets that bucked the AKP line — not just Zaman, Gülen’s mouthpiece, but Hurriyet, one of the oldest and respected of Turkish dailies. The political opposition was muzzled. The Kurds and the HDP were vilified. Constitutional “reform” will be shoved through with nationalist hysteria and national paranoia driving the way to a legalized dictatorship.

His control of the Turkish mass media is almost complete. Wikileaks dumped 300,000 AKP emails, but this has been blocked by the man who was fortunate FaceTime was running a few weeks back. The Wikileaks dump is huge and has barely been investigated, but no doubt is full of damning material — just do a search for “Alevi”. This is one of the religious groups the AKP loves to hate, in particular because many are associated with radical leftist politics.

It is a good sign, but perhaps a temporary one, that Erdoğan has buried the hatchet with some of the opposition parties, — or cowed them perhaps — but his attitudes have not changed towards the Kurds. Nor have they verifiably changed towards Assad, despite reports that the US-Kurdish alliance frightened Erdoğan into ‘secret negotiations’ with the Syrian “despot.” For Erdoğan, the enemy of his enemy may still be his enemy.

Remaining Questions about the Coup Attempt

The most confusing, and suspicious part of the official story, concerns Erdoğan’s narrow, or not-so-narrow, escape from his hotel in Marmaris, his hour-long drive to Dalaman, the nearest airport, and his jet’s flight to Istanbul. His arrival there effectively put an end to the coup.

A half-dozen reports about this trip have hit the media. The US put out the false lead that Erdoğan sought, and was refused, asylum in Germany. The official story looks shifty too. In fact, it has shifted several times.

The first story was that Erdoğan’s jets were locked on by the radar of rebel F-16s, who inexplicably did not fire. Nor did this story explain why the two F-16s accompanying Erdoğan did not engage the rebels if the President’s plane had been locked on by hostile radar. Later we heard that the President avoided rebel air patrols by disguising its radio signal as a commercial jet.

Now, we hear that the rebel plane tasked with the Presidential take-down ran out of fuel and had to return to base — and get this: this occurred just as the rebel jet came within missile range of Erdoğan’s plane. Dang! that was a close call.

Well, I guess anything is possible. By the same token we know Erdoğan does media as well as the CIA. The official story still has holes in it, and some others have been only half-covered up, in a fairly obvious way.

Very suspiciously, advance word of the coup did not come from Hakan Fidan, the head of Turkish National Intelligence (MIT.) The MIT reportedly informed a top general, who was then taken into custody by the rebels, but not the president. Fidan’s MIT evidently is beholden to the CIA, if not necessarily by way of Gülenists, and it has long been arming the CIAliphate, ISIS in Iraq and Syria, as well as Jubhat al-Nusra.

Because of its inability to anticipate the coup attempt, Erdoğan pulled Fidan into the office in the days afterwards for a private meeting. The press was permitted a day or two’s dressing down for Fidan’s negligent behaviour during the coup and shoddy work beforehand. Things have quieted down since that time, but Erdogan is making public his intent to centralize intelligence services under his own command.

Fidan, along with other top AKP ministers were actually audio-taped planning a bloody false flag in Syria in order to draw NATO into a bigger fight. Erdoğan’s plausible deniability in that instance is hardly credible since his family has been directing and profiting from the oil-for-terror trade. In this they conspire with the Israel and US dominated KRG, the Kurdish Regional Government, in Erbil, Iraq, governed by the House of Barzani.

Fidan has been directly implicated in planning Syrian false flags, in funneling weapons to al-Nusra and ISIS jihadists. He distinguished himself diplomatically last year by remarking that the world should just accept ISIS as a fait accompli in Syria and get on with dealing them as a legitimate state.

Laforgue, the French cement company that sits Clinton chum John Podesta on their director’s board and once sat Hillary, already have been doing just that, and making a good dime at it too. The Clinton Foundation still receives regular remittances, or donations, from Laforgue.

This fits well with the Langley narrative. Fidan was not alone in his assessment of the ‘modernity’ of the takfiri terrorist “state”. (Indeed, there is nothing there a medieval or early modern Muslim would recognize as Islam.) This attitude was the PR spin encouraged by the “think tanks” in DC who, Hillary Clinton famously said, “tell me what to do”. Indeed, the CFR was sold on the post-modern caliphate when ISIS showed off its sophisticated finance and bureaucratic skills. For humor and illustrative purposes only, here is Hillary at the CFR. Rarely does she bow so low, except before AIPAC and Goldman-Sachs, and…:


Westerners were especially wowed by ISIS command of the sine qua non of 21st century politics: media. When they demonstrated Hollywood worthy media skills by courtesy of Rita Katz, Jewish mouthpiece for terrorists everywhere, CFR and Brookings Institute “scholars” practically vowed obeisance, and updated ‘dirty terrorist in a cave’ to ‘gangster dressed in black talking from a minbar’.

The CIA and the US had deeply penetrated the Turkish military long before Gladio B, and most completely with the 1980 coup, which most now acknowledge as orchestrated by the US. Certainly some of the old Kemalists and nationalists with deeper loyalties to NATO and DC remain a threat to Erdoğan’s autocracy and Turkey’s democracy. These oddly have overlapped in their interests, for the time being.

Erdoğan has already begun to restructure the gutted military as well as the intelligence agencies. As with everything, more centralization under Erdoğan loyalists is the game plan. He now will sideline the MIT and Fidan, who remain under deep suspicion, and other agencies under an centralized umbrella agency.

Though we may applaud his Russian pivot and be thankful the coup failed, protesting Erdoğan’s innocence is absurd and dangerous. At the least, he is guilty by logic of “buck stops here”. Russian accusations in December and other journalistic investigations indicating that the family of Erdoğan and other “Turkish elites” were massively profiting from the massive oil trade with ISIS. Abundant evidence had emerged before that time that Turkish MIT and army were principle pipelines for arms and fighters, and that this was a terror-friendly policy pursued by all the US allies and puppets in the region.


Cui bono, ‘who benefits’, like Occam’s razor, is a rule of thumb, not a rule of Nature. While Erdoğan clearly benefits most from the coup attempt, which he called a “gift from God”, this could not have been ‘staged’ as a ‘false flag’ in the conventional sense. A few mind-controlled or mindless patsies is all that is needed for that, but not the thousands of military officers who participated in this coup.

So, let us assume Erdoğan has indeed provoked the ire of the CIA by his own “Asian pivot”. Let us assume he is correct that the NATO-US-Gülenistas were behind a coup attempt that one way or the other came to his attention and forcing the rebels to realize it was ‘now or never.’ Let us assume the remaining confusion, obvious disinformation, and complete variance of stories concerning Erdoğan’s Marmaris-Istanbul journey may be resolved without major surprises.

Let us assume further that Erdoğan will now slowly, issue by issue, begin aligning with the Russian bloc and against the takfiri terrorists he long has supported. We can not expect him to pull out all the stops at once, or the CIA and NATO will pull out all theirs.

How far, and how fast, can this go? If Turkey adheres to the promises entertained here, this could prove to be the second major shift of WW3 in the last year. The Russian intervention in Syria, last September, was the crucial first step and pivoted prospects for the globe in a positive direction.

Erdoğan is off to Moscow next week. The range of subjects under discussion will be immense: the re-opening of economic relations, the coup and its aftermath, and the situation in Syria each are worthy of substantial attention.

More steps will certainly be discussed next week in the Moscow meeting between Erdoğan and Putin. Certainly the latter knows he must see further shifts towards Moscow’s way of looking at the world, rather than trust his defeated former rival. It may be easier for Erdoğan to turn his back on ISIS now that their oil production has been decimated by Russian strikes.

But we should remember his reversals, and we should remember that Turkey and the US have long seen neither eye to eye nor at cross-purposes when it comes to

What counts now are his actions, especially towards his neighbors, especially towards Syria, but quite as imperatively towards his neighbors in Turkey, those that do not profess the bigoted version of Islam he does, even those that profess that idiocy of atheistic scientism.

He must again establish “zero problems with neighbors”. His new (or renewed, rather) outreach to Iran is welcome.

This means Turkey must do what it can to qualm Azerbaijani agitation over Nagorno-Karabakh. This is partially provoked by the Israelis, whose influence is deep in Azerbaijan.

Another positive gesture in this direction is the recent pull-back of Turkish forces from Bashiqa, Iraq, where they shared a friendly border with ISIS and the Peshmerga. This always rankled Baghdad for obvious reasons, who also never asked for an increase in US troops which were just announced. However, even Erdoğan’s withdrawal may have been entirely for tactical reason following upon the coup attempt.

Further down the line, perhaps, he must withdraw support for the corrupt Barzani regime in Erbil that has usurped authority and revenue from Baghdad. Barzani has been entirely too friendly with Ankara, often abandoning his fellow Kurds elsewhere. The KRG and Peshmerga stand several times accused of ethnic cleansing of Arab populations. As VT, and “Raqqa’s Rockefellers” show, Kurdish collaboration (Iraqi Kurdish Regional Government: KRG) is necessary for ISIS oil to flow to Turkey, and Israel is on the receiving end of this cut-throat energy bargain basement sale. According to Sibel Edmonds, Israel long has maintained secret bases in Iraqi Kurdistan along the Iranian border. Turkey resisted Israeli presence, but has long been complicit in the mutually profitable trade in terror: Barzani is exactly the kind of Kurdish neighbor that Ankara and Tel Aviv long have sought, both for economic and geo-political reasons.

Israel is the elephant in the room. Erdoğan’s highly public dispute with Israel never provoked much distance between the country’s solidly entwined military cultures, and now Erdoğan is stitching relations. Of course, Turkey worked together with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and NATO’s other Middle East allies, to nurture ISIS, Jubhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, and other takfiri terrorist groups into existence. Obviously, he must reverse course 180 degrees.

Erdoğan has made overtures to Israel in the last weeks, not needing to provoke the one political leader more paranoiac than Erdoğan himself. Netanyahu must not be provoked directly, the Russians example seem to instruct Erdoğan, but its puppets must be carved up.

The renewal of the Turkstream will doubtless be among the topics of conversation in Moscow. This Gazprom project always made vastly more sense for Turkey — and for all of Europe — than the Western alternatives. These intended, against all geo-political reason, to stymie the flow of Russian energy westwards at the Ukraine, and the Iranian at the Persian Gulf. This was why a deal was signed with Iran. The US never had any intention of letting Iranian gas get online to the Mediterranean because the a pipeline originating in Qatari fields and traversing Syria was intended to pre-empt it. This required the fall of Assad, who preferred – as good economic sense would have it — the flow of Iranian gas and oil through his nation, and — if cooperative sense would prevail over competitive insanity — that of the Persian Gulf states too.

Whats good for Turkey is good for Europe, and it is good especially for Greece, the present-day “sick man of Europe” (starved and poisoned more like). The Turkstream, which links through Greece and promises vast advantages to both, is the perfect example of the way Eurasia may profitably unite. The Anglo-American maritime empire has so far shown no sign it wants to cooperate with the SGO, BRICS, and other Eastern and Southern alliances, but it certainly could and should.

Erdoğan must overcome internal enmity and unite with the many sympathetic forces in Greece to push through a Eurasian project. Merkel’s Germany is a good example of what happens when you do DC’s bidding over a thousand and one national interests.

Erdoğan says he is cleaning Turkey of the foreign elements (though he funds foreign terrorists in Syria). He must also truly unite Turks, especially the classes most persecuted by AKP thugs, like the Alevis and Kurds. Iran should demand the protection of these ‘Alid relations, the Turkish Alevis (who are not properly Shi’a, however). He needs to open up some communication with the Turkish Kurds, on whom he declared all-out war last year. He still accuses the HDP, the Kurdish party whose 11% showing at last years election seem to have provoked a genocidal ire, as well as the blatant manipulation of electoral politics and mayhem to engineer a second election where the AKP got their bloody majority. Under a rain of bombs, not many Kurds made it to the polls that day.

On the day of the coup, AKP thugs attacked Alevi neighborhoods. Terror attacks on Alevis is a regular event during Ramadan, since many are secular and Marxist and do not fast. But many Alevis are highly religious, but their highly musical gatherings, where men and women mix and dine together, are abhorrent to bigots among the Sunnis. Many in the AKP are such. Ankara mayor among them.

Actually, the Ottomans original religious roots were closer to the present day Alevis – highly syncretistic, creative, and inclusive — than to the often bigoted, Salafist and Muslim Brotherhood modernity of AKP’s “Islam.” This is a “political Islam” in the purely political sense.

Now Erdoğan’s vehemently “Islamist” right wing is allied with the nationalist and Grey Wolf right wing in attacks against both Kurds and Alevis.

It serves Erdoğan to assimilate the Kurds to the PKK, which he considers a terrorist organization because then he does not have to talk to anyone. In the same way Alevis are associated with the DHKP-C (Devrimci Halk Kurtuluş Partisi-Cephesi), a Marxist-Leninist party whose military front has carried out terror attacks and attempted an assassination of Erdoğan in 2008. This is the offspring of Dev Sol, the Revolutionary Left, or Devrimci Sol, and a yet longer leftist heritage going back to the 1960s and 70s.

This Alevi-associated left-wing party stands now accused of ‘foreign’ infiltration and manipulation, just like the HDP. Perhaps there is a grain of truth to this, — it would be par for the Gladio course. Dev Sol is the Turkish equivalent of Italy’s Brigate Rosse, the Red Brigades. Gladio operatives, Italian fascists and Masonic P2 agents, undertook horrific terror attacks in the BR name: Piazza Fontana in Milano and at the Bologna train station. The true leftist group, we now know, was infiltrated to the highest levels by Gladio operatives: these were those that murdered Italian PM Aldo Moro. Thus, the history is there for these accusations to not be taken as poppycock. But again a warning must be raised.

Erdoğan is conveniently unwilling to meet any representative of these oppressed groups, and condemns all their assemblies as conspiratorial. In the claustrophic world of this entrenched essentialism and identity politics, its the same ol’ same ol’. Sometimes its hard to tell an “Islamist” from a “Grey Wolf.”

Erdoğan, like all representatives of dominant and overwhelming power structures faced off against weaker oppressed peoples, must come more than halfway to a genuine outreach. By the same token, it would be a wonderful opportunity for the HDP or other parties to search their own ranks for Gülenists, NATOnuts, or Mossad provocateurs, for it would be naive to pretend they are not there.

If its time to clean house, the neighborhood should do it together. Lets join in.



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Designed to Fail: Turkey’s Clumsy Coup Strengthens Erdoğan’s Autocracy

It is not hard to see that “Erdoğan” answers quickly the question, “cui bono?”, who benefits, from the bloody and botched attempt at a coup d’etat by the most experienced and competent military golpisti in the world. Erdoğan himself called it “a gift from God.” Echoing Bibi Netanyahu’s 9/11 comment, “This will help us,” with a similarly accurate assessment, Erdoğan promptly arrested thousands of military in connection with the coup and for good measure deposed thousands of judges. It was as if the lists were already in hand. The death penalty will be reinstated if dutiful PM Yildirim gets his way.

This was a coup designed to fail, and the top military officials involved were obviously set up for slaughter. It need not have been engineered and executed by Erdoğan. But it was not engineered by the Turkish army. The Turkish army has never failed a coup attempt in its existence. It is a master at this art, performing the last one, against Erdoğan’s predecessors of the Refah (Islamic Well-being Party) without bloodshed.

Times have changed. This was not the first horrific massacre in Turkey in recent months; the string goes back to an ISIS suicide attack last year at a Kurdish relief agency in Suruç and the twin bombing of a leftist Turk and pro-Kurdish demonstration in Ankara. It was easy to guess Erdoğan’s hand behind these attacks. Both were attributed to ISIS, which indeed they were, but Erdoğan is the closest of ISIS bosses, and there too, Erdoğan got “a gift from God”, the smiting of his enemies.

However, it appeared that the most recent ISIS terrorist attack at Istanbul’s Ataturk airport followed and perhaps was a response to a radical shift in Turkish policy vis-a-vis the combatants of WW3. Erdoğan broke the hearts of the CIA and ISIS at once when he issued an apology to Russia for downing its jet, began to re-entertain the Turkstream project with Gazprom, and entered into supposedly ‘secret’ negotiations with Assad. He even offered Russia some space at Incirlik air base, right next to where the US and NATO keeps some 90-odd nuclear weapons, just because he knew the Russians had no need nor interest in parking their jets at the base.

This is not entirely to dismiss the possibility that we have reached the inevitable stage when proxies and puppets are abandoned by the Western elites, and ISIS and al-Nusra, no longer pampered, strike back at their masters. I thought this might be the case after the Istanbul Ataturk Airport attack. One could also say the same about Turkish military-industrial interests hurt by the prospects of a declining ISIS ratline and pipeline. Perhaps they too have ‘struck back’ at their former bosses.

However, following this botched and bloody coup, with its one clear victor, I believe it likely Erdoğan has not changed his spots in the slightest and is primarily culpable for this tragic day in Turkish history. The principle quandary is to what degree he was involved.

Kevin Barrett, among others, subscribes to the thesis that this was a “let it happen on purpose” event, whereby Erdoğan was kept abreast of the plot by his own intelligence services, and let it proceed in order to snare its perpetrators. Clearly, he had been drawing up lists for a while since several thousand other opponents, mostly judges, were also swept up in the aftermath as subversive elements. Though I usually concur with Barrett’s analyses, especially of false flags, an area in which he is an expert, I disagree entirely with the exonerating light in which Barrett paints Erdoğan.

As to the instigator, many Erdoğan opponents in Turkey now blame the wily master himself and call the event “staged.” Many others, including Erdoğan only a few minutes after the coup began, blame Fethullah Gülen. This is the Pennsylvania based imam whose long alliance with Erdoğan was roughly and rudely broken in 2013 when Erdoğan got all nasty against Israel.

It is widely known in Turkey that Gülen is a CIA asset. (Perhaps not so widely known, he is a major Clinton funder, while the spirit of his “mission” is much like that of George Soros.) For US readers, the interviews of Sibel Edmonds and Chapter 10 from William Engdahl’s Lost Hegemon fill in the blanks sufficiently to establish this charge in superabundance. Because of these well-known connections, a few Turkish officials broached the “US did it” line. Erdoğan neatly skirted this direct charge with his “Turkey must not be run from Pennsylvania”. The requests for extradition have not yet been made formal, and anyway, such a process could be drawn out endlessly.

As so many times going back to the start of US war on Iraq 2.0, the ‘Endless War’, at which time Erdoğan denied the use of Incirlik air base to the US campaign (oh so naughty and independent!), there have been countless instances of seemingly fierce loggerheads between the so-called Islamist capo and US leadership. Lost on the US public is the fact that Erdoğan’s fervent and pious pursuit of neo-liberal economics in Turkey — disguised by token efforts at Islamic banking — endear him to the US elites that really count.

As usual, lots of bark between NATO allies is accompanied by little bite. Turkey, the US, and Israel love to fight and make up. Erdoğan plays this game better than Kerry or Netanyahu. Nevertheless they each make trips and promises to Moscow that they inevitably intend to reverse if at all possible. These spats among crime organizations have historically been much ado about nothing. However, it is true that Russia’s success in Syria – and perhaps Brexit — have turned several tables on the Western alliance’s plans of global conquest, and now desperation reigns among the conspiring nations, their internal factions, their proxies and their puppets.

This is the larger global context in which the false flag coup event must be considered. Let us explore briefly the range of interpretation given by officials and the press about this oddly-incompetent Turkish putsch in light of recent apparent reversals in official Turkish policy.

A Plausible Range of Interpretations:

The official Turkish line fingering Gülen and even the US behind him does not necessarily emphasize the fact that the attack followed Erdoğan’s public apology to Russia and his initial rapprochement to the Syrian war opponents. (Perhaps the AKP thugs, mostly indistinguishable from Grey Wolf thugs, are still too hateful for that piece of news.) Nevertheless this is the interpretation offered by many sympathizers of Russian intervention into the ISIS wars and by Russia supporters around the world.

Andrew Korybko, another writer who, like Barrett, I concord with an overwhelming percentage of the time, believes the coup attempt probably was just such a reprisal for the Russian rapprochement. I am dubious, not that such a motive would be considered justified at CIA Central in Langley, VA, or that the US has the means, but rather because the event so obviously favored Erdoğan. It did not seem to endanger him in the least.

Among the most suspicious elements of the hectic day’s reports is that rebel F-16s had Erdoğan’s plane, en route to Istanbul, in its sites with radar locked on the President’s plane and his accompanying F-16’s — but oddly did not shoot. Unmentioned — but even odder — is the almost-unbelievable conclusion that Erdoğan’s fighters also did not respond when they were locked on by a hostile radar!

It was reported today that the rebels attacked the Marmaris hotel where Erdoğan was staying “just moments after” he had left, but initial reports said he had been gone “two hours” before the Marmaris attack began. If the latter is true, that’s some poor information-sharing amongst history’s best putschers, the Turkish army.

Such facts as these undermine Korybko’s hope that Erdoğan has been genuine in his recent openings to Russia. The economic rationale for such a move is clear, to be sure, but it was clear at the time Turkstream was offered and refused as well. Certainly too the public US support of the Syrian Kurdish YPG turns Erdoğan — and the military — towards Assad and Russia as well. But these are plainly shot-gun marriages of convenience. The bigger Turkish “family” is with NATO, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.

The evidence that the coup was “staged,” as many opposition Turks and I now believe, and staged not to succeed, undermines another kind of hopeful thinking in Kevin Barrett’s analysis. Barrett believes Erdoğan’s Islam is genuine, whereas I see it as a sham, contradicted by his every action. As Barrett’s fellow editors at VT point out, Erdoğan, has been the principle benefactor of ISIS and profiteer of their oil-for-arms trade. This is just the start of it. Erdoğan uses the label “Islamic” like George Soros uses “humanitarian” and Hillary Clinton uses “female.” Its a utter falsification.

Even in the realm of real-world politics, it is also wishful thinking to believe that Erdoğan is genuine in his tentative promises towards a ‘separate peace’ with Russia, one in which his efforts are paralleled, — many fail to recognize — by high level politicians in a number of European NATO powers, including Germany and Greece.

Of course, insofar as the immediate and pressing needs of self-preservation are concerned, Erdoğan will make those baby steps towards appeasing the odds-on favorite to win WW3. But all of the Western alliance is making amends one way or another towards Putin. That is, factions within each of these countries are doing so, opposed by others with too much invested for a ‘re-set’. Some, like the CIA and Erdoğan, the Houses of Sa’ud and Likud, are deeply “invested” in ISIS. An internal war now is taking place whereby Western factions press others towards the hot seat, while trying to stay out of the limelight themselves. That’s Empire of the Chicken-Hawks for ya.

Indeed, even the US seems to have abandoned some of its own long-held aims in the Middle East, if the contrite looks on John Kerry and Victoria Nuland’s faces during their recent visit to Moscow reveal anything substantial from talks about which we are told nothing substantial from official channels. Paralleling Turkey’s gestures to Russia, the US itself now is uttering the once-banned word “cooperation” about terrorism in Syria. But Kerry never keeps his word; why should he keep it now that the word (and world) is changing, slightly? The same may be said of Erdoğan. Though the language of the playbook is different, the strategies are the same: “call black white and white black, up down and down up; lie your way to the top.”

Analysis of Political Context

This failed coup appears to be a false flag. It obviously displays deception, at least of its own duped leaders, from the very start. However, the possible parties involved are many and confusingly overlaid. Since Erdoğan has had complete control over the Turkish media for the last six months, we also have precious little information to go on. I will entertain a bit further the most likely theories for the true agents and motives behind this phony coup attempt.

The most likely option, in my opinion, is that Erdoğan himself was largely in control of the operation, perhaps by “letting it happen” and then some. This does not rule out the possibility that Fethullah Gülen, or the Hizmet movement and its sympathizers in Turkey, were also involved, or yet higher agencies, like the CIA. Gülen supporters, once so close to Erdoğan, especially during their gutting of the Turkish military in the Ergenekon ‘parallel state’ trials, now themselves are accused of being the ‘parallel state.’ What goes around comes around.

There is some truth even in these deep state dissimulations. Turkey’s military, long a hotbed of radical nationalism and Grey Wolf thuggery, evoked the ire of the US on several occasions since it has been NATO’s eastern front. But this larger history of the Kemalist state perfectly reflects the smaller micro-cosm of Erdoğan’s neo-liberal corporatocratic state: much bluster about identity and difference was for show, on all sides. Beneath the table, the US, Turkey and its Middle East allies, have been running fat “rat lines” of arms and worse and getting rich and powerful while doing it.

To be sure, Gülen has been securely connected to the CIA, as Sibel Edmonds, Turkish-American 9/11 whistleblower and geo-political commentator extraordinaire and Erdoğan too was submissive to the same clique, at least until 2013 when he and Gülen seemingly parted ways. Indeed, how could it be otherwise? What remains to ascertain is how much Erdogan willingly went along with his handlers. His close family profiteering to the worst aspects of the Langley program does not exonerate Erdogan, though he may have bolted when he saw he was not just a tool for their “divide and conquer”plans in Syria and Iraq, but that his own realm was also destined for something similar. Edmonds is right to see the true “deep” font of Turkish evil going decades back and inevitably traceable to CIA and NATO manipulation, especially since the 1980 coup. Gülen is Islamist “controlled opposition”, that much is clear. According to Edwards, whose familiarity with the subject is extensive, the CIA and Gülen infiltrated even the Gezi Park protests, in order to undermine Erdogan’s independence, perhaps hoping to turn it into “Turkish spring”.

In fact, Turkey’s military-based Ergenekon ‘deep state’ has always been beholden to the US and NATO ambitions. It may appear to have had its share of autonomy during the Cold War, but was always a mainstay of a united Western effort to snuff out ‘commies’ wherever they may crop up. Headed up by NATO and the CIA and operating mostly in Brussels, Italy, and Turkey, the infamous Gladio operations utilized local right wing terror organizations to blow things up and kill people and then blame it on the left. Turkey has been an even more integral part of Gladio II, the Islamist flavored continuation of a post-Cold War covert terror campaign against Russia and its satellites. This never changes no matter how the US swings Democrat or Republican or Turkey votes Kemalist or Islamist. Perhaps Erdogan is merely a “bureaucrat” working for the Evil Empire, but he seems to have made himself a fortune and a despot’s crown while trading in blood.

The Stink Leads to Erdoğan

The most damning aspect of the violent vindictive and clumsy coup attempt was its incompetence and total failure. Could the CIA really be in charge? Well, yes. I have not ruled out the possibility that these ‘foreign’ elements engineered a purposefully faulty coup attempt. However, if the CIA-Gülen umbrella are responsible, and it is indeed a gesture contra Erdoğan for his moves to Russia, then it remains the case that he is still addressed as ‘one of their own’, on the verge of wayward action. The pathetic coup attempt may in this case be interpreted as a ‘stick’, a ‘gentle’ warning to Erdoğan (not to the dozens of innocents brutally murdered) to make sure he does not honor his verbal rapprochement with Russia and Syria. But a good padrone always mixes some sugar in the salt: a great deal of help cleaning up domestic opposition was offered as a ‘carrot’.

To uphold the position that Erdoğan has really turned his back on US pressure and started sticking up for Turkey and Islam must ignore damning evidence to the contrary. Its proponent must argue that he became, in the last five years, more and more an abject puppet of US influence even as he took despotically to himself more and more Turkish power. This is outlandish.

Erdoğan has continued to act in the interests of the same US-NATO-Israeli-Sau’di mission for the Middle East and “Pipelinestan” that he always has. His public rant against Israel was never matched by action. He turned down the Turkstream just last year. He long has been the principle supporter of ISIS and his family got rich on their illicit and blood-soaked oil trade. He conspired with Turkish National Intelligence, the MIT, to arm Jubhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, ISIS and the other takfiri terrorist groups. Emulating chicken-hawk ‘life examples’, Erdoğan was first personally to claim responsibility for downing the Russian jet and first personally to back off when evidence emerged that the event happened over Syrian territory.

Though he claims to be Muslim, Erdoğan never has personally claimed a “neo-Ottoman” project. Perhaps the diploma-forger actually knows that he would need to be of the family of Osman to claim leadership of the House of Osman. He might have to start revising his behavior as well.

The real Ottomans had an extraordinary record of ‘tolerance’ and accommodation of religious and ethnic difference, with one, chronologically contoured exception, the Alevis after 1500. This all changed with the pernicious introduction of ‘nationalist’ ideologies into the empire in the 19th century, just when Western banking interests were indebting and enslaving Ottoman economic interests and Western political pressure made extra-territorial claims on their commercial agents in the failing dynastic realm, and turned to dividing Christian from Jew, Shi’a from Sunni, thereby beefing up an age-old strategy of conquest with the novelties of industrial might.

Erdoğan has followed the latter example, not the former. Erdoğan is true to the modern Western colonial empire, nationalist in identity, that despises the ‘other’ nations. He pursues an identity politics that shifts just a few categories in respect to the Grey Wolfs. As his power has coalesced, Erdoğan has pursued the opposite of his early “zero problems with neighbors” policy, drummed up by the equally duplicitous Davutoğlu (the PM who was sacrificed recently for Russia’s sake.)

After lulling religious Kurds into the AKP, Erdoğan struck first and pre-emptively against a peace he had earlier engineered. For over a year, he has avidly pursued a bloody war against the Kurds, even using his ISIS proxies against them within the borders of Turkey. Alevis too have been viciously persecuted under Erdoğan, and stand to be losers of the failed coup as well. An Alevi colonel was the first leader’s face to appear among the hapless golpisti. Erdoğan’s Wahhabist fervor against the brilliant syncretistic religious practices of Alevis that were widespread among the early Ottomans and other Turkmen in Anatolia, is pure “Enlightenment-era” modernity, equipped with simplistic hard “identities” that obsessively must be “purified,” and literalist “epistemologies” where the Revealed Text or the Book of Nature is presumed to have a single literal meaning.

Finally, Erdoğan’s neo-liberalism, a 1%’ers economic philosophy supporting debt-based usurious interest charged against everybody who uses the phony fiat currency in circulation, contradicts not only the Islamic animus against usury (riba’) but the sensible statism embodied in its Islamic patrimonial responsibility for zakat, or taxed charity, considered as an institution of public welfare that was at the heart of traditional Muslim stated responsibilities to ‘re-distribute’ resources to its subject populations.

It is time to recognize that Erdoğan is no Ottoman and ISIS ain’t Islamic. It is time to hold the signifier’s feet to the signified’s fire. They do not seem so ‘arbitrarily’ connected then, do they, M. Saussure?

Perhaps most revealingly, for those who believe Erdoğan’s religious mask is genuine, by 2014 he had sidelined Abdullah Gül, the government’s one voice of reason during the Gezi protests. True Muslims have been sidelined, only monsters of manipulation remain in the upper ranks of the AKP. Even if a spade calls itself a heart, you should call it a spade – especially if you are a heart!

Who does he stand for, besides the House of Erdoğan? Well, the same ol’ same ol’.

If Erdoğan has, in stages, emptied the army of the old guard in favor of AKP supporters, he still pursues the old guard’s fierce nationalist agenda and every NATO program of conquest that comes his way. Where he departs from their policies, perhaps, is only in the juvenile eagerness with which he conducts terror-support campaigns and a House of Erdoğan empire (not of Osman). Despite many public spats with the US, Europe, and with Israel, Erdoğan has not budged an inch from the positions and policies of their unified program, expounded at Brookings, for “deconstructing Syria” and Iraq and channelling Qatari gas through pipelines to the Mediterranean at the expense of Russia and Iran.

What has changed? Only perhaps the dawning realization among Turks, Europeans, and even US masses that “deconstruction” is meant by the globalists for these borders as well. Thus there remains the outside possibility that Erdoğan’s own sense of self-preservation is pushing him towards recognizing the emerging eastern alliances as better partners than the fanatical war-mongers of the West. However, a closer analysis suggest Erdoğan is up to his old false flag tricks, each bloodier than the last.

Analysis of the Failed Coup Attempt

Crumbling hours after it began, the failed coup stinks of incompetency, of far too few resources, and especially of misinformation among its leaders about the degree to which the rest of the Turkish Army would support its claims. Almost none did. Thankfully, it was over quickly. Too many innocents lost their lives at the hands of trigger-happy golpisti and AKP thugs.

There was never any possibility this coup could succeed. The control points were few, and the most important point of leverage was neglected. The first lesson of Putsch 101, it seems to me, is to isolate the presidential palace, with the president in it! Erdoğan was vacationing in Marmaris with the Islamist jet set. He first responded to notice of the coup d’etat utilizing the social media he despises to call for Turks to stand up for the democracy he equally despises.

Erdoğan’s AKP supporters took the streets to be sure, and were probably those responsible for completely unnecessary violence against ordinary soldiers ordered by their superiors to take part. Turkey requires military service; it was obvious that many of these kids, beaten to a pulp by fanatical Erdoğan supporters, had no idea what was going on. Some of these soldiers, reportedly, were told this was a “military exercise.” Anyway, they were ‘following orders.’ Though the law was recently changed, the Turkish military long had the role of defending the Constitution, which indeed has been thoroughly gutted and trashed by Erdoğan.

“Use of the Media”, surely ranks too among the first lessons taught in Putsch 101. The coup leaders indeed took over several organs of media, but not all of them. But after shooting up the place, the still unknown and unsigned leaders of the coup made no substantive complaint against Erdoğan. It really wouldn’t have required a lot of work. Instead of, say, posting the RT documentary on Erdoğan’s family business with ISIS, they only proposed a Peace Council to return Turkey to constitutional order as outside they carried on with their chaotic and violent rebellion.

Low-flying F-16s and loud percussive devices were used to frighten the population.But again, the bark was worse than the bite, except for innocents. The principle points attacked and commanded by the left-footed golpisti were especially in Ankara, the capital, around key political, parliamentary, police, and intelligence operations. Attacks on Parliament and perhaps the MIT headquarters seemed to provoke fires and other damage as well as some casualties. The Prime Minister’s office was destroyed, perhaps along with sensitive documents.

The only truly successful attack carried out was on the Gölbaşı Special Forces Department headquarters outside Ankara. Seventeen officers were killed when a helicopter gunship fired on their command center. This, reportedly, was later shot down by loyalist F-16s.

The rebel soldiers also commanded bridges, big squares, and the airport, in Istanbul, or tried to. A shoot-out on the blocked Bosphorus Bridge left several dead. Vicious reprisals were made on the soldiers there when the coup was over. In Taksim Square, it seems, Turks overwhelmed tanks and other military vehicles, and arrested frightened soldiers sent to secure these public places and enforce a curfew. The Istanbul airport was never fully secured by the rebel forces and when Erdoğan touched down, the coup was basically over.

These, effectively, were all the actions undertaken to secure two enormous cities, Ankara of 4.5 million and Istanbul of 14 million, and a country of 75 million.

How was it put down? The official story says “You the People (who support Me)”. Erdoğan’s call to his supporters to take to the streets may well have been joined by thousands of opposition party supporters, all of which condemned the coup in no uncertain terms. But the AKP resistors seem to have been front and center, and responsible for most of the ‘counter-revolutionary’ fervor.

Among the most curious announcements made in the aftermath was that 42 helicopters had gone missing. The Turkish press, now completely expunged of opposition writers, worries that a Coup Number Two could be on the way, but that seems an unlikely and suicidal possibility, unless they have vastly more resources hidden away after losing their top 10,000 plants. I ask rather if these missing helicopters could be meant for ISIS? Now that’s the kind of CIA-Gülen-Erdoğan deal that benefits everybody involved. If there is one thing that suggests Erdoğan be exonerated, it is that the US press, independent and alternative to mass-mind-controlled, is united it condemning the man they like to label “Sultan” and “Ottoman”, knowing nothing of either.

It may well have been a CIA operation, a desperate maneuver to sustain their most proximate proxy state in the area, ISIS. This has become endangered by Erdoğan’s political shifts eastward, as much as by Russian aerial campaigns. Whether Erdoğan’s move was genuine, or duplicitous, if it harbored subterfuge or surrender, the pieces of the n-dimensional chessboard are fraying at the edges of WW3, individual pieces fleeing for their lives as the alliance crumbles. ISIS and al-Nusra, proxies of the CIA (through Turkey) now battle the Pentagon’s proxies, the Kurdish YPG, already in northern Syria. (Of course, Raytheon, for the moment, couldn’t be happier.) Retired DIA head General Michael Flynn, Trump’s foreign policy and military advisor (never a serious VP candidate) represents those US generals that are plainly pissed at our policies of supporting takfiri terror groups, though they never say so in so many words. It does not divide so neatly, Pentagon versus CIA, however. Just look up General Breedlove.

Is the possibility that the helicopters are meant for ISIS outlandish? Not so much. As VT already has reported, the US, probably the CIA, already may be developing an ISIS airforce, employing the Ukraine and swindling Croatia in the process. A dozen refurbished MIGs may be on the way to the CIAliphate. By the same token, it may be the whole bloody blunder of a coup was cover for theft of a stash of helis by infiltrators at Incirlik airbase.Infiltration is their speciality, though it helps to have cooperative border blindness.  Once on the ropes, ISIS now may be hoping to rebound. From the looks of it, the AKP thugs will make good ISIS cannon fodder. Whichever way you interpret it, it is clear the Global GangWars are coming home to roost.This likely means hier bei uns as well.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Time to Focus, Folks: False Flag Terrorism and the “Summer of Chaos”

“You say you wanna Revolution; well, ya know  ….   “

john lennon v violence.pngSMALL_newcointelpro.jpg

(second image from WhatReallyHappened:

This is not ‘ancient history’. Long story short, it has gotten worse, not better.

For quick confirmation see the following two articles by Jeff Berwick at

Jeff Berwick, avid libertarian and “anarcho-capitalist”, the first to tell you “anarchy” means “no rulers”, not “disorder”, more or less predicted the Dallas debacle.

In the wake of Hillary Clinton’s outlandish exoneration by FBI Crony Comey, Berwick anticipated the violence by drawing on the hacked email accounts of BLM “leader” Deray McKesson. In the two articles, Berwick underlined McKesson’s handlers’ plans for a “Summer of Chaos,” with a special focus on the RNC and DNC this month. These handlers suspiciously include a “Mrs. Lynch.”

While others have picked apart the many suspicious elements of that probable false flag, resulting, once again, in the immediate death-without-questioning of the sole suspect, Berwick considers the institutional and financial background of the “radicalization” effort to de-rail and undermine BLM and other protest movements. George Soros is the globalist instigator-in-chief and has funded the most extreme elements of every movement he could find, from Ferguson to Damascus, from the Ukraine to Central Asia.

Deray McKesson was among those arrested in Baton Rouge:

The next day he was released, presumably to return to “his” home, owned by Soros Open Society board members.

Berwick sources the following article by Shephard Ambellas at Intellihub. Ambellas did excellent work on Clinton Foundation profits from the illegal sale of ore rights to foreign interests on Western ranching land. The overt use of that other “BLM”, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM, Inc.), to strong-arm ranchers off land they had owned for many generations, is a perfect example of the way the corporatocracy, USA,Inc., is governed by family trusts and foundations. The stink around Dallas emanates from a nexus of several such families, a few of whom were represented in Dealey Square way back when.

I should probably add that the complementary and far deeper ‘radicalization’ of US police departments was not Soros work, but a decades long campaign brought to you by Israel, or rather, the DHS, and our own “military-industrial complex.” The Bush-Clinton “Iran Contra” crime cabal, running crack cocaine into the US through Mena, Arkansas, similarly may be congratulated on their ‘transformation’ of America.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A Study in Ambiguity: General Dunford’s Speech at the UN

This has been published at SOTT:

Shifting fronts of of WW3

Turkish boss Tayyip Erdoğan has begun to open dialogue with Damascus, and has offered his apologies to Russia over the unjustifiable shoot-down of a Russian jet over Syria 7 months ago. Turkey’s proxies were also responsible for the followup shoot-down of a rescue helicopter and the murder of a pilot. So far the perpetrator has escaped prosecution in Turkey. Was the sidelining of Davutoglu, formerly PM, also an ambiguous sign, possibly signaling that Turkey is taking a half-step backwards?

On the other side of the globe, disputed imperial claims in the South China Sea have not softened, but China is participating in a grand naval exercise with US forces in the Pacific Ocean. Both sides report the greatest professionalism in the other. The biennial RIMPAC (Rim of the Pacific) naval exercises will involve 27 nations and 25,000 service members, 45 ships, five submarines and more than 200 aircraft. China is among this year’s contingent that will operate off the coasts of Hawai’i and Southern California.

Brexit too suggests a further crumbling of the US imperium — at least its imperiousness has been curtailed. The EU, like the ECB, IMF, other members of Greece’s enslaving Troika, and the World Bank, are beholden to central banksters and international oligopolists. So are the Warriors of Terror which the US and its satellites have unleashed on the world. Though the US lefty press is in the dark, much of Europe is waking up to the effects of rule by bureaucrats who promise equality, but systematically undermine labor, pensions, and even corporate security, in interest of the banksters. If they truly care about the lower classes, leftists should pray a Frexit follows, even if led by Marine Le Pen. “Remember Greece!” should be the cry. (But see this for the uses the elites make of the Brexit referendum.)

General Dunford’s words at the UN may also be read in the light of a changing world stage where the Eastern alliances have scored their first major victories in the last nine months. Dunford’s speech may be seen as accompanying a step back from the typical US bellicosity espoused by neo-cons and liberal interventionists alike. Whether his words are cause for hope, or merely the usual US strategy of acquiescent dissimulation while in retreat, remains to be seen. It is to be hoped that a “rational” foreign policy will sooner or later surface in the US imperial elite. The ascendance of a “merely imperial” faction over the “rabidly insane” would be sufficient to keep the Lukewarm WW3 from flaring Hot in the spots it presently is Cold. Let us hope that the sensible military men like Sy Hersh’s Pentagon sources, adults, take control of more than discourse, but also ‘facts on the ground.’

Introduction: Parsing Dunford’s June 17 speech at the UN

For the first time in history, a US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Marine General Joseph F. Dunford, has appeared before the UN. Solicited by US Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Powers, Dunford delivered an address on UN peacekeeping to a closed group that had promised additional troops for these missions following President Obama’s 2015 Leaders’ Summit on Peacekeeping.

While drawing the evident continuities to President Obama’s initiation of these proceedings late last summer, Dunford also sounded a few notes that suggested a subtle but important strategic shift in that time, or at least a softening of the rhetoric. While this is lost on the public, it is not lost on UN ambassadors or foreign departments of state and military affairs.

The shifts — even if they are nothing more than ‘shiftiness’ — must come in response to the critical changes along the fronts of WW3. It is not just UN peacekeeping missions that brought the highest ranking military officer in the US to the UN. Critical as the peacekeeping missions are to the present global status quo, or, in enlarged numbers, to its possible future re-alignments, they have only provided imperfect, partial and peripheral support to the Western imperium so far. The UN does what the US and Israel says it should, but they gripe too much and bring shame and scandal upon their masters.

Appropriately for a UN peacekeeping audience, but out of character for a US representative, General Dunford’s speech to the UN emphasized ‘transnational solutions to transnational problems.’ It also included a prominent reference to “trans-regional crime.” These remarks especially departed from the unilateralist bombast and mythological analysis of world affairs given by Obama at the opening of UNGA70 (UN General Assembly) late last September. Only a few days after the UNGA70 addresses by world leaders, Russia began its devastating air campaigns against US-supported terrorist groups, Ahrar al-Sham, and Jubhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria).

Obama had delivered less incendiary remarks shortly beforehand, on September 15, 2015, before the Leaders’ Summit on Peacekeeping. At that time, he reaped pledges for 40 – 50,000 troops for mission operations. Not all of the countries have followed through on their promises, however. Dunford’s appearance thus came as an opportunity for the US to clamp down on the dilatory members of its coalitions, many observers noted, and congratulate those who made good on their word.

First, some facts and figures, drawn from Military.Com’s assessment of the speech:

“The U.N. currently funds at more than $7 billion annually numerous peacekeeping missions worldwide, including in Abyei (Sudan), the Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Darfur, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Golan, Haiti, Kosovo, Liberia, Mali, Somalia, South Sudan and Western Sahara. Current peacekeeping operations involve more than 121,000 troops, police and civilians in increasingly dangerous efforts to cope with the chaos of failing states. Since 1948, more than 3,700 UN peacekeepers have been killed on missions.”

I’ll cover the speech, first by way of quoting its most significant paragraphs, then discussing its reception in the US press, and finally focusing again on its most significant shifts since Obama’s words late last summer. The mainstream press has not given Dunford’s speech its due historical importance, since it has no notion of the larger contexts of the Lukewarm WW3 (hot in places, cold in others.) However, some mention was made, (here, here, and here) especially beforehand, to wit, “the closed meeting will be an opportunity for the U.N. to take stock of the (Leadership) summit commitments and highlight where progress is still needed.”

As AP and others reported, Dunford’s appearance not only was to follow-up on pledges for UN peacekeeping operations; rather it also served to preview a meeting of defense ministers in London in September. It served, these reports reiterate, for US leadership at the UN to get its peacekeeping forces in line and up to snuff. Nothing much of significant interest beyond that for most of the US press.

Though little was reported beforehand by the US mainstream, even less commentary and analysis appeared afterwards. Of course, this was true also for the much more important, indeed landmark addresses by Obama, Putin, and other world leaders at the opening of UN General Assembly 70 (UNGA70) in late September 2015. (This came just before Obama’s peacekeeping summit.) Lacking these larger contexts, it is not surprising that the press also missed the shifts in content and rhetorical valence that I will comment upon. (I covered the UNGA70 speeches, here, here, and here.)

Nor did most of the press pick up on Dunford’s sharp demand for reform or his sobering and quite judicious assessment of present global volatility and instability. Though most of the US is unaware, WW3 plays out in hybrid form across the globe, from naval maneuvers in the Baltics, Black Sea, and Mediterranean all the way to the South China Sea, and ground forces and weaponry increasingly positioned across eastern Europe. It involves NATO-led Wars of Terror waged across North Africa and the Middle East, and political coups undertaken by the West from Argentina and Brazil to the Ukraine. WW3 is also waged in the currency markets and with gold reserves. It is waged with ‘trade wars’ and the dominatrix pacts of TTP and TTIP. These are wielded by the Western elites against their own partners and their own peoples as much as those of their Eastern enemies. Sanctions are waged not just against Russia, but also Europe’s natural access to energy and against the Silk Road projects from China that make infinitely better sense for Europe; the sanctions amount, in effect, to sanctions on Europe itself. The war is waged too from the other side in hybrid fashion, with new Eastern banking and clearing institutions, with SCO, BRICS, CIPS, and the AIIB now facing off against the West’s EU, SWIFT, World Bank and the IMF.

In fact, Dunford did not mince words about the growing seriousness of our present situation. His dire pronouncements were again mostly ignored in the mainstream press, but picked up pronouncedly on the Department of Defense media report of the speech. The mainstream, and even specialist press accounts, focused rather on Dunford’s insistence that UN peacekeeping forces, beset with scandals, clean up their act; they also widely reported his plea for greater numbers of female peacekeepers among the peacekeeping ranks. Often, they assumed Dunford was there as military muscle to round up the dilatory members of the mission who promised Obama additional troops and resources. This is a little odd considering Dunford’s endlessly contrite demeanor.

Dunford’s early paragraphs deserve extended citation because they describe an evolving and expanding network of problems, and also sound novel notes in respect to those of Obama late last summer before the same audience and at the UNGA70. After the passage cited below, Dunford goes on to draw continuities between his words and those of the president in September, and reiterates a US commitment to add resources to the peacekeeping mission. However, in the end, Dunford’s analysis of global problem areas and the way peacekeeping force may ameliorate the problems (in theory), frankly more resembled the words of Putin at UNGA70 in late September than they did those of Obama. Significantly, Dunford refrained entirely from touting militant US exceptionalism, which the UN got in heaping proportions from Obama last year, and from Samantha Powers ad nauseum.

Before passing to Dunford’s speech, let us recall the world leaders’ addresses last September. (my articles include an overview here, here on Obama’s talk, and here on Putin’s.)

Obama’s words before the UNGA70, and elsewhere, reveal why true US partnership with other nations is rarely considered, much less proffered: US leadership is never justified, but simply assumed. For Obama, the UN is the forum where “the US works with allies …. to prevent a third world war,” (sic) to assert “the emergence of strong democracies” (sic) “accountable to their people instead of any foreign power” (sic) and to build “an international system that imposes a cost on those who choose conflict over cooperation.”

Of course, in reality, “conflict” is exactly what the US, NATO and their Mideast allies have chosen to push on the rest of the world for decades. The “costs” have fallen exclusively to the ‘other guy’ (and increasingly to the US taxpayer), while the profits, geo-strategic and military-industrial, fall exclusively to the Western ruling-classes.

At UNGA70, Obama pretty much blamed all international terrorism on Assad’s tenacious tyranny. Putin laid out a more realistic scenario whereby terrorism grows from the soil of countries destroyed by the West, and is nurtured by financing and arms-trafficking from the same West which naturally and hypocritically refuses to investigate these lines of support. Putin argued for a genuinely joint UN effort to combat international terrorism across a wide sector, what Dunford called a ‘multi-domain’ field. Significantly, this includes cyberspace and “trans-national” crime for Dunford, It did not specify terrorist financing.

This is not surprising. No US official seriously suggests we investigate the banks laundering ISIS money, since they are all Western and will lead back to the Terrorists-in-Chief in DC, Langley, London, Ankara, Riad, and Tel Aviv. Those government officials that do come across the evidence, like Scott Bennett, are made to pay, or silenced more definitively. Not that the US public would know or much care if the information got out. Russia dumped photos of ISIS oil tankers stretched a hundred miles from the Turkish borders and precious few in the Western press paid attention. General Petraeus openly called for alliance with al-Qaeda (Jubhat al-Nusra=al CIAduh in Syria) and no one paid any mind hier bei uns in the Fourth Reich.

In his UNGA70 opening, as in his Valdai speeches of the last two years, Putin argued for coordinated efforts against terrorism and widening global instability, preferably under the UN umbrella, but anyway based on international law, respect for national sovereignty, and the precepts and principles of the UN. Remarkably, at UNGA70, Obama did not even give these ideas lip service, holding strong to his unilateralist, world-leadership message. It is on the question of national sovereignty that US exceptionalism is most virulent. This pathogen is best expressed in US UN Ambassador Samantha Powers’ A Problem from Hell (which should be the title of her autobiography.) This is the cheap thriller that turned Obama from a peace-lover to a “liberal interventionist”.

Putin’s most memorable line at UNGA70 was “Do you even know what you have done?” This should be asked most of liberal interventionists who justify national destruction for humanitarian reasons. In the same speeches and related interviews, Putin let on several times that Russia, anyway, has full knowledge of the support the US and its allies gave to the bloody coup in Kiev as well as the support they give to terrorist groups. It knows well the West’s habit of undermining societies and states that do not toe the imperial line. Putin also warned the US that “exporting democracy” was much like Soviet experience of “exporting revolution”. It will lead often to tragic consequences and “degradation rather than progress.” But most trenchantly, Putin’s speech barreled into the same US exceptionalism and uni-lateralism that Obama so tenaciously defended at the opening of UNGA70.

Here is Putin on the treacherous relation between the US and the international community supposed to be represented at the UN:

“We all know that after the end of the Cold War — and everyone is aware of that — a single center of domination emerged in the world, and then those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think that if they were strong and exceptional, they knew better and they did not have to reckon with the U.N., which, instead of [acting to] automatically authorize and legitimize the necessary decisions, often creates obstacles or, in other words, stands in the way….. But we consider the attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They could lead to a collapse of the entire architecture of international organizations, and then indeed there would be no other rules left but the rule of force …. true independent states would be replaced by an ever-growing number of de facto protectorates and externally controlled territories.”

Indeed, Obama’s unilateralism makes George HW Bush look like a great diplomat. Dunford’s talk, on the other hand, seems to have come half-way back round to Putin’s recommendations, if not to his analysis and assessment of US hegemony.

et us listen to Dunford’s crucial paragraphs. To be sure, Dunford here and always plays his hand close to the chest. He usually says what he is supposed to. “Russia is an existential threat” was necessary at his confirmation hearings. He is always respectful and considered in his delivery but at the same time the general is never transparent in his intent. The speech, highlighting a cleaner but greater role for UN peacekeeping forces, certainly can be read as the next stage of the NWO. It might also be read more hopefully, as a partial US opening to the world and an offer of cooperation addressed to peers, rather than puppets.

Dunford’s speech: (my emphases)

“The current security environment has been described as the most complex and volatile since World War II – and frankly, I believe that. The challenges we face range from conventional conflict to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, from violent extremism to trans-regional crime, and the character of war has changed.

Today’s challenges are increasingly trans-regional. The current fight against violent extremism is an example. We estimate that over 45 thousand foreign fighters from 120 different countries have come to Iraq and Syria. No nation today can turn away and consider violent extremism somebody else’s problem. We have many examples of how the fight can follow us home from fragile states in the form of terrorist acts and the mass migration of those seeking to escape violence.

Similarly today, today’s conflict between states is not only trans-regional but also what we in the United States call multi-domain. That is involves simultaneous action on sea, on land, in the air, in space, and in cyberspace. And we also see non-state actors`` involved in conflict that are able to leverage information, cyber capabilities, and sophisticated weapons.

In addition to the complexity of conflict, we see increased volume. In 2014 nearly 60 million people were forcibly displaced from their homes by conflict, and the commission for refugees estimates that violence will displace over 40 thousand people a day.

Of course, I’m not suggesting that United Nations peacekeeping operations are a solution for all of that, but that brief description of the current environment highlights the growing need for multi-national cooperation in responding to conflict. No longer can conflict be considered something that is “over there.” While the international community must develop a wide range of capabilities to respond to today’s challenges, we already have a relevant and potentially very effective tool in the form of the UN peacekeeping. And I firmly believe that UN peacekeeping can play a major role in dealing with the human suffering associated with conflict and by continuing to improve our collective security.”

And later in the speech: “we firmly believe that these missions play a vital role in international security, and reform and adaptation will allow us to be more effective in the future and meet what we see as an absolutely growing demand for the kinds and capabilities that UN peacekeeping missions offer

The Media Mediates… Obfuscates… Ignores

Naturally, no mainstream media detects rhetorical departure from Obama’s words late last year, nor suggests the larger context of the US War OF Terror, or the way in which the UN avoids to address what the US covers up: the West’s obvious support of I.S.I.S. For this reason, we remain cautious of any perceived opening on the part of US officials. In September, Kerry’s slight opening seemed to leave the door open to Russian intervention and the possibility that Assad could stick around a little while. Then, as the Russians made their partial withdrawal and the ceasefire took hold, Kerry threatened a “Plan B” if Assad wasn’t on his way by this August. Actually Plan B kicked into operation last month. Now Kerry is coddling the 51 State Department “dissenting diplomats” who urge US military strikes against Damascus but insist that turning a cold front of WW3 to hot will not lead down the slippery slope but rather to peace and prosperity for all.

Nevertheless, Kerry’s September opening had positive consequences, even if he took back his words as soon as he came back to DC. Words too are players on the big chessboards. Dunford’s speech, I hope and hypothesize, may also be such an opening. At least, he does not have Kerry’s long record of lies behind him.

If the mainstream press mostly ignored the speech, the web-based military press gave it more attention. Interestingly, it is the DOD article on the speech, not the massmedia’s, which resounds most closely with my analysis, if not my interpretive prognosis. But let us begin with the massmedia’s range of more or less expected responses, which will serve to cover other aspects of the address.

APBigStory’s report gave a conventional Obaman unilateralist slant to Dunford’s speech. Feigning objectivity with its bland headline (“Top US General Discusses UN Peacekeeping”), the newsline’s BigStory article appropriately suggested a larger-than-UN peacekeeping context to its reportage, emphasizing that the meeting also served to preview a meeting of defense ministers in London in September. This is significant since the internal and sovereign issues of the participatory powers will there come most to the fore. Even NATO powers and NATO Mideast allies now are bickering as WW3 takes its toll along the edges of NATO and the US empire. It may be that the cooperative tone of Dunford’s speech was geared to keep wayward recalcitrant allies in line. Any real-world analysis would suggest that this ‘soft power’ approach is as effective as US military “leadership”, emphasized ad nauseum by Obama last fall at the UN. Indeed, Dunford ended his talk with an urgent plea to make the London meeting a success.

Interestingly, APBigStory interpreted Dunford’s intent without actually referencing the speech. Where did it get its ‘take’ that this is basically a US-first, self-interested operation, and that Dunford was there to get recalcitrant ‘allies’ or ‘puppets’ in line? From the horse’s mouth, as it were, or rather, from unnamed sources. Here’s AP (my emphasis):

Officials, who declined to be identified because they were speaking at a background ahead of the closed meeting, said Dunford’s visit reflects the Obama administration’s understanding that a robust U.N. peacekeeping force is in the United States best interest.”

Sourcing anonymous ‘officials’ once again, AP further reported that only about two-thirds of the pledging countries had followed through on their promises to Obama. These troops are already deployed in some sorry theater of the world the West is probably responsible for de-stabilizing. The same or another unnamed official then continued to inform AP that “part of the reason for the meeting was to make sure that the remaining one third follow through on their pledges“.

Who are the countries in danger of reneging? A highly diverse group with highly diverse reasons for holding back: “According to a report seen by The Associated Press, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Georgia, Spain, Uganda and Vietnam were among the countries that have yet to fulfill their pledges.”

Perhaps a more inclusive message and a friendlier face, with Dunford’s humble and apologetic visage, not just a military man, was needed to get the slowpokes to follow through. If so, such subtlety was lost on most of the press. That the US should lead the UN is simply assumed by half of the US electorate, while the other half assumes the UN is a purely foreign force of invasion of the US. (“Never the twain shall meet”: the left and right of the mainstream press. In the alternative sphere there is much more overlap. Reality-based reporting makes a difference.)

Nevertheless, even if no Western mainstream media get the larger pictures, and few outlets even commented on the speech, the range of interpretation was revealing.

For Nicole Duran writing at the Washington Examiner, Dunford’s speech was meant to convey precisely the kind of moral and military authority to which only the US can aspire. The headline read: “Dunford to U.N.: Control your peacekeepers better”. These have been plagued by charges of corruption and sexual assault against local populations. Here are his words in that regard: (again, my emphases)

 “I think it’s clear to all of us that the UN’s record in this area has been mixed – and there’s a lot of reasons for that mixed record, but chief among them is the hard reality that UN peacekeeping missions deal with some of the most challenging and protracted issues on the planet. But while many of the challenges are due to the nature of the conflicts, there’s other challenges that should concern us all. Problems of ill-disciplined units conducting criminal acts, including sexual assault; problems with corruption and shortfalls in equipment cannot be blamed on the environment.”

 ” While the missions will always be hard, we have to address the challenges that are within our control. And we have to do that because they threaten our collective legitimacy and our effectiveness. To much of the world’s populations, a soldier or policeman wearing a blue helmet and a UN patch represents their last best hope for safety and security, and we must work to ensure that image and hope isn’t diminished.

“Being candid about our challenges is not about finger pointing, addressing them is something that we have to do together. And today, I want to emphasize that U.S. military forces are prepared to be a part of the solution, from helping to develop the capacity of peacekeeping forces, to providing enabling capabilities, to assisting with reform. This is a personal priority for me, the United States’ Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the entire U.S. Joint Force. And the priority we place on UN peacekeeping operations is consistent with our view that these operations make an indispensable contribution to international security.”

However, Duran and Richard Sisk at Military.Com both underlined a passage that Dunford himself “highlighted”, “the growing need for women to serve as peacekeepers”. Obama had made a similar request, but did not explain the need. His simple request sounded like the mathematical solution to a problem of inequality. Nevertheless, the comment served to mark Obama, like Samantha Powers, as a “liberal interventionist” rather than a neo-con, a distinction that is merely a choice of excuses to offer for war and other forms of asset-stripping.

While Obama had made what seemed an obligatory plea for equality on Obama’s part. Dunford, drawing on his own experience, showed another crucial side, a tactical one. “Women not only add to the capability of our own forces“, Dunford said, “they have a unique ability to connect with local populations in areas of instability“. This, of course, can be read with nefarious as well as pure intent, if we read Dunford as we would read Powers or Obama mouthing the same phrases. Indeed, liberal interventionists like neo-cons have put forward many supposedly female demagogues, but none are able to “connect with local populations”.

Certainly you could not have “peacekeepers” in the mold of female warmongers like Samantha Powers, Hillary Clinton, Victoria Nuland, and Susan Rice or oldtimers like Condeleeza Rice and Madeleine Albright. Tulsi Gabbard, however, that’s another thing: there’s a real woman. (All else being equal, a Council of Grandmothers probably would rule our roost best – if we must have ‘rulers’.)

Improving the gender-ratio of UN peacekeeping forces may also contribute to the other, most-oft cited intent of Dunford’s speech, to enforce better behavior among troops riddled with scandals. Military.Com reported that “Dunford said it was a “personal priority for me” to improve the discipline and professionalism of the missions.” These remarks, especially Dunford’s insistence that UN own up to the charges of misconduct went far beyond Obama’s in September. So did his calls for “reform”, mentioned three times in the speech.

The DOD Account of Dunford’s Speech

The headline at the DOD website perhaps gives the gloss closest to the text: “Transnational Threats Need Transnational Solutions, Dunford Says at U.N.”. This piece, written by Jim Garamone at DoDNews, makes extensive quotations (though not as long as mine). The interpretation obviously meets official approval, so it is expected that Garamone’s analysis does not buffer the main points, as those in the massmedia did, but also confirms my suspicion that more is there than noted by other reports. However, Garamone’s exposition, without analysis, makes no attempt to decry the shifts since Obama’s speech, or delve into anything other than UN peacekeeping contexts. (Fair enough.)

Garamone draws his headlining remarks from the same paragraphs I did. Besides the focus on “transnationality”, he cites Dunford on the volatile state of the world today, the fact that “violent extremism” and “transregional crime” are among the new trans-national problems, and that even non-state actors now have command of “multi-domain” array of weapons at their disposal. Garamone reports Dunford saying “45,000 foreign fighters from 120 different countries have come to Iraq and Syria” and further, that “We have many examples of how the fight can follow us home from fragile states in the form of terrorist acts and the mass migration of those seeking to escape violence.”

These words could have been pronounced at UNGA70 by Putin – but not by Obama. Belying Obama’s narrative that the Syrian rebels are home-grown, these words closely echoed Putin’s UNGA70 speech warning of blowback and the danger of being manipulated by those you would manipulate. (The latest Istanbul attack?) They also echo reality rather than make-believe. For Obama, takfiri terrorists are inevitably “moderate rebels” dissatisfied with Assad. That Dunford tacitly admits that the “mass migration” may come from unchecked terrorism, and not just the dictator of the moment, is also a step beyond what Obama informed his two UN audiences late last summer.

Garamone continues to quote Dunford: “No longer can conflict be considered something that is ‘over there‘”, — which certainly may be understood as a liberal interventionist platform — but then also ” All this begs for multinational cooperation in responding to conflict“. “Cooperation” was the word the US refused to utter in the fight against terror, if it meant cooperating with Russia or Assad. Neither country was presumably represented at this meeting, but still, US officials are entering almost uncharted rhetorical territory (in the 21st century) with this support for “multinational cooperation.”

The article goes on to cover the rest of the talk, including those themes that most interested the article-writers earlier discussed.

Dunford’s Possible Openings

I would like to focus on a few other remarks made by Dunford that we have hitherto skimmed over. We remember that Dunford characterized the problems faced by peacekeeping forces as in steady change, ranging now ” from conventional conflict to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, from violent extremism to transregional crime.”

Correctly, Dunford insists upon using the phrase “violent extremism” rather than “Islamic extremism” or “radical Islam”, since there is nothing “Islamic” about al-CIAduh and the CIAliphate, however duped their cultish rank-and-file and the US masses remain. Whether he intended it or not, “violent extremism”‘s close association with “transregional crime” is most apt. Is he thinking, perhaps, of the Erdogan-HSBC-BP-ISIS oil-for-arms trade and money laundering scheme? Or perhaps Fast-and-Furious’ links to the Mideast terrorist arms trade? The possibilities are endless.

The mention of “transregional crime”, never uttered by Obama, seems to extend the usual understanding of UN peacekeeping missions into Interpol territory. Again, this may provoke in many the fears of a One World Government. But we must not let our trauma think for us. These same NWO institutions, emptied of crooks and obfuscating bureaucracy and downsized by 90%, might be made into beneficial operations.

However, in the mouth of a US representative at a UN gathering, critical commentary about trans-regional crime and terror is particularly ironic. Not only has the US originated most of the terrorism of the past generations, either directly or through puppets and proxies, but the UN too has facilitated all manner of war-criminality itself, such as hosting the media theatre for the Ghouta sarin gas attack in 2013 which nearly led to a serious US escalation of the crisis. The chemical weapons attacks were actually perpetrated by Jubhat al-Nusra, with the gas supplied through Turkey, but Kerry blamed Assad.

The massacre brought Obama to the brink of unleashing cruise missiles on Damascus. Obama was then informed by the most rational arm of the military, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) that the evidence that Assad used the sarin gas on Syrian citizens was “not a slam dunk.” This much we learn in the US press, like the legacy Atlantic interview by Jeffrey Goldberg. Actually, its chemical signature made it plain it did not come from the SAA arsenal. Instead, it most likely came from Libya, shipped along Sy Hersh’s “rat line” with Hillary Clinton’s approval through Turkey to Jubhat al-Nusra to be used on Syrian citizens by US-backed terrorist forces and then blamed on Assad.

This false flag blew up in Obama’s face, and Obama was wise to restrain trigger-happy neo-cons intent on war. One of these was Samantha Powers. Excuse me, she’s a “liberal interventionist.” (By and large, liberal interventionists pursue the same policies of national destruction and asset-stripping as neo-cons, but with “humanitarian” rationalizations. Neo-cons prefer to run on greed and fear).

Nevertheless, Obama and the State Department continue to ply the old line about Assad’s “barrel bombs” and “chemical weapons” attacks. None of that kind of slander infected Dunford’s talk.

Certainly “trans-regional crime” was also never mentioned by Obama in September. Does its inclusion reflect a US understanding that international terrorism ought to be treated, finally, as the organized inter-regional crime it actually is? This would be new and refreshing. Perhaps then we would move on to treating “government” like the family-run organized crime syndicate it is.

Unfortunately, the financing of terrorism is a part of hybrid warfare left completely unmentioned in Dunford’s speech. Still, his assessment of the problem was superior to that of Obama. In his UNGA70 speech Obama maintained terrorism was a social problem deriving solely from nasty dictators and solved by bombing countries into the Stone Age.

If Dunford’s talk seemed to enlist Putin’s prototype about the analysis of the rise of terrorism, its inevitable blowback, and its need to be combatted with international cooperation, he did not suggest looking into the financing of terrorism, nor did he reinforce the legitimacy of international law since he did not mention it. Neither did Dunford’s short remarks restore the legitimacy of national sovereignty, which Obama had as much as dismissed in his UNGA70 opening remarks. Still this speech represents a softening of the US stance since the UNGA opening.

Is Powers Power Diminishing?

If Dunford’s remarks represent an opening, then they are flying in the face of policies maintained by Obama, and by his UN representative Samantha Powers, a well-known liberal interventionist. The official Obama narrative informs us that Samantha Powers’ A Problem from Hell is the tract that made the peace-loving Obama a war-monger, though not in those terms. (The two do clash, however, most famously in late 2013, when hundreds died in chemical weapons attacks in the Ghouta suburbs of Damascus. Despite the DIA warning, Powers, Kerry, and others were still gung-ho for the attack but Obama had less confidence in the flimsy false flag story.)

On the surface, Dunford’s appearance before the UN showed, as Powers introduction of the Joint Chiefs Chairman stated, that the US and especially the US military is “recognizing the evolving threats that we all face today, but also adapting so that we can effectively meet them.” We should wonder whether ‘threats’ refers more to ISIS or Russia. We also should wonder whether ‘change’ and ‘reform’ mean provisional retreat or the real thing.

How much of a new path these peacekeeping remarks represent, and what kind, remains to be seen. Powers’ characterization followed her introductory pronouncement that this was the first US Joint Chiefs Chair ever to speak before the assembled UN, an historic occasion. “First time ever” she repeated for emphasis. Perhaps it is historic. A quick reading of the transcript, however, may give the sense of ‘more of the same’. Certainly one may wonder if it matters what a US official pronounces or promises, since this has carried so little weight in the past.

Based on past experience, we must expect US officialdom to dissimulate, but from the US imperium’s present loggerheads we similarly may expect a retreat, whether minor and tactical or definitive and heartfelt. While behind-the-scenes arm-twisting and terrorist support may continue unabated, the play of rhetoric also is meaningful, as it creates expectations in its audience, expectations which turn against one if too often disappointed.

The pertinent audience for Dunford’s speech is international. The US public is unconcerned and the address was not covered in the mainstream media. Only the US military press paid it any mind. Still, Dunford’s speech may represent a slight but significant retreat from the Powers doctrine, which basically post-modernizes the ancient theory of “might makes right.” In their speeches at UNGA70, leaders across the world including Putin, Assad, and even the Pope, recognized that ‘higher’ forms of legitimacy, such as international law, national sovereignty, self-determination, and decency between states, have proven in the past better for global stability than unilateralism. Has a rational faction ascended at the Pentagon and replaced the nutcase neo-cons and loony liberal interventionists, or are they merely the ‘merely imperial’? In either case, let us hope that Dunford’s measured words about reform and tackling crime and extremism soon reflect equally measured actions on the ground.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment