Luke Harding - The Neocon blame Russia flavor of the month

The radio is mostly on when driving.  If out in the morning, two of the most powerful stations out here in nowheresville have Glenn Beck on in the morning.  Usually, he is not worth listening to.  

On the day in question, he was not worth it, but he was working at a higher level of disinformation.  He was interviewing Luke Harding, author of Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win.

The two lads were having a lovefest with each other and a hatefest over Trump and Putin.  That's not that horrible as Beck is not taken seriously by the cool people.

Ah, but Terri Gross is a certified heavy hitter.  Her show on NPR is important.  She speaks with the interviewee with a serious, if low key tone.

Though I hear her not infrequently in the car, it is hard to say if she has ever been adversarial with guests.  With Mr. Harding it was certainly not that (link to transcript).  It may have not been the near French kissing that Beck seemed to be doing, but it did seem to agree with Luke in a let's get to the bottom of this tone.  She truly seems to be on team collusion in the exchange below.

But actually, if I'm honest with you, Terry, I mean, this book was quite easy to write because it is such a compelling story. It is like a thriller, but with bizarre elements, but just a kind of relentless plot. And I kind of wrote each chapter as sort of character by character so that there's a chapter on Steele, there's a chapter on Michael Flynn - who jokes to a Russian that he met that he was actually General Misha, which is Russian for Michael - and Paul Manafort, whom I met, and so on. And I - you know, the book, I think, came together in record time.GROSS: You know, you're right. Initially, Trump was happy to have the Russia investigation deflect attention away from his business dealings in China and other emerging markets because you say, unlike in Russia, these were substantial and involved the payment of large bribes and kickbacks.

HARDING: Well, again, we can't prove this. But this is what the Steele dossier alleges. And it's based on Steele's own secret sources. And by the way, no one knows who they are, these secret sources. But I think one point, which is kind of very important on the sources, is that I've talked to friends of Steele's. And what they point out is that these sources were not new. They're not people that he kind of discovered yesterday. They are trusted contacts who essentially had proven themselves in other areas.

Notice after Ms. Gross gives him the you go guy, he does say, it can't be proven.  The whole tone is it's true even if there is not absolute (or any) evidence.

The session ends with,

There may be some errors there. But broadly, I think people in British and American intelligence think the dossier is correct, which means that Donald Trump is compromised.GROSS: Well, Luke Harding, thank you so much for talking with us. And thank you for your reporting.HARDING: Thank you, Terry. It was great.

You bet it was.
I am not a Trump fan.  Some of his campaign statements I liked.  Wanting to get along with Russia and not make more of a mess in Syria were good.  He is too supportive of Saudi Arabia in Yemen and making noise with the Norks is a waste of time.
But,

Messing around with the constitutional order and doing what you can to take back an election because the guy is not one of the elite smacks of the late Roman Republic.  Responsible people would be wanting to shore that up rather than crashing it.

Luke Harding and his book have their fans for what it says about Trump.   Yeah, Terri, who is part of the Ministry of Information is all for him as are, no doubt, others of that brand.

There was a fellow who did ask Harding a few questions that were a bit less than smooches.  Look at the video below.

As it says on the intro page,

The Real News Network's (TRNN) Aaron Maté politely and professionally dismantles shameless Guardian reporter and author Luke Harding.

Aaron is a class act. Don't expect to see Mr. Maté on CNN or MSNBC, Fox, or dare one say it, NPR.

Eternal Recurrence - A Bad Policy Returns

Eternal Recurrence

It could be formulated as a law.  The longer a war goes on, the probability of a bad policy being resurrected approaches 1.

During the Vietnam War, the Johnson administration would be in need of more and more soldiers.  The pool of draftees was not sufficient.  According to a Salon article, “By 1966, President Johnson was fearful that calling up the reserves or abolishing student deferments would further inflame war protesters and signal all-out war. And so, even after McNamara began privately declaring the war was unwinnable, the defense secretary devised Project 100,000.”

Under the program, potential recruits who scored as Category IVs on entrance tests were allowed to enlist.  Cat IVs, to be charitable, had cognitive issues.

The project has been acknowledged a failure in that it was sold as a “Great Society” program that “would provide remedial education and an escape from poverty.”  There was little of either for the 354,000 men:

“...the recruitment program offered a one-way ticket to Vietnam, where "the Moron Corps," as they were pathetically nicknamed by other soldiers, entered combat in disproportionate numbers.  Although Johnson was a vociferous civil rights advocate, the program took a heavy toll on young blacks. A 1970 Defense Department study disclosed that 41 percent of Project 100,000 recruits were black, compared with 12 percent in the armed forces as a whole. What's more, 40 percent of Project 100,000 recruits were trained for combat, compared with 25 percent for the services generally.”

It’s plus ca change time and this iteration is even more creative.  We shall not be targeting the intellectually lame and halt.  Rather now, it will be the emotionally lame and halt who are called to the colors.

A November 12th, 2017 USA Today article noted; “People with a history of “self-mutilation,” bipolar disorder, depression and drug and alcohol abuse can now seek waivers to join the Army under an unannounced policy enacted in August, according to documents obtained by USA TODAY.”  

It might be impolite, if not politically incorrect to ask what could go wrong?  For some of us retrograde types, the words “German Wings” come to mind.  You might remember the pilot of that airline who missed his meds and pursued an alternative method of what could be considered a “hard landing?”

Unlike Project 100,000, the new dispensation is not being sold as a program to enhance the life of the unfortunate.  As noted above, it’s unannounced which means it’s not being sold at all.  In truth, the policy appears to have been ongoing according to USA Today: “To meet last year's goal of 69,000, the Army accepted more recruits who fared poorly on aptitude tests, increased the number of waivers granted for marijuana use and offered hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses.”

That’s it, of course, there are problems meeting the numbers.  By now, anyone with a little more than average consciousness knows that we are not going to turn a corner in Afghanistan, that we shall never do any good in Syria and the real winners in Iraq may be those horrible Iranians.

So, what is the point?

The possible upcoming crusade on North Korea might not be a selling point either.  Thus, creativity in augmenting the number of troops will be necessary.

Should we be worried?  During my inglorious Vietnam era service, there was no dearth of Marijuana usage as well as other substances.  What were referred to at the time as “personal problems” were hardly non-existent.  It should be noted, we came in second place in that contest.

What is unspoken in this is that we have to be inventive in inveigling prospects to sign up.  The so-called “War On Terror” is at stake.  If finding sufficient warm bodies to volunteer becomes impossible, conscription would be the alternative.

The WOT ends the day the Donald or a successor announces a draft.

Do we arrive at the point Augustus reached when Varus lost a couple of legions and the Imperator could not draft replacements even when execution was the penalty for resistance?  Is the WOT so necessary that any warm body, native or foreign will be eligible fodder?

As it has been said, this war may never end, why would we not resurrect another bad policy?

The Neutralist position on Jerusalem

If I have any readers they probably have an idea what the Neutralist position on the Donald's policy regarding Jerusalem.

Our position is that we should not need to have one.  We should not have any troops in the Middle East or for that matter the Near East and Far East.  Neither Israel or the Arabs should expect any thing of us.

But, you might say, if we did leave and bring the boys home, we would still have to decide where our embassy would be?  That decision would be based on what is best for our country.  Any other consideration is foolish.

Saudi Crown Prince gets the Adolph Hitler award for creative war delcaration

"This night for the first time Polish regular soldiers fired on our own territory. Since 5:45 a. m. we have been returning the fire... I will continue this struggle, no matter against whom, until the safety of the Reich and its rights are secured"

The words above were spoken by Adolph Hitler on September 1, 1949.  It was a lie.  German operatives had executed a false flag op to blame Poland for starting a war.

In one of those plus ça changey things that eternally recur, Saudi Gulf affairs minister Thamer al-Sabhan has claimed that Lebanon has declared war on the desert sand kingdom.  Though laughably absurd.  There may be some people who pretend to take it seriously.  At least he didn't claim to be returning the fire.

According to Reuters, "Thamer said the Lebanese government would “be dealt with as a government declaring war on Saudi Arabia” because of what he described as aggression by Hezbollah."

What he kinda really means is that someone tossed a missile at the Saudi airport and it either hit the place or was repelled. 

He blames Hezies and by extension, Lebanon.  A bit of a stretch no doubt, but that's our ally.  So what's he gonna do about it?  Well, what can he do about it.  The Saudi army can't punch its way out of a paper bag.

Thamer isn't stupid enough to not know that.  So what's going?

Not completely sure, but the headline at Zero Hedge is interesting:

"Explosive" Leaked Secret Israeli Cable Confirms Israeli-Saudi Coordination To Provoke War

Alone in the world, the Saudis would be quiet little mice.  The Saudis and Israelis cannot be seen together too much, but that Wahabit-Zionist alliance is something.

At the Neutralist, we would not care.  Unfortunately, someone might want to ensnare the country we are neutral about in all these shenanigans.

That the type of thing that leads us to want this country to be neutral for.

The oil is not worth the bones of one American GI.

Is a war against Hezbollah brewing?

Lebanese PM Hariri resigned and both Sic Semper Tyrannis and Moon of Alabama are reporting that a possible Saudi war on Hezbollah might be forthcoming as the Syrian anti-Assad adventure comes a cropper.  Of course, in the end it is the targeting of Iran that is what it is all about.

Colonel sees the attack coming from Israel with the possibility at 50%.  Well that figures.  Even with google maps and a GPS, the Saudis couldn't find their way to Lebanon to save their lives.

The Neutralist is not sure where the U.S. figures in all this, but it is doubtful anything would happen without our government knowing about.

It does seem, though,  a harebrained scheme, which is about what one would expect.

The Neutralist must note again, that the U.S. need not be a part of any of this.  Yeah, we know that there is oil, but it not worth the bones of any American G.I.

Sing it Freda, Bring the Boys Home!

Update: Saudi Crown Prince has arrested just about his whole family.  How this all ties in is also discussed by SST and MOA.

In light of all that, we are seeing the chances of an attack at less than 50%.  There is a possibility the Israelis see everyone else distracted and no time like the present, but other than an air strike here and there, they have not been all that adventurous since the last Lebanese incursion.

Hey Rep. Duncan, why must it be only conservative displaying common sense

  The headline on the antiwar.com blog read Rep. John Duncan: No Conservative should support staying in Afghanistan.

We agree, John, but actually, anyone with even semi-decent cognitive skills should support the withdrawal.  

Of course, if someone can cogently answer the question, how are American troops in Afghanistan defending our freedom?, we could consider changing our mind.

So far no one has come close.

Then there is Max Boot who in being asked a question on Syria when Tucker Carlson had him on his show had no answer, but loves every war and still has ardor for keeping soldiers in the country known as "the graveyard of empires." 

Sane people of all persuasions know it is time to go.  We know Max will never be in that camp.

The Iran Deal Should Be Irrelevant

The Neutralist has not been paying oodles of attention to the Iran deal and the president’s non certification of it.

Supposedly, from much of its press, it is a great agreement and Mr. Trump should have re-certified it.

Of course, he campaigned on the promise not to.

So what does he do now?  Punt it over to Congress.

The deal is discussed ad nauseum in the media with most saying stay with it even if they believe it is several levels less than the best thing since bread that is sliced.

The advocates of re-certification make the argument that if we do not do it, then our word is without meaning and who will negotiate with us, as our faith is not good?

Also, the case has been made that Iran is keeping to the letter of the agreement.

All in all, if it is true that the deal is worth keeping and we are going to be part of an international system, then we would agree, on balance, it is better to be part of the agreement.

The problem is, our history with the Persians has been one of mistakes.

By now, only the most obstinate would disagree that our promotion of the coup against Mossadegh turned out to be a bad idea.  Sure we got 16 years of a hard guy ruler and oodles of oil.  Yet beneath the surface during that time was a revolution coming that would sweep it all away,

Is certifying or decertifying a mistake?

The Neutralist has no idea.  Sure, an Iranian bomb would not be desirable, but Pakistan having one is not all that wonderful either.  If the mullahs stay with the plan, that’s great.  If they don’t what are we going to do?  Bomb them? Probably not.

No, The Neutralist believes in the Neutralist position of non-intervention.  Of course, to non-intervene means to withdraw.  Withdraw completely from MENA.  That means no more intervening in Syria, no more trying to put the Iraq humpty dumpty together.  An end to dealing with Erdogan or other kleptocrats.  We would no longer have to help the Saudis with their obscene war in Yemen.

And, with that, the Republic would fall just like it did when we left Viet Nam.

Please visit us on Facebook.