Justice Integrity Report - Democratic Foreign Policies Show Bipartisan Cruelty, Folly

Comments by leading Democrats last week underscored how both major parties remain committed to deadly, immoral, and otherwise catastrophic military global interventions under the rhetoric of democracy-building.

Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S. would not insert ground troops “yet” after Russian intervention against radical Islamists in Syria caught the United States flatfooted. Meanwhile, his predecessor Hillary Clinton described U.S. intervention into Libya as a success and advocated a No Fly Zone over Syria, as do the leading GOP candidates for the 2016 presidential election.

Then Madeleine Albright, who held the cabinet post during President Clinton’s second term beginning in 1997, provided a glowing overview of American goals during a lecture Oct. 16 and called for more of the same.

Albright’s lecture before the Democratic-oriented Center for American Progress in the nation’s capital shows yet again how war and empire-building retain a powerful appeal throughout the nation’s power centers even when the policies obviously result in vast death, destruction, misery, erosion of legal and moral standards, U.S. taxpayer cost, and U.S. geo-political strategic failure.

Examining Albright’s lecture and her rare historical role is a useful way to appreciate why Washington decision-makers and their apprentice supporters remain so united behind so many policies that might seem like failures, at least to those outside the matrix.
Obama ignores generals’ advice on troop levels for unprecedented sixth time

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/15/obama-ignores-generals-on-troop-levels-for-unprece/?page=all
By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Thursday, October 15, 2015

In the end, President Obama was forced to listen to his generals — not his political instincts — on Afghanistan troop levels, and he decided to split the difference.

Mr. Obama is keeping 5,500 troops in Afghanistan beyond his presidency, about half the strength recommended by his top general in-country. It marks the sixth time he has rejected the advice of a ground commander on the force size in the long Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Military experts call that streak unprecedented for a commander in chief.

Democratic Foreign Policies Show Bipartisan Cruelty, Folly – And Criminality?

Leading Democrats last week underscored how both major parties remain committed to catastrophic military global interventions under the rhetoric of democracy-building, humanitarianism, and terror-fighting.

President Obama reversed his plans to withdraw ground troops from Afghanistan by the end of his presidency. He instead announced that nearly 6,000 would remain there. Even so, the conservative Washington Times sought to shame him with the headline Obama ignores generals’ advice on troop levels for unprecedented sixth time.
Rowan Scarborough, Oct. 15, 2015. In the end, President Obama was forced to listen to his generals — not his political instincts — on Afghanistan troop levels, and he decided to split the difference. Mr. Obama is keeping 5,500 troops in Afghanistan beyond his presidency, about half the strength recommended by his top general in-country. It marks the sixth time he has rejected the advice of a ground commander on the force size in the long Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Military experts call that streak unprecedented for a commander in chief.

Then Madeleine Albright, who became the nation’s first female secretary of state during President Bill Clinton’s second term beginning in 1997, praised American goals and methods during a lecture Oct. 16.

In the Democratic presidential debate Oct. 13, Kerry's predecessor as secretary, Hillary Clinton, described U.S. intervention into Libya as a success and advocated a No Fly Zone over Syria to thwart Assad and his allies. The leading GOP 2016 candidates also advocate such a zone with minimal explanation of how it might function if Syrian and Russian air forces and ground-based missiles ignore Western threats.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S. would not insert ground troops into Syria “yet” after Russian intervention against radical Islamists in Syria caught the United States intelligence flatfooted. But American problems go far beyond the question of ground troops.

Among them: Russia’s intervention was at the request of Syria’s sovereign government, whereas scant traditional legal rationale exists for a U.S. intervention, much less such military actions as a No Fly Zone.

Additionally, Russia has taken many steps to establish de facto control over significant terrain.
It has greatly expanded, for example, its longtime base in Syria’s Latakia province, staffed it with advanced aircraft and other equipment, and launched precision missiles from Caspian Sea traveling 900 miles to hit targets in Western Syria (and with a reach that could presumably reach the capitals of Gulf monarchies if desired). Furthermore, it has created what NATO fears is 600 kilometer zone where U.S. allied forces may have difficulty operating radio, radar and other electronic communications.

Perhaps most important, the Russian initiative to exterminate radical jihadists with far more firepower than allied forces have been willing to use raises questions in Europe and elsewhere about U.S. goals and methods.

The still-influential former CIA Director David Petraeus called for U.S. alliance with Syrian representatives of al Qaeda, which the U.S. has been demonizing since at least 2001. Additionally, federal authorities have recently confirmed that the CIA has secretly been training for four years rebel forces, many of them non-Syrian, in what American authorities have deceptively described as a civil war.

Albright’s background and her lecture before the Center for American Progress, the top liberal and Democratic think tank in Washington, DC, show how war and empire-building retain a powerful appeal throughout the nation’s power centers. The policies retain strong support in the nation’s capital even when they cause vast death, destruction, misery, erosion of legal and moral standards, U.S. taxpayer cost, and U.S. geo-political strategic failure.

The reasons should be no surprise. The policy rationales are promoted as necessary for safety and humanitarian reasons and also advance the careers of those involved, as well as many of their fortunes, organizations and also ideologies, religious, and ethnic loyalities.

http://www.albrightstonebridge.com/team/madeleine-k-albright

Madeleine K. Albright is Chair of Albright Stonebridge Group, and Chair of Albright Capital Management, an affiliated investment advisory firm focused on emerging markets.

She was the 64th Secretary of State of the United States. In 2012, Dr. Albright received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, from President Obama.

In 1997, Dr. Albright was named the first female Secretary of State and became, at that time, the highest ranking woman in the history of the U.S. government. As Secretary of State, Dr. Albright reinforced America’s alliances, advocated for democracy and human rights, and promoted American trade, business, labor, and environmental standards abroad. From 1993 to 1997, Dr. Albright served as the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations and was a member of the President’s Cabinet.

Prior to her service in the Clinton Administration, she served as President of the Center for National Policy; was a member of President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Council and White House staff; and served as Chief Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator Edmund Muskie.

Dr. Albright is a Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service. She chairs both the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs and the Pew Global Attitudes Project and serves as president of the Truman Scholarship Foundation. She serves on the U.S. Department of Defense’s Defense Policy Board, a group tasked with providing the Secretary of Defense with independent, informed advice and opinion concerning matters of defense policy. Dr. Albright also serves on the Boards of the Aspen Institute and the Center for American Progress. In 2009, Dr. Albright was asked by NATO Secretary General Anders Fog Rasmussen to Chair a Group of Experts focused on developing NATO’s New Strategic Concept.

Dr. Albright is the author of five New York Times bestsellers: her autobiography, Madam Secretary: A Memoir (2003); The Mighty and the Almighty: Reflections on America, God, and World Affairs (2006); Memo to the President: How We Can Restore America’s Reputation and Leadership (2008); Read My Pins: Stories from a Diplomat’s Jewel Box (2009); and Prague Winter: A Personal Story of Remembrance and War, 1937-1948 (2012).

Dr. Albright received a B.A. with Honors from Wellesley College, and Master’s and Doctorate degrees from Columbia University’s Department of Public Law and Government, as well as a Certificate from its Russian Institute.

Virtually all U.S. officials have praised the war as a justified because the Saudi-born Osama bin Laden lived there in 2001.

But that rationale is increasingly threadbare for a war now 14 years in length and when U.S. courts and other government officials are protecting Saudi entities against litigation by 9/11 victim families and less than three dozen of the 535 members of the House and Senate are willing to release to the American public their 2002 joint Senate-House report on who funded the 9/11 hijack suspects.

Contact the author This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Related News Coverage

Institute for Political Economy, The Fall Of The Unipower, Paul Craig Roberts, Oct. 17, 2015. (The conservative scholar Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, shown in a file photo) has been assistant Treasury secretary during the Reagan administration, associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, and a research scholar at universities and think tanks.) The distinguished William Engdahl, in a superb statement here, has expressed the view I gave you that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s speech on September 28 at the 70th anniversary of the United Nations changed the balance of power in the world. It is clear that the neoconservatives are not sufficiently realistic to accept this change in the power balance and will resist it to the point of war. Until Putin’s speech, the world was intimidated by the Washington Bully. Resistance to Washington brought swift retribution. In the Middle East and Africa it brought economic sanctions and military invasions that destroyed entire countries.

Other countries felt powerless in the face of the arrogant hegemonic Unipower, which from time to time replied to noncompliance with threats, such as U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage delivered to Pakistan, to bomb non-compliant countries “back to the stone age.” President Putin of Russia brought all that to end on September 28. Putin denounced Washington’s threat to the sovereignty -- and thereby the freedom -- of peoples and countries. He denounced the heartless criminality of Washington’s destruction of the lives of millions of peoples on the basis of nothing other than Washington’s own arrogance. He denouced the illegality of Washington’s assaults on the sovereignty of other peoples, and declared that Russia can no longer tolerate this state of affairs in the world.

Two days later, he took over the war in Syria and began exterminating the Washington-financed and equipped Islamic State. Cruise missiles launched from the Caspian Sea hit ISIL targets with pinpoint accuracy and showed Washington’s EU vassals that Washington’s ABM system could not protect them if Europe permitted Washington to force Europe into conflict with Russia. Putin’s declaration of multi-polarity was seconded by the President of China, who said in his understated, mild way that every country must participate in shaping the future and not just follow the leadership of one.

The remaining danger is the crazed American neoconservatives. I know many of them. They are completely insane ideologues. This inhuman filth has controlled the foreign policy of every U.S. government since Clinton’s second term. They are a danger to all life on earth. Look at the destruction they have wreaked in the former Yugoslavia, in Ukraine, in Georgia and South Ossetia, in Africa, in Afghanistan and the Middle East. The American people were too brainwashed by lies and by political impotence to do anything about it, and Washington’s vassals in Europe, UK, Canada, Australia, and Japan had to pretend that this policy of international murder was “bringing freedom and democracy.” The neoconsevatives must be removed from power, arrested, and put on international trial for their horrendous war crimes before they defend their hegemony with Armageddon.

Washington Post, Top NATO general: Russians starting to build air defense bubble over Syria, Thomas Gibbons-Neff, Sept. 29, 2015. Gen. Philip M. Breedlove believes that Russia’s new presence in Syria is the first piece an intricate layer of defensive systems designed to hinder U.S. and coalition operations in the region. While Russia’s stated goal in moving into Syria is to fight the Islamic State, NATO’s top commander believes Russia’s new presence includes the first pieces of an intricate layer of defensive systems deployed to hinder U.S. and coalition operations in the region. “As we see the very capable air defense [systems] beginning to show up in Syria, we’re a little worried about another A2/AD bubble being created in the eastern Mediterranean,” said Breedlove to an audience at the German Marshall Fund Monday.

Washington Times, Obama ignores generals’ advice on troop levels for unprecedented sixth time, Rowan Scarborough, Oct. 15, 2015. In the end, President Obama was forced to listen to his generals — not his political instincts — on Afghanistan troop levels, and he decided to split the difference. Mr. Obama is keeping 5,500 troops in Afghanistan beyond his presidency, about half the strength recommended by his top general in-country. It marks the sixth time he has rejected the advice of a ground commander on the force size in the long Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Military experts call that streak unprecedented for a commander in chief.

NPR, We Ask Experts: Has The Situation In Syria Become A Proxy War? Eyder Peralta, Oct. 17, 2015. During a recent news conference, President Obama said he would not allow the current conflict in Syria to devolve into a proxy war between the United States and Russia. "That would be bad strategy on our part," he said. "This is a battle between Russia, Iran and [Syrian President Bashar Assad] against the overwhelming majority of the Syrian people." His comment came as Russia stepped up its military operations in the country with a bombing campaign that U.S. officials say has targeted CIA-backed rebels. That made us wonder: Is the situation in Syria already a proxy war, which is generally defined as a conflict between two countries that is fought on third-party soil? We took the question to three experts in the field, and they gave us three different answers.

Washington Post, Center for American Progress, poised to wield influence over 2016, reveals its top donors, Greg Sargent, Jan. 21, 2015. The Center for American Progress, the preeminent liberal think tank in Washington, is poised to exert outsized influence over the 2016 president race and — should Hillary Clinton win it — the policies and agenda of the 45th President of the United States. CAP founder John Podesta is set to run Clinton’s presidential campaign, and current CAP president Neera Tanden is a longtime Clinton confidante and adviser. CAP recently rolled out a major blueprint for combat wage stagnation and inequality that many view as a template for a Clinton economic agenda, and there are surely more major policy statements to come.

So interest in CAP’s funding sources — and its internal workings in general — is likely to intensify and take on a political cast. Today, CAP is revealing its major 2014 donors, after taking some criticism for lack of transparency. The organization provided me two lists of its donors. The first is for the C (3), the nonpartisan think tank arm; the second is for the more political, issue-advocacy-oriented c (4).

Perhaps most notably, given CAP’s advocacy for an economically progressive agenda, is that CAP’s top donors include Walmart and Citigroup, each of which have given between $100,000 and $499,000. Other donors to CAP — a leading advocate of health care reform — include the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which represents leading biotech and bio-pharma firms, and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, both of which have given up to $49,000. Still, many of CAP’s donations appear to be drawn from conventional funding sources for progressive organizations, including labor unions and charitable foundations.

The Washington Post, These new satellite images show how Russia is expanding its military presence in Syria, Thomas Gibbons-Neff, Sept. 22, 2015. Russia is continuing to expand its military presence in Syria according to new satellite images released Tuesday. The images, distributed by IHS Janes, a defense analysis organization, show that Russia is placing equipment at two facilities north of a newly-established Russian airbase in Latakia. One new facility, located outside the small town of Al-Sanobar, shows Russian activity in the form of newly-arrived vehicles, tents while the other, at the Istamo weapons storage complex, shows signs of freshly paved surfaces.

“The build-up so far is clearly a growing expeditionary force that will significantly boost Russia’s ground-attack capabilities, allowing it to boost the defense of the Latakia region,” said Robert Monks, the editor of IHS Janes’ Defense Review.

Monks added that he believes Russia’s next steps will include sending small communications detachments into the surrounding areas so that Russian forces will be able to better coordinate.

Already, some open source reporting has identified various Russian communication vehicles moving in Latakia Province.

The images, posted on the conflict monitoring site Oryx Blog, show what appears to be a Russian R-166-0.5 crewed by Russian soldiers. The vehicle, according to the site, provides “jam-resistant voice and data communications over a long range.”
Iran, Russia to work together to end Syria crisis
Play Video1:53

Russia and Iran, two major allies of Syrian President Bashir al-Assad, announced that they will work together to find a solution to the country's more than four-year-long civil war. (Reuters)

While Russia has longstanding ties with President Bashir al-Assad’s government and has maintained a small military presence in the country for some time, a growing number of Russian forces began appearing in Syria towards the end of August.

Russia now has 28 jets — a mixture of multi-role and ground attack aircraft — as well as 14 helicopter gunships and transports stationed at the Bassel Al-Assad International Airport in Latakia, according to U.S. officials. In addition to the aircraft, satellite images have shown artillery positions, while officials have confirmed the presence of T-90 main battle tanks and surface to air missile systems.

On Tuesday Secretary of State John F. Kerry told reporters that the aircraft at the airfield “basically represents force protection,” as the majority of the jets stationed there are meant for ground attack.

Monks agreed, saying the aircraft are consistent with “enhanced” force protection. However, a U.S. pilot experienced in close air support, pushed back against the idea of using jets as the primary means to defend the airfield.

[These are the 28 jets Russia now has in Syria]

“If all hell broke loose, yeah, use jets for base defense, but for planning purposes, no,” he said, adding that if helicopter gunships were available, they would be the first option. Gunships, he said, have an ability to get much closer to a target than a jet.

The pilot declined to be named because of his active duty status.

It’s unclear what Russia’s priorities are, and officials in Moscow have spoken of both helping fight the Islamic State and bolstering the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

Institute for Political Economy, The Fall Of The Unipower, Paul Craig Roberts, Oct. 17, 2015. The distinguished and knowledgeable international commentator William Engdahl, in a superb statement here, has expressed the view I gave you that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s speech on September 28 at the 70th anniversary of the United Nations changed the balance of power in the world. It is clear that the neoconservatives are not sufficiently realistic to accept this change in the power balance and will resist it to the point of war.Until Putin’s speech, the world was intimidated by the Washington Bully. Resistance to Washington brought swift retribution. In the Middle East and Africa it brought economic sanctions and military invasions that destroyed entire countries. In France and other US vassal states it brought multi-billion dollar confiscations of bank net worth as the price of not following Washington’s policies toward other countries.

Other countries felt powerless in the face of the arrogant hegemonic Unipower, which from time to time replied to noncompliance with threats, such as U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage delivered to Pakistan, to bomb noncompliant countries “back to the stone age.” President Putin of Russia brought all that to end on September 28. Putin denounced Washington’s threat to the sovereignty, and thereby the freedom, of peoples and countries. He denounced the heartless criminality of Washington’s destruction of the lives of millions of peoples on the basis of nothing other than Washington’s own arrogance. He denouced the illegality of Washington’s assaults on the sovereignty of other peoples, and declared that Russia can no longer tolerate this state of affairs in the world.

Two days later he took over the war in Syria and began exterminating the Washington financed and equipped Islamic State. Cruise missiles launched from the Caspian Sea hit ISIL targets with pinpoint accuracy and showed Washington’s EU vassals that Washington’s ABM system could not protect them if Europe permitted Washington to force Europe into conflict with Russia. Putin’s declaration of multi-polarity was seconded by the President of China, who said in his understated mild way that every country must participate in shaping the future and not just follow the leadership of one. The remaining danger is the crazed American neoconservatives. I know many of them. They are completely insane ideologues. This inhuman filth has controlled the foreign policy of every US government since Clinton’s second term. They are a danger to all life on earth. Look at the destruction they have wreaked in the former Yugoslavia, in Ukraine, in Georgia and South Ossetia, in Africa, in Afghanistan and the Middle East. The American people were too brainwashed by lies and by political impotence to do anything about it, and Washington’s vassals in Europe, UK, Canada, Australia, and Japan had to pretend that this policy of international murder was “bringing freedom and democracy.” The crazed filth that controls US foreign policy is capable of defending US hegemony with nuclear weapons. The neoconsevatives must be removed from power, arrested, and put on international trial for their horrendous war crimes before they defend their hegemony with Armageddon.

Neoconservatives and their allies in the military/security complex make audacious use of false flag attacks. These evil people are capable of orchestrating a false flag attack that propells the US and Russia to war.

The neocons are also capable of plotting Putin’s assassination. The crazed John McCain, whom idiotic Arizonians keep returning to the US Senate, has publicly called for Putin’s death, as have other former federal officials, such as former CIA official Herbert E. Meyer, who publicly called for Putin’s removal “wih a bullet hole in the back of his head.” I am confident that the neoconservatives are plotting Putin’s assassination with their Chechen terrorist friends. Unlike the US president, Putin often presents himself in open situations.

Putin is Defeating More than ISIS in Syria — William Engdahl

Russia and its President, Vladimir Putin, a little more than a year ago, in July 2014 were the focus of attention in Europe and North America, accused, without a shred of forensic evidence, of shooting down an unarmed civilian Malaysian airliner over eastern Ukraine. The Russians were deemed out to restore the Soviet Union with their agreement to the popular referendum of Crimean citizens to annex into the Russian Federation and not Ukraine. Western sanctions were being thrown at Russia by both Washington and the EU. People spoke of a new Cold War. Today the picture is changing, and profoundly. It is Washington that is on the defensive, exposed for the criminal actions it has been doing in Syria and across the Middle East, including creating the recent asylum crisis in Germany and large parts of the EU.

As a student of international politics and economics for most of my adult life, I must say the emotional restraint that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government have shown against tasteless ad hominem attacks, from people such as Hillary Clinton who likened Putin to Adolf Hitler, is remarkable. But more than restraint is required to bring our world from the brink or some might say, the onset of a World War III. Brilliant and directed action is essential. Here something extraordinary has taken place in the very few days since President Vladimir Putin’s September 28, UNGA speech in New York.

What he said . . .

What Putin said to the UN General Assembly must be noted to put what he and Russia did in the days immediately following into clear focus. First of all he made clear what the international law behind the UN Charter means and that Russia is scrupulously abiding by the Charter in actions in Syria. Russia, unlike the US, has been formally asked by the legitimate Syrian government to aid its war against terror.

To the UN delegates and heads of state Putin stated, “The decisions debated within the UN are either taken in the form of resolutions or not. As diplomats say, they either pass or they don’t. Any action taken by circumventing this procedure is illegitimate and constitutes a violation of the UN Charter and contemporary international law.”

He continued, “We all know that after the end of the Cold War the world was left with one center of dominance, and those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think that, since they are so powerful and exceptional, they know best what needs to be done and thus they don’t need to reckon with the UN, which, instead of rubber-stamping the decisions they need, often stands in their way.”

Putin followed this with a clear message to Washington and NATO governments on the subject of national sovereignty, something anathema to many who embrace the Nirvana supposed to come from globalization, homogenization of all to one level: “What is the meaning of state sovereignty, the term which has been mentioned by our colleagues here?” Putin rhetorically asked. “It basically means freedom, every person and every state being free to choose their future. By the way, this brings us to the issue of the so-called legitimacy of state authorities. You shouldn’t play with words and manipulate them. In international law, international affairs, every term has to be clearly defined, transparent and interpreted the same way by one and all.”

Putin added, “We are all different, and we should respect that. Nations shouldn’t be forced to all conform to the same development model that somebody has declared the only appropriate one. We should all remember the lessons of the past. For example, we remember examples from our Soviet past, when the Soviet Union exported social experiments, pushing for changes in other countries for ideological reasons, and this often led to tragic consequences and caused degradation instead of progress.”

Those few words succinctly point to what is fundamentally wrong in the international order today. Nations, above all the one proclaiming herself Sole Superpower, Infallible Hegemon, the USA, have arrogantly moved after the collapse of the main adversary, the Soviet Union in 1990, to create what can only be called a global totalitarian empire, what G.H.W. Bush in his September 11, 1991 address to Congress called a New World Order. I believe with conviction that borders do matter, that respect for different cultures, different historical experiences is essential in a world of peace. That is as much true with nations as with individual human beings. We seem to have forgotten that simple notion amid all the wars of the past decades. Vladimir Putin reminds us.

Then the Russian president goes to the heart of the matter. He lays bare the true activities of the Obama Administration in Syria and the Middle East in arming and training “moderate” Islamist terrorists to attack Washington’s bête noire, Syria’s duly-elected and recently re-elected President, Bashar al Assad.

Putin states, “instead of learning from other people’s mistakes, some prefer to repeat them and continue to export revolutions, only now these are “democratic” revolutions. Just look at the situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa…problems have been piling up for a long time in this region, and people there wanted change. But what was the actual outcome? Instead of bringing about reforms, aggressive intervention rashly destroyed government institutions and the local way of life. Instead of democracy and progress, there is now violence, poverty, social disasters and total disregard for human rights, including even the right to life.”

Then in a remark addressed to Washington and their NGO Color Revolutions known as the Arab Spring, Putin pointedly asks, “I’m urged to ask those who created this situation: do you at least realize now what you’ve done?“

Putin, without naming it, addresses the US and NATO role in creating ISIS, noting with precision the curious anomaly that the sophisticated new US Treasury unit to conduct financial sanctions against terrorist organizations, has utterly ignored the funding sources of ISIS, their oil sales facilitated by the Turkish President’s own family to name just one. The Russian President stated, “the Islamic State itself did not come out of nowhere. It was initially developed as a weapon against undesirable secular regimes. Having established control over parts of Syria and Iraq, Islamic State now aggressively expands into other regions. It seeks dominance in the Muslim world and beyond…The situation is extremely dangerous. In these circumstances, it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make declarations about the threat of terrorism and at the same time turn a blind eye to the channels used to finance and support terrorists, including revenues from drug trafficking, the illegal oil trade and the arms trade.

And what Putin is doing . . .

Russia in the last weeks has completely out-maneuvered the diabolical, and they are diabolical, agenda of the Obama Administration not only in Syria but also in the entire Middle East and now in the EU with unleashing the flood of refugees. He openly reached out to invite Obama in their New York September 30 meeting to cooperate together in defeating ISIS. Obama stubbornly insisted that first Assad must go, despite the fact that Christine Wormuth, the Pentagon Undersecretary responsible for the Syrian war, confirmed Russian statements about Assad’s essential role today in any defeat of ISIS. She told the US Senate that Assad’s military “still has considerable strength,” adding, “it’s still the most powerful military force on the ground. The assessment right now is the regime is not in imminent danger of falling.”

Now come the howls of protest from neo-con warhawks, like the ever-ready-for-war Senator John McCain, chairman of the NGO International Republican Institute of the democratic revolution exporting US-backed NGO, National Endowment for Democracy. Or we hear flaccid protests from President Obama. This is because Washington finds itself deeply exposed to the light of world scrutiny for backing terrorists in Syria against a duly-elected state leader and government. The US warhawks accuse Russia of hitting “the moderate opposition” or civilians.

Emperor’s New Clothes . . .

Russia’s Putin is playing the role ever so elegantly, even gracefully, of the small boy in the Hans Christian Anderson classic fairy tale from 1837, The Emperor’s New Clothes. The boy stands with his mother amid thousands of other villagers in the crowd outside the vain Emperor’s palace balcony, where the disassociated king struts around the balcony naked, thinking he is wearing a magnificent new suit of clothes. The boy shouts, to the embarrassment of all servile citizens who pretend his clothes are magnificent, “Mother, look the Emperor has no clothes!”

What do I mean? In the first four days of precision bombing of select sites in Syria Russian advanced fighter jets firing Kh-29L air-to-surface laser-guided missiles that strike targets with a precision less than two meters, managed to destroy key ISIS command centers, munitions depots and vital infrastructure. According to the Russian Defense Ministry official reports, with photos, Su-34 bombers attacked an ISIS special training camp and munition depot near Al-Tabqa, Ar-Raqqah province,” a critical ISIS outpost captured in August, 2014 after bitter battles. “As a result of explosion of the munition depot, the terrorist training camp was completely destroyed,” the Russian Defense Ministry spokesman stated. Russian Su-25 jets have also attacked training camp of the Islamic State in the Syrian Idlib, destroying a workshop for explosive belt production.

Moscow states its air force has “engaged 3 munition, fuel and armament depots of the illegal armed groups. KAB-500 aviation bombs detonated the munition and armament,” and they used BETAB-500 concrete-piercing bombs to destroy four command posts of the ISIS armed groups. The facilities with terrorists are completely destroyed,” the Moscow spokesman added. Russia’s aviation conducted 20 flights and carried out 10 airstrikes against facilities of the Islamic State (ISIL) terrorist group in the past 24 hours. Then Moscow announced they had also hit key outposts of other terror groups such as the Al Qaeda-franchise, Al Nusra Front.

These are the so-called “moderates” that McCain and the Washington warhawks are weeping over. Washington has been creating what it calls the “New” Syrian Forces (NSF), which they claim is composed of “moderate” terrorists, euphemistically referred to as “rebels.” Imagine how recruitment talks go: CIA recruiter, “Mohammed, are you a moderate Islamist? Why yes, my dear CIA trainer. Please take me, train me and arm me in the fight against the ruthless dictator Assad and against ISIS. I’m on your side. You can trust me…”

In late September it was reported that Major Anas Obaid a.k.a. Abu Zayd, on completing his CIA training in Turkey, defected from the train-and-equip program to join Jabhat al-Nusra (Al Qaeda in Syria) immediately on entering Syria. Incredibly, US officials admit that Washington does not track or exercise command-and-control of its Jihadist proxies once they enter Syria. Abu Zayd’s defection after being trained in advanced warfare techniques by the US, is typical. Other elements of the New Syrian Forces directly handed all their weapons to Nusra upon entering Syrian territory at the town of Atareb at the end of September.

These latest “moderate” defections to join Al Qaeda’s Al-Nusra Front affiliate in Syria come less than two weeks after Gen. Lloyd Austin III, head of the US “war against ISIS,” during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Syria, admitted that the US military program that intended produce 5,400 trained fighters a year has so far only resulted in “four or five” who still remain on the ground and active in combat. The rest have all joined ISIS or Al Nusra Front of Al Qaeda, the US-backed “moderate opposition” to ISIL.

What the successful Russian precision airstrikes have done is expose in all its ugly nakedness the Emperor’s New Clothes. For more than one year, the Obama Administration claims it has committed the most awesome airpower on the planet allegedly to destroy ISIS, which has been described as a “ragtag band of militants running around the desert in basketball shoes.”

Curiously, until last week, ISIS has only expanded its web of power in Syria and Iraq under US bombings. Now, within 72 hours, the Russian military, launching only 60 bombing runs in 72 hours, hitting more than 50 ISIS targets, has brought the ISIS combatants into what the Russian Defense Ministry spokesman described as a state of “panic” where more than 600 have deserted. And, according to Moscow, the fight is only beginning, expected, they say to last three to four months.

The Obama Administration has been training terrorists of Al Qaeda/Al Nusra, allegedly to fight ISIS, much like the disgraced General David Petraeus did in Iraq and Afghanistan along with Obama’s special ISIS coordinator, the just-resigned General John Allen. The US-trained “moderate” terrorists were being readied, it’s now clear to all the world, in reality, to battle Assad and open the way for a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Syria and a real plunge into darkness for the world if that were to succeed.

Now, with the truth in the open, exposed by the remarkable successes of a handful of Russian fighter jets in four days against ISIS, accomplishing more than the US “anti-ISIS coalition” in more than one year, it is clear to the world Washington has been playing a dirty double game.

Now that hypocritical Obama Administration mask has been blown off with the precision hit of a Russian laser-guided Kh-29L missile. As German and other EU governments have admitted, much to the strong objection of Washington, Putin has demonstrated that Russia is the essential part of any peaceful resolution of the Syria war. That in turn has a huge bearing on the current asylum-seeker crisis in Germany and other parts of the EU. It also has a huge bearing on prospects for world peace. The Norwegian Parliament’s Nobel Peace Prize Committee, rather than consider John Kerry, might consider Vladimir Putin and Russian Defense Minister, Sergey Shoygu, for the prize.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.