Cutting through this heavy bureaucratic American doublespeak, the White House will be informed, but would have no commanding authority over the US military.…
It’s important to realize that this Trump’s decision to give more freedom to the US general to decide where to start a war, or as it’s been dubbed “the New Approach” had come after the fact that was “on display this week in Afghanistan, where Gen. John Nicholson, head of the U.S.-led coalition there, decided to use one of the military’s biggest nonnuclear bombs—a Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, or MOAB.”
After the MOAB was dropped, repeating without the presidential approval, the Media came out heralding this bombing of Afghanistan as “America’s top military commanders are implementing the vision articulated by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis: U.S. military commanders to make more battlefield decisions on their own.”
“A senior administration official said Mr. Trump didn’t know about the weapon’s use until it had been dropped.”The Vineyard of the Saker
Trump has lost control over the Pentagon
Scotty
Donny Tinyhands is a big fat wimp who in part let a lot of this happen, as some people in the comments of that article pointed out. What was he smoking when he wanted to pack his cabinet with general after general? If this Deep State is real, he only exasperated the problem BIGLY by pouring more gas on the fire.
ReplyDeleteI sometimes think that he really regrets becoming the president and wishes he could just go back to doing new episodes of The Apprentice, which he probably found way easier than this. i would not be surprised if he would be the kind of guy to burn out after less than 4 yrs and ultimately resign on his own accord and say "fuck this." I just realized that could happen if he somehow doesn't get impeached anyway.
ReplyDeleteThis whole laissez-faire approach to letting the generals do whatever they want just shows me DJT is not serious in any way about wanting to take charge of anything and he's the bullshitter he always was IMO. He'd rather let everyone else do the work for him. No conviction on anything. SAD!
He's willing to delegate everything - except when it comes to managing his business interests. Then he balks at handing it over (to family members!)
ReplyDelete..but, but, but what about her emails?!
ReplyDeleteFunny to see T-complaints here. What next, Putin critiques?
You can't lose what you never had.
ReplyDelete"..but, but, but what about her emails?!"
ReplyDelete2016's "Benghazi!" Remember? 4 people dead from that and the dummies are in a YUGE hypocritical uproar, the GOP I mean.
Donny still won't put anything into a blind trust. He's using the presidency to shill for his garbage brand.
.but, but, but what about her emails?!
ReplyDelete1. HRC lost.
2. The base is incensed that DJT is not following through on his campaign promise to "Lock her up." Some pundits are speculating that Sessions may pursue it to throw meat to the base.
I'd love to see a thorough investigation of HRC and the Clinton Foundation. Of course it is not even in the realm of possibility as payment for access and service - the real reason for deleted emails and private servers - is the foundation upon which the US government is operates.
ReplyDeleteThe NSA has ALL the emails.
The Saker, too, has his Taleb moments :(
ReplyDeleteWhat [does the US military] actually want, and from whom? Do they blackmail Russia and China? Do they also blackmail the EU? Or, do they blackmail someone in the US? Are they looking for money? Are they looking for gold? Do they want the official dejure recognition of the military government? Or, are they demanding the write off the US debt?
Btw, that's nothing. In another article on the site I came across the news that an "Anglo-Zionist" conspiracy rules the world. No kidding.
You know, Tom, people sometimes say the darndest things :)
In another article on the site I came across the news that an "Anglo-Zionist" conspiracy rules the world. No kidding.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that the line between conspiracy theory and reality is fading.
It has name. It's called "gaslighting."
Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or members of a group, hoping to make targets question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the target and delegitimize the target's belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
It's now being used in psyops.
There is now longer an objective criterion for determining facts base on evidence. A good example is "fact-checking" of "fake news." Who fact-checks the fact-checkers?
As results there are many alternative realities and alternative facts.
It's so persistent and pervasive and growing worse that I an no longer going to posting on it here at MNE. To large a task and it's beyond the scope of this site.
There is even some doubt whether the various intel services know the real facts, since the black ops run so deep and everyone is trying to fake others out.
Regarding "the AngloZionist conspiracy," does anyone serious doubt ash Mossad is as up to ears in this as the CIA and MI6, even though it almost never mentioned. But previous ops have come to light that show Mossad's deep involvement in them, if not their orchestration. Saker is well aware of this as an analyst.
BTW, in this game anyone who thinks they know what is going on is a mark.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou no longer will be posting what, specifically?
ReplyDeleteWho and what a person pays attention to and what they do not are the only absolute powers that human has beside abstract thought. Since the senses are unreliable and trick the mind, the only options would seem to be to get lots of input to check for inconsistencies or to get less input from higher quality sources.
ReplyDeletein this game anyone who thinks they know what is going on is a mark.
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the Disinformation Age.
Perhaps a trick is being played on everyone and it is part of a new political technology. To facilitate management and control, we are forever in "a constant state of destabilized perception". Nothing is what is seems. TPTB hope we all keep digging for the truth, so we get more messed up.
ReplyDeleteThe once steady Saker is starting to sound like Alex Jones. Soon Trump will be speaking in tongues.
You no longer will be posting what, specifically?
ReplyDeleteAnything about which the facts are in dispute.
Without agreement on facts, there is no debate.
It's just one narrative pitted against others with no way decide on evidence. One side's facts are anothers' fake news.
The result of this conflict based on factors other than facts.
Welcome to the Disinformation Age.
ReplyDeleteThat is the dialectical complement of the Information Age.
From the standpoint of dialectic logic, it is inevitable.
GIGO becomes a feature rather than a bug for those selecting and disseminating the garbage (disinformation, noise) as food (information, signal).
This is not to say that all disagreement is based on disinformation.
ReplyDeleteA lot people just construct the "facts" differently, by biased selection, for example, but there are many other cognitive-affective biases operative, such as projection.
It's not that one cannot come to a reasonable set of conclusions that one is always updating and I do that. I just don't have the inclination to pursue that here. Most regular readers of the comments know how I come down anyway.
Zachary Shore wrote a book called Blunder: Why Smart People Make Bad Decisions setting forth eight traps illustrated by historical example, including "cognition traps" the US fell into in international relations and foreign military policy.
Here is an article showing why the Putin demonization is highly like wrong, and the author asks at the end of it how to account for it. She wonders if this was not psychological rather than intentional disinformation.
https://off-guardian.org/2017/04/15/is-putin-incorruptible/
Information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom.
ReplyDeleteTom, I've gotten into the mentality of not trusting anyone at this point with all the garbage out there being passed off as news. This website has been pretty reliable for me in having access to more obscure information and resources, but at the end of the day, we all have our own biases and interpretations of the facts. Like some people here really look into this Deep State phenomenon with all the facts presented, while I look at many things as criminal incompetence rather than some concerted effort to undermine X politician.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the Internet itself has had unforeseen consequences with how much more misinformation is out there. You'd think people would become much smarter and much more informed, especially about economics, when often I've seen even more confusion perpetuated.
Regarding "the AngloZionist conspiracy," does anyone serious doubt ash Mossad is as up to ears in this as the CIA and MI6...
ReplyDeleteMossad is the Keystone Kops of spy agencies, Tom. Even the Canadian government caught them using stolen Canadian passports for their agents. You really got to suck when the Canadian government is on to you ;)
Also, I've been reading Sic Semper Tyrannis blog these last couple of weeks, and it too is starting to disappoint -- especially that last article on Erdogan and Turkey ... really naïve.
Think I'll read some Perry Anderson :)
https://www.lrb.co.uk/contributors/perry-anderson
Thus contributing to what I've been calling "couch potato culture." Dumbed down, moronic populace susceptible to disinfo campaigns and manipulation. Many people to this day still fall for all the BS. I saw someone on Twitter link to this article, and I'm not surprised in the slightest.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks?CMP=share_btn_tw
From the article Tom linked to above - re Journalist's ethics:
ReplyDelete"There is a well known code of ethics among us: Is it the Truth, Is it Fair, Does it build Friendship and Goodwill, and Will it be Beneficial for All Concerned"?
Standards slip by increments and hardly one notices or worries; followed by a landslide.
The journalists code of ethics is self-defeating as the truth is never fair, does not necessarily build friendship or goodwill, and isn't beneficial to all (especially those hiding it).
ReplyDeleteThis is bullshit and wishful thinking:"There is a well known code of ethics among us: Is it the Truth, Is it Fair, Does it build Friendship and Goodwill, and Will it be Beneficial for All Concerned"? Furthermore, it is asking a journalist to be a moralist and a Pied Piper (advocate) for his fevered causes.
ReplyDeleteThere is no such code of ethics. I went to graduate J School at Columbia in NYC, supposedly the top joint in the world churning out gumshoes (ha!). The first four weeks were lessons in libel (taught by Columbia.edu law professors) and what constitutes ethics.
The journalistic ethic is to report what was said accurately, and what is known. And to correct it in your next report BECAUSE accurate reporting occurs in streams over the course of an event.
The journalistic ethic is to keep your goddam opinion out of it; ditto your advocacy. (Climate Change being a perfect example of a group bamboozle. Show me one PhD scientist on the New York Times payroll with the educational cajones to report on the incredibly complex non-linear sciences of atmospheric physics, atmospheric chemistry, oceanography, solar sciences, and Space atmospherics. No such animal. The NYT hires political science grads.)
The journalistic ethic is determined by the outfit you work for. It should be stated.
I thought as a code it was quite noble; and relevant in the context of the article about Putin. For me what comes from the heart has always more accuracy than mind. Especially a mind that claims to have no opinion or advocacy. But very few people want to understand that. That's the world we live in; but still the heart exists. It is highly opinionated because it is incredibly focused and one-pointed. Not interested in an argument though.
ReplyDeleteOh .... why let the oufit you work for determine your ethic?
ReplyDeleteYou could be the most principled journalist in the world but if you work for a scum editor at an even more scuzzy paper, what difference does it make? Zero. The only paper for years that had a published ethics edict was Al-Jazeera after it was formed circa 1994 (?) when the top A-Class Arab journalists working for BBC left to create Al-Jazeera.
ReplyDeleteI thought as a code it was quite noble. It's not a code of ethics, jrbarch. It's a personal credo.
ReplyDelete