Translate

Thursday, October 9, 2014




Imminent Fall of Baghdad Reminds Me of the Fall of Saigon fifty years ago!

I have sadly concluded that with the furious advance of ISIS supported by ‘the Great Pretenders’  our erstwhile DESPICABLE Sunni allies: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, U.A.E, Dubai, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria this entity will eventually through conventional and unconventional tactics enter Baghdad within a week or so. Once again America finds itself at the tail-end of the jackass of all wars,  the initial Iraq Invasion and then the subsequent consequences of incredibly incompetent civilian, military and intelligence leadership. No one can be spared from this denouement of trillion of dollars spent on unnecessary wars, drone attacks, and indiscriminate civilian massacres.
I failed as a teacher, lecturer and national security operative to make certain that our brave men, women and their families would be spared the agonizing call of defeat beckoning our country into a combat scenario reminiscent of the Vietnam War.  Many pundits have claimed that Vietnam and Iraq were two different species of warfare. Their arguments of dissimilarity were enticing illusory, allowing our civilian/military/intelligence planners to ignore the basic lesson of Vietnam: Don’t fight a war in a distant land that you do not intend to win.


It should be simple history.
Yet ignorant narcissism of our civilian leaders  [Clinton, Bush jr. Obama] combined with the egregious cowardliness of our political generals [Tommy Franks] allowed us to to repeat the hell of Viet Nam, this time in Iraq. There are too many to blame for this incredible foolishness; including the CIA; military Intelligence, legislators; and a military officer corps that had no idea of how to fight counter-insurgency [Gen David Petraeus] combined with an ossified CIA [Tenet; Panetta; Brennan].  These dolts repeated the mantra of ignorance “arm the moderate rebels” and “we have no HUMIT”.   The citizens are also to blame for not going to the streets and protesting this absurd shameful war which will mark this country as both a ‘paper tiger’ and ‘a decaying Empire’.
  According to OSINT, Stratfor, October 7, 2014 (posted earlier)  three thousand ISIS fighters have succeeded in capturing the key strategic areas a few miles from Baghdad---RAMADI and FALLUJAH!! The town of Fallujah has a special resonance just like the ‘Tet Offensive’ has to me—our marines were successful in capturing that town, they won that battle; but our leaders LOST THE WAR!!
Coalition airpower bombing day and night will not make the slightest indent in the actual membership of ISIS or it’s force structure. Like the carpet bombing of Vietnam all that we had accomplished was the spread of napalm over the bodies of innocent Vietnamese civilians as well as poisoning our own troops with Agent Orange (thank you, Admiral Zumwalt).
As ISIS comes ever closer to Sunni Baghdad; the Sunni ISIS soldiers will change their combat uniforms into one of a ‘local resident’ of Baghdad; wherein they will continue to implement their successful terrorist tactics (suicide bombers, IEDs)  attacking both soft and hard targets using counter-insurgency techniques. Our fighter jets can no longer distinguish ISIS from innocent civilian targets.  ISIS will advance into the center of the capital just as they did in Damascus, Syria; and drive both the Shi’ite Iraqi Prime Minister; as well as, the American Embassy Officials out of Baghdad, if they don’t slaughter them all.

Most likely,  Obama will send in more Marines in order to ‘protect’ our useless, bloated American embassy until it becomes apparent to all that we must evacuate all American personnel from there to our naval fleet.  This naval fleet that is standing by for one more evacuation of American personnel.
How do I know this?
I was involved tangentially in the evacuation of the American Embassy in Saigon and I remembered debriefing Ambassador Graham Martin whose only words were:
“What happened? How could we have lost this Vietnam War?” Unfortunately,  I had many obvious answers but out of respect for him and Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker, I remained silent.  The answer lay in our ignorance of Vietnamese history and what Prime Minister Le Duc Tho, reminded me years later “that you Americans are lazy and arrogant”.
He was right!
Americans have been incredibly stupid and boisterous,  screaming out about how we could change the course of thousands of years Middle East History in the vast deserts that really had no boundaries, despite the Sykes-Picot Treaty. Our intelligence was akin to a ‘fact-idiot’; we knew the coordinates of the geography without understanding the complexity of the ethnic tribes woven in the incestuous cobweb of Shi’ite and Sunni Factionalism.
Allow me to quote Former Special Forces General Jerry Boykin who once said very poignantly, ”the American military has not won a legitimate battle since 1944.” In Iraq, despite all the military assistance we provided the non-existing Iraqi Army, ISIS just defeated the 7th, 8th, 9th Divisions [located in Hit; Ramadi; and Fallujah, respectively]. 

Eventually, you will hear on the mainstream media how ISIS infiltrated Baghdad and then raised the ISIS flag on top of the American Embassy.  Remember that history does repeat itself and these deadly games are played over and over.  Let me remind you that the Viet Cong,  like ISIS, was the creation of the OSS, the precursor to the CIA. If you ever travel to Hanoi,  you could see the pictures of Julia Child [yes, the famous chef] and other OSS Operatives, teaching the VIET MIN how to throw hand grenades. In WWII,  we had trained HO CHI MINH himself,  an ardent admirer of American culture,  to fight against the Japanese.
Today we have trained ISIS, the CIA’s creation, to fight against ourselves. How ironic and pitiful!  America has become more self destructive over the past fifty years as we ignore the history lessons that our fathers paid for in blood.



23 comments:

  1. Wolfgang Halbig Discusses The Sandy Hook PSYOP in Greenlawn, New York on October 6, 2014 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFRFzm0ZdZI

    ReplyDelete
  2. TY TonyU, reposted. Appreciate you staying on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why on earth would ISIS want to enter Baghdad?

    ISIS exists where Sunni antipathy against the Shiite overlords of Baghdad permits them to. Fahlujha and Ramadi didn't "fall" to ISIS - they were welcomed in by residents fearful of them but glad to be rid of Shiite dominance over them...

    ISIS likes to pick on a few non-Sunni towns and villages in the north, but taking on a city of millions of Shiites, armed to the teeth....well I think ISIS will sit that one out.

    Unless the Shiites of Baghdad are eager to flee and abandon that city to ISIS it ain't gonna happen. Remember as well that holding Baghdad is the source of billions of dollars in oil revenues that the Shiite politicians have which they use to maintain power ---- they will not give that up. Without control of the Baghdad government the Shiites of Iraq would be broke, and that's not an option for them

    I just can't see ISIS entering Baghdad. This is not 1975 in Vietnam.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Now as for the US invasion of 2002 being "incompetent"....

    I disagree.

    When Paul Bremer arrived in Baghdad he came with orders from Paul Wolfowitz to destroy the Ba'ath party and dismantle the Iraqi armed forces.

    These were not instructions crafted to maintain stability in Iraq or assist in US goals there. To suggest that is laughable.
    It was well understood in CIA, DIA, State and everywhere that destroying the military and the Ba'ath would lead to the formation of resistance and a possible war. My point is that Wolfowitz, Pearl, Libby, Feith, et. al didn't care....

    They didn't care what the outcome would be for the US, or what would happen to Iraq or Americans there when the Ba'ath was destroyed...

    The ONLY interest and purpose of these Israeli neocons was the Israeli agenda of destroying the Iraqi Ba'ath because it was, and is, the only Nazi/fascist [at one-time CIA crafted] force in the Middle East. The existence of the Iraqi Ba'ath was intolerable to Israel and the neo-cons, much much more so then their public claims of the "existential threat" of Iran. The leaders of Iran don't consider Adolf Hitler to be a great man----the Iraqi Ba'ath did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i agree about goals in Iraq... on other hand interest of israel is to have as many small tribes around not united... to count that Iran is something else than just another country of east would be logical and USA and for Iran, but evil is always also stupid and will destroy it self, so Iran will show it s own face, before or later

      Delete
  5. Now as for "how could the US have lost Vietnam?"....

    That's a statement which could only be made by someone who didn't understand that the US narrative of "coming to the aid of an embattled ally" was totally false.

    The simple truth is that the Vietnamese didn't want to fight that war. The Vietnamese knew it couldn't be won. Successive Vietnamese government only played along because the CIA and the Pentagon force them to do it. It was a war only the US wanted, the US engineered it, and "coming to the aid of an ally asking for help" was the opposite of what really happened.

    In November 1963 the CIA and Ambassador Lodge supported a coup against President Diem. However the new government, a military Junta, told the Americans that they couldn't defeat the communists and that a neutralist solution would have to be found....

    So CIA and this time the Pentagon supported another coup. And even this time the new Generals told them that they couldn't win and that a neutralist solution would have to be found.

    So CIA and the Pentagon supported a third coup, and this time the Vietnamese Generals decided to play along and pretend that a war could be won...because they had no choice...the US was going to have a war to seek to prevent a communist takeover. To seek this outcome the US would have to take over the war...and did.

    But in the end all the US bombing and ground forces were to no avail, nor was the terror of Phoenix and other programs. The simple fact was that everyone in Vietnam except ten percent of land owners, catholics and businessmen/criminals wanted a communist government.

    Set against those odds no amount of terror or force could prevail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The UNITED STATES went in to Vietnam for the "POT" and Heroine! It was all about THE DRUGS! There were other issues surrounding various business ventures! SEE THIS YOU TUBE VIDEO: "Jeff Steinberg on the JFK Assassination" [An interview with EIR's Jeff Steinberg, on the history of the JFK assassination, the role of the Permindex front group, Col. "Mr.X" Prouty, and the British Empire led series of assassinations and cover-ups that followed. Jeff Steinberg also discussed "DOPE INC." (BOOK about the BRITISH EMPIRE and the international drug trade)!] posted by LaRouche PAC Video Archive (AUTHENTIC) on October 1, 2013!

      Delete
  6. The only real discussion in the early phases of the war was whether there would be a war to the bitter end...or a neutralist solution.

    The French were pushing hard for a neutralization of Vietnam under a single government, and argued that it would be a "Tito style communist government not allied to Russia or China..."

    But CIA and the Pentagon were dead against any neutralist outcomes in Indonesia, Cambodia, or Vietnam or anywhere else.

    That's how the war came about.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Here's a tidbit of triva....

    Watch the film "Good Morning Vietnam," and there's a scene where fragments of Richard Nixon's speech in Vietnam are heard.... Nixon spoke in Vietnam about his opinons there on a visit in 1965, and the film uses this speech as a departure for some antics...

    But listen to the fragments of Nixon's speech in the film and you can hear him say...

    "There can be no neutralist solution in Vietnam..."

    ReplyDelete
  8. This was the biggest point of rancor between John Kennedy and the CIA.

    Kennedy was seeking neutralist solutions everywhere. He didn't see anything wrong with letting a host of countries have communist governments like Yougoslavia as long as they didn't align themselves with Russia or China. Kennedy viewed the cold war as a great power competition between Russia/China versus the US, and otherwise he couldn't care less if little countries here and there had communist governments.

    But this of course was the opposite of the assumptions of everyone at CIA. To them a neutralist communist government was the same as any other communist government, and these governments would work against American and allied security with or without any alligiance or cooperation with Moscow or Piking.

    To CIA Kennedy was more than an appeaser...he was surrendering the struggle and offering easy victories to the communists. And when he made his stupid American University speech saying that the Russians were really great people who had great achievements and had fought bravely to destroy the Nazis.....

    That was the last straw!

    He was, in actuality, a leftist communsit sympathizer as depicted in that speech. His entire previous cold warrior posture simply dissolved.

    That's why CIA wanted him dead. When they found a partner in Johnson they knew it would work....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CIA was monitoring his secret backchannels to Krushov and Castro....

      They knew he was going around everyone in his own Administration to achieve outcomes no one but himself and his brother would accept...

      That was so infuriating to CIA. The fact that he was going around State and everyone else....negotiating in secret with the Russians and Castro over this and that because he didn't want any more confrontations...

      He was a dagger in their backs.

      Delete
    2. To CIA and everyone else confrontations were of course part of the competition. You can't prevent the other side from winning if you are too afraid to manage confrontations and just throw in the towel....

      The whole point of having professionals in this business is to intelligently manage confrontations so that they can be won...but at the same time not allow them to get out of hand....to manage them so war will not occur but we will not lose either. That's the whole purpose of having professionals in this business.

      What Kennedy was doing was an affront to the purpose of their jobs. He was saying he didn't trust them or the game. He wouldn't risk any more confrontations. He wanted to compromise everywhere because he "had no stomach for the game."

      Delete
    3. And why should he? Who was he anyway? From the point of view of CIA, FBI, the Pentagon, even the Secret Service....

      He was an intelligent guy, but that doesn't change the fact that he's never had a job or a career in his life. He's just a rich kid politician from a small state somewhere who has no accomplishment, profession or fortitude. He's a spoiled kid who doesn't know the meaning of character or moral toughness. He's a decadent weakling who is intelligent enough to conduct his own diplomacy in his own way...

      Delete
    4. US total victory but paid with generation of males with rotten eggs who were able to have only one kid as result of government sponsored sexual revolution as way to destroy families and get bigger mobilisation pool for draft... and here i do not blame us government, here i blame KGB operatives, aka peace movement and their stupid slaves, most of people got just what they wanted in much bigger dose... ha ha. When USSR saw what was happening they also said, Rock and Roll all the way forward... communist youth movements were building up famale rock and roll emancipation combined with females who drives tractors

      Delete
    5. C_I_A_operator, you are partially correct. President John F. Kennedy was "conned" by THE C.I.A. (created and controlled by SKULL AND BONES in association with KNIGHTS OF MALTA) into invading Cuba and doing a "LEGAL REGIME CHANGE" to remove Fidel Castro; and Fidel Castro was put into power by THE C.I.A. (created and controlled by SKULL AND BONES)! Why was President John F. Kennedy "conned" by THE C.I.A. (created and controlled by SKULL AND BONES) to go into Cuba to remove Fidel Castro??? THIS WAS A "SET-UP" TO CAUSE ASSASSINATE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY POLITICALLY; THEREFORE, PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY WOULD BE IN FOR "ONE TERM"!

      When UNITED STATES SENATOR John F. Kennedy got elected President, the NEW WORLD ORDER (CITY OF LONDON, England (BRITISH EMPIRE) that reports to JESUIT ORDER and George H. W. Bush Sr. (NAZI and SENIOR SKULL AND BONES MEMBERS) SPEECHES 1991) "ELITE" did NOT TRUST President John F. Kennedy! Furthermore, Senator John F. Kennedy was "FORCED" to take Senator Lyndon B. Johnson as his (Senator Kennedy) "RUNNING MATE;" because, if something went wrong or did not work out, both THE C.I.A. (created and controlled by SKULL AND BONES) and F.B.I. (controlled by Hoover, who was "in bed" with THE C.I.A.) had a "LARGE FILE" (career criminal in Texas) on Senator Lyndon B. Johnson!

      The C.I.A. (created and controlled by SKULL AND BONES) was "supposed" to take-out all of Fidel Castro's aircraft; however, THE C.I.A. left some of the said aircraft! Therefore, THE "BAY OF PIGS" became a complete fiasco to assassinate President John F. Kennedy politically (SEE THIS YOU TUBE VIDEO: "Interview with "Mr. X" Col Prouty" [Colonel Prouty was a top officer in UNITED STATES MILITARY INTELLIGENCE during the EISENHOWER ADMINISTRATION and KENNEDY ADMINISTRATION; and We present here an interview conducted in 1992, between EIR's Jeff Steinberg, and Col. Fletcher Prouty (Ret.), covering a wide area of Col. Prouty's expertise, from covert CIA operations around the globe, and the coverup of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.!] posted by LaRouche PAC Video Archive (AUTHENTIC) on September 24, 2013!

      Immediately after THE "BAY OF PIGS" fiasco, President John F. Kennedy wanted to "get rid of" THE C.I.A. (created and controlled by SKULL AND BONES); and President John F. Kennedy wanted turn all intelligence operations over to UNITED STATES MILITARY INTELLIGENCE! In fact, Colonel Prouty handed the "ORDER" from President John F. Kennedy to the UNITED STATES "JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF" (SEE SAID YOU TUBE VIDEO)! Therefore, this was the "primary motive"!

      Delete
    6. The CIA probably knew that JFK and his girlfriend Mary Pinchot Meyer (ex-wife of Cord, who thus had reason enough for wanting to see JFK dead) were experimenting with drugs, including LSD supplied by none other than Timothy Leary. This was turning him all "peace and love", and so they resolved, (as our current "fearless leaders" are so fond of saying), HE HAS TO GO... Who knows, had he lived, won a second term, and taken a few more "trips" with Mary, we might have ended up with a long hair, psychedelic POTUS...

      Delete
    7. Yes Timothy Leary supplied LSD to Meyer, who shared this and Marijuana with the President. Meyer was later also assassinated a year after Kennedy by a man I worked with, Air Force Lt. Col. David Herbert Strier, who shot her on a "toepath" under a bridge where she foolishly used to walk everday near Georgetown.

      Mary Meyer was a free spirit, but way too free.

      Delete
    8. Thank you for blowing the whistle MITmichael - on the eve of 50th anniversary of her assassination no less: Oct. 12, 1964.

      Peter Janney in his book, Mary's Mosaic, has fingered William Lockwood Mitchell as the assassin. The case against Mitchell as the trigger man however struck me as less than rock solid, since he was also the star witness in the trial of the patsy, James Crump (who was acquitted). That seemed to be one too many roles for one agent in the operation.

      Since you've made this public, I'm going to write up a little article for my blog, if you don't mind.

      Delete
    9. That was Raymond Crump, not James.

      Delete
  9. The Wars after WW2 were never about winning, because that can always be taken care of in the media. Even when nearly 750,000 men were evacuated at Dunkirk, Churchill hailed it as a Victory. No the point of War is War, if you have a shiny new tool or gun for that matter, you want to try it out and what could be better than financing, training and arming both sides it is win, win. The Terrrrurists! are becoming like cartoons with their nutty little flags, social media and shiny new trucks even they are being manipulated like the public to play their 'beardie' bogie man role. On every level Vietnam was just silly, taking 19 year old kids off their Football fields flying them half way around the World to a place they could not have found on a map. Then put them in against trained jungle fighters in a war of attrition. I cannot believe they let their sons go for such a crock of shit. But then the Cheney's, Bushes and Clinton's did not let their sons go did they. R.W.Smith a CIA Analyst said it was the people who did the 'dirty' stuff in the 'good' War WW2 who ended up leading in the 'bad' War Vietnam, hence the atrocities visited upon millions of Asians. Something like you have to be careful what you hate or you might become it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everything the US and Brits did in WWII was dirty...from the mass bombing of cities to the executions of prisoners to the starvation of prisoners to the theft of properties from conquered lands....on and on and on....

      There was nothing about the US and British actions in WWII that fit the prior rules of war.

      Delete
  10. Dr. Steve Pieczenik M.D. Ph.D., Iraq is quite different from Vietnam! ISIS are intelligence mercenaries trained, funded, and armed by THE WEST'S INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY! However, the NORTH VIETNAMESE were soldiers for an actual country, even though there was indirect arming and funding the NORTH VIETNAMESE by WESTERN INTELLIGENCE; and, therefore, THE C.I.A. and BRITISH INTELLIGENCE were involved to handle both sides for THE BRITISH EMPIRE (CITY OF LONDON, England)! "'GAMES' PEOPLE PLAY!"

    ReplyDelete
  11. Comments on this blog are intriguing. Love them !

    ReplyDelete