Has Trump Lost Control Of The Pentagon?

Via The Saker,

The Pentagon’s more aggressive military approach

Here is a short timeline of the Pentagon taking the presidential commander-in-chief power from Trump.

The ultimatums came on March 1.

On March 1, 2017 the Atlantic’s article “Trump and the Generals”

announced that Trump’s military leaders “increasingly sound like they’re working for a different president altogether.

They complained about the lack of funding, even after Trump pledged to give them additional $54 billion that were cut from the budget of non-military agencies.  Right after the budget announcement, it became immediately obvious that the Pentagon considered this sum to be ridiculously small for their ambitions.

They also balked at Trump’s election promise to fire many “Obama’s generals.”

One of those generals openly voicing their opposition to Trump’s policies is General Tony Thomas of U.S. Special Operations Command. He reportedly said that “he wanted Americans to understand those elite counterterrorism operations are occurring nightly.” Meaning that they not just need more money, but more independence to operate.

As per the Atlantic, the “generals don’t much like to talk about “winning” against terrorism. They understand and tell the public and congress that the United States is in a 10-, 30-, 100- year battle against a multi-generational ideological war of ideas that goes far beyond the military battlefield.”

The article links to the Center for a New American Security’s publication: Virtual Caliphate – Defeating ISIL on the Physical Battlefield Is Not Enough.  

The same article in the Atlantic also went on listing some other problems that the Generals had with Trump.

“Over and over, Trump has heard his generals, then gone to the microphone or Twitter and ignored them—a pattern he began on the campaign trail. In September, Trump said he’d likely place new generals in charge of the ISIS war and that the ones in charge had been “embarrassing” under Obama, who he said had marginalized them.”

They complained about his “unpredictability” and even threaten that some of them will resign in protests.

"In the next few months, Trump will either order a way forward against ISIS that U.S. military leaders offer up (and likely is not much different from the war underway), or he’ll order some radical departure from what he’s offered this week, which may require that some generals resign their commissions.”

Either he’ll slash money from the State Department and pull back America’s diplomatic and development presence abroad—including money related to counter-terrorism—or he’ll expand it to help end this fight and prevent further conflict, as so many generals have suggested.”

Either he’ll tone down the anti-Muslim rhetoric, like McMaster wants, or he’ll keep it up.”

“Either he’ll proclaim to the world the importance of a free and adversarial press to democracy, exemplified nowhere better than in America, or he won’t.”

“Americans can pick their own metric, but one place to watch is Eastern Europe. In the last year, former President Barack Obama and NATO moved thousands of American troops to Russia’s border, with more tanks, aircraft, ships, and missiles. If Trump really wants to make nice with Putin, he could pull all of that back, or cut the U.S. nuclear arsenal.”

 “What “the generals” say matters, and what Trump says about them and their advice is confusing.”

If that sounded like an ultimatum, it was, because it was accompanied with an open threat of disobedience delivered via the Daily Beast.

On the same day, March 1, the Daily Beast published an article written by Kimberly Dozier, Generals May Launch New ISIS Raids Without Trump’s OK.

This article was published with updates and comments from Central Command, with the following statements:

“The White House is considering delegating more authority to the Pentagon”

 

President Donald Trump has signaled that he wants his defense secretary, retired Marine Gen. Jim Mattis, to have a freer hand to launch time-sensitive missions quickly, ending what U.S. officials say could be a long approval process under President Barack Obama that critics claimed stalled some missions by hours or days.”

As you have noticed the link to 2016 material titled “CALL OF DUTY: The Secret Movement to Draft General James Mattis for President"

Gen. James Mattis doesn’t necessarily want to be president—but that’s not stopping a group of billionaire donors from hatching a plan to get him there.”

It’s reminded us that Jim Mattis was endorsed by some ” anonymous group of conservative billionaires” to run in the presidential race “to confront Donald Trump.”

“Mattis, who is also nicknamed the “warrior monk” for his contemplative devotion to the military arts, would be a fallback option for anti-Trump forces.”

Now, this anti-Trump force man has taken an unelected position of the secretary of Defense. Let’s keep this very important detail in mind.

The article says that the Pentagon may start launching operations without the Presidential approval in “areas outside of the declared war zones.”

“In declared war zones, U.S. commanders have the authority to make such calls, but outside such war zones, ….  it can take permissions all the way up to the Oval Office to launch a drone strike or a special-operations team.”

“Despite the controversy, Trump has signaled that he wants to operate more like the CEO he was in the private sector in such matters, and delegate even more power to Mattis, which may mean rewriting one of President Barack Obama’s classified Presidential Policy Directives on potentially lethal operations in countries where the U.S. is not officially involved in combat.”

“Trump officials believe loosening the permissions process can help turn up the heat against ISIS—and counterterrorist-focused agencies like the military’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) are lining up new targets in anticipation of more numerous and more rapid approvals.”

 The new model of command is “pre-delegating authority to Mattis, that authority could be pushed much further down the chain of command—all the way down to the three-star general who runs JSOC.” The result will be “the elite force will be able to move into action, informing the national-security apparatus of the operation but not having to wait for permission.

Cutting through this heavy bureaucratic American doublespeak, the White House will be informed, but would have no commanding authority over the US military.

News in Brief

March 14th, the US National Nuclear Security Administration field tested the modernized B61-12  gravity nuclear bomb in Nevada.

April 7, Liberty Passion, loaded with US military vehicles, moored at Aqaba Main Port, Jordan

On April 7th the Pentagon US bombed Syria’s main command center in fight against terrorists

April 10, United States Deploying Forces At Syrian-Jordanian Border

April 11, The US Air Force might start forcing pilots to stay in the service against their will, according to the chief of the military unit’s Air Mobility Command.

April 12, President Donald Trump has signed the US approval for Montenegro to join NATO

April 13, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg announced the alliance’s increased deployment in Eastern Europe

On April 13th, the Pentagon bombed Afghanistan. The US military has bombed Afghanistan with its GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB)

April 13, the US-led coalition bombed the IS munitions and chemical weapons depot in Deir ez-Zor killing hundreds of people

April 14, The Arleigh Burke-class, guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem (DDG 63) has been deployed to the South China Sea

April 14, the US sent F-35 jets to Europe

April 14, Washington failed to attend the latest international conference hosted by Moscow, where 11 nations discussed ways of bringing peace to Afghanistan. The US branded it a “unilateral Russian attempt to assert influence in the region.”

April14, the US has positioned two destroyers armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles close enough to the North Korean nuclear test site to act preemptively

On April 16th, the US army makes largest deployment of troops to Somalia since the 90s.

On Saturday April 15, FoxNews posted an article titled, Trump gives generals more freedom to make decisions in ISIS fight, Trump reiterates confidence in US troops after MOAB strike.

It’s important to realize that this Trump’s decision to give more freedom to the US generals 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.”

 

“Mr. Mattis “is telling them, ‘It’s not the same as it was, you don’t have to ask us before you drop a MOAB,’” the senior defense official said. “Technically there’s no piece of paper that says you have to ask the president to drop a MOAB. But last year this time, the way [things were] meant, ‘I’m going to drop a MOAB, better let the White House know.’”

 

“There’s nothing formal, but it is beginning to take shape,” a senior U.S. defense official said Friday. “There is a sense among these commanders that they are able to do a bit more—and so they are.”

 

“While military commanders complained about White House micromanagement under former President Barack Obama, they are now being told they have more freedom to make decisions without consulting Mr. Trump. Military commanders around the world are being encouraged to stretch the limits of their existing authorities when needed, but to think seriously about the consequences of their decisions.”

 

“The more muscular military approach is expanding…”

 

“Mr. Mattis has sketched out such a global plan, but the administration has yet to agree on it. While the political debate continues, the military is being encouraged to take more aggressive steps … around the world.”

In conclusion:

While the situation is taking its shape, I encourage you to research and to think over the following questions.

This incoming information sounds like a proof of what I have been suspecting all along that the US military has been run by the groups of non-governmental private organizations. My suspicions were confirmed by Rosa Brooks‘ book “How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything.”

It also helped when in February of this year the Washington Post posted her opinion about an ongoing military coup. “A former Defense Department official under the Obama administration has raised the specter of a military coup to remove President Donald Trump from power.

“In an editorial penned for Foreign Policy, senior Pentagon policy official Rosa Brooks publicly suggested a military insurrection against the Trump administration may be the only option to oust one of the most divisive presidents in American history.”

If memory serves me right, in 2011 was a distinct threat issued by Steve Pieczenik on YouTube to Obama and his administration that the military and intelligence stopped considering the presidential power to be legitimate and went on  making themselves to be the real government.

This tells me that no matter who takes the presidency, the US armed forces and the intelligence community refuse to recognize the country’s civilian government.

What does this actually mean for the rest of us?

It means that any negotiations and agreements with the US president and the Secretary of State  are useless. That would explain the complete lack on interest of Putin to talk to any of them. The Kremlin didn’t even release a statement about Putin’s meeting with Tillerson, and there are rumors that it was nothing, but an exchange of strong language on both sides.

So, the US military takes hostage an entire planet by positioning themselves near China, NK and Russia in the Far East, and near Russia in Europe and threatening to start a nuclear conflict with many nuclear countries at once, if they don’t get something.

What do they 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?

How are they going to get away with this?

Two days ago the Wall Street Journal made an announcement that the Pentagon was granted the “freedom of initiative.”

This announcement was noticed in Russia.

If the US armed forces went rogue and the wsj just announced this, would it be the legal reason for the UN members to neutralize their bases around the world?

Who are now in control of  NATO?

Are they keeping Trump hostage and not allowing him to leave the territory of the US?

What about “neuchtenka” like the PMCs, the Special Forces, (GRS)/OGA, SADs, and others?

Does this mean that the US has no civilian government, and that’s why they are going to shut the government down at the end of April?

U.N. Child Abuse Scandal Is Latest In History Of Sex Crimes Committed By Officials, Peacekeepers

Via Disobedient Media

Last week’s report from the Associated Press revealing the bust of a child sex ring run by United Nations peacekeepers in Haiti was far from the first time the United Nations has been associated with child-abuse rings. The U.N. has for decades been rocked by accusations of sex crimes ranging from rape and abuse of women and minors committed in war zones to participation in human trafficking, prostitution and even production of child pornography involving senior U.N. officials and members of foreign governments. The horrific acts often go unpunished as the result of an overly bureaucratic investigation process, with many perpetrators being sent home where they in many cases do not face prosecution in their own state.

I. Abuses in Haiti

On April 12th, 2017, Associated Press (AP) reported the breakup of a child sex ring that was being run in Haiti by Sri Lankan U.N. Peacekeepers between 2004 and 2007. The report revealed that at least 134 peacekeepers abused nine children and that in the wake of the incident, 114 were sent home. None of the abusers were ever charged in connection with the event. AP found that found that some 150 allegations of abuse and exploitation had been reported in Haiti alone between 2004 and 2016, with perpetrators coming from Bangladesh, Brazil, Jordan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Uruguay and Sri Lanka. Public Radio International reported that victims of Pakistani peacekeepers included victims who were mentally disabled. Reuters mentioned that only two of the abusers from Pakistan faced sentencing at home, and were given a mere year in prison for the crime once it was finally investigated by the Pakistani military.

II. Abuses In The Central African Republic And West Africa

Stories similar to those emerging from Haiti have also plagued the U.N.’s missions across Africa. On February 27th, 2016, the Washington Post reported that they had interviewed seven underage victims who claimed that they were sexually abused by peacekeepers from the U.N. MINUSCA mission in the Central African Republic (CAR). The Post also cited reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International which documented additional cases of child rape and murder committed by U.N. troops stationed in the CAR.

The shocking incidents first surfaced after an official from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Anders Kompass, leaked documents and testimony to whistleblowing organization AIDS-Free World and French prosecutors. Kompass revealed that the abuse had been ongoing since before MINUSCA began in 2014, when French troops were sent to the CAR as part of Operation Sangaris. The abuses included cases of forced bestiality. The leak was just one of many instances which Kompass had heard about from coworkers and contemporaries in other parts of the U.N. Foreign Policy reported in April 2016 that more than 150 accusations of sexual misconduct had been filed by women and children with the U.N., though the true number of victims was likely much higher, with at least 108 cases reported in a single province alone.

Babacar Gaye, the Senegalese head of the U.N.’s mission in the CAR, was fired in the wake of the scandal. Although Anders Kompass was ultimately exonerated for leaking documents and information about the abuses, he resigned from the U.N. in June 2016, citing a total lack of accountability among U.N. officials and his frustration at the impunity with which they had ignored the allegations of misconduct. AIDS-Free World also published additional documents which outlined reports that had surfaced in 2001, revealing additional cases of sexual exploitation by peacekeepers in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone.

III. Involvement With Human Trafficking In The Balkans

On February 2012, The Guardian interviewed Kathryn Bolkovac, a whistleblower who outlined abuses committed by U.N. peacekeepers from the U.N. mission to Bosnia. The allegations included revelations that U.N. peacekeepers had abused underage victims in brothels and were also helping to facilitate sex trafficking, torture and rape committed by organized crime groups in the Balkans. In some cases, U.N. personnel themselves were buying and selling girls around Bosnia.

Bolkovac joined the mission after signing up with Dyncorp, a private military contractor who had supplied the U.N. with manpower for the mission. In the aftermath of her revelations of these crimes, Bolkovac was fired by Dyncorp, who claimed she had filed erroneous time-sheets despite a ruling by a British employment tribunal in 2002 to the contrary.

III. UNICEF Child Pornography Scandal

On June 1987, the New York Times reported that the Belgian headquarters of UNICEF was discovered to have been used to produce and store child pornography. The secret photographic studio was located in the basement of the Brussels building where the committee’s offices were housed. Belgian police reported that the studio was being used to take pornographic photographs of children, many of whom were of North African origin. Belgian police said more than 1,000 such photographs were seized, along with a mailing list of some 400 names in 15 European countries that had been prepared on the UNICEF office computer. A 45 year old UNICEF employee was arrested after police said he was hosting evening computer classes for children in the organization’s offices and making them pose for pornographic photographs. Police also discovered cowboy outfits and costumes which they stated were being used to stage sex games with minors.

Report from the Daily Mirror on the scandal, 20th June 1987

Numerous individuals from multiple European countries were charged in connection with the discovery, including Jos Verbeek, the director of UNICEF in Belgium. The scandal led to 14 arrests in Belgium and others in Switzerland, France and Britain. The Guardian reported that former British Justice Ministry official Phillippe Carpentier was one of the individuals arrested in the United Kingdom, along with what it termed “a close associate, a top government official working on highly sensitive anti-terrorist legislation.”

Report from the Daily Express, 26th January 1988

It was reported at the time that UNICEF’s Belgian committee was linked to a criminal organization producing pornographic photographs of children and distributing them throughout Europe, and that the cell was thought to have ties to similar organizations in the United States and Japan. Images previously found during law enforcement operations in several other European countries appeared to have been taken in the UNICEF office in Brussels, according to investigators. Belgian police also raided the Research and Information Centre on Childhood and Sexuality, which had been founded four years earlier and had additional branches in Switzerland and France.

IV. Reasons For U.N. Failure To Adequately Address Abuse

The United Nations has been rightfully blasted for its apparent unwillingness to take action and prevent repeated instances of the sexual abuse and exploitation of both women and minors. A 1996 U.N. study, The Impact of Armed Conflict on Children, noted that in half the cases examined, the arrival of peacekeeping troops to war torn areas was associated with a rapid rise in child prostitution on those states. In almost all cases, perpetrators are never prosecuted for their crimes. This is partially a result of the way in which the U.N. functions: peacekeeping forces enjoy immunity from prosecution in the state they are deployed to for policing, which can only be waived by the U.N. secretary-general to assist the flow of justice. Before that can even happen however, investigators must be sent to establish that a crime did in fact take place, making the U.N. the judge, jury and executioner in many of the reported cases of abuse. This effectively results in an almost complete lack of convictions, such as in the case of the Haitian ring reported on by AP this year.

AIDS-Free World maintains a set of guidelines updated yearly by the U.N. in a lame and futile attempt to prevent sexual abuse and exploitation by its personnel. But these guidelines do not address the systemic problems resulting from the legal status of peacekeepers and investigative methods which contribute to the situation. Similarly, it does nothing to address the top-down corruption in the United Nations that was highlighted by the 1987 UNICEF child pornography scandal, which gives troubling context to the apparent disinterest of officials in dealing with allegations reported by whistleblowers such as Anders Kompass. Until the United Nations takes a serious approach to combatting sexual abuse committed by its officials and peacekeepers, repeated instances of this behavior will more than likely continue unabated.