PDA

View Full Version : Obama Warned To Defuse Tensions With Russia




jllundqu
10-05-2016, 09:47 AM
What are the odds anyone in the whitehouse reads this?


"Obama Warned To Defuse Tensions With Russia, "Unintended Consequences Likely To Be Catastrophic"


A group of ex-U.S. intelligence officials is warning President Obama to defuse growing tensions with Russia over Syria by reining in the demonization of President Putin and asserting White House civilian control over the Pentagon.

ALERT MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

SUBJECT: PREVENTING STILL WORSE IN SYRIA

We write to alert you, as we did President George W. Bush, six weeks before the attack on Iraq, that the consequences of limiting your circle of advisers to a small, relatively inexperienced coterie with a dubious record for wisdom can prove disastrous.* Our concern this time regards Syria.

We are hoping that your President’s Daily Brief tomorrow will give appropriate attention to Saturday’s warning by Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova: “If the US launches a direct aggression against Damascus and the Syrian Army, it would cause a terrible, tectonic shift not only in the country, but in the entire region.”

Speaking on Russian TV, she warned of those whose “logic is ‘why do we need diplomacy’ … when there is power … and methods of resolving a problem by power. We already know this logic; there is nothing new about it. It usually ends with one thing – full-scale war.”

We are also hoping that this is not the first you have heard of this – no doubt officially approved – statement. If on Sundays you rely on the “mainstream” press, you may well have missed it. In the Washington Post, an abridged report of Zakharova’s remarks (nothing about “full-scale war”) was buried in the last paragraph of an 11-paragraph article titled “Hospital in Aleppo is hit again by bombs.” Sunday’s New York Times totally ignored the Foreign Ministry spokesperson’s statements.

In our view, it would be a huge mistake to allow your national security advisers to follow the example of the Post and Times in minimizing the importance of Zakharova’s remarks.

Events over the past several weeks have led Russian officials to distrust Secretary of State John Kerry. Indeed, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who parses his words carefully, has publicly expressed that distrust. Some Russian officials suspect that Kerry has been playing a double game; others believe that, however much he may strive for progress through diplomacy, he cannot deliver on his commitments because the Pentagon undercuts him every time. We believe that this lack of trust is a challenge that must be overcome and that, at this point, only you can accomplish this.

It should not be attributed to paranoia on the Russians’ part that they suspect the Sept. 17 U.S. and Australian air attacks on Syrian army troops that killed 62 and wounded 100 was no “mistake,” but rather a deliberate attempt to scuttle the partial cease-fire Kerry and Lavrov had agreed on – with your approval and that of President Putin – that took effect just five days earlier.

In public remarks bordering on the insubordinate, senior Pentagon officials showed unusually open skepticism regarding key aspects of the Kerry-Lavrov deal. We can assume that what Lavrov has told his boss in private is close to his uncharacteristically blunt words on Russian NTV on Sept. 26:

“My good friend John Kerry … is under fierce criticism from the US military machine. Despite the fact that, as always, [they] made assurances that the US Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama, supported him in his contacts with Russia (he confirmed that during his meeting with President Vladimir Putin), apparently the military does not really listen to the Commander in Chief.”

Lavrov’s words are not mere rhetoric. He also criticized JCS Chairman Joseph Dunford for telling Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia, “after the agreements concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Barack Obama stipulated that they would share intelligence. … It is difficult to work with such partners. …”

Policy differences between the White House and the Pentagon are rarely as openly expressed as they are now over policy on Syria. We suggest you get hold of a new book to be released this week titled The General vs. the President: MacArthur and Truman at the Brink of Nuclear War by master historian H. W. Brands. It includes testimony, earlier redacted, that sheds light on why President Truman dismissed WWII hero Gen. Douglas MacArthur from command of U.N. forces in Korea in April 1951. One early reviewer notes that “Brands’s narrative makes us wonder about challenges of military versus civilian leadership we still face today.” You may find this new book more relevant at this point in time than the Team of Rivals.

The door to further negotiations remains ajar. In recent days, officials of the Russian foreign and defense ministries, as well as President Putin’s spokesman, have carefully avoided shutting that door, and we find it a good sign that Secretary Kerry has been on the phone with Foreign Minister Lavrov. And the Russians have also emphasized Moscow’s continued willingness to honor previous agreements on Syria.

In the Kremlin’s view, Russia has far more skin in the game than the U.S. does. Thousands of Russian dissident terrorists have found their way to Syria, where they obtain weapons, funding, and practical experience in waging violent insurgency. There is understandable worry on Moscow’s part over the threat they will pose when they come back home. In addition, President Putin can be assumed to be under the same kind of pressure you face from the military to order it to try to clean out the mess in Syria “once and for all,” regardless how dim the prospects for a military solution are for either side in Syria.

We are aware that many in Congress and the “mainstream” media are now calling on you to up the ante and respond – overtly or covertly or both – with more violence in Syria. Shades of the “Washington Playbook,” about which you spoke derisively in interviews with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg earlier this year. We take some encouragement in your acknowledgment to Goldberg that the “playbook” can be “a trap that can lead to bad decisions” – not to mention doing “stupid stuff.”

Goldberg wrote that you felt the Pentagon had “jammed” you on the troop surge for Afghanistan seven years ago and that the same thing almost happened three years ago on Syria, before President Putin persuaded Syria to surrender its chemical weapons for destruction. It seems that the kind of approach that worked then should be tried now, as well – particularly if you are starting to feel jammed once again.

Incidentally, it would be helpful toward that end if you had one of your staffers tell the “mainstream” media to tone down it puerile, nasty – and for the most part unjustified and certainly unhelpful – personal vilification of President Putin.

Renewing direct dialogue with President Putin might well offer the best chance to ensure an end, finally, to unwanted “jamming.” We believe John Kerry is correct in emphasizing how frightfully complicated the disarray in Syria is amid the various vying interests and factions. At the same time, he has already done much of the necessary spadework and has found Lavrov for the most part, a helpful partner.

Still, in view of lingering Russian – and not only Russian – skepticism regarding the strength of your support for your secretary of state, we believe that discussions at the highest level would be the best way to prevent hotheads on either side from risking the kind of armed confrontation that nobody should want.

Therefore, we strongly recommend that you invite President Putin to meet with you in a mutually convenient place, in order to try to sort things out and prevent still worse for the people of Syria.

In the wake of the carnage of World War II, Winston Churchill made an observation that is equally applicable to our 21st Century: “To jaw, jaw, jaw, is better than to war, war, war.”

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)

Fred Costello, Former Russian Linguist, USAF

Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator

Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)

Larry C. Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)

John Kiriakou, former CIA counterterrorism officer and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.) (associate VIPS)

Edward Loomis, NSA, Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)

Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)

Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA (ret.)

Todd Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)

Coleen Rowley, Division Counsel & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)

Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA, (ret.)

Robert Wing, former Foreign Service Officer

Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat

* In a Memorandum to President Bush criticizing Colin Powell’s address to the UN earlier on February 5, 2003, VIPS ended with these words: “After watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion … beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.”

Origanalist
10-05-2016, 09:54 AM
At present, the lunatics are clearly running the asylum.

specsaregood
10-05-2016, 10:07 AM
What are the odds anyone in the whitehouse reads this?

I don't see any source, so probably not good odds.

osan
10-05-2016, 10:17 AM
At present, the lunatics are clearly running the asylum.

You have the gift of understatement in great abundance.

Once again we see the problem with "government". It is into the hands of a small cadre of MEN that we have allowed such powers to fall. Claiming to "represent" us, Theye make decisions that affect us all. NO MAN OR GROUP THEREOF holds any such authority save to the degree and extent to which the rest allow it.

What we see worldwide is the mass disavowal by 99.9% of the humans walking the planet today of their individual responsibilities toward themselves (mainly) and their fellows (secondarily) for governance.

We made this bed. Now we are bid lie in it. Humanity could literally change this TODAY. It will not. Why? Because it doesn't want to. We seem to be more pleased with the notion of hating what is around us and bitching about it, than with killing those who damage us. But the average man is a functional idiot with no interest in being free.

It is for these reasons I hope and pray for the apocalyptic event that sets things notably closer to "rights" once again. If I am consumed in that event, so be it. I would rather live, but not at the price of having to tolerate the intolerable. I'd hoped like a complete fool that somehow this "liberty" thing would catch on, but now see in hindsight that it was just another fad-du-jour. Ron gave it his best and did really well, but the moment he farted off into the background, a great many of the fadsters vanished, never to be seen or heard from again. I suppose some of them are now SJWs.

If you want to become wealthy, ALWAYS bet with the worst in humanity. You will never lose.

timosman
10-05-2016, 10:18 AM
White house was too busy to provide a response:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78QgflX0nAY

wizardwatson
10-05-2016, 10:33 AM
It is for these reasons I hope and pray for the apocalyptic event that sets things notably closer to "rights" once again. If I am consumed in that event, so be it. I would rather live, but not at the price of having to tolerate the intolerable. I'd hoped like a complete fool that somehow this "liberty" thing would catch on, but now see in hindsight that it was just another fad-du-jour. Ron gave it his best and did really well, but the moment he farted off into the background, a great many of the fadsters vanished, never to be seen or heard from again. I suppose some of them are now SJWs.

It is the nature of the remnant that when a carrier of truth fades, so to does the presence of the audience for the truth.

People are still around, just dormant once again.

And should some apocalyptic event occur isn't it better that you have memory and evidence that there is a path and a standard for truth rather than having said event occur and be in complete despair?

osan
10-05-2016, 11:09 AM
It is the nature of the remnant that when a carrier of truth fades, so to does the presence of the audience for the truth.

Says nothing good about humans, on average.


People are still around, just dormant once again.

They might as well not be there at all, then. This is one of the central problems with most people - they are sheep even when they proclaim to seek freedom. They lie, as proven by the fact that the moment there is nobody around to lead them about by their hooked little noses, they fall silent as if they'd never existed.


And should some apocalyptic event occur isn't it better that you have memory and evidence that there is a path and a standard for truth rather than having said event occur and be in complete despair?

Perhaps, but what does it gain you in point of practical fact? The good people are literally trapped in the matrix of the dull, ignorant, and corrupt fools that hem them in at every turn. At this point the only hope of escape is violence because they are grossly outnumbered and the vermin are in no humor to consider that which is reasonable and decent. The two populations, if I may use that term more than a bit loosely, are utterly incompatible and in the long run it will have to be either the one or the other who survives.

wizardwatson
10-05-2016, 12:08 PM
Says nothing good about humans, on average.



They might as well not be there at all, then. This is one of the central problems with most people - they are sheep even when they proclaim to seek freedom. They lie, as proven by the fact that the moment there is nobody around to lead them about by their hooked little noses, they fall silent as if they'd never existed.



Perhaps, but what does it gain you in point of practical fact? The good people are literally trapped in the matrix of the dull, ignorant, and corrupt fools that hem them in at every turn. At this point the only hope of escape is violence because they are grossly outnumbered and the vermin are in no humor to consider that which is reasonable and decent. The two populations, if I may use that term more than a bit loosely, are utterly incompatible and in the long run it will have to be either the one or the other who survives.

Who said humans were good?

My worldview is Christian, so a lot of points you make that paint a picture of despair and hopelessness, to me, confirm things that must come true before other things come true.

I've dabbled with concepts that might further "practical gain" myself. But I've found, as Simone Weil once wrote, it is rare that the same man thinks and puts his thoughts into action. Which leads me to conclude that there is a spiritual component to why things never seem to get to a planning stage. Which is simply another way of saying that the forces which control events are outside what the average person thinks they are.

I've seen many people complain about strategy, and "how to get out of this". But few people even have a sound mind to discuss without being agitated. There is a very deep despair in most people who have taken a look at just how bad things are.

And whether a person has resigned himself to accept the way things are or whether you shout and cry against it with all your vocabulary and education can muster doesn't really say anything about how strategically useful you are. In fact the "ragers" I would say are more at risk for being less useful, as they have vested themselves in assuming solutions are difficult, as a simple suggestion would make them look like a fool for getting so upset.

osan
10-05-2016, 03:38 PM
Who said humans were good?

My worldview is Christian, so a lot of points you make that paint a picture of despair and hopelessness, to me, confirm things that must come true before other things come true.

I've dabbled with concepts that might further "practical gain" myself. But I've found, as Simone Weil once wrote, it is rare that the same man thinks and puts his thoughts into action. Which leads me to conclude that there is a spiritual component to why things never seem to get to a planning stage. Which is simply another way of saying that the forces which control events are outside what the average person thinks they are.

I've seen many people complain about strategy, and "how to get out of this". But few people even have a sound mind to discuss without being agitated. There is a very deep despair in most people who have taken a look at just how bad things are.

And whether a person has resigned himself to accept the way things are or whether you shout and cry against it with all your vocabulary and education can muster doesn't really say anything about how strategically useful you are. In fact the "ragers" I would say are more at risk for being less useful, as they have vested themselves in assuming solutions are difficult, as a simple suggestion would make them look like a fool for getting so upset.


At this point in the game it would appear the only thing to be done is to hurry up and wait.

It is difficult at times to bear witness to all that is transpiring. So little of it is good.

Good post, BTW.

Suzu
10-05-2016, 10:04 PM
I don't see any source, so probably not good odds.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-04/obama-warned-defuse-tensions-russia-unintended-consequences-likely-be-catastrophic

DamianTV
10-06-2016, 01:02 AM
WWIII, Nuclear or otherwise is absolutely part of the plan. Taking out the whole middle east was nothing more than a warmup for the big showdown with Russia and China.