Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 10, 2014

The Stampede Towards War On ISIS

The stampede towards waging war on ISIS and whoever else is quite weird. I see no real discussions of the sense of it all. How much will this cost? What are possible unintended consequences? How long will it take? How will we know when it is over?

No one seems to ask these questions. Instead this is considert to be journalism and reporting on teh issue:

Over a dinner of D’Anjou pear salad and Chilean sea bass, Obama, Vice President Biden and the outside experts engaged in a deep discussion of the options to combat the Islamic State, those who participated said.

"D’Anjou pear salad" - how interesting. But what are the options discussed, what are their up- and downsides and what are their costs? There is nothing about that in the Washington Post. The fourth estate is gone, nowhere to be found.

But what about the parliament. Isn't the United States supposed to be a democracy? What about those people who were voted into Congress? Cowards:

Democratic leaders in the Senate and Republican leaders in the House want to avoid a public vote to authorize force, fearing the unknown political consequences eight weeks before the midterm elections on Nov. 4.

“A lot of people would like to stay on the sideline and say, ‘Just bomb the place and tell us about it later,’ ” said Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia, who supports having an authorization vote. “It’s an election year. A lot of Democrats don’t know how it would play in their party, and Republicans don’t want to change anything. We like the path we’re on now. We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long.

Obama would be crazy to let Congress get with this position. A war on ISIS will certainly have some very bad consequences, as any war does, and he will be solely blamed for all of them should Congress be allowed to dodge its responsibility.

Should Congress be forced to vote the real discussion, missing now, would have to take place and the vote in the end would likely be a resounding "No!"

These are the two groups. Which one would have, after an open public discussion, more support with the people?

some lawmakers in both parties will team with conservatives who do not want to support Mr. Obama on anything to oppose or limit any authorization of force, Mr. Kingston said. Hawks in the Republican Party will team with pro-Israel lawmakers and humanitarian interventionists in support.

The warmongers are of course trying to avoid the discussion and the vote and that is why they are pressing the stampede and hope that everyone else will panic with them and jump off the cliff.

The reporting today makes it look as if Obama has already taken the decision to, illegally by the way, bomb Syria. I sense a lot of hawkish spin in that and will not be surprised should Obama kick the problem over to Congress and demand a vote.

Posted by b on September 10, 2014 at 15:29 UTC | Permalink

next page »

NATO Loses Ukraine

One wouldn’t know it from reading and viewing the corporate media, but the western gambit has been disastrous. More than 1 million people have been displaced (most fled to Russia), the economies of many countries have been damaged by sanctions, and atrocities such as the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines flight 17 would have been avoided if there had been any grown ups at work in the western capitals.

The signs of desperation in the capitalist West are obvious. Their “rebels” in Syria can’t defeat Assad, they can’t get support among their own people for war and yet they still used Ukraine’s political crisis to take on Putin and failed.

The United States is committed to making war on the rest of the planet and uses its military and economic muscle to get its way. Peace is the last thing that the Nobel Peace Prize winning president wants to see.

The horrible truth is that for the United States and its allies, war is peace. They will continue fanning the flames until they crush the rest of the world or ignite a war they don’t really want. The latter is more likely to happen because they actively create conflict and stand in the way of peaceful resolutions. Ukraine has been trying to sign a ceasefire for several months but always succumbed to American pressure to hang on a little longer.

Unfortunately there is more reason to fear than to rejoice at this juncture because of the insanity emanating from Washington. No one knows what our government will do next or where it will attack. We can only be certain of the uncertainty of events and that means the evil doers will not always get their way. Just ask Ukrainian president Poroshenko, the poster child of unintended consequences.

Posted by: john francis lee | Sep 10 2014 15:33 utc | 1

war on communism, war on drugs, war on terrorism, war on isis.. see a pattern here?

Posted by: james | Sep 10 2014 15:53 utc | 2

Perfect picture describing US war on terror:

Posted by: Harry | Sep 10 2014 15:54 utc | 3

I don't think House leadership will let it come to a vote. Cheney met yesterday with the House GOP caucus to warn the Libertarians there not to go "Isolationist." Plus, I think Team Obama learned its lesson from last year's aborted bombing of Syria. There will be no reaching out to Congress. Obama will use the post-9/11 anti-AQ AUMF to justify bombing Syria. If Congress wants to volunteer a new Imperial-friendly AUMF, I'm sure Obama would welcome it. But as the Kingston quote above makes clear, the elected representatives of the "greatest nation on Earth" are going nowhere near it.

The interesting story today (check out the photo of Kerry, like a Jason Bourne action hero in a Brooks Brothers suit, riding shotgun in a helicopter as it hovers over Baghdad) is one by court scribe Michael Gordon. Kerry is in Iraq to force the new Abadi government to sign off on a federalization scheme. What the U.S. has rebooted the Cold War to prevent in Ukraine it is relaunching GWOT to achieve in Iraq.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Sep 10 2014 15:58 utc | 4

Obama has said he doesn't need Congress approval
so it won't go to Congress
The US will push regime change by negotiation first
if that fails the US will bomb Syria

Posted by: Penny | Sep 10 2014 16:09 utc | 5

@3 harry.. so true...

Posted by: james | Sep 10 2014 16:19 utc | 6


Posted by: really | Sep 10 2014 16:22 utc | 7

Obomba is no longer a candidate for office.He is trying to give political cover to both sides of Congress,as if they don't vote,the electorate can't blame them,and voila,the isolationist voter can't pin anything on these pos.They are also definitely nervous about keeping demoncrat control of the House,and this unilateral action takes heat off them also.
And the worst brutal bastards, the Zionists, are being forced off the front MSM pages(what little their was)by this Isis nonsense,as many many Ziomonsters,in discussion forums and MSM propaganda push the fear hits a home run angle.
You have nothing to fear but fear itself.sheesh.
Isolation today,isolation tomorrow,and isolation forever!(of course that doesn't mean we go ostrich.)

Posted by: dahoit | Sep 10 2014 16:56 utc | 8

It doesn't seem healthy for the President's daughters to have to listen to their father talk about bombing people at the dinner table. Chilean Sea Bass or not.

Posted by: IHaveLittleToAdd | Sep 10 2014 17:06 utc | 9

How much will this cost?
At $8m per day for three years, about $9 billion.
But don't look at it as a cost, look at it as a contribution to the various security state operatives, public and private. They are quite happy with the prospects.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 10 2014 17:07 utc | 10

The president if he were smart, which he isn't, could justify military action as (finally) enforcing the treaty I referenced on the previous thread, the US/Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement of Nov 26, 2007.

Whether or not the president requires congressional assent to enforce a treaty, he could claim so, and that would give Congress an out similar to the War Powers Resolution a previous Congress passed over a presidential veto. The Congress is merely a few hundred bought-and-paid-for political hacks with a popularity rating typically in the single digits, so nobody respects them anyhow.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 10 2014 17:20 utc | 11

Al Qaeda in Yemen has declared support for ISIS, and I look for Ansar al-Sharia in Libya to do the same. Go with a winner! Regarding Libya, this is what the then US ally Gaddafi warned about, before "we came, we saw, he died."

WASHINGTON, Sep 10 — As the nation braced for the possibility of new military action against the Islamic State in Iraq, a House panel heard Wednesday that Libya is also spiraling into a failed state and a potential staging ground for Islamist terrorists.

"Potential staging ground" is what has driven the failed US effort in Afghanistan for thirteen years.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 10 2014 17:38 utc | 12

Well the criminal media was able to turn the Amerika sheeple into Yes lets attack isis and Syria in just a few months. It' amazing what a couple of staged beheading will do. It reminds me of the old days when George the lesser needed to scare the sheeple up pop crazy ben louden. I guess this is the hopism and changey thing the New Amerika deserves.

Posted by: jo6pac | Sep 10 2014 17:41 utc | 13

"Obama would be crazy to let Congress get with this position."

He's created a new presidential power, in which bombing people who can't effectively shoot back doesn't constitute "hostilities" under the War Powers Resolution, and so doesn't require consulting with or getting approval from or even notifying Congress, and he doesn't want to risk confusing that issue. And he doesn't want to risk not getting approval, as would have happened with his previous plan to bomb Syria.

Also, he's apparently planning this adventure to continue past his tenure in office, and he's not facing any more elections, and his financial future is assured, so what does he care about domestic political blowback?

Posted by: Weldon Berger | Sep 10 2014 17:48 utc | 14

Obama didn't create a new power, it was used by Clinton for the bombing of Serbia, in Yugoslavia, for one example. It is a relatively new phenomenon, however. Even the warmonger Woodrow Wilson got an act of Congress.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 10 2014 18:05 utc | 15

@ b

You are asking about Journalism in the land of the Free and the imposer of Democracy.

Read this and then ask yourself whether you want to cry , laugh or punch the wall:

Posted by: Yul | Sep 10 2014 18:12 utc | 16

We may hear the "C" word from Obama. The term caliphate has been widely referred to in recent weeks because the stated goal of the Islamic State is to establish one — an Islam-run government headed by a supreme religious leader, the caliph. The 'misuse' of the word has apparently caused one departure.

news report, Sep 9:

Mohamed Elibiary has left the Department of Homeland Security. Formerly a senior adviser to DHS, Elibiary announced on his Twitter page last week that he had moved on. . .In June, Elibiary publicly championed on his Twitter page that an Islamic Caliphate is “inevitable,” and America only has a choice whether it wishes to support the upcoming inevitability.

History: Vice President Dick Cheney was one of the first members of the Bush administration to say it, at a campaign stop in Lake Elmo, Minn., in September 2004, and then Donald Rumsfeld picked up on it as reported here in 2005.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 10 2014 18:27 utc | 17

Don @14 ... Clinton didn't claim that his campaign was exempt from the War Powers Resolution; he abided by it with the exception of ignoring the 60-day limit, which he argued was waived when Congress funded the bombings through 90 days. Obama's claim from Libya forward is that if military action doesn't place the lives of US military personnel substantially at risk -- i.e., if the targets can't effectively defend themselves -- then the action doesn't meet the definition of "hostilities" for purposes of the War Powers Resolution and doesn't require Congressional authorization or oversight no matter how long it goes on. Different thing.

Posted by: Weldon Berger | Sep 10 2014 18:34 utc | 18

Just heard on the msm propaganda violin that there is a lack of reporters in ISIL controlled areas in Syria. Well what a break for the nightmare dreamweavers of the western msm propaganda apparatus. Also war crimes toward civilians could be committed by indiscriminate bombing campaigns by the US and its allies, then blame on Assad and his allies. Does not bode well.

Just think Gaza strip devoid of reporters. Israel was merciless with reporters on the ground in gaza. Imagine US bombing in Syria with no responsible reporters on the ground. Not good folks.

Posted by: really | Sep 10 2014 18:41 utc | 19

Obama would be crazy to let Congress get with this position. A war on ISIS will certainly have some very bad consequences, as any war does, and he will be solely blamed for all of them should Congress be allowed to dodge its responsibility.

Obama's a lame duck now. He doesn't have to worry about public opinion anymore.

Should Congress be forced to vote the real discussion, missing now, would have to take place and the vote in the end would likely be a resounding "No!"

What makes you so sure Congress'd vote no? Polls are now showing public support for airstrikes against ISIS and it seems few congressmen would oppose them.

But what about the parliament. Isn't the United States supposed to be a democracy?

That's not how things work anymore. The republic is dead. We're an empire now, and we create our own reality.

Posted by: Seamus Padraig | Sep 10 2014 18:54 utc | 20

Sorry I dont follow this conflict, but US have been bombing ISIS for 1 month now, so..there is already a war going on?

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 10 2014 18:58 utc | 21

@Anonymous | Sep 10, 2014 2:58:07 PM | 19
Sorry I dont follow this conflict, but US have been bombing ISIS for 1 month now, so..there is already a war going on?
Looks like you're following it pretty well.
What's the difference between unsanctioned murder and sanctioned murder -- dead is dead.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 10 2014 19:15 utc | 22

Will the US continue to supply arms to ISIS using Turkey as a cutout? This war on terror stuff sure is complicated.

Posted by: Gareth | Sep 10 2014 19:26 utc | 23

@ Weldon Berger #17

Since FDR, all presidents have used the military illegally under international and domestic law without congressional authorization. Dozens of countries have been bombed w/o congressional authorization. Korea was extensively bombed, with cities destroyed and dams burst.

President Bill Clinton supported NATO airstrikes over the conflict in Kosovo even though the House of Representatives deadlocked when asked to authorize the action. More recently, Obama has ordered airstrikes in Iraq, Yemen, Somalia etc. without first getting permission from Congress.

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 10 2014 19:30 utc | 24

"D’Anjou pear salad" - how interesting.

No Wiener Schnitzel for these boys, although I'm surprised it wasn't the Maya Angelou pear salad and the farm-raised tilapia topped with a Russian Osetra Black Cavier Cream Sauce.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Sep 10 2014 19:59 utc | 25

Gareth @ 10: That's a good point. People in Congress and on Team Obama are saying that there doesn't need to be a new AUMF so long as Congress approves training of foreign forces to take on ISIS and the $500 million to fund it.

This is the dark heart of the charade. As b pointed out yesterday, the West's "moderate" foreign fighters of choice, the Free Syrian Army, frequently coordinate attacks with ISIS and Nusra, the AQ franchise in Syria.

So the key to Obama's arabesque plan to combat ISIS, providing half-a-billion US dollars to build a rival Sunni fighting force, will be nothing more than another classic Pentagon boondoggle. Everything is likely to be much worse than before.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Sep 10 2014 20:01 utc | 26

Isn't the United States supposed to be a democracy?

It's often touted as one, but alas it's not. It's officially a democratic representative republic, but effectively it's a quasi benevolent (for now, but it's borderline benevolent/malevolent and directionally heading to malevolent) plutocratic oligarchy with the pretense of governmental representation for the plebes, some free speech and expression and some upward mobility, albeit not much, and a whole hell of a lot of social engineering to keep that from being discovered and to keep the whole thing from imploding.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Sep 10 2014 20:05 utc | 27

Should Obama seek congressional approval to bomb IS, some interesting legal arguments at Opinio Juris here

Posted by: harry law | Sep 10 2014 20:15 utc | 28

We may hear the "C" word from Obama.

Calamine — as in lotion? I hope so because American governance for too long now, perhaps since its inception, has been plagued with a nasty outbreak of Poison Ivy. Too many Ivy League-ers running the country in both business and governance. Some Calamine needs to be applied. In the name of diversity.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Sep 10 2014 20:21 utc | 29

Fox News Viewers have been primed, enticed and brainwashed to clamor for more war (and specifically bmobing Syria). The subtext is that Obama is a wimp. Ergo: He draws a red line and then he wimps out. Therefore he is a pussy(cat). We've seen this meme many times before with Democratic Presidents, Carter, et al.

The facts are quite different of course, b/c they all carried water for the warmongers and they all committed the US to numerous war crimes (aggressive acts) on behalf of the Bilderbergs.

Fox News Viewer cites Reagan as the President that inspired fear in our enemies. (Longing for the imaginary good old days. They were scared of us, by golly!)

It is noteworthy that this viewpoint was conveyed to me by a private jet millionaire with a net worth of $75 mil. How can someone achieve great financial wealth and be so pig-ignorant and stupid?

24-7 propaganda, baby. Goes hand in hand with tax cuts, anti-welfare, anti-poor, lock em up racism which they devour.

Posted by: Fast Freddy | Sep 10 2014 21:05 utc | 30

Giving weapons to the so called "moderate al qaeda(ISIL)" in Syria is gonna end up being an "everything is free" US weapons store for hardcore crazy USG/Saudi/Turkey created ISIL.

Posted by: really | Sep 10 2014 21:15 utc | 31

Very good points, b. The racing to war is part of the propaganda itself. It's important to remember, and to tell others this. They do not create reality, they only aspire to.

Posted by: Crest | Sep 10 2014 21:26 utc | 32

ISIS has worked out many precise doctrines, propaganda moves, strategies, etc. Imho some of these are based on examination of the failed actions of the Muslim Brotherhood (aka appeal to the people, all the people, all the time ..) as exemplified for ex. by Morsi (Egypt) within some settled ‘constituted state’ paragdim. (Just one ex. maybe not the best.)

ISIS may have been ‘created’ by the US, mostly through leaving a vacuum .. yet that statement leaves aside ISIS’ particular internal, revolutionary, dynamic.

ISIS, or djihadists in general (no need to define precisely here) put forward an ideology of revanchism and renewal.

Radical Muslims should, or must, pass:

From humiliation, oppression, obscurity, to honor, dignity, self-respect

From sleep to wakefulness, from inattention to alertness, from crippling shock to open-eyed comprehension, understanding

From darkness to light

From shallow bitterness to triumph

From submission to control of - one’s, our, ..- destiny.. Allah Akbar…

(from news, media, vids, etc. real words as far as i can report)

Powerful stuff which also implies a time of apocalyptic violence and individual sacrifice which is later redeemed for the greater good.

How that works out re. actions on the ground is another question.

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 10 2014 21:44 utc | 33

All these points are true: at 28 (weapons for free), 29 (racing to war is important to the propaganda, ie: instill panic and react quickly before thinking it through), and 30 e (ISIS methodology vis a vis political appeal to the masses).

Of course, like Americans, most Syrians are not Religious Fundamentalists. That said, it is difficult to posit "anti-Christian" views or remarks on Facebook without facing the wrath of the stupid (group think).

Posted by: Fast Freddy | Sep 10 2014 22:25 utc | 34

the 4th estate no longer exists...thats why it cant be found

Posted by: brian | Sep 10 2014 22:28 utc | 35

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Sep 10, 2014 4:05:06 PM | 25

his mother must have fed him some truth serum today

Posted by: brian | Sep 10 2014 22:29 utc | 36

Posted by: Penny | Sep 10, 2014 12:09:54 PM | 5

US tried from the sea side, now using their expendable/throw-away patsies they will try from the land side by way of a state foolishly harboring Great Satan

Posted by: brian | Sep 10 2014 22:31 utc | 37


Here ya go brian,her intensity and raw truth telling is intoxicating and therapeutic.

Posted by: really | Sep 10 2014 22:34 utc | 38

Washington’s campaign to mobilize public opinion for air strikes on Syria, then, has nothing whatever to do with eradicating medieval menaces. Nor has it anything to do with preventing the rise of a caliphate in the greater part of the Middle East, since ISIS hasn’t the capability to accomplish this aim. Even if it did, the rise of a caliphate is a matter for the people of the Middle East to decide, not Western powers. Lastly, until ISIS achieved startling territorial gains in Iraq, Washington was perfectly willing to allow, indeed, even to foster (what it now calls) “the cancer” of ISIS to “metastasize” throughout Syria. It expressed no apprehensions then about ISIS launching 9/11-style attacks on the United States, and did nothing to stop the flow of money to the anti-Assad group from supporters based in countries that make up its Friends of Syria (read Friends of US Imperialism) coalition. Warnings of an ISIS-engineered 9/11-style attack are, therefore, pure fear-mongering.

In light of the above, we ought to ask whether, once launched, a US air-war in Syria will expand its target list from ISIS to Syrian government forces? Is the campaign to mobilize public support for an air war against ISIS in Syria a Trojan horse to escalate the war on the Assad government, and on a broader level, against the interlocked Hezbollah-Syria-Iran resistance against US domination of Western Asia?


Posted by: brian | Sep 10 2014 22:35 utc | 39

Two Austrian Teen-Girls become "famous" - as bad role Models - for joining ISIS in Syria.

Posted by: brian | Sep 10 2014 23:17 utc | 40

Stampede toward a war with Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah - don't forget Russia! - just like the "bipartisan" chicken hawks always wanted. They have to go through the basement window because the front door was firmly locked... we thought. The war will last "three years", in other words, forever. Need an enemy, make an enemy...

Two years ago, guys in IS now were working with USNATO trainers. McCain even had tea with al Baghdadi. They were all then, presumably, "moderates"...

I've hesitated a long time to say this, but this guy is every bit as duplicitous as Bush. Like Bush, he does as he's told and lies as necessary.

Posted by: chuckvw | Sep 10 2014 23:21 utc | 41

how fitting
C.Bildt accused of corruption by ex.Georgia-minister. … ENGLISH: … @wikileaks

Posted by: brian | Sep 10 2014 23:23 utc | 42

Camille Otrakji ‏@CamilleOtrakji ·6h
@emile_hokayem @Joyce_Karam @samdagher @LizSly here is my casualty list 4 those who tried to toppled Assad last time

Posted by: brian | Sep 10 2014 23:27 utc | 43

The Arab GCC..."Coalition of the Combat Dodging"...

Posted by: really | Sep 10 2014 23:28 utc | 44

Paul Joseph Watson ‏@PrisonPlanet ·5 hrs
You can't air strike an ideology. Real reason for U.S. attacks inside Syria are to topple Assad, not #ISIS.

Posted by: brian | Sep 10 2014 23:38 utc | 45

Sergey Bobkov ‏@sbobkov ·6 hrs
#Russia is hastily building a gas pipeline straight to #Novorossia to keep the Donbass cities warm during Winter.

Posted by: brian | Sep 10 2014 23:40 utc | 46

It appears the beheading video propaganda was too good. The american public wants ISIL heads on pikes. But the selling of no troops on the ground propaganda was also too much.

The msm propaganda wurlitzer has worked too good on the malleable US consumers of msm GOVT. propaganda, war mongering bullsh!t!!!!!

Posted by: really | Sep 10 2014 23:40 utc | 47

@42 brian

Glad to hear that. A bright spot in the news cycle. :)

Posted by: really | Sep 10 2014 23:45 utc | 48

Get ready for the Presidential Address to the Military Industrial Complex.

Decades of taxpayer funded defense corporation profits to come.

Don't delay, buy your defense stocks today.*

Don't get left out of death, murder, kill profiteering.

Contact the Obama Administration and the US Congress for a prospectus.

*Always consult a trained financial professional before any investing.

Posted by: really | Sep 11 2014 0:19 utc | 49

I think I've been waiting for this my whole life, subconsciously maybe. That one sentence uttered by the media - our national ego - that is so utterly twisted and self-contradictory, that you know we have lost our collective minds. The final proof you need to know that we're living in Bizarro World. That our national moral syphyllis is finally presenting it third stage and is eating away at our collective brains. And today, it was spoken:

Obama moves to aid Syrian rebels in fight against ISIS

Now, frankly it is impossible to imagine in my mind anything more wrong. One can barely imagine a sentence that makes less logical sense, perhaps: "Obama to replace nation's green vegetables with donuts in fight against diabetes" or "Obama to burn world's trees in fight against global warming" but even those I think don't come close. Perhaps "Obama moves to inject all American's with AIDS in effort to fight AIDS". That, maybe, captures the spirit.

I don't think anyone with an IQ above freezing can buy this kind of shit. I mean, when Ghouta happened and the huffing and puffing over bombing Syria was at its peak - there were massive numbers of comments in even papers like the NYTimes that, frankly, "go it". There were even Republicans talking about how they wished "we had a president like Putin" for christ's sake.

At the peak at least 90% of the comments in the major papers knew that Assad was fighting radical Islamists... yet - are there people actually buying such an obviously incoherent statements? Or has the media finally detached itself from that last thin string that has previously tethered it to reality?

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 11 2014 1:30 utc | 50

Overthrowing Other People’s Governments: The Master List By William Blum

It's slightly out of date - Ukraine isn't on there yet::

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 11 2014 1:40 utc | 51

we are at war--we are at war

Posted by: Jay M | Sep 11 2014 1:59 utc | 52

Stripes, Sep 9
Group says Islamic State using weapons meant for moderate rebels

Antitank weapons that appear to be from stocks transferred to moderate Syrian rebels have landed in the hands of Islamic State militants, according to a newly released field investigation conducted in both northern Iraq and Syria.

The Islamic State has also captured "significant quantities" of U.S.-manufactured small arms and has employed them on the battlefield, researchers found.

The investigation, led by a small-arms research organization known as Conflict Armament Research, marks a rare attempt to physically document the weapons being used by the Islamic State, the radical group that has expanded its control in parts of Syria and Iraq.

Militants with the group have picked up significant caches of arms after seizing Iraqi and Syrian military installations. The new research suggests they have also amassed arms after overrunning the moderate Syrian rebels being supplied by the United States and other allied nations.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 11 2014 2:15 utc | 53

news report:
President Obama authorized U.S. airstrikes in Syria along with expanded airstrikes in Iraq as he vowed Wednesday to wipe out Islamic State terrorists “wherever they exist,” during a prime-time address that outlined a sharp escalation of the U.S. military campaign in the Middle East.

On aerial bombing effectiveness--from Winslow Wheeler:
This author has some experience with such prognostications. From 1992 to 1996, I worked with a team in the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to assess the effectiveness of the air war in Operation Desert Storm. It was not “one bomb one target;” for bridges, for example, it was an average of eleven laser guided bombs to make any bridge un-useable; for other targets it was more. Other data show that “precision” attacks on Saddam Hussein’s air defenses on the first night of Operation Desert Storm and on Saddam Hussein himself in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 definitively failed to achieve the intended objectives and frequently missed their aim points.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 11 2014 2:23 utc | 54

"Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Tonight, I again call on Congress to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters."

Thank you for continuing to equip us, dummy.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 11 2014 2:34 utc | 55

@Gareth #21--

Yes, it is as you have said. The US will now be arming three of four sides (the Syrian government will not get US weapons) (except that two of the sides are the same side--there are no moderate jihadis, what would "moderate jihadi" even mean?), and daash--that is, ISIS--will still be supplied through Turkey.


Posted by: Gaianne | Sep 11 2014 2:42 utc | 56


Again, America logically offers itself as the only solution to problems created by America. WWED. What would Eurocorps do?

It's pretty obvious that Obama cannot challenge the structural inertia of military engagements in, well, anywhere. He is specially hamstrung because he is both conveniently "black," and Democrat ("liberal," whatever that means).

What do you expect? Really, b, what the fuck do you want, besides an entire night removing Putin's shirt?

Your country sucks, BTW. Germany straddles every fence. No wonder the country has no balls.

Posted by: slothrop | Sep 11 2014 2:45 utc | 57

to brian @ 33

I think it's more like that folks here have urged him down a big draft of it. The robust and well-deserved questioning directed of late at his previous fact-free clouds of smoke has been a tonic that has revived his honesty.

And to Cold1 @ 25 & 26

Let me give you your props, spot on and well said. Education should give you the means to liberate your own mind and help towards the liberation of others. Not credentials that enable you to administer the system that imprisons the mind, body and spirit of others.

Seriously, if you have not read Huxley' "Brave New World Revisited," you should. You'd like it, it's a long essay originally serialized in "Newsday" around 1960, if memory serves. Covers much of what you discuss in at 25.

Well done, I'm buying this one Mr. Holefield. "To free thought!"

Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 11 2014 2:47 utc | 58

Plainly Obama is hoping to bomb the Syrians under the cover of attacking daash (ISIS) in Syria. Will this work?

I think it hinges on whether the Russians will still provide up-to-the-minute air intelligence and targetting information to the Syrian government. My guess is they will, and will telegraph that fact to the Pentagon before a few NATO planes quietly fall out of the sky. The US will discover that its latest war scheme is yet another non-starter.


Posted by: Gaianne | Sep 11 2014 2:50 utc | 59

@brian #41:

I thought that Alec Jones was supposed to be a wingnut. But this from the link you gave is spot on:

The Obama administration is clearly using the threat posed by ISIS as an excuse to get done what it has thus far failed to accomplish – the overthrow of the Assad government – by embarking on a huge transfer of weapons to FSA rebels, despite the fact that FSA fighters are openly collaborating with, defecting to, and fighting alongside ISIS militants.
The only thing I can say is that I hope that the West launching another war is going to push the Scots over the top, so that they vote for independence. Voting to leave the UK is, among other things, voting against war.

Posted by: Demian | Sep 11 2014 2:52 utc | 60

Iran and Russia are curiously silent. Are they waiting to see he USA fall in a quagmire?

Posted by: Virgile | Sep 11 2014 3:02 utc | 61

I see Obama kept his word for once. He said in his West Point speech that the US can intervene anywhere it wants for any reason it wants. The international legal order has been demolished so thoroughly by the Americans and Brits that it's not even occurring to anyone anymore that what Obama is going to do is a war crime: it is against the UN Charter to attack another country without getting authorization from the UNSC.

And this is the first time the US is going solo in one of its bombing campaigns, without even having NATO on board. (Turkey by itself doesn't count; America's Gulf protectorates count even less.) Obama learned his lesson from the last time he tried to bomb Syria: he didn't even ask Britain to join him in the bombing this time.

@Gaianne #55:

I'm not sure if it's known how good Syria's air defenses are. Also, I think that the US would destroy the air defenses it knows about with cruse missiles before it sent in bombers.

Posted by: Demian | Sep 11 2014 3:16 utc | 62

Oh, now slophrop is reduced to calling 'b' queer for Putin? Haha, you idiot.

We've seen displays of idiocy here but I think slothrop arriving to A) defend America's "Humanitarian Bombing" scheme B) pretend Obama is just "powerless" and C) tell a faggot joke might be some of the worst we've seen in a while.

Go back to Proyect's for another mouthful, will you?

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 11 2014 3:18 utc | 63

Iran and Russia are curiously silent. Are they waiting to see he USA fall in a quagmire?
Posted by: Virgile | Sep 10, 2014 11:02:49 PM | 57

An ambush works best if the ambushers remain silent whilst the clodhoppers are blundering into the trap.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 11 2014 3:30 utc | 64

To guest77 at 59 -

Hey, did I miss something good? If someone is slagging off on Louis Proyect, I want to pile on! Talk about your fake left. That was a nasty one @ 53.

Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 11 2014 3:52 utc | 65

The reason Obama (& BBC's) 'rebels' are failing to dislodge Assad is exactly the same reason that Obama (& BBC's) Kiev regime is being shredded. Being US-directed, they lack the cojones to confront their military foes, focusing instead on killing civilians. This draws attention to them and turns them into targets for shredding.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 11 2014 4:07 utc | 66

The simple reason why the idea of arming "moderate" "Syrian" rebels is a sham is that Syria has the best government of any Arab country, so that there is no reason to fight the government unless you are a Wahhabi or a paid mercenary.

I guess that keeping Americans from realizing this is why people who profess to be on the left and to engage in reporting machinations by the Empire that the mainstream media mostly ignores, such as Tom Engelhardt of TomDispatch, demonize Assad just as much as mainstream journalists do.

Posted by: Demian | Sep 11 2014 4:14 utc | 67

Aw, America's old dog is jealous of the new baby

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 11 2014 4:27 utc | 68

@rufus: If you think Louis Proyect is a complete phony and total fraud (and really, how couldn't you, it's the most obvious thing in the world) - then you are in good company.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 11 2014 4:30 utc | 69

@Don Bacon | 50

President Obama authorized U.S. airstrikes in Syria along with expanded airstrikes in Iraq as he vowed Wednesday to wipe out Islamic State terrorists “wherever they exist"

That sounds good, when does bombing of Turkey, Israel and Saudis start? :)

Posted by: Harry | Sep 11 2014 4:33 utc | 70

I barely paid any attention to Obama's speech, so I don't know if this is correct, but here is the take of Jason Ditz at

President Obama made it clear that the air war is just “stage one” of the war, but the future assumptions that the heavy lifting of the ground war is going to be carried out by some coalition partners is sheer fantasy. The war is, and was always going to be, America’s to fight.

The scramble for the buildup began awhile ago, with the Pentagon already putting out feelers for contractors to support an open-ended conflict in Iraq. Announcements of a few hundred new troops for Iraq, including 475 announced at tonight’s speech, are happening pretty much weekly now.

With the president continuing to try to pretend this isn’t taking the US straight down the road to a new ground war in Iraq (and Syria), the policy continues to be sneaking as many ground troops in under the radar as quickly as possible, while continuing to scare the public about the ISIS threat so that when the ground war begins in earnest, they are too frightened to object.

Posted by: Demian | Sep 11 2014 5:27 utc | 71

Dear My Senator:

I listened to your floor speech and interview on the Joe and Mika show. You call for Congressional approval for war, yet you have already made up your mind and publicly expressed your approval for war. I agree with you on the need to follow process, but the point of process is substance, and I do not understand why you have made a decision before that process has taken place.

You are just reacting to the public's reaction to dubious videos that even if authentic do not necessarily lead to a rational decision for more war. Last year, the American public said no to this war, and nothing has really changed. A sober and responsible Presidency and Senate would not allow themselves to be easily swayed by such obvious provocations.

If you really support regime change in Syria, then you should just say it, and quit posturing. If you are sincere, then stop saying that military action is predetermined and call for real deliberation in the Senate. Your constituents and country are still tired of war, and rely on your office and your judgment to make sound decisions in their long-term interest.


Posted by: Me | Sep 11 2014 5:51 utc | 72

Posted by: Demian | Sep 11, 2014 1:27:25 AM | 67

You didn't miss much. A few minutes ago I heard what I presume was a snippet from the bluster. Obama was talking about the US and the "Iraqi Army" taking the fight to ISIS.

It seems like only a month ago that i was being told the "Iraqi Army" was so frightened of ISIS that they headed for the hills, leaving their US hardware for ISIS. Today, Obama is pulling a new (revitalised, re-armed) Iraqi Army out of his ass. Maybe Obama should just send the Iraqi's a 'magic' asshole like the one he's got - allowing them to conjure up their own bs solutions.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 11 2014 6:06 utc | 73

OT, but important:

A decision by Russia to cut gas exports to Poland without warning has rekindled fears about Europe's reliance on Siberian gas at a time of increasing tension between Moscow and the west.

The Polish state energy group, PGNiG, said it was trying to find out why volumes had been slashed by up to 24% when it had been exporting gas itself to Ukraine to make up for Russian shortfalls there.

Posted by: okie farmer | Sep 11 2014 6:48 utc | 74

Obama Vows Long Effort to Rout Militants
Likens Campaign to Strikes Against Yemen and Somalia

President Obama said that he was ordering a significantly expanded military campaign against Sunni militants in the Middle East that includes American airstrikes in Syria.

The Attack on ISIS Expands to Syria

In broadening the military operation beyond Iraq, President Obama moves the country back onto a war footing.

Posted by: okie farmer | Sep 11 2014 6:58 utc | 75

A Legacy of War Is Extended With New Military CampaignNYT Now

President Obama may have ensured that he will pass his successor a volatile and incomplete war, just as he inherited one when he took office.

Saudi Arabia Will Allow Anti-ISIS Training Program NYT Now

Saudi Arabia has agreed to an American request to provide a base to train moderate Syrian opposition fighters, officials said.

White House Invites Congress to Approve ISIS Strikes 11:53 PM ET
Trying to Gauge ISIS Threat, Even With U.S. Set to Act 9:47 PM ET
Sunni Mistrust Is a Hurdle for Iraqi Leaders
For Many Iranians, ISIS Seems to Be a U.S. Invention
Guilty Plea by American on Attempt to Help ISIS

Posted by: okie farmer | Sep 11 2014 7:02 utc | 76

Posted by: okie farmer | Sep 11, 2014 2:48:51 AM | 70

Sure, Russia said they would not accept reverse flows of their gas.

There is also this.

Russia China in talks to make alternative to Swift.

Western strategy to "contain" Russia by cutting it out of the Western economic system is bound to backfire.

The interesting point of the Swift "threat" is how Europe is supposed to pay for Russian gas. I hear the suggestion was raised by Britain.

So much for European unity.

Maybe Europe should try to get Scotland instead of England.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 11 2014 7:08 utc | 77

@okie farmer #70:

Why do you take a claim made by Poles seriously??? Next, you'll start believing what the Kiev junta says.

From the Guardian article you gave a link to:

Jonathan Stern, a gas expert at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies and a member of the EU-Russia Gas Advisory Council, believed there was more likely a technical, not a political problem.

"If Gazprom wanted to punish the Poles then it would not do so surely when the weather was warm and in breach of its contractual obligations," said Stern who met the Russians for a gas summit in Vienna this week. "The Russians are acutely aware that any (commercial) moves at this time will be interpreted in the worst possible light (by the west)."

Posted by: Demian | Sep 11 2014 7:12 utc | 78

Demian, do you believe Stern? I don't. This article is important not because it exposes propaganda, but because, if true, Russia's doing a small shot over the bow of Europe. Not testing the water. No, giving an explicite warning.

Posted by: okie farmer | Sep 11 2014 7:32 utc | 79

obama what a joke he is, whining about Russia and then bomb the middle east again.

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 11 2014 7:34 utc | 80

Posted by: Demian | Sep 11, 2014 3:12:52 AM | 74

And you believe a Western expert :-)) technical problem, ha, ha ...

This here is RT - official Russian source

Ukraine’s state-controlled gas transit company says Poland cut off reverse flows to Ukraine, alleging that a quarter of Russian gas imports to Poland went missing. Gazprom said it continues to supply the same amount of gas as previously.

Poland’s state-controlled gas company PGNIG said in a statement Wednesday that deliveries from Russia that traveled through Ukraine and Belarus had been reduced 20 percent on September 8 and 24 percent on September 9.

PGNiG said it was working to find out why volumes were down in the past two days.
"Reports by news agencies on the reduction of volumes of gas supplies by Gazprom to Poland's PGNiG are incorrect,” Itar-Tass reported Gazprom spokesman Sergey Kupriyanov as saying. “The same volume of gas as in previous days – 23 million cubic meters a day – is being supplied to Poland now."

Before Gazprom issued its statement, Uktransgaz’s Prokopiv blamed Russia for trying to “derail” the plan for Poland to supply Ukraine with “reverse” gas, while Ukraine refused to pay its debt to Gazprom and is currently cut off from Russian supplies, and accused Russia of limiting the supply of gas.
Poland established a reverse-flow gas scheme with Ukraine in April 2014, under which Kiev can receive 4 million cubic meters of gas per day.

This here is Bloomberg on the situation

Polskie Gornictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo SA, or PGNiG, got 20 to 24 percent less fuel than it ordered from Gazprom Export over the past two days and is compensating flows with alternative supply, the company said today in an e-mailed statement. Poland halted gas supply to Ukraine at 3 p.m. Warsaw time today, according to Ukraine’s UkrTransGaz.

Bottom line - Poland has alternative supply pipelines to the one through Ukraine. They still halted reverse flow to Ukraine. So Poland must assume Ukraine stole Polish gas.

When you read that EU association agreement with Ukraine you notice that a large part involves gas metering.

This here is - Western, opposition - quoting Chatham House Moscow Times on the gas part of the EU/Russia dispute

The EU has called for installation of gas metering stations at the Russian-Ukrainian border to establish reliably how much gas Russia is supplying to Ukraine. A lack of transparency in this area has benefited Russian and Ukrainian business interests for many years.

The EU is deploying other instruments as well: it has frozen an exemption granting Gazprom full access to the OPAL pipeline running through Germany to the Czech border that feeds off the Nord Stream pipeline.

This effectively incentivizes Gazprom to keep supplying gas through Ukraine and to agree a price with Kiev for gas sold to Ukraine. The Commission is also quietly pursuing its anti-trust probe into possible market abuses by Gazprom that could result in a heavy fine.

Paradoxically, for all its capacity to buy influence and create chaos in Ukraine, Russia has shown that it needs the EU's involvement in resolving its gas dispute with Kiev. An interdependent energy relationship between the EU and Russia that has so often seemed weighted in Russia's favor looks less so at present.

Looks like those alternative routes circumventing Ukraine will be in great demand.

Britain is not dependent on Russian gas. They are trying to sabotage all projects circumventing Ukraine. Poland's interests are different and it will show.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 11 2014 7:48 utc | 81

sunnis are proving a particularly useful tool for use by great Satan: a ready made and very large cadre, a war feature JIHAD, a lots of clueless young males with time on their hands

Posted by: brian | Sep 11 2014 7:56 utc | 82

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 11, 2014 12:30:09 AM | 65
not complete....but he is past his useby date, as are most left wing ineffectuals.

Posted by: brian | Sep 11 2014 7:59 utc | 83

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 10, 2014 9:30:41 PM | 46

infact tho it may make us think well of ourselves, many people with hi IQs can be more foolish than people lower down the ladder...most leftist intellectuals have been backing the jihadis in libya and syria..this may not seem very bright, but theyve managed to convince themselves or at least give the appearance they in pt Louis Proyect

Posted by: brian | Sep 11 2014 8:05 utc | 84

@okie farmer #75:

Yes, on second thought, you could be right. Cutting the flow of gas by 24% isn't the same as cutting it off completely (which would make no sense until it gets cold), so that could have been a warning.

I didn't know that Poland was doing reverse flows to Ukraine; I had read that Slovakia was, however. I thought that the Slovaks and Russians get along. I don't understand why the Slovaks would screw Russia like that.

By the way, I haven't seen this mentioned in the anglophone press:

Kiev begins building defense barricades on Russian border (in German)

Kiev can't pay its utility bills, and yet it is engaging in crazy shit like that. Colonel Cassad had a post yesterday about a Ukrainian who speaks about Moskals (Russians) flying from the cosmos in order to avoid having to work, and other ideas about Russians and Ukrainians. It turns that that is taken from a medical history from a Soviet-era psychiatric textbook. Cassad makes the point that whereas before, such people were placed into lunatic asylums, now they are in control of the Ukrainian government. (We shall see if that post appears on the English language blog. It may be too Russian for general consumption.)

Posted by: Demian | Sep 11 2014 8:07 utc | 85

on the topic of referendums and the Great British Angst 2013, Falklands held a referendum, which the brits defended vigorously and surprisingly the americans slighted, leading to angst of a different sort! even Vicki (Fuck the EU) Nuland makes an appearance!

'The Obama administration has just responded to last night’s Falklands referendum result, where more than 99 percent of the Falkland Islanders voted to remain a British Overseas Territory. As I noted earlier, the emphatic vote was “a victory for the principle of self-determination, and a powerful rebuke to those who wish to suppress it.” That’s not how Washington sees it, however, in the latest slap in the face from the Obama presidency for America’s closest friend and ally. As Agence France Presse reports, the State Department could not even bring itself to congratulate the Falkland Islanders on their historic vote, pressing instead for a “resolution” between Britain and Argentina – in other words, a negotiated settlement on the sovereignty of the Islands, which is the position of Buenos Aires. At a press conference held earlier today, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland declared:
"The residents have clearly expressed their preference for a continued relationship with the United Kingdom.”
"That said, we obviously recognize that there are competing claims. Our formal position has not changed. We recognize the de facto UK administration of the islands, but we take no position on sovereignty claims."'

youd think the brits would be honest and accept the crimean self-determinations! But like true politicians they are hypocrites

Posted by: brian | Sep 11 2014 8:12 utc | 86

'There are two wars being waged in Ukraine. One is by the Kiev Junta Forces (KJF) against the citizens of the Donbas in an effort to drive them out of their home and to kill and terrorize those that remain. This is, of course, one big war crime. The second war is being waged by the Novorossian Armed Forces (NAF) against the invading KJF and their masters in Kiev.
The purpose of Kiev junta's war is to gain (or regain) control of physical territory and resources. That is what is important to psychopaths. Behind the oligarchs in control of Kiev are the bankers of London and New York who control NATO and their member governments. Their big picture aim is to cripple the Russian economy so it doesn't outshine the dying economies of the West and to eventually bring about regime change in Moscow.
The NAF are fighting to completely eliminate the Ukrainian military and the fascist volunteer forces as viable forces that can be used by the junta against all the people of Ukraine.

They aim to bring about freedom for the Novorossians and the chance for the rest of Ukraine to bring about a regime change of their own. This will suit the Russian government in its overall aim of eliminating the bankers from any power over the BRICS nations and eventually eliminate them from any power in the world.
So right now the junta are shelling the population of Novorossia to gain territory and the NAF are setting about systematically killing the KJF. The NAF are much less interested in controlling territory in the short term. They are focused on destroying the KJF and the best place to do that is in the Donbas on their own territory where supply lines are short, where they have the support of the people and where they know the territory intimately. It also frames their war as defensive and not aggressive.
Since abandoning Slaviansk, the NAF have been engaging the KJF away from population centres and, for their part, sparing civilian lives. I mentioned in my previous essay the Mongol tactics used centuries ago in Europe. The effect is to destroy the local lord's military and spare the populace in many cases. I think it is very likely we will see a rerun of these tactics against the KJF who have fortified themselves in Mariupol.'

Posted by: brian | Sep 11 2014 8:26 utc | 87

the article by winterpatriot in pennys site has some novel vies on the NAF tactics(mongolian???)

Posted by: brian | Sep 11 2014 8:29 utc | 88

'The Russians have been assisting the Syrian govt with advice in repelling the NATO jihadi forces in Syria and will have taken note of the devastation that has resulted from the Syrian govt forces shelling the Syrian towns in which the jihadis have ensconced themselves. Indeed, the jihadis scuttle from town to town in Syria as if to invite the govt artillery down on these towns. The NATO jihadists are inviting the Syrian govt to destroy their own towns. The Russians are very unlikely to advise the NAF to do the same.'

Posted by: brian | Sep 11 2014 8:34 utc | 89

brian, from Penny's article:

can we really deduce that the NAF are going to shell Mariupol and fight their way into it? I don't think so. It runs counter to their previous tactics and strategy and it runs counter to their preserving the lives of their fellow Novorossians. So if the NAF are not going to fight their way into Mariupol, does it matter if the Kiev forces there are reinforced? The probable outcome is that the NAF are going to lay siege to Mariupol and leave them there and destroy any junta forces that venture out of the city.

I would add, that the NAF just threatening Maripol was enough to panic Kiev into agreeing the ceasefire. NAF could have done more, too; Kiev had no choice, imo, they could have lost Maripol!

Posted by: okie farmer | Sep 11 2014 8:44 utc | 90

Posted by: Demian | Sep 11, 2014 4:07:45 AM | 81

Seems the issue is physical or virtual reverse gas flow.

Slovakia does physical reverse gas flow - by own pipeline.

Poland seems to be doing virtual reverse gas flow

VRF (Virtual Reverse Flow) This is where it is technically not possible to physically transport gas through a pipeline in both directions. However, it is still possible for a TSO (Tranmission System Operator) to offer capacity as a 'counter flow' on a 'virtual' basis in the other direction. The gas is not actually moving in the opposite direction, but the gas flow requested in the opposite direction is subtracted from the gas flowing in the forward direction. VRF is an interruptible product only available when sufficient gas is physically flowing in the opposite direction from the desired virtual flow.

So that is why Poland "stopped" the reverse gas flow.

Russia does not accept the legality of the virtual reverse gas flow.

So here finally is the correct description of what is going on - Reuters

(Reuters) - Russia has started limiting gas supplies to Poland, disrupting reverse flows to Ukraine, Russia's RIA news agency quoted the head of Ukraine's gas transport monopoly Ukrtransgaz as saying on Wednesday.

"Things aren't going so smoothly. Today Russia started limiting gas supplies to Poland in order to disrupt the reverse (flows) from Poland that we receive. At 2 p.m. (in Ukraine)Poland stopped reverse supplies to Ukraine in the range of 4 million cubic metres," Ukrtransgaz's Ihor Prokopiv said in Kiev.

So no, Russia is not putting pressure on Europe, they are putting pressure on Rest-Ukraine - I hear there is a pipeline built to Donetsk and Lugansk.

Of course propagandists now try to turn this into a Russian European clash.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 11 2014 10:18 utc | 91

I would add, that the NAF just threatening Maripol was enough to panic Kiev into agreeing the ceasefire.

No, Russia amping up its material support of the terrorists (there is no legitimacy to justify these terrorists getting their own acronym so there is no NAF) so Kiev was effectively engaging in conflict with Russia directly without receiving material aid (weapons and troops) from The West.

The NATO summit revealed to Poroshenko that he will have to go this alone, for the most part, and we know he can't do that without this ultimately devolving into a People's War as Motyl aptly points out.

West's Refusal to Arm Ukraine Invites Guerrilla War

If Russia launches a full-scale invasion and Ukraine is unable to defend itself with its armed forces, the result will be a “people’s war” entailing enormous casualties and millions of refugees. Ukrainians, like the citizens of other countries on Russia’s borders, know that Vladimir Putin is an existential threat to their survival as a people. They also know they have no choice but to respond to continued Russian aggression with mass popular resistance.

Such a war—involving a partisan movement with widespread civilian participation—will be extremely costly. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die; streams of refugees will head west. In addition, Putin will have learned that he can have his way with the United States and Europe. Aggressors everywhere will have been emboldened.

If, however, Ukraine’s military has the military equipment needed to deter a Russian invasion, people’s war will not take place, a humanitarian catastrophe will be prevented, Europe will not be inundated with refugees, and the international order might not be toppled.

There are six arguments against the West’s arming Ukraine, and none of them is persuasive.

More at link

I could add one argument he overlooked, and it's probably the best one, for not materially supporting Ukraine and it has to do with why Ukraine is in this predicament in the first place.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Sep 11 2014 10:28 utc | 92

Seems the issue is physical or virtual reverse gas flow.

Russia's Gazprom is an obvious monopoly so they price fix. In order to maintain their set prices without threat, they write into every contract that delivered gas cannot be resold or even redelivered since it affects supply and demand and what others will pay for "their" gas.

They are using energy supplies as a weapon. That's grounds for war as we saw in WWII with the Japanese. When you withhold or blackmail with a vital resource such as energy, it's essentially an act of war. Russia is effectively engaged in preemptive warfare and The West chooses to ignore it and instead beat up on the small fry, IS. The West is a traitorous and cowardly pussy unwilling to stand up to the True Bully poking it in the chest. Perhaps that's because The West is a bully itself, and if that's the case, and I believe it is, it, once again, doesn't bode well for the Small People, meaning there is no refuge. There are bullies everywhere you turn.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Sep 11 2014 10:37 utc | 93

sunnis are proving a particularly useful tool for use by great Satan

Great Satan? Too funny.

I bet you're wearing your turban as you type that, after you've faced Mecca and prostrated yourself in prayer for the fifth time this or that day.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Sep 11 2014 10:41 utc | 94

the joke of scottish independence
RIA Novosti ‏@ria_novosti 19m
Scottish First Minister says independent Scotland would support EU sanctions against Russia

scotland would be a dependence of EU #SHAME

Posted by: brian | Sep 11 2014 10:49 utc | 95

You didn't miss much. A few minutes ago I heard what I presume was a snippet from the bluster. Obama was talking about the US and the "Iraqi Army" taking the fight to ISIS.

It would take decades to turn Iraq's military into a force that could defend the country against the likes of the ever-morphing IS. Considering that, and what we've seen transpire thus far, this statement implication is more weapons for IS because all that hardware will eventually fall into the hands of IS as they win battle after battle. The key is to let either side win or lose, just as it's verboten to even attempt to cure cancer. You don't threaten a guaranteed revenue and profit stream anymore than you poison a spring.

Also, note how Obama still refers to IS as ISIL just as George H. W. Bush would always mispronounce Saddam's name. It's significant. Linguistics, the nuances of it, is a story unto itself. It could be that Obama, the bobble head on a stick front man, is so contained and isolated by his handlers he is not aware IS is now IS and not ISIL and his speechwriters are signaling they're keeping him in the dark by having him refer to the ever-changing organization as one of its past and outdated iterations, ISIL. It reveals, if you read between the lines, the shadow government is in charge and this President is now being made to look the fool, where he was once made to look the hero and savior.

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Sep 11 2014 10:54 utc | 96

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Sep 11, 2014 6:41:47 AM | 90

de ja vu!

not a good idea to bet, my good man...other than on a sure thing

Posted by: brian | Sep 11 2014 10:57 utc | 97

Well I guess Dick Cheney, George W. BUSH, Project For A New American Century and the US Congress ongoing resouce war agenda hegemon policy pimped by the msm and facilitated by the Obama Administration has once again made the beds for the US miltary servicemen and women.

These people are telling the US military, we made your new Iraq and Syria bed, now go (d)lie in it.

Posted by: really | Sep 11 2014 11:00 utc | 98

Thank you somebody #87 for clarifying that.

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 11 2014 11:26 utc | 99

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 11, 2014 7:26:19 AM | 95

You were welcome.

This here is an even clearer description of what is happening by Bloomberg

Russia’s OAO Gazprom limited natural gas flows to Poland, preventing the European Union member state from supplying Ukraine via so-called reverse flows.

Polskie Gornictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo SA, or PGNiG, got 20 to 24 percent less fuel than it ordered from Gazprom Export over the past two days and is compensating flows with alternative supply, the company said today in an e-mailed statement. Poland halted gas supply to Ukraine at 3 p.m. Warsaw time today, according to Ukraine’s UkrTransGaz.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 11 2014 11:44 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.