Friday, December 08, 2017

BOBBEE BEE: REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR: Provoking Japan, Provoking North Korea

By Prof. Graeme McQueen



Featured image: A destroyed Vindicator at Ewa field, the victim of one of the smaller attacks on the approach to Pearl Harbor (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

On December 7, 1941 the U.S. naval base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii was attacked by Japanese forces. President Roosevelt, in his well known Infamy speech delivered on December 8, claimed the attack was “unprovoked” and, on this basis, asked for and received a declaration of war from the U.S. Congress. 

But the evidence suggests the attack was not unprovoked. On the contrary, it was carefully and systematically provoked in order to manipulate the U.S. population into joining WWII.  This provocation game, spectacularly successful in 1941, is currently being played with North Korea.  The stakes are high. Many good people are reluctant to look critically at the U.S. role in the Pearl Harbor attacks because they consider FDR a progressive president and because they are appalled at the thought of what might have happened if the U.S. had not joined the war. But they should not allow these considerations to prevent them from examining the Pearl Harbor operation. To give up such examination is to give up the understanding of a key method of manipulating populations.
***
By the late 1930s it was clear to much of the world that war was imminent. British planners worked hard to figure out how Britain could emerge on the winning side of the encounter. 
Propaganda in the next war: Rogerson, SidneyBritish propaganda expert Sidney Rogerson’1938 book, Propaganda in the Next War gives us an important glimpse of British thinking on the eve of war. Rogerson notes that “Japan’s distinction is that she is unpopular,” (p. 142) and he comments that U.S. citizens “are more susceptible than most peoples to mass suggestion–they have been brought up on it.” (p. 146). He is thus able to pose the challenge to the British propaganda community in this way: 
“Though we [Britain] are not unfavourably placed, we shall require to do much propaganda to keep the United States benevolently neutral. To persuade her to take our part will be much more difficult, so difficult as to be unlikely to succeed. It will need a definite threat to America, a threat, moreover, which will have to be brought home by propaganda to every citizen, before the republic will again take arms in an external quarrel. The position will naturally be considerably eased if Japan were involved and this might and probably would bring America in without further ado. At any rate, it would be a natural and obvious object of our propagandists to achieve this, just as during the Great War they succeeded in embroiling the United States with Germany.” (p. 148) 
Reading Rogerson prepares us for the discovery that the Pearl Harbor operation was a masterful exercise in deceit. 

FDR and his top advisors agreed with the British that the U.S. needed to get into the war on Britain’s side, and they felt, or claimed to feel, that conflict between the U.S. and Japan was in any case inevitable. Waiting for war with Japan to break out spontaneously was, they felt, a poor idea. But it was also a poor idea to have the U.S. fire the first shot: Japan had to appear as the aggressor. This was the only way to put the U.S. population in the mood for war. The majority of U.S. citizens opposed entering WWII (Stinnett, p. 7) just as they had opposed entering WWI in 1914. Therefore it was decided to goad the Japanese.

As U.S. Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, put it shortly before the Pearl Harbor attack: “The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.” (Stinnett, p. 178)

Robert Stinnett served in the U.S. Navy in WWII. He spent 17 years researching the Pearl Harbor events before bringing out, in 2000, his bookDay of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor. I find his argument, based on solid documentary evidence unearthed through Freedom of Information requests, convincing.  
Stinnett names eight steps of provocation proposed on October 7, 1940 by Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum.

The list includes instituting a complete embargo on trade with Japan (Stinnett, p. 8). Subsequent to McCollum’s list, it was decided also to institute “the deliberate deployment of American warships within or adjacent to the territorial waters of Japan” (Stinnett, p. 9). 
Stinnett says,


The day after December 7, 1941, after listening to FDR’s Infamy speech, and believing his claim that the attacks had been unprovoked, Congress duly passed a declaration of war against Japan. Because of treaties then in place, the U.S. was at war with all the Axis powers. 

Are we to believe that this provocation game, so useful to U.S. planners those many decades ago, now gathers dust on the shelf? On the contrary, U.S. strategy today requires it, and its proponents are in some cases surprisingly frank about this. For example, in the publication, Which Path to Persia?, authored by strategists at the Saban Centre (housed in the Brookings Institution), we find the following argument: 
(a) Any major, overt military action against Iran by the U.S. will be very unpopular (this was in 2009) internationally and domestically unless it is seen as a response to Iranian aggression.
(b) Waiting for the Iranians to carry out such an act may mean waiting forever, because Iran avoids such actions.
(c) It may, therefore, be necessary to goad Iran into such an action—especially if the aim is an invasion of Iran with regime change as in the Iraq case.
(d) The more violent the Iranian response to U.S. goading, the better. All military options are at that point easy to pursue.
The authors note: 
it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)” (pp. 84-85) 
Later they return to the theme of covert regime change as deliberate provocation: 
“Indeed, for this same reason, efforts to promote regime change in Iran might be intended by the U.S. government as deliberate provocations to try to goad the Iranians into an excessive response that might then justify an American invasion.” (p. 150)
The dream of these authors is an attack on the U.S. similar to the assaults of 9/11 (p. 66). Their problem is how to bring this about. If they could get an Iranian assault, they feel, U.S. forces could then do whatever they wanted to do to Iran without resistance from either the U.S. domestic population or the international community. 

This, then, is what the “game” looks like among certain U.S. strategic thinkers today. As for citizens of the relevant states–democratic or otherwise–we are outside the game and are supposed to remain in a state of political unconsciousness. If we recognize the game, we undermine it. 

At this moment, it seems to me that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, North Korea) is even more vulnerable to the provocation game than Iran. The game, in fact, is already in progress. 


We have seen several means employed to provoke the DPRK. The most blatant are insults and threats. For example, U.S. President Donald Trump and U.S. Secretary of Defense Mattis have threatened to commit the crime of genocide against the DPRK. 

Two further actions bring us unsavoury reminders of the provocative acts of the Pearl Harbor operation. 
(a) Military maneuvers in the region 
To antagonize its diminutive opponent (far smaller, in both area and population, than the state of California), the U.S. led a series of extremely provocative military exercises near the DPRK. The exercises included large numbers of weapons systems, some of them nuclear capable–a clear threat of not only aggressive action but nuclear attack. 
(b) Oil embargo 
In addition to escalating general economic sanctions strangling the DPRK economy, the U.S. has tried to cut off the DPRK’s entire supply of oil. The DPRK has no significant oil production of its own and relies on China and Russia for its oil, without which it cannot survive as an industrialized country. Only the noncooperation of China and Russia has forced the U.S. to accept, for the moment, a less draconian move. With UN Security Council resolution 2375, passed on September 11, 2017, the DPRK has lost about 30% of its oil imports. 

The cynicism of the UN Security Council in passing UNSC 2375 is staggering. How can the five permanent members of this body refer to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), which they piously do in the text of 2375, as a basis for the harsh treatment of the DPRK?  It is true that this treaty seeks to halt the spread of nuclear weapons to states that do not have them. But it also seeks to get rid of the nuclear weapons already possessed by nuclear states. Written in 1968, the NPT says: 
“Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” 
Far from doing this, the permanent members of the Security Council continue to guard their nuclear weapons and to resist attempts to get rid of them.  All five of the nuclear powers who happen to be the permanent members of the UN Security Council have refused to sign the recent Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. 
As long as the Security Council’s permanent members continue to ignore the NPT’s call for nuclear disarmament, and as long as they likewise refuse other treaties calling on them to get rid of their nuclear weapons, they have no credibility when they insist that other states (the particular ones they designate as “rogue”) remain nuclear weapons-free. If the NPT disallows the spread of nuclear weapons while permitting existing nuclear powers to hold on to their nuclear weapons, it simply becomes a fancy way of maintaining the exclusive Nuclear Club. 


The NPT also states that
“in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, States must refrain in their international relations from the threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
Instead, we have the U.S., which authored UNSC 2375, threatening the most serious crimes it is possible to commit, including genocide, against the DPRK. 

To be clear, I do not approve of the acquisition of nuclear weapons by any state under any circumstances. I have spent my adult life opposing nuclearism.  I do not rejoice in the nuclear weapons of the DPRK.  But that government is not going to give up its nuclear program voluntarily as long as it feels under existential threat. What DPRK leaders say publicly–we need a deterrent against U.S. aggression–is the same thing their diplomats have said to me privately. And how can the permanent members of the Security Council reject this argument when every one of them believes in nuclear deterrence? Which one of them can claim to be under more threat than the DPRK? 
The sad fact is that as long as the so-called “great powers” continue to use treaties such as the NPT to get what they want, while denying other states equal rights, nuclear proliferation will be extremely difficult to prevent. 

I have no magical solution to the current crisis, but it seems to me that the Security Council is violating the UN Charter, which it has no authority to do, and is acting to prevent a peaceful outcome. 

If I had a global platform from which to address the world I would say the following. 
(a) To the leaders of the DPRK: 
Please do not play the provocation game. I know you are not insane and therefore I know you will not carry out a Pearl Harbor attack on the U.S. or its allies. But responding, as you have in some instances, with threats and harsh rhetoric is dangerous and cannot possibly benefit you. In fact, such responses make it possible for U.S. leaders to turn any accident or international incident against you. They may even fabricate an incident (create a false flag attack on themselves), in which case every threat you have ever made will be quoted to prove to the world that you are the guilty party. 
(b) To China and Russia: 
I understand why you do not want to risk the survival of  your states and your populations for the protection of the little DPRK, which you no doubt regard as something of a loose cannon. But remember that giving in to U.S. bullying is like giving in to the demands of a violent hostage-taker. No good is likely to come of it in the long run. 
(c) To the United Nations as a whole: 
Only by addressing the genuine and legitimate security concerns of the DPRK will you be likely to achieve a peaceful outcome to the current crisis. If you believe in your own organization, its purpose and Charter, you will not cooperate with the imperial policies of those members who, to the grief of the world, are installed in positions of privilege in the Security Council. 
(d) To the people of the world:
Remember Pearl Harbor. That is, understand the provocation game. Recognize it whenever it is played. Undermine it.

Sunday, December 03, 2017

BOBBEE BEE: SLAVE MARKETS IN LIBYA?


By Richard B. Muhammad and Raychelle Muhammad, Final Call Staffers | Last updated: Nov 29,

Libya’s suffering and slavery didn’t just happen Demonstrators hold signs during a demonstration against slavery in Libya on November 24, 2017,outside the Libyan embassy in the French capital Paris.

When CNN released video footage of a live slave auction in Libya, captured by journalist Nima Elbagir, shockwaves were sent around the world.

Starting the bidding at $400 each, buyers purchased 12 African migrants at an undisclosed location outside the capital city of Tripoli in a matter of minutes. How is it possible for open slave market to exist in the year 2017?

At the end of the day, several hundred people gathered in front of the Libyan Embassy in Paris to demand the end of slavery practices in the country updated following a report by CNN. Paris, France, November 24.


The roots of the slavery, suffering and misery in Libya goes back to the purposeful, targeted destruction of the government of Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi.

While President Barack Obama and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, declared their assault on the North Africa leader was about protecting the Libyan people and standing for what is right, Libya has gone all-wrong with no solution in sight.
Raymond A. Winbush, a professor and director of the Institute for Urban Research at Morgan State University, noted that by President Barack Obama’s own admission, the worst mistake of his presidency was how he handled Libya. With three different feuding governments, Libya has never been more unstable.

This instability left the door wide open for today’s widespread corruption, human rights abuses, and the slave trade, said Dr. Winbush.

Dr. Winbush told The Final Call that Libya once boasted the highest standard of living in Africa as Col. Gadhafi redistributed oil revenues back to his people. Libya is now in utter chaos. Racism and slavery are running rampant and these are crimes Col. Gadhafi would have never permitted, he said.

Dr. Winbush also noted that the end of Col. Gadhafi’s reign was accompanied by the birth of the international terrorist organization ISIS. Gerald Perreira, the chairperson of the Black Consciousness Movement Guyana and Organization for the Victory of the People, drew attention to CNN and its role in offering an “expose:”

“The world we find ourselves in is complex and full of contradictions. It is easy to fall for rudimentary textbook propaganda based on simplistic dichotomies, such as ‘the good guys versus the bad guys.’ If we are not aware of the complexities and nuances facing us, we can fall for this type of propaganda, whose sole aim is to keep us apart and destroy any type of unity that could strengthen our ability to defeat the enemy,” he wrote in a piece titled “Deceptive Intelligence: CNN breaks story on Slave Trade in Libya; French Government Voices Concern for African Migrants.”

“When examining and assessing the latest information fed us by one of imperialism’s mouthpieces, CNN, there are important things for us, as revolutionary Pan-Africanists, to keep in mind. The first thing to note is the clear hypocrisy and insincerity which is nowhere more stark than CNN’s recent expose of ‘Libyan crimes against humanity’ and French President, Emmanuel Macron’s call for a special meeting of the UN Security Council to demand immediate action against this heinous ‘Libyan’ crime,” he wrote.

Mr. Perreira warned against giving too much credence to CNN and Western media without a critical analysis of their roles and their corporate, imperialist agendas. Lies “can come in the guise of the imperialists and White Supremacists themselves, or their mouthpieces such as CNN, BBC, Fox News or any of the mainstream corporate media outlets.

We should never forget their role as cheerleaders and purveyors of the fake news that laid the groundwork for the invasion and destruction of the Libyan Jamahiriya. Therefore, let us ask ourselves the burning question, why are they providing us with this information, and why now? Why are the imperialists suddenly feigning concern for the plight of Africans?” he asks.

Muammar Qaddafi and the Revolutionary Committees Movement of the Al Fateh Revolution had a monumental task on their hands: to conscientize and reposition the Libyan people for a significant role in the revolutionary Pan-African project for a United States of Africa. This is a battle for all African revolutionaries. In Sub-Saharan African countries, where almost the entire population comprises Black Africans, we face the same battle. Here in the Caribbean, it is no different. So, when Qaddafi urged his people to look towards a United States of Africa and a revolutionary Pan-African perspective, he had to face Libyans who rejected this program in favor of Libya and the entire North African region joining the Barcelona Project, a Mediterranean-European alliance, whose aim is to take North Africa out of Africa,” Mr. Perreira continued.

Prejudice against dark-skinned Africans exists all over planet earth. Even in countries where the population is almost 100 percent Black African, we have to contend with ‘shadism,’ a hangover from colonialism and plantation culture, where Africans with lighter skin shades are held in higher esteem than Africans with darker skin shades. However, to say that ‘Arab Libyans’ are selling ‘Africans’ is overly simplistic and deliberately misleading. There is a hidden agenda here—beware.

The objective is to ignite hostilities between so-called Arab-Africans and so-called Sub-Saharan-Africans. There is a debate amongst Africans about who is an African. On the one hand, there are those who limit the definition of African to Black Africans in the Sub-Saharan region of the continent. On the other hand, there are those of us who believe that Africa is one, and we will resist any attempt by the imperialists to redefine and further balkanize Africa,” he continued.

“When I go back and I ask myself what went wrong, there’s room for criticism, because I had more faith in the Europeans, given Libya’s proximity, being invested in the follow-up,” President Obama said to The Atlantic.

“If we’re going to do something, obviously we’ve got to be up front, and nobody else is sharing in the spotlight.” The former president’s admission of error does nothing to solve the problem.

Complicating matters, Italy’s government has made deals with Libya’s coast guard, tribes, and warlords to prevent refugees from entering Libya and continuing their journeys into Europe. And while Western nations were able to collude on how to deal with Libya and Col. Gadhafi, they have not come together to deal with the horrors of Libya today. Did the Western nations fear what was happening in Libya and an awakening of a broader African identity and possible political and economic reality?


“Rather than becoming part of the European Community, North Africans promoting the Barcelona Project would be better off seeking out their African roots. This is what Muammar Qaddafi told all Libyans.”
                     


The writer lived in Libya and is a Gadhafi Modern Ghana online.

loyalist. Mr. Perreira pointed out how the forces of U.S.-European Union imperialism had fought to take down Col. Gadhafi and his government since its establishment in 1969. In 2011, Col Gadhafi was on the brink of unifying the African continent and was poised to receive the UN Human Rights Award, he wrote in an article published on

But the Obama administration, on the advice and counsel of Secretary Clinton and others, along with British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Saudi Arabia King Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud, and Qatar Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani launched an all-out assault against Col. Gadhafi which ended in his execution on Oct. 20, 2011.

In an interview with The Atlantic published in April 2016, President Obama discussed the U.S. “intervention” in Libya which he said was carefully planned to stop Col. Gadhafi from invading Benghazi, where there was an uprising. President Obama, along with Vice President Joe Biden and then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, initially wanted no part in the conflict, according to the article. It was Secretary Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, and others who won Mr. Obama over.

But he expressed remorse for how Libya was handled and turned out—but not that Col. Gadhafi was killed.                  
The effort, which cost the U.S. $1 billion, was an epic failure. Publicly, Mr. Obama said, “Libya is a mess.” Privately, the article said, he called Libya a “sh*t show.”


“When I go back and I ask myself what went wrong, there’s room for criticism, because I had more faith in the Europeans, given Libya’s proximity, being invested in the follow-up,” President Obama said to The Atlantic. “If we’re going to do something, obviously we’ve got to be up front, and nobody else is sharing in the spotlight.”

The former president’s admission of error does nothing to solve the problem. Complicating matters, Italy’s government has made deals with Libya’s coast guard, tribes, and warlords to prevent refugees from entering Libya and continuing their journeys into Europe.

And while Western nations were able to collude on how to deal with Libya and Col. Gadhafi, they have not come together to deal with the horrors of Libya today. Did the Western nations fear what was happening in Libya and an awakening of a broader African identity and possible political and economic reality?

Mr. Perreira offers a compelling answer: “The North Atlantic Tribes Organization (NATO) deeply fear this type of awakening and the unity of purpose and action it could lead to in this oil rich and wealthiest region of the world. Minister Farrakhan said many years ago, reflecting on periods of unity in our history, ‘we did it before and we can do it again.’ Muammar Qaddafi’s persistent struggle to forge a United States of Africa was starting to pay off. He was on the verge of creating an African currency that would have shifted the global economic imbalance, preparing the way for Africa to take its rightful place in the world. …

Fear of this emerging African unity, especially between countries in the north and south of the continent, prompted France to orchestrate (Cote D’Ivoire leader Laurent Gbagbo’s)  removal from power at the same time as the NATO led invasion of Libya. Genuine African unity, resulting in anything more than talk, will always be opposed, no matter what the cost, by the forces of White Supremacy.”

CHAOS BREEDS REFUGEE CRISIS

Since 2014, over 600,000 people have migrated to Italy including an all-time high of 180,000 refugees in 2016 alone. Although this action has left migrants vulnerable to being sold into slavery, Italy’s interior minister Marco Minniti stands behind their policy.

The International Organization for Migration, a United Nations agency, has been reporting the rape, violence, extortion, and enslavement of refugees for months.

The IOM exposed the problem and yet no one was apparently listening. Migrants were being swindled by human traffickers they had paid to transport them off the African continent. Survivors said instead they were enslaved, starved, and abused by their captors.

“The latest reports of ‘slave markets’ for migrants can be added to a long list of outrages [in Libya],” said Mohammed Abdiker, IOM’s head of operation and emergencies. “The situation is dire. The more IOM engages inside Libya, the more we learn that it is a vale of tears for all too many migrants.”

All Africa reported that many families of migrants captured by militia and smugglers have been extorted. If they can’t pay the ransoms, then the prisoners are sold. Often the new owners will try to extort the families as well. If at some point the captors can neither collect on nor sell a prisoner, or if the prisoner falls ill, the prisoner is killed.

The CNN footage has garnered much attention and condemnation from the UN, African leadership, and people around the globe. Shortly after the story aired, a massive, and at times violent protest in Paris outside the Libyan embassy ensued. Similar demonstrations were held at Libyan embassies in several African capitol cities including Bamako, Mali and Conakry, Guinea.
un-sec-gen_guterres_11-28-2017.jpg
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for an immediate investigation into the matter and prosecution of all guilty parties.


France called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council to discuss the problem. President Emmanuel Macron condemned human trafficking as a “crime against humanity” via Twitter on Nov. 22. He has since met with head of the African Union, Alpha Conde.
But are France’s hands clean? “The destruction of this most prosperous and just African country was led by France, who now dares to call for a special meeting of the UN Security Council to discuss the crimes committed against African migrants ‘by Libyans.’

This is devil-speak,” said writer Perreira. “The same devil who, in the words of the Honorable Minister Farrakhan, ‘unleashed the demons’ that are now committing these and other heinous crimes, is trying to sow more discord by talking about ‘Libyan crimes.’ Where was CNN and the French government when these same gangs of demons were committing the atrocities described above?”

Libyans have vowed to cooperate with the UN probe while also conducting investigations of their own.

But West African political leaders have heavily criticized the Libyan slave trade and are taking action on behalf of exploited migrants from the region.

Both President of Niger Mahamadou Issoufou and the foreign minister of Burkina Faso, Alpha Berry, summoned the Libyan ambassador to meet to address the issue.

President Issoufou has demanded that the International Court of Justice investigate Libya.

The matter of the slave trade in Libya has been added to the agenda of the next African Union meeting in Ivory Coast on Nov. 29 and Nov. 30.

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

Where do we go from here? The answer to that question is multi-layered with many moving parts. Minister Abdul Akbar Muhammad, the international representative of the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam told The Final Call that those who have bought and sold slaves must be held accountable.

All authorities, who include the AU, the UN, the U.S., international human rights organizations, and all three divisions of the Libyan government, must step in to chastise and isolate the offenders, he said.

Mr. Muhammad also observed that the fractured Libyan government model is nothing shy of a “basket case.” And with the government being a product of a military coup, Libya should be kicked out of the UN as well as the AU, he argued.

The United States must now be involved in the solution as both the creator of the problem as well as the home of the media outlet that filmed and aired the footage of the inhumane practice, Min. Akbar Muhammad said. CNN’s reporting has culpability in the world’s perception of this crisis and their investigative team is a witness against the perpetrators, he continued.

Mr. Muhammad also said Blacks in the U.S. and other members of the African Diaspora must become voices for the victims by petitioning their governments and human rights organizations to act swiftly against slave trafficking.

Perhaps the most important action that the 54 members of the African Union must take, Mr. Muhammad said, is to immediately begin to invest in building their economies, creating business and employment opportunities, and improving the quality of and access to education so that young people will no longer have to risk their lives migrating to Europe.

Thursday, November 30, 2017

BOBBEE BEE: Riyadh fighting Washington's war in Yemen


Riyadh fighting Washington’s war in Yemen
by Syarif Hidayat

Saudi Arabia is fighting the United States’ war in Yemen since the Obama White House has decided to “lead from the behind,” an American journalist says. US Army Colonel Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, said that Washington increased weapons supplies, including ammunition and bombs, to assist the Saudi-led coalition that is fighting against the Ansarullah Houthi revolutionaries who are seeking to oust terrorist groups from the country.
Glen Ford, executive editor of Black Agenda Report, told Press TV that Saudi Arabia is “playing the US role as head of the coalition of the willing, that’s the role that the United States has played for the last couple of decades in that part of the world.” “Now President Obama is taking a lower profile; he likes to use the term ‘leading from behind,’” he said.
“But these kinds of large operations involving lots of states most of which have no carrying capacity, that is they can’t carry big loads of troops or ammunition.” “And they don’t have big reserves of missiles and such. They have to be resupplied. All of that requires imperial military power of the united states,” he noted. Saudi Arabia’s military aggression against Yemen started on March 26, without a UN mandate, in a bid to restore power to fugitive former president, Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi. More than 540 people have been killed and thousands have been injured in Yemen since the military conflict began in the Arab country, according to the World Health Organization.

Ansarullah Houthi revolutionaries say Hadi, who is now in Riyadh, lost his legitimacy as president of Yemen after he fled the capital to Aden in February. Popular committees backed by Ansarullah fighters are continuing their advances despite the Saudi attacks while stepping up their fight against al-Qaeda terrorists and securing many areas from the militants. Commenting to Press TV, Ford said, “It’s also very significant that the Saudis are so publically demanding – it sounds a demand more than a request – that Pakistan join this coalition and send troops, because that would make the troika complete.”
“It was the United States, and Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan that back in the late 1970s and early the 1980s actually created… the international [terrorist] network. That network did not exist,” he stated. “There had been always [terrorists], but not organized, and funded and armed on an international scale. That happened with the troika – Pakistan, the Saudis and the United States. ” “And now they are bringing [the troika] to bear in Yemen, where the net effect of their military aggression will be to vastly increase the influence of al-Qaeda,” he concluded.
The God Almighty Allah warning
More than 1430 years ago, the God Almighty Allah warned in Al-Qur’an, Surah Al-Maeda, verses 50 – 51 about what is nowadays happening in the Muslim World especially in the Middle East countries today.

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

أَفَحُكۡمَ ٱلۡجَـٰهِلِيَّةِ يَبۡغُونَ‌ۚ وَمَنۡ أَحۡسَنُ مِنَ ٱللَّهِ حُكۡمً۬ا لِّقَوۡمٍ۬ يُوقِنُونَ

يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ لَا تَتَّخِذُواْ ٱلۡيَہُودَ وَٱلنَّصَـٰرَىٰٓ أَوۡلِيَآءَ‌ۘ بَعۡضُہُمۡ أَوۡلِيَآءُ بَعۡضٍ۬‌ۚ وَمَن يَتَوَلَّهُم مِّنكُمۡ فَإِنَّهُ ۥ مِنۡہُمۡ‌ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَا يَهۡدِى ٱلۡقَوۡمَ ٱلظَّـٰلِمِينَ

(٥٠-٥١:سُوۡرَةُ المَائدة)


In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. “Do they then seek the judgement of (the days of) Ignorance? And who is better in judgement than Allâh for a people who have firm Faith. O you who believe! Take not the “Zionists” Jews and the “Right-Wing” Christians as Auliyâ’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Auliyâ’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Auliyâ’), then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allâh guides not those people who are the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust).” (Surah Al-Maeda, verses 50 – 51)
Installing a Western puppet regime
Saudi Arabia has launched a proxy war in Yemen on behalf of the United States to install a Western puppet regime in the country, says a former American intelligence linguist in Florida. In September 2014, the Houthi Ansarullah movement gained control of Sana’a, Yemen’s capital, following a four-day battle with army forces loyal to General Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar, the half-brother of the country’s former dictator, Ali Abdullah Saleh.
On March 26, Saudi Arabia unleashed deadly air raids against Yemen in an attempt to restore power to fugitive Yemeni President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, a close ally of Riyadh. “Washington is once again trying to manipulate the government of Yemen using a proxy war now from Saudi Arabia, their direct partner and the largest recipient of military weaponry in the region,” Scott Rickard told Press TV.
Rickard was referring to remarks by former US congressman Ron Paul who said Thursday that the Saudi-led airstrikes with the help of the Obama administration will result in higher oil prices. “It looks as though this war is going to escalate now that the Houthis have been successful in overthrowing the West puppet government in Sana’a,” Rickard said.
“Certainly, the price of oil will continue to rise, the oil prices, traditionally they rise during war time, in order to cover expenses for the war as well as to increase the amount of competition in the region for the actual resources,” he explained, noting “everyone will profit from this war with the increase in oil prices”. He also said these types of proxy wars by the West have happened elsewhere in the region. “You have the same issues obviously in Iraq, in Syria and in Libya that have just destroyed those countries as well.”


Washington said it is supporting the Saudi military action against Yemen and it is providing logistical and intelligence support to Saudi airstrikes. Saudi-led warplanes continue carrying out airstrikes against Yemen as the war on the impoverished country enters its fourth day. Dozens of people, including women and children, have been killed since early Thursday, when Saudi Arabia began the invasion of Yemen.


Senator McCain applauds Saudi-led offensive in Yemen


US Republican Senator John McCain has applauded the offensive launched by Saudi Arabia and its allies against Yemen, speculating that the “conflict will probably escalate” into a regional war in the Middle East. McCain said Saudi Arabia and its allies “did the right thing” by launching the offensive against the country.


The Armed Services chairman added the invasion saved oil exports from the Middle East because if Yemen were to fall, it could choke off oil exports from the region. Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest oil exporter. It has the world’s largest proven oil reserves and production capacity. Oil tankers carry almost four million barrels daily through the Bab el-Mandeb strait, which connects the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea. The strait is 18 miles wide at its narrowest point.


The offensive has raised concerns about the vulnerability of the Bab el-Mandeb strait between Yemen and Djibouti, which has been identified by the US Department of Energy as a potential “chokepoint” in the global oil market. The tankers carry crude on a daily basis through the Red Sea and Suez Canal to Europe. Oil supplies to the United States take a longer route around the southern tip of Africa. Analysts, however, say neither side in the Yemen conflict has the kind of weaponry that would pose a serious threat to tankers in the Bab el-Mandeb.
Saudi warplanes bombed the positions of the Ansarullah fighters and launched attacks against the Sana’a airport and the Dulaimi airbase. US President Barack Obama authorized the Pentagon to provide logistical and intelligence support to Saudi airstrikes in Yemen, National Security Council spokesperson Bernadette Meehan said. Secretary of State John Kerry said that his country praises the military action and is backing it through intelligence sharing, targeting assistance and logistical support.

US increases weapons shipments to Saudi Arabia

The United States has increased its military assistance to Saudi Arabia, extending its participation in the ongoing Saudi-led aggression against Yemen. 

US Army Colonel Steve Warren said that Washington increased weapons supplies, including ammunition and bombs, to assist the Saudi-led countries that are fighting against the Ansarullah Houthi revolutionaries who are seeking to oust terrorist groups from the country.
“It’s a combination of pre-existing orders to our partners and some new requirements,” Warren said, describing the arms shipments. In addition to the arms shipments, a number of US forces assigned in a mission in Saudi Arabia to oversee the air campaign against the revolutionaries in Yemen, according to Warren.
Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken also declared earlier that the Pentagon increased its intelligence exchanges with Riyadh. Citing military sources, Russian media reported that the US Navy joined the airstrikes against Yemen on Monday and American warships participated in the airstrikes on Yemen’s capital, Sana’a. Saudi Arabia started its military aggression against Yemen on March 26, without a UN mandate, in a bid to restore power to fugitive former president Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi.
The revolutionaries say Hadi, who is now in Riyadh, lost his legitimacy as president of Yemen after he fled the capital to Aden in February. More than 540 people have been killed and thousands have been injured in the beleaguered country since the military conflict began, according to the World Health Organization.



LEAD_LEAD_US-President-Barack-Obama-meets-with-Saudi-Arabia's-King-Salman-(right)-at-Erga-Palace-in-Riyadh_Reuters_ReutersThe Obama Doctrine
Paul D. Shinkman in his article titled “The Obama Doctrine: Let the Mideast Fight Its Own Wars”, writes Throughout his presidency, Barack Obama has tried to place the responsibility for Middle East security on the region’s leaders, particularly allies like Saudi Arabia whom America has provided with billions of dollars worth of military machinery. At the same time, his administration has backed away from deploying American troops to what have become a growing number of dangerous hot spots.

“It’s more effective to use our capabilities to help partners on the ground secure their own country’s futures,” Obama said in a weekly address in September, employing what has become his oft-repeated line about refusing to get “dragged into another ground war” in the Middle East. Instead, he has been pushing for Arab nations to move their militaries beyond their traditional roles of securing territorial borders and protecting the ruling establishment against domestic uprising.

Now, a volatile conflict in Yemen threatens to expand Iranian influence at the expense of regional rivals including Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Those countries, backed by a band of Sunni Muslim leaders, have grown tired of waiting for U.S. assistance and are instead taking responsibility themselves. Their week-old air war against the Iran-backed Shiite Muslim Houthi rebels and consideration of a subsequent ground invasion have only minimal support from the U.S.

It looks as if Obama got exactly what he wanted. But Yemen’s internal complexities, combined with foreign meddling, has prompted concerns of all-out regional war. The renewed violence will now prove whether the American government is prepared to accept its new role in the Middle East as a supplier and organizer, but not a leader.

Syrian conflict

The president’s hands-off Middle East military policy materialized in the early days of the ongoing civil war in Syria. Even when Syrian President Bashar Assad crossed Obama’s so-called “red line” by deploying chemical weapons against his own people, the White House did not budge from the commander-in-chief’s refusal to deploy Americans to assist, either by arming, training or even fighting against the extremism brewing there.

“Because of Syria – the U.S. ability, or willingness, or ambiguous approach to the Syrian conflict – the Saudis, the Jordanians and Arab States in the Gulf have determined they cannot wait for the U.S. to act when it comes to protecting their national interests,” says regional expert Alon Ben-Meir, a Baghdad native of Jewish descent and a professor at New York University.
“They want to create the perception that nobody, including Iran, should take Saudi Arabia and the Sunni states for granted,” he says. “It’s sending a clear message: We are no longer going to wait for a green light to act. We are going to act because the changing dynamics in the Middle East is demanding that.”
Toothless Arab League
Most previous Arab alliances, such as the Arab League, have proved largely toothless at rounding up coalitions and effecting some sort of successful military mission. If Saudi Arabia is serious about a follow-on ground mission in Yemen, that likely explains why it sought support from other countries with advanced militaries, such as Morocco, Egypt and Pakistan – each a recipients of billions of dollars of U.S. military equipment like fighter jets and tanks. Saudi Arabia also sought out the symbolic inclusion of Sudan, which has previously allowed Iran to use its land for shipments to proxy fighters in and around Gaza.

The U.S. threw its support behind Saudi Arabia roughly a day after it coalesced the incongruous group of loyal countries last week to take on the Iranian-backed threat next door. But reports from some top echelons of Saudi power indicate the oil-rich nation would have acted without U.S. approval. America in turn is constrained by its historic alliance with Israel – an increasingly tempestuous relationship amid Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vocal opposition to continued U.S.-led negotiations with Iran over Tehran’s nuclear program. Amid these high profile talks, Obama and his government are losing credibility among Gulf allies quickly.

“There is, underlying this, a growing and deep-felt expression about U.S. intentions in the region,” says Salman Shaikh, director of the Brookings Institution’s Doha Center in Qatar. “They no longer feel they can entirely trust that the U.S. will provide – be the main stabilizing actor in the region.” “More and more, there is discussion about what else the U.S. is talking to Iran about. Even if it’s not and being denied, that is leading to the kind of coalition and push on the use of force the Saudis are now leading in Yemen.”
Saudi-led Arab coalition against Houthis
Over the weekend, a summit of Arab leaders yielded a new joint force that will be used to direct airstrikes against rebel forces in Yemen. Saudi and Egyptian leaders may consider deploying the additional troops by ground to quell the insurrection, particularly if it worsens or expands further into key areas like Aden. The strategic port, partially overrun by rebels on Thursday, is at the axis of one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes and a key point for transporting oil, as well as the site of the 2000 attack on the USS Cole and now the temporary capital of pro-Western President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi’s ousted government. The conditions for peace presented by this new force are clearly rooted in a political settlement: The Houthis must lay down their arms and agree to peace under the governance of Hadi, who has been exiled from the capital.
Stability in this region for the better part of the last millennium has been provided by an outside hegemony. The Ottoman Empire ruled through the 19th century, when European colonial powers began drawing up the lines that exist today as borders. Cold War battlefronts occasionally converged on the Middle East, and since 1990, U.S. troops and diplomats have attempted to oversee some form of order.
That began to deteriorate when President George W. Bush ordered U.S. troops to invade Iraq in 2003, becoming one of the modern era’s most heavy-handed U.S. presidents in the region. The instability caused by the subsequent war, combined with the Arab Spring in 2011, has produced a new Middle East with a dwindling U.S. presence.
Instead of ground forces, Obama’s doctrine has included expanding the armed drone campaign invented during the Bush administration in the hopes he could both deploy America’s most ferocious ordnance abroad – notably in Yemen – to combat terrorism without endangering American troops. The Pentagon claims a drone campaign it initiated to target potent extremists within the Yemen-based terror group al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula is still in full effect, though the extent to which the Hadi government can cooperate from hiding remains unclear.


 The young country, which only unified its sectarian north and south in 1990, remains a hotbed of conflict along its many ethnic and religious lines. Tribal forces have swayed in support of local leaders, including Hadi and former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, and the presence of extremist forces, like secessionist groups and al-Qaida’s most potent existing branch, further dampen any hopes of stability there.
Broader regional conflagration
It’s too early to tell whether the Saudi intervention into Yemen could escalate elsewhere, or whether the U.S. has established enough of a leadership role to prevent the war from tumbling out of control. Saudi Arabia and Iran view the U.S. exeunt as an opportunity to establish themselves as the new big player on the block, and their next steps may decide whether chaos in the region prevails.

“So much of it depends on how the Iranians react, and whether they encourage their Houthi brothers to turn around,” says Shaikh. “This can become a broader regional conflagration, a broad regional conflict that is naked, out in the open. That is not good for anyone in the region.” Conflict could even extend to inside Saudi Arabia or Iran, he adds. “A lot of this does depend on what the Iranians are going to do, how we’re going to get into a serious political process, and what the Americans can do in this regard.”
And any plan for victory against the Houthis may appear successful in theory. But as Saleh said, operating Yemen is like “dancing on the heads of snakes.” Saleh himself, a Shiite who while president mounted attacks against the Houthis before reportedly building an alliance with them, exemplifies the incredibly complex concoction of international and local forces that make Yemen so dangerous. He weathered multiple coup attempts, oversaw Yemen’s unification, then sided with Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait. After the USS Cole was attacked at Aden, Saleh declared he would defeat al-Qaida and won Bush’s support.

“He’s a good snake dancer,” says Barbara Slavin, an Iran expert and senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center. She expresses doubts at the ability of countries like Saudi Arabia to wage conventional war far away from its borders, and sees the current conflict as much about personal vendettas against Saleh as it is about international fears over Iran’s involvement. “It’s tribal. It’s bloody. It’s not just the Houthis, there are other tribes trying to break away and have more influence over the government,” she says. “What we’re seeing is an effort by the Saudis to force the Houthis to accept Hadi.”
Saudi Arabia’s newfound adventurism
Saudi Arabia’s newfound adventurism has surprised some in Washington, including top officials at the Pentagon, who have privately expressed concerns with the Gulf power’s ability to restrain its military. During the Arab Spring in 2011, Saudi Arabia infamously invaded Bahrain to quell the Shiite minority from ousting the Sunni establishment. Reports of atrocities emerged, along with accusations that the Western media that chose to cover the conflict offered an overly forgiving view of Saudi Arabia’s actions.
The Pentagon has remained tight-lipped about the U.S. participation in this operation and what kind of control it can exert over its allied fighters. Just days after U.S. commandos were withdrawn from hunting al-Qaida operatives in Yemen, Obama last week authorized a small number of U.S. forces to assist this new coalition with intelligence and logistics assistance.


An unknown number of Americans are currently operating at a “fusion center” run by the regional Gulf Cooperation Council, providing intelligence and information, and performing the key mission of communicating the coalition’s actions back to Washington. This headquarters differs from the joint operations centers the U.S. has established in Irbil and Baghdad to coordinate the coalition’s air war in Iraq against the Islamic State group, says Pentagon spokesman Army Col. Steve Warren.
“It’s a lot about communications and that we are also taking the opportunity to use this as a vehicle for bringing in a little bit better intelligence picture,” he said last Friday. He declined to specify what kind of intelligence the U.S. is providing, and whether it’s helping the Arab fighter jets find and hit specific targets. The special operations forces withdrawn last month have not been redeployed to this center, he said.
U.S. officials have also expressed concern about Saudi Arabia’s ability to operate with the kind of sophistication that avoids collateral damage, negative headlines and fodder for enemy recruitment. Despite nationalistic swagger, many allies who have fought with the U.S. admit that no other country can compare with its ability to perform command-and-control, to find targets and hit them precisely and to oversee battle spaces to ensure all parties are coordinated.

Inexperience with that kind of discretion is already beginning to show in Yemen, following reports Monday that an apparent airstrike killed 20 civilians at a United Nations refugee camp there. Iranian media also bragged Monday that Houthi rebels in Yemen were able to shoot down a Saudi F-15 fighter jet, forcing its crew to eject into the Gulf of Aden where American airmen rescued them in international waters. U.S. defense officials confirmed the mission, but would not say what caused the pilots to eject or why the plane went down.
A situation as complex as Yemen is rife with opportunities for misunderstanding. BBC Arabic tweeted, then later retracted reports that the elusive Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani had been photographed at a Yemeni market. The leader of Iran’s hyper-zealous Revolutionary Guard Quds Force was previously reported to have been in Tikrit overseeing Shiite militias fighting the Islamic State.

Were Saudi Arabia to attack and kill a high profile Iranian officer, even accidentally, it may provoke a some form of war of retribution. Even if the U.S. can secure a nuclear deal with Iran, the cryptic Shiite nation’s desire to assert power in the Middle East, and its Sunni foes’ retaliation, all but guarantees conflicts in this region for many years.