U.S.A. Foreign Policy & Defense

[oxmox 73]

U.S. Military Officials Aim to Bolster Troop Presence in Europe (WSJ, Nov 8)

Pentagon leaders propose rotating more forces to the Continent to deter Russia

 

Senior U.S. military leaders have proposed sending more forces into Europe on a rotating basis to build up the American presence and are stepping up training exercises to counter potential Russian interference with troop transfers in the event of a crisis with Moscow.

 

The new steps would allow for the presence of multiple U.S. brigades in Europe at any given time, increasing that number above current limits.

Such moves, Gen. Milley said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, are critical to ensure that no new conflict erupts in Europe.

“Aggression left unanswered is likely to lead to more aggression,†he said.

 

At the same forum, Defense Secretary Ash Carter also issued a warning against Russian aggression. He said in an address Saturday that Moscow seems “intent to play spoiler†by “throwing gasoline†on the fire of Syria and criticized Russian “nuclear saber-rattling.â€

 

U.S. defense leaders have been more hawkish in their comments than either White House or European officials as they focus on the U.S.-Russian military landscape.

Both the Obama administration and German leaders have criticized Russia as well, but they also have emphasized the importance of including Moscow in discussions over the future of Syria.

 

 

Gen. Breedlove warned that by cooperating with Russia on Syria, the West will come to accept Moscow’s annexation of Crimea and support for separatists in Ukraine’s Donbas region.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-military-officials-aim-to-bolster-troop-presence-in-europe-1447034653

 

 

 

 

 

Ashton Carter vows to 'defend US interests and allies' against Russian aggression (The Telegraph, Nov 7)

Pentagon chief says Russia is undertaking 'challenging activities' at sea, in the air, in space and in cyberspace

 

The US Defence Secretary issued his strongest warning yet about Russian "aggression" accusing the Kremlin of nuclear sabre-rattling and provocations in Europe and the Middle East.

 

Ash Carter said the US was "adapting our operational posture and contingency plans" following Russia's violation of the sovereignty of Ukraine, intimidation of Baltic states, and intervention in Syria..

 

He said: "At sea, in the air, in space and in cyberspace, Russian actors have engaged in challenging activities

He added:

"We do not seek a cold, let alone a hot, war with Russia. We do not seek to make Russia an enemy. But make no mistake, the United States will defend our interests, our allies, the principled international order, and the positive future it affords us all."

 

 

Mr Carter said the US was investing in new weapons technology which was "relevant to Russia's provocations".

That included an electromagnetic rail gun, lasers, new electronic warfare systems, and "a few surprising ones I really can't describe here".

He said: "We're updating and advancing our operational plans for deterrence and defence given Russia's changed behaviour."

 

He also attacked China's building of artificial islands in the South China Sea, saying it could lead to future military conflict between nations in the region.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11982109/Ashton-Carter-vows-to-defend-US-interests-and-allies-against-Russian-aggression.html

[drebin052 323]

 

“Here’s what I’ve learned so far dogfighting in the F-35â€: a JSF pilot’s first-hand account

By David Cenciotti

A Norwegian pilot shared his experience flying mock aerial combat with the F-35.

 

As we reported last year, the debate between F-35 supporters and critics became more harsh in July 2015, when War Is Boring got their hands on a brief according to which the JSF was outclassed by a two-seat F-16D Block 40 (one of the aircraft the U.S. Air Force intends to replace with the Lightning II) in mock aerial combat.

 

Although we debunked some theories about the alleged capabilities of all the F-35 variants to match or considerably exceed the maneuvering performance of some of the most famous fourth-generation fighter, and explained that there is probably no way a JSF will ever match a Eurofighter Typhoon in aerial combat, we also highlighted that the simulated dogfight mentioned in the unclassified report obtained by WIB involved one of the very first test aircraft that lacked some cool and useful features.

 

Kampflybloggen (The Combat Aircraft Blog), the official blog of the Norwegian F-35 Program Office within the Norwegian Ministry of Defence, has just published an interesting article, that we repost here below under permission, written by Major Morten “Dolby†Hanche, one of the Royal Norwegian Air Force experienced pilots and the first to fly the F-35.

 

“Dolby† has more than 2200 hours in the F-16, he is a U.S. Navy Test Pilot School graduate, and currently serves as an instructor and as the Assistant Weapons Officer with the 62nd Fighter Squadron at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona.

 

He provides a first-hand account of what dogfighting in the F-35 looks like to a pilot who has a significant experience with the F-16. His conclusions are worth a read.

 

Enjoy.

 

[...]

 

Source - The Aviationist

 

Poor old Pierre Sprey and his loyal zealots Bill Sweetman and David Axe probably have steam coming out of their ears right about now. "The F-35 can't dogfight! It can't do anything!".  ^_^

[Tonci87 163]

So, according to that pilot the F35 can fight a F16...however, I doubt it is able to fight modern Chinese, and especially Russian fighters.

[drebin052 323]

So, according to that pilot the F35 can fight a F16...

 

The key point is that it is able to dogfight with an F-16 contrary to what David Axe wrote about it being unable to do so a few months back based solely on statements that he cherry picked from a report from another pilot while leaving out important details about that test.

 

 however, I doubt it is able to fight modern Chinese, and especially Russian fighters.

 

It's not really sensible to compare the F-35 to modern REDFOR stealth fighters as there aren't any to compare to with in the first place; the J-31 will not be exiting prototyping any time soon while the VVS does not have or intend to operate a 5th gen equivalent. Unless you really want to compare it with the T-50/J-20 in a Rolls-Royce vs. Lamborghini manner that is.

[Tonci87 163]

The key point is that it is able to dogfight with an F-16 contrary to what David Axe wrote about it being unable to do so a few months back based solely on statements that he cherry picked from a report from another pilot while leaving out important details about that test.

 

 

It's not really sensible to compare the F-35 to modern REDFOR stealth fighters as there aren't any to compare to with in the first place; the J-31 will not be exiting prototyping any time soon while the VVS does not have or intend to operate a 5th gen equivalent. Unless you really want to compare it with the T-50/J-20 in a Rolls-Royce vs. Lamborghini manner that is.

 

 

I´m comparing it to current service Aircraft, The modern jets of other countries would have little trouble finishing the F35 in a close up fight. And that argument "The F35 won´t even get into a close range fight" is bullshit. That is the same nonsense that was spread in the 70s when idiots thought that modern AA missiles will make close combat obsolete. Guess what, countermeassures get better as well, and most modern jets carry double or tripple the missile load of the F35. And to top it all off the F35 is simply way too expensive.

[drebin052 323]

I´m comparing it to current service Aircraft, The modern jets of other countries would have little trouble finishing the F35 in a close up fight.

 

Name one.

 

And that argument "The F35 won´t even get into a close range fight" is bullshit. That is the same nonsense that was spread in the 70s when idiots thought that modern AA missiles will make close combat obsolete.

 

No one, not even LockMart themselves, have ever said that it won't get into a close range fight. Yet again another myth perpetuated by anti-JSF writers like Sweetman...

 

But back on point, good doctrine and training means that any potential fighters will not have their chance to get close enough to an F-35 in the first place. But if needed the F-35 can still dogfight, which the pilot (and all previous pilots including the one Axe mentioned in his report) has said: "The final textbook for how to best employ the F-35 in visual combat – BFM – is not written. It is literally being written by my neighbor, down here in Arizona! We have had many good discussions on this topic over the last few weeks, and it feels very rewarding to be part the development. I would emphasize the term “multirole†after experiencing this jet in many roles, and now also in a dogfight. The F-35 has a real bite! Those in doubt will be surprised when they finally meet this bomber."

 

Your reference to the Vietnam War era of missile only fighters is also another silly comparison. You are forgetting that the only missiles available back then were IR/radar guided Falcons and Sparrows (Sidewinders came much later, with the former being withdrawn) that used unreliable radars like the APQ-72.

 

Seeing as how both the Americans and the Russians were still in the process of maturing the technology back then it was pretty much an unavoidable outcome. In any case the F-35A still has a cannon anyway (with it being an optional gunpod on the other two), so there is still no comparison between what happened back then and now. For some reference read here: "The majority of U.S. kills during this period were made with missiles (78 of 122 kills)" while the footnote mentions that only "eleven of the forty-one" were gun kills.

 

And do tell me how many dogfights conducted between fighters during the Gulf War scored kills with guns.

 

Guess what, countermeassures get better as well, 

 

And so does the F-35. Real life isn't Arma where missiles get magically deflected away just because you dumped a few flares...

 

Countermeasures are not panaceas to stopping an incoming missile; they just lower the chance but not stop it completely. For starters you'd need to detect the F-35 launching its missile first and react accordingly (passive), or keep your radar on active and become a flashing beacon for the F-35's APG-81 to spot you. For the latter, non-5th gen fighters will already be visible without them having reavealed themselves, while in the case of 5th gen fighters it will become a game of whoever gets spotted first (but then again as there are no 5th gen equivalents in service right now we won't know how this plays out until it actually does).

 

In the off chance that jamming does block the F-35's radar-guided missiles then it can fall back on its EOTS and EO DAS to bypass it. The radar on the AMRAAM or Sidewinder might not get doppler data but it will still receive pulse data and keep on tracking unless its flying at low altitudes with a lot of ground clutter confusing it.

 

and most modern jets carry double or tripple the missile load of the F35.

 

No REDFOR aircraft carry triple the loadout of an F-35.

 

The SU-35 for instance (since you're only comparing the F-35 to 4th gen fighters anyway) can carry 12 missiles but by having a full loadout you're adding a maximum of 8 additional tons; that's 8 extra tons of drag and drastically lowers its kinematics.

 

If you are basing their performance purely on air shows you should remember that they don't carry any weapons on board for a reason. Good luck trying to perform those aerobatic moves in a real dogfight with that loadout...

[oxmox 73]

CIA admits: We sent Mandela to jail

 

Ex-CIA spy admits: Tip led to Nelson Mandela's long imprisonment (TheGuardian/BBC; May 16)

 

Former operative says Americans believed the leader was ‘completely under the control of the Soviet Union’, report reveals

 

A tip from a CIA spy to authorities in apartheid-era South Africa led to Nelson Mandela’s arrest, beginning the leader’s 27 years behind bars, a report said on Sunday.

 

Donald Rickard, a former US vice-consul in Durban and CIA operative, told British film director John Irvin that he had been involved in Mandela’s arrest in 1962, which was seen as necessary because the Americans believed he was “completely under the control of the Soviet Unionâ€, according to a report in the Sunday Times newspaper.

 

“We were teetering on the brink here and it had to be stopped, which meant Mandela had to be stopped. And I put a stop to it.â€

Zizi Kodwa, national spokesman of Mandela’s ruling African National Congress (ANC) party, called the revelation “a serious indictmentâ€

“We always knew there was always collaboration between some western countries and the apartheid regime,†he said.

 

He claimed that though the incident happened decades ago, the CIA was still interfering in South African politics.

“We have recently observed that there are efforts to undermine the democratically elected ANC government,†he alleged. “They never stopped operating here.â€

“It is still happening now – the CIA is still collaborating with those who want regime change.â€

 

 

Mandela was eventually freed from prison in 1990 and went on to become South Africa’s president between 1994 and 1999 before dying in 2013 aged 95.

 

Mandela, president of South Africa from 1994 to 1999, was on a US terror watch list until 2008.

Before that, along with other former ANC leaders, he was only able to visit the US with special permission from the secretary of state, because the ANC had been designated a terrorist organisation by the former apartheid government.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/15/cia-operative-nelson-mandela-1962-arrest

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-36296551

[drebin052 323]

Air Force Declares the F-35A ‘Combat Ready’

 

The F-35A Lightning II fifth generation fighter aircraft was declared ‘combat ready’ today by Gen. Hawk Carlisle, the commander of Air Combat Command.

 

Carlisle lauded the aircraft’s performance, noting that the aircraft had met all key criteria for reaching initial operational capability: Airmen trained, manned and equipped to conduct basic close air support, interdiction, and limited suppression/destruction of enemy air defenses in a contested environment with an operational squadron of 12-24 aircraft; the ability to deploy and conduct operational missions using program of record weapons and missions systems; and having all necessary logistics and operational elements in place.

 

[...]

 

“I am proud to announce this powerful new weapons system has achieved initial combat capability,†Carlisle said. “The F-35A will be the most dominant aircraft in our inventory, because it can go where our legacy aircraft cannot and provide the capabilities our commanders need on the modern battlefield.â€

 

[...]

 

The 34th Fighter Squadron of the 388th Fighter Wing, based at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, is the service’s first operational F-35A squadron, having met all the established criteria for Initial Operational Capability including a successful June deployment to Mountain Home AFB, Idaho and a series of eight-aircraft sorties held in mid-July. 34 FS Airmen will fly and maintain the F-35A alongside Air Force Reservists from Hill’s 419th Fighter Wing.

 

[...]

 

Source

 

 

I feel that Pierre Sprey and David Axe will need to be placed on suicide watch soon. Last I recall, they were rambling along the lines of..."it will never enter IOC!" or something? Why actually, it was just barely two days ago that Mr. Axe said that it could be years before the F-35 would be ready!  :D

[oxmox 73]

Kissinger hindered US effort to end mass killings in Argentina (TheGuardian, Aug. 2016)

Newly declassified files show the former secretary of state jeopardized efforts

to crackdown on bloodshed by Argentina’s 1976-83 military dictatorship

 

Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger jeopardized US efforts to stop mass killings by Argentina’s 1976-83 military dictatorship by congratulating the country’s military leaders for “wiping out†terrorism, according to a large trove of newly declassified state department files.

 

During his years as secretary of state, Kissinger had encouraged Argentina’s military junta to stamp out “terrorismâ€. In contrast, Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski, his national security adviser, made human rights a cornerstone of US foreign policy and were exerting pressure on Argentina’s military regime by withholding loans and sales of military equipment.

 

Carter officials were infuriated by Kissinger’s attendance at the 1978 World Cup inArgentina as the personal guest of dictator Jorge Videla, the general who oversaw the forced disappearance of up to 30,000 opponents of the military regime.

 

The cables also give a frightening picture of the delusional antisemitism prevalent among Argentina’s generals, who were convinced

that Brzezinski (a Polish-born Catholic) headed a worldwide Jewish conspiracy against Argentina.

 

more.....

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/09/henry-kissinger-mass-killings-argentina-declassified-files

[Tonci87 163]

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/syria-white-house-warns-actions-if-russia-won-t-negotiate-n659126

 

Madness? Would the US really consider fighting Russia over their failed Policies in the Middle East? Do they really hold their Ego that high?

 

When weighing in the results, if the US were to have won today, Syriia would be over run with Deash influence in 100% of the country seeing as they've pretty much integrated themselves into the moderate forces by now, as John Kerry himself simply acknowledged he couldn't separate the Extremists from the Moderates. With Russia winning today, it would mean that Syria Regime regaining complete control of the country while most of the internal affairs being negotiated between Assad, Russia and their circles, most likely with the US completely out of the question. But seeing as the US has cut diplomatic channels with Russia now, this has gone from another war of words suddenly into the real deal. But why? Because the the end of a cease fire? You know, these people actually had an option to keep the Cease Fire deal as long as they could. They could have worked with Russia to solve the situation together, and improve relations that could have carried over to Europe, and improved counter terror operations.

 

What blows my mind is how much emphasis on Human Rights is taking place, as the sole reason for the US to be considering intervening and attacking Russia. If Human Rights were the actual motivation, i think they would have, and could have taken different steps to ensure the UN convoy and Cease Fire didn't completely self destruct. But instead of searching for solutions, they simply began blasting Russia as the suspect, with not much evidence to back it up. So now they've started contemplating more extreme options? 

 

Quote: "If Aleppo were to fall, it would put the lives of tens of thousands of additional Syrian civilians at risk, in a war that has already killed more than 400,000 and spawned a massive refugee crisis. Obama might be able to save the city for the rebels if he ordered U.S. air strikes against Assad's forces, but those would carry a significant risk of escalation with Russia, which backs the Assad regime and is bombing rebel positions."

 

And for those of you who don't understand what this means, Russia has recently deployed advanced defense systems in the region. But weeks before this, Moscow said that if Syrian troops are attacked again, there would be direct, and extreme response. So in translation, this literally means war with Russia in the short term. Is it really worth it? 

[St. Jimmy 272]

US foreign policy:

Back or even fight along side a group that fights against the goverment. The government/dictator/whatever loses the lead. Whole country is in chaos. The backed group is now very big and likely has also other interests than the US. The backed ones start to take control and spread their extermist ideas. Claim now that the backed groups are terrorists. Rinse and repeat.

Group fighting against goverment is a rebel group as long as allied country backs it up. Everybody else are called terrorists.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

They need to stop. The US has done enough, and it's time to change it's foreign policies. We've seen it in Afghanistan, Sudan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria can consider themselves lucky, or maybe not. But honestly, the US had its chance to do the right thing, to work with the Russians, and still in fact have an option. Russia is open to working with the US in solving this terror problem, and as the King of Jordan put it best, if they don't change their way of thinking and taking on this terror threat, it will only spread and keep out pacing western efforts... But i think they already know. Terrorism can only be defeated if the countries effected are all coordinated in tackling it. For the most part, at least that i can see, there's no real effort for US in doing that. They've instead, as you've said, backed rebels fighting the Government at the same time Daesh had the same ambitions, and the group mixed, creating a quagmire, and the groups can't be separated now. I still believe, unfortunately, the only option remaining, is for the US to suck it up, join efforts with Russia, and solve this issue once and for all, and use that to forge closer relations. This would of course mean Assad gaining power, but i'm sure that eventually, perhaps after the mess is said and done the regime can be tried in the international court. But to be honest, it's better than a full blown war, and it's better than prolonging the war. It will also mean FSA will perish, but it's at this point, the only thing that can be done. Millions of Syrians are refugee's, so stabilizing the country so they can return is extremely important. I don't know what to think anymore. Washington and the D.O.D. have official lost their minds. But i doubt this is some accident, and i doubt that they simply didn't know it would come to this. I think they know, but the people of the US don't, which is the biggest issue, as they'll support the military response. The people don't know anything about what's going on. It's almost depressing. I've also heard Russia is conducting drills that include sheltering 40 million people. This isn't some flash back to the Cold War... This is 2016...

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Well, if this isn't the right timing, i don't know what is.

 

 

Watch all 44 minutes and 6 seconds of it. Understand the history, and how things are today. You can realize how connected all this is to what's going on right now in Syria and elsewhere. It'll be a serous wake up call.

[St. Jimmy 272]

Well, if this isn't the right timing, i don't know what is.

 

video

 

Watch all 44 minutes and 6 seconds of it. Understand the history, and how things are today. You can realize how connected all this is to what's going on right now in Syria and elsewhere. It'll be a serous wake up call.

Umm why that's already unavailable? Or is there zone restrictions? I can't even watch any Vice videos in their page that I'm wondering what they've changed recently... Their Youtube is working except that video

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Umm why that's already unavailable? Or is there zone restrictions? I can't even watch any Vice videos in their page that I'm wondering what they've changed recently... Their Youtube is working except that video

odd... apparently looking at comments on the video, you're right. There might actually be zone restrictions. I wonder why they'd do that, i don't see a purpose for it.

 

Well anyhow, if you don't eventually gain access to the footage, a way to put it, is VICE goes to Yemen to gain extremely important information from Al-Nursra/Al-Qaeda. The end result is a extremely chilling view from one of it's senior members on how it came to be, and how it's far more powerful today than it was after 9/11, directly related to a series of events carried out by the United States. In short, it's been highlighted by Jordan's King most recently, something along the lines of, "US thinks it knows the Middle East/North Africa better than they know themselves", and is such the reason it's losing the war on Jihad, and only spreading it more. It's fighting it alone with it's own Agenda/Narrative, and leaving out the countries people who are effected the most by these wars, who then see no other alternative but to join the Jihad. Now, knowing this, throw in the larger proxy wars in the mix, Russia, Iran, and increasingly getting involved, China. It's quite obvious that this situation will literally take an absolute miracle to be turned around, and that's just the Terrorism part. It won't end. It will grow and spread, and it's already been spreading. Now, add in the US elections, Clinton/Trump, both of which are incapable of decent policies even at home, and you have this delicate mess? It becomes more frightening. After all, Clinton, is the one who help cultivate their part on Libya, which is now another massive breeding ground for this same Jihad to spread further, and it's influence to grow. Her in office would only make it worse with her personal grudge against Russia. Trump, well... don't get me started.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Yes, there's something wrong with Vice. I can't reach that page anymore : https://news.vice.com/en

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Yes, there's something wrong with Vice. I can't reach that page anymore : https://news.vice.com/en

Yeah, maybe it's being denied in your region. I clicked the link and accessed it easily. Try this one?

[ProfTournesol 956]

Yeah, maybe it's being denied in your region. I clicked the link and accessed it easily. Try this one?

 

Yup, i can reach that page but i can't watch the given video (region error blabla). That sucks.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Yup, i can reach that page but i can't watch the given video (region error blabla). That sucks.

Yeah, that' a shame. Maybe someone will rip it, or perhaps VICE will eventually make it global. Then again, i suspect intentions why it's US specific, likely to protect the lives of those who went to other regions to gain information, and that sensitive information along with the ID and lives of the journalists are likely at risk if the warring groups find out. That or it's just text book censorship. I suspect the former though, VICE makes well with their intentions and transparency.

[oxmox 73]

Saddam Hussein’s CIA Interrogator: He Should Have Been Left In Power (TIME; Dec. 16)

...

When I interrogated Saddam, he told me: “You are going to fail. You are going to find that it is not so easy to govern Iraq.” When I told him I was curious why he felt that way, he replied: “You are going to fail in Iraq because you do not know the language, the history, and you do not understand the Arab mind.”

 

...

 

Although I found Saddam to be thoroughly unlikeable, I came away with a grudging respect for how he was able to maintain the Iraqi nation as a whole for as long as he did. He told me once, “Before me, there was only bickering and arguing. I ended all that and made people agree!”

 

Saddam used every tool in his repertoire to maintain Iraq’s multi-ethnic state. Such tools included murder, blackmail, imprisonment, threats, and these were to be used to cow his enemies. For his friends, Saddam would dole out patronage to tribal leaders and supporters in the form of cash, elaborate gifts, land, and other largesse that was the lifeblood of an oil rich state. Today’s Iraq has been riven by deepening sectarianism that always seems to be only a step away from igniting again, as it did after Saddam’s overthrow.

 

....

 

In December 1992, President-elect Bill Clinton was asked by a New York Times reporter what he intended to do about Saddam and Iraq. Clinton responded casually, “If he wants a different relationship with the United States and with the United Nations, all he has to do is change his behavior.”

 

.......Clinton never returned to this instinct and, instead, attacked Iraq militarily in 1993 and 1998.

Moreover, although he did not know it at the time, Clinton also sealed Saddam’s death warrant when he signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which made regime change in Iraq the policy of the U.S. government.

 

What might have happened if Clinton would have stuck to his initial instinct and tried to forge a new relationship with Iraq? What might we have avoided in terms of lives, treasure, and prestige wasted in our fruitless effort to re-order the region?

 

 

more....

 

http://time.com/4603831/donald-trump-saddam-hussein/

 

 

 

[nodunit 397]

On 12/19/2016 at 10:53 AM, oxmox said:

Saddam Hussein’s CIA Interrogator: He Should Have Been Left In Power (TIME; Dec. 16)

...

When I interrogated Saddam, he told me: “You are going to fail. You are going to find that it is not so easy to govern Iraq.” When I told him I was curious why he felt that way, he replied: “You are going to fail in Iraq because you do not know the language, the history, and you do not understand the Arab mind.”

 

...

 

Although I found Saddam to be thoroughly unlikeable, I came away with a grudging respect for how he was able to maintain the Iraqi nation as a whole for as long as he did. He told me once, “Before me, there was only bickering and arguing. I ended all that and made people agree!”

 

Saddam used every tool in his repertoire to maintain Iraq’s multi-ethnic state. Such tools included murder, blackmail, imprisonment, threats, and these were to be used to cow his enemies. For his friends, Saddam would dole out patronage to tribal leaders and supporters in the form of cash, elaborate gifts, land, and other largesse that was the lifeblood of an oil rich state. Today’s Iraq has been riven by deepening sectarianism that always seems to be only a step away from igniting again, as it did after Saddam’s overthrow.

 

....

 

In December 1992, President-elect Bill Clinton was asked by a New York Times reporter what he intended to do about Saddam and Iraq. Clinton responded casually, “If he wants a different relationship with the United States and with the United Nations, all he has to do is change his behavior.”

 

.......Clinton never returned to this instinct and, instead, attacked Iraq militarily in 1993 and 1998.

Moreover, although he did not know it at the time, Clinton also sealed Saddam’s death warrant when he signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which made regime change in Iraq the policy of the U.S. government.

 

What might have happened if Clinton would have stuck to his initial instinct and tried to forge a new relationship with Iraq? What might we have avoided in terms of lives, treasure, and prestige wasted in our fruitless effort to re-order the region?

 

 

more....

 

http://time.com/4603831/donald-trump-saddam-hussein/

 

 

 

Chances are if he "changed his behaviour" the end result would have been nearly the same.  The middle east doesn't function in the same way as western countries, simple as that, you can't play the same political games and keep the same peace.  If Saddam had to play by western rules of his own country he would be seen as weak at some point, and with his hands tied may not have been able to keep his hold on power and "replaced" one way or another. 

Of course this is all hypothetical, we'll never know because he's dead, if the US much less the west is really curious as to how best to handle the middle east the answer is simple.  Don't.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

On 12/19/2016 at 11:53 AM, oxmox said:

Saddam Hussein’s CIA Interrogator: He Should Have Been Left In Power (TIME; Dec. 16)

...

When I interrogated Saddam, he told me: “You are going to fail. You are going to find that it is not so easy to govern Iraq.” When I told him I was curious why he felt that way, he replied: “You are going to fail in Iraq because you do not know the language, the history, and you do not understand the Arab mind.”

 

...

 

Although I found Saddam to be thoroughly unlikeable, I came away with a grudging respect for how he was able to maintain the Iraqi nation as a whole for as long as he did. He told me once, “Before me, there was only bickering and arguing. I ended all that and made people agree!”

 

Saddam used every tool in his repertoire to maintain Iraq’s multi-ethnic state. Such tools included murder, blackmail, imprisonment, threats, and these were to be used to cow his enemies. For his friends, Saddam would dole out patronage to tribal leaders and supporters in the form of cash, elaborate gifts, land, and other largesse that was the lifeblood of an oil rich state. Today’s Iraq has been riven by deepening sectarianism that always seems to be only a step away from igniting again, as it did after Saddam’s overthrow.

 

....

 

In December 1992, President-elect Bill Clinton was asked by a New York Times reporter what he intended to do about Saddam and Iraq. Clinton responded casually, “If he wants a different relationship with the United States and with the United Nations, all he has to do is change his behavior.”

 

.......Clinton never returned to this instinct and, instead, attacked Iraq militarily in 1993 and 1998.

Moreover, although he did not know it at the time, Clinton also sealed Saddam’s death warrant when he signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which made regime change in Iraq the policy of the U.S. government.

 

What might have happened if Clinton would have stuck to his initial instinct and tried to forge a new relationship with Iraq? What might we have avoided in terms of lives, treasure, and prestige wasted in our fruitless effort to re-order the region?

 

 

more....

 

http://time.com/4603831/donald-trump-saddam-hussein/

 

 

 

Very interesting read. I feel like the US made the exact same mistake in Libya, and it's quite interesting how in depth these interviews are, but when it comes down to the Media, all they tell us is along the lines of, "Dictator who needs to be ousted". In reality, it's just a disagreement of policies due to the vastly different ways of life between cultures. Eventually, this steadfast militarized intervention policy against other nations will take a massive toll on the US., but come to think of it, it's already happening with it's credibility and trust among many allies.

[oxmox 73]

1983 CIA intelligence report:

America should encourage Saddam Hussein to attack Syria to secure oil pipeline to Med and Gulf 

 

• America urged Saddam Hussein to attack Hafez al-Assad, 1983 CIA report said 
• Ex-CIA official Graham Fuller said US should 'urge Iraq to take the war to Syria'
• This was because Assad had closed Iraq's oil pipeline and so had a 'hammerlock' on US interests in both Lebanon and in the Gulf 

 

America urged Saddam Hussein to attack Hafez al-Assad's Syria because of the closure of Iraq's oil pipeline, a secret 1983 intelligence report has revealed.

A report, by former senior CIA official Graham Fuller, said the US should consider 'urging Iraq to take the war to Syria', noting that Saddam was 'fighting for his life' in the Iran-Iraq campaign. 

 

With that being the case, he said the US should consider 'sharply escalating the pressures against Assad' from three border states

hostile to Syria - Iraq, Israel and Turkey.

 

Faced with 'three belligerent fronts', Assad would probably be forced to abandon his closure of the pipeline, the report claimed. 

 

more...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4140190/America-urged-Saddam-attack-Assad-Syria.html

 

And before you say, but this is the Daily Mail....link to the specific document and CIA release:

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP88B00443R001404090133-0.pdf