Old Articles | Friday, February 08 | · | |
Wednesday, February 06 | · | |
Tuesday, February 05 | · | Savage Capitalism or Socialism: A Conversation with Luis Britto Garcia |
Sunday, February 03 | · | Canada vs. Venezuela: The Background Gets Even Murkier |
Thursday, January 31 | · | |
Monday, January 28 | · | The History - and Hypocrisy - of US Meddling in Venezuela |
· | Canada Is Complicit in Venezuela's US-Backed Coup D'état |
Wednesday, September 26 | · | Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide |
Friday, September 21 | · | US Disregard for International Law Is a Menace to Latin America |
Saturday, August 25 | · | How Long is the Shelf-Life of Damnable Racist Capitalist Lies? |
Thursday, August 09 | · | Martial Law By Other Means: Corporate Strangulation of Dissent |
Wednesday, August 08 | · | North Korea and The Washington Trap |
· | Venezuela Assassination Attempt: Maduro Survives but Journalism Doesn't |
Sunday, May 20 | · | The British Royal Wedding, Feelgoodism and the Colonial Jumbie |
Friday, May 04 | · | |
Monday, April 09 | · | The Bayer-Monsanto Merger Is Bad News for the Planet |
Tuesday, March 20 | · | Finally, Some Good News |
Thursday, March 15 | · | Zimbabwe Open for Business, Code for International Finance Capitalism |
Friday, January 12 | · | Shadow Armies: The Unseen, But Real US War In Africa |
Wednesday, December 13 | · | The U.S. is Not a Democracy, It Never Was |
Older Articles
| |
 | |
War and Terror: How America Spreads Global Chaos Posted on Saturday, November 04 @ 05:12:45 UTC
Topic: World News
|
The U.S. government may pretend to respect a
“rules-based” global order, but the only rule
Washington seems to follow is “might makes
right” — and the CIA has long served as a chief
instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S.
Davies.
By Nicolas J.S. Davies November 01, 2017 - Consortium News
As the recent PBS documentary on the American
War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American
officials ever believed that the United States
could win the war, neither those advising
Johnson as he committed hundreds of thousands of
U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he
escalated a brutal aerial bombardment that had
already killed millions of people.
As conversations tape-recorded in the White
House reveal, and as other writers have
documented, the reasons for wading into the Big
Muddy, as
Pete Seeger satirized it,
and then pushing on regardless, all came down to
“credibility”: the domestic political
credibility of the politicians involved and
America’s international credibility as a
military power.
Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to
undermine the
1954 Geneva Accords
and the planned reunification of North and South
through a free and fair election in 1956, the
die was cast. The CIA’s support for the
repressive
Diem regime and
its successors ensured an ever-escalating war,
as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the
North. No U.S. president could extricate the
U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of
what U.S. military force could achieve,
betraying widely held national myths and the
powerful interests that sustained and profited
from them.
The critical “lesson of Vietnam” was summed up
by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book
Roots of War.
“At the very moment that the number one nation
has perfected the science of killing,” Barnet
wrote, “It has become an impractical means of
political domination.”
Losing
the war in Vietnam was a heavy blow to the CIA
and the U.S. Military Industrial Complex, and
it added insult to injury for every American who
had lost comrades or loved ones in Vietnam, but
it ushered in more than a decade of relative
peace for America and the world. If the purpose
of the U.S. military is to protect the U.S. from
the danger of war, as our leaders so often
claim, the “Vietnam syndrome,” or the reluctance
to be drawn into new wars, kept the peace and
undoubtedly saved countless lives.
Even
the senior officer corps of the U.S. military
saw it that way, since many of them had survived
the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The
CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and
elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the
U.S. military was not unleashed again until the
invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf
War in 1991.
Half a
century after Vietnam, we have tragically come
full circle. With the CIA’s politicized
intelligence running wild in Washington and its
covert operations spreading violence and chaos
across every continent, President Trump faces
the same pressures to maintain his own and his
country’s credibility as Johnson and Nixon
did. His predictable response has been to
escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and
to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran
and Venezuela.
Trump is facing these questions, not just in one
country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries
across the world, and the interests perpetuating
and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have
only become more entrenched over time, as
President Eisenhower warned
that they would, despite the end of the Cold War
and, until now, the lack of any actual military
threat to the United States.
Ironically but predictably, the U.S.’s
aggressive and illegal war policy has finally
provoked a real military threat to the U.S.,
albeit one that has emerged only in response to
U.S. war plans. As
I explained in a recent article,
North Korea’s discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan
to assassinate its president, Kim Jong Un, and
launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash
program to develop long-range ballistic missiles
that could give North Korea a viable nuclear
deterrent and prevent a U.S. attack. But the
North Koreans will not feel safe from attack
until their leaders and ours are sure that their
missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against
the U.S. mainland.
The CIA’s
Pretexts for War
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the
chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs
of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global
military support system for the CIA in Vietnam
and around the world. Fletcher Prouty’s book,
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in
Control of the United States and the World,
was suppressed when it was first published in
1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from
bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army
Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500
copies the publisher sent to Australia. But
Prouty’s book was republished in 2011, and it is
a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S.
policy.
Prouty surprisingly described the role of the
CIA as a response by powerful people and
interests to the abolition of the U.S.
Department of War and the creation of the
Department of Defense in 1947. Once the role of
the U.S. military was redefined as one of
defense, in line with the United Nations
Charter’s
prohibition against the threat or use of
military force
in 1945 and similar moves by other military
powers, it would require some kind of crisis or
threat to justify using military force in the
future, both legally and politically. The main
purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to
create such pretexts for war.
The CIA
is a hybrid of an intelligence service that
gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a
clandestine service that conducts covert
operations. Both functions are essential to
creating pretexts for war, and that is what they
have done for 70 years.
Prouty
described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S.
military, the State Department, the National
Security Council and other government
institutions, covertly placing its officers in
critical positions to ensure that its plans
are approved and that it has access to whatever
forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other
resources it needs to carry them out.
Many
retired intelligence officers, such as Ray
McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging
of clandestine operations with intelligence
analysis in one agency as corrupting the
objective analysis they tried to provide to
policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in
response to the fabrication of politicized
intelligence that provided false pretexts for
the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.
CIA in
Syria and Africa
But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by
the way that the CIA uses clandestine
operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The
civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect
example of what Prouty meant. In late 2011,
after destroying Libya and aiding in the
torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi, the CIA and
its allies began
flying fighters and weapons
from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into
Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia, Qatar,
Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation
poured
thousands of tons of weapons
across Syria’s borders to ignite and fuel a
full-scale civil war.
Once
these covert operations were under way, they ran
wild until they had unleashed a savage Al Qaeda
affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now
rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the
even more savage “Islamic State,” triggered
the heaviest
and
probably the deadliest
U.S. bombing
campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran,
Turkey, Israel, Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish
militias and almost every state or armed group
in the Middle East into the chaos of Syria’s
civil war.
Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have
expanded their operations across Africa, the
U.N. has published a report titled
Journey to Extremism in
Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping
Point for Recruitment, based on 500
interviews with African militants. This study
has found that the kind of special operations
and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are
conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact
the critical “tipping point” that drives
Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda,
Al-Shabab and Boko Haram.
The
report found that government action, such as the
killing or detention of friends or family, was
the “tipping point” that drove 71 percent of
African militants interviewed to join armed
groups, and that this was a more important
factor than religious ideology.
The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in
Africa confirm the findings of other
similar studies. The Center for Civilians in
Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined
armed groups in Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya
for its 2015 study,
The People’s Perspectives:
Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict. The
study found that the most common motivation for
civilians to join armed groups was simply to
protect themselves or their families.
The
role of U.S. “counterterrorism” operations in
fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the
absence of any plan to reduce
the asymmetric violence unleashed by the “global
war on terror,” would be no surprise to Fletcher
Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine
operations always take on a life of their
own that is unrelated, and often
counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy
objective.
“The
more intimate one becomes with this activity,”
Prouty wrote, “The more one begins to realize
that such operations are rarely, if ever,
initiated from an intent to become involved in
pursuit of some national objective in the first
place.”
The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S.
special forces and military trainers to
53 of the 54 countries in Africa
as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.’s Journey
to Extremism in Africa study makes it clear
that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in
fact the “tipping point” that is driving
Africans across the continent to join
armed resistance groups in the first place.
This is
a textbook CIA operation on the same model as
Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA
uses U.S. special forces and training missions
to launch covert and proxy military operations
that drive local populations into armed
resistance groups, and then uses the presence of
those armed resistance groups to justify
ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This
is Vietnam redux on a continental scale.
Taking on
China
What seems to really be driving the CIA’s
militarization of U.S. policy
in Africa is China’s growing influence on the
continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an
interview with the Economist
in August, “Let’s go screw up One Belt One
Road.”
China
is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to
apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named
for neoconservative theorist and intelligence
operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that
every 10 years or so, the United States “pick up
some small crappy little country and throw it
against the wall, just to show we mean
business.”
China
is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons.
So, in this case, the CIA’s job would be to
spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese
trade and investment, and to make African
governments increasingly dependent on U.S.
military aid to fight the militant groups
spawned and endlessly regenerated by U.S.-led
“counterterrorism” operations.
Neither
Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are
designed to build more prosperous or viable
societies in the Middle East or Africa, let
alone to benefit their people. They both know
very well what Richard Barnet already understood
45 years ago, that America’s unprecedented
investment in weapons, war and CIA covert
operations are only good for one thing: to kill
people and destroy infrastructure, reducing
cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the
desperate survivors to poverty and displacement.
As long
as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging
the scapegoats for our failed policies into
economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United
States and the United Kingdom can remain the
safe havens of the world’s wealth, islands of
privilege and excess amidst the storms they
unleash on others.
But if
that is the only “significant national
objective” driving these policies, it is surely
about time for the 99 percent of Americans who
reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to
stop the CIA and its allies before they
completely wreck the already damaged and fragile
world in which we all must live, Americans and
foreigners alike.
Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA
in more depth than any other American
journalist, beginning with his book on
The Phoenix Program
in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled
The CIA as Organized Crime:
How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the
World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty’s
analysis right up to the present day, describing
the CIA’s role in our current wars and the many
ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls
U.S. policy.
The Three
Scapegoats
In
Trump’s speech
to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North
Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his prime targets
for destabilization, economic warfare and,
ultimately, the overthrow of their governments,
whether by coup d’etat or the mass
destruction of their civilian population and
infrastructure. But Trump’s choice of scapegoats
for America’s failures was obviously not based
on a rational reassessment of foreign policy
priorities by the new administration. It was
only a tired rehashing of the CIA’s unfinished
business with two-thirds of Bush’s “axis of
evil” and Bush White House official
Elliott Abrams’ failed 2002 coup
in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal
threats of aggression.
How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their
three scapegoats for America’s failures remains
to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world
stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and
invasion of Afghanistan after September 11th. It
is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of
Iraq split the Atlantic alliance and alienated
most of the world. It is certainly not 2011,
after Obama’s global charm offensive had rebuilt
U.S. alliances and provided cover for French
President Sarkozy, British Prime Minister
Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and
the Arab royals to destroy Libya, once ranked by
the U.N. as the
most developed country in Africa,
now mired in intractable chaos.
In
2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump’s
scapegoats would isolate the United States from
many of its allies and undermine its standing in
the world in far-reaching ways that might be
more permanent and harder to repair than the
invasion and destruction of Iraq.
In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing
opposition are following the same strategy that
President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on
Chile, to “make
the economy scream”
in preparation for
the 1973 coup. But the
solid victory of Venezuela’s ruling Socialist
Party in recent
nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a
long and deep economic crisis, reveals little
public support for the CIA’s puppets in
Venezuela.
The CIA
has successfully discredited the Venezuelan
government through economic warfare,
increasingly violent right-wing street protests
and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA
has stupidly hitched its wagon to an extreme
right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no
credibility with most of the Venezuelan public,
who still turn out for the Socialists at the
polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military intervention
would meet fierce public resistance and damage
U.S. relations all over Latin America.
Boxing In
North Korea
A
U.S. aerial bombardment or “preemptive strike”
on North Korea could quickly escalate into a war
between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated
its commitment to North Korea’s defense
if North Korea is attacked. We do not know
exactly what was in the
U.S. war plan
discovered by North Korea, so neither can we
know how North Korea and China could respond if
the U.S. pressed ahead with it.
Most
analysts have long concluded that any U.S.
attack on North Korea would be met with a North
Korean artillery and missile barrage that would
inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on
Seoul, a metropolitan area of 26 million people,
three times the population of New York
City. Seoul is only 35 miles from the frontier
with North Korea, placing it within range of a
huge array of North Korean weapons. What was
already a no-win calculus is now compounded by
the possibility that North Korea could respond
with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a
U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.
U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North
Korea should be an object lesson for its
relations with Iran, graphically demonstrating
the advantages of diplomacy, talks and
agreements over threats of war. Under the
Agreed Framework
signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two
much larger nuclear reactors than the small
experimental one operating at Yongbyong since
1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per
year, enough for one nuclear bomb.
The
lesson of Bush’s Iraq invasion in 2003 after
Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that he
destroy Iraq’s stockpiles of chemical weapons
and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not
lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion
lay waste to large sections of Iraq with
hundreds of thousands of dead but Hussein
himself was hunted down and condemned to death
by hanging.
Still, after North Korea tested its first
nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small
experimental reactor was shut down as a result
of the
“Six Party Talks”
in 2007, all the fuel rods were removed and
placed under supervision of the International
Atomic Energy Agency, and the cooling tower of
the reactor was demolished in 2008.
But
then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea
conducted a second nuclear weapon test and
again began reprocessing spent fuel rods to
recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.
North Korea has now conducted six
nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in the
first five tests
increased gradually up to
15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs
the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but
estimates for the yield of the 2017 test range
from 110 to
250 kilotons,
comparable to a small hydrogen bomb.
The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is
that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal
of
4,000 more powerful weapons (100
to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of
people and devastate and poison the region, or
even the world, for years to come.
The
U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework
in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in
2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that
its own military actions and threats create
legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have
driven the North Koreans into a corner from
which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as
their only chance to avoid mass destruction.
China has proposed a
reasonable framework for diplomacy
to address the concerns of both sides, but the
U.S. insists on maintaining its propaganda
narratives that all the fault lies with North
Korea and that it has some kind of “military
solution” to the crisis.
This may be the most dangerous idea we have
heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of
the Cold War, but it is the logical culmination
of a
systematic normalization
of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has
already cost millions of lives in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and
Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko wrote in
Century of War in 1994, “options and
decisions that are intrinsically dangerous and
irrational become not merely plausible but the
only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy
that is possible in official circles.”
Demonizing
Iran
The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear
weapons program is seriously contested by the
IAEA, which has examined every allegation
presented by the CIA and other Western
“intelligence” agencies as well as
Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed
ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild
goose chase in his 2011 memoir,
Age of Deception:
Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times.
When the CIA and its partners reluctantly
acknowledged the IAEA’s conclusions in a 2007
National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei
issued
a press release
confirming that, “the agency has no concrete
evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program
or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran.”
Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its
outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified
that dual-use technologies that Iran imported
before 2003 were in fact used for other
purposes, and it has exposed the mysterious
“laptop documents” that appeared to show Iranian
plans for a nuclear weapon as forgeries. Gareth
Porter thoroughly explored all these questions
and allegations and the history of mistrust that
fueled them in his 2014 book,
Manufactured Crisis:
the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare,
which I highly recommend.
But, in
the parallel Bizarro world of U.S.
politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA’s
endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary
Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for
disarming Iran during her presidential campaign,
and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any
corporate media interviewer dared to challenge
her claims.
“When President Obama took office, Iran was
racing toward a nuclear bomb,” Clinton
fantasized in a
prominent foreign policy speech
on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal
sanctions policy “brought Iran to the table.”
In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012
book,
A Single Roll of the Dice:
Obama’s Diplomacy With Iran, the Iranians
were ready, not just to “come to the table,” but
to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a
U.S. proposal brokered by Turkey and Brazil in
2010. But, in a classic case of “tail wags dog,”
the U.S. then rejected its own proposal because
it would have undercut support for tighter
sanctions in the U.N. Security Council. In other
words, Clinton’s sanctions policy did not “bring
Iran to the table”, but prevented the U.S. from
coming to the table itself.
As a
senior State Department official told Trita
Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with
Iran when Clinton was at the State Department
was that the U.S. would not take “Yes” for an
answer. Trump’s ham-fisted decertification of
Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA is right out of
Clinton’s playbook, and it demonstrates that the
CIA is still determined to use Iran as a
scapegoat for America’s failures in the Middle
East.
The
spurious claim that Iran is the world’s greatest
sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard
reinforced by endless repetition. It is true
that Iran supports and supplies weapons to
Hezbollah and Hamas, which are both listed as
terrorist organizations by the U.S. government.
But they are mainly defensive resistance groups
that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively
against invasions and attacks by Israel.
Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic
State, the
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
and other groups that actually commit terrorist
crimes around the world might just seem like a
case of the CIA “taking its eyes off the ball,”
if it wasn’t so transparently timed to frame
Iran with new accusations now that the
manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has run
its course.
What the
Future Holds
Barack Obama’s most consequential international
achievement may have been the triumph of
symbolism over substance behind
which he expanded and escalated the so-called
“war on terror,” with a vast expansion of covert
operations and proxy wars that eventually
triggered the
heaviest U.S. aerial bombardments
since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.
Obama’s charm offensive invigorated old and new
military alliances with the U.K., France and the
Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the
most expensive military budget
of any president since World War Two.
But
Obama’s expansion of the “war on terror” under
cover of his deceptive global public relations
campaign created many more problems than it
solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully
ill-equipped to solve any of them. Trump’s
expressed desire to place America first and to
resist foreign entanglements is hopelessly at
odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to
every foreign policy problem.
If the
U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a
resolution of any of its international problems,
it would have done so already. That is
exactly what it has been trying to do since the
1990s, behind both the swagger and bluster of
Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of
Clinton and Obama: a “good cop – bad cop”
routine that should no longer fool anyone
anywhere.
But as
Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and
deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying to
the public about unwinnable wars does not make
them any more winnable. It just gets more people
killed and makes it harder and harder to ever
tell the public the truth.
In
unwinnable wars based on lies, the “credibility”
problem only gets more complicated, as new lies
require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives
to explain away graveyards filled
by old lies. Obama’s cynical global charm
offensive bought the “war on terror” another
eight years, but that only allowed the CIA to
drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its
chaos to more places around the world.
Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning
hearts and minds in capitals around the world by
calling for a recommitment to the
rule of international law,
which
prohibits the threat or use of military force except
in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of
aggression will only make Putin’s case more
persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies
like South Korea, Germany and other members of
the European Union, whose complicity in U.S.
aggression has until now helped to give it a
false veneer of political legitimacy.
Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly
always provoked increasingly united opposition,
as peace-loving countries and people have
reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to
an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler’s
Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional,
and in their own ways they were. But in the end,
their belief in their exceptionalism led them
on to defeat and destruction.
Americans had better hope that we are not so
exceptional, and that the world will find a
diplomatic rather than a military “solution” to
its American problem. Our chances of survival
would improve a great deal if American officials
and politicians would finally start to act like
something other than putty in the hands of the
CIA.
Nicolas J. S. Davies is the
author of Blood On
Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction
of Iraq. He also wrote the chapters on
“Obama at War” in Grading the 44th President: a
Report Card on Barack Obama’s First Term as a
Progressive Leader.
This article was
originally published by
Consortium News
|
|
| |
Article Rating | Average Score: 0 Votes: 0
| |
|
|