Connect with us

Latest

News

STATE DEPARTMENT: US NOT to remain in Syria after ISIS “defeat”

The Kurds and the Americans cannot both be telling the truth.

Published

on

5,021 Views

US State Department Spokeswoman Heather Nauert has responded to questions from reporters about reports from Kurdish militants who last week stated that the US plans to remain in Syria for “decades”.

Nauert refuted these claims by stating the following,

“Syria must be governed by its own people and not by the United States or other force”.

She added that the US intends to “defeat” ISIS and not to stay beyond this mission.

This puts statements from the US and their militant Kurdish allies into direct contradiction. As I wrote recently in The Duran,

“Talal Silo has said that the Kurdish fighters in Syria have reached an agreement that would imply a de-facto Kurdish entity in Syria would form under the auspices of US military occupation of the territory which is recognised by every major international body, including the United Nations as Syrian territory.

The United States has yet to comment on the remarks and for good reason. The remarks open up a Pandora’s Box of problems for all those impacted, including Washington.

Here are three possible interpriations of the Kurdish statement:

1. Blackmail to the US 

Officially, the US does not back the creation of a Kurdish state anywhere, not in Syria, Iraq, Turkey or Iran, even though various Kurdish groups seek the creation of such an entity in all of these places. To this point, the US, like Russia, urges Iraqi Kurds to postpone a separatist referendum in Iraq which is currently scheduled for the 25th of September, 2017.

By implying that a deal has been reached between the SDF and United States to keep American occupying troops in Syria for decades to come, Kurdish leaders in Syria may be trying to force America’s hand in creating a state by default.

If SDF controlled regions of Syria become cut off from the legitimate authorities in Damascus through a line of US military occupation, one could witness a scenario similar to that which Serbia endured in the late 1990s. Starting in 1999, NATO troops brutally occupied the Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija. This led the province being cut off from the rest of Serbia in spite of being an integral part of Serbian territory.

In 2008, occupied Kosovo and Metohija unilaterally declared itself a state and the US was quick to support this move.

Something similar could happen in Syria where a US occupation of Syria could eventually lead Kurdish regions being cut off from the rest of Syria, making a unilateral declaration of independence all the more likely in the future.

The biggest difference is that unlike in the Balkans where the unilateral declaration of a Kosovar entity could not reasonably have been militarily opposed due to the weakness of west Balkan military power, in Syria it is a different matter. Turkey has said that it will never accept a Kurdish state on its borders and if history is a guide, Turkey will do something about it and what’s more Turkey certainly is militarily capable of doing something about it.

2. A Truthful statement 

It may be that the US which is already effectively cutting off much of Syria east of the Euphrates with its stalwart support of Kurdish militants has already reached a deal with local Kurds for a long-term occupation of Syria.

The fact that the US has not said so publicly and has apparently not told Ankara is a further sign that the US is prepared to lose what is left of its historic Turkish alliance.

If the statement from the Kurdish spokesman represents covert but confirmed American policy, it means that Turkey’s exit from NATO could be even more rapid than many previously thought possible.

3. Wishful thinking 

Kurdish military spokesmen tend to be over-zealous and exaggerate the realities of many situations, especially when geo-political alignments are involved.

It could be that the US has given no more indication to the Kurds that they intend to occupy certain regions of Syria than they have given anyone else and that the Kurds are speaking from a position of desire rather than fact”.

Today’s remarks from the US State department leave only two possibilities: either the Kurds are trying in vain to entice the US further into Syria or that Heather Nauert is being dishonest and the future plans of the US.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Gonzogal
Guest
Gonzogal

“She added that the US intends to “defeat” ISIS and not to stay beyond this mission”

All they will do is ship in more ISIS fighters….there, problem solved….it will continue to be there forever, or until formally/forcefully made to leave,

7.62x54r
Guest
7.62x54r

US is inside Syria illegally- period. Neither Moscow nor Damascus needs a wider conflict, but the US never leaves a foreign country unless forced out.

Have a cigar!
Guest
Have a cigar!

Indeed. We all remember Yankee Vietnam Disaster. They came to spread horror and spend bloody money. Ended up in nationwide PTSD for decades.

Michellefescobar
Guest
Michellefescobar

Planet94e

Google is paying 97$ per hour! work for few hours and have longer with friends & family!
On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
!au64d:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobs354CashMarketPlanet/GetPay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!au64l..,…

Milly Vanilly
Guest
Milly Vanilly

So you are working for ONE of George Soros organizations ??

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

“US NOT to remain in Syria after ISIS “defeat””
They had no right to go there in the first place. They were neither invited by Syria, nor sanctioned by the international law – via a Security Council resolution.

Peter Hallam
Guest
Peter Hallam

Correct. They are there illegally. They were never invited. They never had permission. They never contributed to the War On Terror. The are conducting a War OF Terror by funding, arming, training, and working with terrorists in order to pretend there is some PLAUSIBLE Deniability. The Coalition have killed more innocent people in a few months than the Russians did since they were invited in. This is joke. A cruel joke even pretending that they are there to help. Open an independent war crimes tribunal. Put some of the terrorists on the stand and we’ll soon see who the real… Read more »

Shahna
Guest

Yes.
I like that idea …. an independent war crimes tribunal….

Gavin Allen
Guest
Gavin Allen

They were invited. The fact that you can’t see beyond the regime is your problem.

Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

By whom? No one other than the government of Syria can invite foreign armies on Syrian soil. The US has NO bilateral treaty with Syria, not even diplomatic links. US didn’t either declare war to Syria (in order to send troops there), as Syria never attacked in ANY way the US. So stop up your garbage comments.

Tarciso Ribeiro
Guest
Tarciso Ribeiro

she is lying.

JPH
Guest
JPH

Anyway she is lying indeed.

cap960
Guest
cap960

Who to believe…The Kurds which they are getting closer to have a state of their own with American help or our exceptional friends which they have a well known reputation of lies and deceptions.

Graz Bugni
Guest
Graz Bugni

A look at a few tweets by Nauert at the State Dept’s Twitter page might give some insight. I almost had a bullshit overdose.

samo war
Guest
samo war

syria is project oil satan mafia from rookefelder ?

BobValdez
Guest
BobValdez

I’ll believe it when I see us troops and equipment LEAVE Syrian soil. Only then, will it be the truth.

BobValdez
Guest
BobValdez

“She added that the US intends to “defeat” ISIS and not to stay beyond this mission.”

comment image

Poor meter is off the charts.

Gavin Allen
Guest
Gavin Allen

More fake news and racist bias from the Duran… what a surprise. “Talal Silo has said that the Kurdish fighters in Syria…” – no he hasn’t. Tal represents the SDF, which is Syrian, and not characterised by any one ethnicity. “a de-facto Kurdish entity in Syria” – is in nobody’s heads except the author of this lame propaganda. The DFNS already exists. It’s polyethnic, Syrian, and elections begin next month. “Syrian territory” – exactly. The Arabs, Kurds, Assyrians, Yazidis and others in the SDF and MDC are Syrians. Well done Adam, ask mummy for a cookie. “Kurdish leaders in Syria… Read more »

John C Carleton
Guest
John C Carleton

The State department had to say that?
When one gets their butts handed to them in a war where they have illegally invaded a country, i am not aware of one war in history where the loosing war criminal aggressor, was allowed to remain so they could try it again.

André De Koning
Guest
André De Koning

Still, as quoted elsewhere, we better watch Israel’s meeting with the US officials this coming week. The journalist who has done so much for Syria and media coverage of the realistic kind, Vanessa Beeley says: “An Israeli delegation will be received at the White House this week. The agenda: Syria. The three members of the Israeli delegation are: • Yossi Cohen (photo), Head of Mossad (Foreign Intelligence); • General Herzl Halevi, Head of Aman (Military Intelligence); • Colonel Zohar Palti, Head of Military and Political Affairs at the Ministry of Defense. This delegation will meet with the following US representatives:… Read more »

Shahna
Guest

“intends to use this visit as an opportunity to present compelling grounds for closing down the Silk Route.”
———–
WHAT?

So China, Russia, indeed all Asia, the Middle East, the Far East AND Europe+GOK who else are ALL going to bow down, throw away the Silk Road – because little Izzies are terrified?

Perhaps little Izzies should (i) grow up and (ii) stop creating the cause of their own terror.

Sheesh – but my heart bleeds custard for those murderers and warmongers!

foxenburg
Guest
foxenburg

I can’t see how a Kurdish state would be viable. No coastline. Oil would be its only source of income. But how would they bring it to the market? Iraq, Turkey, Syria & Iran wouldn’t let it pass through their territories. They would have no over-flying or transit rights and would be completely cut off from the rest of the world.

Shahna
Guest

And JUST THIS ONCE ….. America is not lying?

In your dreams.

richardstevenhack
Guest
richardstevenhack

Like the State Department would even know until they’re told…

seby
Guest
seby

My grandmother taught me to ignore what people say, but note what they do.

A widow at 26, with two small children to raise, she didn’t have time for blah, blah.

Putin's baby
Guest
Putin's baby

Defeated you again, yankees….

Keith Smith
Guest
Keith Smith

duran looks different. changed the layout .

SHAUN BYATT
Guest
SHAUN BYATT

Does the US consider bases inside an independant Kurdistan (after the
referendums) as being inside Syria, or will they use this “loophole” to
justify their actions when they contradict this statement of removing
their forces from the area?

disqus_Xx0Y3HsNsJ
Guest
disqus_Xx0Y3HsNsJ

Suuuure. Doesn’t anyone actually believe that? Tell that to Iraq and Afghanistan.

disqus_Xx0Y3HsNsJ
Guest
disqus_Xx0Y3HsNsJ

Does anyone actually believe that?

Milly Vanilly
Guest
Milly Vanilly

If the U.S.WANTED to eliminate isis all they have to do is STOP their paychecks & fire them. CIA CREATED, Trained & FUNDED isis to keep ‘THEIR’ UNJUSTIFIED wars going so the Military Industrial Complex keeps ROLLING in ILLEGAL money.

Latest

President Putin signs law blocking fake news, but the West makes more

Western media slams President Putin and his fake news law, accusing him of censorship, but an actual look at the law reveals some wisdom.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The TASS Russian News Agency reported on March 18th that Russian President Vladimir Putin signed off on a new law intended to block distorted or untrue information being reported as news. Promptly after he did so, Western news organizations began their attempt to “spin” this event as some sort of proof of “state censorship” in the oppressive sense of the old Soviet Union. In other words, a law designed to prevent fake news was used to create more fake news.

One of the lead publications is a news site that is itself ostensibly a “fake news” site. The Moscow Times tries to portray itself as a Russian publication that is conducted from within Russian borders. However, this site and paper is really a Western publication, run by a Dutch foundation located in the Netherlands. As such, the paper and the website associated have a distinctly pro-West slant in their reporting. Even Wikipedia noted this with this comment from their entry about the publication:

In the aftermath of the Ukrainian crisis, The Moscow Times was criticized by a number of journalists including Izvestia columnist Israel Shamir, who in December 2014 called it a “militant anti-Putin paper, a digest of the Western press with extreme bias in covering events in Russia”.[3] In October 2014 The Moscow Times made the decision to suspend online comments after an increase in offensive comments. The paper said it disabled comments for two reasons—it was an inconvenience for its readers as well as being a legal liability, because under Russian law websites are liable for all content, including user-generated content like comments.[14]

This bias is still notably present in what is left of the publication, which is now an online-only news source. This is some of what The Moscow Times had to say about the new fake news legislation:

The bills amending existing information laws overwhelmingly passed both chambers of Russian parliament in less than two months. Observers and some lawmakers have criticized the legislation for its vague language and potential to stifle free speech.

The legislation will establish punishments for spreading information that “exhibits blatant disrespect for the society, government, official government symbols, constitution or governmental bodies of Russia.”

Insulting state symbols and the authorities, including Putin, will carry a fine of up to 300,000 rubles and 15 days in jail for repeat offenses.

As is the case with other Russian laws, the fines are calculated based on whether the offender is a citizen, an official or a legal entity.

More than 100 journalists and public figures, including human rights activist Zoya Svetova and popular writer Lyudmila Ulitskaya, signed a petition opposing the laws, which they labeled “direct censorship.”

This piece does give a bit of explanation from Dmitry Peskov, showing that European countries also have strict laws governing fake news distribution. However, the Times made the point of pointing out the idea of “insulting governmental bodies of Russia… including Putin” to bolster their claim that this law amounts to real censorship of the press. It developed its point of view based on a very short article from Reuters which says even less about the legislation and how it works.

However, TASS goes into rather exhaustive detail about this law, and it also gives rather precise wording on the reason for the law’s passage, as well as how it is to be enforced. We include most of this text here, with emphases added:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a law on blocking untrue and distorting information (fake news). The document was posted on the government’s legal information web portal.

The document supplements the list of information, the access to which may be restricted on the demand by Russia’s Prosecutor General or his deputies. In particular, it imposes a ban on “untrue publicly significant information disseminated in the media and in the Internet under the guise of true reports, which creates a threat to the life and (or) the health of citizens, property, a threat of the mass violation of public order and (or) public security, or the threat of impeding or halting the functioning of vital infrastructural facilities, transport or social infrastructure, credit institutions, energy, industrial or communications facilities.”

Pursuant to the document, in case of finding such materials in Internet resources registered in accordance with the Russian law on the mass media as an online media resource, Russia’s Prosecutor General or his deputies will request the media watchdog Roskomnadzor to restrict access to the corresponding websites.

Based on this request, Roskomnadzor will immediately notify the editorial board of the online media resource, which is in violation of the legislation, about the need to remove untrue information and the media resource will be required to delete such materials immediately. If the editorial board fails to take the necessary measures, Roskomnadzor will send communications operators “a demand to take measures to restrict access to the online resource.”

In case of deleting such untrue information, the website owner will notify Roskomnadzor thereof, following which the media watchdog will “hold a check into the authenticity of this notice” and immediately inform the communications operator about the resumption of the access to the information resource.
The conditions for the law are very specific, as are the penalties for breaking it. TASS continued:

Liability for breaching the law

Simultaneously, the Federation Council approved the associated law with amendments to Russia’s Code of Administrative Offences, which stipulates liability in the form of penalties of up to 1.5 million rubles (around $23,000) for the spread of untrue and distorting information.

The Code’s new article, “The Abuse of the Freedom of Mass Information,” stipulates liability for disseminating “deliberately untrue publicly significant information” in the media or in the Internet. The penalty will range from 30,000 rubles ($450) to 100,000 rubles ($1,520) for citizens, from 60,000 rubles ($915) to 200,000 rubles ($3,040) for officials and from 200,000 rubles to 500,000 rubles ($7,620) for corporate entities with the possible confiscation of the subject of the administrative offence.

Another element of offence imposes tighter liability for the cases when the publication of false publicly significant information has resulted in the deaths of people, has caused damage to the health or property, prompted the mass violation of public order and security or has caused disruption to the functioning of transport or social infrastructure facilities, communications, energy and industrial facilities and banks. In such instances, the fines will range from 300,000 rubles to 400,000 rubles ($6,090) for citizens, from 600,000 rubles to 900,000 rubles ($13,720) for officials, and from 1 million rubles to 1.5 million rubles for corporate entities.

While this legislation can be spun (and is) in the West as anti-free speech, one may also consider the damage that has taken place in the American government through a relentless attack of fake news from most US news outlets against President Trump. One of the most notable effects of this barrage has been to further degrade and destroy the US’ relationship with the Russian Federation, because even the Helsinki Summit was attacked so badly that the two leaders have not been able to get a second summit together.

While it is certainly a valued right of the American press to be unfettered by Congress, and while it is also certainly vital to criticize improper practices by government officials, the American news agencies have gone far past that, to deliberately dishonest attacks, based in innuendo and everything possible that was formerly only the province of gossip tabloid publications. The effort has been to defame the President, not to give proper or due criticism to his policies, nor credit. It can be properly stated that the American press has abused its freedom of late.

This level of abuse drew a very unusual comment from the US president, who wondered on Twitter about the possibility of creating a state-run media center in the US to counter fake news:

Politically correct for US audiences? No. But an astute point?

Definitely.

Freedom in anything also presumes that those with that freedom respect it, and further, that they respect and apply the principle that slandering people and institutions for one’s own personal, business or political gain is wrong. Implied in the US Constitution’s protection of the press is the notion that the press itself, as the rest of the country, is accountable to a much Higher Authority than the State. But when that Authority is rejected, as so much present evidence suggests, then freedom becomes the freedom to misbehave and to agitate. It appears largely within this context that the Russian law exists, based on the text given.

Further, by hitting dishonest media outlets in their pocketbook, rather than prison sentences, the law appears to be very smart in its message: “Do not lie. If you do, you will suffer where it counts most.”

Considering that news media’s purpose is to make money, this may actually be a very smart piece of legislation.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

ABC’s Ted Koppel admits mainstream media bias against Trump [Video]

The mainstream news media has traded informing the public for indoctrinating them, but the change got called out by an “old-school” journo.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Fox News reported on March 19th that one of America’s most well-known TV news anchors, Ted Koppel, noted that the once-great media outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post, have indeed traded journalistic excellence for hit pieces for political purposes. While political opinions in the mainstream press are certainly within the purview of any publication, this sort of writing can hardly be classified as “news” but as “Opinion” or more widely known, “Op-Ed.”

We have two videos on this. The first is the original clip showing the full statement that Mr. Koppel gave. It is illuminating, to say the least:

Tucker Carlson and Brit Hume, a former colleague of Mr. Koppel, added their comments on this admission in this second short video piece, shown here.

There are probably a number of people who have watched this two-year onslaught of slander and wondered why there cannot be a law preventing this sort of misleading reporting. Well, Russia passed a law to stop it, hitting dishonest media outlets in their pocketbook. It is a smart law because it does not advocate imprisonment for bad actors in the media, but it does fine them.

Going to prison for reporting “the truth” looks very noble. Having to pay out of pocket for it is not so exciting.

Newsmax and Louder with Crowder both reported on this as well.

This situation of dishonest media has led to an astonishing 77% distrust rating among Americans of their news media, this statistic being reported by Politico in 2018. This represents a nearly diametric reversal in trust from the 72% trust rating the country’s news viewers gave their news outlets in 1972. These statistics come from Gallup polls taken through the years.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Empire Of Absurdity: Recycled Neocons, Recycled Enemies

Despite America’s military threats, bellicose speechifying, brutal sanctions, and Cold War-style conflict-framing, the incumbent Maduro seems firmly in control. 

Antiwar

Published

on

By

Authored by Major Danny Sjursen (ret.) via AntiWar.com:


There are times when I wish that the United States would just drop the charade and declare itself a global empire.

As a veteran of two imperial wars, a witness to the dark underside of America’s empire-denial, I’ve grown tired of the equivocation and denials from senior policymakers. The U.S. can’t be an empire, we’re told, because – unlike the Brits and Romans – America doesn’t annex territories outright, and our school children don’t color its colonies in red-white-and-blue on cute educational maps.

But this distinction, at root, is rather superficial. Conquest, colonization, and annexation are so 19th century – Washington has moved beyond the overt and engages in the (not-so) subtle modern form of imperialism. America’s empire over the last two decades – under Democrats and Republicans – has used a range of tools: economic, military, political, to topple regimes, instigate coups, and starve “enemy” civilians. Heck, it didn’t even start with 9/11 – bullying foreigners and overturning uncooperative regimes is as American as apple pie.

Still, observing post-9/11, post-Iraq/Afghanistan defeat, Washington play imperialism these days is tragicomically absurd. The emperor has no clothes, folks. Sure, America (for a few more fleeting years) boasts the world’s dominant economy, sure its dotted the globe with a few hundred military bases, and sure it’s military still outspends the next seven competitors combined. Nonetheless, what’s remarkable, what constitutes the real story of 2019, is this: the US empire can’t seem to accomplish anything anymore, can’t seem to bend anybody to its will. It’s almost sad to watch. America, the big-hulking has-been on the block, still struts its stuff, but most of the world simply ignores it.

Make no mistake, Washington isn’t done trying; it’s happy to keep throwing good money (and blood) at bad: to the tune of a cool $6 trillion, 7,000 troop deaths, and 500,000 foreign deaths – including maybe 240,000 civilians. But what’s it all been for? The world is no safer, global terror attacks have only increased, and Uncle Sam just can’t seem to achieve any of its preferred policy goals.

Think on it for a second: Russia and Iran “won” in Syria; the Taliban and Pakistan are about ready to “win” in Afghanistan; Iran is more influential than ever in Iraq; the Houthis won’t quit in Yemen; Moscow is keeping Crimea; Libya remains unstable; North Korea ain’t giving up its nukes; and China’s power continues to grow in its version of the Caribbean – the South China Sea. No amount of American cash, no volume of our soldiers’ blood, no escalation in drone strikes or the conventional bombing of brown folks, has favorably changed the calculus in any of these regional conflicts.

What does this tell us? Quite a lot, I’d argue – but not what the neoliberal/neoconservative alliance of pundits and policymakers are selling. See for these unrepentant militarists the problem is always the same: Washington didn’t use enough force, didn’t spend enough blood and treasure. So is the solution: more defense spending, more CIA operations, more saber-rattling, and more global military interventions.

No, the inconvenient truth is as simple as it is disturbing to red-blooded patriots. To wit, the United States – or any wannabe hegemon – simply doesn’t possess the capability to shape the world in its own image. See those pesky locals – Arabs, Asians, Muslims, Slavs – don’t know what’s good for them, don’t understand that (obviously) there is a secret American zipped inside each of their very bodies, ready to burst out if given a little push!

It turns out that low-tech, cheap insurgent tactics, when combined with impassioned nationalism, can bog down the “world’s best military” indefinitely. It seems, too, that other regional heavyweights – Russia, China, Iran, North Korea – stand ready to call America’s nuclear bluff. That they know the US all-volunteer military and consumerist economy can’t ultimately absorb the potential losses a conventional war would demand. Even scarier for the military-industrial-congressional-media establishment is the logical extension of all this accumulated failure: the questionable efficacy of military force in the 21st century.

Rather than recognize the limits of American military, economic, and political power, Bush II, Obama, and now Trump, have simply dusted off the old playbook. It’s reached the level of absurdity under the unhinged regime of Mr. Trump. Proverbially blasting Springsteen’s “Glory Days,” as its foreign policy soundtrack, the Donald and company have doubled down. Heck, if Washington can’t get its way in Africa, Europe, Asia, or the Mideast, well why not clamp down in our own hemisphere, our traditional sphere of influence – South and Central America.

Enter the lunacy of the current Venezuela controversy. Trump’s team saw a golden opportunity in this socialist, backwater petrostate. Surely here, in nearby Monroe Doctrine country, Uncle Sam could get his way, topple the Maduro regime, and coronate the insurgent (though questionably legitimate) Juan Guaido. It’s early 20th century Yankee imperialism reborn. Everything seemed perfect. Trump could recall the specter of America’s tried and true enemy – “evil” socialism – cynically (and absurdly) equating Venezuelan populism with some absurd Cold-War-era existential threat to the nation. The idea that Venezuela presents a challenge on the scale of Soviet Russia is actually farcical. What’s more, and this is my favorite bit of irrationality, we were all recently treated to a game of “I know you are but what am I?” from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who (with a straight face) claimed Cuba, tiny island Cuba, was the real “imperialist” in Venezuela.

Next, in a move reminiscent of some sort of macabre 1980’s theme party, Trump resuscitated Elliot Abrams – you know, the convicted felon of Iran-Contra infamy, to serve as Washington’s special envoy to embattled Venezuela. Who better to act as “fair arbiter” in that country than a war-criminal with the blood of a few hundred thousand Central Americans (remember the Contras?!?) on his hands back in the the good old (Reagan) days.

Despite all this: America’s military threats, bellicose speechifying, brutal sanctions, and Cold War-style conflict-framing, the incumbent Maduro seems firmly in control. This isn’t to say that Venezuelans don’t have genuine grievances with the Maduro government (they do), but for now at least, it appears the military is staying loyal to the president, Russia/China are filling in the humanitarian aid gaps, and Uncle Sam is about to chalk up another loss on the world scene. Ultimately, whatever the outcome, the crisis will only end with a Venezuelan solution.

America’s impotence would almost be sad to watch, if, and only if, it wasn’t all so tragic for the Venezuelan people.

So Trump and his recycled neocons will continue to rant and rave and threaten Venezuela, Haiti, Cuba, and so on and so forth. America will still flex its aging, sagging muscles – a reflexive habit at this point.

Only now it’ll seem sad. Because no one is paying attention anymore.

The opposite of love is isn’t hate – it’s indifference.

*  *  *

Danny Sjursen is a retired US Army officer and regular contributor to Antiwar.comHe served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending