ROBERT KAGAN CRANKS IT UP A NOTCH
Two things irked me last week;
1. on the same day The Weekly
2. allegations resurfaced that both Ryazan and Beslan were Putin's false flag terror attacks (and all sources can be traced to MI6 stooge Boris Berezovsky). Basayev openly claimed he was 100% responsible for Beslan and two planes being shot down, but did allege that maybe the Russian Special Services botched the rescue.
We are now well into August, with the UK Parliament and US Congress on holiday. There are two, and soon possibly three, US carriers in the Persian Gulf, and God knows what else we don't know about. Cheney is still lingering in the White House as the fart in the spacesuit desperate for a war on Iran and ultimately Russia and China, while I detect the possibility that Bush and Putin do not want to fight Cheney's (or rather his masters in Wall street and The City of London) wars.
So what happens? There is a co-ordinated attack on all things Russian.
It is vital we get through August without any major escalation of war. The Israel/Syria thing has been simmering. The USA/Iran thing is also on simmer. We need cool diplomacy and some trust in world leaders. If Russia wanted to escalate things the expulsion of four Russian diplomats from the UK could have resulted in alot more than four British diplomats expelled in return, despite the other ridiculous allegations made at the time about Russian bombers coming to bomb London and an alleged anonymous Russian assassin of Berezovsky sent home without charge. Instead Putin has offered a station for missiles in Azerbaijan and visited Kennebunkport for a chat with Bush about co-operation. So far, besides a flag on the Arctic sea bed, I see no signs of Russia wanting war over anything. Instead I see Cheney and his minions seething, foaming at the mouth, desperate for war.
So today, I have highlighted The Weekly
Is the United States out of the intervention business for a while? With two difficult wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a divided public, the conventional answer is that it will be a long time before any American president, Democrat or Republican, again dispatches troops into conflict overseas.
As usual, though, the conventional wisdom is almost certainly wrong. Throughout its history, America has frequently used force on behalf of principles and tangible interests, and that is not likely to change. Despite the difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, America remains the world's dominant military power, spends half a trillion dollars a year on defense and faces no peer strong enough to deter it if it chooses to act. Between 1989 and 2001, Americans intervened with significant military force on eight occasions -- once every 18 months. This interventionism has been bipartisan -- four interventions were launched by Republican administrations, four by Democratic administrations. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the situations in which an American president may have to use force have only grown, whether it is to respond to terrorist threats, to curb weapons proliferation, to prevent genocide or other human rights violations, or to respond to more traditional forms of aggression.