Anthony Cordesman has received some unsought coverage lately for comments he made on the war in Ukraine. This along with a thirty year old paper I discovered, provide substantial and significant reasons to question key points of the media narrative surrounding the war.
For those unfamiliar with Cordesman, I will quote myself. The
link is found at the end of the piece.
In 2019 I wrote the following:
The Center for Strategic
and International Studies (CSIS) think-tank is closely wed to the corridors of
American power. If you listen to NPR or BBC, you're already familiar with the
organisation and Anthony Cordesman is an old familiar voice.
Astute, analytic and by
all appearances balanced, the CSIS in actuality is an important think-tank for
both Atlanticism and the American Empire which dominates it. There is an
inherent bias in its reasoning and yet the organisation is not given to either
fanaticism or sensationalism. It belongs with the Council on Foreign Relations
(CFR) and a few other organisations to a category that might be described as
trans-political.
In other words it
represents an Establishment that transcends the American political divide.
Neo-Conservatives roll their eyes when organisations like the CSIS and CFR are
mentioned. These are the dull-minded dinosaurs, the ivory tower academics, the
staid and safe thinkers who have for the sake of peace and stability sold out
the American colossus. These are the people that are loathed by the Trumpites
and while the feeling is mutual to some degree, the Establishment types are
careful. They're the types that focus on the forest, not the trees and they
realise the American Empire is bigger than an individual president and that a
president is only as powerful as his team. Without advisors and people to
execute policy the president will quickly become marginalised.
Rather than slip into
alarmism and fall prey to reaction they are the types who would rather have
quiet meetings, make phone calls and do what they can to work the system and
circumvent the influence of someone like Trump and the members of his
unilateralist cabal.
I say all this simply
to point out that Cordesman and the CSIS are neither more nor less pernicious
than others in power. They are not stupid people. They wield a great deal of
influence. They are the intellectuals that overlap with the American Mandarin
class and within their circles, they are capable of wielding significant
influence.
I pay attention to what
they say because it's a window into how the Establishment is thinking in terms
of foreign policy and with regard to military matters. I don't necessarily
believe everything that's said and I certainly don't agree with their general
viewpoint. But when they issue statements or make statements on the news it
tells me something.
----
As mentioned, Cordesman once again made the news recently as
alternative media outlets and commentators picked up on his latest CSIS
commentary. Not a few were shocked by his candid admissions and their
implications.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/united-states-aid-ukraine-investment-whose-benefits-greatly-exceed-its-cost
Cordesman plainly states that the US is in a state of war
with Russia and rather than complain, American political leaders should
understand that though it's costing a lot of money – it's the best option
available. It's war on the cheap. And let's face it, the depletion of the US
arsenal is creating high demand for US weapons manufacturing. There's a lot of
money to be made.
Though he doesn't mention it, there is some concern. Some
voices are expressing fear that the US industrial sector is unable to keep up
and that for a season US stockpiles are going to be well below desirable or
even 'safe' levels – as such thinking goes. They celebrate the war to be sure
but they believe there are potential vulnerabilities with this strategy.
For Cordesman, the Ukraine War is meeting multiple objectives
and in one fell swoop many of the gnawing and persistent problems for the US
foreign policy Establishment are being consolidated and dealt with. Biden may be
feckless in his rhetoric and ability to think on the fly, but as it stands
right now his presidency is viewed as a success – more along the lines of
Clinton and Bush I, then the foolish Neo-Con driven policies of Bush II, the
failures of Obama, or the disaster that was Trump.
Cordesman views the proxy war as war on the cheap but he
ignores the terrible costs. While the media bombards us with Ukrainian human
interest stories, the maddening part is that the people of Ukraine are being
misled – by NATO and by their own government. Zelenskiy has sold them out. They
are cannon fodder for NATO in a war that was and is unnecessary. The propaganda
presents NATO as the saviour. In reality NATO is one of the core causes of the
war.
Cordesman has long been critical of Neo-Con schemes and yet
he (speaking for large sections of the US Establishment) views the present
situation as a win-win. And yet there is a caution – it must be managed as it
wouldn't take much for it to spiral out of control. While he may seem sane
compared to some of the Neo-Con firebrands – many of which now reside within
the Democratic Party – what he's positing is still reckless and insane, no
matter how measured the voice. And ethically? It's just the kind of amoral rot
we can always expect from those engaged in imperial calculus and its intrigues.
How long can it go on? That's yet to be determined and yet
the pressure is going to increase when it comes to the EU. As Macron and others
have made clear, the end-game is a political solution, not a military one. And
whether Putin survives or not is one thing. But increasingly leaders have to be
weighing the viability of Zelenskiy when it comes to a peace settlement. They
want to compare him to Churchill. Well, Churchill may indeed be the political
model. Whether or not he played the role in winning the war that history has
carved out for him, it must be remembered that just as victory was attained, he
was quickly shown the door.
There are many problems with Zelenskiy, one being that he may
not agree to a political solution. And two, he seems willing and eager to
escalate and take the war back into Russian territory. That goes beyond NATO's
immediate goals – unless the timing is right with regard to the Putin regime.
If managed improperly it could quickly result in a much bigger and far more
dangerous war.
I was hardly surprised to find that Walter Pincus, long
reckoned a mouthpiece for the US military and intelligence sectors, lauded
Cordesman in a recent editorial:
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/column_article/the-real-cost-of-us-support-to-ukraine
If all of this doesn't sufficiently challenge the official
narrative regarding The Ukraine War, the following should. I've included the
introduction to this 1992 document written by a USAF officer.
https://media.defense.gov/2017/Dec/29/2001861964/-1/-1/0/T_GRIFFITH_STRATEGIC_ATTACK.PDF
The United States Air
Force has long favored attacking electrical power systems. Electric power has
been considered a critical target in every war since World War II, and will
likely be nominated in the future. Despite the frequency of attacks on this
target system there has also been recurring failure in understanding how power
is used in a nation. In addition, air planners tend to become enamored with the
vulnerability of electric power to air strikes, but analysis of the cause and
effect relationships indicates that attacking electrical power does not achieve
the stated objectives in terms of winning the war. Historically, there have
been four basic strategies behind attacks on national electrical systems: to
cause a decline in civilian morale; to inflict costs on the political leaders
to induce a change; to hamper military operations; and to hinder war
production. The evidence shows that the only sound reason for attacking
electrical power is to effect the production of war material in a war of
attrition against a self-supporting nation-state without outside assistance.
The implication for future strategic air operations is important. Because
attacks on electric power cause indirect collateral damage which can be
politically counterproductive, and the military benefit is minimal, the United
States should reject attacks on national electrical power systems in the near
future.
The author actually argues against this policy but as we know
from America's wars waged in Yugoslavia, Iraq II, and Libya, his 1992 recommendations
were not followed.
But the paper and its documentation sufficiently belie the
claims of the US media and render the statements of the political class as
hypocritical and even ridiculous. Just the other day a diplomat spoke of Putin's
'barbarism' in knocking out Ukraine's infrastructure.
It is certainly barbaric. War always is. And while such
statements will always contain a level of absurdity, for the US to speak this
way is beyond the pale. If the media had any kind of integrity or the least
hint of adversarial backbone they would challenge Pentagon and State Department
statements regarding Russian conduct and its targeting of Ukraine's
infrastructure. Putin is only doing what the US does and yet largely on a lesser
scale as the paper makes clear enough. If the State Department statement is
allowed to stand, then we can safely say that the US engages in rank and
vicious barbarism in its wars. It's a true statement, and it's something that
should be in the back of our minds as we interact with this culture and its
veteran cult of heroes – in reality they were and are stormtroopers, war
criminals, and agents of barbarism. I know, I was one of them and yet as I have
repeatedly testified – Christ saved me and in light of the truth of the gospel
I repudiated all of that and will not glory in what is my shame.
None of this is to grant anything to Putin or somehow defend
his conduct. It's appalling and he stands condemned, but the United States has
no moral standing when it comes to such issues. It is 'the' rogue state, the
great depot of weapons sales and global militarism – though it hides this
behind the euphemism of 'Exceptionalism'.
See also:
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2019/08/refugees-clashing-empires-signs-of.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.