This is from Col Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief-of-staff to the Secretary of State, on Judge Napolitano’s show:
I’ve been told by fairly reliable sources that (Sec of State Anthony) Blinkin and (National Security Advisor Jake) Sullivan… Blinkin primarily but Sullivan too, have been sidetracked.
What’s happened is the Pentagon has taken over diplomacy as well as any action militarily speaking with regard to both theaters of war and so they’re now in charge.
I have to change my evaluation of (Defence Secretary Lloyd) Austin if that’s the case because it means he listened finally to the people in the bowels of the Pentagon who know the truth. He’s reacting to that.
He’s told the President that and to Biden’s credit even though he was furious he finally took that advice (not to allow Ukraine to fire long-range missiles into Russia or to back Israel against Hezbollah and/or Iran if Israel starts the war).
I’m generally not the type to root for a military takeover of deciding diplomatic and military matters. But the level of callow brinksmanship paired with epic cluelessness that has characterized Team Biden’s foreign policy has me greatly relieved by this Pentagon takeover (if true).
The best part was Bibi Netanyahoo being told that if he invades Lebanon he’s on his own.
The fact that UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer was publicly humiliated by Biden was just a sweetener on top.
KT Chong
There is nothing new there. I mostly agree with Col Lawrence Wilkerson (as well as Col. Douglas Macgregor, Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern, and Scott Ritter,) but they have been repeating the same points over and over again in their interviews. I have stopped following their interviews until I know they have some new materials.
Those people used to work in the military and CIA. They helped create the Deep State when they could have stopped it. Now they are complaining about what they created.
KT Chong
On the other hand, here are a treat and some new materials: a full hour of John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs on the same stage.
John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs @ All-In Summit 2024:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvFtyDy_Bt0
They discuss the Deep State, Russia, the Ukraine War, and disagree on China.
david lamy
Is changing the source for advise really a coup?
Having the State Department direct military affairs has not been a very savory development.
Nate Wilcox
KT: I too have been cutting back on my alt-media YouTubing for the same reason but, the bit about Ukraine being refused permission to fire even British missiles deep into Russia is new. The bit about the State Dept and Jake Sullivan being sidelined is also new.
David: I went with “coup” for the alliteration. What we’ve just seen is more of a follow up to a coup than a coup. They already forced Biden out of the campaign, this is just a mopping up operation.
Feral Finster
I will believe Col. Wilkerson when I see evidence of any of this.
We’ve been down such roads many times before. All have proven to be just more wishful thinking.
StewartM
I don’t know if this is a problem in the US State Department (surely it goes beyond just Blinken and Sullivan).
What has been lacking in US foreign policy for a long time is any connection between the political goals and actual military grasp. We use a fraction of troops that we used in occupation of Germany/Japan after WWII, and then we are like surprised that we really don’t control the place after years of occupation? This is the consequence of going away from a mass army (which uh, depends on participation and political support for causes widely backed by the public) to Cap Weinberger’s/Ronald Reagan’s ‘be-all-you-can-be’ small volunteer force stocked with expensive ‘shock and awe’ weapons but with insufficient guys carrying rifles around to control pretty much anywhere.
Conservatives wanted this military because they had convinced themselves that Vietnam was winnable only if those dirty stinking hippies back on college campuses hadn’t been burning their draft cards. Create one’s military from the nation’s poor that no one cares about, send them in with expensive gadgetry that ‘shocks and awes’ their Stone Age opponents, and presto! Wars for Exxon-Mobile and United Fruit in the Third World for the Greater Glory of Capitalism can continue with cheers to our brave boys (and girls!) in uniform (who we’ll quietly forget about if they come home maimed and looking forward to a lifetime of morphine addiction).
The problem of course, with the thinking above is even in Vietnam, there was a military problem unconnected to the student protests. Yes, we had a lot of troops (500,000 at most) and like in WWII, only a fraction of those are actually in combat roles, and they are stretched thin trying to defend/control a very LONG country. Ergo, this means that the NLF and NVA even if outnumbered in the aggregate could achieve local superiority at any given point they chose. Moreover, we saw this as a purely military problem, and forgot Clausewitz’s dictim that “War is politics by other means” and minimized the political solution(s).
I recall a South Vietnamese official being interviewed in Ken Burn’s “Vietnam” series saying that his practice was to find the NLF members in his district, and he would invite them over to TALK TO THEM, and to find out “why are you fighting?” He said that for the price of one US attack helicopter, “I could have fixed all their complaints” but of course that road was the road not taken. It was only 1964, but we had forgotten George Marshall and the Marshall Plan as a way of achieving peace and stability.
elkern
If true, this is Good News, if only because it implies that the NeoCons did not manage to gain control of the Defense Department (though they have apparently succeeded at State and Treasury).
It kinda makes sense. The Military is a very hierarchical bureaucracy, but one where almost all the important slots can only be filled by people who have worked their way up the pile. It was easier for the NeoCons to infiltrate State & Treasury, because Cheney & HRC were able to appoint more 2nd-layer managers who then (1) sidelined experienced personnel who [might have] opposed their Projects, (2) replaced them with loyal NeoCons, and (3) appointed 3rd-level managers to do the same.
OTOH, SecDef can’t just pin Stars on some geek parachuted in from a Think Tank. Yes, they can choose which Brass get more Brass, but *all* of the possible candidates for any Big Chair would have decades of experience in – and likely deep loyalty to – [their branch of] the US Armed Forces.
Of course, the Pentagon is infected by the MIC (essentially by bribing Brass with Purchasing power), but that merely reduces the effectiveness and increases the cost of the US Dept Defense. In a Real War, that would be a Bad Thing, but at least they seem to know that a Real War would be a Bad Thing in any case, where the NeoCons view US involvement in any war (especially in the Middle East) as a Good Thing.