Mar 31

Today’s News 31st March 2019

  • US Army Major Warns Dems: "Trump Will Wipe The Floor" In 2020 Unless You 'Fix' Foreign Policy

    Authored by US Army Major Danny Sjursen (ret.) via TruthDig.com,

    Still Waiting: 2020 Fever and the Quest for a Progressive Foreign Policy

    The 2020 election will not turn on global issues – and more’s the pity. After all, thanks to decades upon decades of accumulating executive power in an increasingly imperial presidency, it is in foreign affairs that the commander-in-chief possesses near dictatorial power. Conversely, in domestic policy, a hostile Congress can – just ask Barry Obama – effectively block most of a president’s agenda.

    Still, the vast majority of Americans don’t give a hoot about issues of war, peace, and international diplomacy. Why should they care? It’s not as though anything is asked of them as citizens. By cynically ditching the draft, Tricky Dick Nixon took the wind out of the sails of current and future antiwar movements, and permanently cleaved a gap between the U.S. people and their military. Mothers no longer lose sleep over their teenage sons serving their country and they – along with the rest of the family – quit caring about foreign policy. Such it is, and so it will be, that the 2020 presidential election is likely to be decided by “kitchen-table” affairs like healthcare, immigration, race, and taxes.

    Be that as it may, serious observers should pay plenty of attention to international strategy.

    • First, because the occupant of the Oval Office makes policy almost unilaterally – including the decision of whether or not to end the human race with America’s suicidal nuclear button.

    • Second, because 2020 is likely to be another close contest, turning on the votes of a few hundred thousand swing state voters. As such, Trump’s opponent will need to win every vote on every issue – including foreign affairs. What’s more, there are still some folks who genuinely care about a potential commander-in-chief’s international bonafides.

    So, while Dems can’t win the White House with foreign policy alone, they can lose it by ignoring these issues or – oh so typically – presenting a muddled overseas strategy.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This is serious.

    Just in case there are any out there still underestimating Trump – I, for one, predict he’ll win in 2020 – make no mistake, he’s no pushover on foreign policy. Sure he doesn’t know much – but neither does the average voter. Nonetheless, Trump is no dope. He’s got the pulse of (white) voters across this country and senses that the populace is tired of spending blood and cash (but mostly its cash) on Mideast forever wars. In 2016, he (correctly) made Hillary”regime change” Clinton out to be the true hawk in the race. Trump, on the other hand, combined tough guy bravado (he’d “bomb the shit” out of ISIS) with earthy good sense (there’d be no more “stupid” Iraq invasions. And it worked.

    So, with 2020 in mind, whether you’re a progressive, a libertarian, or just a Trump-hater, its vital that the opposition (most likely the Dems) nominate a candidate who can hang with Trump in foreign affairs.

    Mark my words: if the DNC – which apparently picks the party’s candidates – backs a conventional neoliberal foreign policy nominee, Trump will wipe the floor with him or her. And, if the Dems national security platform reads like a jumbled, jargon-filled sheet full of boring (like it usually does) than Joe the proverbial plumber is going to back The Donald.

    That’s what has me worried. As one candidate after another enters an already crowded field, this author is left wondering whether any of them are commander-in-chief material. So far I see a huge crew (Liz, Kirsten, Kamala, Beto) that live and die by domestic policy; two potentially conventional foreign policy guys (Biden and Booker); and two other wildcards (Bernie and Tulsi). That’s not a comprehensive list, but you get the point. If they want to stand a chance in 2020, the Dems had better back a nominee with a clear, alternative progressive foreign policy or get one the domestic-focused candidates up to speed…and fast.

    So here’s how my mental math works: a progressive candidate needs to win over libertarian-minded Republicans and Independents (think Rand Paul-types) by force of their commonsense alternative to Trump’s foreign policy. That means getting the troops out of the Mideast, pulling the plug from other mindless interventions and cutting runaway defense spending. Then, and only then, can the two sides begin arguing about what to do with the resultant cash surplus. That’s an argument for another day, sure, but here and now our imaginary Democratic (or Third Party?) nominee needs to end the wars and curtail the excesses of empire. I know many libertarians – some still nominally Republican – who could get behind that agenda pretty quickly!

    Still, there’s more than a little reason for concern. Look at how “Nasty” Nancy Pelosi and the establishment Dems came down on Ilhan Omar for that representative’s essentially accurate tweets criticizing the Israel Lobby. Then there’s Joe Biden. Look, he’s definitely running. He’s also definitely been wrong time and again on foreign policy – like how he was for the Iraq War before he was against it (how’d that turn out for John Kerry in 2004?). And, for all the talk of a progressive “blue wave” in the party ranks, Biden still polls as the top choice for Democratic primary voters. Yikes.

    Behind him, thankfully, is old Bernie – who sometimes shows potential in foreign affairs – the only candidate who has both backed Omar and been consistent in a career of generally antiwar votes. Still, Bernie won his household name with domestic policy one-liners – trashing Wall Street and pushing populist economic tropes. Whether he can transform into a more balanced candidate, one that can confidently compose and deliver a strong alternative foreign policy remains to be seen. Tulsi Gabbard, though she still looks the long shot, remains intriguing given here genuine antiwar (and combat veteran) credentials. Still, she’ll have her hands full overcoming problematic skeletons in her own closet: ties to Indian Hindu nationalists, opposition to the Iran deal, and sometime backing of authoritarians and Islamophobes. Then again, even Bernie has his foreign affairs flaws – such as reflexively denouncing the BDS movement and occasionally calling for regime change in Syria. Nevertheless, both Bernie and Tulsi demonstrate that there’s some promise for fresh opposition foreign policy.

    Here’s (some) of what that would look like:

    speedily withdraw all U.S. troops from the (at least) seven shooting wars in the Greater Middle East;

    choke off excessive arms deals and expensive military handouts to Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other frenemies;

    quit bombing or enabling the bombing of impoverished civilians in places like Yemen and Gaza; begin dismantling America’s “empire of bases” overseas;

    seek firm détente rather than conflict with Russia and China;

    and cut defense and war-related spending down to size.

    Our imaginary candidate would need to convey this commonsense course to a war-weary American people as plainly and coherently as Trump can. No jargon, no Clintonian wonky crap – simple and to the point. Imagine it: a commonsense course for a clear-eyed country!

    Less war and more investment at home. Less war and more middle-class tax cuts. Whatever. That fight will come and the progressives and independents/libertarians will fight it out. For now, though, what’s essential is checking the war machine and military-industrial behemoth before its too late (it may be already!).

    None of this will be easy or likely, of course. But count on this much: the establishment Democrats, media-mogul “left,” and centrist DC think tanks won’t save us from the imperial monster or deliver a Trump-defeating strategy in foreign affairs. The Mueller-will-save-us, Mattis-was-a-hero, reflexively anti-Trump, born-again hawks like Rachel Maddow and the other disappointing chumps at MSNBC or CNN aren’t on our side. Worse yet, they’re born losers when it comes to delivering elections.

    All of this may be far-fetched, but is not impossible. Neither libertarians nor progressives can countenance Trump. Nor should they. One of their only true hopes for compromise rest on foreign policy and a genuine antiwar message. It can be done.

    Look, on a personal note, even America’s beloved and over-adulated soldiers are reachable on this issue – that’s how you know the foreign policy alliance has potential! For every rah-rah war-fever cheerleader in uniform, there’s an exhausted foot soldier on his Nth tour in the Mideast. There’s also a huge chunk (40%!) who are racial minorities – usually a reliably anti-Trump demographic. Finally, among the white men and women in uniform I’ve personally met a solid core of libertarians. And the data backs up my anecdotal observation – Ron Paul was highly popular among active-duty military members and their families. A progressive foreign policy alliance with the libertarian wing of Republicans and Independents would sell better with these such voters both in and out of uniform. You know the type: sick of war but justas sick of stereotypical liberal snowflakes.

    So here’s a plea to the “opposition” such at it is: avoid the usual mistakes – don’t cede foreign affairs to the Trump and the Republicans; don’t nominate anyone remotely resembling Joe Biden; don’t alienate libertarians and independents with wonky or muddled international policy.

    Try something new. Like winning…

    *  *  *

    Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer and regular contributor to antiwar.com. He 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.

  • Rich San Francisco Residents Raise $75,000 To Oppose Homeless Shelter

    Residents in an upscale San Francisco neighborhood have raised tens of thousands of dollars to oppose a 24-hour, 200 bed waterfront homeless “Navigation Center” in a 2.3 acre empty parking lot just south of the Bay Bridge. It would allow people to bring in partners and pets, and would work to connect them to local resources and services with the ultimate goal of finding permanent housing. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Seawall Lot 330 on June 13, 2014

    The center was approved earlier this month by Mayor London Breed in the hopes of a Summer opening, while the Port Commission is expected to consider the project in April. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Over the past 8 days, over $75,000 out of a $100,000 goal has been raised by 152 people opposed to the project. One donor contributed $10,000. The funds for “Safe Embarcadero” will be used for legal expenses to fight the homeless shelter. 

    Wallace Lee, the father of a two-year-old who lives two blocks from the proposed site, said he is helping to organize against the project out of concerns for his family’s safety. “It is increasingly a place where people are starting families,” he said. “There are a lot of strollers in the neighborhood that weren’t here when I moved in 2013.”

    While little research has been done on the impact shelters have on communities, the campaign cites one study done in Vancouver that found a sharp increase in thefts. –The Guardian

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Meanwhile, a competing GoFundMe has been established in support of the homeless shelter – which quickly received a $5,000 donation from GoFundMe itself, and has raised over $40,000 $137,000 of its $50,000 now $150,000 goal. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Kelley Cutler, a human rights organizer for the Coalition on Homelessness, argues that the fears are rooted in stigma, and that they are not unique to San Francisco. “No matter where the location is, folks say this is not the right space. Not in our community. So they are going through that right now in the Embarcadero,” she said. –The Guardian

    “People want us to address the challenges on our streets and help our unsheltered residents into housing, and I am committed to doing the hard work to make that happen,” Breed told the San Francisco Chronicle. “But it’s incredibly frustrating and disappointing that as soon as we put forward a solution to build a new shelter, people begin to threaten legal action.” 

    “Parking lots are important, but places for people to live where they’re inside, in shelter, I think are that much more important, particularly on city-owned land,” district representative Matt Haney told KPIX 5 earlier this month. “We have a lot of city-owned parking lots, I think this is a piece of land that can be used to address our most urgent problem as a city.” 

    According to Haney, around half of the city’s 3,500 homeless residents are in his district. According to THe Guardian, around 1,400 homeless people are waiting for temporary spots to open. 

  • Unvaccinated Children Torn From Parents In Late Night SWAT Raid

    Authored by Dagny Taggart via The Organic Prepper blog,

    Warning: If you care about parental rights, this story will infuriate you.

    On February 25, a pregnant mother took her 2-year-old son to the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine clinic in Tempe, Arizona because he had a fever of over 100. The doctor instructed the mother to take him to the emergency room because he is unvaccinated and she feared he could have meningitis.

    The doctor called the emergency room at Banner Cardon Children’s Medical Center in Mesa to let them know the boy would be arriving.

    But after leaving the doctor’s office, the boy showed signs of improvement. He was laughing and playing with his siblings, and his temperature moved closer to normal. Around 6:30 pm, the mother called the doctor to let her know the toddler no longer had a fever and she would not be taking him to the emergency room.

    In Arizona, parents may decline vaccinations for their child based on personal, religious, or medical exemptions, but the mother was still concerned that the Arizona Department of Child Safety (DCS) would come after her. One can’t blame her for being afraid, as unvaccinated families have been targets of dystopian crackdowns and witch hunts of late.

    The doctor assured her DCS would not come after her. According to police records, the mother then agreed to take her son to the hospital.

    This is when things took a particularly nasty turn, reports AZCentral:

    About three hours later, the hospital contacted the doctor to advise her that the child had not shown up and the mother wasn’t answering her phone, according to police records. The doctor contacted DCS.

    A DCS caseworker called Chandler Police and “requested officers to check the welfare of a two year old infant,” according to police records. A caseworker said he was on his way to the house.

    It was about 10:30 p.m. when two police officers knocked on the family’s door. The officers heard someone coughing.

    Officer Tyler Cascio wrote in a police report that he knocked on the door several times but no one answered. (source)

    The police then asked a neighbor to call the mother to let her know they wanted to speak to her. Meanwhile, the boy’s father contacted the police:

    Police dispatch told the officers that a man at the home had called requesting that they call him. They called, and the man identified himself as the sick boy’s father.

    The officer said they told the father they needed to enter the home for DCS to check on the child. The father refused, explaining that his son’s “fever broke and he was fine,” according to police records. (source)

    Then things escalated.

    Despite the father’s attempt to assure police his child was fine, things escalated.

    The caseworker informed officers that DCS planned to obtain a “temporary custody notice” from a judge to remove the child for emergency medical aid.

    Officers then consulted with the police criminal investigations bureau and SWAT.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Yes, SWAT.

    I know – it is outrageous and terrifying.

    After 1:00 AM, officers kicked down the family’s door.

    One officer carried a shield, while another was described as having “lethal coverage.” Officers pointing guns yelled, “Chandler Police Department,” and entered the house.

    The father came to the door. Officers placed him in handcuffs and took him and the mother outside. (source)

    Neither of the parents was arrested.

    Officials took all three children to Banner Cardon Medical Center.

    Let’s pause here for a moment to reflect on something: Authorities took the children under the guise of caring about their well-being. The fact that armed strangers snatching children away from their parents and siblings in the middle of the night could be, I don’t know – TRAUMATIC – didn’t seem to cross their minds.

    Unbelievable.

    Then the “legal process” took 10 days.

    The parents had to wait 10 days to see a judge and begin fighting to get their children back.

    Attorneys for the parents said the children hadn’t seen each other since being taken from their parents’ home. The parents had only had one visit with their older children. DCS officials told the parents the toddler couldn’t make that visit because he was at a medical appointment.

    The state’s attorney argued that the children shouldn’t be returned to their parents yet because they’d been hostile to DCS workers and weren’t cooperating. He said the parents had attended a DCS visit with members of Arizona DCS Oversight Group who were combative toward DCS workers. He said the grandfather had tried to videotape a meeting with DCS, and recording is not allowed to protect the privacy of the children. (source)

    DCS wanted the parents to undergo psychological evaluations, the father was required to undergo drug testing, and the grandparents agreed to background checks so they could become temporary caregivers for the children.

    While everything about this case is horrifying, there is a bit of good news.

    The family has a powerful ally:

    Rep. Kelly Townsend, R-Mesa, who helped craft legislation requiring DCS to obtain a warrant before removing a child from their parents or guardians in non-emergency circumstances, said she was outraged by the response of police and DCS officials in the case.

    “It was not the intent (of the law) that the level of force after obtaining a warrant was to bring in a SWAT team,” Townsend said. “The imagery is horrifying. What has our country become that we can tear down the doorway of a family who has a child with a high fever that disagrees with their doctor?” (source)

    In Arizona, DCS used to be able to remove children from their homes without warrants, but that changed last July when lawmakers designated limited circumstances for removing a child from their parent without a warrant:

    DCS must have probable cause to believe a child is at imminent risk of harm and there’s no less-intrusive alternative to removal, or DCS must have probable cause to believe a child is a victim of sexual or physical abuse that can only be evaluated by trained medical personnel…

    …Concern over DCS abusing loopholes in the system prompted a second round of legislation in 2018. The restrictions designated “exigent circumstances” when DCS may remove children without a warrant. Removing the child must be so dire that there’s no time to use the electronic system to gain authorization from a judge who’s on call 24/7. (source)

    Townsend wants a review of this legislation.

    Townsend wants lawmakers to review the procedures that led to police using force, traumatizing a family, and putting three children in state custody.

    She said that the fact that DCS obtained a court-approved warrant proves there wasn’t a life-threatening emergency.

    Outside the courthouse, Townsend said she didn’t know the parents personally but was disturbed by the case.

    “It was brought to my attention that these parents may have been targeted by the medical community because they hadn’t vaccinated their children,” she said.

    Townsend said parents who don’t vaccinate their children because of medical concerns aren’t criminals and shouldn’t be treated as such. She worried physicians were using it as a reason to refer parents to DCS.

    “I think if DCS decides to use this as a factor they would be violating a parent’s right to have a personal exemption, a religious exemption and perhaps a medical exemption,” she said. (source)

    The family wants to warn others about DCS.

    The father sent The Republic a statement. His family is scared, he said, but they feel compelled to warn other families:

    We have been through a very traumatic experience with our encounter with DCS. We would like other parents out there to know and realize the amount of power DCS has over the welfare of your children. Even though we remain confident in our innocence through our case, it is immediately an uphill struggle of what to do or not to do. Even if you do not agree with them or the process in which they follow.

    We thought they did not have the right to check on our children because they were getting better, from what they last heard about from us. We were in our home tending to our sick kids and did not want to be bothered in this tough time of illness.  With multiple children it is difficult to keep up their needs while they are ill, and to be bothered in the middle of the night by DCS was not something we were ready to tackle.

    No matter what we though was right, it turned tragic with the removal of all of our children. The process of removal in our opinion was uncalled for and we would like to see the laws/process change when dealing with expedited removal of children.

    Our children have sure been through a traumatizing experience and hope they have not been harmed psychologically or emotionally as we are a very happy family who love each other and would do anything for each other.

    We hope to see a positive outcome for our trial, but worry about what the kids have been though. We would like to see some sort of public service announcement by DCS to inform other parents out there that this could happen to them, because nobody, especially children should have to go through what we are going through. We love our children and are doing everything possible to get them back to us. (source)

    “What about parents’ rights to decide what’s best for their child?” Townsend said. “Parents felt the child was fine. Next thing we know, the Gestapo is at their door.”

    The three children have been placed with their grandparents, and the parents are able to see them but have no idea when – or if – they will get them back.

    H/T to Reason

  • Ex-Spy Suspected In Failed Congo Hit-Job Found Murdered In Parking Lot

    A former French spy has been murdered six months into an investigation for allegedly plotting to assassinate an opponent of Congolese President Sassou Nguesso, according to The Times. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Daniel Forestier, Gen Ferdinand Mbaou

    The body of 57-year-old Daniel Forestier was found with five bullet wounds, including to the head and heart, in a remote car park near his home on the shores of Lake Geneva in the Alps. 

    France Bleu radio in Haute-Savoie said Forestier lived in the village of Lucinges, nine miles (15km) from where his body was found, with his wife and two children and had served as a local councillor until he was put under investigation last September.

    The public prosecutor said the killing was probably a settling of scores. “There’s almost no doubt about it,” Philippe Toccanier said. Forestier had been shot five times in the thorax and the head, he added. –The Guardian

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Forestier’s body was found in a parking area off a little-used road in Haute-Savoie. Photograph: Denis Charlet/AFP/Getty Images

    Forestier spent 14 years working for France’s General Directorate of External Security (DGSE), which is tasked with so-called black operations, including assassination, abduction and sabotage. The former agent was arrested after French officers with the internal security service (DGSI) reportedly overheard him admitting to spearheading a plot to murder former Congolese General Ferdinand Mbaou, the former head of Congo’s presidential guard. 

    Mr Forestier, a career soldier who worked in the clandestine DGSE “action service”, had been notified of preliminary charges of heading a plan to kill General Ferdinand Mbaou, the former head of the presidential guard of Congo who has lived in France for two decades. Mr Forestier was also charged with possessing explosives. –The Times

    The ex-French spy was charged along with former DGSE colleague Bruno Susini. 

    Mbou – who has been living in France for 20 years, is seen as an opponent of President Nguesso. In 2015, Mbou survived being shot in the back as he left his home.

    Mbaou, 62, was head of the presidential guard to Sassou-Nguesso’s predecessor, Pascal Lissouba, but fled the country when Lissouba was overthrown in a coup in 1997. He has been a fierce critic of the Sassou-Nguesso regime since and still has a bullet lodged near his heart from a previous assassination attempt. He told Paris Match last year he only learned of the plot to kill him when he read about it in the French newspapers. –The Guardian

    French media has speculated that Forestier’s murder was either revenge, or the elimination of a witness. Meanwhile, some have suggested that the French secret service – which is still deeply involved in Africa – may have played a part. 

    “I know why they want to kill me. I was warned and also I received threats in text messages. I tried to warn the [security] services but they didn’t do anything,” said Mbaou. 

    Lawyers for Forestier, Susini and Mbaou have all weighed in on the murder which French prosecutors in Lyons are treating as a hit-job. 

    Cédric Huissoud, Mr Forestier’s lawyer, emphasised that the former agent had always denied involvement in the alleged plot.

    Marie-Alix Canu-Bernard, a lawyer for Mr Susini, said: “This affair has been strange since the outset. The acts that the two former agents were accused of are vehemently contested.” The agents had been “very worried about their safety”, she added.

    General Mbaou’s lawyers said: “No one involved in this case is safe, starting with our client.” The general said that he had been saddened by Mr Forestier’s death but added: “He wasn’t alone. There are other suspects who will enable justice to be done.”  –The Times

    Forestier made no secret about his cloak-and-dagger past, penning several espionage thrillers while running a café in Lucinges, a small town near the Swiss border.

    “He’d written several spy novels, but he never gave us any details of what he did,” Lucinges resident Jean-Luc Soulat told a local radio station. “He was very well settled here. He ran a bar-tobacconist here and only 15 days ago he helped me organise the opening of a village hall.” 

  • Guaido Set To Enact Uprising Rooted In US Regime-Change Operations Manual

    Authored by Whitney Webb via MintPressNews.com,

    With its hands tied when it comes to military intervention, only covert actions – such as those described in the RED Team document – are likely to be enacted by the U.S. government, at least at this stage of its ongoing “regime change” effort in Venezuela.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Juan Guaidó, the self-proclaimed “interim president of Venezuela” who is supported by the United States government, recently announced coming “tactical actions” that will be taken by his supporters starting April 6 as part of “Operation Freedom,” an alleged grassroots effort to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

    That operation, according to Guaidó, will be led by “Freedom and Aid Committees” that in turn create “freedom cells” throughout the country — “cells” that will spring to action when Guaidó gives the signal on April 6 and launch large-scale community protests. Guaidó’s stated plan involves the Venezuelan military then taking his side, but his insistence that “all options are still on the table” (i.e., foreign military intervention) reveals his impatience with the military, which has continued to stay loyal to Maduro throughout Guaidó’s “interim presidency.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    However, a document released by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in February, and highlighted last month in a report by Devex, details the creation of networks of small teams, or cells, that would operate in a way very similar to what Guaidó describes in his plan for “Operation Freedom.”

    Given that Guaidó was trained by a group funded by USAID’s sister organization, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) — and is known to take his marching orders from Washington, including his self-proclamation as “interim president” and his return to Venezuela following the “humanitarian aid” showdown — it is worth considering that this USAID document may well serve as a roadmap to the upcoming and Guaidó-led “tactical actions” that will comprise “Operation Freedom.”

    RED Teams

    Titled “Rapid Expeditionary Development (RED) Teams: Demand and Feasibility Assessment,” the 75-page document was produced for the U.S. Global Development Lab, a branch of USAID. It was written as part of an effort to the “widespread sentiment” among the many military, intelligence, and development officials the report’s authors interviewed “that the USG [U.S. government] is woefully underperforming in non-permissive and denied environments,” including Venezuela. Notably, some of the military, intelligence and development officials interviewed by the report’s authors had experience working in a covert capacity in Venezuela.

    The approach put forth in this report involves the creation of rapid expeditionary development (RED) teams, who would “be deployed as two-person teams and placed with ‘non-traditional’ USAID partners executing a mix of offensive, defensive, and stability operations in extremis conditions.” The report notes later on that these “non-traditional” partners are U.S. Special Forces (SF) and the CIA.

    The report goes on to state that “RED Team members would be catalytic actors, performing development activities alongside local communities while coordinating with interagency partners.” It further states that “[i]t is envisioned that the priority competency of proposed RED Team development officers would be social movement theory (SMT)” and that “RED Team members would be ‘super enablers,’ observing situations on the ground and responding immediately by designing, funding, and implementing small-scale activities.”

    In other words, these teams of combined intelligence, military and/or “democracy promoting” personnel would work as “super enablers” of “small-scale activities” focused on “social movement theory” and community mobilizations, such as the mobilizations of protests.

    The decentralized nature of RED teams and their focus on engineering “social movements” and “mobilizations” is very similar to Guaidó’s plan for “Operation Freedom.” Operation Freedom is set to begin through “Freedom and Aid committees” that cultivate decentralized “freedom cells” throughout the country and that create mass mobilizations when Guaidó gives the go ahead on April 6. The ultimate goal of Operation Freedom is to have those “freedom cell”-generated protests converge on Venezuela’s presidential palace, where Nicolás Maduro resides. Given Guaidó lack of momentum and popularity within Venezuela, it seems highly likely that U.S. government “catalytic actors” may be a key part of his upcoming plan to topple Maduro in little over a week.

    Furthermore, an appendix included in the report states that RED Team members, in addition to being trained in social movement theory and community mobilization techniques, would also be trained in “weapons handling and use,” suggesting that their role as “catalytic actors” could also involve Maidan-esque behavior. This is a distinct possibility raised by the report’s claim that RED Team members be trained in the use of both “offensive” and “defensive” weaponry.

    In addition, another appendix states that RED Team members would help “identify allies and mobilize small amounts of cash to establish community buy-in/relationship” —  i.e., bribes — and would particularly benefit the CIA by offering a way to “transition covert action into community engagement activities.”

    Feeling Bolsonaro’s breath on its neck

    Also raising the specter of a Venezuela link is the fact that the document suggests Brazil as a potential location for a RED Team pilot study. Several of those interviewed for the report asserted that “South American countries were ripe for pilots” of the RED Team program, adding that “These [countries were] under-reported, low-profile, idiot-proof locations, where USG civilian access is fairly unrestrained by DS [Diplomatic Security] and where there is a positive American relationship with the host government.”

    This January, Brazil inaugurated Jair Bolsonaro as president, a fascist who has made his intention to align the country close to Washington’s interests no secret. During Bolsonaro’s recent visit to Washington, he became the first president of that country to visit CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. President Donald Trump said during his meeting with Bolsonaro that “We have a great alliance with Brazil — better than we’ve ever had before” and spoke in favor of Brazil joining NATO.

    Though Bolsonaro’s government has claimed late in February that it would not allow the U.S. to launch a military intervention from its territory, Bolsonaro’s son, Eduardo Bolsonaro — an adviser to his father and a Brazilian congressman — said last week that “use of force will be necessary” in Venezuela “at some point” and, echoing the Trump administration, added that “all options are on the table.” If Bolsonaro’s government does allow the “use of force,” but not a full-blown foreign military intervention per se, its closeness to the Trump administration and the CIA suggests that covert actions, such as those carried out by the proposed RED Teams, are a distinct possibility.

    Frontier Design Group

    The RED Team report was authored by members of Frontier Design Group (FDG) for USAID’s Global Development Lab. FDG is a national security contractor and its mission statement on its website is quite revealing:

    Since our founding, Frontier has focused on the challenges and opportunities that concern the “3Ds” of Defense, Development and Diplomacy and critical intersections with the intelligence community. Our work has focused on the wicked and sometimes overlapping problem sets of fragility, violent extremism, terrorism, civil war, and insurgency. Our work on these complex issues has included projects with the U.S. Departments of State and Defense, USAID, the National Counterterrorism Center and the U.S. Institute of Peace.”

    FDG also states on is website that it also regularly does work for the Council on Foreign Relations and the Omidyar Group — which is controlled by Pierre Omidyar, a billionaire with deep ties to the U.S. national security establishment that were the subject of a recent MintPress series. According to journalist Tim Shorrock, who mentions the document in a recent investigation focusing on Pierre Omidyar for Washington Babylon, FDG was the “sole contractor” hired by USAID to create a “new counterinsurgency doctrine for the Trump administration” and the fruit of that effort is the “RED Team” document described above.

    One of the co-authors of the document is Alexa Courtney, FDG founder and former USAID liaison officer with the Department of Defense; former manager of civilian counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan for USAID; and former counterinsurgency specialist for U.S. intelligence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton.

    In addition, according to Shorrock, Courtney’s name has also been found “on several Caerus [Associates] contracts with USAID and US intelligence that were leaked to me on a thumb drive, including a $77 million USAID project to track ‘licit and illicit networks’ in Honduras.” Courtney, according to her LinkedIn account, was also recently honored by Chevron Corporation for her “demonstrated leadership and impact on development results.” MintPressrecently reported on the role of Chevron in the current U.S.-led effort to topple Maduro and replace him with Guaidó.

    Send in the USAID

    Though Devex was told last month that USAID was “still working on the details in formulating the Rapid Expeditionary Development (RED) Teams initiative,” Courtney stated that the report’s contents had been “received really favorably” by “very senior” and “influential” former and current government officials she had interviewed during the creation of the document.

    For instance, one respondent asserted that the RED Team system would “restore the long-lost doing capacity of USAID.” Another USAID official with 15 years of experience, including in “extremely denied environments,” stated that:

    We have to be involved in national security or USAID will not be relevant. Anybody who doesn’t think we need to be working in combat elements or working with SF [special forces] groups is just naïve. We are either going to be up front or irrelevant … USAID is going through a lot right now, but this is an area where we can be of utility. It must happen.”

    Given that the document represents the efforts of the sole contractor tasked with developing the current administration’s new counterterrorism strategy, there is plenty of reason to believe that its contents — published for over a year — have been or are set to be put to use in Venezuela, potentially as part of the upcoming “Operation Freedom,” set to begin on April 6.

    This is supported by the troubling correlation between a document produced by the NED-funded group CANVAS and the recent power outages that have taken place throughout Venezuela, which were described as U.S.-led “sabotage” by the country’s government. A recent report by The Grayzone detailed how a September 2010 memo by CANVAS — which trained Juan Guaidó — described in detail how the potential collapse of the country’s electrical infrastructure, like that recently seen in Venezuela, would be “a watershed event” that “would likely have the impact of galvanizing public unrest in a way that no opposition group could ever hope to generate.”

    The document specifically named the Simon Bolivar Hydroelectric Plant at Guri Dam, which failed earlier this month as a result of what the Venezuelan government asserted was “sabotage” conducted by the U.S. government. That claim was bolstered by U.S. Senator Marco Rubio’s apparent foreknowledge of the power outage. Thus, there is a precedent of correlation between these types of documents and actions that occur in relation to the current U.S. regime-change effort in Venezuela.

    Furthermore, it would make sense for the Trump administration to attempt to enact such an initiative as that described in the document, given its apparent inability to launch a military intervention in Venezuela, despite its frequent claims that “all options are on the table.” Indeed, U.S. allies — including those close to Venezuela, like Colombia — have rejected military intervention, given the U.S.’ past role in bloody coups and civil wars throughout the region.

    Thus, with its hands tied when it comes to military intervention, only covert actions — such as those described in the RED Team document — are likely to be enacted by the U.S. government, at least at this stage of its ongoing “regime change” effort in Venezuela.

  • Americans Can't Afford To Buy A Home In 70% Of The Country

    Even at a time of low interest rates and rising wages, Americans simply can’t afford a home in more than 70% of the country, according to CBS. Out of 473 US counties that were analyzed in a recent report, 335 listed median home prices were more than what average wage earners could afford. According to the report from ATTOM Data Solutions, these counties included Los Angeles and San Diego in California, as well as places like Maricopa County in Arizona.

    New York City claimed the largest share of a person’s income to purchase a home. While on average, earners nationwide needed to spend only about 33% of their income on a home, residents in Brooklyn and Manhattan need to shell out more than 115% of their income. In San Francisco this number is about 103%. Homes were found to be affordable in places like Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This news is stunning because homes are considerably more affordable today than they were a year ago. Although prices are rising in many areas, they are also falling in places like Manhattan. Unaffordability in the market has been the result of slower home building and owners staying in their homes longer. Both have reduced the supply of homes in the market.

    And the market may continue to create better conditions for buyers. Affordability could improve because of the fact that homes are out of reach for so many seekers, according to Todd Teta, chief product officer at ATTOM Data Solutions. Today’s market is also more affordable than it was a decade ago, before the crisis. Home prices were about the same prior to the crisis, even though income adjusted for inflation was lower.

    “What kept the market going was looser lending standards, so that was compensating for affordability issues,” Teta said. Since then, standards have toughened (for now, at least). 

    We recently wrote about residents of New York City who simply claimed they couldn’t afford to live there.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    More than a third of New York residents complained that they “can’t afford to live there” anymore (and yet they do). On top of that, many believe that economic hardships are going to force them to leave the city in five years or less, according to a Quinnipiac poll published a couple weeks ago. The poll surveyed 1,216 voters between March 13 and 18. 

    In total, 41% of New York residents said they couldn’t cope with the city’s high cost of living. They believe they will be forced to go somewhere where the “economic climate is more welcoming”, according to the report.

    Ari Buitron, a 49-year-old paralegal from Queens said: 

    “They are making this city a city for the wealthy, and they are really choking out the middle class. A lot of my friends have had to move to Florida, Texas, Oregon. You go to your local shop, and it’s $5 for a gallon of milk and $13 for shampoo. Do you know how much a one-bedroom, one-bathroom apartment is? $1700! What’s wrong with this picture?”

  • Russian Air Force Does Rare Fly-by Over Famous Area 51 In Western US

    Via AlMasdarNews.com,

    A Russian Tu-154M-ON (NATO reporting name: “Careless”) reconnaissance plane has conducted a surveillance flight over US military facilities located on the west coast of the country, The Drive online magazine reported.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Russia TU-154M planes are certified to conduct “Open Skies” flights, via Flickr

    The plane reportedly took off from Great Falls and flew over the Edwards Air Force Base, United States Air Force Plant 42, which is used to modernize and assemble various military aircraft, including strategic bombers, Vandenberg Air Force Base, as well as the Nellis Test and Training Range — also known as Area 51.

    The reconnaissance flight was carried out according to Treaty on Open Skies provisions that allow for mutual aerial inspections of the signatories for the sake of verifying the fulfillment of disarmament treaties.

    The mid-day flight on March 28th, 2019 appears to have originated out of Travis AFB, located near San Francisco, and continued on something of a highlights tour of American military installations in California and Nevada. It flew south over central California, passing near bases like Naval Air Station Lemoore and headed out over the Channel Islands.

    It then headed directly over Edwards AFB before meandering around Fort Irwin and on to Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake before hooking a right and heading toward Creech AFB in Nevada. It then headed north, directly into the NTTR — the most secure airspace in the United States along with Washington, D.C. — The Drive

    The US threatened to suspend its participation in the treaty in 2018, claiming that Russia was not adhering to it, but the State Department later stated that Washington would not follow through on the threats.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Via The Drive/FlightRadar24: This is the medium alitidue imaging portion of the flight by the Tu-154M. 

    The Tu-154M-ON is a modification of the Russian Tu-154M LK-1, which is used in cosmonaut training programs, is specifically fitted for conducting aerial inspections.

  • US Halts Foreign Aid To Central American 'Caravan' Countries; Guatemala, Honduras And El Salvador Cut Off

    The Trump administration has cut off all foreign aid to the Central American nations of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras – known as the Northern Triangle countries. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “At the Secretary’s instruction, we are carrying out the President’s direction and ending FY 2017 and FY 2018 foreign assistance programs for the Northern Triangle,” reads a statement to The Hill from a State Department spokesperson. 

    The sudden move comes after a Friday statement by Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen – who said she signed a “historic” regional compact last week with the Northern Triangle to “combat human smuggling and trafficking, crack down on transnational criminals fueling the crisis, and strengthen border security to prevent irregular migration.” 

    Later Friday, President Trump said that said countries “set up” migrant caravans, per CNN. 

    “We were paying them tremendous amounts of money. And we’re not paying them anymore. Because they haven’t done a thing for us. They set up these caravans,” Trump reportedly said. 

    “At the Secretary’s instruction, we are carrying out the President’s direction and ending FY 2017 and FY 2018 foreign assistance programs for the Northern Triangle,” said a State Department spokesperson. “We will be engaging Congress as part of this process.”

    The move comes after disputed reports of the “mother of all caravans” assembling in Honduras. On Wednesday Mexico’s Interior Secretary Olga Sánchez Cordero warned “We have information that a new caravan is forming in Honduras, that they’re calling ‘the mother of all caravans,’ and they are thinking it could have more than 20,000 people.”

    Trump, meanwhile, did not mince words on Friday – threatening to close the border with Mexico if they don’t stop the latest caravans.

    In December, Trump threatened to cut off aid to countries from which the caravans originate, and are “doing nothing for the United States but taking our money.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    While Trump’s supporters have praised the move, others have suggested that cutting foreign aid will further destabilize the region and cause larger problems – including more migration.  

    Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) – ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, denounced the move. 

    “If carried out, President Trump’s irresponsible decision to cut off our assistance to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras would undermine American interests and put our national security at risk,” he said. 

    “U.S. foreign assistance is not charity; it advances our strategic interests and funds initiatives that protect American citizens. This latest reported move shows the Administration still does not understand that the United States cuts foreign aid to Central America at our own peril.” 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  • Economic Insecurity Is Becoming The New Hallmark Of Old Age

    Authored by Katherine S. Newman and Rebecca Hayes Jacobs via The Nation,

    It’s time to face this country’s looming retirement crisis…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The United States is in the early stages of a crippling retirement crisis. Nearly half of all private-sector employees in the country—some 58 million people—had no company-sponsored retirement plan in 2018. As recently as 1999, only 39 percent of retiring workers were in this predicament. The retirement situation in the United States isn’t just bad; it’s getting worse with each passing year.

    The crisis engulfs all kinds of workers: blue-collar teamsters, high-skilled professionals working for profitable corporations like Verizon and United Airlines, and public-sector civil servants in cities plagued by budget crises (read: Detroit). Many have lost their health insurance and pension benefits—and in some places, they’ve even been ordered to return payments that were miscalculated by pension authorities years in the past. An increasing number of people now work at jobs that never offered pension plans in the first place.

    Pensions are regarded by most workers as among the most binding of all promises—a compact between themselves and their employers, sealed by years of labor. Americans assign to government the responsibility for protecting this sacred compact from any temptation by companies to raid retirement accounts for their own purposes. Increasingly, though, this once-unbreakable promise has become discretionary: Employers can abandon it when the stock market falters, when a firm goes through financial reorganization, or simply when shareholders demand higher profits. Insecurity is becoming the standard of older age in this country.

    Across the spectrum, workers have responded to the crisis by planning to work many more years than they had expected, only to find that they cannot hold onto the jobs they had in their 50s. Aching backs make physical labor too difficult, while companies are often looking for ways to ease out older, more expensive workers. Those who do find employment past the age of 65 are likely to be relegated to positions that are far below the status—and salary—of the jobs they once held.

    Yet this problem is not universal. In late 2015, the Institute for Policy Studies and the Center for Effective Government co-published a report, entitled “A Tale of Two Retirements,” that substantiates what many have long suspected: While companies are defaulting on pensions and benefits for workers, up in the C-suite, the weather is fine. Not only are CEOs socking away millions of dollars in executive retirement plans, they are also enjoying such benefits on a tax-deferred basis. In 2014, Fortune 500 chief executives put $197 million more into their retirement accounts than they would have been able to if they’d been ordinary workers, saving $78 million on their tax bills in the process. They won’t start paying a dime in taxes on those funds until they retire, thus depriving the country—at least for now—of critical resources needed to fund schools, hospitals, and other public institutions.

    Retirement insecurity is an increasingly serious manifestation of the vast inequality that is eating away at the social fabric of America. The same forces eroding pension rights are also leading to historic wage disparities, the uneven distribution of wealth, a hollowing-out of the middle class, and the exacerbation of historic racial inequities. Roaring stock markets deepen inequality by driving increases of wealth at the top. Middle-class equity is tied up in the housing market, which has gyrated in ways that have placed serious downward pressure on retirement savings for the majority.

    We can get a sense of how profoundly inequality affects retirement when we look at communities that experience retirement in very different ways.

    Opelousas, Louisiana, a city of about 16,000, has one of the highest elder-poverty rates in the United States. Seventy-seven percent African-American and Creole, Opelousas is home to men and women who have worked all their lives, but mostly in jobs that provided no benefits at all—retirement or otherwise. In 2017, per capita income in Opelousas was only $15,266 a year, and 45.3 percent of its population was living in poverty.

    Few residents were entitled to sick leave or health-care coverage while they were working, and virtually none can count on a pension to support them when they reach retirement age. A lifetime of poverty never translates into what the rest of the country defines as true retirement. Instead, the working poor stay on the job until they are ready to drop.

    The story of 71-year-old Valerie Miller offers a raw glimpse into this reality. Miller grew up in extreme hardship. As an adult, she cleaned houses while her husband, Martin, worked as a carpenter, until eventually their bodies broke down in their 60s. He is now in a nursing home with Parkinson’s, and she survives in their house on her own with a $960-per-month Social Security check and $50 in food stamps. Hardened by years in poverty, Miller is girding herself for more of the same.

    “A lot of people sometimes wonder how you’re making it, but you manage,” she says.

    In contrast, Ogden, Utah, has had an easier time taking care of its retirees. A small city nestled at the base of the Wasatch Mountains, Ogden has earned the notable distinction of having the narrowest wealth gap among US metropolitan statistical areas with 500,000 people or more. Ogden residents are much more likely than Opelousas residents to live a good life in their working years and to be able to retire comfortably.

    Some local observers have been quick to credit the powerful influence of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, also known as the Mormon Church, and its moral code. And there is some truth to the assumption, as the faith is justly known for its blend of self-reliance and care for others. Support for the aged of all faiths in Ogden is largely organized through private means and based on strong social bonds, a powerful culture of service, and a desire to help the poor, whether they’re Mormon or not.

    But the underlying economic stability of Ogden owes much more to the presence of the federal government—more specifically, federal agencies and installations, which provide steady jobs with good benefits, including generous retirement plans. The US Air Force has a large base nearby. The Internal Revenue Service office in Ogden employs thousands of the city’s residents. Before the federal government’s arrival, Ogden was a bustling railroad hub, and this too provided steady access to well-paying jobs. These stable sources of middle-class employment have ensured that Ogden’s workers and retirees flourish in a way that their counterparts in Opelousas never have.

    Ogden retirees like Louise and Randy Nathanson have benefitted from both church and state. Randy worked at the local Air Force base, while Louise raised their children and then became a schoolteacher. “We weren’t rich before,” she remarks, “and we’re not rich now”—but, she adds, they are comfortable and secure. Given the area’s affordability and the Nathansons’ modest mortgage, they didn’t need to dip into Randy’s 401(k) until they retired.

    Ogden is similar to Opelousas in that both cities have religious underpinnings and active volunteer groups that seek to serve the broader community. But in Opelousas, there is a limit to the effectiveness of the faith-based charity model. In spite of the valiant efforts of committed volunteers, systemic racism coupled with hard economic realities—and the notable absence of stable employers like the federal government—make it difficult to sustain a decent retirement. In Ogden, the combined economic power of the Mormon Church and the federal government protect residents from the vagaries of inequality and amplify the efficacy of volunteer organizations.

    In the United States, economic security in old age was seen, for a long time, as both a social issue and a national obligation. From the birth of Social Security to the end of the 20th century, the common assumption has been that we have a shared responsibility to secure a decent retirement for our citizens. Yet that notion is weakening rapidly. Instead, we have started to hear echoes of the mantra of self-reliance that characterized welfare “reform” in the 1990s: You alone are in charge of your retirement; if you wind up in poverty in your old age, you have only your own inability to plan, save, and invest to blame.

    This is an unacceptable conclusion. To reverse it, we must ensure that workers who have spent decades saving for retirement through pension contributions—based on promises made to them by their employers—can rely on those commitments. Companies that go bankrupt should not be able to put their shareholders first and their employees last when debts are settled. The fiduciary responsibilities of banks and brokerage houses that supervise the investment portfolios of pension funds must be elevated, and the supervision over them by federal regulators made more robust.

    At the same time, the rules governing 401(k) plans need to be tightened so that retirement money becomes an investment that cannot be touched until retirement. In times of economic hardship, many workers feel they have no choice but to tap into these savings early. If we had more substantial and generous unemployment insurance, invested more in retraining, and provided more generously for medical needs, it would be much more feasible to create retirement funds that wouldn’t need to be raided early by families in distress.

    Finally, we must shore up the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the federal agency charged with insuring private retirement plans, since it is the only backstop for those that go bankrupt and will soon be out of business if we don’t. Even though the PBGC provides only partial coverage for benefits, it remains a vital means of protecting at least some of the pension money that workers depend on. If it goes belly up, there will be nothing for them to fall back on.

    Beyond these protections for private retirement accounts, the most universal of retirement plans, Social Security, needs to be more robustly funded. Eliminating the earnings cap and requiring high-income employees to pay a Social Security tax on all of their earnings is a vital first step, and it may well be the only one needed to ensure that this basic support system can function well into the future. Needless to say, the wealthy would hardly feel it if they were required to pay the same tax on their earnings that people with far less income routinely pay now.

    What we cannot do, however, is ignore these issues or assume they are merely problems for the current generation of retirees. Younger workers will not be able to escape this vortex; indeed, they may face futures even more precarious than today’s seniors do. Younger workers have far less generous retirement benefits; are expected to work for many more years than prior age cohorts did; were punished more in the housing market when the 2008 financial crash reduced the availability of credit; and have faced, in general, more uncertain conditions in the labor market.

    For them, the very concept of retirement is fading away, replaced by a work life that does not end at the traditional age of 65. As private pensions, Social Security, and Medicare become increasingly inadequate for meeting basic needs, the working life simply has to go on. That may not be a problem for those who are well-educated and work in rewarding, well-paying professions that do not tax the body. But it is not a solution for people who can no longer stand for hours, lift heavy objects, move at a rapid pace, or master new technologies that require an education they don’t have. For these people, the obligation to work longer and longer is a recipe for stress and downward mobility. The fact that the fastest-growing sector of American labor consists of full-time workers over the age of 65 tells us how bad the problem of retirement insecurity has gotten.

    We have to start looking in the right direction for solutions. And we must ensure that we do not rob other deserving populations – especially children, in whom we invest a paltry sum relative to other advanced postindustrial societies – to solve the inequalities that beset the retirement “system” in the wealthiest country in the world.

Digest powered by RSS Digest