The Taliban in Afghanistan have been taking back territory and attacking U.S. allied forces ever since the U.S. military began a withdrawal. On July 8th Joe Biden was asked if the U.S. embassy in Kabul would be evacuated giving a familiar reference to the U.S. collapse in Vietnam.  In July he said no.  Biden was leaving 650 military personnel in Kabul to guard the embassy and diplomats.

Two days ago Biden announced sending 3,000 U.S. troops to begin the embassy evacuation. That is correct.  Biden is sending 3,000 soldiers back to Afghanistan to help evacuate Americans. Another 3,500 soldiers will be on standby. Biden is sending more soldiers back to Afghanistan than the 2,500 he withdrew to begin with.

Considering that Joe Biden has a documented political history of getting everything exactly wrong; meaning the outcomes are exactly the opposite of every contention he has ever made; it is worth noting what Biden claims will not happen – because this is exactly what is likely to happen.  WATCH:

As if on cue from divine or karmic providence, exactly what Joe Biden said in July would not occur, is exactly what is occurring in August….  Afghanistan’s second and third largest cities, Kandahar and Herat, fell to the Taliban on Thursday and Friday.

(CNN) – […] In a statement Friday, the Taliban said they had taken control of the governor’s office, police headquarters, as well as other key operational centers throughout the city of Kandahar. “Hundreds of weapons, vehicles and ammunition were seized,” the Taliban statement said.

Kamin said he and many others had made their way to a military base close to the city’s international airport and were awaiting a flight out. “Many (government) soldiers surrendered and the rest fled,” Kamin said.

(more…)

There is general agreement that George W Bush sent troops into Iraq as an outcome of the industrial war machine policy to advance U.S. interventionism; thereby completing the job his father President HW Bush was prudently not willing to escalate after the liberation of Kuwait.

President Donald Trump attempted to draw-down U.S. military all around the globe, specifically Europe and the middle-east.  However, as history often repeats, now it appears we are see the JoeBama administration sending troops back into Syria; perhaps to attempt the same regime change objective they failed in 2013 and 2014.  The mid-east war machine is oiled with American blood.

SYRIA – A convoy of 40 trucks and armor vehicles said to have entered Syria from Iraq

Faith – Family – Fellowship

Lt. General Michael Flynn sits down for an extensive interview with Jan Jekielek for American Thought Leaders. In this exclusive interview, the first of two parts, we hear from Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn about his experience these last four years. Mr. Flynn discusses what attracted him to then-candidate Donald Trump, why he believes he was targeted, and his thoughts on America’s current political moment.  Great Interview:

(more…)

In case you might have missed the latest faux-controversy assigned by political operatives to the media narrative engineers, the issue surrounds leaked sketchy intelligence reports, to the New York Times, claiming Russians were willing to pay Taliban members to kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.  The evidence provided by the Times includes:

(New York Times Graphic Source)

From this tenuous evidence footnoted with “according to multiple officials familiar with the intelligence”, democrat operatives in media desperately clutch their pearls and stake out another batch of apoplexy claiming President Trump is not doing anything about it.

Setting aside for the moment that nothing claimed by media or the DNC political operatives in/around capitol hill has any substantive intelligence to prove the claim, let’s first look at the underlying premise: ‘Russians are paying the Taliban to kill American soldiers.’

First, obviously these same voices need to ignore that in 2010 Iran was paying insurgent fighters in multiple fields of combat including Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, to kill Americans. Those well-documented examples must be overlooked because despite the overwhelming evidence the Obama administration paid Iran over $170 billion in cash and entered a nuclear deal with them.  Once again, in order to retain their left-wing political position the media must pretend not to know things.

(more…)

It’s an interesting comparison to note.  The ideological interests behind the 2010 “Arab Spring” uprising are the exact same ideological interests behind the 2020 “Black Lives Matter” protests/uprising.  Not merely similar people, but the exact same people.

The exact same group of U.S. people who were promoting the mid-east Arab Spring in 2010 are the same people now promoting the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests.   The same politicians; the same media voices; the same newspapers; the same social media activists. Almost every participant, and their support for the uprising ’10 -vs- ’20 is identical.

In the background of the Arab Spring, the root control organization was The Muslim Brotherhood.  Considering all of the connective similarities; and considering the U.S. advocates for the brotherhood are the same voices advocating for BLM; does it not stand to reason the BLM movement is an extension of the same overarching ideology.

It is not an esoteric intellectual exercise to compare the two movements because we’re not only talking about a similar level of protest, we’re seeing an identical set of actions in both groups.  Not only are the advocates the same voices; but their purposeful action, the behavior to remove and destroy common cultural connection/heritage is the same.

(more…)

The outline IS HERE, and in the interests of my own time I’m going to be selfish and not re-re-duplicate it all again.  However, the bottom line is this: Maltese Professor Joseph Mifsud was activated by compartmented Israeli intelligence allies of President Obama.

Walid Phares recently exposed and admitted he was targeted by the Mueller probe as the fifth [redacted] name in the August 2, 2017, authorizing the scope memo provided by former DAG Rod Rosenstein.

Rod Rosenstein recently admitted he signed the scope memo as it was presented to him by the special counsel team without asking any questions about it.  Whatever the Mueller team asked for, Rosenstein granted without any interference. That was his testimony.

If you go back to the original assembly of candidate Trump’s 2016 foreign policy advisors, the recent releases now show that all five key team members were targeted by President Obama through the use of the intelligence apparatus; due to an overarching need by the former administration to retain previous foreign policy outcomes; including the Iran deal.

• Paul Manafort = Ukraine/Russia
• Carter Page = Russia/Ukraine
• Michael Flynn = Turkey/Iran
• Walid Phares = Egypt/Iran
• George Papadopolous = Israel/Iran

Take that broad overview and apply it to all the current information about what took place and everything reconciles.  This Big Picture approach does not conflict with reporting by Lee Smith, John Solomon and other solid researchers of the Obama foreign policy motive; instead it frames their individual assemblies as absolutely correct.

(more…)

An interesting new discovery amid revelations into the background motives of President Obama to weaponize the intelligence apparatus against his political opposition.

Today former Trump campaign foreign policy advisor Walid Phares identified himself as the fifth target in the August 2, 2017, Rosenstein scope memo.  [The redacted section above] With this admission/discovery a more interesting background makes sense.

(Via John Solomon) […] Phares is speaking out for the first time, suggesting that one of the motives of those who made the allegations and sustained the investigation was to hamper the early Trump presidency’s foreign policy goals, including the 45th president’s long-promised plan to cancel the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal.

(more…)

This is a little lengthy of a discussion, but it touches upon something very relevant to this election cycle.  Author Diana West discusses a network and pattern of ideology within the modern pentagon leadership, and how a worldview is threatened by President Trump. The interview and discussion is below.

The conversation necessarily gets in the weeds and is filled with unique insight into a very complex alignment. However, in the big picture it’s not difficult to figure out why the Pentagon would be opposed to Trump.  During the campaign and early administration President Trump’s expressed foreign policy was viewed by NATO alliance members as a threat.  The same type of perspective applies internally to the U.S. military.

President Trump’s preferred use of economic warfare makes the Pentagon’s role diminished. Instead of punching North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, President Trump hits the checkbook of Chinese Chairman Xi Jinping.  The primary has become the contingency. The value of James Mattis replaced by the effectiveness of Robert Lighthizer.  JC Milley isn’t in the planning room; Milley’s been replaced by Wilbur Ross (until he’s needed).

In the Trump era the President is telling the Pentagon where and when to position; and asks them for ‘contingency’ preparation.  Decades of Pentagon-centric foreign policy is lessened by an entirely new geopolitical approach based on economic strategy.

Take away power, or worse yet, stop using military power, and the leaders within the system start to sense their institution becoming functionally obsolescent.  Overlay this military view upon pre-existing ideological differences and the situation gets worse.

CTH touched on this last year when we noted how the Pentagon, specifically the joint chiefs, never took any action when Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman positioned himself as an opponent to President Trump’s policy perspective.  The pentagon left Vindman on assignment to the NSC even after Vindman attempted to take-down President Trump.

Another example was Joint Chief Chairman Milley, and the visit Pompeo and Milley took to Mar-a-Lago in December, where they were informing President Trump of military strikes in Syria and Iraq *after* they took place. [Background Here] [Background Here].

(more…)

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo appears on Face The Nation with Margaret Brennan to discuss the negotiated peace agreement between the U.S. and Taliban in Afghanistan.

(more…)

The United States and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (Taliban) have signed a peace agreement to end the nineteen-year war in Afghanistan.  [Details Here]  During the signing ceremony Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered the following remarks.
[Video and Transcript]

.
[Transcript] – SECRETARY POMPEO: Good afternoon. I want to start by thanking His Highness Sheikh Tamim for Qatar’s invaluable role as host of these historic talks. His unstinting support, and yours foreign minister, have supported both sides and allowed them to reach this momentous day.
The United States and the Taliban have endured decades of hostility and mistrust. Previous talks have faltered. This effort only became real for the United States when the Taliban signaled interest in pursuing peace and ending their relationship with al-Qaida and other foreign terrorist groups. They also recognized that military victory was impossible. I then asked Ambassador Khalilzad to serve as our lead negotiator to gauge the Taliban’s sincerity.
(more…)