NATO Declares War in Afghanistan Over!…But forgets to inform the Taliban

After over a decade of war, the US retreats in major strategic defeat.

After over a decade of war, the US retreats in major strategic defeat.

On December 28, 2014, the US and NATO declared an end to the mission and therefore the war in Afghanistan.  Not so ironically, the US and NATO have been mute over the success of the war, which should signal that it was a failure.  In fact, not only did the combined force of NATO and the US not achieve a decisive victory over the Taliban, they suffered a strategic defeat.

As I predicted from the beginning, no matter how the US and NATO try to spin this, the war was a strategic disaster and we lost.  Disagree?  Let’s look at the stats of what our trillion dollar military bought us.  Continue reading

Update on the Third Iraq War against ISIL/ISIS/IS/AQ/Syria/etc.

US Advisors in Iraq begin training. Source / Getty Images/Afp

US Advisors in Iraq begin training. Source / Getty Images/Afp

It should come as no shock to our readers that the Third Iraq War President Obama initiated has already faltered.  As predicted, the strategy (or lack thereof see: did not achieve the desired results so now the Department of Defense (DoD), no doubt testing the waters for the White House, is requesting boots on the ground.  As we warned, mission creep is a dangerous thing and would plague this operation.  What started with just a handful of “advisors,” grew into airstrikes in Iraq and then Syria, then over a thousand troops “on the ground,” and now US troop levels in Iraq will soon reach 3,000.  When this new batch of advisors fails to stop the growth of ISIL, expect Obama to retract another “promise” and have “no choice,” but to commit US combat personnel to the fight in Iraq.  Soon, just like in Vietnam, Obama will be steadily sucked into another full blown war in Iraq that the US will neither win nor be able to afford. Continue reading

The Real Threat from Ebola is Economic Vapor Lock and Collapse

Liberian Military Seal Slums to Prevent Spread of Ebola_ Source: NBC News

Liberian Military Seal Slums to Prevent Spread of Ebola_ Source: NBC News

Outside of three West African nations, which are being ravaged by Ebola, the health threat from Ebola still remains small.  Am I dismissing the risk of further spread? No.  Am I dismissing the fact the numbers infected are still exponentially increasing? No.  Am I even claiming that Ebola won’t return to the US and spread globally?  No.  What I am saying is that for those of us in the US, the biggest danger Ebola poses to the masses in the near term is economic.  In fact, if you want to best prepare for an Ebola pandemic, you should prepare for an economic collapse, which will affect you long before you run a real risk of infection. Continue reading

Islamic State readying jets in preparation for an air attack

Captured Syrian MiG 21In August, I wrote a pointed article on why the US military was not prepared for how the fight had evolved with ISIL ( in which I warned specifically about them using captured air assets.  For this specific warning, I received some very dismissive comments from government sources.  However, just this last week, Reuters (re)broke the story that ISIL is training pilots to fly captured Syrian MiGs (; Continue reading

Islamic extremism and what lies ahead? Part II: The War on ISIS and Syria

iraq-airstrikes-isilPresident Obama and his top military advisors have learned nothing and have made a grave mistake starting a war with Syria using ISIL as the pretext.  Just as I was confident and proven correct that this situation would materialize, I am equally confident in my analysis that this new war will lead to America’s greatest foreign policy disaster to date.  Neither war with Syrian nor ISIL will be decisive, successful, or lead to greater security for the American people.  However, the war may indeed turn out to lead to America’s unwinding as the world’s sole superpower and economic bankruptcy.  This post will continue my analysis on the on-going crisis unfolding in the Middle East respective of Obama’s newest war. Continue reading

Putin vs Obama Part III: Why Russia will win

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during his visit to the Crimean port of Sevastopol on May 9, 2014. Putin's visit to Crimea, which was annexed by Moscow in March, is a "flagrant violation" of Ukraine's sovereignty, authorities in Kiev said today.AFP PHOTO/ YURI KADOBNOVYURI KADOBNOV/AFP/Getty Images

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during his visit to the Crimean port of Sevastopol on May 9, 2014. Putin’s visit to Crimea, which was annexed by Moscow in March, is a “flagrant violation” of Ukraine’s sovereignty, authorities in Kiev said today.AFP PHOTO/ YURI KADOBNOVYURI KADOBNOV/AFP/Getty Images

Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote: “For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.”  Kissinger, like him or not, is spot on in his succinct assessment of Obama’s policy for Russia.  As the West descends into another reckless and disastrous war in the Middle East, Putin must be quietly laughing knowing that very soon the US will soon have its Soviet moment of collapse.  In fact, to strategically defeat the US, all Russia must do is wait for the utter mismanagement of our nation to bring about its implosion.  In this third and final installment of our exclusive analysis of the conflicting Russo-American policies, it is clear that in the first major post-Cold War struggle between Russia and the US, it will be Russia that scores a victory in the Ukraine crisis. Continue reading

Putin versus Obama Part I: Are they really so different?

Obama and Putin

Obama and Putin

Much of the rhetoric behind the push to create a new Cold War centers on Russian President Vladimir Putin.  The complicit media and the Obama Administration have pulled no punches in smearing President Putin and casting him as the most evil of tyrants and a political thug imprisoning opposition, seizing assets, enriching himself on the government’s dime, and intimidating reporters and political dissidents.  In fact, much of this is probably true; however, before we cast the first stone and judge Putin as evil incarnate and start World War III, perhaps some national retrospection of our own actions and character would be in order.  Let’s step back and evaluate America’s actions and consider whether or not we may have lost the moral high ground and then,…just perhaps, should rethink our policy, attitudes, and actions toward Russia. Continue reading

Putin versus Obama Part II: Who is the better leader?

Putin and Obama at the G8 Summit

Putin and Obama at the G8 Summit

In my on-going series analyzing the growing rift between the US and Russia, it is important to evaluate a nation’s leadership.  Specifically, let’s look at the qualifications and performance to date of Presidents Putin and Obama.  Before we go any further, it is necessary to lay down a few ground rules of the debate.  First of all, I want to dispel the myth that a person can be of mediocre intellect, but a good president as long as they have a good staff.  This oft stated notion is a ridiculous excuse used by political parties to mitigate criticism that their brainless candidate is not up to the task.  Further, it is true that no one man has total control of a government, but to say that the leaders of Russia and the US have their hands tied and do not have real power would be a poorly informed lie.  In fact, both presidents have substantial power and influence over both foreign and domestic affairs and craft geopolitical strategy that affects the world.  If there wasn’t truth to this, then why would we ascribe so much prestige upon leaders like Thatcher, Reagan, Lincoln, and Washington?  Due to the real power and influence presidents wield, it is important to assess who has demonstrated the ability to more effectively lead and use that power.  Based on that evaluation, you are better able to analyze and predict the actions and ultimate outcomes of any potential or on-going political conflicts between the US and Russia. Continue reading

THE NEXT 9/11: We are not prepared for how ISIL will use advanced military weapons to attack US targets

ISIL Captured SCUD Missile_June 2014

ISIL Captured SCUD Missile_June 2014

The Obama Administration has knowingly allowed ISIL to gain strength and capture more and more territory inside of Iraq and has set the stage for a second 9/11 style attack against a US target, which may in fact turn out to be the US Embassy Baghdad.  The White House looked the other way for years because the US, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, in particular, were covertly arming, training, equipping, and advising elements of what it falsely believed was the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in Syria.  This organization of what became ISIL occurred at US sponsored bases in Jordan, Turkey, and now Syria proper.  However, the FSA was in the complete control of Islamic extremists from an early stage (  This CIA created rebel army then quickly grew too big for the CIA to control as many insiders warned would happen.  As extremists took over the remaining “moderate” elements of the FSA, advanced weapons covertly provided to fight Assad, such as the US made Stinger missiles, were seized and retasked for the fight in Iraq.  With the covert backing of the US, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, ISIL gained enough strength and organization to become a formidable light infantry army and capture large swaths of Sunni controlled areas of Iraq.  This fight was originally justified as necessary to build a cross border sanctuary for the anti-Assad forces fighting in Syria, but in reality turned out to be the genesis of a new terrorist state. Continue reading

Islamic extremism and what lies ahead? Part I: Iraq

ISIL Caliphate Map

ISIL Caliphate Map

Over the last few years, I have written many posts and provided consultation on the situation I predicted would materialize in the Middle East and North Africa as a result of US policy blunders.  In short, I predicted that our policies would lead to the creation of an even greater Islamist enemy that would destabilize the entire region and likely lead to a multi-front regional war for hegemonic dominance between Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.  I predicted we would be forced to recognize the Kurds, that Iraq would breakup and return to sectarian violence, that we would support false flag chemical attacks in Syria to try and ignite a war, and that our proxy army in Syria would back fire and become our worst enemy.  Further, I detailed how this conflict would continue to increase in intensity until it no longer was proxy war, but a direct full-fledged war between the belligerents with global implications.  As my previous analyses have come to pass and been proven accurate by current events down to the most specific details, it is time to expand and update what one can expect respective of the impact of Islamic extremism. Continue reading

New White House Scandal Emerges: US Covering Up Loss of Stinger Missiles in Syria to ISIL

ISIL Stinger Missile Launch

ISIL Stinger Missile Launch









As usual, our readers are getting the story before it is a story.  No other media outlet (alternative or otherwise) has picked up this story we are now breaking.

Media reports (see:, later tacitly confirmed by the Department of Defense (DOD) before burying the subject, have identified that ISIL possesses Stinger Missiles.  The US manufactured Stinger missile is a highly potent, man portable, shoulder launched, anti-aircraft missile that has advanced technology to defeat aircraft counter measures.  To see a video of various Stinger Missile variants in action click here: (  These missiles pose an extreme threat to any low flying aircraft to include passenger jets.  The missiles are considered a highly sensitive weapon system and are heavily controlled due to their potential lethality.  As such, the DOD goes to great lengths to prevent these weapons from falling into the wrong hands and they are accounted for individually.  Nonetheless, these very dangerous weapons have somehow made their way into the hands of ISIL extremists.  The scandal and cover up precipitate from the answer of how these weapons found their way into the hands of ISIL.

The White House would have been happy if the media had never reported that ISIL possessed Stinger missiles.  However, it soon became clear that ISIL did possess the missiles and this could not be suppressed (,,;  Therefore, the White House created a narrative about how the US missiles found their way into terrorist hands.  The White House blamed the Iraqi military and claimed the Stingers must have been captured when ISIL overran Iraqi military bases in Mosul.  There is just one major problem with this claim.  The DOD did not provide the Iraqi military with Stinger missiles and none were stored in Mosul.  The truth is that the Stinger missiles ISIL possess were not captured and did not come from Iraq.  The White House is fully aware of this fact and has intentionally attempted to cover up the truth.  The Stinger Missiles ISIL possesses are missiles the CIA directly provided “moderate” rebel groups in Syria to help them overthrow Syrian President Assad.  President Obama cannot plead ignorance on this matter because he had to personally sign the covert action “finding” to arm the rebels with Stingers.   President Obama granted this approval after the rebels pleaded for a capability to shoot down Syrian military aircraft that were persistently bombing rebel positions.  Counter to President Obama’s claims of supporting only “moderate” rebel factions and our “ability” to ensure any military weaponry the US provides the rebels would not fall into extremist hands, this is exactly what has occurred.  President Obama has at best allowed and at worse given terrorists anti-aircraft missiles and is now in complete denial mode!

The White House has been caught in another lie and the media is simply too bought and or too ignorant to identity another major cover up right in front of them.  Minimal investigative journalism would have allowed a decent reporter to put the pieces together on wear in fact the ISIL Stinger Missiles actually came from in Syria.  What makes this most recent White House scandal so damning and dangerous is the fact that, as we have warned, these anti-aircraft missiles will most likely be used against civilian passenger jetliners in the near future to kill Americans.  WHEN it happens, the Obama Administration will no doubt be “caught by surprise” and will have a readymade excuse blaming someone else (like the Iraqi military) for their utter dereliction of their duties to protect Americans.  It is your job to make sure the word gets out and you can help fix this if you contact media outlets and your elected representatives and grill them over this scandal.  Demand all military aid and support for the terrorist backed rebels in Syria be immediately cut off.  Further, demand a full investigation into how these missiles were given to terrorists and insist on prosecution of those responsible under the federal acts prohibiting material support to terrorist organizations.

For more see:


By Guiles Hendrik

June 22, 2014

All rights reserved. 

The O’Reilly “Fiction:” Setting the Factor Straight

Bill O'Reilly

Bill O’Reilly







Against my better judgment, I decided to watch a segment of “The O’Reilly Factor” on Fox News to hear his points on the latest developments in Iraq.  In O’Reilly’s defense, he has been a brilliant talk show host and highly successful writer and businessman.  However, at the end of the day, O’Reilly is still a journalist with limited real world expertise on many of the topics he provides commentary on.  Specifically, O’Reilly poses as an expert, but is totally lacking in experience when it comes to matters of military application and foreign affairs.  O’Reilly has never served in combat, is not an intelligence analyst, and so far has not demonstrated himself as a policy maker.  So to no surprise, when I tuned in, O’Reilly was expounding his usual pompous, ill informed, bomb them all rhetoric with respect to the Islamic extremist army dubbed ISIL or ISIS.  Within thirty seconds of listening to O’Reilly’s poorly informed diatribe, I remembered why I had stopped watching Fox.  As such, I feel as though Fox News and Bill O’Reilly needed some better informed input to ensure Fox lives up to its “fair and balanced” moniker and openly challenge O’Reilly to a debate on Iraq policy.

First of all, I want to make it clear we lost in Iraq.  Bill O’Reilly is still grasping to a false reality and believes we actually accomplished strategic objectives (won) in Iraq before our retreat.  The fact the US was defeated is tough to deal with, but nonetheless fact.  It in no way diminishes the honor of our veterans.  Suggesting otherwise by those that cannot dissect honor from the success or failure of an army in battle is ridiculous.  The notion that loss in battle or war dishonors our troops is no more logical than suggesting soldiers of losing armies across thousands of years of recorded history had no honor.  For example, the many British army units fought with the utmost honor in the American Revolution, soldiers fighting for the Confederate Army during the American Civil War fought with great honor, and Rommel’s Afrika Corps has been distinguished again and again for its honor by historians, but all of the above armies ultimately lost their respective wars.  In fact, honor is not hinged upon whether one wins or loses, but in how one conducts himself in combat.  Iraq was never pacified and never made safe for Americans, but we maintained our honor.  The US certainly isn’t calling the shots across the nation now.  The end state achieved was a strategic setback for US interests across the region by strengthening our foes.  No matter how much the Obama Administration whitewashes our retreat from Iraq, the enemy was still fighting and still holding ground when we left.  In no uncertain terms that translates to a victory for the opposition to US interests and occupation.

For those of you who did not fight in Iraq and have not visited Iraq since our retreat, you should know that Mosul was never pacified and maintained its status as a hotbed of Al Qaeda (AQ) activity.  Neither President Bush nor President Obama finished the war.  To the present day, Mosul has been a part of the ratline of jihadists making their way to fight in Syria.  In fact, US intelligence has been well aware that Mosul has been a key staging point for AQ training and equipping jihadists en route to joining ISIL for years.  Mosul has also been effectively “no-go” territory for westerners and has been controlled since before the US retreat by Sunni extremists.  As such, the fear and panic that ISIL has “captured” Mosul is overstated.  It is true they kicked out the token government forces, but the Iraqi military never controlled anything beyond the ground below their feet hiding behind the walls of abandoned US military bases.  Beyond kicking out the token Iraqi forces, the only difference appears to be ISIL formally cemented their previous control of that city and surrounding regions with the execution of anyone supporting the Iraq government.  So, if O’Reilly was consistent and well informed, he would have recognized that Mosul and neighboring cities like Tikrit with a large presence of Sunni extremists “falling” to ISIL was not in and of itself a game changer.

Second, O’Reilly fails to remember that it was the Sunnis, during the “Awakening,” that allied with US forces to fight the Shia militias attacking and killing Americans daily.  In fact, I distinctly remember Sadr’s brigades of Shia militia backed by Iran attacking US military personnel with zeal throughout the war.  I also remember the Shia going from house to house in what was originally mixed Sunni-Shia neighborhoods of Baghdad and ethnically cleansing the population.  The Shia death squads brutally murdered any Sunni they found and turned Baghdad into a Shia city.  However, it is now the Sunni extremists that O’Reilly has repeatedly called “savages” that deserve to be bombed.  I would argue to O’Reilly that both factions have lived up to the pejorative term savage and have demonstrated their eagerness to kill Americans before their fellow Iraqi time and again and as such, we should be happy to leave them to their demise.  In short, they are getting what they deserve and I see no reason Americans need to be again placed in the line of fire and paying to “save” savages that want us dead while they are busy killing one another.

Third, O’Reilly has totally forgotten that it was Maliki and the Iraqi government that refused to grant the US a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that would have protected our troops and allowed them to remain in Iraq beyond their set date of retreat.  True, President Obama used the SOFA as a means to justify the US retreat out of Iraq, but nonetheless, the Iraqis wanted American forces out of their country.  O’Reilly should perhaps volunteer himself for military service in a country that he is not invited and where killing, even in self-defense, will be deemed murder.  Perhaps he does not realize the very real legal dangers our troops will be faced with as they return to Iraq.  O’Reilly’s insistence on the deployment of military forces creates a conundrum for the troops because they are being deployed outside of war, to a sovereign nation, and violating its laws.  Does O’Reilly actually believe Maliki’s word that our troops will now receive immunity and that President Obama will do whatever is necessary to ensure Maliki is held to his word?  I think not.

Third, O’Reilly just doesn’t seem to get the fact that the war as fought under Bush was a disaster and later under Obama it was also a disaster.  I guess O’Reilly missed the fact that when the war began, Saddam Hussein was killing extremists for free and had nothing to do with 9/11 beyond being the fall guy for Saudi Arabia.  It was Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, which was responsible for carrying out a state sponsored act of war against the US on 9/11.  This fact is why Representative Walter Jones from North Carolina wants the classified 9/11 Report released so that the public will know the truth and the lies perpetrated by the US government.  If US strategy was effective, there would be LESS, not more extremists.  Of course it is overwhelmingly clear our strategy failed judged by this bar.  O’Reilly also seems to forget that by toppling Saddam’s regime, we created the vacuum that allowed these extremists to flourish to the point they now occupy their own autonomous Islamic state.  When this point is made, O’Reilly flies into defense mode and charges the person as an “apologist.”  O’Reilly solely blames the Islamists, but fails to recognize the very clear order of events of cause and effect leading to this situation.  O’Reilly can believe what he wants, but is not allowed to create his own facts and cherry pick from his arbitrary timeline of events.  For example, O’Reilly makes the point that we invaded Iraq to rid the country of Saddam and for humanitarian purposes.  On this point alone, O’Reilly must have deleted his memory files much as the IRS seems to have deleted emails.  We did not invade Iraq for the purposes O’Reilly states.  We invaded Iraq because we were made to believe that Iraq was an existential threat that possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that it would not turnover to U.N. inspectors, was going to use the WMD against the US, and was supporting AQ.  Nothing short of creating this existential threat would have brought American into the war.  As the invasion kicked off and the contrived lies became clear, the Bush Administration had to save face.  The Administration then made a deliberate policy decision to change the motive for the war effort to regime change and humanitarian issues.  As such, O’Reilly’s stated purpose for the war is completely fictitious.  Further, O’Reilly has chided every democratic administration for humanitarian military operations, but somehow thinks he can hang on to that rationale to defend the disaster Bush created in Iraq.

O’Reilly claims we did Iraq a great favor by ridding the country of Saddam, but again, suspends logic by implying that a full invasion was the only way to “rid” Iraq of Saddam.  O’Reilly has to know that there were numerous opportunities and plenty of other options to eliminate and or contain Saddam and any threat he could have possibly posed to the US.  In stating this, O’Reilly totally undermines the deaths of near 1,000,000 Iraqis throughout both wars with Iraq.  More importantly to me, he also dishonors the American veterans  that fought in Iraq by incorrectly believing that perpetuating political lies and propaganda he somehow brings honor to their unnecessary injuries and deaths.  Only by telling the truth and prosecuting the political liars within our own government that sent them out to fight a senseless war would he actually do these honorable men and women justice.  However, O’Reilly continues to pander to his establishment masters to the disgrace of all who served.   Although the likes of Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney may applaud O’Reilly, Bill becomes vile in the eyes of veterans those traitors sent to an illegal war.  I am positive that very few of the million dead Iraqis posed even the slightest threat to America and would be much happier if they were alive for starters.  I am also confident that the thousands of Americans who lost loved ones or that were horribly wounded would also be better off alive and well today, even if Saddam was still in power.  No matter what O’Reilly believes from his ivory tower about how we improved the lives of the average Iraqi, the millions of wounded, displaced, starved, and dead would find comfort in knowing the US would never come to “help” Iraq again.

Fourth, our bombing didn’t work, yet, O’Reilly is adamant about the positive effects “heavy bombing” would have for the US against ISIL.  O’Reilly seems to think that if we just carpet bomb one more convoy we will win.  He seems to “know” that our pilots can positively identify targets flying at nearly the speed of sound or faster and often from above 35,000 feet as long as the “bad guys” are in the open desert.  I would laugh, but he is actually serious…and using his own words, a buffoon.  I guess he fails to understand how the fact ISIL is operating with the same US provided military vehicles that the Iraqi military is using can complicate targeting.  If perhaps, O’Reilly had actually served in combat as a Joint Tactical Air Controller, he would know that his line of logic is ridiculous, but since he did not, let me enlighten him.  Just because there is a convoy of trucks with guns in the Middle East does not positively identify the convoy as “bad guys.”  In fact, the factions fighting often look indistinguishable even from the ground and much less so from the air.  Without good intelligence and legitimate boots on the ground observing, identifying, and marking targets for air, O’Reilly’s airstrikes will not only be futile, but 100% counterproductive.  I also think that O’Reilly must have somehow shelved the knowledge that ISIL possesses “Stinger” missiles.  Even though I would argue that the likelihood is the bulk of these man portable, surface-to-air missiles are advanced Soviet designs smuggled into Syria by our very own CIA from Libya (hello Benghazi), the missiles nonetheless exist and pose a significant threat to our aircraft operating at low altitudes.  I wonder if the loss of an American pilot and an F-16 is worth it to O’Reilly?

Finally, O’Reilly went on to say that ISIL does not recognize the Iraq-Syrian border and that we must pursue ISIL into Syria.  I do not disagree that the border has long since ceased to exist and that to prosecute an effective campaign, you must not allow the insurgent sanctuary.  Too bad we didn’t use this same logic in Afghanistan where even the dullest of officers recognized that to decisively defeat the Taliban, one must either secure the border or cross into Pakistan, but I digress.  Moving back to bombing ISIL in Syria, O’Reilly completely demonstrates his hypocrisy and wins the award for pinhead.  Time and again, O’Reilly has been on air demanding President Obama support the rebels in Syria and has attacked the Administration repeatedly for not doing enough, yet, he fails to realize that he is simultaneously demanding we bomb ISIL and support ISIL.  O’Reilly is naïve and or ignorant if he fails to make the connection that we have been covertly organizing, arming, training, and equipping the rebel forces in Syria to fight President Assad and it is these same forces, which are now rampaging throughout Iraq.  The savages that O’Reilly demands we bomb are the savages we created just like in Afghanistan and Libya.  In fact, if we bomb ISIL at their points of origin as O’Reilly suggests… in their training camps in Syria (Jordan and Turkey too O’Reilly), I wonder if he realizes we will be killing American special forces and CIA ground branch officers currently training these terrorists.  So I ask O’Reilly, who are the good guys and who are the bad guys because I am very confused.


By Guiles Hendrik

June 17, 2014

All rights reserved.

Iraq Explodes: White House Claims “Surprise” even as they Arm the Terrorists

I have been warning for years now that the Syrian Civil War would explode and massively destabilize the Middle East (see links at bottom of article). I specifically wrote extensively about the dangers of arming, training, and equipping Islamic extremists to fight Syrian government forces because it would lead to greater conflict in the Middle East and that these forces would bring civil war back to Iraq.  I have repeatedly warned that these actions would reignite civil war in Iraq, which would cause a breakup of the country into three pieces.  I also warned it would accelerate a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia that would force both countries to escalate the violence.  This is exactly what has occurred.

As current events have proved, my analysis was pinpoint accurate even while the US government claims it was “surprised” that an extremist blitzkrieg is now racing across Iraq and seizing city after city as it consolidates its control of Sunni  Iraq.  The only question is whether the senior policy makers are actually so incompetent that they truly were surprised or that they are again lying…perhaps both.

To clear this up, it is clear that in this case, the White House was in no way surprised and is again lying.  President Obama is keenly aware of events in Syria respective of the terrorist forces he authorized the US to covertly arm, train, and equip.  President Obama knows that all moderate rebel forces in Syria have been defeated and taken over by extreme and “extremer” terrorist elements comprised of jihadists from around the world.  These forces have demonstrated both the will and intent to create a new caliphate, but we knowingly dismissed the threat and continued to support the extremists in their fight against President Assad.  Even before the latest offensive that captured Mosul, the extremist army had already seized much of western Iraq and Anbar province after decisively defeating the Iraqi military in a conventional fight.  From the fall of Ramadi and Fallujah back in January 2014, no other conclusion by competent analysts could be drawn respective of the trajectory and intentions of this offshoot of Al Qaeda.  Iraq was falling back into civil war and it would only get worse if the US continued to support the extremist rebels in Syria.  Now that the worst case scenario of a terrorist state, created by the US, has emerged, I would like to know when the Justice Department will indict senior Obama Administration officials for providing material support to terrorist organizations.  This may sound like hyperbole, but ask yourself what would be your fate if you had given advanced military weapons, money, intelligence, and training to known terrorist organizations with American blood on their hands.  These senior leaders are traitors and all have the blood of thousands on their hands.

If you still have the ambition to care about the truth, email the links of my articles to your representatives in Congress and demand answers.  Ask why it is Guiles Hendrik, the analyst blogger, gets it right years in advance, but even our best analysts at the CIA with the aid of billion dollar spy technology find themselves caught repeatedly flatfooted.  Tell Congress if the intelligence community can’t get it right, or more specifically, insists on lying to Congress on behalf of the White House, I would be happy to brief them on the actual ground truth.

By Guiles Hendrik

June 14, 2014

All rights reserved


Links to previous articles warning of the impending policy disaster in Iraq:

The Disintegration of Iraq: US Military Action in Iraq neither Wise nor Suitable

As the hordes of American/Saudi/Qatari sponsored terrorists race across Iraq in what appears to be a blood orgy of Islamic extremism of the worst sort, Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki has appealed for help.  Maliki’s forces, to include two divisions of American trade Iraqi soldiers, have broken and fled leaving all of their equipment behind to the attacking Iraqi army.  Although, I believe the takfir blitzkrieg will be blunted once it hits Shia neighborhoods as it presses its advance into Baghdad and initially bypass the city for key oil infrastructure, it is clear Maliki has lost control of what used to be Iraq.  In spite of the incompetence of the White House and senior advisors, this occurred exactly as we have been warning and predicted over a year ago.  See:

Now that Iraq has fully disintegrated, the Kurds are now effectively independent, the Sunni areas are consolidated under extremist Sharia rule, and the Shia areas are left relying on Iran to save them from being completely massacred and conquered.   This critical juncture has policy makers grappling with whether or not to send in US military support to which I emphatically warn is a horrible idea.  I say again, INTERVENTION IS A HORRIBLE IDEA!

Now that Iraq has collapsed, many in the US are demanding the US military again be deployed to defend “gains” previously made in Iraq.  These individuals are the same hacks that never fought in a war and led US “strategy” to a complete failure in Iraq and Afghanistan.  In fact many of these snake oil policy makers hid from reckless wars like former Ambassador John Bolton and profit handsomely from the industry of war.  Further, when one hears Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain expound upon how the US must bomb the extremist army before it seizes Baghdad, consider these are the same senators that also demanded that President Obama do more in Syria to arm this very same army and bomb President Assad.  Ironically, it was Assad that has been fighting this extremist army from the beginning and pleading for help from the international community.  Further, it was Russia that warned the US that this army was in fact composed of radical extremists, but we ignored them and called them liars when it was the US that was lying. After all, we knew from the beginning the army was made of jihadists because the CIA’s ground branch is what organized, armed, and trained this army.   If you do not see the obvious hypocrisy, bias, lobbyist dollars, and stupidity all wrapped up in US Middle East Policy, you should remove the blindfold now and engage your faculties of logic.

The problem with the logic of intervention in Iraq is multifaceted.  First of all, it completely ignores the fact that just across the Iraqi border to the west in Jordan, Syria, and Turkey, the US is covertly and now clandestinely (yes, these are different) arming, training, and equipping these terrorists to fight Syrian President Assad, which I have argued from its covert beginnings could only end bad.  Second, to believe an overthrow of Maliki’s government somehow translates to lost gains presumes one actually bought into the White House’s lies and propaganda respective of accomplishing anything decisive in Iraq.  The reality was the US was strategically defeated in Iraq and used the hand over and pullout as a face saving maneuver to explain its retreat.  I would invite anyone that disagrees with the notion of US defeat in Iraq to attempt to walk through Iraq without being killed, kidnapped, or imprisoned.  Note that we will see this strategic defeat repeated in Afghanistan.  However, in Afghanistan, it will be to greater American detriment since we are currently planning on leaving 10,000 personnel in that country to be captured in killed by the Taliban when they launch their offensive to regain power shortly after the US reaches the 10,000 level of troops.  Third, Iraq refused (to no angst of President Obama, who was looking for an excuse to pullout) to agree to a status of forces agreement (SOFA), which would have provided legal protections to any potential future US forces stationed in Iraq.  Without a SOFA in place, US personnel could be tried under Iraqi law.  As a soldier that potentially would have to kill an Iraqi in self-defense, the prospect of being tried for “murder” in Iraq made any future garrisoning of troops in Iraq untenable.  Finally, it is insane to think that the US can drop a few bombs and stem the tide of events in Iraq.  Events have long moved beyond the effectiveness of a few bombing raids.  We spent a decade vainly trying to subdue Sunni extremists while simultaneously being attacked by Sadr’s Iranian backed Shia forces.  Both sides hate us and have proven they prioritize killing Americans above killing each other.  To this end, American intervention would only waste more precious blood and treasure that we can ill afford.

To avoid another quagmire, it would be best to stop aiding terrorists in Syrian as a reasonable start.  We should then be quite content to let the factions fight it out amongst themselves while reinforcing the Kurds and letting Assad press the extremist army from the west.  In particular, the Kurds have access to ample oil, are better fighters than the Arabs, have a functioning government and infrastructure, hold a strategic geographical position and are welcoming of US bases, have proven to be pro-American, and are religiously moderate.  The US Department of State, for reasons that in all respects appear to be a systemic ethnic prejudice, has persistently degraded US relations with the Kurds and at every opportunity placed Kurdish interests far below Sunni and Shia interests in Iraq.  If there was ever a time to change policy and embrace the Kurds, now would be it.  Finally, the US must address and stop Saudi Arabia.  Saudi funding is the true catalyst of the Islamic extremist movement.  The US has turned a blind eye to Saudi actions far too long and it is time the US demands Saudi Arabia stops the exportation of Wahhabism and captures, kills, and or arrests the senior Saudis responsible for the export of terrorism.  To continue to ignore the Saudi gorilla in the room is tantamount to knowingly fighting the wrong adversary while simultaneously claiming to be confused why they real enemy is still growing stronger and able to attack you.  After all, it is no surprise that since the “War on Terrorism” began, Islamic extremism has done nothing but expand and strengthen.  Might that have something to do with the fact we are fighting a faux war against the wrong enemy?  Mark my words, until someone dismantles the Saudi extremist industry, the threat of Islamic extremism will continue to spread and grow.  Radical sharia law is already upon our doorsteps, but for reasons of political correctness, ignorance, and or lobbyist dollars, our government has been derelict to the point of treason addressing the growing existential Saudi threat.


By Guiles Hendrik

June 12, 2014

All rights reserved. 

Russia Laughs at Obama’s Red Line in Crimea: What’s Next for Relations?

President Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry have to be the laughing stock of the foreign policy world.  In less than a year they have managed to draw two “Red Lines” only to have them almost immediately ignored, crossed, and forgotten.  With this track record the word impotent comes to mind in reference to US Foreign Policy and particularly President Carter Obama.  Not to be trifled with, President Obama and his partners within the EU managed to order the assets of a handful of Russians frozen, obviously leaving Putin quaking in his finely crafted leather shoes.  The act is almost comical in that it seems to show even less resolve than if Obama and the EU had done nothing.  After all, freezing the non-existent US assets of a couple dozen Russians long after they hid and/or offshored anything of value can only be viewed in one of two ways.  Either the US is as weak as it appears or the US never intended to truly oppose Russia’s aims to annex Crimea and this is all political show so that they can say they “stood up to Putin.”  Further, at least one of victims of Washington’s sanctions appears to have nothing to do with events in the Ukraine and everything to do with Russia’s Christian grounded stance against homosexuality, which at least someone high up in the Obama Administration took exception.  This random list of targets unrelated to the events in the Ukraine undermines any shred of legitimacy the sanctions purportedly were imbued with.  Either way, Putin has to be concluding that at this point the US and the EU have zero resolve when it comes to actually opposing Russia’s annexation of Crimea.  Nonetheless, Putin, the same man that would order a former Russian defector assassinated with a rare radioactive isotope placed in his cocktail in a fine London bar, is not likely to take Obama’s cheap shot lightly.

Now that Washington has proved it couldn’t resist taking a cheap shot, what can we expect Russia’s response to be?  First of all, Putin has shown that unlike Obama, his actions speak for themselves and he doesn’t need to talk.  Since Washington and the EU attacked Russia financially, it is likely Russia will respond financially.  Last week, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov declared that any sanctions introduced by Washington against Moscow will have a “boomerang” effect.  Senior Russian Presidential Advisor, Sergey Glazyev, one of the individual’s sanctioned by Obama’s executive order, suggested Russia would dump US treasuries and walk away from the US Dollar as a reserve currency.  It is questionable how much of an impact this would have, but it certainly wouldn’t help the US economically and add to the growing list of countries dumping the US Dollar as the world’s reserve currency.  American businesses operating in Russia may also suffer retaliation in the form of their assets being frozen, confiscated, or shutdown.  Further, Russia has the ability to call in billions in debt from the Ukraine and cut supplies of gas to the Ukraine and EU.  Cutting gas supplies to the EU would certainly hurt Russia too, but this logic is fundamentally flawed if one believes that it will deter Russia.  Russia is renowned for its ability to suffer austerity.  In fact, one of the critical failures in US-Russia policy has been the inability of our senior policy makers to recognize Russia’s ability to endure extreme hardships and willingly cut off its nose and leg and hand to spite its face if it means victory can be assured.  The US and EU are not willing to go to those extremes so, by that fact alone, Russia will prevail in any developing economic stand-off.

Respective of Russian natural gas and oil, I produced a paper a half a decade ago that looked into the future political ramifications of Russian geopolitical power as Western economies waned and Asian economies waxed.  What became apparent was that once Russia completed pipelines in its east that could link their large gas and oil fields to China and coastal ports in the Pacific, Russia would gain significant leverage in what had previously been a status quo relationship with Europe between supply and demand.  Until recently, Europe has always felt safe in that at worst, Russia would only cut gas supplies during a political crisis for a short period of time because Russia needed the money as much as Europe needed the gas.  However, with pipelines now directly extending supply to China, Russia is more than able to divert supplies from Europe, southeast to China.  This is a game changer, which increases Russia’s geopolitical maneuver space.  China welcomes this and is happy to buy all of the petrol resources it can obtain from Russia so that its supplies are more reliable.  Further, China will be likely to back any move that drives Russia to sell to China at more favorable rates, which to date, have been below what Russia was willing to agree to sell at.  China would also see the advantage of a marginalized Russia that dumps the US Dollar and is willing to trade directly in their respective currencies.  Remember, China seeks to replace the US Dollar as the world’s reserve currency as sees that transition as critical to China achieving super power status and eclipsing the US.  Considering the above, it is highly likely that China will not just quietly support Russia, but actively back Russia against the US and EU.

Russia also has the ability to increase the sale of military weapons to countries such as Iran and Syria.  In particular, the S-300 air defense system would be a highly sought after leap ahead technology for both the Iranian and Syrian militaries.  This system alone would not be impenetrable by American airpower; however, it would significantly increase the complexities and costs to carrying out any type of air attack against either nation.  Russia could also dangle the idea of selling an even more advanced S-400 air defense system, which if fielded, would mean that US would be at a high risk of losing significant numbers of aircraft in the event they attacked any nation using the system.  Respective of countries such as Israel, the S-400 would make it all but impossible for them to successfully carrying out an air attack making any suggestion of the sale of the weapon system a serious threat.  Respective of the civil war in Syria, Russia could begin sending ship loads of various weapons and even advisors and troops to support President Assad.  This would tip the balance in favor of Assad just as his army is gaining ground on the rebels making it possible to achieve a decisive victory.  Ensuring Assad’s victory would have the added benefit of snubbing Washington while stopping Qatari efforts to build a gas pipeline to Europe that would reduce European reliance on Russian gas.

Finally, among numerous options for retaliation, Russia has the ability to make NATO’s withdrawal from Afghanistan extremely painful.  First of all, Russia has the ability to shut down all supply routes to and from Afghanistan from the north.  This would disrupt NATO’s ability to sustain the current forces in Afghanistan and retard efforts under way to retreat with all of its equipment in tow.  Further, it would force NATO to pay premium prices to Pakistan to move all of its equipment out of the country via Karachi.  The Karachi route is extremely dangerous and once it is clear that the US must use this route, the Taliban could concentrate its attacks along the entire stretch of this road network.  Even darker is Russia’s proven, albeit very covert ability to provide the Taliban with substantial support and weapons.  Should the Russians decide to really make life a living hell for the US, expect to see the Taliban suddenly supplied with more sophisticated weaponry capable of destroying armored vehicles from long range or even engaging NATO aircraft and drones.  Imagine what NATO’s retreat from Afghanistan would look like as troop numbers dwindle and the remaining isolated outposts begin to be overrun, supply convoys are wiped out by sophisticated  laser beam riding anti-tank weapons, and aircraft are suddenly being shot down by the modern Russian equivalent of the Stinger missile.

In truth, the US is far more exposed than many realize.  Should Washington decide to ratchet up pressure on Russia by continuing to try and subvert Russia’s historic sphere of interest, expect Putin to begin playing cards he has so far politely held in reserve.  Putin’s trump cards are for, let’s say, more uncivilized forms of diplomacy, which Washington now seems to want to engage.  Obama’s thug style Chicago politics may have worked within the confines of the decrepit US political system, but Barry will be sorely mistaken if he thinks he even remotely approaches a match for Putin in the global arena.  As Putin has repeatedly demonstrated with very little talk and decisive action, Washington is a paper tiger that not just lacks teeth, but a functioning brain.


By Guiles Hendrik

March 17, 2014

All rights reserved.