Author: R J Adams

At a time when top US politicians, including the President, are yet again engaged in warmongering, it may pay American citizens to once more heed the story of James Blount.

The story’s not new. The BBC report quoted below is from 2010, but it is, perhaps, worth repeating. Blount is better known today as the singer and musician, James Blunt, but in 1999 he was a cavalry officer with the British army in Kosovo.

The Supreme Commander of NATO in the Balkans at that time was US General Wesley Clark. Clark ordered Blount and his unit to take the airfield at Pristina, which had been occupied by Russian troops.

The Russians were on the same side as the NATO forces, but wished to operate independently. NATO refused.

According to the BBC:

The confusion surrounding the taking of Pristina airfield in 1999 has been written about in political memoirs, and was widely reported at the time.

But this is the first time Blunt has given an account of his role in the incident.

Blunt, who was at the head of a column of 30,000 Nato troops with his unit, told Pienaar’s Politics it was a “mad situation”.

He said he had been “party to the conversation” between senior officers in which Gen Clark had ordered the attack.

“We had 200 Russians lined up pointing their weapons at us aggressively, which was… and you know we’d been told to reach the airfield and take a hold of it.

“And if we had a foothold there then it would make life much easier for the Nato forces in Pristina. So there was a political reason to take hold of this.

“And the practical consequences of that political reason would be then aggression against the Russians.”

Asked if following the order would have risked starting World War III, Blunt, who was a 25-year-old cavalry officer at the time, replied: “Absolutely. And that’s why we were querying our instruction from an American general.

“Fortunately, up on the radio came Gen Mike Jackson, whose exact words at the time were, ‘I’m not going to have my soldiers be responsible for starting World War III’, and told us why don’t we sugar off down the road, you know, encircle the airfield instead.

If Gen Jackson had not blocked the order from Gen Clark, who as Nato Supreme Commander Europe was his superior officer, Blunt said he would still have declined to follow it, even at the risk of a court martial.

He said: “There are things that you do along the way that you know are right, and those that you absolutely feel are wrong, that I think it’s morally important to stand up against, and that sense of moral judgement is drilled into us as soldiers in the British army.”^[1]

Obviously it’s not drilled into high-ranking US Generals.

It really is time Americans realized that the arrogance of their leaders not only puts the lives of American citizens at risk, but is sufficiently foolhardy to trigger conflagrations vastly greater than anything originally intended.

Who can know where US military action in Syria would end? Certainly not President Obama, John Kerry, or the generals charged with commanding any military intervention.

In 1999, Wesley Clark could easily have plunged the world into a nuclear conflict by acting out of arrogance and a total lack of mature leadership. He was fortunate that others subordinate to him were prepared to disobey his orders, which could have resulted in court martial proceedings for both Blount and Jackson.^[2]

Russia and America are again at loggerheads. The Russians demand time to assess whether Assad’s regime was indeed guilty of the illegal use of chemical weapons. The American have already made up their minds and, once again, are prepared to go off ‘half-cock’ with no concrete evidence of Assad’s involvement.

The world is right to be wary. US warmongers are convinced they’d win any nuclear world war. They may be right.

But at what cost?

^{[1] “Singer James Blunt ‘prevented World War III'” BBC, November 14th 2010}

^{[2] “Wesley Clark#Kosovo War” Wikipedia}

The so-called ‘case’ for the US attacking Syria has been so miserably and off-handedly put forward by our latest apology for a secretary of state, that my original intention was to confine this article to the fairly simple task of negating his most nebulous ‘evidence’ that the regime of Bashar al-Assad was culpable in the use of the sarin gas that poisoned so many in Ghouta on August 21st.

Just prior to beginning this article I received an email from FAIR that included a piece by Jim Naureckas entitled, “Which Syrian Chemical Attack Account Is More Credible?”^[1] Reading through, I realized it contained almost the exact same arguments I was about to use, so rather than duplicate Jim’s article I’ll simply supply a link to it at the bottom of this post, and turn my attentions to a more frivolous though, in my opinion, equally perturbing subject – Jon Stewart and the Daily Show’s obvious fixation with that male appendage known, at least in medical circles, as the penis.

Now, immediately I realize I’ve made a mistake. I stated it was a ‘Daily Show’ fixation. The evidence indicates the contrary. Jon Stewart, long-term host of the Daily Show, has been away from his post for twelve weeks. During that time, his seat has been occupied by the English comedian, John Oliver.

It rapidly became clear that the ratio of penis jokes per Daily Show segment was dropping off considerably. Whole shows went by without the word, “penis”, ever being mentioned. Okay, there was the odd occasion, but they only served to remind us just how frequently this member was referenced when Jon Stewart was in control. One got the distinct impression Oliver was only throwing in the odd mention out of misplaced respect for Stewart.

Even the surfacing of Anthony Weiner as candidate mayor of New York, a circumstance Stewart would have milked of dubious penis humor for all it was worth, only received a muted ‘member’ response from Oliver.

Obviously, the Daily Show writers were just as keen to escape from such puerile nonsense as was the temporary host. Sadly, on Stewart’s return yesterday, the penis comments and double entendres were once again rife.

It would seem from the evidence (possibly more substantial then John Kerry’s) that Jon Stewart is the immature and puerile one dictating the sniggering schoolboy humor that abounds on his show. Perhaps it’s time the show matured? Perhaps it’s time for a change at the top?

Perhaps it’s time the “Daily Show with John Oliver” became a permanent fixture?

^{[1] “Which Syrian Chemical Attack Account Is More Credible?” FAIR, September 1st 2013}

Mr John Kerry appears more than a little put out with a decision by the British Parliament not to support the US in what is likely to prove a premature decision to use military might against the Syrian regime.

In a speech today, the US Secretary of State made much of François Hollande’s decision to continue supporting the US in their proposed action, calling France, “the US’s oldest ally”. Apparently, this was a reference to the historical fact that America would never have won their War of Independence against Britain without the military support of the French. France’s lack of enthusiasm for the 2002 war in Iraq, which resulted in all American fast food establishments renaming, “French fries”, as, “Freedom fries”, has, it seems, been conveniently forgotten.

Mr Kerry failed to give Britain a mention, a snub that has engendered acute bowel dysfunction among certain British politicians, causing the Westminster lavatories to overflow, and a hasty call for Dyno-Rod to supply a plumbing fix.

According to the Guardian:

Defence secretary Philip Hammond has expressed apprehension about the future of Britain’s defence ties with the US. Hammond’s comments came as John Kerry, the US secretary of state, praised France as the oldest ally of the US and made no mention of Britain.

In an interview with Channel 4 News, the defence secretary showed how the Anglo-American special relationship had been shaken by the parliamentary defeat when he said that France’s renewed alliance with the US placed Britain in an “uncomfortable place”.

Hammond told Channel 4 News: “I am disappointed and I am slightly apprehensive. We have a very close working relationship with the Americans. It is a difficult time for our armed forces, having prepared to go into this action, to then be stood down and have to watch while the US acts alone or perhaps the US acts with France.”

Asked about the renewed Franco-American alliance, Hammond said: “It’s certainly a reversal of the usual position and it will be an uncomfortable place for many people in the British armed forces who are used to working alongside the Americans as an everyday, normal course of business.”^[1]

One can only speculate as to which members of the armed forces Mr Hammond is referring. While the Brigadiers and other of the military elite, used to quaffing club brandies alongside their bejeweled and tin-gong bedecked US equals, may find the situation somewhat of an embarrassment, it’s highly unlikely the ordinary British soldier, sailor, or airman, will be anything other than highly relieved that he/she isn’t going to be ordered to put their lives on the line, yet again, in some foreign war that’ll certainly prove another total, bloody waste of men, machines, money, and time.

Meanwhile, that excuse for a British socialist Labour Party leader, Mr Ed Milliband…

…following the Parliamentary vote, goes immediately, cap in hand, to lick America’s arse and declare undying devotion, should he and his party happen to win the next British general election:

Ed Milliband reached out to Washington by making clear that he still remains committed to the Anglo-American special relationship. In a Guardian article, Miliband also makes clear that the US will always play a leadership role in the world.

The Labour leader writes: “I believe the special relationship should and will endure. Our shared history, values and institutions require nothing less. And there is no solution to most of the problems of the world, whether it is the Middle East peace process, climate change or Syria, which does not go through the United States.”^[1]

And just maybe, Mr Milliband, that’s the problem. So far, the United States of America has miserably failed to reach any sort of Middle East peace agreement, despite decades of so-called ‘negotiations’; has ignored climate change for years while its own population burns, is flooded out, or whole communities decimated by super-tornadoes – and you expect them to solve the Syrian problem?

Do us all a favor, Mr Milliband, go stick your head up your backside and see if you can find any common sense up there, because for sure, none of it ever manages to find its way out of your mouth.

The US attack on Syria has been planned for months. Those who hold the reigns of US power have wanted shut of Assad for years. Like Iran, Syria is a thorn in America’s side because it refuses to do as it’s told. The only reason it wasn’t included in George W Bush’s ‘Axis of Evil’ is because he couldn’t count beyond three.

The US dilemma is: how to get rid of Assad without letting in al Qaeda and Co.. Now, America is going to prod things along a bit with a few missile strikes on Assad’s military hardware, to slow him down and give the rebels an edge.

The US media has been whipping up public venom for weeks with prejudiced reports and pictures of dead children, supposedly the victims of chemical weapon attacks. Even so, a majority of Americans aren’t in favor of intervention – unless, of course, no Americans are going to get hurt. That reassurance tilts the balance somewhat. It’s that old, well-known, American attitude, ‘I’m all right, Jack, and as long as me and mine aren’t in the firing line, my country can slaughter as many foreigners as it likes’.

Thankfully, unlike the war in Iraq, the British won’t be involved. The British people don’t get bitten twice, and frankly, don’t give a tinker’s cuss for any ‘special relationship’. It’s just seen as ‘politician’s speak’.

Though, it’s highly likely the US manufacturers of ‘English Muffins’, and ‘English Breakfast Tea’, will be rushing to rename their brands. No doubt, ‘Freedom Muffins’, and, ‘Freedom Breakfast Tea’, will be appearing on the shelves of Walmart in the very near future.

^{[1] “UK-US special relationship in danger, warns Philip Hammond” Guardian, August 30th 2013}