Why The Ruling Elites Now Choose Women (And Black Men) To Start Wars
TMR Editor’s Note:
The article posted below in its entirety nicely explains how women in power are now routinely being chosen to promote and prosecute wars around the world. Most of them are Democrats, and for very ‘good’ reason. As follows:
The World Wars Are Always Set Up And Prosecuted By Democratic Administrations
This was the very reason why the NWO cabal selected the highly defective presidential candidate Hillary R. Clinton in 2016. She was a proven warmonger who graphically displayed all of the necessary qualities of a criminally insane psychopath.
Who else, but an extremely cruel and conscienceless character, would destroy the Northern Levant and claim it as a great achievement. Both Syria and Libya have been transformed into a dystopian post-apocalyptic wasteland, and HRC was directly responsible as Secretary of State.
SOS Clinton is only the latest in a string of female warmongers who are utterly shameless in selling unlawful war at all costs. Were she to have won the election, her first mission would have been to stage a false flag attack in order to commence military hostilities against Russia.
Not only was Hillary Clinton the most dangerous presidential candidate in U.S. history, she has also served to solidify this extremely dangerous trend established by the World Shadow Government. TPTB know that Democrat minority leaders — both women and blacks — are much more effective at selling war than rich, white men are.
With this critical understanding, it is much easier to understand why President Obama is so determined to start a war with Russia … before he leaves office. Now that Clinton’s political career has been effectively terminated, Obama is TPTB’s last hope to trigger a hot phase of World War III. Obama & Company have been aggressively waging a cold phase of WW3 since his first term as POTUS.
Not only is Obama a black man (1/2 at least), there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that proves he is homosexual. This is also why he was chosen by the elites for 2 disastrous terms. However, it is his extraordinary willingness to wage illegal and unprovoked wars of aggression that really got him crowned twice. This is also why TPTB awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize, without any merit whatsoever.
While the NWO cabal did not anticipate a Clinton loss, they did know that they could count on the exceedingly vulnerable Obama to launch wars right up to the very end. Not possessing a valid birth certificate only contributed to the ease by which he can be blackmailed by his true masters.
As inconceivable as it is, that a lame duck president would profoundly break precedent and start a major war for his successor to deal with, seems to be occurring in real time. Obama will clearly use his last 3 weeks in office to set up war with Russia, in spite of a complete lack of justification. How many more false flag operations will this imposter use to fabricate a false pretext to explain his never-ending acts of war.
It’s true that the Democrats are completely lost as a party. They used to sell themselves as the party of peace. Of course, the Republicans are no better. In light of the solid majority of Republicans in Congress, the GOP is deeply responsible for enabling the current Warmonger-in-Chief.
The Millennium Report
December 30, 2016
N.B. The essay below focuses only on the female component of this long-term NWO war-making strategy.
Rise of the War Harpies: The Women Destroying our World
The biggest problem besetting the psychopathic elite in their push for global domination is that normal human beings don’t want war. Most people, for the most part, just want to live a peaceful life with their family and friends. So how do you sell something as unpalatable as war? There are several options, which can be used alone, or in combination:
- Make people feel that their peaceful lives and/or core values are under attack by some outside enemy, i.e. the other “threatening our way of life.”
- Demonize the government (especially its leader) of a foreign country as being excessively cruel and barbaric, i.e. “Saddam/Gadaffi/Assad is killing his own people.”
- Appeal to human values of caring for the weakest in society and highlight that these groups are being especially targeted and victimized, a doctrine termed R2P, “responsibility to protect”.
- Claim that Western civilization is under threat, and that a descent into barbarism by foreign hordes is on the cards if certain countries are not invaded.
To enhance the promotional effect, women are often chosen to sell war, the female gender being most often associated with nurturing, caring, creativity, civil society and peace. Without a doubt, the pathological elite use this fact to sway the general population in the direction of supporting wars of conquest. It helps that when wars are sold on the American and world public, they are presented as “humanitarian interventions” to protect women and children. Of course, this is just a BS narrative to garner popular support.
Just to be clear, this is not a witch-hunt, and a more extensive list could equally be compiled of war pimps. But I hope this list will serve to redress an inherent sexism when it comes to warfare: female psychopaths don’t get their fair share of recognition.
So here’s a list of the women eligible to be named war harpies. You’ll note that they all have one thing in common: at least one war under their belt:
- Margaret Thatcher (Falkland war)
- Madeleine Albright (Yugoslavia, Iraq)
- Hillary Clinton (Haiti, Honduras, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen)
- Condoleezza Rice (Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia)
- Samantha Power (Syria, Yemen, Ukraine)
- Susan Rice (DRCongo, Libya, Syria)
- Michele Flournoy (Syria)
- Victoria Nuland (Libya, Ukraine)
- Kimberly Kagan (Afghanistan, Iraq)
One other interesting point that links all these women is that all are/were Russophobic. To ensure the Military Industrial Complex gets enough contracts, it’s important to pick a big ‘enemy’ and not just a small country to justify the huge transference of taxpayer’s money from the taxpayer to the war-makers and war-mongers.
Margaret Thatcher (1925 – 2013)
Since Margaret Thatcher is no longer among the living, her description will be brief, not because she was any less of a war harpy, but simply because, for a lot of the younger generation, she is relatively unknown. What is interesting in light of the present climate is that even back then, hysterical accusations were made against Russia to scare people. It’s a long-standing, time-tested policy. From Wiki:
On 19 January 1976 Thatcher made a speech in Kensington Town Hall in which she made a scathing attack on the Soviet Union:
The Russians are bent on world dominance, and they are rapidly acquiring the means to become the most powerful imperial nation the world has seen. The men in the Soviet Politburo don’t have to worry about the ebb and flow of public opinion. They put guns before butter, while we put just about everything before guns.
In response, the Soviet Defence Ministry newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star) called her the “Iron Lady,” a sobriquet she gladly adopted.
Thatcher got her war: against Argentina over the Falkland Islands.
“It wasn’t just foreigners that Thatcher declared war on. Armed with her snake-oil economic policies of privatisation, deregulation, unleashing finance capitalism, pump-priming the rich with tax awards subsidised by the ordinary working population, Thatcher declared war on the British people themselves. She famously proclaimed that “there was no such thing as society” and went on to oversee an explosion in the gap between rich and poor and the demolition of social conditions in Britain.”
“Every move she made was charged by negativity; she destroyed the British manufacturing industry, she hated the miners, she hated the arts, she hated the Irish Freedom Fighters and allowed them to die, she hated the English poor and did nothing at all to help them, she hated Greenpeace and environmental protectionists, she was the only European political leader who opposed a ban on the ivory trade, she had no wit and no warmth and even her own cabinet booted her out.”
Madeleine Albright (1937-)
Ms. Albright is interesting; she served as a mentor for two other war harpies that we will get to a little later, namely Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice. Albright became the US ambassador to the UN in the first Bill Clinton administration in February 1993 and later in January 1997 became the first female Secretary of State in the US. In these capacities she did what she could to up the ante. Here is a short list of a few of her destructive achievements:
NATO’s intervention in Bosnia began in 1992. In 1993, Albright became US Ambassador to the UN, where she influenced policy regarding the Balkans.
Colin Powell, the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, recalls Albright pressuring him to send troops to Bosnia in 1992.
“What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” she said.
Albright is credited with encouraging Bill Clinton to partake in a bit of bombing to encourage Slobodan Milošević to sign the Rambouillet peace accord.
NATO bombed Yugoslavia for 78 days following accusations that Milošević was ethnically cleansing Albanians in Kosovo.
The late Milošević was quietly and de facto cleared of all charges by the Hague Tribunal in 2016, but by the time the truth came out, Yugoslavia was long gone, broken into seven, more manageable and exploitable, countries. One of those profiteers, Albright’s financial management company, was involved in the privatization of Kosovo’s telecommunications company. From Wikipedia, one can learn that she too likely profits well from her war mongering, along with other untouchables:
Madeleine Albright is a co-investor with Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild and George Soros, in a $350 million investment vehicle called Helios Towers Africa, which intends to buy or build thousands of mobile phone towers in Africa
Ms. Albright also played a key role in the Rwandan genocide. Not only did she block UN interventions, she also denied that it was a genocide:
“The Americans, led by US Ambassador Madeleine Albright, played the key role in blocking more expeditious action by the UN… and with American UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright advocating the most token of forces and the United States adamantly refusing to accept publicly that a full-fledged, Convention-defined genocide was in fact taking place,” a post-genocide report established.
One has the feeling that Ms. Albright never could get enough blood on her hands. She was key in maintaining the sanctions on Iraq, something that resulted in the death of half a million children. Later, she would justify such brutal slaughter of innocents by saying “the price is worth it”:
In an appearance on 60 Minutes, Albright was asked if the death of so many children was worth it, “We think the price is worth it,” she responded.
A war harpy’s worst nightmare is that peace might ever break out, because not only would their profits dry up, but they would run the risk of being hauled off to a war crimes tribunal. Unsurprisingly, Albright recently implied that there was a special place in hell for American women who don’t vote for Hillary Clinton. That’s probably not an idle threat.
Hillary Clinton (1947-)
First lady from 1993 to 2001. U.S senator for New York from 2001 to 2009. Secretary of State from 2009 to 2012. Hillary Clinton’s chose Albright as her top informal advisor on foreign policy matters during Clinton’s stint in the State Dept. For Hillary, the only war that is not a good war, is the war where she is not involved or where her armed, trained and funded terrorists get beaten, as occurred recently in Syria. Otherwise, bombing developing countries back to the stone age is her favorite sport.
Clinton fanatically supported the war in Kosovo, voted for the war on Afghanistan, the war on Iraq and very aggressively pursued a war on Libya in tandem with National Security Council figure Samantha Power (Ambassador to the UN), Susan Rice and Spokesperson for the United States Department of State Victoria Nuland. Clinton was, it seems, very pleased with what must have been the crowning glory of her career, when Libya’s sovereign leader, Colonel Gaddafi, was publicly sodomized and murdered by her armed and trained ‘moderate’ rebels, in her honor.
She was also on the watch during the coup in Honduras (2009), the coup in Paraguay (2012), the de facto coup/takeover in Haiti (2010). Her support for the coup in Ukraine and the ongoing Saudi war on Yemen are well known. The list of Hillary Clinton’s war mongering is long and too long for this article. For more info, see:
- Killary’s bloody footprints in Latin America
- Hillary Clinton: Political psychopath, career criminal, root of all corruption (VIDEOS)
Condoleezza Rice (1954-)
Condoleezza Rice was the U.S Secretary of State just before Hillary Clinton, in the second George Bush Jr. administration from 2005 to 2009. Before that she was on the National Security Council under Bush Senior and later a National Security Advisor to President George W. Bush in his first administration from 2001 to 2005. Interestingly, Rice was taught at one stage by the father of Ms. Albright, Josef Albright, while he was the dean of the university’s school of international relations. It’s a small world for political psychopaths and the character disturbed of all stripes.
Condoleezza Rice quickly showed her true colors as a war harpy and earned the nickname “Warrior Princess” for her input into the destruction of Afghanistan and as a key proponent of the obliteration of Iraq and its people. In those endeavors she was closely aligned with leading war pimps, Rumsfeld and Cheney. Her ‘woman’s touch’ in arguing for war undoubtedly helped to engender female public support, as neither Rumsfeld nor Cheney had, or have, much appeal among the female population.
In a January 10, 2003, interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Rice made headlines by stating regarding Iraqi president Saddam Hussein’s nuclear capabilities: “The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.“
Yes, fear is an important tool to prepare the ground for war. Seeking to make her mark on history, and the psyches of thousands of innocent people, in 2002, Rice gave CIA director George Tenet the government’s approval for the waterboarding of prisoners.
Condoleezza Rice seems to have been instrumental in the change from overt war to covert war during the Bush years aka regime change via ‘freedom of democracy’. It is no coincidence that the so-called Arab Spring started just after her tenure at the State Department:
As Secretary of State, Rice championed the expansion of democratic governments. Rice stated that the September 11 attacks in 2001 were rooted in “oppression and despair” and so, the US must advance democratic reform and support basic rights throughout the greater Middle East. Rice also reformed and restructured the department, as well as US diplomacy as a whole.
It was this predatory ideology that lead Rice to call the bombing of Lebanon in 2006 “the birth pangs of the Middle East”: Something was born for sure, but it wasn’t human.
Condoleezza Rice described the plight of Lebanon as a part of the “birth pangs of a new Middle East” and said that Israel should ignore calls for a ceasefire.
“This is a different Middle East. It’s a new Middle East. It’s hard, We’re going through a very violent time,” the US secretary of state said.
“A ceasefire would be a false promise if it simply returns us to the status quo.
“Such a step would allow terrorists to launch attacks at the time and terms of their choosing and to threaten innocent people, Arab and Israeli, throughout the region.
In a 2008 RT interview with researcher and writer Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, Rice’s role in the Egyptian revolution was exposed:
Ever since 2007, America knew that former President Mubarak was dying of cancer. There was even a New York Times article in 2007 talking about who would be his replacement. Since 2008, they would have young Egyptians coming to America, go to the State Department, meet at the time Condoleezza Rice and others, and learn how to use modern technology to start an uprising in Egypt.
It was also under Rice’s watch that the conflict in Somalia escalated and that sanctions against Iran were stepped up. A warrior princess never rests, which brings us to the next war harpy
Susan Rice (1964-)
Susan Rice was the U.S ambassador to the UN from 2009 to 2013 and from 2013 until the present has served under Obama as his National Security Advisor. She also served on the National Security Council under the first Clinton Administration from 1993 to 1997.
Her role in the Rwandan genocide in 1994 appears to have changed her view in favor of interventions:
“If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November election?” She subsequently acknowledged the mistakes made at the time and felt that a debt needed repaying. The inability or failure of the Clinton administration to do anything about the genocide would form her later views on possible military interventions.
She said of the experience: “I swore to myself that if I ever faced such a crisis again, I would come down on the side of dramatic action, going down in flames if that was required.”
And she kept to her word:
Rice supported the Rwandan, Ugandan, AFDL and Angolan invasion of Zaire (later known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo) from Rwanda in 1996 and overthrow of dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, saying privately that “Anything’s better than Mobutu.”
In Libya, while she was the ambassador to the UN, Gaddafi was the target. She lied the best she could to demonize the Llibyan leader and pushed, together with Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State) and Samantha Power (State Department and National Security Council), for the destruction of Libya:
Rice said, “we are interested in a broad range of actions that will effectively protect civilians and increase the pressure on the Gaddafi regime to halt the killing and to allow the Libyan people to express themselves in their aspirations for the future freely and peacefully”.
The Libyan people soon understood exactly what Rice meant by “a broad range of options”. It meant an 11 month bombing campaign by NATO planes, and the country being overrun by US-backed ‘jihadi’ mercenaries in the pay of Washington. The majority of Libyan people loved and supported Gaddafi, but the West’s jihadis lynched him and turned that once prosperous nation into a hub from which terrorism could be exported to Syria and elsewhere.
But Rice’s blood lust did not stop there and soon she was pursuing regime change in Syria just as virulently. However, this time she was confronted by Russia and China:
In January 2012, after the Russian and Chinese veto of another Security Council resolution calling on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down, Rice strongly condemned both countries, saying, “They put a stake in the heart of efforts to resolve this conflict peacefully”, and adding that “we the United States are standing with the people of Syria. Russia and China are obviously with Assad.” In her words, “the United States is disgusted that a couple of members of this Council continue to prevent us from fulfilling our sole purpose“.
Some Security Council diplomats took issue with Rice’s negotiating style, calling it “rude” and overly blunt. According to David Rothkopf of Foreign Policy magazine, Rice is known for her “abrasiveness” but has the asset of a close relationship with the U.S. president.
Thanks to Russian intervention, Syria is still intact, but it has not stopped the confrontation – the battle rages on between the US mercenaries on one side and Russia and Syria along with other resistance forces on the other side. Rice must have an odd understanding of the word “peacefully”, given that from the very beginning the U.S. supported the violent overthrow of the Syrian government. The jihadis it supports in Syria (under the banners of “Free Syrian Army”, “Ahrar al-Sham”, etc.) have tortured, murdered, and massacred civilians, all with U.S. support. (See also: Susan Rice and American Evil.)
Rice has worked closely with many other war harpies, most notably the war demon otherwise known as Samantha Power.
Samantha Power (1970-)
Power spent 2005-2006 working in the office of U.S. Senator Barack Obama as a foreign policy fellow, then in 2008 she campaigned for Obama as president under the title of foreign policy advisor, but had to resign after calling Hillary Clinton a “monster” (a moment of clarity perhaps?). In a March 6 interview with The Scotsman, she said:
We f***ed up in Ohio. In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio’s the only place they can win. She is a monster, too — that is off the record — she is stooping to anything… if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive.
But Power soon recanted her view of Clinton and sang her praises. Power picked up the ‘exporting freedom and democracy’ baton from Condoleezza Rice and wholeheartedly agreed to Susan Rice’s aggressive interventionist policies in Libya and Syria. You know, “to avoid genocide”. The war harpies found common interest in war and regime change, which should say something about the state of their psyches.
In a memo from 2007, Power wrote regarding Obama’s foreign policy:
Barack Obama’s judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era of tough, principled and engaged American diplomacy to deal with 21st century challenges.
By “diplomacy”, she of course means war. Power was appointed by Obama to the National Security Council in 2009 and left in 2013 when she was appointed US ambassador to the UN, replacing Rice. She aggressively pursued regime change in Libya and Syria, all under the banner of R2P, “Responsibility to Protect”. She repeatedly called for no-fly zones to stop ‘the humanitarian crisis’ and to stop the “regimes” in question from “murdering their own people”. The problem (as always) is that such claims were and are simply lies to justify armed coups in foreign nations to make the world “safe” (and lucrative) for U.S corporate bigwigs and their political friends.
Again from Wikipedia:
Within the Obama administration, Power advocated for military intervention in Libya during the Libyan Civil War on humanitarian grounds.With then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN ambassador Susan Rice, Power lobbied Obama to pursue a UN Security Council resolution authorizing an international coalition force to protect Libyan civilians.
We all know how that turned out. Pepe Escobar said it more pointedly:
Those were the days when Libya (“We came, we saw, he died”) offered to the world a full-blooded humanitarian imperialist spectacle starring Three American Harpies: Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power and Susan Rice, actually four if Hillary’s mentorette and soul mate, Madeleine Albright, was included.
Pop cynics felt tempted at the time to coin those Amazons-in-waiting Brunhilde and the Valkyries. Or at least to qualify perma-smirker Hillary as Attila The Hen.
True to her war harpy nature, Power sharply criticized the EU for contemplating defense cuts. She supported Saudi Arabia’s war of aggression in Yemen, stayed silent about the Armenian genocide and lambasted Russia as being barbaric for killing the US-armed and trained terrorists in Syria. When this war harpy doesn’t get the war that she is pining for, she spits out her pacifier and throws all the toys out of the stroller, as we saw recently at several UNSC meetings:
After NATO murdered Syrian soldiers in broad daylight – an act of war against Syria and, arguably, against Russia – by conducting airstrikes on behalf of ISIS, US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power had the gall to walk out of a emergency UN Security Council meeting on the matter. Instead of responding sanely to Russia’s request for information, Power completely side-stepped the issue and, delusional as ever, demanded that Russia pressure Syria to ‘push for peace’. Stunned, her Russian counterpart Vitaly Churkin called her walk-out an act of ‘unprecedented contempt.’
Corey Schink explained this behaviour:
But then, again, Power herself is a unique type of crazy. The ‘asthenic’ psychopath as described by Lobaczewski is relevant here.
Asthenic psychopaths are, among other things, hypersensitive and full of dreams of reforming the world, seeking to ‘save it’ in their own crazy way. The result is typically mass murder, which in no way deters them from pursuing their ‘ideal world.’ They are easily found in literary and political milieus, where they seek to impose their false idealism on others. There’s also one to be found inside Samantha Power’s head.
Individuals like Samantha Power, who advocated for the ‘kill them to save them’ bombings of Kosovo, the all-out genocidal ‘humanitarian intervention’ that led to the destruction of Libya, and more destruction in Syria, definitely fit the bill, as do many other ‘neoliberal’ warmongers.
Power is married to Cass Sunstein, who from 2009 to 2012 was administrator of the Office for Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration. Then in 2013 he was appointed to serve on the NSA overseer panel. Some have likened him to America’s Goebbels as he is in favor of the government infiltrating chat rooms and nudging people in the ‘right’ direction. Sunstein is in favor of “libertarian paternalism”, which as Harrison Koehli writes:
… is little different than Leo Strauss’s neoconservative rantings and it boils down to the same essence. Stripped of its politico-babble newspeak, it basically amounts to the following: “People are too stupid to know what’s good for them, so we the enlightened leaders, will decide for them and force them to comply.” In other words, it’s Schizoidal Government Lite, with a “nudge” instead of a boot in the face. At least, that’s the image they’d like to present. The reality, as always, is often much more disturbing.
So Samantha Power has found her soul mate: while she intervenes on the foreign front, he intervenes on the domestic front. A match made in hell, no doubt.
Speaking of matches made in hell:
Victoria Nuland (1961-)
Nuland was working in the Bill Clinton administration as a chief of staff to Strobe Talbott before she became principal deputy foreign policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney. She moved on to become the U.S. ambassador to NATO from 2005 to 2008, then became Special Envoy for Conventional Armed Forces in Europe followed by spokesperson for the US State Department from 2011 to 2013, after which she became Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, the position she currently holds.
In his usual colorful language, Pepe Escobar gives a concise summary of Nuland:
Secretary of State Victoria Nuland – the neocon stalwart who immortalized “F**k the EU” even before Brexit. She should sue for royalties, but collect in US dollars, not depressed sterling.
The honorary Kaganate of Nulandistan dominatrix, as is well known, has enjoyed a pretty stellar revolving door; foreign policy advisor for Vice-President Dick Cheney; corralled into Obamaland by her protector and boss at Brookings, Strobe Talbott; Number One’s spokesperson at State; and currently Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, in charge of demonizing all things Russian. Let’s face it; get The Three Harpies in the ring, and they body slam those glowing WWF divas to Kingdom Come.
Yes, Nuland was key in the coup in Ukraine and the coming to power of the neo-Nazis there. She personally handed out cookies to the violent vandalizing mobs on Maidan Square in Kiev together with the U.S ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. When you want “freedom and democracy”, badly enough, you sometimes have to go the extra mile and hand out cookies in the cold of winter to keep the rabble roused. Nuland’s hands are also stained by the blood of the war in Libya and in Syria. As Chossudovsky writes:
The United States is to expand contacts with Syrians who are counting on a regime change in the country.
This was stated by U.S. State Department official Victoria Nuland. “We started to expand contacts with the Syrians, those who are calling for change, both inside and outside the country,” she said.
Nuland also repeated that Barack Obama had previously called on Syrian President Bashar Assad to initiate reforms or to step down from power.
In her warmongering, Nuland gets support on the home front from her husband, arch neocon war pimp Robert Kagan, who likes to refer to himself as a “liberal interventionist”. Apart from being a historian and a columnist, he was a major player in the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and the plan to regime-change the whole Middle East and beyond. For interested readers, Robbie Martin’s film about the Neocons, A Very Heavy Agenda, is well worth watching. A review can be found here. SOTT discussed the film with Martin on the Truth Perspective here: A Very Heavy Agenda: The rise, fall and resurrection of the neocons (and yes, “Victoria” makes an appearance!)
The more one looks, the clearer it becomes that these “elites” are totally enmeshed with one another regardless of party affiliation. The agenda is the same, and a very heavy one indeed. Which leads us to our next harpy who, oh, so coincidentally, happens to be married to Robert Kagan’s brother, Fred Kagan. Like I said, it’s a small world for psychos.
Kimberly Kagan (1972-)
Despite not being much in the public eye, Kimberly is very much a war harpy, helping to present the case for more wars and more surges and more regime changes through her research and advisory position to the White House.
According to Wikipedia, Kagan is a war historian and has taught at the U.S. military Academy at West Point, she is the founder and president of the Institute for the Study of War (appropriate name!) and has been a volunteer on many tours to the war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Apart from numerous books, she has written many essays for the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, whose editors never saw a war they didn’t like. Kagan supported the surge in Iraq and has advocated for expanded U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan.
The Institute for the Study of War advances an informed understanding of military affairs through reliable research, trusted analysis, and innovative education. We are committed to improving the nation’s ability to execute military operations and respond to emerging threats in order to achieve U.S. strategic objectives. ISW is a non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organization.
“Non-partisan” in the above simply means that they avoid party politics; they’re equal opportunity warmongers, and their only true master is the imperial war industry. Looking at their web site, this ‘institute’ simply toes the Pentagon party war line. Hence, they’re naturally anti-Russian, pro-terrorist (in Syria), and pro-Nazi (in Ukraine). Looking at one of their weekly analyses on Syria, it’s clear that they simply rely on mainstream media such as Reuters and propaganda outlets like the so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Which essentially means they get their updates from al-Qaeda, via SOHR’s infamous one-man show in Coventry and the Al-Qaeda outfit known as the “White Helmets”.
And so to our final harpy:
Michele Flournoy (1960-)
Michele Flournoy was the former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from 2009 to 2012 in the first Obama Administration. Previously she was a political appointee to the Defense Department under the Clinton Administration. And currently she serves on the board of directors of the defense think tank Center for a New American Security (CNAS), which she co-founded in 2007. Their mission statement:
CNAS’s stated mission is to “develop strong, pragmatic and principled national security and defense policies that promote and protect American interests and values.“
Translation: more wars and conflicts, because that’s what “promoting and protecting American interests and values” means.
And Flournoy doesn’t disappoint, as Pepe Escobar explains:
So let’s kill the suspense. There will be, predictably, a sequel. And it even comes with a somewhat highbrow preview, titled Expanding American Power, published by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) think tank. CNAS happens to be co-founded – and led – by former Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy, who served in the Obama Administration under Leon Panetta.
Also predictably, CNAS and its combative paper read as a sort of grand PNAC remixed – including some of those same old neocon/neoliberalcon faces; Elliot Abrams, Robert Zoellick, Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, and of course Flournoy herself, who a Beltway consensus already identifies as the next Pentagon head under a President Clinton.
Pentagon-in-waiting Flournoy was recently quoted as willing to send “more American troops into combat against ISIS and the Assad regime than the Obama administration has been willing to commit.”
Well, not really. She actually responded to the piece, arguing she’s in favor of “increasing U.S. military support to moderate Syrian opposition groups fighting ISIS and the Assad regime, like the Southern Front, not asking U.S. troops to do the fighting in their stead.”
She also argued that the U.S. should “under some circumstances consider using limited military coercion – primarily strikes using standoff weapons – to retaliate against Syrian military targets.” Thus, she adds, “I do NOT advocate putting U.S. combat troops on the ground to take territory from Assad’s forces or remove Assad from power.”
OK. No regime change then. Just “limited military coercion”. And don’t forget the creation of a “no-bomb zone”; as in “if you bomb the folks we support, we will retaliate using standoff means to destroy [Russian] proxy forces, or, in this case, Syrian assets.'” As if the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) – and the Russian Air Force – would just sit there playing poker and waiting for the American bombs.
You will all remember that this is strikingly similar to Hillary Clinton’s own “policy” in Syria – which, semantically, amounted to a “no-fly zone”. In the context of the Syrian theatre of war, “no-fly zone” actually means regime change. No doubt Hillary Clinton has been a keen reader of George Orwell’s Politics and the English Language.
And Pepe brings it together:
So if Flournoy is our Harpy Number Two in the new war series Syria Remixed, she’s obviously in synch with Harpy Number One Hillary. Hillary’s harpy eagle record, even partly summarized, is well known to all; in favor of the bombing and destruction of Iraq; major cheerleader of all things GWOT (Global War on Terror); cheerleader of the Afghan surge; the “no-fly” zone in Syria and more as a means towards regime change; rabid “containment” of Iran even after the nuclear deal struck in Vienna last year; Putin as the new “Hitler”; and the show goes on.
All this, of course, safely ensconced by all those dodgy nations – mostly the petrodollar gang – and companies that donated fortunes to the Clinton Foundation as a prelude to a healthy increase in weapons deals while she was Madam Secretary of State.
So we have Harpies One and Two seeing most of the world as a “threat” (the Pentagon identifies five; Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and “terrorism”, in that order; the Harpies may have add-ons). They identify a slew of core American interests challenged non-stop by these threats.They are enthusiastic cheerleaders of humanitarian imperialism and/or downright regime change. And they want to give hell to strategic rivals China and Russia.
This list of war harpies is by no means exhaustive and women such as the late Jeane Kirkpatrick, Jen Psaki, Marie Harf, Anne Applebaum should not feel left out. They have done great service to the war agenda.
Looking at all their resumes, it’s clear that more or less all of the above specimens are highly intelligent women, but what good is intelligence if you don’t have a conscience? Psychopaths use their intelligence for destructive purposes, and that’s exactly what these women have done, and continue to do. And even if they may not be psychopaths themselves, the fact that they work as enablers for psychopaths and their psychopathic agenda makes them little better.