Flagging Ratings=War (?)
One of the most predictably prevalent ways unpopular leaders rally their citizens into supporting them is by engaging in military conflict with other, usually weaker, countries.
One of the most predictably prevalent ways unpopular leaders rally their citizens into supporting them is by engaging in military conflict with other, usually weaker, countries.
We saw this in the 1980s when British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher started a 10-week war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands and the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands.
It was so “successful,” our own president at the time, Ronald Reagan, decided to try to boost his own flagging poll numbers the following year with an invasion of the small Caribbean island nation of Grenada.
Reagan’s successor George H.W. Bush’s approval rating spiked after American-led forces drove Iraqi soldiers out of Kuwait. (It’s interesting to note that we had been previously allied with Iraq and supplied its then-leader Saddam Hussein with weapons he was using in his war against Iran — which we were also arming at the same time. See the history of the Iran-Contra scandal.)
To his biographer, Bush’s son, George W. Bush, criticized his father’s decision not to occupy Iraq, admitting in 1999 — before running for president:
One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade — if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.
As president, Bush rode the wave of post-9/11 nationalism into an illegal war on Iraq, a country that never attacked us and posed no threat to American security. All those “weapons of mass destruction” Saddam Hussein had been supposedly stockpiling never materialized, and then-Vice President Dick Cheney’s former company, Halliburton, made billions in no-bid military contracts.
They were re-elected in 2004 with the aforementioned “capital” they tried — and failed--spending on privatizing Social Security.
Is there any wonder, then, we’re now having serious conversations about the absurd notion of annexing (i.e., stealing) Greenland and making Canada the “fifty-first state”?
Look at what this regime has been destroying the past two and a half months.
Look at all the protests exploding across the country.
Look at the convicted felon’s plunging poll numbers.
A red herring is afoot.
Former naval intelligence officer Malcolm Nance laid it all out in an alarming recent Substack essay titled “A War is Coming …Where Will the Blow Fall First?”
He explains:
Be prepared for another dramatic shift in US policy that will affect every one of you reading this. Apparently, the Trump regime is preparing for two major blows to US foreign policy. They are making it clear they intend to invade and seize Greenland and they are also silently preparing to attack Iran with strategic bombers.
His evidence?
“The Trump regime quietly started moving 1/3 of America’s strategic bomb force from its home base in Missouri to a secret remote airstrip in the middle of the Indian Ocean called Diego Garcia,” Nance adds.
In late March a mass of US Air Force in flight refueling tankers were seen staging all across the Pacific Ocean from California. This indicated that an air armada was being formed and needed nonstop in-flight refueling. Within a day, six B2 Spirit stealth bombers were detected landing in Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean. I’ve been to Diego Garcia many times and the only way to describe it is rocky sand island with an airstrip. It has always been the US Department of defense strategy, when using the B2 was to fly nonstop round the world to their target zone, release their ordinance and then return back to Missouri, or continue on and land in Guam for refueling. Virtually every previous mission was flown by a single aircraft. To see six of them stage together with all of their maintenance and armaments crews is a clear indicator that Trump intends to send a signal to Iran that he is putting in place resources to be able to attack them.
Why would the White House be doing this?
Nance writes:
Trump sent a letter to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei demanding they stop developing nuclear weapons and return to the negotiating table. Iran rejected the proposal out of hand, quoting the Signal app scandal noting that Trump’s cabinet says one thing in public while plotting in private.
This would be risible if it weren’t so dire.
In 2018, the former host of Celebrity Apprentice removed the US from the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), otherwise known as the Iran Nuclear Deal, intending to provide Iran a series of financial incentives to curtail its nuclear production. Iran was complying--until the pretender to the presidency decided it “was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.”
Now he wants Iran to return to the negotiating table--or else.
Again, quoting Nance:
On the Israeli side, reports are increasing that Netanyahu met with Trump in Washington and got agreement to conduct a joint attack and strike Iran with the full might of its air force in cooperation with the Americans.
One thing is for certain. If this attack is carried out the entire Middle East will be set on fire. Iran has very limited options to strike the United States, but it can strike America’s closest Arab ally, Saudi Arabia. Over the past two decades, Iran has managed to disable the entire Saudi oil industry through cyber attacks, and ballistic missile attacks from Yemen.
Concerning Greenland, the Oval Office inhabitant said he will “not rule out” using military force to seize it.
Greenland is a territory of Denmark, a NATO country. An assault on Greenland and/or Canada is an act of war against a NATO country. The outcome of that is world war three — precisely what a certain Russian dictator whose surname is conveniently nestled within “Rasputin” would love to see since it would pit the United States against the liberal democratic alliance we spend the past 80 years building.
And en route to Greenland: Canada.
Is a false-flag operation in the offing?
We are already in an economic war thanks to the sweeping tariffs the White House has imposed — except, coincidentally, on Russia.
Actual hot wars have started over trade before.
Maybe we don’t need a false flag; the seeds of our own demise are being sown right out in the open every day.
If a conflict occurs, there is going to be a lot of propaganda intended to guilt us into rallying around the flag. Criticism the likes of which we are seeing now will be branded “un-American” just as it was during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for which, it turns out, we were right after all.
And the corrupt administration might get the bump it seeks.
Mark Twain is attributed as saying, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”
But this could be point at which that changes. Maybe their ploy won’t work this time.