• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди1039
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы723
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации104
      • Показать ещё
      Издания131
      • Показать ещё
      Формат29
      Компании360
      • Показать ещё
      Разное502
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели12
      • Показать ещё
      Сферы3
29 апреля, 14:00

О бедной России замолвите слово

То, что произошло в РФ в предпоследнее воскресенье первого месяца весны, как минимум удивило. На площади и улицы почти сотни городов верноподданнической России вышли не побоявшиеся репрессий граждане, чтобы заявить о своем несогласии с тем, как идут дела в их стране.

26 апреля, 18:18

NI: американцы не готовы воевать за Украину

По словам Пребла, госсекретарь США Рекс Тиллерсон около двух недель назад совершил то, что в глазах многих знатоков внешней политики считается непростительным грехом — задался вопросом, почему американских налогоплательщиков должна интересовать Украина. Многие раскритиковали его за это. Например, Энн Эпплбаум из The Washington Post заявила, что госсекретарю, чтобы понять ценность "защищенной, прозападной Украины", следует оценить важность создания НАТО почти 70 лет назад.

25 апреля, 20:13

Nine former ambassadors tell Congress to protect U.N. funding

Former U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations on Tuesday urged Congress not to cut the organization’s funding, as President Donald Trump’s skinny budget proposes, warning that the U.S. could pay the price in the long run.“We understand frustration in Congress at what can seem a needlessly slow pace of critical management, budgetary, and accountability reforms at the U.N., all of which we have fought hard to advance during our respective tenures at the helm of the U.S. Mission in New York,” the nine ambassadors wrote in a letter to House and Senate leaders.“We fought those battles differently and did not always agree. Nevertheless, in our experience, the U.S. is much more effective in pressing reforms when it stays engaged and pays its dues and bills,” the letter said. “Withholding or slashing funding for the U.N., by contrast, weakens our hand, alienates allies whose support is critical to our reform priorities, undermines essential U.N. activities that promote core American interests and values, and costs us more over the long term. It also cedes the agenda to countries that can be hostile to our interests and more than willing to see the U.S. give up its seat at the table.”Trump’s proposed budget eliminates funding for U.N. climate change programs and slashes funding overall for the U.N. and related agencies, including peacekeeping efforts and international organizations.Trump hosted ambassadors on the U.N. Security Council at the White House on Monday. He called the U.N. “an underperformer” but noted it “has tremendous potential” and argued that its budget needs to be examined because “costs have absolutely gone out of control.” He also jokingly jabbed Nikki Haley, America’s current U.N. ambassador, asking if everyone likes her. “Otherwise she could be easily replaced, right?” he quipped. “No, we won’t do that. I promise you we won’t do that.”The former ambassadors, a combination of diplomats who served under Republican and Democratic administrations, include Samantha Power, Susan Rice, John Negroponte, Bill Richardson, Madeleine Albright, Edward Perkins, Thomas Pickering, Donald McHenry and Andrew Young.In the letter, they acknowledged the U.N.’s shortcomings — they said it’s imperfect and needs reform — but insisted that it “remains an indispensable instrument for advancing the global stability and prosperity on which U.S. interests and priorities depend.”“We therefore urge you to support U.S. leadership at the U.N., including through continued payment of our assessed and voluntary financial contributions to the Organization,” they wrote. Highlighting the conflict in the Middle East, a saber-rattling North Korea and the growing threat of extremism and organized crime, the former diplomats argued that “[t]he U.S., despite its wealth and military might, cannot afford to take on these issues alone, nor should it have to.”

18 апреля, 03:32

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT CALLS ON FRENCH WOMEN TO VOTE FOR MARINE LE PEN: Albright: ‘Special place in hel…

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT CALLS ON FRENCH WOMEN TO VOTE FOR MARINE LE PEN: Albright: ‘Special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.’ Well, there you have it. . . . (Joke stolen from Kate Litvak on Facebook).

Выбор редакции
11 апреля, 00:00

An Indispensable Nation After All

William Murchison, Investor's Business DailyWe start to see again why Madeleine Albright, when she was secretary of state, called America "the indispensable nation." It was because, back then and for a long time before (say, from 1941 forward), we were just that: indispensable in terms of power and generally beneficent intentions. How indispensable we have permitted ourselves to remain is a matter open to animated discussion. On the other hand, where's the competition? Know any other country these days with comparable power and a sense of, at the very least, residual decency?

10 апреля, 09:00

Глобалисты побеждают Трампа

РИА Катюща опубликова важное обозрение ситуации с президентом США, дав заголовок „Глобалисты продавили Трампа”. Отвлекаясь от содержания публикации, было бы интересно и полезно понять, а кто это такие, глобалисты? Очевидно, имеются в виду деятели вроде Х. Клинтон или Б. Обамы. Уже что-то, хотя вопросы остаются. А что такое глобализация? Если обратиться к новым словарям вроде […]

20 марта, 22:55

«Это скажется на отношениях Ротшильдов и Рокфеллеров, но не на России!»

Умер «легендарный предприниматель» Дэвид Рокфеллер. Он принадлежал к той породе представителей «мировой закулисы», которые, как сказал президент Путин, «корчат из себя вершителей судеб мира». Вопрос: «А нам-то что?»

10 марта, 09:00

Чьи портреты поместят на новые доллары

Ни для кого не  секрет, что Америкой правит Федеральная резервная система США. Главные акционеры Федерального резерва –  хозяева денег, они же – хозяева Америки. Для укрепления и сохранения власти хозяевам денег нужна «своя» история. Поэтому историю переписывают  – не только в учебниках и голливудских фильма, но также и на денежных купюрах. За последнее столетие американская […]

09 марта, 14:11

Русская разведка влезла в головы президентов США

Западные ученые с гордостью рапортуют – они научились манипулировать памятью мышей. Но куда им до специалистов наших спецслужб, которые через информационные системы смогли «поковыряться» в сознании американской политической элиты

09 марта, 07:47

На алтарь американского величия

Члены «Церкви Спасителя Америки», как назвал их наш постоянный автор Эндрю Басевич, в эти дни в некотором смятении и немного взволнованы новым «Папой» и его сбившимися с правильной стези кардиналами, ныне прочно устроившимися в Вашингтоне. Возможно, не было более потрясающего — или шокирующего — свидетельства этого, чем краткий комментарий, появившийся на первой странице «Нью-Йорк Таймс» на прошлой неделе в статье о месяце «суматохи» в Белом Доме Трампа, но это не проявилось в заголовках в национальном масштабе.

Выбор редакции
08 марта, 06:07

Madeleine Albright, Viola Davis Share Strategies to Help Women Succeed

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Oscar-award winning actress Viola Davis share practical steps we can take to forge a better, more equal world for women.

05 марта, 09:26

Pence at Gridiron dinner: 'We've all just gotta do better'

Amid jokes about his AOL email account and pet rabbit, Vice President Mike Pence on Saturday night urged journalists at the annual Gridiron Club dinner to "do better" by focusing on what "unites us more often as Americans."Speaking at the lighthearted Washington, D.C., soiree attended by many of Washington’s top journalists, Pence spoke seriously of the press being a check upon the government, but cautioned, “These days, and I say this with the deepest respect, it seems like in this short news cycle in which we live that too often stories will make Page 1 and drive news with, with just too little respect to the people who are affected or involved. "So let me just say to you as, not as your vice president, but just as a neighbor... I think we’ve all just gotta do better," he added, according to pool reports. The president, currently spending his weekend at his Mar-a-Lago club, did not attend the dinner. Trump, who maintains an adversarial relationship with the media that covers him, will also not be attending the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in April.The vice president's speech was largely light-hearted, containing some zingers about his use of a private email address during his time as governor of Indiana and his rabbit named Marlon Bundo, who he joked had his own Twitter handle #BOTUS. Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak was expected to attend the dinner, but canceled Friday.White House press secretary Sean Spicer was in attendance, along with Kellyanne Conway, senior adviser to Trump. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also addressed the dinner, representing the Democrats. Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst attended as the GOP representative and also spoke at the dinner.Also in attendance: Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Jeff Bezos, Penny Pritzker, Madeleine Albright, Josh Earnest, Valerie Jarrett, Sen. John Cornyn and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, according to the pool report.

02 марта, 18:45

Guantánamo's Last 100 Days: A Story That Never Was

Cross-posted with TomDispatch.com In the spring of 2016, I asked a student of mine to do me a favor and figure out which day would be the 100th before Barack Obama’s presidency ended. October 12th, he reported back, and then asked me the obvious question: Why in the world did I want to know? The answer was simple. Years before I had written a book about Guantánamo’s first 100 days and I was looking forward to writing an essay highlighting that detention camp’s last 100 days. I had been waiting for this moment almost eight years, since on the first day of his presidency Obama signed an executive order to close that already infamous offshore prison within a year.  I knew exactly what I would write. The piece would narrate the unraveling of that infamous detention facility, detail by detail, like a film running in reverse. I would have the chance to describe how the last detainees were marched onto planes (though not, as when they arrived, shackled to the floor, diapered, and wearing sensory-deprivation goggles as well).  I would mention the dismantling of the kitchen, the emptying of the garrison, and the halting of all activities. Fifteen years after it was first opened by the Bush administration as a crucial site in its Global War on Terror, I would get to learn the parting thoughts of both the last U.S. military personnel stationed there and the final detainees, just as I had once recorded the initial impressions of the first detainees and their captors when Gitmo opened in January 2002. I would be able to dramatize the inevitable interagency dialogues about security and safety, post-Guantánamo, and about preparing some of those detainees for American prison life. Though it had long been a distant dream, I was looking forward with particular relish to writing about the gates slamming shut on that symbol of the way the Bush administration had sent injustice offshore and about the re-opening of the federal courts to Guantánamo detainees, including some of those involved in the planning of the 9/11 attacks. I was eager to describe the sighs of relief of those who had fought against the very existence of that prison and what it had been like, year after year, to continue what had long seemed to many of them like a losing battle. I could almost envision the relief on the worn faces of the defense attorneys and psychologists who had come to know firsthand the torment of the Gitmo prisoners, some still in their teens, who had been consigned to that state of endless limbo, many of them tortured psychologically and sometimes physically. I also looked forward ― and call me the dreamiest of optimists here ― to collecting statements of remorse from government and military types who had at one time or another shared responsibility for the Gitmo enterprise. Unlike me, most critics and activist opponents of that detention facility had long ago given up hope that Obama would ever follow through on his initial executive order. Unlike me, most critics and activist opponents of that detention facility had long ago given up hope that Obama would ever follow through on his initial executive order. Across the years, the reasons for doing so were manifold. Some turned pessimistic in the spring of 2009 when, five months after he took the oath of office, the president let it be known that indefinite detention ― the holding of individuals without either charges or plans to try or release them ― would remain a key aspect of Washington’s policy going forward. A collective cry of outrage came from the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and other organizations that had long focused on the legal, moral, and political black hole of Gitmo. From there, it seemed like an endless slide to the idea that even closing Guantánamo wouldn’t finish off indefinite detention. (The heart and soul of Guantánamo, in other words, would simply be transposed to prisons in the U.S.) Some lost hope over the years as the process of challenging the detention of Gitmo’s prisoners in federal court ― known as filing a writ of habeas corpus ― increasingly proved a dead-end.  After a couple of years in which detainees were granted release by the lower court approximately 75% of the time, reversals and denials began to predominate, bringing the habeas process to a virtual halt in 2011, a sorry situation Brian Foster, a prominent habeas lawyer from Covington and Burling LLP, has laid out clearly. Then, in the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Congress instituted a ban on the transfer of any Gitmo detainee to the United States for any purpose whatsoever ― trial, further detention, or release. If federal courts wouldn’t deal with them and federal prisons couldn’t hold them, then how in the world could Guantánamo ever close? Still others lost hope as, in the Obama years, newly constituted military commissions that were meant to try the prisoners at Guantánamo became a collective fool’s errand. Since 2002, more prisoners (nine) have died there than have been successfully tried by those military commissions (eight). And of the eight convictions they got, two by trial and six by plea bargain, four have already been thrown out in whole or in part. In other words, those commissions, the Obama administration’s answer to detention without trial, never worked. Pre-trial hearings, underway for years, in the cases still pending are expected to continue well into the 16th year since the attacks for which the defendants are to be tried took place. The chief prosecutor for the five 9/11 defendants who were brought to Gitmo in 2006 and charged in 2012, has recently ― without the slightest sense of irony or remorse ― proposed that their trials begin in March 2018. With appeals, they might conceivably conclude in the third decade of this century. Pre-trial hearings, underway for years, in the cases still pending are expected to continue well into the 16th year since the attacks for which the defendants are to be tried took place. The Last 100 Days That Weren’t Add it all up and you had a steamroller of beyond-ominous facts suggesting that Guantánamo would never shut down. As the last days of the Obama presidency approached, it seemed as if I were the only person left with any faith that our 44th president would keep his day-one promise before leaving office. At times, I found my own optimism disturbing, but I couldn’t give it up and, to be fair to myself, I wasn’t just stubbornly refusing to add to the negativity around me.  There were reasons for my optimism, however Pollyanna-ish it might have been. After all, it was obvious that Gitmo was utterly shutdownable.  After a century of tackling issues related to national security, the federal courts were more than up to dealing with whatever was involved in such cases (despite the claims of congressional Republicans).  There was never any excuse for Guantánamo.  By the end of the Obama years, there had been federal prosecutions of nearly 500 individuals accused of terrorism, including both the perpetrators of lethal attacks and individuals who had trained with the al-Qaeda leadership, and unlike at Gitmo, federal courts had lawfully and effectively put the guilty behind bars. Classified evidence had been handled in a way that disclosed no sensitive information and yet allowed public trials to proceed. Juries had been repeatedly convened without risk to their well being, while perfectly reasonable security measures had been taken to protect courtrooms and court officers. True, the federal courts had largely run away from dealing with the widespread abuse and torture of prisoners in the war on terror, but in the one case in which a Guantánamo detainee, tortured at a CIA black site, had come into federal court, a judge had ruled that evidence obtained through torture could not be introduced and the trial had nevertheless proceeded swiftly to its conclusion. In addition, although habeas proceedings had been yielding ever fewer releases of Gitmo prisoners, the tempo of hearings elsewhere to determine whether such individuals could be cleared and freed without trial had speeded up radically. In 2011, President Obama had initiated periodic review boards meant to identify individual detainees who no longer (or, in a number of cases, had never) posed a danger for release. Then, in the fall of 2015, he appointed Lee Wolosky as special envoy for Guantánamo closure, again raising my hopes. I knew Wolosky, a no-nonsense lawyer who had served on the national security councils of both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and he seemed like the sort of man who would know how to broker the sensitive diplomatic deals that would get the job done.  In fact, his work would result in the release to various willing countries of 75 prisoners, nearly 40% of the Gitmo population Obama had inherited. By the time he left office and Donald Trump entered it, the prison population had dwindled to 41: five prisoners cleared for release who still remained there when Wolosky went off the job; 10 military commissions cases; and 26 detainees whom Miami Herald journalist Carol Rosenberg aptly termed “forever prisoners” (to be held in indefinite detention because they were considered too dangerous for release and yet there wasn’t enough evidence to bring them to trial). One more factor seemed to speak in favor of the logic of the prison being closed: the financial piece of the puzzle. One more factor seemed to speak in favor of the logic of the prison being closed: the financial piece of the puzzle. The price per prisoner of keeping Guantánamo open kept soaring with each successful transfer of detainees. When Obama first took office, with 174 detainees in custody, the government was spending $4 million per detainee annually. With 41 detainees remaining, the cost has shot up to nearly $11 million per prisoner per year.  This seemed to be potentially the most convincing argument of all, but as it turned out, Congress was unfazed by the extraordinary expense.  It mattered not at all that transferring such prisoners to, say, the supermax prison in Florence, Colorado, where the most notorious terrorism convicts are commonly held, would have dropped that cost to approximately $78,000 per year. And then there were those rumors that Obama might circumvent Congress entirely and simply close the prison by executive order. In fact, in February 2016 Congress rejected a closure plan submitted by the Pentagon and by July the Obama administration had decided not to pursue the option of an executive order to close the base. Above all, I knew one thing: if Obama ever actually made that decision, especially with President-elect Donald Trump intent on keeping the place open, it could be done remarkably rapidly. As I’d found out while researching my book on Guantánamo’s early days, the military unit assigned to open Guantánamo Bay in January 2002 had been given only 96 hours to put together an initial facility consisting of open cages, interrogation huts, latrines, showers, and guard quarters, as well as food services, equipment, and telecommunications set-ups, most of which had to come from the mainland.  There was no reason the prison couldn’t be similarly dismantled in a few days, especially since closure would initially only involve moving prisoners and guards, not taking apart the facility itself. It was easy enough to imagine the steps to closure: speed up the review process; convince Congress that $11 million per prisoner was an unacceptable price tag; and yes, even perhaps swallow for the moment the idea of indefinite detention in the United States.  Unfortunately, I wasn’t the president. A Utopian Op-Ed on Gitmo’s Closing As it turned out, of course, the pessimists couldn’t have been more on target. On Inauguration Day, Gitmo was still open, awaiting a new president who seems determined to fill it up all over again, ensuring that in the rest of the world ― and the Islamic world in particular ― the United States would forever be associated with a place into whose DNA was etched abuse, torture, and injustice. The war on terror, the forever war, would now have its forever prisoners as well. Today, Gitmo’s closure appears to be as inconceivable as shutting down the unending war on terror that birthed it. Today, Gitmo’s closure appears to be as inconceivable as shutting down the unending war on terror that birthed it. I will never, it seems, have the opportunity to compare the departure of its prisoners to their arrival, never be able to run that terrible film, that blot on our country, backwards. The legislative path is already being set for Gitmo to be eternally ours. In mid-February, 11 Republican senators wrote a letter requesting that President Trump suspend the periodic review boards and turn Guantánamo back into a prison that accepts detainees. (The last new detainee had been brought there in 2008, during the waning days of the presidency of George W. Bush.)  Now, the new administration has reportedly identified its first potential new detainee in nine years. It’s easy enough to see why this is a bad idea.  The backlash in the Muslim world (and not only there) will be intense and long lasting. Even a number of top-ranking officials from the Bush administration have come to this conclusion, including President Bush himself who noted that Guantánamo “had become a propaganda tool for our enemies and a distraction for our allies.” Former CIA Director David Petraeus has similarly pointed out that “the existence of Gitmo has indeed been used by the enemy against us.” Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen noted that Guantánamo “has been a recruiting symbol for those extremists and jihadists who would fight us.” Emphasizing America’s “dismal reputation,” former Republican Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, and James Baker joined their Democratic peers Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright in recommending its closure. For 15 years, opponents of Guantánamo have insisted that its existence could change the character ― and destiny ― of the country. In its refusal to honor domestic, military, or international law, it has already opened the door to a new exceptionalist vision of the law. Unfortunately, Guantánamo is now a fixture of our landscape, as much an institution as new standards for the surveillance of American citizens, which means I may never get to write that piece about its last 100 days unless I resort to fiction. If I did, I’d skip all the details about the prosaic negotiations that would undoubtedly have to go on to close it.  Instead, in my vision, the old-fashioned spirit of American justice and law would simply rise up organically from the body politic and reframe Guantánamo as the place of sadness and shame that it’s been from its earliest days. What I’d write would be too succinct for even the shortest utopian novel.  Think of it instead as the utopian op-ed that no paper will ever publish, the one in which the desire to be lawful and a deep belief that decency and security go hand in hand prevailed.  In my utopian fantasy, in the world I fear I will never see, in the American world whose absence I mourn to this day, Guantánamo will be closed not because of calculations related to its cost or the inefficiency of its military commissions or even global realpolitik.  It will be closed because it’s the only right thing to do.  Otherwise there will be another set of forever prisoners ― and I’m not thinking about the future terror suspects that Donald Trump will send there, presumably forever.  I’m thinking about us.  For as long as Gitmo remains open, whether we know it or not, we’re imprisoned there, too, and so is the American way of life. Karen J. Greenberg, a TomDispatch regular, is the director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School and author of The Least Worst Place: Guantánamo’s First 100 Days. Her latest book is Rogue Justice: The Making of the Security State. She will never write The Least Worst Place: Guantánamo’s Last 100 Days. Rose Sheela and Elizabeth Hilton contributed research for this article. Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, John Feffer’s dystopian novel Splinterlands, as well as Nick Turse’s Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead, and Tom Engelhardt’s latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=567276bbe4b0dfd4bcc0b02a,55af0e6de4b07af29d56cd5f -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

01 марта, 07:04

Хозяева денег переписывают историю Америки прямо на купюрах

Ни для кого не  секрет, что Америкой правит Федеральная резервная система США. Главные акционеры Федерального резерва –  хозяева денег, они же – хозяева Америки. Для укрепления и сохранения власти хозяевам денег нужна «своя» история. Поэтому историю переписывают  – не только в учебниках и голливудских фильма, но также и на денежных купюрах. За последнее столетие американская история в купюрах  была хорошо «отредактирована», и бумажные денежные знаки меняли своё оформление не единожды.Судя по всему, хозяева денег намерены продолжать эту работу. В апреле прошлого года тогдашний министр финансов Джейкоб Лью заявил, что к 2020 году денежные знаки достоинством в 5, 10 и 20 долларов поменяют дизайн.  Министр финансов представил дело таким образом, что планы переделки купюр – не прихоть власти, а «глас народа».

01 марта, 00:45

Why Americans Don't Win Wars Anymore

The new president trumpets 'America First,' but that's not what won the last popular war.

28 февраля, 06:45

Хозяева денег переписывают историю Америки прямо на купюрах

Ни для кого не  секрет, что Америкой правит Федеральная резервная система США. Главные акционеры Федерального резерва –  хозяева денег, они же – хозяева Америки. Для укрепления и сохранения власти хозяевам денег нужна «своя» история. Поэтому историю переписывают  – не только в учебниках и голливудских фильма, но также и на денежных купюрах. За последнее столетие американская история в купюрах  была хорошо...

27 февраля, 13:16

Trump's Alpha Male Foreign Policy

I spoke with three of the Alpha Ladies of national security, and they are not impressed.

23 февраля, 18:57

David Brooks And A Figment Of The Neoconservative Imagination

Angst in the Church of America the RedeemerCross-posted with TomDispatch.com Apart from being a police officer, firefighter, or soldier engaged in one of this nation’s endless wars, writing a column for a major American newspaper has got to be one of the toughest and most unforgiving jobs there is.  The pay may be decent (at least if your gig is with one of the major papers in New York or Washington), but the pressures to perform on cue are undoubtedly relentless. Anyone who has ever tried cramming a coherent and ostensibly insightful argument into a mere 750 words knows what I’m talking about.  Writing op-eds does not perhaps qualify as high art.  Yet, like tying flies or knitting sweaters, it requires no small amount of skill.  Performing the trick week in and week out without too obviously recycling the same ideas over and over again ― or at least while disguising repetitions and concealing inconsistencies ― requires notable gifts. David Brooks of the New York Times is a gifted columnist.  Among contemporary journalists, he is our Walter Lippmann, the closest thing we have to an establishment-approved public intellectual.  As was the case with Lippmann, Brooks works hard to suppress the temptation to rant.  He shuns raw partisanship.  In his frequent radio and television appearances, he speaks in measured tones.  Dry humor and ironic references abound.  And like Lippmann, when circumstances change, he makes at least a show of adjusting his views accordingly. For all that, Brooks remains an ideologue.  In his columns, and even more so in his weekly appearances on NPR and PBS, he plays the role of the thoughtful, non-screaming conservative, his very presence affirming the ideological balance that, until November 8th of last year, was a prized hallmark of “respectable” journalism.  Just as that balance always involved considerable posturing, so, too, with the ostensible conservatism of David Brooks: it’s an act. Praying at the Altar of American Greatness In terms of confessional fealty, his true allegiance is not to conservatism as such, but to the Church of America the Redeemer.  This is a virtual congregation, albeit one possessing many of the attributes of a more traditional religion.  The Church has its own Holy Scripture, authenticated on July 4, 1776, at a gathering of 56 prophets.  And it has its own saints, prominent among them the Good Thomas Jefferson, chief author of the sacred text (not the Bad Thomas Jefferson who owned and impregnated slaves); Abraham Lincoln, who freed said slaves and thereby suffered martyrdom (on Good Friday no less); and, of course, the duly canonized figures most credited with saving the world itself from evil: Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt, their status akin to that of saints Peter and Paul in Christianity.  The Church of America the Redeemer even has its own Jerusalem, located on the banks of the Potomac, and its own hierarchy, its members situated nearby in High Temples of varying architectural distinction. This ecumenical enterprise does not prize theological rigor. When it comes to shalts and shalt nots, it tends to be flexible, if not altogether squishy. It demands of the faithful just one thing: a fervent belief in America’s mission to remake the world in its own image. Although in times of crisis Brooks has occasionally gone a bit wobbly, he remains at heart a true believer.  In a March 1997 piece for The Weekly Standard, his then-employer, he summarized his credo.  Entitled “A Return to National Greatness,” the essay opened with a glowing tribute to the Library of Congress and, in particular, to the building completed precisely a century earlier to house its many books and artifacts.  According to Brooks, the structure itself embodied the aspirations defining America’s enduring purpose.  He called particular attention to the dome above the main reading room decorated with a dozen “monumental figures” representing the advance of civilization and culminating in a figure representing America itself.  Contemplating the imagery, Brooks rhapsodized: “The theory of history depicted in this mural gave America impressive historical roots, a spiritual connection to the centuries. And it assigned a specific historic role to America as the latest successor to Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome. In the procession of civilization, certain nations rise up to make extraordinary contributions... At the dawn of the 20th century, America was to take its turn at global supremacy.  It was America’s task to take the grandeur of past civilizations, modernize it, and democratize it.  This common destiny would unify diverse Americans and give them a great national purpose.” This February, 20 years later, in a column with an identical title, but this time appearing in the pages of his present employer, the New York Times, Brooks revisited this theme.  Again, he began with a paean to the Library of Congress and its spectacular dome with its series of “monumental figures” that placed America “at the vanguard of the great human march of progress.”  For Brooks, those 12 allegorical figures convey a profound truth. “America is the grateful inheritor of other people’s gifts.  It has a spiritual connection to all people in all places, but also an exceptional role.  America culminates history.  It advances a way of life and a democratic model that will provide people everywhere with dignity.  The things Americans do are not for themselves only, but for all mankind.” In 1997, in the midst of the Clinton presidency, Brooks had written that “America’s mission was to advance civilization itself.”  In 2017, as Donald Trump gained entry into the Oval Office, he embellished and expanded that mission, describing a nation “assigned by providence to spread democracy and prosperity; to welcome the stranger; to be brother and sister to the whole human race.”  Back in 1997, “a moment of world supremacy unlike any other,” Brooks had worried that his countrymen might not seize the opportunity that was presenting itself.  On the cusp of the twenty-first century, he worried that Americans had “discarded their pursuit of national greatness in just about every particular.”  The times called for a leader like Theodore Roosevelt, who wielded that classic “big stick” and undertook monster projects like the Panama Canal.  Yet Americans were stuck instead with Bill Clinton, a small-bore triangulator.  “We no longer look at history as a succession of golden ages,” Brooks lamented.  “And, save in the speeches of politicians who usually have no clue what they are talking about,” America was no longer fulfilling its “special role as the vanguard of civilization.” By early 2017, with Donald Trump in the White House and Steve Bannon whispering in his ear, matters had become worse still.  Americans had seemingly abandoned their calling outright.  “The Trump and Bannon Anschluss has exposed the hollowness of our patriotism,” wrote Brooks, inserting the now-obligatory reference to Nazi Germany.  The November 2016 presidential election had “exposed how attenuated our vision of national greatness has become and how easy it was for Trump and Bannon to replace a youthful vision of American greatness with a reactionary, alien one.”  That vision now threatens to leave America as “just another nation, hunkered down in a fearful world.” What exactly happened between 1997 and 2017, you might ask?  What occurred during that “moment of world supremacy” to reduce the United States from a nation summoned to redeem humankind to one hunkered down in fear? Trust Brooks to have at hand a brow-furrowing explanation.  The fault, he explains, lies with an “educational system that doesn’t teach civilizational history or real American history but instead a shapeless multiculturalism,” as well as with “an intellectual culture that can’t imagine providence.”  Brooks blames “people on the left who are uncomfortable with patriotism and people on the right who are uncomfortable with the federal government that is necessary to lead our project.”  An America that no longer believes in itself ― that’s the problem. In effect, Brooks revises Norma Desmond’s famous complaint about the movies, now repurposed to diagnose an ailing nation: it’s the politics that got small. Nowhere does he consider the possibility that his formula for “national greatness” just might be so much hooey. Between 1997 and 2017, after all, egged on by people like David Brooks, Americans took a stab at “greatness,” with the execrable Donald Trump now numbering among the eventual results. His very presence affirming the ideological balance that, until November 8th of last year, was a prized hallmark of “respectable” journalism. Just as that balance always involved considerable posturing, so, too, with the ostensible conservatism of David Brooks: it’s an act. Invading Greatness Say what you will about the shortcomings of the American educational system and the country’s intellectual culture, they had far less to do with creating Trump than did popular revulsion prompted by specific policies that Brooks, among others, enthusiastically promoted. Not that he is inclined to tally up the consequences. Only as a sort of postscript to his litany of contemporary American ailments does he refer even in passing to what he calls the “humiliations of Iraq.” A great phrase, that. Yet much like, say, the “tragedy of Vietnam” or the “crisis of Watergate,” it conceals more than it reveals.  Here, in short, is a succinct historical reference that cries out for further explanation. It bursts at the seams with implications demanding to be unpacked, weighed, and scrutinized.  Brooks shrugs off Iraq as a minor embarrassment, the equivalent of having shown up at a dinner party wearing the wrong clothes. Under the circumstances, it’s easy to forget that, back in 2003, he and other members of the Church of America the Redeemer devoutly supported the invasion of Iraq.  They welcomed war.  They urged it. They did so not because Saddam Hussein was uniquely evil ― although he was evil enough ― but because they saw in such a war the means for the United States to accomplish its salvific mission.  Toppling Saddam and transforming Iraq would provide the mechanism for affirming and renewing America’s “national greatness.” Anyone daring to disagree with that proposition they denounced as craven or cowardly.  Writing at the time, Brooks disparaged those opposing the war as mere “marchers.” They were effete, pretentious, ineffective, and absurd.  “These people are always in the streets with their banners and puppets.  They march against the IMF and World Bank one day, and against whatever war happens to be going on the next... They just march against.” Perhaps space constraints did not permit Brooks in his recent column to spell out the “humiliations” that resulted and that even today continue to accumulate.  Here in any event is a brief inventory of what that euphemism conceals: thousands of Americans needlessly killed; tens of thousands grievously wounded in body or spirit; trillions of dollars wasted; millions of Iraqis dead, injured, or displaced; this nation’s moral standing compromised by its resort to torture, kidnapping, assassination, and other perversions; a region thrown into chaos and threatened by radical terrorist entities like the Islamic State that U.S. military actions helped foster.  And now, if only as an oblique second-order bonus, we have Donald Trump’s elevation to the presidency to boot. In refusing to reckon with the results of the war he once so ardently endorsed, Brooks is hardly alone.  Members of the Church of America the Redeemer, Democrats and Republicans alike, are demonstrably incapable of rendering an honest accounting of what their missionary efforts have yielded. Brooks belongs, or once did, to the Church’s neoconservative branch. But liberals such as Bill Clinton, along with his secretary of state Madeleine Albright, were congregants in good standing, as were Barack Obama and his secretary of state Hillary Clinton.  So, too, are putative conservatives like Senators John McCain, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio, all of them subscribing to the belief in the singularity and indispensability of the United States as the chief engine of history, now and forever. Back in April 2003, confident that the fall of Baghdad had ended the Iraq War, Brooks predicted that “no day will come when the enemies of this endeavor turn around and say, ‘We were wrong. Bush was right.’” Rather than admitting error, he continued, the war’s opponents “will just extend their forebodings into a more distant future.” Yet it is the war’s proponents who, in the intervening years, have choked on admitting that they were wrong. Or when making such an admission, as did both John Kerry and Hillary Clinton while running for president, they write it off as an aberration, a momentary lapse in judgment of no particular significance, like having guessed wrong on a TV quiz show.  Rather than requiring acts of contrition, the Church of America the Redeemer has long promulgated a doctrine of self-forgiveness, freely available to all adherents all the time. “You think our country’s so innocent?” the nation’s 45th president recently barked at a TV host who had the temerity to ask how he could have kind words for the likes of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Observers professed shock that a sitting president would openly question American innocence. In fact, Trump’s response and the kerfuffle that ensued both missed the point. No serious person believes that the United States is “innocent.” Worshipers in the Church of America the Redeemer do firmly believe, however, that America’s transgressions, unlike those of other countries, don’t count against it. Once committed, such sins are simply to be set aside and then expunged, a process that allows American politicians and pundits to condemn a “killer” like Putin with a perfectly clear conscience while demanding that Donald Trump do the same. What the Russian president has done in Crimea, Ukraine, and Syria qualifies as criminal. What American presidents have done in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya qualifies as incidental and, above all, besides the point. Rather than confronting the havoc and bloodshed to which the United States has contributed, those who worship in the Church of America the Redeemer keep their eyes fixed on the far horizon and the work still to be done in aligning the world with American expectations. At least they would, were it not for the arrival at center stage of a manifestly false prophet who, in promising to “make America great again,” inverts all that “national greatness” is meant to signify. For Brooks and his fellow believers, the call to “greatness” emanates from faraway precincts ― in the Middle East, East Asia, and Eastern Europe.  For Trump, the key to “greatness” lies in keeping faraway places and the people who live there as far away as possible. Brooks et al. see a world that needs saving and believe that it’s America’s calling to do just that.  In Trump’s view, saving others is not a peculiarly American responsibility. Events beyond our borders matter only to the extent that they affect America’s well-being. Trump worships in the Church of America First, or at least pretends to do so in order to impress his followers. That Donald Trump inhabits a universe of his own devising, constructed of carefully arranged alt-facts, is no doubt the case. Yet, in truth, much the same can be said of David Brooks and others sharing his view of a country providentially charged to serve as the “successor to Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome.” In fact, this conception of America’s purpose expresses not the intent of providence, which is inherently ambiguous, but their own arrogance and conceit. Out of that conceit comes much mischief. And in the wake of mischief come charlatans like Donald Trump.  Andrew J. Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular, is the author of America’s War for the Greater Middle East:  A Military History, now out in paperback. Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, John Feffer’s dystopian novel Splinterlands, as well as Nick Turse’s Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead, and Tom Engelhardt’s latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

16 февраля, 01:02

Осенью этого года Европа будет рукоплескать Трампу

На прошлой неделе 97 американских корпораций, включая Apple, Facebook и другие, передали в суды Сиэтла и Сан-Франциско совместное экспертное заключение в поддержку иска против иммиграционного указа президента США.

07 февраля, 21:12

BRENDAN O’NEILL: The Political Class’s Anti-Trump Hysteria Is Actually A Means Of Self-Whitewashing…

BRENDAN O’NEILL: The Political Class’s Anti-Trump Hysteria Is Actually A Means Of Self-Whitewashing. Let’s leave to one side how implicitly anti-democratic is this haughty refusal to confer legitimacy on Trump. How it demeans, not only Trump (which is fine — demean away), but also the 62 million people who voted for him. After all, what […]

03 июля 2016, 13:10

Три гарпии вернулись!

Три гарпии вернулись! CounterPunchСША Автор: Пепе Эскобар Рубрика: След Анаконды Это были времена, когда Ливия («мы пришли, мы увидели, он умер») предложила миру кровавый гуманитарный империалистический спектакль, звездами которого выступили Три Американских Гарпии: Хиллари Клинтон, Саманта Пауэр и Сьюзан Райс; на самом-то деле их было четыре — если учесть наставницу и единомышленницу Хиллари, — Мадлен Олбрайт.

25 марта 2016, 08:03

«И нет особого смысла бояться смерти…» Приговор Радовану Караджичу

24 марта 2016 г. Международный трибунал по бывшей Югославии МТБЮ) вынес приговор бывшему президенту Республики Сербской Радовану Караджичу. (1) Он был признан виновным в совершении геноцида, военных преступлений и преступлений против человечности и приговорён к 40 годам лишения свободы.  После уничтожения Югославии Радован Караджич стал одним из первых обвиняемых МТБЮ. Впервые обвинительный акт против него был подписан 25 июля...

31 мая 2015, 21:16

Движущие силы в политике США

О скрытых и явных процессах, а также об изменениях в политической жизни США беседуют Дмитрий Перетолчин и политолог Константин Черемных

11 января 2015, 17:18

ЦНАБ (CNAS) – демократический оплот колониального империализма (Ястребы США против Обамы)

Вашингтон не проводит единую внешнюю политику - он действует противоречиво и лишь в ответ на внешние вызовы, а «либеральные ястребы» объединяются вокруг генерала Дэвида Петреуса и Центра новой американской безопасности (ЦНАБ). Тьерри Мейсан представляет нам этот мозговой центр, который сегодня играет ту же роль, что и Проект нового американского века при Буше – обеспечивать американскую экспансию и доминирование над всём миром. Сирийский кризис, выход из которого был предложен ещё во время первой конференции в Женеве в июне 2012 г., продолжается, несмотря на все соглашения, заключённые с США. По-видимому, администрация Обамы не подчиняется президенту, и она разделена на две политические линии: с одной стороны, империалисты, склонные к разделу мира с Китаем и, возможно, с Россией (это позиция президента Обамы), а, с другой стороны, империалистические экспансионисты, объединившиеся вокруг Хиллари Клинтон и генерала Дэвида Петреуса. Ко всеобщему удивлению, отставка директора ЦРУ и госсекретаря после переизбрания Барака Обамы не только не положила конец разногласиям в администрации, но и обострила их. Именно экспансионисты возобновили войну против Корейской народной республики под предлогом кибер-атаки против Sony Pictures, якобы предпринятой Пхеньяном. Президент Обама, в конечном счёте, согласился с их доводами и подписал декрет о «санкциях». Представляется, что сторонники имперской экспансии первоначально объединились вокруг Центра новой американской безопасности, который в Демократической партии играл роль ту же самую роль, что и Проект нового американского века (а сегодня также и Foreign Policy Initiative) в Республиканской партии. Важную роль они играли и во время первого мандата Барака Обамы, и по некоторым данным образовали «глубинное государство», откуда продолжают дёргать за верёвочки. Либеральные ястребы Центр новой американской безопасности был создан в 2007 г. Куртом Кэмпбеллом и Мишель Флурнуа. Ранее оба эти интеллектуала работали в Центре стратегических и международных исследований (ЦСМИ - Center for Strategic and International Studies). В нём спустя два месяца после событий 11 сентября они руководили публикацией книги To Prevail : An American Strategy for the Campaign Against Terrorism (Всё для победы: американская стратегия по борьбе с терроризмом) [1]. В книге развивалась идея о том, что необходимо атаковать не только террористические группировки, о чём говорил президент Буш, но и государства, если им самим не удавалось эти группировки уничтожить на своей территории. Вдохновившись работами оперативной группы по борьбе с терроризмом из ЦСМИ, они выступали за значительное увеличение разведывательных агентств для наблюдения за всем миром. Короче, Кэмпбелл и Флурнуа принимали официальные представления о терактах и оправдывали «войну против терроризма», которая на целое десятилетие погрузила в траур весь мир. В 2003 году Кэмпбелл и Флурнуа вместе с другими тринадцатью демократами-интеллектуалами подписали документ под названием Progressive Internationalism : A Democratic National Security Strategy (Прогрессивный интернационализм: демократическая стратегия национальной безопасности) [2]. Этот манифест поддерживал все войны после 11 сентября и критиковал дипломатическую слабость президента Буша. После выборов кандидата-демократа в 2004 г. подписанты намеревались продвигать американский имперский проект (сторонником которого был Джордж Буш-младший) при этом критикуя его за то, что он оказывал пагубное влияние на руководителей, и, в частности, сеял сомнения среди союзников. Всем подписантам тогда приклеили ярлык «либеральных ястребов». ЦНАБ Во время своего создания в 2007 г. ЦНАБ выражал стремление обновить американскую стратегическую мысль после Комиссии Бейкера-Гамильтона и отставки министра Обороны Дональда Рамсфельда. На открытии центра присутствовали такие лица как Мадлен Олбрайт, Хиллари Клинтон и Чак Хейгел. В ту пору Вашингтон пытался выпутаться из трясины, в которую он попал в Ираке. Кемпбелл и Флурнуа выступали за военное решение, которое позволило бы американским войскам продолжать оккупировать Ирак, не истощая при этом свои силы. Для продолжения имперской экспансии американский империализм должен был прежде всего выработать определённую антитеррористическую стратегию, которая позволила бы сократить численность американских войск в Ираке. Нет никакого противоречия в том, что Кемпбелл и Флурнуа работали совместно с генералом Дэвидом Петреусом, которого только что назначили командующим военной Коалицией в Ираке, потому что он был автором пособия по предотвращению смуты в сухопутных войсках США. Они склоняют на свою сторону австралийского эксперта Дэвида Кикуллена, который станет гуру генерала Петреуса и разработчиком плана Surge (Удар). Согласно этому плану переориентация иракских повстанцев должна осуществляться путём использования двух факторов (пряник и кнут): с одной стороны, платить деньги боевикам, которые перейдут на сторону агрессора и будут устанавливать порядок на своей территории, а, с другой стороны, оказывать на них принудительное воздействие путём временного усиления военного присутствия США. Эта стратегия будет успешно использована: страна вначале погружается в фазу интенсивной гражданской войны, а затем после глубокой разрухи она медленно возвращается в состояние покоя. Но на самом деле частичная переориентация иракского сопротивления стала возможной лишь потому, что оно было организовано на племенной основе. Весь этот период ЦНАБ и генерала Петреуса водой не разлить. Килкуллен становится сначала советником Петреуса, а затем госсекретаря Кондолизы Райс. Сплав этот настолько прочен, что полковник Джон Нейгл, советник Петреуса, станет президентом ЦНАБа после того, как Кемпбелл и Флурнуа войдут в администрацию Обамы. Особенность ЦНАК состоит в том, что он является мозговым центром демократов, но с ним сотрудничают и в него входят республиканские ястребы. Впрочем, он не отказывается от встреч и дебатов с членами Проекта нового американского века. Финансирование центра осуществляется производителями вооружений и компаниями, сотрудничающими с оборонным ведомством (AccentureFederal Services, BAE Systems, Boeing, DRS Technologies, Northrop Grumman), финансовыми компаниями (Bernard L. Schwartz Investments, Prudential Financial), фондами (Carnegie Corporation of New York, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, PloughsharesFund, Smith Richardson Foundation, ZakFamily Charitable Trust) и иностранными правительствами (Израиль, Япония, Тайвань). Во время предвыборной кампании Кемпбелл и Флурнуа издают для будущего президента рекомендации The Inheritance and the Way Forward (Наследие прошлого и путь в будущее) [3]. Начиная с периода президентства Буша они ставят под сомнение принцип «превентивной войны» и использование пыток. Кроме того, они выступают за переориентацию войны с терроризмом с тем, чтобы избежать «столкновения цивилизаций», которое могло бы лишить Вашингтон его мусульманских союзников. Администрация Обамы После избрания президентом Барак Обама поручает Мишель Флурнуа контроль за перестройкой оборонного ведомства. По логике, она становится заместителем министра Обороны по политической части, то есть она должна вырабатывать новую оборонную стратегию. Она при этом считается вторым лицом в министерстве и распоряжается бюджетом в 200 миллионов долларов. Курт Кемпбелл, в свою очередь, назначается в госдепартамент и руководит в нём отделом по Дальневосточному и Тихоокеанскому регионам. И Кемпбелл, и Флурнуа придерживаются стратегии типа «оплот». Согласно этой стратегии США должны готовиться к будущему столкновению с Китаем. С этой точки зрения, они должны постепенно передислоцировать свои вооружённые силы из Европы и Большого Среднего Востока на Дальний Восток. ЦНАБ настолько популярен, что его сотрудники скоро войдут в состав администрации Обамы: Ренд Бирс станет секретарём госбезопасности, Эштон Картер, замминистра Обороны по закупкам, а затем министр Обороны, Сьюзан Райс, представитель ООН, а затем советник по национальной безопасности, Роберт Уорк, заместитель министра Обороны и далее: Шон Бримли, специальный советник министра Обороны, а затем директор по планированию в Совете национальной безопасности, Прайс Флойд, ассистент помощника министра Обороны по связям с общественностью, Элис Хант, специальный ассистент в министерстве Обороны, Колин Кал, ассистент министра Обороны по Ближнему Востоку, затем советник по национальной безопасности при вице-президенте, Джеймс Миллер, заместитель помощника министра обороны США по вопросам политики, Эрик Пирс, заместитель министра Обороны, ответственный за связи с Конгрессом, Сара Сьюэлл, назначена в 2014 году заместителем госсекретаря по вопросам демократии и прав человека, Уэнди Шерман, назначена в 2011 году заместителем госсекретаря по политическим вопросам, Викрам Сингх, специальный советник министра обороны по Афганистану и Пакистану, Гейл Смит, директор по развитию и демократии при Совете национальной безопасности, Джеймс Стейнберг, заместитель госсекретаря, Джим Томас, заместитель помощника министра Обороны США по финансам, Эдвард (Тед) Уорнер III, советник министра Обороны по контролю над вооружениями. В настоящее время ЦНАБ уже готовит программу для будущего президента США. Влияние ЦНАБ Мишель Флурнуа всё время стремилась занять пост министра Обороны, но не была допущена на эту должность в 2012 году, так как считалось, что она слишком тесно связана с Израилем. Однако сегодня она присутствует почти во всех инстанциях министерства Оброны, занятых планированием: она является членом научного Совета Обороны (Defense Science Board), политического Совета Обороны (Defense Policy Board) и консультативного президентского совета по разведке (President’s Intelligence AdvisoryBoard). Видно, что все её политические рекомендации учитываются как по «Большому Среднему Востоку», так и по Дальнему Востоку. ЦНАБ поддержал усилия Уэнди Шермана по возобновлению дипломатических отношений с Тегераном. Было отчётливо заявлено, что проблема Ирана в большей степени связана не с ядерным вопросом, а с экспортом иранской революции. Им была предложена серия чрезвычайно суровых мер по урезанию иранских трубопроводов в Африке, Латинской Америке и на Ближнем Востоке [4]. В отношении Сирии ЦНАБ считает, что невозможно свергнуть власть в республике в короткий срок. Поэтому он выдвинул «стратегию турникета» : использовать сложившийся против Исламского государства консенсус и принудить все вовлечённые в конфликт государства оказать давление на Дамаск и оппозиционные формирования для того, чтобы добиться военной деэскалации, при этом не вступая в коалицию с президентом аль-Ассадом против Исламского государства. Будут предприняты усилия по включению в состав правительства республики представителей проатлантической оппозиции и предоставлению гуманитарной и материально-технической помощи в районы, занятые повстанцами, с тем, чтобы привлечь к ним внимание. После того, как проатлантисты войдут в правительство, их задача будет состоять в том, чтобы распознать все секреты государственного аппарата, чтобы после этого уничтожить его. Но главная цель этого плана состоит в том, чтобы потребовать для повстанцев, которые отказываются войти в правительство, всю сирийскую пустыню. А эта пустыня представляет около 70% всей территории, и в ней расположены основные газовые месторождения [5]. Особое внимание в ЦНАБ уделяется Интернету. Речь идёт об ограничении правительственной цензуры с тем, чтобы облегчить контроль со стороны АНБ [6]. Вместе с тем там обеспокоены тем, что народный Китай защищает себя от шпионажа со стороны АНБ [7]. В тихоокеанском регионе ЦНАБ выступает за сближение с Индией, Малазией и Индонезией. С этой целью разработан план совершенствования механизма, направленного против Северной Кореи. Ответственные лица ЦНАБ из бывшего органа по сотрудничеству демократов с республиканскими неоконсерваторами постепенно превратился в главный исследовательский центр колониального империализма. Кроме Курта Кемпбелла и Мишель Флурнуа в состав администрации входят: генерал Джон Аллен, командующий Коалицией сил по борьбе с ИГИЛ, Ричард Эрмитейдж, бывший помощник госсекретаря, Ричард Данциг, вице-президент компании Rand Corporation, Джозеф Либерман, бывший пресс-секретарь израильского Сената, генерал Джеймс Маттис, бывший командующий ЦентрКома. ЦНАБ и в дальнейшем будет развиваться, потому что теперь он является главным мозговым центром, способным повлиять на оборонный бюджет и перевести экономику страны на военные рельсы. [1] To Prevail: An American Strategy for the Campaign Against Terrorism, Csis Significant Issues Series, CSIS, ноябрь 2001. [2] Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy, Институт прогрессивной политики (Progressive Policy Institute), 30 октября, 2003 г. [3] The Inheritance and the Way Forward, Курь Кемпбелл, Мишель Флурнуа, ЦНАБ (CNAS), 2007. [4] Pushback Countering the Iran Action Network, Скотт Модель и Дэвид Ашер, Центр новой американской безопасности (Center for a New American Security), сентябрь 2013 г. [5] The Tourniquet. A Strategy for Defeating the Islamic State and Saving Syria and Iraq, Марк Линч, Центр новой американской безопасности (Center for a New American Security), октябрь 2014. А также How This Ends. A Blueprint for De-Escalation in Syria, Дафна Ранд и Николас Герас, Центр новой американской безопасности (Center for a New American Security), ноябрь 2014 г. « Американский «мирный план» для Сирии », Тьерри Мейсан, Перевод Эдуард Феоктистов, Al-Watan (Сирия), Сеть Вольтер, 1 января 2015. [6] Bringing Liberty Online. Reenergizing the Internet Freedom Agenda in a Post-Snowden Era, Ричард Фонтен, Центр новой американской безопасности (Center for a New American Security), сентябрь 2014 г. [7] Warring State: China’s Cybersecurity Strategy, Эми Чанг, Центр новой американской безопасности ( Center for a New American Security), декабрь 2014г. http://www.voltairenet.org/article186374.html