One of the most powerful ever measured!

Foreign Affairs Are Mercenaries a Way to Split the Difference on Regime Change?  A new proposal for “dealing with” Venezuela’s dictator has its own perils. The world is filled with brutal dictatorships that oppress their people. These regimes also often impoverish their populations, both materially and spiritually. Even when rulers of such systems promote prosperity, governing elites skim sometimes enormous sums for their own enrichment. Venezuela dwells in the international human rights cellar. Reports Freedom House:  Venezuela’s democratic institutions have been deteriorating since 1999, but conditions have grown sharply worse in recent years due to harsher government crackdowns on the opposition and the ruling party’s use of thoroughly flawed elections to seize full control of state institutions. The authorities have closed off virtually all channels for political dissent, restricting civil liberties and prosecuting perceived opponents without regard for due process. President Nicolas Maduro is attempting to baptize his brutal reign with another stolen election. His shameful theft has sparked talk of creating a private army to restore popular rule. The idea is tempting; yet who can forget Operation Gideon, the madcap misadventure four years ago in which roughly three score Venezuelan expatriates along with two American mercenaries arrived to oust the regime that had controlled the Venezuelan state for more than a quarter century. Far from taking Maduro & Co. by surprise, Silvercorp USA, which planned the invasion, tweeted that its vast horde was on the way. Unsurprisingly, the operation did not end well. No doubt, more serious people could organize a more serious effort. Yet even those often run aground. Consider the CIA’s infamous Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. Some 1400 Cuban exiles backed by eight World War II bombers landed on Cuba’s southern coast, planning to establish a provisional government and await an outpouring of popular support. Just about everything that could go wrong did so, despite American backing. Of course, experienced mercenaries were once common, busy in Europe into the 19th century. Such were the roughly 30,000 Hessians who fought for Great Britain against the colonists, though they were members of units leased from their governments rather than soldiers hired individually. Moreover, Article 2, Section 8 of the new U.S. Constitution authorized Congress to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal,” which essentially meant recruiting private naval vessels to fight for America.  Mercenaries continue to exist and often have bested larger, ill-trained forces deployed by regimes and insurgents alike. In the 1990s the euphemistically named mercenary firm Executive Outcomes famously defeated Angola’s UNITA, forcing it to the negotiating table, and defended Sierra Leone’s government from guerrillas. Nevertheless, effectively conquering a larger, more complex nation—that is, winning both militarily and politically—is another task entirely. Especially for U.S. firms. Blackwater, later renamed Xe and then Academi, became America’s most famous (or infamous) private military company, but it mostly operated as a defense contractor for the U.S. government.  Putting history behind us, is fielding a mercenary army a viable option for effecting regime change? There are many candidates for forced removal: one could start with North Korea, Russia, and China. Iran, Eritrea, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia belong on any “sayonara dictator” list. To these countries add Bahrain, Afghanistan, United Arab Emirates, Nicaragua, Cuba, and most of the Central Asian states. Also Zimbabwe and Burma. The list goes on. Yet in few of these cases does the private option seem feasible. Most of these regimes are too big, strong, and entrenched, with at least some, and sometimes serious, support. Maybe Nicaragua or Zimbabwe is weak enough. Perhaps Burma could be pushed to the edge by outside fighters. And, of course, there is Venezuela. Could Venezuelan expatriates raise millions of dollars to create an army and air force? Five years ago, the Blackwater founder Erik Prince reportedly proposed establishing a 5,000-man force of Venezuelan exiles. In July, Prince posted on X, “If @KamalaHarris and @JoeBiden want to actually support Freedom and legitimate elections in Venezuela they should elevate the bounties to $100m each on these already wanted criminals @NicolasMaduro and @dcabellor and all the others in their cartel. Then sit back and watch the magic happen. You can even pay these out from frozen regime money already in US banks.”  Maybe such an offer would spark an internal revolt or encourage an outside invasion. Or perhaps multiple, competing efforts. But would it be a solution to Venezuela’s travails? All to the good: A mercenary force could be raised without Washington’s involvement, military, political, or financial. Many people around the world treat the U.S. armed forces as their personal bodyguards, suppliers, armorers, and contractors when they push it to support and/or overthrow regimes good and bad. But Washington’s primary responsibility is to protect Americans, not risk their lives and squander their wealth in other people’s wars. Especially as the dangers of conflict increasingly reach the American homeland, through both missiles and terrorism. War should be a last resort, not a tool for wanton social engineering and constant regime change. The costs of military intervention are high. Over the last quarter century, promiscuous war-making has killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of foreign civilians. Most of America’s conflicts have turned out much worse than predicted. The assumption that Uncle Sam could fix other nations and then make a glorious exit proved fanciful. Washington gained a global reputation for murderous hypocrisy, most recently in Iraq and Gaza. Uncle Sam’s policies also made individual Americans terrorist targets as angry people around the world took their revenge. Of course, Washington’s history of intervention leaves the world suspicious even when the U.S. government is not involved in a military campaign, such as (presumably) Operation Gideon. Indeed, the Maduro government recently arrested a motley six-man crew, conveniently if unconvincingly accusing them of being part of a CIA-led plot to assassinate Maduro and other officials. Any connection between America and a new force would be exploited. Paradoxically, reversing course and consistently refusing to intervene would help clear the way for private action in the future. Of course, Washington would have to allow private ventures to fail, even if their success (for example, ousting Maduro) would advance official U.S. policy. The challenge to Washington would be even greater if private interests organized against U.S. policy. Imagine Saudi emigres planning to overthrow the odious Mohammed bin Salman, who murders and dismembers his critics. Although the Biden administration once raged against his manifold human rights violations—the group Freedom House rates the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia below Iran, Russia, and China—the president recently advanced a proposal to turn the US military into a modern Janissary corps and act as the Saudi royal family’s bodyguard. Washington then might feel forced to oppose private efforts. A smart mercenary organization could attempt to ascertain the U.S. government’s attitude before beginning, but that would prove difficult: Washington policymaking is hardly a rational, predictable business even in the best of times. The logistical problems of raising a private army also would be enormous. It is one thing to train 60 Venezuelan expats. But 5,000? Or even more? Where would the force operate? How would it maintain operational security? And who would serve? Although some Venezuelan military deserters expected to subsequently campaign against the Maduro regime, most exiles are probably readier to criticize the Maduro regime than to fight it. What if the only way to fill the ranks was to recruit Ukrainians, Russians, Nigerians, Syrians, Libyans, Sudanese, and others with recent military experience? Knitting together such a force would be difficult. So would be convincing the civilian population that these outsiders came in their interest. What would be the likelihood of success? For instance, Venezuela formally has 123,000 men under arms, 63,000 in the army. The military leadership is unlikely to defect, since it benefits alongside Maduro and his cronies from plundering the population. For instance, Venezuela’s Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez “is understood to benefit from a web of companies and properties both in and outside Venezuela.” The conscript force’s desertion rate, however, is high. Indeed, officers who have fled Venezuela speak of “massive desertions” and observers call its military a “paper tiger.” Moreover, the army has demonstrated little aptitude when deployed, being badly defeated by a small force of former FARC guerrillas in Colombia. So mercenary advocates assume that even a modest expeditionary force, presumably supplemented by dissatisfied citizens, could defeat regime forces.  Yet the imponderables are many. Would the opposition unite behind such a movement? What if there were hostile, competing mercenary forces? Historically Chavez/Maduro opponents have been badly divided. Although they largely supported Maria Corina Machado, who was barred from running for president, she advocated nonviolent protest in response. Would she back a violent insurrection? Would those who created their own army accept someone else as the country’s leader? Although there is a sense that nothing could be worse than the present, experience suggests that it could always get worse.  What if the invading force was made up mostly of foreigners? Especially foreign fighters not noted for their humanitarian impulses? As noted earlier, they might not be well received. Foreign fighters might return the favor, treating Venezuelans with brutal suspicion. Moreover, what if Cuba, Russia, or China, which all now provide essential security support for Venezuela, increased their role, perhaps even sending armed formations—such as the reorganized Wagner Group? The latter has proved that it can fight. Even North Koreans might end up on the way. Caracas and its friends could preempt any attack since they would certainly know if and where the group was being trained and be alerted when thousands of mercenaries moved. Finally, what if the foreign force was strong enough to start a fight but not strong enough to oust Maduro & Co.? The result could be a lengthy civil war that wreaked humanitarian havoc irrespective of the ultimate outcome. What if Cuba doubled down to save the regime, while expats attempted to raise reinforcements and Washington decided that it could no longer remain aloof? The result could be an expanding struggle as the proxy conflict between Russia and the U.S. reached Latin America. What would be the impact on Latin American politics, if Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico continued to support Caracas? Even Maduro’s regional critics might feel uncomfortable at direct American intervention yet again in Latin America’s affairs. And the Venezuelan people would suffer if outsiders turned their nation into a battlefield, rather like America did to Afghanistan for two decades. U.S. policymakers safely ensconced in Washington have proved all too willing to turn other nations into charnel houses for allegedly humanitarian ends. What to do about the evil authoritarians among us? Expats hiring an army to oust dictators seems to be an attractive option. Nevertheless, this strategy, like war by Washington, should be a last resort at best, and usually no resort even then. Much could go wrong, and, given human history, much almost certainly would go wrong. We should never underestimate Washington’s ability to make desperate situations even worse. The post Are Mercenaries a Way to Split the Difference on Regime Change?  appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics Stopping the Steal—in 1962 The centenarian Carter was a singular figure in American politics. Credit: image via Shutterstock This election is rigged. That was the word that Jimmy Carter got by phone. A message that became his obsession. One that changed his life.  It was Election Day, 1962. Carter was a 38-year-old Georgia peanut farmer and chairman of the Sumter County School Board. He was running in a Democratic primary for a new seat in the Georgia State Senate, hopeful that voters in Southwest Georgia would select him to represent them in Atlanta.  The supporter who telephoned Carter had few details other than that something troubling was underway with the votes in Quitman County. So Carter rushed to the courthouse to investigate.  The first thing he noticed was that there weren’t any voting booths. Instead, tables were out in the open. Ballots were stacked on them. Next to them were some campaign cards. When Carter got closer, he saw that they were promoting his opponent, Homer Moore. There was Homer’s smiling visage, splashed on the cover.  Carter watched as voters requested ballots. A man would scrunch up next to them as he handed them over. He would point to Homer’s picture, “This is a good man, and my friend.”  That was the Quitman County’s political boss, Joe Hurst. And he was overseeing this election. Hurst controlled everything in that county. For example, his wife ran the county’s welfare system, so Joe made the state welfare department send recipients’ checks to them direct. That way he could distribute the money himself. Joe Hurst didn’t want any ambiguity about who had sway. He was planning to build a new subdivision on nearby Lake Eufaula (which was renamed the Walter F. George Lake in 1963) and knew that Homer Moore would help. Jimmy Carter—well, he was running on a clean government platform. Jimmy might not be supportive of how they did things down in Quitman County, Hurst concluded.    “Where are the voting booths?” Carter asked. “This is just a simple election for one office that we’ve decided they’re not necessary today,” Hurst said. “The law requires that people vote in secret and you’re watching everyone,” Carter said.  “People don’t mind if we know what they do,” Hurst said.  Exasperated, Carter left the courthouse.  Later that night, as the returns started flowing in, Carter was ahead by 70 votes. Quitman County remained to be counted but if the trend continued, Carter would prevail. Soon, Quitman County officials reported their totals. Jimmy lost.  When Carter tried to tell a reporter the story of what he’d witnessed on Election Day, the reporter said it wasn’t newsworthy. “He was not interested in writing any story critical of election procedure in Quitman County,” Carter recalled. Later, Jimmy discovered that the reporter and Joe Hurst were buddies.  The results from that election night haunted Jimmy. He grew depressed and lost weight. He had to do something to address this gross injustice. As Carter aide Peter Bourne told me, “Jimmy couldn’t live with himself.” He decided to contest the election but was fearful of being branded a sore loser.  As former President Jimmy Carter turns 100 this week, media coverage is portraying him as a righteous chief executive. His biographer, Kai Bird, author of The Outlier, asserts that Carter led a scandal-free presidency and read 200 pages of memoranda daily. On October 1, President Joe Biden declared that Carter is “a moral force for a nation and the world.” And, in a recent New York Times piece, ex-Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter says Carter is “the ultimate un-Trump.” (For perspective, Alter also says that Donald Trump is “the most dangerous threat to democracy in American history.”) Typical of how Jimmy is being celebrated was captured by someone I follow on Instagram. He posted images of Carter as photographed by Andy Warhol and wrote, “Quiet-spoken and humble, two qualities that didn’t play against the rough-and-tumble of politics… Jimmy Carter was the exemplar of the American value of service to others: putting your own interests second, helping the less fortunate, providing welcome to the stranger, fighting for justice for those who have learned not to expect it.”  All are missing Carter’s essence—the indispensable element that it took for Jimmy to get from the Governor’s Mansion in Georgia to “higher office,” which was the euphemism that Carter aide Hamilton Jordan and others would use when they approached Jimmy and whispered about their unique plan to get him in the White House.  It is the quality that Hunter Thompson identified when he put Jimmy Carter in league with Muhammad Ali and Hells Angels leader Sonny Barger. “A sheer functional meanness, meaning the ability to get from A to B to C, M, Z—whatever you want,” Thompson said. “He would cut both your legs off to carry a ward in the Bronx and never apologize for it. He understands the system.”  Jimmy had two secret weapons—Hamilton Jordan and another Georgian, Jody Powell. Both came to him saying they wanted to be a part of his campaign, asking, How can we help? In strokes of brilliance, Carter helped Jordan get a job at the Democratic National Committee up in Washington. This was to develop a network to help Carter line up political staffers, become well-versed with how the party worked, understand how the nomination unfolded. “It allowed Jordan to keep Carter constantly informed about what was going on at the DNC,” Bourne said.  Carter’s next genius move was to travel the country with Powell and campaign for Democratic congressional candidates leading up to the 1974 elections. “In many instances Carter went to some obscure districts,” Bourne recalled. “A lot of these people won because of Carter, and they were all very indebted. So, when Jimmy was running for president, he could immediately call them and say, ‘Can your people who helped you get elected help me in my campaign for president?’ Nobody had thought of this strategically in this way before.”  Carter’s trajectory was stunning, especially for Southerners. Even as a little boy growing up in North Carolina at the time, I seemed to understand how remarkable he was. As the Texan author Larry K. Ling wrote in Esquire in 1976, “If you wanted to become much more than justice of the peace in Deep Gritsville, then you puckered up your lips and bought a bus ticket north and some mouthwash for afterward. So they sat back and waited for Carter to come around with his hand out, begging Gimme gimme/My name’s Jimmy. They’re still waiting, cousin.” Years later as an adult, after being around Washington for a while, I realized that Larry was telling the truth.  When Carter accepted his party’s nomination at the Democratic Convention in New York City, he declared that “too many have had to suffer at the hands of a political and economic elite who have shaped decisions and never had to account for mistakes nor to suffer from injustice.” In response, news coverage blasted Carter as a populist demagogue.   The political reporters who were on the trail with Carter downplayed this insurgency and instead focused on the horserace. During one session of the infamous interview that Carter gave to Playboy, which was conducted on the campaign plane, Jimmy said, “The national news media have no interest in issues at all. What they’re looking for is a 47-second argument between me and another candidate or something like that. There’s nobody in the back of this plane who would ask an issue question unless he thought he could trick me into some crazy statement.” But voters still heard the signal and elected Jimmy in what his mother Miss Lillian called “the greatest miracle that ever happened.”  When writers such as Bird, Alter, and others chart the demise of Carter’s presidency, they focus on the “misery index” of the late-1970s, Islamic radicals who took Americans hostage in Iran, the Soviets invading Afghanistan—all were important factors. But they miss the seeds of Jimmy’s ultimate defeat, which were planted during the transition to the presidency in late 1976 when the president-elect staffed his administration. As Jimmy’s longtime aide Greg Schneiders admitted to me a few years ago, “Hamilton Jordan said that if people like Cy Vance and Zbig Brzezinski are in our administration, I’m going to quit. That captured it pretty well which was, This was all about insurgency. This was about taking on the establishment. And if we end up with an establishment cabinet and administration then we will have lost. And to a large degree that’s what happened.”  Bourne told me that when he was first getting acquainted with Carter in the early 1970s, he was convinced that somewhere in Jimmy’s background there were a bunch of gray-haired old men whom he consulted with all the time. “I discovered that the only person in that category was a man called Charles Kirbo but there were no others. Everybody else were people who’d been loyal to him back to his first gubernatorial campaign in 1966. They were not politically experienced people. The competent, experienced people were not loyal to him.” The “malaise” of 1980 wore Jimmy down, like it did the rest of us. He seemed to try everything to reverse the feeling of dread, including when he stopped parting his hair on the right and started parting it on the left. Nothing seemed to work. The famous grin transformed into what we call in the South a “shit-eating grin.” As Roy Blount once wrote of Jimmy’s signature expression, “I guess you know what that is. If you have ever seen a dog eating some. A dog is a noble animal in many ways, but it will eat shit sometimes, when it finds some appealing…. It has this sort of mean shame to it. It has the courage, and pure pleasure, of mean shame. White folks in the South have had to eat a lot of shit.”  That indignity of 1980—it no doubt reminded Jimmy of the year he decided to contest the election in Georgia. Even after his presidency he said that he couldn’t remember any other time when he felt more out of place or when his efforts seemed more fruitless than 1962.  In the end, Jimmy’s election contest was right. The system and the votes were rigged against him. But Georgia’s election law was abysmal and anyone who objected couldn’t demand more than a basic recount of ballots.  There were 433 ballots in that old box in Quitman County. And, as Jimmy put it, “according to the names listed, 126 of these voted alphabetically! When the ballots were unfolded, there were sometimes four to eight of them folded together.”  Carter and a lawyer sought out witnesses; they collected affidavits swearing to the corruption. Jimmy said people threatened to kill him if he continued, and that party thugs tried intimidating his sources.  The contest consumed him. “I almost memorized the Georgia election code, and it seemed obvious that almost every section of it had been violated,” he wrote in Why Not the Best?, published in 1976.  In the end, Carter found a lawyer who would help: Charles Kirbo of Atlanta, who was then a spry 45. He got a judge to listen to them and review their evidence, including that there were more ballots counted than issued. The judge ruled that the primary election was fraudulent. And he declared Jimmy Carter the winner.  But the Democratic Party machine appealed the judge’s decision, and the local Democratic executive committee made Moore the winner instead.  Kirbo tracked the state Democratic Party chairman, J.B. Fuqua, all the way to Canada where he was on a hunting trip. A soft-drink manufacturer who also owned a TV station in Augusta, Georgia, Fuqua listened as Kirbo chronicled what Jimmy and he uncovered. Kirbo showed him the documents. After being persuaded that Jimmy’s case was solid, Fuqua had the state party’s executive committee name Carter to be the nominee. That fall, Jimmy was elected to the Georgia senate.  “The local political leader was subsequently convicted in federal court for wire fraud in an earlier election for Congress, and given a three-year suspended sentence,” Carter wrote. “Later he served time for running an illegal liquor distribution operation in Quitman County.”  So just what did Jimmy Carter learn? “I began to realize how vulnerable our political system was to an accumulation of unchallenged power,” he wrote in 1976. “Honest and courageous people could be quieted when they come to realize that outspoken opposition was fruitless. The dishonest could band together to produce and divide the spoils, and they could easily elect officials who most often seemed respectable but who would cooperate in order to gain a title or office.”  Some 23 years after Carter’s presidency ended, he studied election fraud with the likes of James A. Baker III, Lee Hamilton, and Tom Daschle. Their Commission on Federal Election Reform identified absentee ballots as at the greatest risk of election fraud. Mail-in voting, Carter and his team concluded, is the largest source of potential vote fraud.  When I interviewed Jimmy in 2015, he recognized the rise of Donald Trump and told me that there was an awakening underway in the U.S. “I don’t know how trenchant or permanent it will be,” he said. After Trump was elected president, Carter offered to go to North Korea on behalf of Trump to meet with Kim Jong Un to try to bring about peace. At first Trump seemed interested but then he passed on Carter’s offer. Later that summer, Jimmy lashed out, “There is no doubt that the Russians did interfere in the [2016] election. I think the interference, though not yet quantified, if fully investigated would show that Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016. Trump lost the election and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf.” After the election of 2020, Trump filed just one election contest in the U.S. It was in the state of Georgia. But he couldn’t get a judge to read it, and the contest was dismissed.  Reflecting on Jimmy’s centenary, I’m reminded of what the Democratic Representative Mo Udall of Arizona said back in 1976 after Carter defeated him for the Democratic nomination for president. “If Carter’s elected, he’ll never make Mount Rushmore because there’s not room enough for two more faces.” The post Stopping the Steal—in 1962 appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Hezbollah: Down But Not Out Despite the gap in its command-and-control structure, the group has been galvanized by Israeli operations. Credit: image via Shutterstock That Hezbollah was dealt an unprecedentedly painful blow with the assassination of its leader Hassan Nasrallah is not up for debate. While Israel succeeded in taking out the Lebanese movement’s former leader, Abbas al-Musawi in 1992, the latter’s tenure was short-lived, having been appointed as secretary general of Hezbollah only one year prior to his assassination. Nasrallah, by contrast, sat at the helm of the organization for 32 years, during which it witnessed its golden era.  Under his leadership, Hezbollah military operations forced Israel to end its occupation of Lebanon in May 2000. A 33-day war between Hezbollah and Israel in 2006 ended in what was at best a draw for the Israeli side, shattering the image it once enjoyed as an invincible military and greatly boosting the popularity of the Lebanese movement in the Arab world.  The assassination of Nasrallah is the culmination of a security-intelligence war waged by Israel that is unparalleled in recent history. A mass detonation of pager devices belonging to Hezbollah members left 12 people dead—including innocent civilians—and thousands injured. While Israeli leaders denied culpability, Lebanese and American officials have revealed that Israel was behind the late September operation.   Senior Hezbollah commanders, including the head of the elite Radwan forces, were meanwhile killed in an Israeli precision strike following the pager operation. The assassination took place as the commanders had gathered for a brief meeting which was held two-floors underground in the southern suburbs of Beirut. This string of operations no doubt leaves a void within Hezbollah, creating unprecedented challenges for the organization. It would be a mistake, however, to view this latest episode as the beginning of the end for the Lebanese movement. According to some recent estimates, the number of Hezbollah fighters may exceed 50,000. (Nasrallah himself had put that number at 100,000).  It also continues to possess a formidable weapons arsenal despite the recent Israeli onslaught. Israeli military officials themselves cast doubt on the claims that half of Hezbollah’s rocket capabilities had been taken out in the latest round of hostilities. Most estimates put the number of the Lebanese movement’s rockets and missiles within the 120,000 to 200,000 range.  It is also likely that Hezbollah continues to have in its stockpile precision guided munitions which it has yet to put to use. The elimination of the old guard also paves way for the Lebanese movement’s younger generation to assume a more prominent role within the organization. This may improve Hezbollah preparedness in the face of a far more technologically advanced enemy. Unlike the older commanders, a large number of these youth are educated college graduates who could potentially put more emphasis on the technological intelligence element that Israel has used to its advantage The neutralization of Nasrallah in particular could end up actually swelling the ranks of Hezbollah. While crushing the morale of the organization’s supporters was probably one of Israel’s goals behind the assassination, Nasrallah’s status as an idol amongst his followers may actually galvanize those who support Hezbollah but are nonetheless not active members to seek to join its ranks given their thirst for revenge.  Should such a scenario play out, Israel’s assassination may turn out to be a strategic miscalculation. Hezbollah’s command and control also appears to be somewhat intact despite its recent losses. It continues to carry out cross border military attacks that have reached as far as the Israeli port city of Haifa. The absence of a leader at the helm, however, does remain an important missing link in Hezbollah’s command-and-control structure. “The absence of a secretary general does impact the command and control,” explained retired Lebanese army general Elias Farhat in an interview with RS.  “The units of the resistance are launching missiles at certain targets and specific times and in specific numbers,” he noted, but added that “for the command and control to be complete a new secretary general must be chosen”. As a result, the immediate focus for the Lebanese movement will be on filling its leadership vacuum.  In the first speech by a senior Hezbollah official since the assassination of Nasrallah, the organization’s deputy leader, Naim Qassem, announced that a new secretary general will soon be appointed.  Whether or not Hezbollah publicly announces the identity of its new leader in the near future is another matter. The movement may be reluctant to do so, given how Israel has taken out its senior ranks. That Hezbollah swiftly denied the media claims that it had chosen the head of its executive council Hashem Safieddine to succeed Nasrallah further illustrates its reluctance to publicly disclose its new leadership.  On the Lebanese domestic front, the assassination of Nasrallah is unlikely to significantly weaken Hezbollah. Unlike in previous times, the number of the organization’s domestic enemies has greatly diminished. The former Prime Minister Saad Hariri issued a statement condemning the assassination, describing it as a cowardly act and calling for Lebanese unity. Hariri’s stance as the most popular Lebanese Sunni politician is not surprising; the Sunni–Shiite divide that appeared to pose a real danger to the nation’s social fabric during the war in Syria has given way to joint solidarity with the Palestinian suffering in Gaza. This solidarity has even taken the form of joint military collaboration against Israel. The Lebanese Sunni party Al-Jamaa Al-Islamiya has joined Hezbollah in the cross-border operations against Israel in support of Gaza. Other prominent Lebanese political figures who were once staunch enemies of Hezbollah have since changed their position. These include the Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, who had spearheaded the anti-Hezbollah campaign following the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, the former premier. Commenting on the assassination of Nasrallah, Jumblatt even said the late Hezbollah leader has “joined the long caravan of martyrs on the road to Palestine”. The post Hezbollah: Down But Not Out appeared first on The American Conservative.

The following article, Former Big Pharma Kingpin William Braddock Accused Of Threatening To Hire “Russian-Ukrainian HIT SQUAD” Against His Political Opponent, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), was first published on Conservative Firing Line. (Natural News) Another major scandal is erupting in the political sphere after a former Big Pharma employee by the name of William Braddock who is running for Congress in Florida allegedly threatened his opponent Rep. Anna Paulina Luna with plans to “call up my Russian-Ukrainian hit squad” to take her out of the race and out of existence. … Continue reading Former Big Pharma Kingpin William Braddock Accused Of Threatening To Hire “Russian-Ukrainian HIT SQUAD” Against His Political Opponent, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) ...

Why did 19th Century Asylum Architecture in America Far Exceed Necessity? Examples From Every State Except Alaska and Hawaii - 31,892 views Sep 16, 2024 Jarid Boosters *** SOME EXTREMELY INTERESTING ARCHITECTURE - BY WHY WERE THEY EVEN CREATED? - AND WHY SO GRAND AND MONUMENTAL??? - So Many Things About These Asylums Remain a Mystery. What is the True Reason They Were Built? Who Was Sent There and Why. Was it Against Their Will? - You Can Be Certain That They Were Reprogramming, Rehabilitating or at Least Educating the Residents. - And what is really strange is that even though many of these Asylums were in use up until the 1950's. Yet not much is Known About What the Hell Was Going on??? *** Today we will look at over 280 photographs of Insane Asylum Architecture that was prevalent in America in the 19th century. Why did these need to exist? What mysteries do these supremely advanced structures hold, and could those who were disenfranchised by the American Dream of the 19th century have easily ended up in one of these asylums? - We will discuss the massive population which resided in these asylums, and how this not only influenced the growing workforce during the Industrial Revolution, but also led to the uptick in orphans in the country. - These photographs vary in quality, as many are sourced from museums and private collection postcards. The impact of the architecture is profound, and many of these buildings were the largest in their respective communities. Is the current narrative trustable when it comes to the Asylums of 19th century America? - Let’s take a deep dive! Topics discussed today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunatic... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothe... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkbri... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trenton... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travers... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_... - FAIR USE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES - Mirrored From: https://www.youtube.com/@FRESHboosters

UTL COMMENT:- Well said and proves what an ignorant Israel loving stooge Piers Morgan is....