This is Eve. This post by Thomas Neuberger quotes extensively from Andrew Napolitano’s interview with former Lt. Col. Larry Wilkerson, but I don’t think the coup inference here is correct. Certainly, in the narrow sense, Biden’s concessions and anger are likely a result of being told “no” by the U.S. military. But this is not rebellion in the sense that Neuberger appreciates. Biden has repeatedly made very big statements to the effect that “We are the United States of America. We have the most powerful military in the world. There are no limits to what we can do.”
Another view is that someone managed to slip through Biden’s stubborn brain and make him understand that the US cannot win a conventional war against either Russia or Iran (the latter as repeated military exercises have shown) and that the consequences of the US escalating and losing would be worse than withdrawing. Another piece of evidence supporting this theory are other reports suggesting that Jake Sullivan supported the US military’s position, meaning that Biden was facing opposition not only from the military but also from key members of his team.
But another way to resolve this paradox is to recognize that U.S. presidents haven’t been very in charge of U.S. foreign policy for a very long time. In Oliver Stone’s documentary, which features a nearly four-hour interview with Putin, Putin says that Bush promised to significantly improve U.S.-Russian relations, but then went quiet when Russia followed up with a mysterious written retraction 18 months later. Putin similarly experienced the failure of subsequent presidents to implement negotiated proposals; he concluded that the bureaucracy was in charge.
The test of Wilkerson and Neuberger’s thesis will be whether the United States ultimately authorizes a long-range missile attack on Russia. If that happens, it will disprove Neuberger’s thesis, but the continued refusal to do so is not conclusive evidence that it will not. It should be noted that the explanation offered by Lloyd Austin, that Russia has moved valuable military targets such as aircraft out of range, is probably true. Simplicius points out in a new article: The attack on the Tver munitions storage facility was carried out by jet drones, and the facility was actually outside the range of ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles.
By Thomas Neuburger. Originally published in God’s Spy
The president is commander in chief of the army and navy
—Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution
I have the following news: Works on Ian Welsh’s websiteand I thought that was important to me. I don’t want to overstate what that means, but I don’t want to downplay it either.
An American coup?
In 30 minutes Interview with Judge Napolitano On September 18, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell and a vocal critic of U.S. wars, described recent events in which Defense Secretary General Lloyd Austin told President Biden that “the Department of Defense is essentially taking over all diplomatic as well as military actions with respect to both the Ukraine and Israeli theaters.”
“And they’re the ones in power now,” Wilkerson added. According to the story, Austin listened to “the truthers deep inside the Pentagon” and pressured the president to make concessions.
Biden was infuriated but reportedly “took the advice” — though, as Wilkerson tells us, it was a directive, not advice. “No,” as Wilkerson puts the message, is pretty definitive.
This is both good news and bad news. Current good U.S. policy is:
- For Netanyahu, if he invades Lebanon or attacks Iran, he will be taking care of himself.
- For Zelensky, long-range missiles that can reach deep into Russia are a no-no.
Thus, for a while at least, we and the world will be safer.
The Bad: Is this a coup? Is the military standing up to the president and forcing a policy change?
If the answer is yes, then we Constitutional reform in practiceBoth political parties have already accepted that the Fourth Amendment can be ignored. This is now the “new normal.” So what is the Pentagon’s intrusion into foreign policy if not the new “new normal”? Has MacArthur finally won?
Whatever the truth, this is unlikely to be reported in the so-called “news,” but I doubt Wilkerson’s sources are wrong, and in any case, we’ll soon see how Zelensky and Netanyahu behave.
Welcome to the future of American foreign policy.
The full story of Wilkerson Exchange
The video above includes Wilkerson’s full interview, which begins with a conversation with Austin about Biden. We’ve printed that exchange, lightly edited, below. Emphasis is with the speaker.
Wilkerson: I think what we’re seeing here is another attempt by Netanyahu, which the 100 plane attack didn’t accomplish, to provoke Hezbollah, to declare it belligerent, to do what he wants to Hezbollah. nevertheless We are being told with great confidence by intelligence sources that the two most recent visits by the Joint Commander of Central Command were to convey to Prime Minister Netanyahu that we will not stand with him if he provokes us into a war with Hezbollah, and that we will not stand with him if he provokes us into a war with Iran, and that we will know if he provokes us.
Napolitano: You are referring to General Kurilla (Commander of CENTCOM since April 2022).
Wilkerson: Yes, yes.
Napolitano: Scott Ritter agrees with you. Doug McGregor says he can’t imagine Austin and Blinkin doing that to General Clara. That’s very interesting. …Is this your speculation or based on sources?
Wilkerson: This is based on a pretty reliable source. And this is the whole picture. I hope others are telling you this too. Biden’s anger was boiling over when he met with the British Prime Minister, as you can see.
Napolitano: Yes, yes, there is a clip of that. He was out of control with rage.
Wilkerson: And it seems like what he was told by the Pentagon was, “No, Mr. President. Not in Ukraine. Not in Gaza. We’re in control now.”
Napolitano: No, despite what Tony Blinkin has suggested about long-range missiles that can reach deep into Russia. A week in Kyiv Joe Biden told the British Prime Minister that this was going to happen, and on the plane across the Atlantic, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Stormer had every reason to believe that Joe Biden’s answer was yes.
Wilkerson: He was embarrassed by the fact that he was trying to pull out a map with targeting data on it and Biden said, “Don’t pull it out. We’re not going to talk about that.”
I was told, and I’m hearing this from a pretty reliable source, that Blinkin and Sullivan (mainly Blinkin, but also Sullivan) got sidetracked and the Department of Defense essentially took control of all the action, not just diplomacy, militarily speaking in both theaters.
And they are the ones in charge now.
If that’s the case, I have to change my opinion of Secretary Austin, because it means he finally listened to people deep inside the Pentagon who know the truth, and he responded, and he took that to President Biden, and to President Biden’s credit, even though he was furious, he finally accepted that advice.
Napolitano: Colonel, you previously led the State Department (as Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell under George W. Bush). How does the Department of Defense approach foreign affairs?
Wilkerson: They engage in diplomacy every day. every dayIn the various synchrodoms, the areas that they control, the AORs, there are four-star diplomats who are true U.S. diplomats. Some of them are very good diplomats. I’ve seen some of them. I’ve worked with some of them. They are very good diplomats, better than any Secretary of State.
But it shouldn’t be that way. This is a side note. The military shouldn’t be leading diplomacy. But it often is.
And the prime minister of Japan once sat me down and told me why. He said, “Larry, when your Under Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs comes here, he’s carrying nothing but a briefcase. The guy from Honolulu comes here from Camp Smith in Hawaii, and he’s towing an air wing, a submarine, a battle group, a Marine amphibious group, an Army division. And I listened to him, because he’s the prime minister of Japan.”
Napolitano: Who instructed General Kurila to tell Prime Minister Netanyahu that if he invades Lebanon, he will have to deal with it himself?
Wilkerson: I believe it was Austin. But that’s the chain of command. Austin passed that message on to him. But I believe it was Austin who gave Biden that order and convinced him to pass it on to Kuryla.
