<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div class="clearfix _5x46"><div class="_3dp _29k"><div class="_6a"><div class="_6a _6b"><div class="_5pcp"><div class="_6a _43_1 _4f-9 _316x" id="u_72_4"><div class="_6a uiPopover" id="u_72_5"><a data-hover="tooltip" aria-label="Public" data-tooltip-alignh="right" class="_42ft _4jy0 _55pi _5vto _55_p _2agf _p _1zg8 _4jy3 _517h _51sy _59pe" role="button" href="https://www.facebook.com/cgestabrook#" style="max-width:25px;" aria-haspopup="true" aria-expanded="false" rel="toggle" id="u_72_6"><i class="_3-99 img sp_7v4kuCg6Ugf sx_6e361a"></i></a></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="_5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><div id="id_547389ac5da0f9011998863" class="text_exposed_root text_exposed"><p>I think he lost a faction fight. His fate was already sealed when the
administration dropped into last Friday night's news-hole (where
embarrassing stories go to die) their expansion of the killing in
Afghanistan, by air and ground, in spite of all Obama's lies about
"winding it down."</p><p> There's a split in the Obama administration
(i.e., the White House staff, NSC, State, Defense, Pentagon and some
elements of Congress). The split mirrors the contest in th<span class="text_exposed_show">e
Mideast between the Sunni alliance (Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, ISIS -
supported by the US) and the Shia alliance (Iran, Syria, Hesbollah, Iraq -
supported by the SCO). </span></p><div class="text_exposed_show"><p>
Hagel's (& Kerry's?) faction want a deal with Iran so that Iran once
again becomes America's "cop on the beat" in the Gulf. Their opponents
want a redoubled effort of the US military to control the energy-rich
region, to use it as a weapon to roll back Russian (& Chinese)
economic influence in Eurasia. (Note what's happened to oil prices in
the recent quarter; the Russian economy is dependent on them.)</p><p>
The latter strategy is seen as serving the (economic) interests of the
1% more than the former. Therefore Hagel had to go, as he was tending to
stand in the way (as shown by his hesitations re the ongoing attack on
Assad). </p><p> The liberals who supported Hagel for SecDef, on the
grounds that he would be less belligerent than the rest of the Obama
administration, may have been right.</p><p> "Obama just can’t seem to acquire any cred as the stone-cold killer he is": <<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/11/21/the-first-un-war/">http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/11/21/the-first-un-war/</a>>.</p><div>--CGE</div><div><br></div><div>PS - The fact that the stone-cold killer "triangulates" hawkish Hillary thereby, is just icing on the yellow-cake...</div><div><br></div><div>###</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></body></html>