TULSI GABBARD SIMPS WILL BURN IN HELL + War on Terror Moves to Africa
Just kidding, I don’t actually mean that—well, the war on terror is pivoting toward Africa, but no one deserves to burn in hell (I am being hyperbolic); however, now that I have your attention, let me explain why it is utterly foolish to continue “simping” for Tulsi Gabbard’s puka shells. Please excuse my lack of tact and do not be offended by my impatience-flavored directness — for I am tired of having to repeat myself on this issue (I know, not an excuse). I will try to write this piece as diplomatically as possible. Not that my opinion is the “most correct” or that this particular topic is “the most important thing to talk about” right now. The reason I’m even writing about this is because I’m also trying to understand why I, myself, am so triggered by the abysmal and sycophantic behavior I have witnessed from the supporters of the former Hawaii congresswoman, Tulsi Gabbard. Especially, since her recent comments regarding her time at an undisclosed location in Africa, as an officer of the Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command — assisting Special Ops fight “islamist jihadist terrorists” associated with Al-Queda.
Note that as of March 2021, the US State Department declared there were Islamist insurgents in Mozambique and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) — and labeled them “terrorist” organizations.
A few days later, the Green Berets (special ops) were deployed to Mozambique to train the Mozambican military . Mind you, the insurgency in Mozambique was taking place in Cabo Delgado, the very location where Total and ExxonMobil were drilling for natural gas. Sound familiar? I bet. Why? Because this is the same old tactic recycled over and over again; from Halliburton in Iraq to the uptick in opium production in Afghanistan after NATO occupation in 2001—and, frankly, I am not amused. Furthermore, the Pentagon also expressed interest in helping DRC with their biometric data and identity documentation in order to help quell the current turbulence occurring in mineral rich areas like Goma and Beni city in DRC.
Side note: Most of the details I just mentioned about the current geopolitical climate of that area are COMPLETELY absent from ANY coverage that I have seen on the issue of “rampant terrorism” in Africa (except for a select few who specialize in the region). Yes, even the gentlemen at The Yellow Brick Road and Franc Analysis—if you can cover Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan thoroughly, then you can research and cover the situation in some of these countries in Africa, thoroughly, too. That said, I do appreciate you lovely lads for caring enough to even address the topic at all AND in a timely manner, thank you.
Also, I understand that the segments were probably about the ideas Tulsi was putting into the ether and not necessarily specifics of Mozambique or DRC; however, this context and these details are crucial to highlight because these are real cities in real countries, with real HUMAN BEINGS who are now or soon will be DIRECTLY at the mercy of US/NATO foreign policy—which Tulsi, now, seems to support. Tulsi told Tucker that she supports targeted airstrikes when he asked her about the seven children and three civilians who were recently killed by a “targeted airstrike” in Kabul. AFRICOM uses this method in Somalia on a regular basis. Many survivors of AFRICOM drone strikes don’t even receive compensation for the losses they suffer. You can donate to survivors of the AFRICOM facilitated drone warfare in Somalia on this gofundme, organized by HOA PALS. I will do my best to look for more legitimate mutual aids in different countries and then I’ll add those websites to this post as I find them, so people can donate.
But have no fear, Yankees, you are not alone! Your croissant-munching brethren across the pond, in France, also partake in the indiscriminate killings of civilians using the “targeted airstrikes” that Tulsi likes so much. France maintains a military force of more than 5,100 in Mali and other former colonies in West Africa. Oui oui.
Whether it be “boots on the ground nation building” or “targeted airstrikes,” why does Gabbard only present solutions involving violent tactics dreamt up by spooks like John Bolton and his fellow neocons in a smoke-filled cigar lounge in Dupont Circle? Earlier this year, the National Defense University Press released their first quarter publication with a section dedicated to “using airstrikes as a foreign policy tool” because “drone attacks and targeted killings serve [their] principles better than any use of force that can be imagined.”
Excuse me, Tulsi, since when did “going against the establishment” mean parroting the official DoD narrative? Buffoonery.
It’s what she said in her recent appearance on Tucker Carlson’s show — that airstrikes are necessary to quell the “jihadist insurgency” in African countries and parts of the Middle East. Tucker, by the way, was just asserting that Biden wants open borders because of his desire to “replace the legacy American stock” with “unvetted and obedient people from the third world” in order to destroy America. I have zero love for Biden because he has proven, throughout his entire career, to be nothing more than an establishment lackey, but Tucker’s rhetoric is quite interesting. He is adding fuel to the fire in the identity politics and culture war he claims to oppose. Yet, I hear some people claim that Tucker is anti-war because he “tells the truth about Syria” and supports Assange — he must be better than Rachel Maddow, right? No! Both Maddow and Carlson are equally garbage (in my opinion).
Maddow hysterically insists Russians are hiding under your bed and Tucker Carlson is “outraged” third-world “aliens” (Haitian refugees) are invading American neighborhoods — these two clowns engage in the same con game, but with slightly differing modus operandi. Also, not EVERYONE who has the “right stance” on Syria and Assange is automatically on the side of truth and justice. Anyway, let me not get too off topic.
Back to Gabbard:
October of 2020, Honolulu Civil Beat covered Tulsi’s move to Army Reserve’s 351st Civil Affairs Command in Mountain View, CA. They quoted a retired general who was formally in charge of the Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command, Major General Jeff Jacobs, who spoke highly of Tulsi Gabbard and pointed out that many politicians (such as Strom Thurmond—Joe Biden’s fellow Dixiecrat) have made their way up the ranks within that office—note that Jacobs was also involved in “propping up” the local government of Iraq after the catastrophic US/NATO invasion in 2003.
A personal side note:
When Tulsi Gabbard was running for president in 2019, I was living in Hawaii,
where she was a congresswoman on the island of Oahu — some who lived on Oahu had concerns about the Sidewalk Cleanup bill that Tulsi introduced in 2011 when she was a Honolulu Council member — the measure allowed “for the City to remove personal property stored on public property.” Some argued the bill was directed at the many homeless people who either live or keep their belongings in public spaces. In addition, many of those who favored Bill 54 were associated with business and commerce organizations. Instead of dealing with the root causes of homelessness, her fix involved authorizing the city to trash belongings left in “public spaces” after a 24-hour warning was issued — not exactly “aloha” vibes. This is not an appeal to authority; however, having witnessed the very legitimate crisis with homelessness in Honolulu, I question why she would prioritize those with business interests over the countless homeless people who live in “public spaces” all over the city. Why couldn’t the bill have accommodated both needs; instead of putting the needs of the ones who, arguably, needed it more, on the back burner?
Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command
I am not a military expert, nor do I pretend to be, but even with my limited knowledge of the intricacies in that realm, I can use my critical thinking skills to see that the Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command is embedded in different pockets, around the globe — different pockets that have been targeted for regime change or intervention; including Afghanistan, Iraq, Horn of Africa, Europe (probably eastern), the Pacific, and Central/South America. Yes, I am referencing the Fort Bragg, North Carolina unit and Tulsi is stationed in Mountain View, CA; but I doubt that they are not involved in similar locations and operations — especially considering she stated in a recent video that she just came back from Africa after helping special ops fight Islamist jihadists (as a Civil Affairs officer).
Coincidentally, just this past May, the Civil Affairs Association released an article titled It is Time for Civil Affairs to Lead Special Operations in Northwest Africa — which is indicative of expansion in the Civil Affairs office where Tulsi works or “serves” if you want to call it that. Unfortunately, many of the special operations that involve Army Delta Force, Green Berets, and Navy Seals (many of which are part of the 127 Echo Program) are not known to the public without a FOIA request. Initially, the funding for the 127 echo program was limited, approximately $10 million a year, but now it has grown to $100 million a year and has not reduced or ended “violent extremism.” *Perhaps the goal was never to quell “terrorism,” but rather, to exacerbate it—just a thought.
The 127 Echo program is the grandchild of similar initiatives from the mid-2000′s called Section 1206 and Section 1208.
Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provides the Secretary of Defense with authority to train and equip foreign military forces for two specified purposes — counterterrorism and stability operations — and foreign security forces for counterterrorism operations. The Obama administration requested to increase the funding level for Section 1206 because they believed, “it was the single most important tool in shaping the environment and counter terrorism.”
—Interestingly, funds for the operations under Section 1206, have to be approved by the Secretary of State (during Obama’s first term, that was Hillary Clinton).
I’m sure Hillary Clinton directed those funds to the most dignified and appropriate missions, it’s not like she has a history of corruption and overall vile behavior…
Section 1208 provides support to foreign forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals engaged in supporting or facilitating ongoing military operations by United States special operations forces to combat terrorism. Section 1208 enables “support to foreign government-affiliated and non-government-affiliated forces that support USSOF operations to combat terrorism.” In addition, since Section 1208 operations cannot be used to support covert operations, they require the U.S. Department of State Chief of Mission’s written agreement, and Congress must be notified15-days prior to an new or expanded military operation.
—meaning, the representatives in congress who have claimed or do claim they don’t have the power to stop the funding for wars were/are not being totally honest. They could have/can make the choice to say no to proposals under Section 1208 because they have direct oversight.
List of 127echo programs facilitated via AFRICOM (as of 2018)
- Juniper Nimbus: US troops ‘helping’ Nigerian military against Boko Haram.
- Exile Hunter: US troops trained/equipped Ethiopian force for missions in Somalia.
- Kodiak Hunter: US troops trained/equipped Kenyan force for missions in Somalia.
- Mongoose Hunter: US troops trained/equipped Somalian force for missions in Somalia.
- Ultimate Hunter: US troops trained/equipped Ugandan force for missions in Somalia.
*Military claims many ops in Africa are kept secret for “local sensitivities”—to shield their presence from local population.
Behind the secret U.S. war in Africa—secret programs (127echo programs) that allow troops to train and direct troops in Somalia, Rwanda, Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Niger, and other African nations.
Those troops then work under the directive of the US State Department. Do people now trust the war machine to be honest about “training troops to fight jihadists”—haven’t these people lied about Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria, and many other countries, in the past? How can people still defend this agenda? Is it because people just don’t know anything about the countries in Africa; therefore, don’t understand that the solution cannot be covert military operations and targeted air strikes? When the news talks about “domestic terrorists” in the US, many people understand that most of that is propaganda in order to pass regulations that take away more and more civil liberties. If they are doing that here, then, don’t people understand that they also do that in countries abroad?
I don’t even blame most of the world for not knowing about all of these secret wars because unless you take the time to research it or happen to be from the parts of the world where those wars are taking place, there is no way to know of their existence — or that your tax dollars are funding black ops that line the pockets of military contractors, while bringing immense pain upon targeted populations. People should be horrified by this, not just dismiss it as “well, Africa has always been messed up” because THAT IS NOT THE POINT, DUMBASS. If my use of the word “dumbass” offends you more than my list of drone warfare casualties, maybe you should do some deep self-reflection.
Such as the 127 Echo Program, which provides [them] viable surrogate forces designed to achieve U.S. counter-terrorism objectives at relatively low cost in terms of resources and especially risk to [their] personnel.
General Hecker sounds more worried about the military budget and American personnel than the civilians who become collateral damage because they happen to be born in war zones. Does that not make you sick to your stomach? Have people really become this apathetic? WHY ARE WE TOLERATING THIS? IT IS INHUMANE AND UNACCEPTABLE.
Let me clarify that I am not writing this to blame all US/NATO foreign policy failures on Tulsi Gabbard — I do understand that the structure within the global war machine would proceed the same way whether or not she was there. I just think that the hawkish rhetoric she has recently doubled down on needs to be addressed and addressed THOROUGHLY.
If Tulsi claims to care about American’s civil liberties and not turning the US into a surveillance state, then why is she ok with turning Africa into a heavily surveilled, MILITARIZED continent? How about those people’s CIVIL LIBERTIES, MA’AM?
Frankly, I really don’t have much left to say and although this article focuses on Tulsi, it is not so much about her as a person, as it is about the toxic ideas she is espousing that need to be confronted and dispelled. I am not a “gate-keeper” or an “emotional social justice warrior”—I am simply just a human being who sees something wrong with the ideas held by another human being and I have to say something. If I got something wrong, feel free to message me and tell me. However, even though I can change my mind about certain matters as I get more information and clarity, I WILL NEVER compromise on my fundamental principles, ethics, and morals.
Peace and Blessings.