It's just been revealed that the Chairman for the US ‘Institute Of Peace' was caught red-handed in Poland lobbying for the US to arm the Kievan military back in June. According to The Intercept:
"In a speech at Poland's Wroclaw Global Forum in June, Hadley argued in favor of arming the Ukrainian government in part because that would "raise the cost for what Russia is doing in Ukraine." Specifically, he said, "even President Putin is sensitive to body bags — it sounds coarse to say, but it's true — but body bags of Russian soldiers who have been killed.""
This stands in stark contravention to everything that the institute reportedly represents, making Hadley a devil of war when he claims to be acting as an angel of peace. Not only that, but upon closer examination, one realizes how the ‘Institute Of Peace' (and many more organizations just like it) is simply ‘academic' window dressing for preconditioning the ‘naively enlightened masses' to accept controversial and militant government policies. Confronted with this disturbing reality, inquisitive individuals eager to discern the objective truth about the most pressing political issues of our time need to resort to a heavy dose of non-mainstream reporting in order to counteract the effects of such deceitful Washington-sponsored entities as the ‘Institute Of Peace'.
Big Hypocrite
Hadley's warmongering advocacy couldn't have been more off-message from his institute's stated core principles and strategic plan. Here are some of the ways in which his aggressive plea violates the spirit of peace:
Core Principles:
1. We believe conflicts can be resolved without violence
That's not what Hadley said in Poland. He continued from his controversial quote by further elaborating that "…when you're dealing with a Russian policy as we see in Ukraine, there's going to be no political solution that does not have a military element."
3. We will be guided by facts
It doesn't seem like it. There are no Russian soldiers in Ukraine, let alone body bags being pumped out of there back home. Sending arms to Kiev will only lead to more Ukrainian casualties, without satisfying Hadley's Russian body bag fantasy.
Strategic Plan:
Demonstrate America's commitment to peace
By sending weapons into a civil war conflict zone almost half the world away? That sure doesn't sound like a very effective commitment to peace for anybody serious in bringing it about. But then again, the US' policy of chaos and destruction has never been conducive to peace in the first place, so such a plan is doublespeak to the highest degree, anyhow.
Bring together adversaries and stakeholders to resolve conflicts without recourse to violence
Per the previous point, the US isn't earnest about bringing both sides to the negotiating table to hammer out an equitable solution, hence why Hadley hopes that his lobbied-for scheme to arm Kiev will lead to more "body bags of Russian soldiers". Never mind how every body bag coming out of Eastern Ukraine has consistently been Ukrainian.
One can go on and on about the hypocrisy of Hadley's statement and the US ‘Institute of Peace' in general, but having made the point, it's necessary to now look at the role that such individuals and organizations play in the public discourse. By its own admission as outlined under its strategic plan, the group endeavors to be "close to government" and "Inform policies and practices of U.S. government agencies and other organizations", fundamentally making it lobbying firm for international policy. While this in and of itself doesn't make the group guilty of anything nefarious, the previously mentioned hypocrisies, purposely misleading mission, and the proven dichotomy between its words and deeds makes it an unethical entity at the very least.
Through its articulated function and proven deceitfulness, the institute is behaving like Big Brother's ‘little brother', in that it's intimately associated with the government but gives off a false aura of separateness and independence. Such an image appeals to ‘naïvely enlightened' individuals who sincerely believe everything they read that comes from a stamped-and-approved US ‘academic' voice such as the US ‘Institute of Peace'. These people are well intentioned but horribly misguided into placing all of their trust into an American information outlet (which is what the institute basically is) with the self-prescribed labels of "independent", "nonpartisan", and "peace"-related. Instead of being ‘politically aware' like they hope they would be by reading the institute and other related organizations' various releases, they're made less cognizant of the objective truth and are pulled deeper into the political fantasy that ‘little brother' is concocting as a means of lobbying his older sibling.
Sifting Through Sand
It can be both confusing and frustrating for the politically eager individual to sift through the dunes of misleading information in search of a grain of truth, but luckily, modern information-communication technology has opened up a plethora of possibilities to facilitate this process. The internet on its own has been revolutionary in expanding the citizenry's consciousness about what's really going on outside of their borders, and combined with active social media networks, it's easier than ever for passionate political observers to objectively gauge the crises in Ukraine and Syria, for example. As a golden rule of thumb, if the US has an interest in a certain conflict (whether ongoing or emerging), then it's dubious at best whether a regular person will ever be exposed to the full truth of what's happening there by relying solely on American media and ‘academic' outlets.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.
