• All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out.

  • I.F. Stone

donderdag 29 september 2016

Proof of U.S. Support of Al-Qaeda in Syria

Syrian al-Qaeda commander reveals explosive link with the US [VIDEO]

 Facebook Twitter
In a stunning interview with a German regional newspaper, a purported al-Qaeda commander in Syria has claimed that his terror group (al-Nusra Front) received support from the US in its fight against the Assad government. He specifically said that Nusra had received shipments of US-supplied ‘TOW’ anti-tank missilesand other advanced weapons systems.
The commander, identifying himself only as Abu al-Ezz, told investigative journalist Jürgen Todenhöfer in a face to face interview that while Nusra was routinely supplied and paid through US allies Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, it also enjoyed the quiet support of the US. When asked whether the TOW missiles first went through a US ‘vetted’ group like the Free Syrian Army before being transferred to Nusra, Abu al-Ezz responded:
No, the missiles were given directly to us.
The TOW missile system was controversially introduced on the Syrian battlefield, according to reports, as part of the joint CIA-Saudi programme to arm anti-Assad rebels in Syria (which was known within the US government as operation Timber Sycamore).
Todenhöfer has a reputation for producing high-risk interviews inside Iraq and Syria. In 2015, he became the first Western journalist allowed extensive access inside Daesh (Isis/Isil) territory.

Authenticity questioned: is it really a Nusra fighter?

While Todenhöfer has a stellar reputation of accurate reporting, some experts were quick to question the authenticity of the interview. Other internationally known experts promoted it as true, and the controversy continues. Nusra itself (which now identifies under the name Jabhat Fateh al-Sham) quickly released a statement denying the existence of anyone named Abu al-Ezz within its ranks, while not speaking about the obvious possibility of a pseudonym being used.
On Monday 26 September, the US State Department’s Mark Toner called the idea that the US would directly support a designated terror group “complete poppycock“, while adding that US regional allies might indeed be actively supporting the group. But he stopped short of condemning the actions of these allies.
The State Department’s official comment on the matter, however, seemed to lend credibility to some contents of the interview (namely, that al-Qaeda in Syria likely has state sponsorship).

Testimony of US special forces

Ironically, just two weeks before the interview was published in Germany, a bombshell report was produced by SOFREP News – a respected website run by US special forces veterans – which charged that the CIA consistently looked the other way while groups like Daesh and Nusra received US weaponry throughout the course of war in Syria. For the first time, US military personnel directly involved in covert activities in Syria were quoted:
“Nobody believes in it. You’re like, ‘Fuck this,’” a former Green Beret [US special forces] says of America’s covert and clandestine programs to train and arm Syrian militias… “I don’t want to be responsible for Nusra guys saying they were trained by Americans,” the Green Beret added.
Assuming that the Todenhöfer interview really features a Nusra commander, it appears that this Green Beret’s worst fear came true.

See the controversial interview and transcript

The translation below is provided by the Moon of Alabama blog, and is used here with permission of the translator:
Jürgen Todenhöfer: How is the relation between you and the United States? Does the U.S. support the rebels?
Abu al-Ezz: Yes, the U.S. support the opposition, but not directly. They support the countries which support us. But we are not yet satisfied with this support. They should support us with highly developed weapons. We have won battles thanks to the “TOW” missiles. We reached a balance with the regime through these missiles. We received the tanks from Libya through Turkey. Also the “BMs” – multiple rocket launchers. The regime excels us only with their fighter jets, missiles and missile launchers. We captured a share of its missile launchers and a large share came from abroad. But it is through the American “TOW” that we have the situation in some regions under control.
Todenhöfer: To whom did the U.S. hand those missiles before they were brought to you? Were those missiles first given to the Free Syrian Army by the U.S. and from there to you?
Abu al-Ezz: No, the missiles were given directly to us. They were delivered to a certain group. When the “road” was closed and we were besieged we had officers here from Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States.
Todenhöfer: What did those officers do?
Abu al-Ezz: Experts! Experts for the use of satellites, missiles, reconnaissance work, thermal surveillance cameras.
Todenhöfer: Were there also American experts?
Abu al-Ezz: Yes, experts from several countries.
Todenhöfer: Including Americans?
Abu al-Ezz: Yes. The Americans are on our side, but not as it should be. For example we were told: We must capture and conquer “Battalion 47”. Saudi Arabia gave us 500 million Syrian pounds. For taking the “al-Muslimiya” infantry school years ago we received from Kuwait 1.5 million Kuwaiti dinar and from Saudi Arabia 5 million U.S. dollars.
Todenhöfer: From the governments or from private persons?
Abu al-Ezz: From the governments.
Note: The translation continues at Moon of Alabama.
Get Involved!
– In the UK, join your local Stop the War Coalition to oppose further escalation in Syria.
– In the US, support your local Veterans for Peace chapter.
– Read and spread Conflict Armament Research documentation of the illegal weapons trade in Syria and Iraq.
– Support The Canary so we can keep holding the powerful to account.
Featured image of Nusra fighter with TOW missile via Jihadi social media/Twitter

Huge Fires In Siberia

“We are Suffocating from Smoke” — For Russia, Climate Change is Already Producing Fires that are Too Big to Fight

“For one month we are suffocating from the smoke. The weather is hot, and there is a strong smell of burning…” — Residents of Bratsk, northwest of Lake Baikal, in a petition to Vladimir Putin pleading him to fight the fires now raging there.
Let’s take a snapshot of the current moment from the climate change perspective: This year, global temperatures will probably hit between 1.2 and 1.25 degrees Celsius hotter than 1880s averages. This new heat, in a range likely not seen for 115,000 years, is catapulting us into dangerous new climate states. We’re starting to see the hard changes happen. Weather is growing more extreme, wildfires are worsening, the seas are rising, the glaciers are melting, and ocean health is declining. Threats of destabilization and disruption are ramping up. But compared to what we will see in the future if the world continues to warm, if we continue to burn fossil fuels, the seemingly rough changes we are experiencing now are minor and easy to manage.
These are the early, easy outliers of human-forced climate change. But for some, even for a nation as powerful as Russia, certain events have already overwhelmed emergency response capabilities.
(Fire season should have ended by late August around the region of Lake Baikal in Russia. However, due to climate change-related influences, massive fires continue to burn through September. The above image is from today, September 28. Bottom edge of frame represents approximately 600 miles. Lake Baikal is visible in the right side of frame. Smoke from large fires currently covering approximately 2.5 million acres is visible throughout the shot. Image source: LANCE MODIS.)
Climate Change Spikes Fire Incidence in Siberia
Over the past decade or so, a rapid warming of Siberia has resulted in a dramatic increase in fire incidence. The vast boreal forests were thrust into hotter, dryer conditions by a human-forced warming of the globe. Meanwhile, permafrost thaw added its own massive and growing volumes of peat-like fuel for burning. As the years progressed, very large fires have erupted with rising frequency. Mostly underreported, according to Greenpeace and independent satellite analysis by experts, these fires have covered millions of acres year after year after year:
“If you look at the whole area over the past 30 years, there’s a significant increase in burned area that is very clear by the early 2000s,” Susan Conrad, a former U.S. Forest Service scientist who has spent decades researching the impact of fire on Siberia, told ClimateWire.
Often, fighting such fires has required the effort of thousands of emergency responders supported by hundreds of pieces of equipment. As a result, the growing size of these fires and the lengthening of the season in which they burn has put a strain on the coffers of an already cash-strapped Russia. Firefighting has thus been cut or set aside for instances when a city, town or vital piece of infrastructure requires defending. More and more, these great fires have been abandoned to burn on, uncontrolled.
2016 Lake Baikal Fires Too Dangerous to Fight
This year around the region of Lake Baikal, an unrelenting (climate change-related) drought combined with abnormal heat to produce massive fires. The fires raged and flared throughout the summer. As the typical wildfire season came to an end during late August, the fires continued to burn and spread. According to Greenpeace, the fires burning during September in this region alone covered nearly 5 million acres. That’s an area about the size of Massachusetts. Satellite shots of the massive fires were dramatic, revealing plumes of dense smoke spewing out over hundreds or even thousands of miles. Residents of cities and towns around Lake Baikal experienced terrible conditions due to a suffocating pall of dense smoke covering the area.
Despite the risk to public health and increasing cases where schools, communities and infrastructure were threatened by the fires, the Russian Emergencies Ministry has claimed that such large fires are increasingly uncontrollable. Spokespeople with the agency note that the fires are so intense that they present a danger to firefighting personnel. According to Radio Free Europe:
Aleksandr Bruykhanov, senior researcher at the Forestry Institute in Krasnoyarsk, told the Siberian Times that massive wildfires have become more frequent and cannot be fully controlled by the government. He said they will only be extinguished when rain returns to the region. …”The Emergencies Ministry won’t be able to help here but will only cause some extra work for foresters, who will have to rescue rescuers.” [emphasis added]
For One Month We are Suffocating From Smoke
Hundreds of firefighters have been deployed throughout the region in isolated efforts to stem the more eminent blazes. Near the city of Bratsk, 600 firefighters and about 123 pieces of heavy equipment were reported to be engaged with the fires on September 23. Unfortunately the firefighting has, thus far, been mostly unsuccessful.
(High carbon monoxide readings north and west of Lake Baikal, Russia on September 28. This expansive plume of carbon monoxide is coming from very large fires burning in the region. Residents in a nearby city recently complained of carbon monoxide poisoning in a petition to Vladimir Putin to fight the fires. Emergencies Ministry spokespersons have claimed that the fires are increasingly uncontainable and that the best hope for stopping the fires is when rains return to the area. Image source: Earth Nullschool.)
Failure to control the massive burning has resulted in abysmal air quality for the region. In some cases, life-threatening conditions have been reported, with adults and children hospitalized. In Bratsk, a city of 250,000 people, thousands of residents are complaining of stifling smoke and incidents of carbon monoxide poisoning. A heavy pall of dense smoke has hung over the city for more than a month. The conditions there are so bad that 3,000 people have signed a petition to Vladimir Putin, urging him to deploy more resources to fight the fires, and stating that:
For one month we are suffocating from the smoke. The weather is hot, and there is a strong smell of burning and smoke. It is not possible to open windows, we cannot go out because we soon feel dizziness… Some adults and children are in hospital with severe carbon monoxide poisoning. We are for clean air! We want to breathe. We have that right. Do not remain indifferent to our health and our future!
Signs of Exhaustion at the Start of a Rough Climate Future
Exhaustion of emergency response resources is one of the big threats posed by climate change. In instances where entire regions see extreme weather conditions that are far outside the norm for an extended period of time, such as as severe droughts, floods, and fires, instances of exhaustion are more likely to occur. Exhaustion also occurs when events appear that are too large or intense to manage. It appears that firefighting efforts in Russia are starting to show some signs of exhaustion. Not good, especially considering the fact that these conditions are tame compared to what will happen in future years without some very serious climate change mitigation and response efforts now.
Whether they realize it or not, the residents of Bratsk are living at the start of a much rougher climate future. And they are just now starting to see a hint of bad conditions that will get worse as the world continues to warm and Siberia becomes one of the places to see the worst of it. It’s a situation caused by the very fossil-fuel burning that Putin currently promotes. This crisis of warming will cause more forests to burn, the fires to continue to enlarge, and the peat-like permafrost to become a fuel as it thaws.
The only way to stop this trend is to halt global temperature rise. That requires a very heavy lift, an international effort on a scale which the world has not yet fully committed to — an effort that would result in the fossil fuels Putin seeks to exploit being left in the ground in favor of far more benevolent energy sources.
Hat tip to mlparrish
Hat tip to Colorado Bob


ISIS IS US: The Shocking Truth Behind the Army of Terror Kindle Edition


Did the "Islamic State" spring full-blown into spontaneous being as the fanatical scourge of the Middle East, or was it helped along by state sponsors? 

ISIS is Iran-Contra all over again. 

In the 1980’s, the Reagan administration wanted to topple the government of Nicaragua, using right-wing mercenaries, death squads, based in Honduras. But Congress passed a law prohibiting that. So they went around it, by financing the Contras via Iran.

Three decades later, neocon/neolib hawks wanted to topple the elected governments of Libya and Syria, and crush the popular resistance in Iraq. Once again, they planned to do this using death squads. So they got around Congress by having Qatar and the Saudis finance it and use Israeli operatives.

To set up death squads in Iraq, they sent John Negroponte as Ambassador to Baghdad in 2004. The same guy they sent to Honduras as Ambassador from 1981 to 1985. Then in 2011, they sent some of those killers from Iraq to Libya to overthrow Qaddafi, with NATO air cover. From Libya, they were sent on to Syria to start the killing there, in a dirty war directed by Negroponte’s right-hand man, US Ambassador Robert Ford. 

Over the next couple years, the embedded media perversely pinned the killings of civilians on Assad, “staying on message” with the script for another NATO invasion. Only Russia’s UN veto spared Syria. Still, the sheikhs kept on financing the “rebels” – and the US pretended to fight them – until they grew into the ISIS terror army. Today, in spite of Russian military intervention, ISIS and its backers are not giving up.

U.S. Wants More Support for Al-Nusra Terrorists in Syria

Obama administration officials have begun considering tougher responses to the Russian-backed Syrian government assault on Aleppo, including military options, as rising tensions with Moscow diminish hopes for diplomatic solutions from the Middle East to Ukraine and cyberspace, U.S. officials said on Wednesday. 
The new discussions were being held at "staff level," and have yet to produce any recommendations to President Barack Obama, who has resisted ordering military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the country's multisided civil war.
But the deliberations coincide with Secretary of State John Kerry threatening to halt diplomacy with Russia on Syria and holding Moscow responsible for dropping incendiary bombs on rebel areas of Aleppo, Syria’s largest city. It was the stiffest U.S. warning to the Russians since the Sept. 19 collapse of a truce they jointly brokered.
Even administration advocates of a more muscular U.S. response said on Wednesday that it was not clear what, if anything, the president would do, and that his options "begin at tougher talk," as one official put it.
One official said that before any action could be taken, Washington would first have "follow through on Kerry’s threat and break off talks with the Russians" on Syria.
But the heavy use of Russian airpower in Syria has compounded U.S. distrust of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s geopolitical intentions, not only in the 5-1/2 year civil war, but also in the Ukraine conflict and in what U.S. officials say are Russian-backed cyber attacks on U.S. political targets.
The U.S. officials said the failure of diplomacy in Syria has left the Obama administration no choice but to consider alternatives, most of which involve some use of force and have been examined before but held in abeyance.
These include allowing Gulf allies to supply rebels with more sophisticated weaponry, something considered more likely despite Washington’s opposition to this until now. Another is a U.S. air strike on an Assad air base, viewed as less likely because of the potential for causing Russian casualties, the officials told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The options being weighed are limited in number and stop well short of any large-scale commitment of U.S. troops, which Obama, who has only four months left in office, has long rejected, the officials said.
Critics of Obama's policy in Syria argue that he set a goal - Assad's departure - without providing sufficient means to achieve it by arming the rebels earlier and more extensively, allowing U.S. allies to do so or using U.S. military might to tip the scales in the conflict.
Further, foreign policy experts inside and outside the administration have said Obama erred when he pulled back from launching air strikes on Syria to enforce a "red line" he set against the Assad government's use of chemical weapons. The result, they argued, was to diminish U.S. credibility in Moscow, Damascus and elsewhere because the perception took hold that Obama would not keep his word and follow through on his threat.
Two U.S. officials said the speed with which the Syrians have advanced in Aleppo and the diplomatic track has collapsed caught some in the administration off guard. The fall of Aleppo would restore Assad’s rule over western Syria’s most important city and deal a devastating blow to the rebels.
    As a result, one of the officials said, the list of options is narrowing to supporting rebel counter attacks elsewhere with additional weaponry or even air strikes, which "might not reverse the tide of battle, but might cause the Russians to stop and think."
Another official said any weapons supplies would not include shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, or Manpads, which the Obama administration fears could fall into the hands of Islamic State militants or al Qaeda-linked groups.
The most dramatic option under consideration – but considered less likely – would be a U.S. air strike on a Syrian air base far from the fighting between Assad’s troops and rebel forces in the north, officials said.
Other ideas under consideration include sending more U.S. special operations forces to train and advise Kurdish and Syrian rebel groups, and deploying additional American and allied naval and airpower to the eastern Mediterranean, where a French aircraft carrier is already en route.
U.S. officials had considered a humanitarian airlift to rebel-held areas, which would require escorts by U.S. warplanes, but this has been deemed too risky and has been "moved down the list," one official said.
State Department spokesman John Kirby said on Wednesday that U.S. officials involved in the interagency process that deals with national security had discussed other Syria options "that don't revolve around diplomacy." He declined to elaborate.
U.S. officials cautioned that no decisions were imminent with Defense Secretary Ash Carter traveling and Obama and other senior officials planning to attend former Israeli leader Shimon Peres’s funeral in Israel on Friday.

(Additional reporting by Arshad Mohammed and Phil Stewart; Editing by John Walcott and Grant McCool)

U.S. Supports Terrorists Al-Nusra

„Tote Soldaten und Angriffe auf russische Städte“- Moskau reagiert auf US-Drohungen 

POLITIK 15:27 29.09.2016(aktualisiert 18:24 29.09.2016) 

 Die USA haben nun zugegeben, dass sie die Terroristen in Syrien kontrollieren. So hat das Moskauer Verteidigungsministerium die jüngste Drohung gegen russische Soldaten und Flugzeuge gewertet. Ausgesprochen wurde diese Drohung von John Kirby, dem Sprecher des US-Außenamtes.

 Lawrow macht Kerry auf US-Waffenlieferungen an terroristische Nusra-Front aufmerksam Kirby hatte gewarnt, dass, wenn der Bürgerkrieg in Syrien andauere, die Terroristen „russische Interessen und vielleicht sogar russische Städte angreifen“ würden und Russland „seine Soldaten in Leichensäcken nach Hause schicken, Ressourcen, vielleicht auch weitere Flugzeuge verlieren“ würde. „Nun sind die Masken gefallen“, kommentierte Igor Konaschenkow, Pressesprecher des russischen Verteidigungsministeriums, am Donnerstag.  Kirbys Worte seien „ein klares Bekenntnis, dass die Opposition, die angeblich einen Bürgerkrieg in Syrien führt, in Wahrheit ein US-kontrolliertes internationales Terrornetzwerk ist.“ „Es ist erschütternd, wie weit der US-amerikanische Einfluss auf die Terroristen greift und nun auch bis nach Russland reicht“, sagte Konaschenkow. Nach seinen Angaben werden Operationen der Extremisten in Syrien von „geheimen Spezialisten“ geplant und gesteuert. 

 „Harte Antwort“ an Moskau und Damaskus: Diese Militärlösungen erörtert Washington Russland wisse wohl, „wie viele Spezialisten sich nicht öffentlich in Syrien aufhalten und wo genau sie sind“. Russland sei weiter zu einem Dialog mit den USA und zum gemeinsamen Vorgehen gegen die Terroristen bereit, werde jedoch keine Drohungen gegen seine Bürger und Soldaten dulden, und auch nicht einmal eine Anspielung auf Drohungen. „Auch wenn Herr Kirby seine Admiralsuniform unlängst durch einen zivilen Anzug als Außenamtssprecher gewechselt hat, darf er nicht vergessen, was Offiziersehre ist“, sagte Konaschenkow.  Er gehe davon aus, dass Kirby sich der Folgen seines Statements bewusst sei. 

Syrien: Koalition greift Assads Armee an - 62 Tote Am 17. September hatten Kampfjets der US-geführten Koalition die syrische Regierungsarmee im Raum Deir ez-Zor angegriffen und 62 syrische Soldaten getötet, rund 100 weitere wurden verletzte. Die syrische Armee erklärte daraufhin die von Russland und den USA ausgehandelte Waffenruhe für beendet — schließlich hatten sich die Rebellen nicht daran gehalten. Russland kritisierte den Angriff scharf und machte die Rebellen für das Scheitern der Waffenruhe verantwortlich. US-Außenminister John Kerry forderte jedoch, Russland solle Schritte unternehmen, um die Waffenruhe wiederherzustellen. Er drohte, dass die USA anderenfalls die „Zusammenarbeit“ mit Russland in Sachen Syrien beenden würden. 1624 ... 38411 Zum Thema: Die USA haben die Waffenruhe in Syrien boykottiert - Experte Sacharowa an Kirby: Wer genau soll „Angriffe auf russische Städte“ ausüben? Terroristen-Kommandeur im Interview: USA beliefern Al-Nusra direkt mit Waffen Tags: John Kirby, Igor Konaschenkow, USA, Russland, Syrien



Nederlandse Oorlogsmisdaden Nu Pas Wetenschappelijk Aangetoond


Extreem geweld Indië schuld van hoogste gezag

Historisch onderzoek
Nederlandse militairen gebruikten structureel geweld in Nederlands-Indië. Dat is te wijten aan de drie hoogste gezagsdragers, blijkt uit nieuw historisch onderzoek.

Twee KNIL-militairen houden op 22 juli 1947 in Bindjai (oostkust Sumatra) twee ontklede Indonesiërs onder schot. Het ontkleden van gevangenen kan men beschouwen als een vernedering waardoor zij nog kwetsbaarder tegenover de gewapende militairen stonden. Het oorspronkelijke bijschrift: “Iedereen die men tegenkomt die wordt ondervraagd, wat had dit eigenlijk voor nut?”Foto NIMH 

De drie hoogste vertegenwoordigers van het gezag in Nederlands-Indië waren samen verantwoordelijk voor het Nederlandse extreme geweld tijdens de Indonesische Onafhankelijkheidsoorlog, van 1945 tot 1949. Het gaat om de legercommandant Simon Spoor, de hoogste bestuursambtenaar Huib van Mook en justitieel topambtenaar Henk Felderhof. Dat blijkt uit het proefschrift van de Zwitsers-Nederlandse historicus Rémy Limpach dat deze donderdag is verschenen. Het drietal zette volgens Limpach aan tot „een militair ‘pokerspel’, met de inzet van tienduizenden Indonesische en Nederlandse levens”. Het uitspelen van dit militaire spel door de bestuurlijke kopstukken, werd niet eerder blootgelegd. 
Vorig jaar werd al bekend dat het extreme geweld van de Nederlandse troepen structureel van aard was, zoals bleek uit het onderzoek van Limpach: het was wijdverbreid en in de militaire structuur verankerd. Nu legt Limpach een coalitie van daderschap bloot binnen de krijgsmacht en het burgerbestuur, dat in alle geledingen doorwerkte. Die conclusie is in tegenspraak met het regeringsstandpunt, volgend op de Excessennota uit 1969, dat stelt dat het om incidentele ontsporingen ging van individuele militairen. 
Lees ook het interview met historicus Rémy Limpach: Moorden en martelingen verdoezelen was ‘gewoon beleid’

Onhaalbare militaire doelen

Limpach baseerde zich op archieven van de procureur-generaal, de algemene secretarie, juristen Van Rij en Stam en bestuursambtenaren, maar ook op 885 brieven van veteranen uit het archief van voormalig actualiteitenprogramma Achter het Nieuws (VARA). Dat ontving veel brieven in reactie op de uitzending van Indiëveteraan Joop Hueting, die in 1969 uit de school klapte over het structurele geweld. 
Uit het onderzoek blijkt dat legercommandant Spoor, die 200.000 manschappen onder zich had, onhaalbare militaire doelen stelde. Hij nam de inzet van extreem geweld daarbij op de koop toe, aldus Limpach. De verantwoordelijkheid voor gebiedsbeheersing werd als „een hete aardappel van boven naar beneden doorgegeven”. Dat kwam in de praktijk neer op eigenmachtig optreden van commandanten en op orders die bewust ‘vaag’ werden gehouden. Een bekend voorbeeld is de massamoord op Zuid-Celebes onder leiding van de beruchte kapitein Raymond Westerling, die van de legerleiding carte blanche kreeg. „Deze misdaden werden door de autoriteiten verhuld, de controle ontbrak en de preventie faalde.”

Koloniale trojka

De ‘koloniale trojka’ bestond daarnaast uit de hoogste bestuursambtenaar, gouverneur-generaal Van Mook, die volgens de historicus „voor zijn beleid over lijken” ging, en procureur-generaal Felderhof. Die laatste droeg beslissend bij aan het militair-juridisch afschermen van de troepen. In het geval van de massamoord in het West-Javaanse dorp Rawagadeh in 1947 vond Felderhof het aanvaardbaar dat militairen hun toevlucht namen tot buitengerechtelijke executies. 
De eindverantwoordelijkheid lag in Den Haag. De regering van PvdA en KVP onder Schermerhorn nam de beslissing tot mobilisering van de troepen en de volgende kabinetten zetten dat voort. 
„De regering in Den Haag had de taak toezicht te houden op de hoogste leiders in Batavia, waarin zij niet alleen tekortschoot vanwege de grote afstand, maar ook door duidelijke onwil.”