Imagine the following scenario:
You are an employer, you interview an applicant for a vacancy in
your enterprise and you hire the guy, based on letters of recommendation from
previous employers that praise him no end.
He starts working, but after a few weeks, you realize that he
bungles most of what he touches. You talk to other employees that have been
with you a long time, and happen to be collaborating with the new hire on a
daily basis. Pressed to speak honestly, they give you a poor assessment of the
man’s abilities.
You go back and look into his file where you see inconsistencies
in the letters of recommendation that you glanced at superficially while
interviewing the guy. But now that you're examining the documents closely, you
discover that some letters came from companies that never existed. Others came
from companies that went bankrupt. And still others seem to indicate he was
working full time in several companies at the same time.
You realize that the man pulled a fast one on you. You get angry
and think of him as a con artist; a man that lacks scruples who abused your
trust. But you also blame yourself for failing to be so careful as to avoid
making the mistake of hiring him in the first place.
Back to reality. That kind of scenario is not a farfetched story.
It is true that some employees exaggerate their credentials when applying for a
job. But it is also true that other employees do not bother writing resumes,
relying instead on the intelligence of the employer to assess their abilities
during the interview. And there is wisdom in taking this approach. It is that
an employee that's secure in his professional abilities does not want to work
for a boss that doesn't know what he is doing. Thus, while the latter is
assessing the applicant through the verbal exchange, it also happens that the
applicant is assessing the prospective boss.
This brings us to the characters who manage, by some trickery, to
get hired as advisers to government departments in the so-called democracies.
They do it by supplying professional writers of resumes with false information,
and get them to write glowing documents about them. Armed with such documents,
they manage to get jobs advising what they know little or nothing about, and
never get reprimanded because reprimand never happens in government jobs. One
such character is Payton Knopf who is now loafing in the halls of an outfit
calling itself the US Institute of Peace, and wants to get back advising the
State Department on the Sudan and South Sudan.
In fact, Knopf was there a few times before, helping the American
government as well as an assortment of shady characters and organizations from
around the world, to make a mess of Sudan. These were the know-nothing
self-proclaimed do-gooders from Hollywood, their pedophile sidekicks and the
money grabbing wannabe colonial predators who relied on the work of con artists
that posed as advisers. They got into Darfur, Eastern Sudan and South Sudan,
and turned the country into a hellhole. The same bunch is again looking for an
excuse to get back into Sudan and resume doing the evil deeds they miss so
much.
In fact, when you go through his article (Golden hour in the Horn of Africa, Washington Examiner, April 27, 2019) you find very little
that says: here is what's good for the Sudan and its people. On the contrary,
it's all about what's good for America, itself a euphemism that's known to
mean: what's good for Israel. What follows is a condensed version of what the
Payton Knopf article is saying:
“Political changes are underway in the Horn of Africa, at the
strategic crossroads of the Middle East, North Africa and the Sahel. The region
is at an inflection point. The US response to events in Sudan will determine
whether it emerges more stable or tips into the abyss. The military deposed the
President, establishing a council to rule, subsequently receiving support from
Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. State failure in Sudan would be catastrophic
for the US and its European allies. The US is operating from a deficit of credibility.
Together with its partners, it should articulate a road map for Sudan. The
pledge by Saudi Arabia and the UAE to provide $3 billion of aid to Sudan could
lead other regional states to back different elements inside Sudan. Congress
can ensure that the administration has sufficient resources to align its
strategic ends with its means”.
Given the way that America has performed in the Middle East during
the last two decades or so, it is unlikely that any Arab or Muslim country will
again join the United States in a military coalition or any coalition.
It also goes without saying that the United States will find it
extremely difficult to persuade European countries to go along with it and do
something in Africa, having assessed America as a potential employer that’s not
good enough to be their boss. What this means, is that America will operate
alone in Sudan, pretending to serve American interests but in reality, doing
the dirty if not criminal work for Israel.
And if you want to know how dirty that work will be, you'll find
the answer by recalling a time when America was under Republican rule, and
“Democratic” Susan Rice was so hungry to be hired as adviser by anybody, she
turned to the Jews and asked them what to say or do.
They told her to go out and advocate the bombing of the oil
installations in Sudan. And Susan Rice went on national television and
advocated the bombing of the oil installations in Sudan. She could not have
gotten closer than this to advocating the commission of crimes against humanity.
In consequence of all that, let it be known that the Sudanese
people do not need any more help from the Hollywood types or from pedophiles or
from money grabbing colonial predators or the likes of Payton Knopf or Susan
Rice.