Hillary shows her hand

For those who believe that Hillary Clinton represents anything other than a continuation of the rightward march of the Democratic Party (and a continuation of the Bush-Obama doctrine), please read the interview published today in Atlantic: “Hillary Clinton: ‘Failure’ to Help Syrian Rebels Led to the Rise of ISIS.” Faux populist Clinton is back in storage, replaced by realpolitik Washington insider “serious” Hillary.

Evidently believing that whoever remains who considers himself part of the “left” of the Democratic Party has no where to go, Hillary Clinton is doubling down on appeasing the “right.” This has been the hallmark of those “centrists” of the Democratic Leadership Council who hijacked the party. Despite the fact that the public overwhelmingly objected to our interference in the Syrian civil war, Hillary Clinton has thrown in with the crowd that believes that the clear decline in American influence around the world is not caused by hair-trigger adventurism, but by using power too sparingly and in consulting with other countries too frequently. How long will it be before she joins in the chorus of those who claim we should never have left Iraq?

Washington insiders will rejoice that after this administration it looks like there will no longer be partisanship in foreign policy. It will all be dictated by the hardliners. War industrialists will rejoice for a return to cold war mentality (with more enemies, however!). Civilians in third-world countries should cringe.

Buckle your seat belts. We are about to witness a ratcheting up of the war whoops as the Republicans and Hillary try to show who will become the trigger-happiest.

Advertisements
    • Jeff Nguyen
    • August 10th, 2014

    Here’s all you need to know about H. Clinton: http://youtu.be/Fgcd1ghag5Y

  1. Hillary is also wrong in her analysis of Syria-Iraq situation. The so-called Syrian rebel “moderates” would never have achieved a position of political strength no matter how much military and financial aid the U.S. gave them. The entire region is now a fractured quagmire of increasingly violent sectarianism. Arms supplied to the rebels would undoubtedly end up in the hands of the Sunni insurgency (ISIS) in Iraq and other Islamist groups throughout the Middle East.

    The problem for the U.S.-led West is not the decline of its aggressive imperialist foreign policy, but the demise of the region’s secular strongmen (Saddam Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi, etc.) who succumbed to the very Islamic populism which was fomented by the West. How ironic!

    Regarding future American foreign policy, the Democratic and Republican Party establishment will continue to be opposed by the progressive left (e.g. Elizabeth Warren), the libertarian right (e.g. Rand Paul), and the general anti-war sentiment currently reflected in public opinion.

  2. I’m with you as to the hijacked Democratic Party.
    Clinton, for me, is a frightful person. Scary! A lot meaner and tougher than her husband. He made serious mistakes, it seems to me, but he had a human streak, at least, and didn’t really want to monger war.

  3. A couple of things are really disturbing about this interview. First, of course, is that she gave a “defining” position to Jeffrey Goldberg, one of the principal cheerleaders of the Iraq invasion (which was the beginning of the domino collapse of our position in the Middle East). Second, her world view is bizarrely jingoistic. She claims that the “raison d’etre” of the “jihadist groups” is to be against the West, against the Crusaders, against the fill-in-the-blank—and we all fit into one of these categories.” In other words “they” hate us because of our freedoms. Isn’t this GWB thinking?

    And who are these “jihadist groups”? ISIS, but not the Sunni rebels in Syria. The Sunni rebels in Iraq, but not the chief sponsor of Sunni rebels, the Saud family. The Muslim Brotherhood, who for some reason are more terrifying than the neo-fascist military junta in Egypt, which we sponsor. The Taliban used to be a jihadist group, but now we are desperately trying to negotiate them into a coalition government in Afghanistan.

    The fact of the matter is that the foreign policy impulses of the powers that be in the U.S. are not so much about the interests and possible motives of political and ethnic groups in the Middle East but about the positioning of power blocks inside a declining mega-power which feels impotent at losing its hegemony.

    The three blocks of the foreign policy establishment in the U.S. now are: (1) The full-throated adventurists. Brought to you by Bush-Cheney. These once discredited neo-cons are now making a come-back on the basis of the Benghazi ginned up scandal (designed to take down Hillary) and the rise of ISIS, the need to put a fig leaf over Israel’s incursion into Gaza, and the breakdowns of Iraq, Libya and Egypt. (2) The arm-the-insurgents (or the anti-insurgents). This is variously filled by John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman and now it seems Hillary Clinton. Turmoil seems to be their metier, and it doesn’t seem important to know-your-insurgent. If the Saud family endorses them, that’s good enough for us. Or if Russia is against them, that is good enough as well. Of course, it’s easier to be in this position if you are willing to amp up into Group 1 at a drop of a hat. And, remember, McCain, Graham, Lieberman and Hilary all voted for the Iraq invasion. (3) Terror-lite. This is where our President finds himself. He is not happy about sending ground troops into quagmires. That may be the best that can be said about him. But he is quite willing to rain down terror from the skies and no number of civilians matter (because frankly they count all males as “combatants” anyway). This is not a policy for resolving tensions, advancing U.S. hegemony or even any sensible political goal. It is done with a goal to reducing U.S. casualties that would come with full-on adventurism.

    It isn’t even a question any more of whether we use force as a first or second resort. It’s simply a question of how quickly force is applied first. That is really the sum of the “Hard Choices” our leaders are willing to entertain.

    • This is a wonderful expression of everything so many of us detest about HC. Your idiolect is, as usual, funny and right-on . . . ” the need to put a fig leaf over Israel’s incursion into Gaza . . . the arm-the-insurgents (or the anti-insurgents).” “Turmoil” as a “metier” . . . “and it doesn’t seem important to know-your-insurgent. If the Saud family endorses them, that’s good enough for us. Or if Russia is against them, that is good enough as well.”
      You make it all so beautifully clear! I’ve missed reading you and must come back more often! Have been pretty busy with Bernie campaign.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s