Hillary Clinton's speech on ISIS to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) showed clearly what to expect in a Clinton presidency: more of the same. In her speech, Clinton doubled down on the existing, failed U.S. approach in the Middle East, the one she pursued as Secretary of State.
The CIA-led policy in the Middle East works like this. If a regime is deemed to be unfriendly to the U.S., topple it. If a competitor like the Soviet Union or Russia has a foothold in the region, try to push it out. If this means arming violent insurgencies, including Sunni jihadists, and thereby creating mayhem: so be it. And if the result is terrorist blowback around the world by the forces created by the US, then double down on bombing and regime change.
In rare cases, great presidents learn to stand up to the CIA and the rest of the military-industrial-intelligence complex. JFK became one of the greatest presidents in American history when he came to realize the awful truth that his own military and CIA advisors had contributed to the onset of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The CIA-led Bay of Pigs fiasco and other CIA blunders had provoked a terrifying response from the Soviet Union. Recognizing that the U.S. approach had contributed to bringing the world to the brink, Kennedy bravely and successfully stood up to the warmongering pushed by so many of his advisors and pursued peace, both during and after the Cuban Missile Crisis. He thereby saved the world from nuclear annihilation and halted the unchecked proliferation of nuclear arms.
Clinton's speech shows that she and her advisors are good loyalists of the military-industrial-intelligence complex. Her speech included an impressive number of tactical elements: who should do the bombing and who should be the foot soldiers. Yet all of this tactical precision is nothing more than business as usual. Would Clinton ever have the courage and vision to push back against the U.S. security establishment, as did JFK, and thereby restore global diplomacy and reverse the upward spiral of war and terror?
Just as the CIA contributed to the downward slide to the Cuban Missile Crisis, and just as many of JFK's security chiefs urged war rather than negotiation during that crisis, so too today's Middle East terrorism, wars, and refugee crises have been stoked by misguided CIA-led interventions. Starting in 1979, the CIA began to build the modern Sunni jihadist movement, then known as the Mujahedeen, to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The CIA recruited young Sunni Muslim men to fight the Soviet infidel, and the CIA provided training, arms, and financing. Yet soon enough, this US-created jihadist army turned on the US, a classic and typical case of blowback.
The anti-U.S. and anti-Western blowback started with the first Gulf War in 1990, when the U.S. stationed troops throughout the region. It continued with the Second Gulf War, when the U.S. toppled a Sunni regime in Iraq and replaced it with a puppet Shia regime. In the process, it dismantled Saddam's Sunni-led army, which then regrouped as a core part of ISIS in Iraq.
Next the U.S. teamed up with Saudi Arabia to harass, and then to try to topple Bashir al-Assad. His main crime from the perspective of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia: being too close to Iran. Once again, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia turned to Sunni jihadists with arms and financing, and part of that fighting force morphed into ISIS in Syria. The evidence is that the covert U.S. actions against Assad pre-date the overt U.S. calls for Assad's overthrow in 2011 by at least a couple of years.
In a similar vein, the U.S. teamed up with France and the UK to bomb Libya and kill Muammar Qaddafi. The result has been an ongoing Libyan civil war, and the unleashing of violent jihadists across the African Sahel, including Mali, which suffered the terrorist blow last week at the hands of such marauders.
Thanks to America's misguided policies, we now have wars and violence raging across a 5,000-mile stretch from Bamako, Mali to Kabul, Afghanistan, with a U.S. hand in starting and stoking the violence. Libya, Sudan, the Sinai, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan are all cases where the U.S. has directly intervened with very adverse results. Mali, Chad, Central African Republic, Somalia are some of the many other countries indirectly caught up in turmoil unleashed by U.S. covert and overt operations.
Of course the U.S. is not solely to blame for all of this. Countries across the Sahel, Horn of Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia are impoverished, suffering from food shortages and hunger, high joblessness, global warming, severe droughts, illiteracy, and the impact of dysfunctional or non-existent schools. The region still reels from the artificial borders and the cynical actions of the colonial powers, Britain and France, after World War I. The British Empire, of course, was key to entrenching radical Wahabism in Saudi Arabia, which now provides cash and ideological support for many of the Sunni jihadists.
Until today, Clinton has not acknowledged the roots of the conflict in the region, including the disastrous role that the U.S. has played, including under her watch as Secretary of State. She has not been a mastermind of it, but has been a loyal backer carried along by the CIA, the broader military-industrial-intelligence complex, and the conventional neocon thinking in DC. That's no doubt good for her national politics. It's hard to run for President as an opponent of the permanent U.S. security state. Being a card-carrying member of the U.S. security establishment is the mainstream media's definition of a "serious" candidate.
Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders are learning this for all their troubles. O'Malley and Sanders wisely and correctly support an America that works with other countries and with the UN Security Council to build peace in the Middle East rather than an America that continues to indulge in endless and failed CIA adventures of regime change and war. While Clinton arrogantly demands that other countries such as Russia and Iran fall squarely behind the U.S., O'Malley and Sanders recognize that it is through compromise in the UN Security Council that we can defeat ISIS and find lasting solutions in the Middle East.
Whether Clinton could ever break free of the military-industrial complex remains to be seen. If she does become president, our very survival will depend on her capacity to learn.
Thanks for this helpful article. Yes, Hillary is a Hawk. She will probably be our next president, better than Trump, but worse than Bernie.
The likelihood of World War III is great. The U.S. has lost all its recent big wars--to weak countries, like Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, and now Afghanistan. I say this as someone who was an officer in the U.S. Army during American wars on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, until I was one of the many military persons who resigned and joined the peace movement.
So what is the American Empire now doing? Threatening large, powerful countries with big militaries, like China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and N. Korea. Meanwhile, desperate Muslims are organizing to end their desperation through meeting violence with violence. They did not initiate that violence. As bad as the killing in Paris was, it was nothing like the millions that the American Empire has killed. Go figure. It is unpredictable what will happen, but if (or when) Hillary is elected, expect her extensive ties to Wall Street and the military will lead to war. At least they will be able to sell weapons to all sides. I hope that I am wrong.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam:
...Hillary Clinton's speech on ISIS to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) showed clearly what to expect ...
11-25-2015, 09:26 PM
santoshimatajaya
Re: WANT MORE WAR: Hillary Hawk
if this is any consolation Shepherd, there was an astrological chart done on Hillary, from this it read that she will not win this presidential election. they picked Jeb Bush as her running mate and his chart shows success
rather than hers. Let's see how it all plays out~
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:
Thanks for this helpful article. Yes, Hillary is a Hawk. She will probably be our next president, better than Trump, but worse than Bernie.
The likelihood of World War III is great. The U.S. has lost all its recent big wars--to weak countries, like Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, and now Afghanistan. I say this as someone who was an officer in the U.S. Army during American wars on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, until I was one of the many military persons who resigned and joined the peace movement.
So what is the American Empire now doing? Threatening large, powerful countries with big militaries, like China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and N. Korea. Meanwhile, desperate Muslims are organizing to end their desperation through meeting violence with violence. They did not initiate that violence. As bad as the killing in Paris was, it was nothing like the millions that the American Empire has killed. Go figure. It is unpredictable what will happen, but if (or when) Hillary is elected, expect her extensive ties to Wall Street and the military will lead to war. At least they will be able to sell weapons to all sides. I hope that I am wrong.
