Panetta’s out hawking his book about how Obama isn’t enough of a hawk. Of course, he is likely acting as a surrogate for Hillary Clinton, who appears to be advocating a more knee-jerk approach to foreign intervention. She and John McCain (and his various clones) really, really wanted that Syrian war, and now both seem to believe that the advent of ISIS is the result of our having failed to jump in ass first last year (essentially on ISIS’s side, it’s worth pointing out). Shades of Bush/Cheney – I guess it’s been long enough since the total disaster of the Iraq war for some people to yearn for the days of pre-emptive war, of “shock and awe”, of taking the gloves off. Included in that number is the putative front-runner of the Democratic field for President.
So, after six years of being compelled to drink the fragrant golden beverage of Obama’s national security policy – drones, bombs, domestic spying, whistleblower-persecution and all – we are now to be treated to even more acrid delicacies offered up by Clinton, the next generation. I guess this is an indication of bipartisan consensus on foreign policy, though it remains to be seen how the GOP will outflank the Democrats on the crazytown side. This is truly a race to the bottom. That’s the power of this lesser of two evils electoral philosophy.
I suppose I needn’t remind anyone of the process I and people like me went through during the last couple of presidential elections. In 2008, I was voting to avoid McCain, who most certainly would have gotten us into several wars before the end of his first hundred days, to say nothing of the Hoover-like response to the financial crisis he was planning (remember the spending freeze?). That was a close brush with true catastrophe, I’m pretty sure. 2012 was less dramatic, but still … Mitt Romney was a disaster in the making. He would have brought in a gaggle of Bush II retreads who are now waiting for the impending Cruz or Perry administration. He would have rewarded his rich friends with more riches. Not a huge difference from Obama, you understand, but enough to be worth a vote.
After years of drinking rancid urine, however, I have had it. Obama’s policy regarding Syria, Iran, Iraq, Ukraine, Palestine, Yemen, and other nations is disgusting. Attacking him from the right is inexcusable.
luv u,
jp
ISIS and related fighters have been shooting helicopters down. What happens when they hit one of our ships? Boots on the ground. You don’t have to be Kreskin (or Criswelll) to see that we may well be embroiled in a regional ground war within the next few months. This may make our previous conflicts look like a folk dance; the more we hit ISIS, the more people on the ground and from other countries flock to their side. Put yourself in the shoes of a Sunni citizen of Iraq. Who has contributed more to your misery over the past 25 years? You may dislike the ISIS fanatics, but you likely hate us with a rare passion. Not a formula for success.
The media, as always, is in the tank for this war. On the morning after bombing began in Syria, the first voice you heard on NPR’s 6:00 a.m. newscast was that of a retired general who had “crafted” America’s bombing campaign during the Gulf War – a man who thought we weren’t bombing Syria hard enough. That’s NPR, no surprise, but don’t expect any better from the liberal media. Rachel Maddow, while a war skeptic, gave a thumbnail recent history of the Iraqi Kurds and the Gulf War that might have been torn out of a Bush campaign media release. Our only role in that saga, according to this telling, was liberating freedom-loving Kuwait and helping the Kurds preserve evidence of Saddam’s pogrom against them.
The response to ISIS is another instance of decision-making driven by decades of bad policy. We are, in essence, seeking to deal with a mess of our own making, to put it charitably, and in so doing making an investment in future crises while bankrupting ourselves in the present. The money and arms flowing to ISIS emanate from Saudi Arabia, other gulf states, and abandoned resources in Iraq, not to mention oil payments from third countries, like Turkey (our NATO ally). Many if not most of the weapons are stamped “Property of the U.S. Military”. Working with the Saudis to arm and train “moderate” opponents of the Assad regime is akin to working with the Pakistanis to arm and train “moderate” opponents of the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980s. How did that turn out again?
I can’t say which part of Obama’s proposed campaign against ISIS seems the most confused and misguided. It may be the notion that we should fund the training of “moderate” Syrian opposition forces in Saudi Arabia, of all places. First of all, there is no meaningful moderate opposition in Syria. The lead forces opposing the Assad regime are hyper-religious extremists. They have walked off with many of the weapons we have dropped on the so-called moderates, just as billions of dollars worth of weapons have gone missing in Afghanistan (probably falling into the hands of the Taliban or worse). Any effort to train the “moderates” will be symbolic at best and will likely result in yet another stream of jihadist heading from the gulf to the conflict zone.
At the close of the Cold War, it was understood that expansion of NATO would be seen as provocative by Russia, but because Russia was in a weak position, their economy destroyed by massive privatization, shock therapy structural adjustment, guided by some of our Chicago-school fanatics, we felt free to ignore their concerns. That worked so long as our drunken ally Yeltsin was in command. But now that the extremely powerful Russian presidency (which we supported under Yeltsin) has been inherited by a sober ex-KGB officer, and the Russian economy has been lifted somewhat by oil revenues, they have found the confidence to voice their objections. And, of course, we’re shocked, shocked!
This Russia/Ukraine matter is remarkable in its stupidity. It’s as if our “National Security” state imperial institutions cannot justify their own existence anymore without resurrecting the Cold War, and in so doing, are attempting to make it seem like Putin is intent on resurrecting the Soviet Union. I have to say, that’s pretty weak sauce, as they say on the “coast”. (The sauce must be kind of weak there.) It’s the usual appeasement/slippery slope narrative – sure, it may seem like small potatoes to you, sliding a handful of armored personnel carriers across the border, but if we let him get away with THIS, ANYthing can happen.
No fear, right? We won’t see Netanyahu in the dock, because if he lands there, our leaders would be right behind him for their crucial support of his atrocities. The ICC may sound like a good idea, but make no mistake: it’s not for powerful countries; it is for defeated leaders from the developing world who have gotten on the wrong side of the United States in one way or another. You might see a Milosevic or a Sri Lankan general facing justice, but never the George Bushes, Dick Cheneys, Don Rumsfelds, Barack Obamas, Tony Blairs, or BiBi Netanyahus of the world. I know I’ve said it before, but it’s mere victor’s justice, and therefore no justice at all.
Of course, they already had their hair on fire about Obama’s foreign policy, particularly with regard to the Middle East. Once again, the alarm bell is cranked up to eleven … like it was for the capture of the Benghazi jihadist, and for the the Bergdahl deal, and for pretty much every thing that happens anywhere, every day of the week. Not sure why we should listen to people like Dan Senor, or John McCain, or Bill Kristol, or anyone else still on television after having been so fantastically wrong on what they were supposed to be experts about, but we keep hearing from them anyway. Go back into Iraq, they say … it’s the only way to keep the country from falling apart.