Friday, October 21, 2016

Things To Come: WAR - U.S. Foreign Policy 'Elite' Eagerly Await An Expansion Of Wars Under Clinton

U.S. Foreign Policy ‘Elite’ Eagerly Await an Expansion of Overseas Wars Under Hillary Clinton

Your average American Hillary Clinton supporter will smugly head to the polls on November 8th, entirely self-assured of his or her vital role in the defeat of fascism in these United States. It won’t take long for such childish delusions to be vanquished by the horror of subsequent reckless and unnecessary imperial conflagrations that will be inevitably unleashed by their savior throughout the world.
The extreme dangers faced by the planet as a result of neocon warmonger Hillary Clinton becoming President have been apparent for a very long time. Oliver Stone and many others have vocally warned about it, and I’ve covered the topic on many occasions; including in the following posts:
Now, courtesy of a newly published article at The Washington Post, we are once again forced to confront this very uncomfortable reality. Here are a few of the more disturbing excerpts from today’s piece:
There is one corner of Washington where Donald Trump’s scorched-earth presidential campaign is treated as a mere distraction and where bipartisanship reigns. In the rarefied world of the Washington foreign policy establishment, President Obama’s departure from the White House — and the possible return of a more conventional and hawkish Hillary Clinton — is being met with quiet relief. 
The Republicans and Democrats who make up the foreign policy elite are laying the groundwork for a more assertive American foreign policy via a flurry of reports shaped by officials who are likely to play senior roles in a potential Clinton White House.
It is not unusual for Washington’s establishment to launch major studies in the final months of an administration to correct the perceived mistakes of a president or influence his successor. But the bipartisan nature of the recent recommendations, coming at a time when the country has never been more polarized, reflect a remarkable consensus among the foreign policy elite.
This consensus is driven by broad-based backlash against a president who has repeatedly stressed the dangers of overreach and the limits of American power, especially in the Middle East. “There’s a widespread perception that not being active enough or recognizing the limits of American power has costs,” said Philip Gordon, a senior foreign policy adviser to Obama until 2015. “So the normal swing is to be more interventionist.”
Taken together, the studies and reports call for more-aggressive American action to constrain Iran, rein in the chaos in the Middle East and check Russia in Europe.
The studies, which reflect Clinton’s stated views and the direction she is likely to take if she is elected, break most forcefully with Obama on Syria. 

Virtually all these efforts, including a report that will be released Wednesday by the liberal Center for American Progress, call for stepped up military action to deter President Bashar al-Assad’s regime and Russian forces in Syria.
This is what passes off as “liberal” these days.
The proposed military measures include calls for safe zones to protect moderate rebels from Syrian and Russian forces. Most of the studies propose limited American airstrikes with cruise missiles to punish Assad if he continues to attack civilians with barrel bombs, as is currently happening in besieged Aleppo. So far, Obama has staunchly resisted any military action against the Assad regime.
Even pinprick cruise missile strikes designed to hobble the Syrian air force or punish Assad would risk a direct confrontation with Russian forces, which are scattered throughout the key Syrian military bases that would be targeted.
“You can’t pretend you can go to war against Assad and not go to war against the Russians,” said a senior administration official who is involved in Middle East policy and was granted anonymity to discuss internal White House deliberations.

Inside the White House, senior administration officials regularly dismissed calls for military force from the foreign policy establishment as the product of “too much college, not enough knowledge,” writes Derek Chollet, a former top Obama administration official, in his new book “The Long Game.”
Other White House officials derisively referred to Washington’s foreign policy experts as “the Blob.”
As much as I’ve criticized Obama for his many costly foreign adventures, he is an absolute peacenik compared to Clinton. Let’s never forget that the biggest foreign policy disaster of his Presidency, the destruction of Libya, was the brainchild of his then Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
“Everyone has kind of given up on the Middle East. We have been at it for 15 years, and a lot of Americans think it is hopeless,” Hadley said. “We think it is not.”
What would we do without people like Hadley around to screw things up?
“The dynamic is totally different from what I saw a decade ago” when Democratic and Republican elites were feuding over the invasion of Iraq, said Brian Katulis, a senior Middle East analyst at the Center for American Progress. Today, the focus among the foreign policy elite is on rebuilding a more muscular and more “centrist internationalism,” he said.
This is an absolute disaster waiting to happen. As I tweeted earlier today:

We stand at a very dangerous moment. The U.S. empire is essentially over, but the emperors haven't got the memo.

Brace yourselves everyone, the next four years are going to be very, very ugly.

Articles: The Coming War with Russia

It certainly sounds alarmist to predict a war with Russia.  However, members of this administration are following policies that can lead to only that result.  They are following belligerent policies on two fronts: cyberspace and Syria.  These policies are based on a farrago of mendacity and incompetence.  

The cyberspace conflict arose as a result of suspicion that the Russians are interfering in the U.S. election through WikiLeaks.  The Russians firmly deny that they have any involvement in the hacking.  The Office of Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement: "These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process.  We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities." 

It should be noted that this assertion is based upon a "belief."  The administration has provided no proof.  Any foreign intelligence service with a budget over $129 could have access to the secretary of state's email.  In the face of this grave threat, the administration has enlisted the awe-inspiring intellect of Vice President Joe Biden.  In an interview with Chuck Todd on 13 October, Biden asserted, "We're sending a message.  We have the capacity to do it, and it will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact."  After publicly announcing the proposed covert cyber-attack, Todd asked Biden if the public would know about it.  Biden responded, "Hope not."

Biden's remarks were immediately denounced by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, who said, "The threats directed against Moscow and our state's leadership are unprecedented because they are voiced at the level of the U.S. vice president."  Vladimir Putin responded, "The only novelty is that for the first time, on the highest level, the United States has admitted involvement in these activities, and to some extent threatened [us] – which of course does not meet the standards of international communication."

The other area of conflict involves U.S. policy in Syria.  Reuters reported on a 14 October meeting of President Obama's foreign policy team.  Reuters reports that some advisers are advocating "direct U.S. military action such as air strikes on Syrian military bases, munitions depots or radar and anti-aircraft bases."  This includes over 50 State Department diplomats.  What these officials are advocating is an act of war.  The Russians have deployed S-300 and S-400 air defense systems to Syria, and they have warned that any strike against Syrian forces "would put Russian personnel in danger."

Hillary Clinton has advocated the creation of a no-fly zone.  The problem with this policy was pointed out by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Gen. Joseph Dunford testified before Congress: "right now, Senator, for us to control all of the airspace in Syria it would require us to go to war, against Syria and Russia."  The need for more forceful action arose with the impending fall of Aleppo.  Reuters claims that the rebels feel betrayed because "Obama encouraged their uprising by calling for Assad to go but then abandoned them."  Hillary Clinton also "played a key role in starting the civil war in Syria when she was Secretary of State in 2011."

Tension between the U.S. and Russia is at the highest point since the end of the Cold War.  It might be time to step back and reassess our situation.  Instead, we have the chief of staff, General Mark Milley, declaring, "I want to be clear to those who wish to do us harm … the United States military – despite all of our challenges, despite our [operational] tempo, despite everything we have been doing – we will stop you and we will beat you harder than you have ever been beaten before.  Make no mistake about that."  Milley certainly would not have made these remarks without administration approval.  His confidence in the military's ability to "beat you harder than you have ever been beaten before" seems overly optimistic, considering the difficulties we are having in defeating ISIS.

Hillary’s Plot Against America

Recent news and leaks make it clear that a plot is afoot. A smoking gun has been found. Republicans are committing political malpractice by not making it clear they are the last line of defense.
ObamaCare is imploding, as was widely predicted upon its passage by Republicans and a range of non-partisan experts. The ObamaCare meltdown is even worse than we thought. Bloomberg News recently:

A growing number of people in Obamacare are finding out their health insurance plans will disappear from the program next year, forcing them to find new coverage even as options shrink and prices rise.
At least 1.4 million people in 32 states will lose the Obamacare plan they have now, according to state officials contacted by Bloomberg. That’s largely caused by Aetna Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc. and some state or regional insurers quitting the law’s markets for individual coverage.

Far more people are being afflicted by premiums and deductibles that are soaring, regardless of whether they have coverage under Obamacare plans or private or employer based insurance.  Premiums are increasing by high double digits in many states (the national average premium increase will be 24.2% in 2017) and deductibles have grown so much that health care costs are devouring a record eight percent of the typical household budget in the wake of ObamaCare.

Barack Obama’s oft-quoted promise that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it” has been living up to its dubious distinction granted in 2013 as the “lie of the year.”   Actually, it is the biggest lie in decades and he and his people knew it was a lie all along.  Remember that the bill’s architect admitted that they relied on the “stupidity of the American people” to help the bill pass and three Obama speechwriters laughed about it on a PBS show.  The lie may have been erased from the Obamacare website after it had served its purpose but many millions are enduring the reality of the disaster.

No comments: