Is Hilary a neocon hawk? What Iraq & Libya decisions tell us about her foreign policy

[Genx87]

Not only that but it also had Republican support:




https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...gaddafi-falls/2011/08/22/gIQA753ZWJ_blog.html

There you have it folks. Your democrat front runner on the same side as the war mongering republican party.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No problem ...

Our invasion of Iraq has destabilized the entire region and Libya and Syria are two of the, as they say, unintended consequences!

But it gets better ...

Our invasion of Iraq has made Iran stronger and in de facto control of most of southern Iraq.

There, hows that work for ya...


Brian

You're a hoot!

 

[ivwshane]

There you have it folks. Your democrat front runner on the same side as the war mongering republican party.

Looks like we have another supporter! Right? Or does your criticalness of Hilarys foreign policy not apply to the Republican candidates?

Careful! We wouldn't want to expose your double standard now would we?

 

[Genx87]

Looks like we have another supporter! Right? Or does your criticalness of Hilarys foreign policy not apply to the Republican candidates?

Careful! We wouldn't want to expose your double standard now would we?

You havent been reading what I have been writing.

 

[bshole]

Do tell what you think the "smart" approach is.

Pull all of our troops out of the Middle East (including Saudi Arabia) and let those dumb fucks figure it out for themselves. If they choose muslim theocracy, shut down all emigration from those states. Let them stew in their own juices. We have had decades of non-stop intervention and meddling and the situation is far far worse from our efforts. I can't think of a single positive thing, not one, that occurred from anything we did. Can we at least CONSIDER another option other than bombing and killing people?

 

[Jhhnn]

Pull all of our troops out of the Middle East (including Saudi Arabia) and let those dumb fucks figure it out for themselves. If they choose muslim theocracy, shut down all emigration from those states. Let them stew in their own juices. We have had decades of non-stop intervention and meddling and the situation is far far worse from our efforts. I can't think of a single positive thing, not one, that occurred from anything we did. Can we at least CONSIDER another option other than bombing and killing people?

That would be like turning away ships full of Jews fleeing the Nazis, right?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Pull all of our troops out of the Middle East (including Saudi Arabia) and let those dumb fucks figure it out for themselves. If they choose muslim theocracy, shut down all emigration from those states. Let them stew in their own juices. We have had decades of non-stop intervention and meddling and the situation is far far worse from our efforts. I can't think of a single positive thing, not one, that occurred from anything we did. Can we at least CONSIDER another option other than bombing and killing people?

A Muslim theocracy could take on any number of characteristics. In Iran, the Mullahs have it now, but they have long been one of the more advanced middle-eastern states. They had a large population with a secular orientation, a good education system, and perhaps a better-informed public. I think a Christian or a Jew is safe in Iran. There are populations of both, and their only restriction forbids them to proselytize Muslims.

This monstrosity rising up out of Syria and western Iraq is some sort of psychosis, a retreat to complete barbarism. If it is an "idea" -- and you can't simply kill an idea -- it's an idea that deserves total repression. There is no compromise with it; and I don't think the leaders of ISIS have any vision of compromise with the rest of the world. So in the long run, it is doomed to fail, regardless of actions we take now to stamp it out.

This isn't much different than the backwards Taliban and related groups in Afghanistan and Waziristan.

But it amazes me that the type of worried Chicken-Little oriented to the Trump campaign just thinks we can use military muscle unilaterally to ignore the cost-benefit balance between risk and expenditure in both lives and weapons. So you hear rhetoric about carpet-bombing, "take away the oil," and then back-tracking double-talk retreating from what those remarks imply.

Right now, the news about progress by Iraq in retaking Ramadi promises to prove that patience and restraint will win out. Inserting our own troops for other than special operations and training would simply have the repercussions arising in the previous administration.

There is a sort of residual mentality coming out of the Cold War I like to call the "Roman Empire Syndrome." I think it would be a useful exercise to look at the projection of American military power around the world for the last 50 years, and compare it to any similar adventures by the other regional hegemonies. I believe the Russians -- formerly the USSR -- and China have been the wiser for doing no more than providing weapons in civil wars and insurgencies. And their use of troops has always been local: the Chinese in Korea, and the Russians in Afghanistan, Georgia, Ukraine and to a limited degree -- Syria. I think the comparisons need to recognize that Georgia or Ukraine had been part of the "Russian Empire" since the Czars.

I say screw the multinational oil business, and find some way to make oil obsolete for transportation. Easier said than done -- that.

We still need to keep the Straits of Hormuz as Suez open. And we need to find some way to deal with the refugee crisis -- together with the EU.

You would hope we have learned our lessons over the years. But your average blue-collar, white high-school graduate who supports Trump needs to beef up the beef of his self-esteem with an all-powerful do-or-die America as king of the mountain.

Enough of that. I think the Obama administration has tried to extricate us from that old paradigm. Given our position and role in the world, given that we're now a target for vengeful extremists, it is something that requires patience, deliberation, restraint -- and -- yes -- "leading from behind."

 

[bshole]

That would be like turning away ships full of Jews fleeing the Nazis, right?

Well our current foreign policy appears to be like blowing the ships full of Jews up. Just saying....

 

[bshole]

A Muslim theocracy could take on any number of characteristics. In Iran, the Mullahs have it now, but they have long been one of the more advanced middle-eastern states. They had a large population with a secular orientation, a good education system, and perhaps a better-informed public. I think a Christian or a Jew is safe in Iran. There are populations of both, and their only restriction forbids them to proselytize Muslims.

This monstrosity rising up out of Syria and western Iraq is some sort of psychosis, a retreat to complete barbarism. If it is an "idea" -- and you can't simply kill an idea -- it's an idea that deserves total repression. There is no compromise with it; and I don't think the leaders of ISIS have any vision of compromise with the rest of the world. So in the long run, it is doomed to fail, regardless of actions we take now to stamp it out.

This isn't much different than the backwards Taliban and related groups in Afghanistan and Waziristan.

But it amazes me that the type of worried Chicken-Little oriented to the Trump campaign just thinks we can use military muscle unilaterally to ignore the cost-benefit balance between risk and expenditure in both lives and weapons. So you hear rhetoric about carpet-bombing, "take away the oil," and then back-tracking double-talk retreating from what those remarks imply.

Right now, the news about progress by Iraq in retaking Ramadi promises to prove that patience and restraint will win out. Inserting our own troops for other than special operations and training would simply have the repercussions arising in the previous administration.

There is a sort of residual mentality coming out of the Cold War I like to call the "Roman Empire Syndrome." I think it would be a useful exercise to look at the projection of American military power around the world for the last 50 years, and compare it to any similar adventures by the other regional hegemonies. I believe the Russians -- formerly the USSR -- and China have been the wiser for doing no more than providing weapons in civil wars and insurgencies. And their use of troops has always been local: the Chinese in Korea, and the Russians in Afghanistan, Georgia, Ukraine and to a limited degree -- Syria. I think the comparisons need to recognize that Georgia or Ukraine had been part of the "Russian Empire" since the Czars.

I say screw the multinational oil business, and find some way to make oil obsolete for transportation. Easier said than done -- that.

We still need to keep the Straits of Hormuz as Suez open. And we need to find some way to deal with the refugee crisis -- together with the EU.

You would hope we have learned our lessons over the years. But your average blue-collar, white high-school graduate who supports Trump needs to beef up the beef of his self-esteem with an all-powerful do-or-die America as king of the mountain.

Enough of that. I think the Obama administration has tried to extricate us from that old paradigm. Given our position and role in the world, given that we're now a target for vengeful extremists, it is something that requires patience, deliberation, restraint -- and -- yes -- "leading from behind."

So.... what actually is your strategy? Would you withdraw completely?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

So.... what actually is your strategy? Would you withdraw completely?

Withdraw what? Withdraw who?

We're already reversing the withdrawal in Afghanistan. I even understand that the Russians are providing arms to the Taliban to "fight ISIS?" Unless I didn't understand the recent news, that, too, is counterproductive.

If Iraq can re-take Mosul, I think it will simply prove out the current strategy.

Right now, with Turkey, Assad, the Russians, Iran -- this is a dangerous situation to seek putting your own bull in the China shop.

And it can only be resolved through a combination of diplomacy and efforts by the local players in the region. Air support? Special Ops? Training? Sure. 100,000 US troops? No.

Some sort of deal must be struck with the Russians and the Turks. We'd hope that it provides eventually for Assad's exit. But just hoping that removing Assad will see the vacuum filled by a stable government -- wishful thinking.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

If she's insane, she'll make the same mistakes twice or thrice. And to tell the truth, the Salon article is disturbing. I still think, as Senator from New York and two years after the 911 attack, she deferred to her constituents as a strategy for getting a second term. Or did she have ambitions of serving only one term and then running for president?

Now as to the choice between the lesser of two evils, the field of competition seems overrun by inmates from "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."

Also, it's been hard for me to put my finger on this or nail it down. But I think there has always been this post-WWII "Great Roman Empire Paradigm" floating around in the various leadership pools, and among that part of the electorate seeking simple answers.

Your blue-collar white-voters might succumb to this. "National Security? Spend more and more and more! Intervene more and more and more! It's just like football! We want a leader who speaks loudly and wields a big stick in the China-shop."

They will always tell you that "America seeks no empire," but it's an empire of petro-dollars and military interventionism. The Roman analogy had been made by LBJ, Nixon and others.

Look at Putin. His country's history goes back to the Empire. So Russian nationalism looks to the past to restore prominence in the present. But where have they "intervened" in recent years? Georgia -- a former part of USSR? Ukraine -- a former part of USSR? It seems they were latecomers to intervening in Syria. In all the boots-on-the-ground efforts we've made with questionable success, they shipped arms -- to DPRK, to North Vietnam. And the Middle East buys and takes what it can get.

Oh, I know! We put Atlas ICBMs on their border in Turkey, so they tried to do the same thing in Cuba -- with great encouragement from The Beard. Vietnam? They intervened in Afghanistan, but again -- on their very border, before they spun off the various "-stan" states.

Bush 41 spoke of a "New World Order." I don't believe he was thinking out of the box with that one.

They aren't all mistakes. A lot of their supposed incompetence is intentional. The military industrial complex wants endless war in the middle east, and they own the politicians.

The govt takes the tax money from the citizens, then hands that money out to the plutocrats, that then take a small amount of that and buy the politicians, and around we go. Thus enabling an infinite cycle of corruption and corporate welfare.

If we had spent the money we wasted on corporate welfare to fund the military industrial complex on the US infrastructure we would have a green power grid.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

They aren't all mistakes. A lot of their supposed incompetence is intentional. The military industrial complex wants endless war in the middle east, and they own the politicians.

The govt takes the tax money from the citizens, then hands that money out to the plutocrats, that then take a small amount of that and buy the politicians, and around we go. Thus enabling an infinite cycle of corruption and corporate welfare.

If we had spent the money we wasted on corporate welfare to fund the military industrial complex on the US infrastructure we would have a green power grid.

I think that's spot-on, mysticjbyrd. I don't dismiss any of it, even if I might worry you could potentially over-generalize.

I'd put it this way. The military-industrial-complex seeks opportunities to profit. If it can profit from arms sales to foreign governments, it will do that within existing restrictions of the government, unless somebody else can point to some case where they compromised technology to some military rival. If it can profit from government contracts, and there are opportunities afoot, it may be an industrial partner to skewing policy choices, promoting adventures with short-run vision and no exit plan, or even lying to the public. And as I said, it should always have been a public understanding that Big Oil was a part of the Military-Industrial-Complex, but either Eisenhower wasn't explicit enough, or people just never seemed to grasp it.

As I'd come to know or understand, the big-money boys move assets back and forth in those industries, and the industries have seemed to be paired in prominence for certain states and regions.

So it was no chance coincidence that one of the big names in Texas oil for three or so generations was also listed as a board member or chairperson of the Center for Strategic and International Studies -- until around 2007. That was the year GAO found Halliburton trying to steal $8B in payments through DOD.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hilary-clinton-and-the-is_b_8627042.html

I know both parts of this argument: Present and Past. And the Past part of it is pretty much flying by 2nd base to make the article a line drive.

But with Hillary, there aren't the old money connections to the industries that seem to tint the GOP.

Who do you think gave momentum to the ACA when Obama took office? You'd have to conclude that Hillary's faction was right there at the vanguard. She'd been in the thick of it since the '90s.

Primary campaigns can work in such a way as to modify a platform of the winner. So I could hope that Sanders becomes more articulate about the issues.

 

[shady28]

They aren't all mistakes. A lot of their supposed incompetence is intentional. The military industrial complex wants endless war in the middle east, and they own the politicians.

The govt takes the tax money from the citizens, then hands that money out to the plutocrats, that then take a small amount of that and buy the politicians, and around we go. Thus enabling an infinite cycle of corruption and corporate welfare.

If we had spent the money we wasted on corporate welfare to fund the military industrial complex on the US infrastructure we would have a green power grid.

That's more than over simplified, it's simple-minded.

If the US were to withdraw support for Saudi Arabia, exit the scene in the middle east, what do you suppose Saudi Arabia and UAE would do?

They'd go find another partner that's what.

So lets suppose they went for China. In exchange for selling their oil in Chinese Yuan (instead of USD, which is what they currently do), the chinese agree to provide weapons and protection to Saudi Arabia, UAE, and other OPEC countries.

You can fill in any country powerful enough to protect them, it doesn't matter. Perhaps Russia. It does not matter.

Overnight, the USD is no longer the reserve currency of the world. Everyone wants and needs Yuan to buy oil - including the USA. That need to buy oil, and the requirement from OPEC to use USD, is why we are able to run massive trade and budget deficits ans is the reason other countries constantly demand dollars. Because they need dollars to buy oil.

I'll let you folks figure out how that ends. Keep in mind we have nearly a 20,000 Billion $ debt.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's more than over simplified, it's simple-minded.

If the US were to withdraw support for Saudi Arabia, exit the scene in the middle east, what do you suppose Saudi Arabia and UAE would do?

They'd go find another partner that's what.

So lets suppose they went for China. In exchange for selling their oil in Chinese Yuan (instead of USD, which is what they currently do), the chinese agree to provide weapons and protection to Saudi Arabia, UAE, and other OPEC countries.

You can fill in any country powerful enough to protect them, it doesn't matter. Perhaps Russia. It does not matter.

Overnight, the USD is no longer the reserve currency of the world. Everyone wants and needs Yuan to buy oil - including the USA. That need to buy oil, and the requirement from OPEC to use USD, is why we are able to run massive trade and budget deficits ans is the reason other countries constantly demand dollars. Because they need dollars to buy oil.

I'll let you folks figure out how that ends. Keep in mind we have nearly a 20,000 Billion $ debt.

Pure speculation with a couple of chicken little leaps of faith tossed into the mix.

And, uhh, try to remember that KSA is the richer Islamic version of N Korea whose ruling family plays ball with the international banksters. As members of the Lootocracy, they'll always be well cared for.

If we quit meddling it doesn't mean we won't take care of our friends.

 

[shady28]

Pure speculation with a couple of chicken little leaps of faith tossed into the mix.

And, uhh, try to remember that KSA is the richer Islamic version of N Korea whose ruling family plays ball with the international banksters. As members of the Lootocracy, they'll always be well cared for.

If we quit meddling it doesn't mean we won't take care of our friends.

Your ignorance of the history is not surprising.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar

In an effort to prop up the value of the dollar and end to the oil embargo, Richard Nixon successfully negotiated a deal during the year 1973, with Saudi Arabia that it would denominate all future oil sales in U.S. dollars in exchange for arms and protection from USA. Subsequently, the other OPEC countries agreed to similar deals thus ensuring a global demand for U.S. dollars and allowing the U.S. to export some of its inflation.[4] [5]
...
Since the oil is forced to be traded internationally in US$, artificial demand for US$ is generated and USA is able to issue/export its paper currency as reserve currency held by all countries relegating gold to second place. With the export of its currency as global reserve currency, USA has been able to achieve faster economic development on huge borrowed capital though its trade deficit has been consistently high.

Anyone who thinks they understand the role of the US in the middle east and does not understand the above is a fool.


For example, why was Libya suddenly something that needed to be handled?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_gold_dinar#Libya

In the months leading up to the UN resolution that allowed the US and its allies to send troops into Libya, Muammar al-Gaddafi was openly advocating the creation of a new currency that would rival the United States dollar and the Euro. Gaddafi called upon African and Muslim nations to join an alliance that would make this new currency, the gold dinar, their primary form of money and foreign exchange. They would sell oil and other resources to the US and the rest of the world only for gold dinars. Along with the uprising in Libya, international news channels on August/September 2011 brought several stories about Muammar Gaddafi's introduction of golden dinar[7] within his "gold-for-oil plan" [8] to possibly trade Libya oil on international markets.[9]

 

[Jhhnn]

Your ignorance of the history is not surprising.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar





Anyone who thinks they understand the role of the US in the middle east and does not understand the above is a fool.


For example, why was Libya suddenly something that needed to be handled?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_gold_dinar#Libya

It's a helluva leap from there to the Petro-Yuan, isn't it?

If you think that dollar holders like KSA, China, Japan & the rest will torpedo the value of their reserves you're delusional.

 

[shady28]

It's a helluva leap from there to the Petro-Yuan, isn't it?

If you think that dollar holders like KSA, China, Japan & the rest will torpedo the value of their reserves you're delusional.

LoL!

If you bother to give even a modicum of consideration to that statement, you'll find that it is utterly ridiculous. It would only matter in the current circumstance where the USD is the reserve.

 

[Jhhnn]

LoL!

If you bother to give even a modicum of consideration to that statement, you'll find that it is utterly ridiculous. It would only matter in the current circumstance where the USD is the reserve.

It matters because other govts hold enormous amounts of dollars. China actually helps hold up the value of the dollar for the purposes of trade. If dollars buy less then they sell less which suits them not at all. That's why they peg the Yuan artificially low against the dollar. What would you devalue the dollar against, anyway? The Euro? Why would that happen considering that they're struggling more than we are?

Your chicken little argument defies reality.

 

[shady28]

It matters because other govts hold enormous amounts of dollars. China actually helps hold up the value of the dollar for the purposes of trade. If dollars buy less then they sell less which suits them not at all. That's why they peg the Yuan artificially low against the dollar. What would you devalue the dollar against, anyway? The Euro? Why would that happen considering that they're struggling more than we are?

Your chicken little argument defies reality.

You're clearly not even capable of staying on topic - a world where the USD is not the reserve. You're thinking about how things work currently. Yes currently everyone needs to sell something to the USA - on credit or otherwise - in order to keep huge caches of dollars. That is the only way they can buy oil in sufficient quantities to keep their economy going.

In our hypothetical of China allying with OPEC and the Yuan becoming the reserve currency, they would not need their huge export market. Everyone would be willing to sell them whatever they wanted to buy, on credit even, in order to get Yuans.

The tables would be turned, completely. We on the other hand would need to figure out what we could manufacture, grow, or dig up to sell for Yuan in order to buy oil. No Yuans, no oil. No oil, no transportation, no power, no oil based products.

And there's no fucking chicken little, only your chicken shit little brain being unable to comprehend a relatively simple deal that is well recognized as being the source of American hegemony for the last 40 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_use_of_the_U.S._dollar

Economist Paul Samuelson and others (including, at his death, Milton Friedman) have maintained that the overseas demand for dollars allows the United States to maintain persistent trade deficits without causing the value of the currency to depreciate or the flow of trade to readjust. But Samuelson stated in 2005 that at some uncertain future period these pressures would precipitate a run against the U.S. dollar with serious global financial consequences.[1]

 

[Zorkorist]

Imagine being 2 Trillion Dollars in debt, and China saying Pay me.

Pay me now,

-John

 

[bshole]

Imagine being 2 Trillion Dollars in debt, and China saying Pay me.

Pay me now,

-John

We could always say "MAKE ME MOTHERFUCKER...... BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH...... SUCK IT BITCH!!"

 

[MongGrel]

We could always say "MAKE ME MOTHERFUCKER...... BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH...... SUCK IT BITCH!!"

Ya could, but as so much of the US industry has moved manufacturing there, they could reciprocate.

 

[fskimospy]

Imagine being 2 Trillion Dollars in debt, and China saying Pay me.

Pay me now,

-John

China has no ability to do that. That's not how treasury bonds work.

Second, we have no need for China to buy our bonds. Did you know that China has actually been selling US treasuries, not buying them, for quite awhile now?

Exactly, you didn't even notice.

 

[bshole]

Ya could, but as so much of the US industry has moved manufacturing there, they could reciprocate.

Doubtful, their economy is built around Americans buying their shit. It would harm them as much as it would us. In fact, it could result in their ultimate nightmare of American companies moving their manufacturing back to America.