by Scott Creighton
Over at the Washington Post, Greg Jaffe has posted an article explaining how there is a bi-partisan movement afoot in Washington to redirect the Obama foreign policy practices in the Middle East with an eye on making things far, far more aggressive.
Apparently all the former Bush and Clinton advisors are getting together to scribble a new foreign policy doctrine they fully expect Hillary Clinton to follow which includes bombing Assad forces in Syria if he doesn’t behave (read as “leave the country”?) and finally putting an end to that pesky resistance in eastern Ukraine.
And don’t think this is just the neocon republicans pushing this stepped up mass murder agenda on the next president:
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…
“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.”..
“The American-led international order that has been prevalent since World War II is now under threat,” said Martin Indyk, who oversees a team of top former officials from the administrations of Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton assembled by the Brookings Institution. “The question is how to restore and renovate it.”..
Virtually all these efforts, including a report 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.” Washington Post
The Center for American Progress, created by John Podesta, is a New Dem think tank who also just happens to operate Think Progress, an echo chamber focus group of a “progressive” website. I used to go there a long time ago and bash Bush trolls during his administration with other “progressive” liberals. It was all about being anti-war and anti-corptocracy back then. Now it appears they are all-in on the New World Order.
The list of top-level policy wonks advocating direct military action against the Syrian government is as long as it is diverse which just goes to prove the perception of there being a two party system based on different ideas of foreign policy is a sham.
“The immediate thing is to do something to alleviate the horrors that are being visited on the population,” said former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, who is leading a bipartisan and international team looking at U.S. strategy in the Middle East for the Atlantic Council. “We do think there needs to be more American action — not ground forces but some additional help in terms of the military aspect.”
Stephen Hadley, a former national security adviser to Bush and a partner with Albright on the Atlantic Council report, said that if Assad continues to bomb civilians, the United States should strongly consider “using standoff weapons, like cruise missiles, to neutralize his air force so that he cannot fly.” Washington Post
The head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the United States recently told a congressman that directly targeting Assad’s military will undoubtedly drag the US into world war against Syria, Iran and Russia. And that is clearly what these bi-partisan war-mongers are advocating. Even Hillary herself admitted in a recently released email that attacking Syrian troops directly would end up resulting in the deaths of a lot of Syrian civilians. And that’s to say nothing about the numbers of dead civilians in a WWIII scenario.
The elites mentioned in this article also have another thing in common: they hate the idea of Donald Trump winning in November. Why do they hate the idea? Because he advocates a draw down in Syria and using diplomacy to work out a deal with the Russians as opposed to simply launching cruise missiles at Syrian and Russian forces.
In other instances, the activity reflects alarm over Trump’s calls for the United States to pull back from its traditional role as a global guarantor of security. Washington Post
I have never seen in my 50 years a more unified effort by all sides of the corporate press to demonize one presidential candidate over the other. It’s true his stance on renegotiating bad trade deals like NAFTA, the TPP and TTIP are part of that.
But I think what we are really seeing here is a consolidated effort by the corporate press to ensure that the next president will not stray from the course of total global hegemony set by Bush and Cheney back in 2001. And the recent efforts of all of these foreign policy advisors bare that out.
These groups of think tanks are openly expressing the kind of thinking that went into Sec. of Defense Ash Carter’s decision to attack Syrian troops a month ago and put an end to the cease-fire deal in Syria. Of course, it was in direct conflict with the stated goal of the president of the United States at the time, so that might be considered treason by some and at least a mutiny by others. But given the fact that so many influential elites share the same opinion on the matter, it would appear that President Obama’s decision was vetoed and Sec. Carter was tasked with carrying out their wishes.
If nothing else, this article paints a very clear picture about what is happening in the back halls of Washington right now as it bodes very badly for our future under President Hillary. If you have loved ones in the military who’s tours are up in the near future, I would advise you to advise them to get out now.
And you might want to build that bunker you’ve been thinking about. Just a thought.
— Sandro Stealth (@mutalabala) October 21, 2016