Clinton’s war presidency from City Newspaper 11/02/2016
In her latest Urban Journal (October 26), Mary Anna Towler laments that a Clinton presidency won’t heal the nation’s divisions because “bipartisanship is functionally dead.” While this may be true of national politics and the electorate, bipartisan support for Clinton’s militarist foreign policy is alarmingly robust and could lead us into the abyss.
Foreign policy writer Diana Johnstone has argued that Hillary Clinton’s strategic ambition, explicit in her leaked Libya emails, is to “gain her place in history as victorious strategist of ‘regime change’ in Syria, Russia, and elsewhere.” And for this, Johnstone adds, “she enjoys the support of most of the State Department and much of the Pentagon, and Congress is ready to go.”
One example: a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing this September on ongoing military operations revealed solid bipartisan support, with marginal objection, for US military engagement against Russian aggression.
Gary Leupp, Tufts University professor of history and religion, refers to “a rainbow coalition of… warmongers (both neocons and ‘liberal interventionists’), former generals, Wall Street donors — everyone [Hillary] needs on board when she starts bombing Syria.”
Washington Post White House correspondent Greg Jaffe reports that the Republicans and Democrats who make up the foreign policy elite are laying the ground work for a more assertive American foreign policy through a flurry of new bipartisan reports. One study by the Center for American Progress recommends the next administration step up its military engagement in a more “proactive and long-term approach to the Middle East.”
“Taken together,” Jaffe reports, “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, break most forcefully with Obama on Syria…Virtually all these efforts … call for stepped up military action to deter President Bashar al-Assad’s regime and Russian forces in Syria.”
The mainstream media is also on board with this bipartisan agenda for war. Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, citing recent high-profile opinions in the Washington Post, Meet the Press, New York Times, and USA Today, entitles a recent article, “Media Roll Out Welcome Mat for ‘Humanitarian’ War in Syria.” (To discuss the cruel absurdity of “humanitarian war” — what Nobel Peace Prize nominee Kathy Kelly calls an “ugly oxymoron” — would require another letter. Just think Iraq or Libya.)
As for a united nation behind a Clinton (war) presidency, be careful what you wish for.