Does a Clinton White House Really Mean More War?
Those who are concerned that a Hillary Clinton administration will mean expanded US military aggression across the globe, may be closing the barn door after the horse is stolen. While it is certainly worrisome that she has been endorsed by neocon luminaries like Robert Kagan or Richard Armitage, and has long been advised by war criminal Henry Kissinger, her election as president will likely change very little in US foreign and military policy. The reason for this is because Barack Obama is on track to become the first American President in history to serve two terms while the country is constantly at war.
As reported in Alternet, at the recent Aspen Ideas Festival on June 28 John Kerry crowed:
"I state unabashedly to every single one of you: The United States of America is more engaged in more places with greater impact today than at any time in American history,”…“And that is simply documentable and undeniable.”
Is Kerry just touting American exceptionalism or do his remarks carry a more militaristic meaning? Again from Alternet:
Ken McGraw, a spokesman for Special Operations Command, told journalist Nick Turse that, by the 9th month of 2015, special operations forces had already deployed to 135 countries—or 70 percent of all the nations on the planet. This compares to about 60 countries under the George W. Bush years. The Government Accountability Office concluded that special operations funding has ballooned from $3 billion in 2001 to just under $10 billion in 2014.
This translates into the fact that the US now has approximately 800 military bases around the world (There are no foreign military bases on US soil), and the military budget gobbles up 54% of 2015 discretionary federal spending.
Obama's war mongering seems to leave little room for Clinton to one up him by showing how tough she is. Of course her promises to help Israel obliterate Iran, or a miscalculation of Putin's determination in the Ukraine or Syria, could result in a nuclear war that destroys human life on the planet. But her refusal to allow even the weakest proposals to address climate change into the Democratic platform, signal policies that will condemn the human race in the long run in any event.
If Comey or Lynch decide not to indict her, we are truly screwed, because Bernie is our only chance.
Comments
I feel the answer is "Yes" due to her AIPAC
speech and her willingness to intervene in Syria and Iraq. More worrisome is her calling for a no-fly zone in Syria which would put us in dangerous open conflict with Russia (WWIII anybody?) as neither ISIS nor Al-Qaeda has an air force. Additionally, her stance on Ukraine has also been quite bellicose (though that shouldn't be surprising). And her stance on Iran makes it clear she will be looking for any excuse to start a fight. I fear a presidency that features either Trump or Hillary, as both represent the interests of the plutocracy/oligarchy (the p/o mainly seems to be worried about the Donald's crude, vulgar manner rather than any substantive policy differences) but Hillary has laid out specifics that threaten war in a big and horrifying way.
P.S. No, I won't be voting for Trump: All plutocrats and their henchmen can go pound sand as far as I'm concerned.
"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it."
-- John Lennon
Did not mean to imply
that she does not threaten war in a horrible way. Any of the doomsday scenarios are possible, if not likely. These people are criminals already, even though Comey has buckled and decided to recommend not to indict. With these psychopaths in power, I fear the end of humanity as we know it in the short to medium term. I'm glad I don't have any kids or grandchildren. The future is just too terrifying.
I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance. - e.e.cummings
Yes, thank you
People around here can hate on Obama and his foreign policy all they like, but Hillary is vastly worse as you have set forth. Whereas Trump has suggested working with Putin rather than raising tensions. Not that I trust Trump - he says whatever crosses his clown of a mind at the moment. Be that as it may, no way I'm supporting Hillary.
And if not war
If she does not start any new wars, she will carry on the present corporate wars so that new products can be made and tested by her buddies in the MIC. Plus more edging towards total corporate domination over our nation and people.
It is so bad I no longer refer to here as America, or the United States of America, I call it as I see it: The Corporate States of Oligarchia.
So long, and thanks for all the fish
And of course
the terrorists "hate us for or freedoms". How could you possibly insinuate that we are an oligarchy ruled by the MIC? Don't you understand we're doing this for their own good? USA,USA,USA /s
I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance. - e.e.cummings
Great snark answer there!
Great snark answer there!
So long, and thanks for all the fish
I have to say...
While Barack Obama was not the ideal peace candidate I'd hoped he'd be, he has done at least two things that Hillary would likely never have done and that is 1) secure the peace deal with Iran, and 2) start the end of the cold war with Cuba.
Would Hillary have perhaps been persuaded by peace-loving Dems to do as Obama did in the Iran negotiations? Not a chance.
One thing we can always count on with Hillary: if any Republican war hawks are pushing the alarm bells to warn against 'America's enemies', Hillary will go out of her way to get in front of their criticism, to deny them any opportunity at all to portray her as weak against our oh-so-threatening enemies.
So no, the peace agreement would never have been signed by Hillary, but it was by Obama, perhaps finding a bit of political courage within himself late in his second term. The same, of course, goes with the Cuba rapprochement. With any Republican criticism of the idea---which she would have fully expected---she would have run away from the idea as fast as she could.
So yeah, I was surprised a bit when Obama signed on to continue with the Afghanistan war, which I interpreted as him realizing that it was far too popular with the Officer Corps (Chiefs of Staff, especially) for him to veto without facing serious loyalty repercussions (that might actually cost him his life!).
It gave me the impression that he wanted more than anything else to convince these military professionals that he was a leader they could have confidence in, they they would not view as 'a threat' they must oppose...
So no, he doesn't get any credit for courageously taking on the military-industrial-Congressional complex head on, but I do give him credit for the two major initiatives for peace that he got in front of late in his second term.
Hillary, on the other hand, will be as bad as any Republican war hawk we have seen over the past few decades (e.g., George W. Bush). I seriously fear that if events unfold in a particular way, she could very easily get us 'forced' into a major, bloody conflict, cuz her 'instincts' are pure crap...
James Kroeger
As the Alternet article states
Obama has already doubled the deployment of special forces in the name of the GWOT, not to mention the escalation of the drone war. Then there's Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and the saber rattling in the South China Sea. Clinton has to prove she is tougher than a male president would be, and the bar is already set pretty high.
So yes she will be "as bad as any Republican war hawk", and probably a lot worse. Who could have possibly thought eight years later, that we would look back at the relatively peaceful world under George W Bush? It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better, and there is no active peace movement in this country to counter these war criminals, with no superpower to check her internationally. I really fear that she will push the Russians or the Chinese too far, and then we will all be toast.
I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance. - e.e.cummings
Yeah...
Me too... :/
James Kroeger
I see three scenarios
1. Benjamin the Nutty Yahoo sees a Hillary presidency as a go ahead to attack Iran. Her Highness will, of course, come to his "defense". i do not see this as WW3, but if you thought W effed up…
2. China has no arable soil, no potable water, and no breathable air. They are on the brink of a trapped rat syndrome - they will have to get food and water somewhere, and the people who are living there now , well, trapped rats don't have options. Add that a war needs oil, and where can China get oil? Answer: Sudan, but Iraq, Iran, and indonesia - and intentionally or not Hillary's going to deny them Iran and Iraq (I think that was W's real reason) The 4 generation theory predicts war within 5 years, and this is the most likely scenario.
3. Hillary, thinking that the Russians in Syria and the Ukraine are playing Great Power Economics, will back down. Russia always plays Survival - they will go to the trapped rat syndrome much sooner than she thinks.
On to Biden since 1973
Sorry, but no kudos for Obama:
"While Barack Obama was not the ideal peace candidate I'd hoped he'd be, he has done at least two things that Hillary would likely never have done and that is 1) secure the peace deal with Iran, and 2) start the end of the cold war with Cuba.
***
Obama RESTARTED a much more dangerous cold war with the Russians.
He's a liar and a DNC flunky for the 1% like the Clintons.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
Yeah...
He's definitely a 'follower' of the Centrist persuasion, apparently having modeled his political approach on the Bill Clinton example. I won't go as far as saying that he's 'just as bad' as Clinton because I don't think he is.
Even within that Centrist universe, I can see some distinctions between individual Centrist personalities which make some of them preferable to others.
Obama has certainly been a follower, sitting at the top of the military's hierarchical command structure, but I still get the impression that he---unlike Clinton---is inclined to tack to the 'less risky' options when they are available, like when he vetoed some of Hillary's most belligerent proposals.
I've seen Obama as wanting to show the Chiefs that he is on the team, but I see Hillary wanting to show them she is their buddy.
So no kudos, but credit nevertheless...
James Kroeger
The problem I have with Obama being a buddy or a follower
is that he gets paid the big bucks to be a leader. And under his "leadership" he more than doubled the number of countries we have special ops troops in, compared to W who was a real war-mongerer - the Decider. He also vastly increased the use of drones, although we may never know the true extent of that activity. So I'd be less likely to give him credit, or even a passing grade in being the peace candidate he campaigned on.
I'd also take exception to $hillary wanting to be a buddy to the Chiefs. She is such a sociopath that I think she's out to prove that she's their boss, and not just theirs, but also any foreign leader she happens to think it's a good idea to pick a fight with. I think she is seriously unhinged, which doesn't mix well with being POTUS.
I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance. - e.e.cummings