Hillary Clinton and her war hawks

Correction: I mischaracterized Michele Flournoy’s position, based on reporting by Michael Tucker of Defense One, which was quoted by Glenn Greenwald.  For Michele Flournoy’s rebuttal, read her letter below the fold.

Hillary Clinton’s two likely choices for Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense are Victoria Nuland and Michéle Flournoy, both war hawks.

Nuland would intensify confrontation with Russia.  Flournoy would send more U.S. troops step up military activity in the Middle East.

The U.S. is already dangerously close to war with Russia, and U.S. interventions in the Middle East have only made things worse.

A Hillary Clinton administration would not back off from these dangerous and counterproductive war policies.  It would double down on them.

LINKS

Hillary Clinton’s Likely Pentagon Chief Already Advocating for More Bombing and Intervention by Glenn Greenwald for The Intercept.  (Hat tip to Bill Harvey)

Hillary Clinton’s Likely Defense Secretary Wants More US Troops Fighting ISIS and Assad by Patrick Tucker for Defense One.  [added later]

Clinton’s Hawk-in-Waiting by Philip Giraldi for The American Conservative.

Neocon War Hawks Want Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump: No Surprise—They’ve Always Backed Her by Branco Marcetic for In These Times.

Potential Hillary Clinton Pentagon chief calls for increased action against Isis by David Smith for The Guardian.

The Mess that Nuland Made by Robert Parry for Consortium News.

∞∞∞

Update

I came across this rebuttal by Michele Flournoy.

To the Editor of Defense One:

I am writing in response to your piece on June 20 that fundamentally mischaracterized my views on the role U.S. forces should play in Syria.  Both the headline and article erroneously suggested that I advocate sending more U.S. troops to “push President Bashar al-Assad’s forces out of southern Syria” and “remove Assad from power.”  I do not.

I have argued for increasing U.S. military support to moderate Syrian opposition groups fighting ISIS and the Assad regime, like the Southern Front, not asking U.S. troops to do the fighting in their stead.  I further argue that the U.S. should under some circumstances consider using limited military coercion – primarily strikes using standoff weapons – to retaliate against Syrian military targets in order to stop violations of the Cessation of Hostilities, deter Russian and Syrian bombing of innocent civilians and the opposition groups we support, and set more favorable conditions on the ground for a negotiated political settlement.

In short, I advocate doing more to support our partners on the ground to make them more effective; I do NOT advocate putting U.S. combat troops on the ground to take territory from Assad’s forces or remove Assad from power.

Michele A. Flournoy

Source: FOCUS

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: