Hillary Clinton backed wars that aided terrorism

In the past 25 years, the United States has waged war openly against five nations.

• Serbia
• Iraq
• Afghanistan
• Syria
• Libya

The U.S. has waged economic and covert war against two other nations:

• Iran
• Russia

Hillary Clinton supported all of them.

What’s noteworthy about this list is that the governments of all of these countries, except Afghanistan, was or is threatened by Al Qaeda and other Islamic jihadist groups.  The U.S. war effort is directed more against the terrorists’ enemies than the terrorists.

In every case except Afghanistan, the U.S. actually supported jihadist groups against the incumbent government, just as it did against the pre-Taliban Russian-backed regime in Afghanistan.

I believe that the reason for this strange policy is the American Deep State—the parts of government not affected by elections—is more concerned about maintaining global corporate economic supremacy and U.S. military supremacy than it is about protecting American citizens from possible terrorist attacks.

Among the political candidates, Hillary Clinton is the most highly committed war hawk.  She has supported every war on this list, and also favors military confrontation with China.  I don’t think the Iran sanctions deal would have been negotiated if she had remained as Secretary of State.

Bernie Sanders supports existing U.S. policies with reservations.

In many ways, I agree with Donald Trump more than I do Clinton.  He wants to stop the cold war against Putin’s Russia, and he recognizes how counterproductive the attacks on Syria and Libya have been.

But I don’t take him seriously because of his bloodthirsty and thoughtless rhetoric and because he is advised by war hawks.

Clintonism, Trumpism: a win-win for the 1%

In American politics today, there are three main factions and only two parties to represent them.  One faction has to lose and, if Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are nominated, it will be the Bernie Sanders progressives.

Hillary Clinton represents the Washington and Wall Street elite, committed to perpetual war and crony capitalism.  Wall Street bankers have made her and her husband rich, neoconservative war hawks praise her and Charles Koch has said she may be preferable to either of the possible GOP nominees she may be preferable to either of the possible GOP nominees.

Donald Trump speaks to the concerns of working people—especially pro-corporate trade deals and deindustrialization—but he has no real solution.

His economic nationalism, while not a complete answer to U.S. economic problems, is preferable to the corporate trade deals of the Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.

But by pitting white working men against Hispanics, blacks, immigrants and feminists, he prevents the working class as a whole from ever having enough clout to defend their interests.

Thomas Frank wrote an excellent book about how the Republicans may be the party of the wealthy elite, representing the upper 1 percent of American income earners, but the Democrats are the party of the educated professional elite, representing the rest of the upper 10 percent.

This year’s political realignment may change this, as he himself implicitly acknowledged in a new article in Vanity Fair.  Under Hillary Clinton, Democrats are becoming the party of the upper 1 percent as well.  Here is the meat of what Frank wrote.

Rich Americans still have it pretty good. I don’t mean everything’s perfect: business regulations can be burdensome; Manhattan zoning can prevent the addition of a town-house floor; estate taxes kick in at over $5 million.   But life is acceptable. Barack Obama has not imposed much hardship, and neither will Hillary Clinton.

And what about Donald Trump?  Will rich people suffer if he is elected president?  Well, yes.  Yes, they will.  Because we all will.  But that’s a pat answer, because Trump and Trumpism are different things.  Trump is an erratic candidate who brings chaos to everything.  Trumpism, on the other hand, is the doctrine of a different Republican Party, one that would cater not to the donor class, but rather to the white working class.  Rich people do not like that idea.

Andrew Bacevich on the lessons of Iraq

Andrew Bacevich is a retired career Army officer, a combat veteran of Vietnam and a self-identified conservative.  I have great respect for him and for his views on American foreign and military policy and his recent interview by Bill Moyers is well worth watching.

Bacevich has been writing about military and foreign policy since the 1990s, and generally has been proved right by events.   It would be good if he was asked for his opinion by TV interviewers more often.

You can find links to transcripts of Bill Moyers’ interview of Bacevich by clicking on the following.

Full Show: Chaos In Iraq

Extended Interview: Andrew Bacevich

Next are articles on the pros and cons of neoconservative foreign policy.

Superpowers Don’t Get to Retire: what our tired country still owes the world by Robert Kagan in The New Republic.

A Letter to Paul Wolfowitz by Andrew Bacevich in Harper’s.

A traditional conservative vs. neo-conservatives

Hat tip to The American Conservative.