Monday, March 14, 2016

The Failed Foreign Policies of Hillary Clinton

Before you go to the polls in Ohio on Tuesday and blindly pull the lever or mark the card (hopefully no bogus touch screens there) for the Democratic establishment front, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and famous friend of alphabet people, US Person asks you to consider for a moment her foreign policy record as Secretary of State and Senator:

Iraq: Sec. Clinton steadfastly defends her unequivocal support for the Iraq invasion by George W. Bush despite the complete lack of evidence that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction, the alleged justification to remove him from power. As senator she pointed to her husband's unilateral decision to bomb Kosovo as an example of the need for America to act alone if it perceives a threat to world order. Of course as we know now there were no nukes stored in underground bunkers in Iraq. The war cost trillions and thousands of American lives (of lesser import because "we do not do body counts", at least since the defeat in Vietnam, 174,000+ documented dead Iraqi civilians). The chaos directly lead to the formation of even a bigger nightmare--ISIS--in the aftermath of America's intervention. There was no just cause for this military invasion--not even 9/11--despite considerable propaganda effort to smear the Iraq dictator with responsibility for Al Qaeda's wildly successful terror raid.  Nevertheless in the face of the lies, Senator Clinton ran against Obama's opposition to the war in her 2008 presidential campaign.

Libya:  is another example of US "regime change" with disastrous, unintended consequences. Libya has descended into armed chaos with lawless militias controlling sections of the country since the removal of Muammar el Qaddafi. Once again the stateless terror group, ISIS, has established a territorial foothold in a state without an effective central government. Clinton's alleged response to the extrajudicial execution of Qaddafi borders on the sociopathic: "We came, we saw, he died". The resulting Libyan civil conflict is now causing part of Europe's refugee crisis, and set the stage for the killing of American diplomats in Benghazi. In the private words of the President, Libya has become a "sh** show". Libya is in such dire straits that he has asked the Pentagon to draw up contingency plans for another invasion!*

Afghanistan: Secretary Clinton's hegemonic policy preferences also helped the military sway President Obama to send thirty thousand more troops to the unfinished war in Afghanistan despite his promise to end military involvement there by 2014, and opposition to a 'surge' from his vice-president and other advisers. She also advocated the use of military force in Syria despite a 70% margin of opposition among the public to yet another armed intervention. She agreed with CIA director David Patreaus' advice to create a proxy army out of Syrian rebels irregardless of his expensive failure to do the same thing in Iraq. She advocated a 'no-fly' zone which would have required a deepening US involvement in the Syrian civil war to enforce. Her pattern of support for militarism is well-established by now, and is well to the right of her former White House boss' policies. The seal of approval for her foreign policies by leading neo-con ideologist, Robert Kagan, is testimony enough to her establishment credentials.

Iran:  Ms. Clinton's rhetoric is positively belligerent when it comes to Iran.  The international nuclear agreement recently concluded does not impress her much.  She still insists Iran should be attacked, even "totally obliterated" if it violates the agreement and attempts to create a nuclear weapon.  In a speech to the Brookings Institute she advocated additional sanctions on Iran unrelated to the nuclear program issue. Perhaps this language, which is reminiscent of George Bush according to Obama, is intended to shore up her support among Zionists, but it is counterproductive to a successful reset of US-Iran relations that have deteriorated since the hostage crisis of Jimmy Carter's administration.

Honduras:  The most glaring betrayal of her claimed support for human rights, and especially the rights of women and children, occurred during the 2009 military coup in Honduras.  Secretary of Clinton supported the removal of moderate Honduran President Manuel Zelaya.  He wanted to increase the minimum wage in his country by 60%, a policy objected to by two US fruit companies, Chiquita Brands International and Dole Food Company. He also wanted to give poor school children education and meals, subsidies to small farmers, and free electricity to the poor.  His economic policies led to a 10% in poverty during his shortened administration.  Secretary Clinton enabled Zelaya's removal by refusing to recognize the military's machinations against him as a coup. Her State Department called the situation "confused" and refused to cut- off aid.  Clinton's strategy revealed in her emails and book was to "delay, delay, delay" in order to make President Zelaya "moot".  The strategy worked.  Zelaya was forced on a plane and sent into exile after a sham election of a corrupt president to save face.  Secretary Clinton pressured other countries to accept this so-called "unity government" and not insist Zelaya return to his legitimate office.  Honduras in now one of the world's most violent countries.  The 2014 murder rate in the country's second largest city, San Pedro Sula, was 171 per 100,000.  Its war between criminal gangs caused 18,000 children to flee their country to the US.  Secretary Clinton was not welcoming.  She told Honduran parents their children should be deported to "send a clear message" that because they cross the border did not mean they could stay.  Hardly the message of a compassionate child advocate.

US Person wants to know, Ohio voters: what's the point of breaking a glass-ceiling by electing a woman president if her foreign policies are to be a continuation of the failed, expensive, and deadly hegemonic variety that has created more enemies for America around the world?  Answer:  Zero, period.

*Of America's allies France had the most reasons to invade Libya. None of them had to do with the alleged humanitarian crisis inside the country.  They had to do with assertion of France's post-colonial control of Libya's oil among other geopolitical concerns.  Eager to cement transatlantic ties in a dangerous post-911 environment, the United States backed the French desire for military intervention against Qaddafi.  He was in the process of using his gold and silver hoard to back a new international currency for Africa based on the gold dinar, definitely an unwelcome development.  Once unleashed, NATO completely destroyed the Great Man-Made River project by which Qaddafi would turn Libya's desert into a national breadbasket using his own central bank's financing.  One of the justifications used by Hillary Clinton for the Libyan intervention was to prevent Qaddafi from unleashing hordes of Viagra-fueled soldiers to rape female rebels.  Cynicism knows no bounds in Washington, DC; the real goal was to disrupt a move for African independence led by Qaddafi that was inconsistent with the economic ambitions of European powers.