Rani Khalek reminds us about something that many of us already knew and that is that Hillary Clinton is a neoconservative war hawk. Further evidence of that is that pretty much the entire neoconservatives and Republican foreign policy are gung-ho about her, seeing her as even more likely than the Obama to threaten to use of force against other nations, even though the Obama administration has hardly been restrained in its willingness.
“I would say all Republican foreign policy professionals are anti-Trump,” leading neoconservative Robert Kagan told a group gathered around him, groupie-style, at a “foreign policy professionals for Hillary” fundraiser I attended last week. “I would say that a majority of people in my circle will vote for Hillary.”
As the co-founder of the neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century, Kagan played a leading role in pushing for America’s unilateral invasion of Iraq, and insisted for years afterwards that it had turned out great.
…The event raised $25,000 for Clinton. Two rising stars in the Democratic foreign policy establishment, Amanda Sloat and Julianne Smith, also spoke.
The way they described Clinton’s foreign policy vision suggested that if elected president in November, she will escalate tensions with Russia, double down on military belligerence in the Middle East and generally ignore the American public’s growing hostility to intervention.
…When Robbie Martin, a filmmaker who recently produced a three-part documentary on the neoconservative movement, asked how Clinton plans to deal with Ukraine, Kagan responded enthusiastically.
“I know Hillary cares more about Ukraine than the current president does,” Kagan replied. “[Obama] said to me [that he wouldn’t arm Ukraine because] he doesn’t want a nuclear war with Russia,” he added, rolling his eyes dismissively. “I don’t think Obama cares about Putin anymore at all. I think he’s hopeless.”
Kagan is married to Victoria Nuland, the Obama administration’s hardline assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs. Nuland, who would likely serve in a senior position in a Clinton,administration, supports shipping weapons to Ukraine despite major opposition from European countries and concerns about the neo-Nazi elements those weapons would empower.
Another thing neoconservatives and liberal hawks have in common is confidence that the foreign policy establishment is right, and the growing populist hostility to military intervention is naïve and uninformed.
Kagan complained that Americans are “so focused on the things that have gone wrong in recent years, they miss the sort of basic underlying, unusual quality of the international order that we’ve been living in.
They have nothing but contempt for anyone who does not support their warlike goals. After all, it is not they who pay the price or whose loved ones are killed and maimed by these wars.
If Clinton is elected, we are going to have our work cut out for us in trying to stop her from getting the country involved in new wars or the escalation of the current ones.
While we need to prevent Trump from getting into office, we also need to make sure we can get the more progressive people we can into the House and Senate. Even progressives into the statehouses.
Dan Froomkin reminds us …
… of many serious issues -- but the story at the link came from a person named Rania Khalek.
If only there was something people could do to stop that from happening. We have this thing in the UK called “voting”, but it hasn’t worked so well for us just lately, so I can see why you’re not recommending it.
I’ve said it before -- if you want peace, vote Trump.
He’s projecting himself as the isolationist candidate, but that doesn’t translate to peace. Especially if he’s serious about not living up to NATO agreements.
But if you don’t think you’ll ever have to worry about having an abortion and don’t care if anyone else to, vote Trump.
I don’t think sonofrojblake lives here, so the social issues wouldn’t really matter to them…
Now for people who live here there’s a clear choice… no matter how damaging Hillary’s foreign policy is it’s bound to be miles better here than it would be under Trumpenfuhrer.
Pierce @#2,
The RSS feed I got said Froomkin but you are right, it is Khalek. I corrected it. Thanks!
It was foolish then too.
@Blood Knight, 5:
You’re right. The subtle clue was “we have this thing in the UK”. Meanwhile:
That’s actually a slightly twisted restatement of what I said -- vote Clinton if your main concern is yourself, and screw the rest of the world. Because hey, as long as USAians have access to abortion, who cares how many foreign civilians are being killed every day in drone in Yemen, Syria, Pakistan etc.? I mean, it’s not as if most voters could point to those places on a map…
My main concern is not myself, it is myself, my friends, my family, and my fellow citizens… all of which are threatened by Trumpenfuhrer’s domestic policies far more than Clinton; he (via his cabinet/VP/SCOTUS choices) could literally make the lives of a lot of people I know a living hell. It is a phenomenally stupid argument to throw the safety and happiness of over 300 million people under a bus in order to MAYBE improve US foreign policy (and that’s a big maybe considering Trumpenfuhrer’s thin skin).
If I actually believed a single word that comes out of his mouth, that might not be entirely unreasonable. However, believing anything Trump says seems unwise. I certainly don’t think he’s any more likely to stick to his promises on foreign policy than Obama turned out to be -- in fact, I think he’s substantially less likely to.
Well, the “yourself” was aimed at the US in general, in contrast to the rest of the world in general. I’m not convinced President Trump would be as bad for the average American as you make out, but there’s simply no way to know, other than y’know… trying it.
This really is a case of better the she-devil you know -- whatever her domestic policies, Clinton, based on stated policies and previous actions in office definitely will make the lives of millions of foreigners a living hell if they’re lucky, and much, much shorter if they’re not. Trump might, or might not. Obviously a person’s opinion on which is better will depend heavily on which side of the US border they live.
Is there something he has said or done that suggests Trump wants to be an isolationist president?
Let me google that for you:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=trump+isolationist
Third hit, the Washington Times from October last year:
“Republican rivals take aim at Donald Trump’s ‘isolationist’ foreign policy:
…in the past few weeks, he has faced scrutiny for saying that the U.S. has no role in fighting the Islamic State or the ruling regime in Syria, and that it is OK for Russia to strike targets, including U.S.-backed rebels, inside Syria”
Things like that, you mean?
When has Donald Trump ever been consistent? As far as I can tell he says whatever he thinks the people in the room want to hear. When he is with different people he changes what he says. He stays vague and off target, managing to spend a lot of time and words saying nothing.
Thinking he’s going to actually stand by something he said seems to me hopelessly optimistic. To me that’s the whole problem: NO ONE knows what the hell he’ll do if elected. It might be ANYTHING.
sonofrojblake, #13
Thanks for googling that for me.
He’s just saying that because he doesn’t have to make those decisions right now. He will certainly not be isolationist.
I think the article misreads the group. The preference for Clinton is simply a matter of rationality and practicality, not one of war, or no war. Trump is a hyper-emotional child. A narcissist with a tendency to bluster, bully and, when things don’t go his way, a huge vindictive streak. They may prefer a more active engagements (scalar from belligerent rhetoric to open warfare) in certain areas but they will accept a less active roll if the alternative is a man-child with a chip on his shoulder, near-complete ignorance in world affairs and military matters (Trump makes W look like a fucking genius), and the attention span of a gnat.
Hillary may or may not do as they like but they have a sneaking hunch that she will make decisions more or less rooted in logic and reason. They, or you, may not agree with her decisions but she isn’t likely to carpet bomb Tibet because a Krishna hassled her in an airport. The same can’t be said of The Donald. The man is a loose cannon.
Saad, 15:
Stating with certainty that Trump will do anything is a mug’s game. But bear in mind that his two top headline policies -- the ones people talk about when they talk about him, the ones that define him -- are:
1. building a wall to keep people out
2. stopping people from coming in based on religion.
You’re right. He’s fully unreliable. I shouldn’t say he’ll certainly not be isolationist. I just think he’s too confrontational and too big of an asshole to not invade a country
ifwhen an attack by a Muslim happens on his watch and IS or another group claims it.Neither of those two points suggest he is isolationist.