On kissing terms with Joe Lieberman, she is, no doubt.
When interventionists tell you America is and can be a "force for good" they mean they want to use American power to achieve their own personal goals, imposing their own political values on the planet just as far as our power and tax money and blood will allow.
When GW crowed, "I'm the Decider," he was speaking from the heart, giving voice to the deepest longing of all of them.
And what they derive from the myth of America defeating Fascism and Communism (the Russians did both, actually) and "saving the world," a myth Jeffrey Goldberg and Hillary both approve in this article and in response to his invocation of which she apparently positively glowed, is encouragement to do anything but holster their guns and proof that their military interventions will be as wonderful as those of past American leaders.
No matter how different and even conflicting their values are and their projects and interventions might be.
'Failure' to Help Syrian Rebels Led to the Rise of ISIS
The Atlantic subtitle.
The former secretary of state, and probable candidate for president, outlines her foreign-policy doctrine.
She says this about President Obama's: "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'Don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle."
By that she means a coherent and organized project of global interventionism.
And every true American knows America is and must be a great nation.
Note well she is still a neocon at heart and says nothing about building secular forces for democracy that would not bring a cheer from that crew.
Here, for another example, she echoes what neocons have said since 2001.
She said that the resilience, and expansion, of Islamist terrorism means that the U.S. must develop an “overarching” strategy to confront it, and she equated this struggle to the one the U.S. waged against Soviet-led communism.
And she has returned to the total support for the Likud of her New York senator phase, putting her to the right even of Joe Scarborough.
And a happy medium between the alleged bellicose posturing of GW and the interventionism of Obama is not a happy medium between bellicose posturing and "a focus on" withdrawal from international engagement.
Confused about what such withdrawal might be?
Talk to Ron Paul or go read a few pieces at Antiwar.com on what American policy should be.
How to extricate from existing commitments?
As was well known when people were asking how America could remove itself from the Vietnam War, there must be "50 Ways to Leave your Lover."
Ask Paul Simon.
And, yes, I note Jeffrey Goldberg also shares with her the CW assumption that "resurgent Russian nationalism" is a problem the world in general and the US in particular have to deal with.
Recall that Zbigniew Brzezinski, he of the global game of Risk, is a Democrat and was Carter's adviser.
He is not dead, nor is his influence, nor are his thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment