Greenwald writes: "Michele Flournoy, the former Defense Department official
whom Defense One calls "the woman expected to run the Pentagon under Hillary
Clinton,' this week advocated for 'sending more American troops into combat
against ISIS and the Assad regime than the Obama administration has been
willing to commit.'"
Hillary Clinton. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty)
Hillary Clinton's Likely Pentagon Chief Already Advocating for More Bombing
and Intervention
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
22 June 16
Michele Flournoy, the former Defense Department official whom Defense One
calls "the woman expected to run the Pentagon under Hillary Clinton," this
week advocated for "sending more American troops into combat against ISIS
and the Assad regime than the Obama administration has been willing to
commit." In an interview with that outlet, Flournoy "said she would direct
U.S. troops to push President Bashar al-Assad's forces out of southern Syria
and would send more American boots to fight the Islamic State in the
region." She had previously "condemned the Obama administration's ISIS
policy as ineffectual," denouncing it as "under-resourced."
This week, Flournoy specifically advocated what she called "limited military
coercion" to oust Assad. In August 2014, Obama announced what he called
"limited airstrikes in Iraq" - and they're still continuing almost two years
later. Also note the clinical euphemism Flournoy created - "military
coercion" - for creating a "no-bomb zone" that would entail "a declaratory
policy backed up by the threat of force. 'If you bomb the folks we support,
we will retaliate using standoff means to destroy [Russian] proxy forces,
or, in this case, Syrian assets,'" she said. Despite D.C. conventional
wisdom that Obama is guilty of "inaction" in Syria, he has sent substantial
aid, weapons, and training to Syrian rebels while repeatedly bombing ISIS
targets in Syria.
Even U.S. military officials have said that these sorts of no-fly or no-bomb
guarantees Flournoy is promising - which Hillary Clinton herself has
previously advocated - would risk a military confrontation with Russia.
Obama's defense secretary, Ash Carter, told a Senate hearing last December
that the policy Clinton advocates "would require 'substantial' ground forces
and would put the U.S. military at risk of a direct confrontation with the
Syrian regime and Russian forces." Nonetheless, the Pentagon official highly
likely to be Clinton's defense secretary is clearly signaling their
intention to proceed with escalated military action. The carnage in Syria is
horrifying, but no rational person should think that U.S. military action
will be designed to "help Syrians."
It's long been beyond doubt that Clinton intends to embark upon a far more
militaristic path than even Obama forged - which is saying a lot given that
the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner has bombed seven predominantly Muslim
countries in seven years. Repeatedly, Clinton has implicitly criticized
Obama for excessive hostility toward Israel, and she has vowed more
uncritical support for Israel and to move closer to Netanyahu. Just
yesterday, Clinton surrogates battled Sanders's appointees in the Democratic
Platform Committee meeting over Israel and Palestine, with Clinton's
supporters taking an even more hard-line position than many right-wing
Israeli politicians. Clinton was the leading voice that successfully
convinced a reluctant Obama to involve the U.S. in the disastrous
intervention in Libya.
Her past criticisms of Obama's foreign policy were based overwhelmingly in
her complaints that he did not use enough military force, including in
Syria. As the New York Times put it in 2014: "That Mrs. Clinton is more
hawkish than Mr. Obama is no surprise to anyone who watched a Democratic
primary debate in 2008. . She favored supplying arms to moderate Syrian
rebels, leaving behind a somewhat larger residual military force in Iraq and
waiting longer before withdrawing American support for President Hosni
Mubarak of Egypt during the historic protests in Cairo."
Pro-Clinton outlets recently manufactured an utterly stupid and misleading
"scandal" (using shallow right-wing themes) over the fact that Bernie
Sanders, by committing the crime of continuing his campaign against Hillary
Clinton, is "costing the taxpayers" $38,000 a day. Maybe these same intrepid
journalists could spend a little time calculating the "cost to American
taxpayers" from the massive, bellicose, bloody wars and bombing campaigns
their favorite candidate is explicitly advocating and, beyond that, the ones
she's likely - based on her "hawkish" history - to start. That might be
worth doing given that the costs of Clinton's military actions will be many,
many magnitudes greater than the costs of Sanders' security protection that
have so upset their frugal fiscal sensibilities.
But the fact that Hillary Clinton has a history of advocating more war and
killing and support for heinous regimes and occupations is the one thing
Democratic pundits have, with remarkable message discipline, completely
ignored. From Bernie Bros to Sanders' Secret Service costs to Hillary's
kick-ass, mic-dropping, slay-queen tweets, they've invented the most
embarrassingly childish and trivial distractions to ensure they don't have
to talk about it. But now Clinton's almost-certain defense secretary is
already - months before she's in power - expressly advocating more war and
bombing and dangerous interventions. That makes the costs of a Clinton
foreign policy - at least for those who assign any value to lives outside of
American soil - much harder, and more shameful, to ignore.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Hillary Clinton. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty)
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/22/hillary-clintons-likely-pentagon-chief-a
lready-advocating-for-more-bombing-and-intervention/https://theintercept.com
/2016/06/22/hillary-clintons-likely-pentagon-chief-already-advocating-for-mo
re-bombing-and-intervention/
Hillary Clinton's Likely Pentagon Chief Already Advocating for More Bombing
and Intervention
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
22 June 16
ichele Flournoy, the former Defense Department official whom Defense One
calls "the woman expected to run the Pentagon under Hillary Clinton," this
week advocated for "sending more American troops into combat against ISIS
and the Assad regime than the Obama administration has been willing to
commit." In an interview with that outlet, Flournoy "said she would direct
U.S. troops to push President Bashar al-Assad's forces out of southern Syria
and would send more American boots to fight the Islamic State in the
region." She had previously "condemned the Obama administration's ISIS
policy as ineffectual," denouncing it as "under-resourced."
This week, Flournoy specifically advocated what she called "limited military
coercion" to oust Assad. In August 2014, Obama announced what he called
"limited airstrikes in Iraq" - and they're still continuing almost two years
later. Also note the clinical euphemism Flournoy created - "military
coercion" - for creating a "no-bomb zone" that would entail "a declaratory
policy backed up by the threat of force. 'If you bomb the folks we support,
we will retaliate using standoff means to destroy [Russian] proxy forces,
or, in this case, Syrian assets,'" she said. Despite D.C. conventional
wisdom that Obama is guilty of "inaction" in Syria, he has sent substantial
aid, weapons, and training to Syrian rebels while repeatedly bombing ISIS
targets in Syria.
Even U.S. military officials have said that these sorts of no-fly or no-bomb
guarantees Flournoy is promising - which Hillary Clinton herself has
previously advocated - would risk a military confrontation with Russia.
Obama's defense secretary, Ash Carter, told a Senate hearing last December
that the policy Clinton advocates "would require 'substantial' ground forces
and would put the U.S. military at risk of a direct confrontation with the
Syrian regime and Russian forces." Nonetheless, the Pentagon official highly
likely to be Clinton's defense secretary is clearly signaling their
intention to proceed with escalated military action. The carnage in Syria is
horrifying, but no rational person should think that U.S. military action
will be designed to "help Syrians."
It's long been beyond doubt that Clinton intends to embark upon a far more
militaristic path than even Obama forged - which is saying a lot given that
the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner has bombed seven predominantly Muslim
countries in seven years. Repeatedly, Clinton has implicitly criticized
Obama for excessive hostility toward Israel, and she has vowed more
uncritical support for Israel and to move closer to Netanyahu. Just
yesterday, Clinton surrogates battled Sanders's appointees in the Democratic
Platform Committee meeting over Israel and Palestine, with Clinton's
supporters taking an even more hard-line position than many right-wing
Israeli politicians. Clinton was the leading voice that successfully
convinced a reluctant Obama to involve the U.S. in the disastrous
intervention in Libya.
Her past criticisms of Obama's foreign policy were based overwhelmingly in
her complaints that he did not use enough military force, including in
Syria. As the New York Times put it in 2014: "That Mrs. Clinton is more
hawkish than Mr. Obama is no surprise to anyone who watched a Democratic
primary debate in 2008. . She favored supplying arms to moderate Syrian
rebels, leaving behind a somewhat larger residual military force in Iraq and
waiting longer before withdrawing American support for President Hosni
Mubarak of Egypt during the historic protests in Cairo."
Pro-Clinton outlets recently manufactured an utterly stupid and misleading
"scandal" (using shallow right-wing themes) over the fact that Bernie
Sanders, by committing the crime of continuing his campaign against Hillary
Clinton, is "costing the taxpayers" $38,000 a day. Maybe these same intrepid
journalists could spend a little time calculating the "cost to American
taxpayers" from the massive, bellicose, bloody wars and bombing campaigns
their favorite candidate is explicitly advocating and, beyond that, the ones
she's likely - based on her "hawkish" history - to start. That might be
worth doing given that the costs of Clinton's military actions will be many,
many magnitudes greater than the costs of Sanders' security protection that
have so upset their frugal fiscal sensibilities.
But the fact that Hillary Clinton has a history of advocating more war and
killing and support for heinous regimes and occupations is the one thing
Democratic pundits have, with remarkable message discipline, completely
ignored. From Bernie Bros to Sanders' Secret Service costs to Hillary's
kick-ass, mic-dropping, slay-queen tweets, they've invented the most
embarrassingly childish and trivial distractions to ensure they don't have
to talk about it. But now Clinton's almost-certain defense secretary is
already - months before she's in power - expressly advocating more war and
bombing and dangerous interventions. That makes the costs of a Clinton
foreign policy - at least for those who assign any value to lives outside of
American soil - much harder, and more shameful, to ignore.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
