Parry writes: "Campaign 2016 has offered few useful ideas about worsening
global crises. On the Republican side, it's been mostly the same-old tough
talk while Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have said little."
Hillary Clinton. (photo: AP)
Will Peace Find a 2016 Advocate?
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
29 August 15
Campaign 2016 has offered few useful ideas about worsening global crises. On
the Republican side, its been mostly the same-old tough talk while
Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have said little. Is there a
way to break through the frozen thinking about world conflicts, asks Robert
Parry.
At least since the 1980s when Ronald Reagan made war seem like fun again
and the modern mainstream media took shape the Democratic Party has lacked
a coherent foreign policy, highlighted today by the fact that its top 2016
presidential candidates have largely evaded the topic in favor almost
exclusively of domestic issues.
Part of the problem is that Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has a
record of pandering to the neoconservatives during her time as a U.S.
senator from New York and as Secretary of State. She voted for the Iraq War
in 2002 and, while President Barack Obamas top diplomat, supported what
some call liberal interventionism, which is barely distinguishable from
neoconservatism.
Indeed, arch-neocon Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the infamous Project for
the New American Century, said in his praise of Clintons aggressive
foreign policy that he was ready to jettison the term neoconservative in
favor of the phrase liberal interventionist.
Kagan, who was made an adviser to Clintons State Department, said in 2014:
If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue
its something
that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going
to call it that; they are going to call it something else. [For more, see
Consortiumnews.coms Is Hillary Clinton a Neocon-Lite?]
So, its understandable why Hillary Clintons campaign has downplayed the
details of how she would conduct foreign policy. Many Democrats, who opposed
the Iraq War and are uncomfortable with the hawkishness that Clinton
displayed as Secretary of State, would recoil at the prospect of her being a
Trojan Horse for Kagan and the neocons to sneak inside another Democratic
administration to continue their bloody strategies.
Though Sen. Bernie Sanders, her principal challenger, also has chosen to
downplay foreign policy issues in favor of economic ones, the Vermont
democratic socialist can at least point to his prescient opposition to the
Iraq War in 2002.
In a Senate floor speech, Sanders cited five reasons for voting against
President George W. Bushs war resolution: the death and destruction that
would result, the dangerous precedent of a unilateral invasion, the damage
to the war on terror, the extremely expensive price tag of a war and a
long-term American occupation, and the unintended consequences.
On the last point, Sanders asked: Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein
is removed and what role will the U.S. play in [an] ensuing civil war that
could develop in that country? Will moderate governments in the region who
have large Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by
extremists? Will the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinian
Authority be exacerbated? And these are just a few of the questions that
remain unanswered.
Back-burner Issues
Though right about Iraq, Sanders is unwilling to put forward a comprehensive
strategy for dealing with todays Mideast chaos and other international
tensions, including the Ukraine crisis which was partly fomented by Kagans
neocon wife, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria
Nuland, who rose to prominence under the protective wing of Secretary of
State Clinton.
When Sanders has spoken about the Mideast, he has framed his comments in
ways that make them acceptable to Official Washington but that ultimately
make little sense. For instance, in an interview with CNNs Wolf Blitzer,
Sanders suggested that Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich sheikdoms replace the
United States as the regions policeman in the fight against Sunni
terrorists in the Islamic State (also called ISIS).
Saudi Arabia is the third largest military budget in the world, Sanders
said. Theyre going to have to get their hands dirty in this fight. We
should be supporting, but at the end of the day this is fight over what
Islam is about, the soul of Islam, we should support those countries taking
on ISIS. [See Consortiumnews.coms Sanderss Screwy Mideast Strategy.]
Frankly, its hard to believe that Sanders is that naïve. A core reality of
the Mideast crisis is that Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Sunni Gulf states
have been the principal funders and ideological supporters of the Sunni
extremists who have organized into violent jihadist movements, including Al
Qaeda, its Syrian affiliate Al Nusra Front, and a hyper-violent spinoff, the
Islamic State.
Vice President Joe Biden blurted out this reality at Harvards Kennedy
School last October, when he said: Our allies in the region were our
largest problem in Syria
the Saudis, the emirates, etc., what were they
doing? They were so determined to take down [President Bashar al-] Assad and
essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war, what did they do? They poured
hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of military
weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad, except the people who
were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of
jihadis coming from other parts of the world. [Quote at 53:20 of clip.]
Biden had confirmed something that was well-known in the region and inside
the U.S. intelligence community, that many of these terrorist groups were
supported, directly and indirectly, by elements of Saudi Arabias royal
family and by oil-rich sheiks around the Persian Gulf who see themselves
fighting a sectarian war against Iran and the Shiites. The Vice President
later apologized for speaking the truth, but the cat was out of the bag.
[See Consortiumnews.coms Why Islamic State Is Winning.]
Saudi Arabias Dirty Hands
The Saudi role in this regional chaos dates back to its financing of
fundamentalist Wahabbi teachings and its encouragement of Iraqs invasion of
Iran in 1980. Later that decade, the Saudis co-sponsored with the CIA
the Afghan mujahedeen who fought a Soviet-backed secular government in
Kabul. The Afghan conflict poured billions of dollars in weapons into the
hands of Islamic extremists, including a Saudi named Osama bin Laden, and
created the basis for an international jihadist terror movement called Al
Qaeda.
Even after Al Qaedas 9/11 attacks, U.S. officials shielded the Saudis from
the wrath of the American people. After consulting with Saudi Ambassador
Bandar bin-Sultan, Bush agreed to let bin Ladens family members in the
United States board the first planes let back into the air, with only
perfunctory FBI questioning. Later, Bush suppressed a 28-page section of the
congressional 9/11 report about Saudi support for the 19 hijackers, 15 of
whom were identified as Saudi nationals. (Obama has continued to withhold
those 28 pages.)
But the Saudis were not always happy with Bushs actions. In 2003, when
Bushs invasion of Iraq had the unintended consequence of replacing a Sunni
autocrat, Saddam Hussein, with Shiite autocrats, the Saudis saw the regional
balance of power tilt toward Shiite-ruled Iran, which suddenly had allies in
power in Baghdad.
In response, the Saudis stepped up their support of Sunni militant movements
in Iraq and then Syria with the goal of frustrating Iraqs government and
removing Syrias Assad, an Alawite (a Shiite spinoff sect), and replacing
him with a Sunni.
As Saudi Arabia intervened more aggressively in this regional fight against
Iran, the Saudi royals reached out to Israel, which shared Riyadhs
hostility toward Iran. Israel also favored regime change in Syria and saw
the war there as a way also to undermine Lebanons Hezbollah movement, a
Shiite force on Israels northern border. This de facto Saudi-Israeli
alliance guaranteed strong support within the U.S. government and media for
the effort to remove Assad from power. [See Consortiumnews.coms Did Money
Seal Israeli-Saudi Alliance?]
The Gulf states also recognized that the most effective fighters against
Assad were the Sunni jihadists, especially Al Qaedas Nusra Front and the
Islamic State. Thus, much of the Gulf money and weapons flowed in those
directions, as Biden revealed.
So, in regards to Sanderss lament about the need for the super-rich Saudis
to get their hands dirty, the truth is that the Saudis have long been
getting their hands not only dirty but bloody.
A Looming Genocide
The Sunni terror groups operating in Iraq and Syria have served essentially
as Saudi Arabias irregular forces fighting a sectarian war against the
Shiites. In Syria, these Sunni extremists also have targeted the Christians,
Alawites and other minorities for possible extermination if Assads military
collapses.
Besides these proxy forces, the Saudis have intervened directly in Yemen
with an indiscriminate bombing campaign against Houthi rebels who follow a
version of Shiite Islam. The Saudi attacks have not only killed thousands of
civilians but created a humanitarian crisis in the poverty-stricken country
on Saudi Arabias southern border.
Thus, Sanderss idea that just because the Saudis are rich they should
expand their military operations throughout the region is as dangerous as it
is ludicrous. It would guarantee a major escalation of the bloodletting and
the chaos. The proposal only serves to underscore how bereft the Democrats
are when it comes to expressing a coherent alternative foreign policy as a
challenge to the dominance of the neocons and their liberal-interventionist
cohorts.
So, what could be an alternative that would allow Democratic candidates to
make sense and avoid being dismissed as unrealistic pacifists or foolhardy
isolationists? And no progressive should underestimate the political risk
that goes with any deviation from the tough-guy/gal-ism of Official
Washington. The easiest attack line against anyone advocating restraint and
negotiations is a reference to Neville Chamberlains appeasement of Adolf
Hitler at Munich before World War II.
But there are politically savvy ways to counter the power of the neocons and
the liberal hawks:
Stand for transparency in foreign policy. Instead of letting neocons and
liberal hawks shape the narratives of foreign crises by demonizing foes and
hiding inconvenient truths, demand as much disclosure as possible especially
regarding pivotal events. Over the past several decades, the neocons and
liberal hawks have monopolized the information flows, allowing them to
exaggerate threats beyond what the actual intelligence supports. We have
seen this pattern in every crisis, from Iraqs bogus WMD threat in 2003 to
the mystery of who shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine in
2014. American voters would not punish a candidate for insisting that more
information be shared with the people.
On a related point, repudiate the notion that information should be shaped
into a strategic weapon of propaganda warfare. It is now a trendy concept
inside the State Department and Washington think tanks that clever
propaganda can be used as a soft power weapon to weaken an adversary. Some
liberal interventionists think this soft power manipulation of facts is
preferable to hard power military action, but that misses the point, since
deceiving the public, which must include the American people as well as a
foreign target audience, is an assault on democracy. Also, as we have seen,
propaganda can be a gateway drug to full-scale war.
No Entangling Alliances
Remind voters about the wisdom of the early U.S. presidents who warned
repeatedly against foreign entangling alliances. Endless warfare against
exaggerated bogeymen around the world may sound tough during a debate or a
talking-head moment on TV but such belligerence inevitably destroys the
Republic. A more recent example of how foolhardy hasty interventionism can
be is the Iraq War, which was embraced by not only neocons but many liberals
who fancied themselves as doves until they realized that their careers might
suffer so they reinvented themselves as hawks. As an opponent of the Iraq
War, Sanders, in particular, is in a very strong position to hammer away at
the geniuses who gave us the disastrous Iraq War.
This is harder but be prepared to stand in the way of the next
propaganda-driven stampede against some demonized foreign enemy. To do so
requires some political courage. You will surely be called a
(fill-in-the-blank) apologist, but respond by noting the much greater
danger of another group think. Remind people how other Orwellian five
minutes hate sessions against various foreign leaders led the United States
into terrible mistakes and bloody misjudgments.
Sometimes, non-governmental organizations with labels asserting their
commitment to human rights or democracy promotion can be very successful
in focusing attention on some offensive act in a target country (while
ignoring similar or worse offenses in friendly countries). Remember, this
is how propaganda works by using selective outrage. Not all NGOs are
fair-minded observers. Some are fronts for governments and special
interests.
Stress the value of realism in foreign policy, i.e., the concept of
weighing the cons as well as the pros of some intervention. Just because
taking action at some passion-filled moment may feel good, it doesnt
necessarily do good.
Reflect on how America does best, both economically and geopolitically,
when countries are at relative peace and have achieved some prosperity.
Americas greatest soft power is its ability to sell its products to the
world and to benefit from the symbiosis that comes when people around the
world appreciate U.S. inventiveness and innovation. By destabilizing entire
regions and promiscuously imposing economic sanctions, the U.S. government
disrupts these positive relationships. Perhaps a new slogan could be: Make
money, not war.
Just as police domestically should work on conflict resolution rather than
pulling out their tasers and guns, U.S. diplomats should concentrate on
deescalating crises rather than swaggering in with harsh rhetoric, sanction
threats and regime change strategies.
Though this point is risky, suggest that America might benefit from
rearranging its alliances in the Middle East, confronting Saudi Arabia over
its covert support of terrorism and demanding that Israel finally resolve
its disruptive conflict with the Palestinians. As part of this shift, the
United States could encourage Iran to play a stabilizing role in Iraq and
Syria and push both governments to share power more equitably with Sunnis,
thus undercutting jihadist violence. Russia, with its influence in Iran and
Syria, could be helpful, too.
Whats Possible?
But can an alternative foreign policy really be built around truth-telling,
resistance to perception management and respectful diplomacy even toward
adversarial governments? Obviously, a big problem is the U.S. news media
which tends to hype whatever propaganda is being spread about some
designated villain and then berates anyone who dares suggest that there
might be two sides to the story.
Building a more independent and fair-minded media will be a long-term
project. Right now, challenges to the latest group think are confined
mostly to some Internet sites and small-audience radio shows. And theres
the additional confusion because some hip Internet sites are simply the
latest fad in propaganda, essentially fronts for the same misinformation
that gets spread by the mainstream media except operating behind the façade
of civic journalism or some innocent-sounding goals like fighting
corruption and protecting human rights.
Yet, despite all the difficulties that a politician would confront if he or
she chose to strike out in a more peaceful and more truthful direction,
there is urgency to undertake this mission.
For one, continued U.S. confusion over the civil war in Syria whether it
be Hillary Clintons fanciful notions about arming the non-existent
moderate rebels or Bernie Sanderss silly idea about demanding that Saudi
Arabia subdue the Mideast by force could lead to a genuine catastrophe if
the black flag of Al Qaeda and/or the Islamic State is raised over Damascus.
Between Al Qaeda plotting new terror attacks on the West and the Islamic
State chopping off the heads of Christians, Alawites, Shiites and other
heretics, there might be little choice for the U.S. president whoever he
or she is to intervene on a massive scale, launching a new hopeless war
that could well be the final death blow to the American Republic.
Even more dangerous is the showdown with nuclear-armed Russia over Ukraine.
Since February 2014 when Assistant Secretary of State Nuland plotted regime
change in Kiev, the American public has been fed a steady diet of
anti-Russian propaganda with the special demonization of Russian President
Vladimir Putin.
Though a resolution to the Ukrainian civil war should have been relatively
simple autonomy for ethnic Russians in the east and respect for Crimeas
secession referendum from Ukraine the extreme rhetoric about Russian
aggression and the Wests imposition of economically disruptive sanctions
have ratcheted up tensions and raised the possibility of a nuclear war.
Though all might hope that cooler heads will prevail before the nuclear
codes come out, the Wests tough-guy/gal-ism over Ukraine already has
contributed to less existential though still serious problems, including the
risk of another global financial meltdown because the sanctions have helped
stall Europes already sluggish recovery from the Wall Street crash of 2008.
At this moment when the worlds economy needs more commerce and more
consumer buying power, the Ukraine crisis has contributed to less business
and less spending, dragging down the economies of China and the United
States as well as Europe.
Meanwhile, the neocon-liberal-hawk-driven chaos of the Middle East has added
to Europes budgetary and political pressures by flooding the Continent with
refugees and migrants from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Africa. Not
only is this humanitarian crisis deepening Europes economic woes, it is
threatening to splinter the Continents fragile unity with many countries
refusing to open their borders to these waves of humanity.
Given these cascading dangers, it is well past time for American politicians
of both parties to get serious about practical ways to ease geopolitical
tensions, not exacerbate them. Instead, pretty much all were getting from
Republicans and Democrats is more unrealistic tough talk.
________________________________________
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories
for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest
book, Americas Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parrys trilogy on
the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for
only $34. The trilogy includes Americas Stolen Narrative. For details on
this offer, click here.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Hillary Clinton. (photo: AP)
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/08/27/will-peace-find-a-2016-advocate/https:
//consortiumnews.com/2015/08/27/will-peace-find-a-2016-advocate/
Will Peace Find a 2016 Advocate?
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
29 August 15
Campaign 2016 has offered few useful ideas about worsening global crises. On
the Republican side, its been mostly the same-old tough talk while
Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have said little. Is there a
way to break through the frozen thinking about world conflicts, asks Robert
Parry.
t least since the 1980s when Ronald Reagan made war seem like fun again
and the modern mainstream media took shape the Democratic Party has lacked
a coherent foreign policy, highlighted today by the fact that its top 2016
presidential candidates have largely evaded the topic in favor almost
exclusively of domestic issues.
Part of the problem is that Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has a
record of pandering to the neoconservatives during her time as a U.S.
senator from New York and as Secretary of State. She voted for the Iraq War
in 2002 and, while President Barack Obamas top diplomat, supported what
some call liberal interventionism, which is barely distinguishable from
neoconservatism.
Indeed, arch-neocon Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the infamous Project for
the New American Century, said in his praise of Clintons aggressive
foreign policy that he was ready to jettison the term neoconservative in
favor of the phrase liberal interventionist.
Kagan, who was made an adviser to Clintons State Department, said in 2014:
If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue
its something
that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going
to call it that; they are going to call it something else. [For more, see
Consortiumnews.coms Is Hillary Clinton a Neocon-Lite?]
So, its understandable why Hillary Clintons campaign has downplayed the
details of how she would conduct foreign policy. Many Democrats, who opposed
the Iraq War and are uncomfortable with the hawkishness that Clinton
displayed as Secretary of State, would recoil at the prospect of her being a
Trojan Horse for Kagan and the neocons to sneak inside another Democratic
administration to continue their bloody strategies.
Though Sen. Bernie Sanders, her principal challenger, also has chosen to
downplay foreign policy issues in favor of economic ones, the Vermont
democratic socialist can at least point to his prescient opposition to the
Iraq War in 2002.
In a Senate floor speech, Sanders cited five reasons for voting against
President George W. Bushs war resolution: the death and destruction that
would result, the dangerous precedent of a unilateral invasion, the damage
to the war on terror, the extremely expensive price tag of a war and a
long-term American occupation, and the unintended consequences.
On the last point, Sanders asked: Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein
is removed and what role will the U.S. play in [an] ensuing civil war that
could develop in that country? Will moderate governments in the region who
have large Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by
extremists? Will the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinian
Authority be exacerbated? And these are just a few of the questions that
remain unanswered.
Back-burner Issues
Though right about Iraq, Sanders is unwilling to put forward a comprehensive
strategy for dealing with todays Mideast chaos and other international
tensions, including the Ukraine crisis which was partly fomented by Kagans
neocon wife, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria
Nuland, who rose to prominence under the protective wing of Secretary of
State Clinton.
When Sanders has spoken about the Mideast, he has framed his comments in
ways that make them acceptable to Official Washington but that ultimately
make little sense. For instance, in an interview with CNNs Wolf Blitzer,
Sanders suggested that Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich sheikdoms replace the
United States as the regions policeman in the fight against Sunni
terrorists in the Islamic State (also called ISIS).
Saudi Arabia is the third largest military budget in the world, Sanders
said. Theyre going to have to get their hands dirty in this fight. We
should be supporting, but at the end of the day this is fight over what
Islam is about, the soul of Islam, we should support those countries taking
on ISIS. [See Consortiumnews.coms Sanderss Screwy Mideast Strategy.]
Frankly, its hard to believe that Sanders is that naïve. A core reality of
the Mideast crisis is that Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Sunni Gulf states
have been the principal funders and ideological supporters of the Sunni
extremists who have organized into violent jihadist movements, including Al
Qaeda, its Syrian affiliate Al Nusra Front, and a hyper-violent spinoff, the
Islamic State.
Vice President Joe Biden blurted out this reality at Harvards Kennedy
School last October, when he said: Our allies in the region were our
largest problem in Syria
the Saudis, the emirates, etc., what were they
doing? They were so determined to take down [President Bashar al-] Assad and
essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war, what did they do? They poured
hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of military
weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad, except the people who
were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of
jihadis coming from other parts of the world. [Quote at 53:20 of clip.]
Biden had confirmed something that was well-known in the region and inside
the U.S. intelligence community, that many of these terrorist groups were
supported, directly and indirectly, by elements of Saudi Arabias royal
family and by oil-rich sheiks around the Persian Gulf who see themselves
fighting a sectarian war against Iran and the Shiites. The Vice President
later apologized for speaking the truth, but the cat was out of the bag.
[See Consortiumnews.coms Why Islamic State Is Winning.]
Saudi Arabias Dirty Hands
The Saudi role in this regional chaos dates back to its financing of
fundamentalist Wahabbi teachings and its encouragement of Iraqs invasion of
Iran in 1980. Later that decade, the Saudis co-sponsored with the CIA
the Afghan mujahedeen who fought a Soviet-backed secular government in
Kabul. The Afghan conflict poured billions of dollars in weapons into the
hands of Islamic extremists, including a Saudi named Osama bin Laden, and
created the basis for an international jihadist terror movement called Al
Qaeda.
Even after Al Qaedas 9/11 attacks, U.S. officials shielded the Saudis from
the wrath of the American people. After consulting with Saudi Ambassador
Bandar bin-Sultan, Bush agreed to let bin Ladens family members in the
United States board the first planes let back into the air, with only
perfunctory FBI questioning. Later, Bush suppressed a 28-page section of the
congressional 9/11 report about Saudi support for the 19 hijackers, 15 of
whom were identified as Saudi nationals. (Obama has continued to withhold
those 28 pages.)
But the Saudis were not always happy with Bushs actions. In 2003, when
Bushs invasion of Iraq had the unintended consequence of replacing a Sunni
autocrat, Saddam Hussein, with Shiite autocrats, the Saudis saw the regional
balance of power tilt toward Shiite-ruled Iran, which suddenly had allies in
power in Baghdad.
In response, the Saudis stepped up their support of Sunni militant movements
in Iraq and then Syria with the goal of frustrating Iraqs government and
removing Syrias Assad, an Alawite (a Shiite spinoff sect), and replacing
him with a Sunni.
As Saudi Arabia intervened more aggressively in this regional fight against
Iran, the Saudi royals reached out to Israel, which shared Riyadhs
hostility toward Iran. Israel also favored regime change in Syria and saw
the war there as a way also to undermine Lebanons Hezbollah movement, a
Shiite force on Israels northern border. This de facto Saudi-Israeli
alliance guaranteed strong support within the U.S. government and media for
the effort to remove Assad from power. [See Consortiumnews.coms Did Money
Seal Israeli-Saudi Alliance?]
The Gulf states also recognized that the most effective fighters against
Assad were the Sunni jihadists, especially Al Qaedas Nusra Front and the
Islamic State. Thus, much of the Gulf money and weapons flowed in those
directions, as Biden revealed.
So, in regards to Sanderss lament about the need for the super-rich Saudis
to get their hands dirty, the truth is that the Saudis have long been
getting their hands not only dirty but bloody.
A Looming Genocide
The Sunni terror groups operating in Iraq and Syria have served essentially
as Saudi Arabias irregular forces fighting a sectarian war against the
Shiites. In Syria, these Sunni extremists also have targeted the Christians,
Alawites and other minorities for possible extermination if Assads military
collapses.
Besides these proxy forces, the Saudis have intervened directly in Yemen
with an indiscriminate bombing campaign against Houthi rebels who follow a
version of Shiite Islam. The Saudi attacks have not only killed thousands of
civilians but created a humanitarian crisis in the poverty-stricken country
on Saudi Arabias southern border.
Thus, Sanderss idea that just because the Saudis are rich they should
expand their military operations throughout the region is as dangerous as it
is ludicrous. It would guarantee a major escalation of the bloodletting and
the chaos. The proposal only serves to underscore how bereft the Democrats
are when it comes to expressing a coherent alternative foreign policy as a
challenge to the dominance of the neocons and their liberal-interventionist
cohorts.
So, what could be an alternative that would allow Democratic candidates to
make sense and avoid being dismissed as unrealistic pacifists or foolhardy
isolationists? And no progressive should underestimate the political risk
that goes with any deviation from the tough-guy/gal-ism of Official
Washington. The easiest attack line against anyone advocating restraint and
negotiations is a reference to Neville Chamberlains appeasement of Adolf
Hitler at Munich before World War II.
But there are politically savvy ways to counter the power of the neocons and
the liberal hawks:
Stand for transparency in foreign policy. Instead of letting neocons and
liberal hawks shape the narratives of foreign crises by demonizing foes and
hiding inconvenient truths, demand as much disclosure as possible especially
regarding pivotal events. Over the past several decades, the neocons and
liberal hawks have monopolized the information flows, allowing them to
exaggerate threats beyond what the actual intelligence supports. We have
seen this pattern in every crisis, from Iraqs bogus WMD threat in 2003 to
the mystery of who shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine in
2014. American voters would not punish a candidate for insisting that more
information be shared with the people.
On a related point, repudiate the notion that information should be shaped
into a strategic weapon of propaganda warfare. It is now a trendy concept
inside the State Department and Washington think tanks that clever
propaganda can be used as a soft power weapon to weaken an adversary. Some
liberal interventionists think this soft power manipulation of facts is
preferable to hard power military action, but that misses the point, since
deceiving the public, which must include the American people as well as a
foreign target audience, is an assault on democracy. Also, as we have seen,
propaganda can be a gateway drug to full-scale war.
No Entangling Alliances
Remind voters about the wisdom of the early U.S. presidents who warned
repeatedly against foreign entangling alliances. Endless warfare against
exaggerated bogeymen around the world may sound tough during a debate or a
talking-head moment on TV but such belligerence inevitably destroys the
Republic. A more recent example of how foolhardy hasty interventionism can
be is the Iraq War, which was embraced by not only neocons but many liberals
who fancied themselves as doves until they realized that their careers might
suffer so they reinvented themselves as hawks. As an opponent of the Iraq
War, Sanders, in particular, is in a very strong position to hammer away at
the geniuses who gave us the disastrous Iraq War.
This is harder but be prepared to stand in the way of the next
propaganda-driven stampede against some demonized foreign enemy. To do so
requires some political courage. You will surely be called a
(fill-in-the-blank) apologist, but respond by noting the much greater
danger of another group think. Remind people how other Orwellian five
minutes hate sessions against various foreign leaders led the United States
into terrible mistakes and bloody misjudgments.
Sometimes, non-governmental organizations with labels asserting their
commitment to human rights or democracy promotion can be very successful
in focusing attention on some offensive act in a target country (while
ignoring similar or worse offenses in friendly countries). Remember, this
is how propaganda works by using selective outrage. Not all NGOs are
fair-minded observers. Some are fronts for governments and special
interests.
Stress the value of realism in foreign policy, i.e., the concept of
weighing the cons as well as the pros of some intervention. Just because
taking action at some passion-filled moment may feel good, it doesnt
necessarily do good.
Reflect on how America does best, both economically and geopolitically,
when countries are at relative peace and have achieved some prosperity.
Americas greatest soft power is its ability to sell its products to the
world and to benefit from the symbiosis that comes when people around the
world appreciate U.S. inventiveness and innovation. By destabilizing entire
regions and promiscuously imposing economic sanctions, the U.S. government
disrupts these positive relationships. Perhaps a new slogan could be: Make
money, not war.
Just as police domestically should work on conflict resolution rather than
pulling out their tasers and guns, U.S. diplomats should concentrate on
deescalating crises rather than swaggering in with harsh rhetoric, sanction
threats and regime change strategies.
Though this point is risky, suggest that America might benefit from
rearranging its alliances in the Middle East, confronting Saudi Arabia over
its covert support of terrorism and demanding that Israel finally resolve
its disruptive conflict with the Palestinians. As part of this shift, the
United States could encourage Iran to play a stabilizing role in Iraq and
Syria and push both governments to share power more equitably with Sunnis,
thus undercutting jihadist violence. Russia, with its influence in Iran and
Syria, could be helpful, too.
Whats Possible?
But can an alternative foreign policy really be built around truth-telling,
resistance to perception management and respectful diplomacy even toward
adversarial governments? Obviously, a big problem is the U.S. news media
which tends to hype whatever propaganda is being spread about some
designated villain and then berates anyone who dares suggest that there
might be two sides to the story.
Building a more independent and fair-minded media will be a long-term
project. Right now, challenges to the latest group think are confined
mostly to some Internet sites and small-audience radio shows. And theres
the additional confusion because some hip Internet sites are simply the
latest fad in propaganda, essentially fronts for the same misinformation
that gets spread by the mainstream media except operating behind the façade
of civic journalism or some innocent-sounding goals like fighting
corruption and protecting human rights.
Yet, despite all the difficulties that a politician would confront if he or
she chose to strike out in a more peaceful and more truthful direction,
there is urgency to undertake this mission.
For one, continued U.S. confusion over the civil war in Syria whether it
be Hillary Clintons fanciful notions about arming the non-existent
moderate rebels or Bernie Sanderss silly idea about demanding that Saudi
Arabia subdue the Mideast by force could lead to a genuine catastrophe if
the black flag of Al Qaeda and/or the Islamic State is raised over Damascus.
Between Al Qaeda plotting new terror attacks on the West and the Islamic
State chopping off the heads of Christians, Alawites, Shiites and other
heretics, there might be little choice for the U.S. president whoever he
or she is to intervene on a massive scale, launching a new hopeless war
that could well be the final death blow to the American Republic.
Even more dangerous is the showdown with nuclear-armed Russia over Ukraine.
Since February 2014 when Assistant Secretary of State Nuland plotted regime
change in Kiev, the American public has been fed a steady diet of
anti-Russian propaganda with the special demonization of Russian President
Vladimir Putin.
Though a resolution to the Ukrainian civil war should have been relatively
simple autonomy for ethnic Russians in the east and respect for Crimeas
secession referendum from Ukraine the extreme rhetoric about Russian
aggression and the Wests imposition of economically disruptive sanctions
have ratcheted up tensions and raised the possibility of a nuclear war.
Though all might hope that cooler heads will prevail before the nuclear
codes come out, the Wests tough-guy/gal-ism over Ukraine already has
contributed to less existential though still serious problems, including the
risk of another global financial meltdown because the sanctions have helped
stall Europes already sluggish recovery from the Wall Street crash of 2008.
At this moment when the worlds economy needs more commerce and more
consumer buying power, the Ukraine crisis has contributed to less business
and less spending, dragging down the economies of China and the United
States as well as Europe.
Meanwhile, the neocon-liberal-hawk-driven chaos of the Middle East has added
to Europes budgetary and political pressures by flooding the Continent with
refugees and migrants from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Africa. Not
only is this humanitarian crisis deepening Europes economic woes, it is
threatening to splinter the Continents fragile unity with many countries
refusing to open their borders to these waves of humanity.
Given these cascading dangers, it is well past time for American politicians
of both parties to get serious about practical ways to ease geopolitical
tensions, not exacerbate them. Instead, pretty much all were getting from
Republicans and Democrats is more unrealistic tough talk.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories
for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest
book, Americas Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parrys trilogy on
the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for
only $34. The trilogy includes Americas Stolen Narrative. For details on
this offer, click here.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
