Panetta’s out hawking his book about how Obama isn’t enough of a hawk. Of course, he is likely acting as a surrogate for Hillary Clinton, who appears to be advocating a more knee-jerk approach to foreign intervention. She and John McCain (and his various clones) really, really wanted that Syrian war, and now both seem to believe that the advent of ISIS is the result of our having failed to jump in ass first last year (essentially on ISIS’s side, it’s worth pointing out). Shades of Bush/Cheney – I guess it’s been long enough since the total disaster of the Iraq war for some people to yearn for the days of pre-emptive war, of “shock and awe”, of taking the gloves off. Included in that number is the putative front-runner of the Democratic field for President.
So, after six years of being compelled to drink the fragrant golden beverage of Obama’s national security policy – drones, bombs, domestic spying, whistleblower-persecution and all – we are now to be treated to even more acrid delicacies offered up by Clinton, the next generation. I guess this is an indication of bipartisan consensus on foreign policy, though it remains to be seen how the GOP will outflank the Democrats on the crazytown side. This is truly a race to the bottom. That’s the power of this lesser of two evils electoral philosophy.
I suppose I needn’t remind anyone of the process I and people like me went through during the last couple of presidential elections. In 2008, I was voting to avoid McCain, who most certainly would have gotten us into several wars before the end of his first hundred days, to say nothing of the Hoover-like response to the financial crisis he was planning (remember the spending freeze?). That was a close brush with true catastrophe, I’m pretty sure. 2012 was less dramatic, but still … Mitt Romney was a disaster in the making. He would have brought in a gaggle of Bush II retreads who are now waiting for the impending Cruz or Perry administration. He would have rewarded his rich friends with more riches. Not a huge difference from Obama, you understand, but enough to be worth a vote.
After years of drinking rancid urine, however, I have had it. Obama’s policy regarding Syria, Iran, Iraq, Ukraine, Palestine, Yemen, and other nations is disgusting. Attacking him from the right is inexcusable.
luv u,
jp
The response to ISIS is another instance of decision-making driven by decades of bad policy. We are, in essence, seeking to deal with a mess of our own making, to put it charitably, and in so doing making an investment in future crises while bankrupting ourselves in the present. The money and arms flowing to ISIS emanate from Saudi Arabia, other gulf states, and abandoned resources in Iraq, not to mention oil payments from third countries, like Turkey (our NATO ally). Many if not most of the weapons are stamped “Property of the U.S. Military”. Working with the Saudis to arm and train “moderate” opponents of the Assad regime is akin to working with the Pakistanis to arm and train “moderate” opponents of the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980s. How did that turn out again?
bothered to follow the money back from ISIS to their funders in Saudi Arabia, a nation our own John McCain and others have praised to the rafters for funding the Syrian opposition. Once again, we are staring down the barrels of our own guns, scratching our heads in wonder.