Tag Archives: neocons

Political Rants

A worthy vessel.

Well, it happened again … the neocons and the Petersen Institute have lost their candidate. The only real pleasure I derived from last Tuesday’s primaries was to watch them have their asses handed to them yet again, this time with even greater finality. They really don’t have any even marginally viable candidates left. Cruz makes some of the right noises for them, but he’s from a different stream of reactionary politics and no one can stand the guy. Kasich is basically finished, unless he discovers some way to earn 110% of the remaining GOP primary delegates. Rubio was the last worthy vessel for that extremist clown car, and that fucker and his retrograde cold war revival worldview is out. Good riddance.

Lost my little tin car.With that out of the way, I am sure the imperial war machine party is looking for another tin car to drive around in. It’s quite possible that they would settle on Trump. Someone, after all, is going to populate his foreign policy establishment – thousands of them, keeping the gears of empire turning day by day. That’s kind of what makes him dangerous, though not so much as a Rubio or a Bush. It is also just conceivable that the neocons at least might begin to look favorably on a Clinton presidency. She is bellicose, obviously, and her differences with the Bill Kristol crowd on regime change are relatively minor. They might not overtly support her, but I could see them not vehemently opposing her if the alternative is Trump.

Many of the folks I know who have been involved in the Sanders campaign found Tuesday night to be very discouraging. I really think that, aside from the fact that Sanders would make a good president, an important function of his campaign and the movement associated with it is to push forward progressive policy positions that have never really seen the light of day in the institutional Democratic party. Win or lose, he can accomplish this, and it may be our best defense against neocons and paleo-imperialists (like Kissinger) looking to find a new political home. I support Sanders’s decision to continue fighting for that reason as well as the simple fact that a Bernie victory is still mathematically possible (unlike Kasich, though it’s hard to discern this fact from the news coverage – neither MSNBC nor any of the other cable outlets played Sanders’s speech Tuesday night, though they did cover Kasich’s).

So, fight on, Bernie people. We owe it to the country and to the millions around the world who are sweating out this scary superpower election.

luv u,

jp

 

Political Rants

Back to the future.

This past week the president announced the deployment of 300 “military advisers” to Iraq in an effort to address concerns about recent territorial gains by the radical Sunni group Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). This sparked outrage on the part of the coterie of statist reactionaries (not “conservatives” in any way) who started the 2003 Iraq invasion, all of whom wish to turn back the clock to the days when they had some say over what battalion of other people’s children may be sent to what hell-hole.

Neocon good old days.Of course, they already had their hair on fire about Obama’s foreign policy, particularly with regard to the Middle East. Once again, the alarm bell is cranked up to eleven … like it was for the capture of the Benghazi jihadist, and for the the Bergdahl deal, and for pretty much every thing that happens anywhere, every day of the week. Not sure why we should listen to people like Dan Senor, or John McCain, or Bill Kristol, or anyone else still on television after having been so fantastically wrong on what they were supposed to be experts about, but we keep hearing from them anyway. Go back into Iraq, they say … it’s the only way to keep the country from falling apart.

Fortunately (or not), there is virtually no evidence that American intervention has ever done any underdeveloped country any good at all; quite the opposite, in fact. Our efforts in Afghanistan in the 1980s to rid that country of its Soviet-backed government resulted in more than a generation of civil war, anarchy, and frankly worse government. Our backing of Saddam Hussein during that same period brought disaster to the region, and most sickeningly to Iraq itself; our subsequent removal of Hussein has resulted in calamitous loss of life and a rending of the Iraqi nation that will never be undone.

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that the very thing advocated by war-lovers like McCain is a primary driver of the current crisis. We have, in fact, been aiding the opposition in Syria, both directly and through proxies in the Gulf. Just as happened in Afghanistan in the 80’s, we have invested in an unstable force whose most aggressive and bellicose elements McCain and others are insisting we must now bomb to smithereens in neighboring Iraq.

When are we going to stop being guided by people who are so reliably wrong?

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Go, Dick.

This is going to be brief. My back is a disaster area today, and that’s no Jonathan Harris imitation.

I was listening to President Obama speaking at the NATO summit this past week, talking about ending the Afghan War “responsibly”. And I had this impulse to say, “Thanks, Nixon!” Back in the day, old Dick was winding down his war, so to speak, standing up a colonial army (the ARVN – south Vietnamese army) and always talking about “peace with honor” after nearly a decade of mindless slaughter. They were fighting “terrorists” as well – just look at Life magazine or some other news publication from the late 1960s and you’ll see that that was one of the terms they used to describe the Viet Cong (NLF). Not so different.

Except that it was actually more brutal, as brutal and ugly as the Afghan war has been and continues to be. Vietnam and more generally Indochina was almost totally destroyed during the American war there, particularly from 1962 forward. People are still being killed by that war, by virtue of tons of unexploded ordinance, Agent Orange hotspots all over the south, and more. I don’t want to minimize that fact. For every drone strike Obama launches, there were likely 1,000 sorties over Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia dropping high explosives, napalm, and cluster bombs by the ton. The fact that this likely would not be tolerated today speaks to a gradual increase in our collective humanity. If anything constrains our leaders, it’s that.

Still, even within these constraints, we can do a lot of damage. The drone strikes are a very easy option for the administration. It’s a political winner, since American lives are not put in jeopardy, and it has the vague perception of accuracy going for it, though our targets have very little to say on the subject (because they are, of course, dead). It is a very corrosive weapon, though, on both legal and moral grounds, and it is likely causing a great deal more hatred of the United States than could be propagated by the likes of those we are targeting. Like Nixon’s (and LBJ’s) Vietnam war, it is approached as a project of eliminating the “bad guys” so that there will be fewer of them. That, of course, does not work and never will. Aside from being wrong, it is strategically stupid, and it is putting us in greater danger with every attack.

Still, the alternative to our little Nixon is Reagan on steroids – a Romney administration following a neocon-powered foreign policy, with multiple additional wars on tap. That being the case, well… Nixon’s the one.

luv u,

jp