Connect with us

Americas

Why can Hillary Clinton not be US president?

Published

on

Like in Israel, US ruling elites plan for the future strategies and choose presidents to suit the needs. After using a Black President Obama to attack North Africans and Arab nations for their energy resources in order to ensure energy security of the superpower, now the US leaders seem to think of using a female President in the name of Hillary to advance US interests globally.

Former US state secretary Hillary Clinton and associates are being pampered by those who are scared of any possible change in US foreign policy towards a possible thaw and neutrality in world affairs, notwithstanding what trump talks now.

So-called progressive bits like Sanders, the dummy candidate of President Obama the so-called lefty, was only promoting prospects of Hillary as the first ever “woman” president all Americans should be proud of.

Media publish very charming pictures and of Hillary Clinton while deliberately placing a terrorist cum drunkard looking Trump in order to promote the cause of democratic band of capitalist imperialism.

It seems, cutting across the bipolar political spectrum, there is some understanding to make Hillary to enter the White House to continue with the disastrous policies of Obama who has dutifully accelerated Bushdom war for resources and Muslims’ blood and flesh blood in Islamic world. Both bush and his ally Obama could reduce the Islamic population with backing from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other Muslim nations.

Only recently Turkey, the only Muslim nation in Europe with an Islamist ideology but promoting the joint interests of USA and Israel in Europe and Mideast, has realized its mistake of colluding with USA in killing Muslims under the banner of NATO terrorist organization.

Media not only in the West but also in third world as well try to see in Hillary Clinton all virtues of freedom, liberty, democracy, etc., as the so-called first ever woman president of the super power without comprehending the truth about this devastating woman candidate who as Secretary of State willingly dispatched Pentagon led NATO military into Arab world and is more than keen to control entire world, including the other America, Europe, Africa and Asia, to serve Israel – America’s illegally born, spoiled terror child.

Being in the company of extremist Neocons camp, not only Hillary is bent upon promoting the Zionist criminal regime in Mideast but also equip Israeli military with newer terror technologies to kill all Palestinians once for all.

Hillary Clinton must already have promised all colonialist, fascist and imperialist nations/forces the continued US support under her presidency as well and Israel would be chief beneficiary of Hillary’s reign. As such Hillary could be best candidate for the criminal Israeli regime, the Jews and Mossad agency to advance its fascist goals in Mideast.

On the contrast, the Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, despite all his sick rhetoric to impress the fanatic sections of US society, appears to suggest several positive things for USA and world at large. Trump said when he assumes presidency, he would revise the US policy for Mideast and neutralize its existing Palestine-Israel policy to promote peace in the region and he’d also recognize Russia’s annexation of the Ukrainian territory in 2014.

Future Russia policy

Annexation of Crimea long appears to be on the agenda of Putin’s regime as it had earlier been a part of Russian empire and made a part of Ukraine Republic during the time of Khrushchev who belonged to Ukraine. Russia maintained close links to Crimea even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union as the region mostly has Russians and Russian speaking nationalities. More than half of Crimea’s 2 million people were Russian; Russia maintained a naval base in the region; and Russians retired in Crimea in large numbers. Also, Ukraine maintained the most pro-Moscow positions until 2014. But when Ukraine’s pro-Moscow president, Viktor Yanukovych, was ousted, the tensions over Crimea became apparent. USA claimed victory. In a referendum in May of that year in which an overwhelming majority of voters said they wanted to rejoin Russia. The West reacted with anger and imposed a string of sanctions on Russia—sanctions that even Putin acknowledged adversely affected Russia’s economy, which was already hurt by falling oil prices.

Last year, on the anniversary of Russia’s annexation, the U.S. State Department said: “We do not, nor will we, recognize Russia’s attempted annexation and call on President Putin to end his country’s occupation of Crimea.” However, Washington refuses to see Israeli occupation of Palestine territories or Indian occupation of neighboring Kashmir – both committing genocides of Muslims by regular aggressions and fake encounters. American democrats and republicans do not see any violation of human rights both by India and Israel against Kashmiris and Palestinians.

USA maintains doublespeak on occupation and double standards

As president, Trump may reverse that policy, and if he does Ukraine won’t be the only country that worries. Another is likely to be Georgia, the former Soviet Republic. A brief war with Russia—brief in that Georgia was crushed—in 2008 resulted in Russia extending support to two breakaway Georgian regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and wielding its influence with the rebels there. Russia’s recent military exercises over Ukraine have worried US backed Eastern European states such as Poland and the Baltic nations that share a border with it.

However, it is premature to conclude that Trump would lead USA towards a normal course of diplomacy and his presidency would help herald a peaceful world in real sense of w the word. By nature USA, ever seeking to dominate the world and showcase it military prowess to the world, especially to those that refuse to budge and fall in line, cannot prefer peaceful course of diplomacy.

Now, with his comments on Crimea, Trump has given the foreign-policy establishment in the USA and Europe even more to consider before November.

Donald Trump’s recent call on Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails resulted in widespread criticism. But his comments on Crimea, coupled with ones he made last week on NATO, are likely to have greater significance if he is elected president in November. As President Trump would recognize Crimea as Russian and even might lift sanctions on Moscow imposed after its 2014 annexation of the Ukrainian territory. He would thus give a chance for peace to thrive globally. Under trump USA could develop new relations with Russians and pave way for consolidation of globalized relations.

Interestingly, Trump the man who could become the next American president has not only questioned the utility of NATO, though the critics say he only trying to repudiate the post-World War II security consensus, he also has seemingly removed whatever fig leaf of artificial protection from Russia the USA offered the post-Soviet republics and Moscow’s former allies in the Eastern bloc.

Trump policy would allow EU and European nations to chart their own independent foreign policies for the future regional discourses and security architectures. This would allow every nation to reduce expenditures on terror goods and military equipments and spend the money for the welfare of the common masses who have suffered a great deal over decades and centuries.

Having came to power after the death of Joseph Stalin, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, belonging to Ukraine, gifted Crimea, a region that had been part of Russia for centuries, to Ukraine in 1954—though, to be fair, Khrushchev thought the Soviet system is permanent and probably didn’t foresee that the mighty USSR would be the stuff of history books less than four decades later.

Democratic disaster

The foreign policy legacy of Bill Clinton is this: foreign interventions on the flimsiest of “humanitarian” pretexts. Bill Clinton embarked upon a series of military interventions, often in the absence of UN sanction, in Somalia (1993), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1995), Iraq (1998), Sudan (1998), Afghanistan (1998) and Kosovo/Serbia (1999). Yet, rather than undertake serious steps to find and capture Al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden after the bombing of the Khobar Towers (1996) and the USS Cole (2000), President Bill Clinton did little more than fire a tomahawk missile into a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. He repeatedly allowed the Saudis to block FBI Director Louis Freeh’s investigation into the Khobar Towers bombing which killed 19 servicemen and wounded 350. No one knows why.

In foreign policy, it was a period in which liberal hawks like Madeline Albright, Richard Holbrooke, Strobe Talbott and Samuel Berger took the reins of the foreign policy apparatus and abandoned the mostly nuanced realism, if any, of the government of George H.W. Bush, former CIA boss. It launched a crusade to spread “democracy” to achieve regime change in West Asia and Africa, and “open markets” abroad which, in practice, amounted to isolating plus targeting Russia, relegating America’s European allies into vassals and immiserating the developing world.

Under neoconservative pressure – including from Robert Kagan’s and William Kristol’s Project for the New American Century – Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act (1998) which helped set the stage for the Bush regime’s disastrous decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Meanwhile, Clinton embarked on a series of policies in the former Soviet Union which have had dire consequences. The decision to expand NATO by the alliance at its 1994 summit in Brussels came only 12 months into the Clinton presidency and only 24 months after the Soviet Union dissolved itself and peacefully disbanded its own military alliance, the Warsaw Pact.

The NATO alliance’s expansion to include its own former allies and protectorates remains a mystery. Indeed, by expanding NATO, Clinton and his team not only went against the advice offered by scores of distinguished Russian experts, savvy politicians and foreign policy thinkers, Clinton also sought to tie the former Soviet Republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus to the USA. All this took place while Clinton studiously ignored the grotesque abuses of power by Russian President Boris Yeltsin. “Good old Boris,” as Clinton liked to call him, bombed the democratically elected Russian parliament in 1993, stole the 1996 election with the help of American political advisers and pseudo-academics, and launched a barbaric war in Chechnya, while simultaneously raiding the state treasury and enriching the circle of thieves around him.

Yeltsin was looking for a hawk to take over reign from him to finish off the Chechen war in Russia’s favor and former KGB man Vladimir Putin with enormous experience working in Germany suited for the occasion. It was Yeltsin who subverted Russia’s burgeoning democracy, not his successor, Vladimir Putin. And he did it all with Clinton’s help.

USA successfully worked for the dismantling of the mighty USSR and turned to Arab world. Now it is killing Muslims in Arab world with Russian backing. Joint operations!

Surrounded by Hawks

A Hillary Clinton presidency will more likely than not to be a faithful replication of her husband’s tenure. Her record as Secretary of State speaks to the kind of foreign policy she will pursue. She continually sought to embroil the U.S. in the Syrian civil war (2011-present), and pushed President Obama to unleash NATO forces in helping to overturn the Libyan government (2011) which cleared the path for ISIS to build dangerous footholds in both countries. Whenever the option was between military action and serious diplomacy, the nation’s chief diplomat would invariably opt for the former, as when she forcefully lobbied the President to send more troops to Afghanistan (2009).

As a candidate she has surrounded herself with regime change hawks, like former State Department Policy Planning chief Jake Sullivan and former the Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul. She has also smothered the neoconservative establishment in a warm embrace. Leading members of the Neocon tribe like Eliot A. Cohen and Max Boot have signaled that “they’re with her” and on July 21 in Washington, D.C.’s tony Logan Circle neighborhood, leading Neocon Robert Kagan and former Biden adviser Julianne Smith spoke on Clinton’s behalf at a fundraiser.

A source who attended the Logan Circle soiree told me that Smith cited an outgoing memo to President Obama from Secretary Clinton which warned him of the danger of unchecked “Russian aggression.” Smith claimed that as someone who saw “Hillary in action,” that “it was the Secretary who pushed President Obama the hardest on checking Russian aggression.” Smith, according to my source, credited Clinton with pushing Obama “to turn up the heat on Putin.”

This effort by then-Secretary of State Clinton to “turn up the heat” on Putin, it should be noted predates the 2014 crisis in Ukraine by well over a year and predates. Russia’s annexation of Crimea (which occurred after a referendum in which Crimea’s voters, by a 96 percent margin, called for leaving Ukraine and rejoining Russia). In other words, if what Smith says is true, Clinton was actively working to subvert the “re-set policy” of which she was ostensibly in charge!

Hillary Clinton Is a known Neocon cum Zionist.

Donald Trump did something extraordinary even for him: He called on a foreign power to launch an espionage operation against his chief political opponent, hacking into Hillary Clinton’s email server to find 30,000 emails she allegedly deleted.

Trump has repeatedly expressed wild admiration for Putin personally; his campaign staff and businesses have extensive ties to Russian interests.

Trump’s policy instincts are objectively pro-Kremlin and the sources of information that shape his policy ideas (his advisers and business interests) serve to reinforce rather than challenge these instincts. If the Kremlin is helping Trump win the election, it would be a perfectly rational thing for them to do.

Hillary‘s hilarious task

Money plays its “democratic” role in presidential poll of USA as well.

In the Democratic National Convention, Mrs. Clinton may have made history by becoming the first woman nominee for president of the United States. Her husband and former US president Bill Clinton’s task at the Convention may have seemed deceptively simple: to add “new dimensions” to his wife’s public image – elements of her life story with which US public is well aware of. As Hillary Clinton’s husband for the past 40 years, the popular ex-president was her ultimate character witness, portraying her as hard-working, persistent, and caring. Bill Clinton was charming and steely-eyed, and owned the arena as he told his wife’s story in personal terms, from their courtship through to her time as secretary of State.

Thus far, husband Clinton, who has become “explainer in chief” for his own record, played a more low-key role in his wife’s campaign, appearing at smaller events and fundraisers, and weighing in privately with advice. Eight years ago, when Mrs. Clinton ran for the Democratic nomination against Obama, Bill Clinton stumbled at times and hurt her cause by saying that Obama had won South Carolina only because he’s black.

Bill Clinton’s presidency was a time of relative peace and prosperity, including a balanced budget and he would be an asset to her while she’s in the White House. She cannot say Bill Clinton was a “total non-factor” in one delegate’s decision to support her as a candidate.

Hillary Clinton’s nominating convention has focused on domestic issues, but her foreign policy has even many anti-war Democrats worried, as she surrounds herself with Neocons with their favorite regime change proposals, and liberal hawks The Democratic convention leaves one with an uneasy sense of déjà vu about the potential foreign policy direction of a second Clinton presidency. We’ve seen this movie before and we know how it turns out: badly.

The mood among some of the Democratic Party’s foreign policy cognoscenti here is one of an unadulterated smugness bred of certainty mixed with a sense of global entitlement. One Democratic US senator lamented to a roomful of well-heeled donors and foreign policy experts that the US had “lost” Ukraine.Lost? Does Crimea belong to America? But the Democratic Party’s foreign policy elites are certain that that is so. Funny! They are certain NATO is the “cornerstone” of American national security and therefore any criticism of the alliance is “dangerous”; and many are certain that the Republican nominee is the Kremlin’s very own Manchurian candidate. They are also certain Donald Trump is dead wrong about everything.

As former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may be the most qualified candidate for the nation’s highest office since Republican hawk George H.W. Bush, but there the comparisons end. Clinton is not running to extend the Obama terror legacy (whatever that may be) but to extend the Clinton terror legacy, and this should worry the world deeply.

Observations: permanent war agenda of USA for resources

Divisions in Islamic world in West Asia allowed the hawkish foreign policy makers behind the doors like Neocons of USA to launch a permanent war program to control the energy resources of the region and promote the fascist interests of Israel by stretching the war tentacles across the region, killing millions of Muslims. Now the USA has enlisted almost every country, including Saudi Arabia led GCC, Russia and China to fortify its imperialist misadventures.

As per its secret plan,   the USA has been at war continuously for a quarter century, beginning with the first Persian Gulf conflict of 1990–91. While using propaganda catchphrases, such as “democracy”, “defense of human rights” “war on Terror,” to conceal the real aims of its interventions in the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa, as well as its confrontation with Russia and China, the United States has been engaged in a struggle for global hegemony.

Today, energy and energy routes globally have been brought under US control with as many military bases of U across the globe.

However, the contradictions of American and world imperialism can be discerned by the rift between USA and Europe on the one hand, and between Arab/Islamic world and USA, on the other. The progression of military interventions and geopolitical crises as they have developed over the past quarter century as per US schedule, is not a sequence of isolated episodes, as US media want the world to know but the moments in the unfolding of an interconnected historical process to make the USA the top most military power with which every nation world be forced to make “adjustments”.

Having got nukes for retaining the annexed parts of Jammu Kashmir and killed thousands of Kashmiri Muslims, Pakistan and India, for instance, fall at the US feet just to gain support for their illegal Kashmir agenda. By using the weakness of Pakistani leadership, USA has, as part of its anti-Islamic tirade, destabilized Pakistan which is supposed to be an ally of NATO. India pumps a lot of money into US economy even as China stabilizes US finances by heavy lending, even while Pentagon .keeps pumping oil into USA., thereby ensuring its energy security on permanent basis. . This has been possible for US leaders only through a permanent war agenda.

Bush Sr. and Bush Jr., Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Hillary represent the hawkish US imperialist agenda and carry forward the US war agenda

Hillary Clinton is wife of former President Bill Clinton and now both want to promote dynastic rule in USA. Daughter Chelsea, who will introduce her mother before her big acceptance speech, says she too may run for office someday. However, the failure of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in the Republican primaries signaled, in part, a rejection of dynastic politics in America. The idea of American politics as a family business is not endorsed by true democracy.

In fact, Hillary is a monster in woman format and as US foreign minister she has proven fascist instinct without any iota of doubt. She is just waiting for the poll results to accelerate, if she wins presidency, her and those of the “regime change” oriented Neocons terror brains. Wanting a woman president is one thing but promoting a known terror mind for presidency is totally different as Americans and world at large would have to face the terror consequences of Hillary’s term.

Hillary Clinton as the proven state terrorist minister in the Obama government is unfit to be the president of USA but her daughter Chelsea who hands are free from blood stains from genocides of Palestinians and killing of their children at Gaza strip can contest for presidency nest time and even win.

However, if Bill and Hillary feel as their daughter Chelsea also shares the shame of what they did in Gaza Strip of Palestine and Arab world, then, Chelsea should also leave the field of politics for honest and sinecure people without any imperialist and fascist ideas.

An arrogant Zionist in USA, Madam Hillary violated all rules and norms with a sense of impunity because no one can punish her or Obama, for, republicans and democratic now collaborate against Islam and Muslims. Obama could get ‘resources” to Washington on the pretext of “security threats”.

As US President Hillary Clinton can fail both America and world and cause unbearable pains to humanity, including mothers, children and women.

If by chance Hillary makes her entry into the august White House as its custodian, obviously, Israel would officially decide both the domestic and foreign policy of USA. That would make it clear as to how the US decision making apparatus operates

Americans are really fed up with war agenda of US leaders of both democratic and republican party. Though Trump has expressed his ideas and agenda, Hillary pretends to a good looking nice lady but she is a ruthless US leader who can destroy entire world for the sake of Israel.

Like other nations, US people also are eager to see a credible peace agenda of the government to defend the humanity from evil intentions of hawkish leaders who are indeed merchants of death. .

Certainly, if elected, Hillary, notwithstanding her oratory skills to fool the Americans, would prove to be a hell for USA and disaster for the world at large.

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Trump Plans to Keep U.S. Troops Permanently in Iraq

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

A reliable and exceptionally knowledgeable source, who doesn’t wish to be publicly identified, has confidentially informed me that an agreement has been reached in which U.S. troops will remain permanently in Iraq but under exclusively NATO command, no longer under the command of CentCom (US Central Command in the Middle East).

On February 12th, NATO’s defense ministers agreed to increase operations in Iraq. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has been working ever since Fall of 2019 to prepare this plan (Trump had been pushing for it even before that), and Stoltenberg has consulted in Jordan with King Abdullah, and also in Brussels with Sabri Bachtabji, Tunisia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, because Tunisia is a key part of Trump’s plan, to use other NATO nations as America’s proxies controlling the Middle East.

On February 1st, pro-Muslim-Brotherhood Turkey agreed to the plan, and will be transferring jihadists (al-Qaeda-affiliated groups, plus some ISIS) from Syria’s jihadist-filled Idlib Province, into Libya, via Tunisia, so as to boost the forces of Fayez al-Sarraj (former monarchist now backed by U.S., EU, and Turkey) to defeat the forces of Khalifa Haftar (former Gaddafi-supporter, now in the Libyan civil war claiming as his objective the defeat of all jihadists there). Whereas U.S., EU, and Turkey, back al-Sarraj, Russia isn’t involved in the war, except trying to negotiate peace there, but al-Sarraj rejects any involvement by Russia. Turkey’s interest in Libya is to win Libya’s backing so as to be in a stronger position to win turf in the emerging competition for rights to oil and gas under nearby parts of the Mediterranean Sea. To have Libya beholden to Turkey would be to increase the likelihood of Turkey’s getting that offshore oil.

America’s position regarding the jihadists that Turkey has been protecting in Syria’s Idlib province is that they can be useful as proxy boots-on-the-ground to defeat Haftar, whom America too opposes, favoring al-Sarraj, whom Turkey likewise backs; so, Turkey and U.S. are cooperating on this effort in Libya.

America’s interest is in overthrowing Syria’s secular Government and replacing it with one that would be acceptable to the fundamentalist-Sunni Saud family who own Saudi Arabia. In order to do this, America will therefore need to keep its forces in Iraq. Otherwise, Russia and Iran, both of which America and the Sauds hope ultimately to conquer, would have stronger influence in the Middle East, which neither America nor the Sauds want. America invaded Iraq not only directly for its international corporations to profit, but also in order to have its hundreds of bases there from which to control the entire Middle East — bases that are supplied out of the world’s largest Embassy building (from which even other U.S. embassies are supplied), which building was constructed in Baghdad after the 2003 invasion. Trump’s plan now is to bring in NATO allies, so that they will help out in the Middle East, more than in the past. Trump wants America’s vassal-nations to absorb some of the financial burdens of imposing empire, so that America’s taxpayers won’t need to fund the full cost of it, for the benefit of the billionaire owners of international corporations that are based in the United States and in its allied (or vassal) (including other NATO) countries. This is why Stoltenberg has been working, for months, to effectuate Trump’s plan.

On February 1st, the veteran Middle Eastern reporter David Hearst headlined at his Middle East Eye site, “EXCLUSIVE: US military offers Iraq a partial pullback”, and he reported that,

A representative of the US military told the Iraqis present that the United States was prepared to leave positions in or near Shia-majority areas, such as Balad Air Base, which is located 80km north of Baghdad and houses US trainers and contractors.

Washington, the Iraqis were told, could even consider reducing its presence in Baghdad.

“We are prepared to leave some of the Shia-majority areas, like the base in Balad. Maybe we could reduce our presence in Baghdad,” the military representative told his Iraqi counterparts, who understood from this that the US presence in the Iraqi capital would be reduced to guarding its embassy and the airport.

However, the US side categorically ruled out withdrawing from their biggest air base in Iraq, and indeed the whole Middle East, Ain al-Assad. …

For the US side, Ain al-Assad was its “red line”.

The representative said: “We cannot even start talking about withdrawing [from that base]. Withdrawal is out of the question.”

Such was the sensitivity of these discussions that they were held well away from Iraq. The meeting took place in the private residence of the Canadian ambassador to Jordan in Amman, Middle East Eye was told.

Present at the meeting was a representative of the US military, a Nato official and a senior Iraqi security adviser.

America needs the vast Ain al-Assad base in order ultimately to overthrow Bashar al-Assad (no relation), Syria’s secular President, who is allied with Russia and with Iran. NATO will increasingly be taking over this function of assisting the war for regime-change in Syria.

On February 15th, Middle East Monitor bannered “Iraq: Washington to strengthen presence of NATO to disengage militarily from Baghdad” and reported that America’s allies will take over there but “This will only work if the NATO mission includes a strong US component.” So: America’s withdrawal will be only nominal. This will help NATO by assuring that Trump won’t abandon NATO if he wins a second term, and it will also help Trump to win a second term by Trump’s claiming to be withdrawing from the Middle East even without actually doing any such thing.

The aim of this is to fool the public everywhere. In international affairs, this is the way to win: first, fool your own public; then, get your allies to fool theirs. That builds a “coalition.” Donald Trump is doing precisely this.

Trump is continuing Barack Obama’s wars, just like Barack Obama continued George W. Bush’s wars. The plan for America to control the Middle East remains on course, now, ever since 2001. As Obama often said, “America is the one indispensable nation.” (All others are therefore “dispensable.”) It is certainly the leading nation. And America’s aristocracy possess patience. They know that Rome wasn’t built in a day. In order to be the leading nation and the biggest international aggressor (so that “America is the one indispensable nation”), what is essential is to treat every other nation as being “dispensable” (make them fear you), so that either they will do as the leading nation wants, or else they will be dispensed with — they will become added to the list of target-nations to be conquered. They are dispensable; they are disposable. A disposable nation is aware of its subordinate position. On February 15th, the International Institute for Strategic Studies reported that 

the US dedicated a significantly higher proportion of its defence budget to procurement and R&D than its NATO allies. European countries are increasing their defence investments as a share of their total spending – for those countries with available data, funds rose from 19.8% in 2018 to 23.1% in 2019 – but the equivalent category reached 29% in the US. The United States’ defence investments were thus worth around four times as much as European states’ combined.

A nation which spends 29% of its GDP on “defence” might be weak in other ways, but everyone in the world will fear it, and all other nations will know that they are “dispensable,” because the country which spends that high a percentage (and there is only one which does) also happens to have the world’s largest economy. Any other country, which isn’t one of its vassals, will be viewed by it (or by its aristocracy) as being an “enemy” — a nation that is targeted for “regime-change,” instead of for being a market. And being a targeted nation is very different than being a target market. It is to be only a target — a target of sanctions, a target of coups, and, if those fail, then a target of invasion and military occupation, like Iraq is.

(However, actually, the U.S. spends only around 7% — $1.5 trillion divided by $22 trillion — of its economy toward the Pentagon and the rest of America’s military. Still, it might be the highest percentage on Earth. Because around $1 trillion yearly in U.S. military spending is off-the-books, that ‘defence’ figure could actually be closer to 10%. But it’s not 29%. Right now, around 20% of U.S. GDP goes to buy healthcare, which is the very largest percentage for healthcare of any country on the planet. America’s quality of healthcare is at or near the lowest of all industrialized nations; so, the wastage in its healthcare is even larger than in its military.)  

Iraq and Iran and Syria — and every other nation that is friendly toward Russia — all of them, are targets of the U.S. regime. That’s why Trump plans to keep U.S. forces in Iraq: Iraq was conquered in 2003, and he wants it to stay that way.

Continue Reading

Americas

Trump impeachment failure: What is in store for America and the world?

Published

on

On February 5, the US Senate found President Donald Trump not guilty of actions which could be classified as requiring his removal from office. All Republican Senators, who have a majority in the house, except Mitt Romney, turned down both charges against the president which accused him of “abuse of office” and ” obstructing Congress work.”

That impeachment is not the option was obvious to any Washington insider from the very beginning. To remove Trump from office it was necessary to enlist the support of two thirds in the Senate, which is unrealistic at the moment. The more moderate opponents of the head of the White House could, if they wanted, remind themselves and others that until the very last they were calling for considering all the pros and cons of an attempt to remove the president from office. A number of experts believed that “a threat of the impeachment procedure, without specific measures to this effect, would be a much safer way to ensure the defeat of Donald Trump in the next year’s presidential election.”The hearings as such would demonstrate the “incompetence” of the current head of state. Even Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, who ultimately came to lead the Democratic attack against Trump, warned in March last year that “impeachment divides the country in such a bad way that … we should not follow this path”. Last December, The Washington Post pointed out that in America, “there is extremism, there is no political clairvoyance, while the voices of reason are drowned in hyper-party cacophony.”

Over the past years, Washington has indeed seen a continuing buildup of fierce political battles. The political layout which came into place after the mid-term elections in 2018 – the Democrats control the lower house and the Republicans have majority in the upper – has resulted in a situation in which battles are waged not just for every yard, but for every inch of political space.

Success in the lower house midterm elections, that is, getting the largest number of seats since 1974, has clearly encouraged the Democrats. Given the situation, an attempt to impeach the president was seen by their leadership as a good opportunity to return anti-Trump inquiries to the political agenda. In addition, the expectations of Democratic Party supporters regarding the launch of impeachment procedure were so high that a refusal of the party leadership to try to remove Trump from office could cost Democrats votes this year. We should not forget that we are talking not only about the presidential election, but also about the next congressional election campaign.

The confrontational scenario of the 2020 election campaign appears almost inevitable. Critics of the president do understand this, so their statements after the failure of the impeachment move are predictably radical – now Trump is unbound. They believe that he will now move with renewed vigor towards the implementation of his “anti-American fantasies.” Trump’s supporters are so dazed by ideological confrontation with the opponents that they are ready to accept and defend “any lie from his mouth.” As for the American democracy, it is vulnerable “as never before.”

Trump, in turn, makes it clear that he craves political revenge. He has already fired several officials who testified against him during the impeachment hearings in the House of Representatives. Most likely, Trump will continue to rely on “American nationalism” and “white identity”, so hated by Democrats. He has also got more grounds to blame the obstruction-creating Democrats for all his failures during the election campaign. Moreover, what with all the achievements in the midterm elections two years ago, the Democrats were defeated, or could not sufficiently build up their positions in a number of states which are considered to play a key role in the upcoming presidential election. And the recent primaries in Iowa where the calculation of the results dragged on for several days demonstrated that the Democratic Party is still experiencing chaos and confusion.

According to a generalized view of domestic political processes in the United States, the executive branch’s futile attempts to push through the Congress projects of significant legislative changes have long become a “tradition” in American domestic politics. This process originated a long time ago – after the end of the Cold War, when the need for coming to a bipartisan consensus lost the status of a national security issue. As a result, discussions of almost every important point of the presidential election campaign are accompanied by  emotions, which prevail over facts and over attempts to propose a reasonable and comprehensive solution.

This trend is consistent under Trump. On the one hand, the Republican president has a good reason to criticize the legacy of his predecessors. He would also be right to appeal to the importance of launching “at last” the practical implementation of reforms, the need for which has been acknowledged by all administrations since the mid-1990s. On the other hand, the presence of a political will faces the realities of the political process, the participants of which, as before, appeal not so much to national interests as to the moods of the public. Demand gives rise to supply – Trump prefers to focus on issues that find the strongest emotional response in society. In response, the opponents accuse Trump of pursuing a “chaotic” policy on almost any issue. However, in the long run, what is taking place is a split that is running through the entire spectrum of American political system, and this split, as impeachment battles have demonstrated, has been deepened by the efforts from both parties, which are ready to contribute to its worsening with “unprecedented” vigor.

Aggravation of internal political struggle in the USA, as historical experience shows, often pushes American presidents into abrupt, often ill-conceived foreign policy measures. A similar situation happened in the days of Nixon and Clinton. It could be the impeachment threat that prompted Trump to take two steps that could “blow up” the Middle East – the assassination of Iran’s IRGC leader Kassem Sulejmani and an ostentatiously one-sided plan for a Middle East “settlement” that has already been rejected by the Palestinians and a number of Islamic states.

Yet, even after the failure of the impeachment move the international community is unlikely to be able to breathe a sigh of relief. In the context of an easily predictable clash with Democrats in the House of Representatives, which is fraught with a dead end in promoting the legislative agenda, the most natural way for Trump to demonstrate effectiveness in the eyes of voters is foreign policy. From a legal point of view, it is in the field of foreign policy that the US president is least bound by the need to coordinate his steps with the Congress.

And hardly can we talk about the USA easing confrontation with China or Russia. Moreover, Washington has a bipartisan consensus on the need to tighten policies in relation to the two countries. On February 5, Trump’s National Security adviser Robert O’Brien said in Washington: “Look, our challenge and the challenge of our generation is China’s growth and the role that Russia continues to play on the world scene”.

After the failure of impeachment, the Democrats may well try to use their majority in the lower house to resume attempts to get the issue  of “Trump’s relations with Moscow” and “Kremlin interference” in US domestic politics back into the spotlight. The tightening of parliamentary pressure on the White House will create new obstacles to prevent contacts between Washington and Moscow. Meanwhile, there are grounds to fear that Washington will see a new round of fight for the title of the most irreconcilable opponent of Russia.

Optimists among Russian experts believe that the main focus of the White House, like all of American politics, is finally shifting to domestic issues. This may give Russia a certain freedom of maneuver in international affairs. Dmitry Trenin of the Carnegie Moscow Center argues, “the risk of Congress introducing new sanctions against Russia will dwindle in the very near future.” Especially, if the Republicans consider them a potential threat to the image of Trump and his administration. On the other hand, … “Republicans may agree to approve the sanctions to once again dissociate themselves from” toxic “Russia,” – the expert said.

According to pessimists, for both Washington parties, relations with Russia remain “one of the main grounds of confrontation.” “Fairly soon, Americans may opt for a new strike on Nord Stream-2, the German Handelsblatt believes.” If Russia tries to complete the construction of the missing kilometers of the pipeline through the Baltic Sea, the House of Representatives and the Senate are ready to initiate another sanctions law, Washington’s diplomatic circles say. ”This bill could include sanctions against project investors from Europe, or companies that plan to buy Russian gas through the pipeline.“ As reported, a move to this effect  could be taken in in the very near future, possibly in February or March. ”

In general, the failure of impeachment is likely to further increase the degree of uncertainty in US policy. The realities of the political process remain the same – its participants will continue to appeal not so much to national interests as to public opinion, which is experiencing an ever deepening split. A certain political stabilization of America can be expected only after one of the parties regains control over both the executive and legislative branches of government.

From the point of view of an outside observer, what happened on Capitol Hill is all but a political formality. In essence, the US foreign policy will remain intact. 

From our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading

Americas

Impeachment & Intervention: Where American Foreign Policy Goes Wrong

Published

on

To any ordinary American citizen, it’s well known that government spending is spiraling out of control. The U.S. budget deficit now exceeds $23 trillion — with $1.109 trillion being added to the deficit in the fiscal year of 2019, and another $1.103 trillion projected to be added in 2020. Recently, on December 20th of last year, President Donald Trump signed into existence the huge 2,300-page general bill that includes two spending packages that approximate to $1.4 trillion. The bill received mostly bipartisan support and was lauded as a compromise on both sides.

Senator Ted Cruz, who is an open critic of the bill, said, “This is why Washington is corrupt. This is an example of a government of the lobbyists, by the lobbyists, and for the lobbyists.” This is the unfortunate reality Americans are faced with when it comes to the spending of taxpayer dollars, at home and abroad. In an age where every topic is politicized and party lines are drawn, there is little resistance to multiplying the national debt. While there is mostly bipartisan agreement in Congress for enlarging the deficit, it’s quite the contrary when it comes to impeachment.

The hyper-partisan impeachment of President Trump is an ongoing matter. Both, the right and left have eagerly worked to spin the story to fit their narrative. Republicans say that it’s just another attempt by the left at overturning the 2016 election and/or undermining the upcoming 2020 election; Democrats allege that the President abused his power and tried to use foreign aid as leverage to coerce the newly elected Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, to investigate corruption linked to the Biden family. Whether you like Trump’s politics or not, what’s notable is that Democrats “have failed to allege a violation of established law, i.e. a ‘crime’ or ‘misdemeanor.’ Such an allegation has been present in every other impeachment in history, but not here.”

Nonetheless, foreign aid to Ukraine is at the core of the issue. Specifically, the aid amounted to $391 million of military and medical equipment to assist in their deadlocked civil war that started in 2014 with pro-Russian separatists. Since that time, the U.S. has handed over $1.5 billion in security assistance to Ukraine overall. Instead of funding war, the U.S. should be actively promoting diplomacy. To what advantage, to the U.S. or its citizens, is sending billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine to help fight yet another proxy war? Absolutely none. Career politicians and academics on the left and right will say otherwise. In reference to the conflict, Stanford Professor Pamela Karlan told the House Intelligence Committee during impeachment hearings that intervening in Ukraine was vital, “so they fight the Russians there and we don’t have to fight them here.” Karlan’s logic is not only absurd, it’s dangerous with consideration to what she is suggesting. There is absolutely no evidence to back up her claim that implies Russia would eventually invade the U.S. if they didn’t arm the Ukrainians. This is the new era of McCarthyism. An era in which everything that has gone wrong or could possibly go wrong is blamed on Russia. And, if you disagree — well, you’re a Russian asset and do Putin’s bidding. This kind of manipulative narrative not only validates but fuels American interventionist foreign policy around the world. The U.S. involvement in Ukraine is just a small sample size of this truth. If you want to see the true ramifications of this type of foreign policy initiative, and the rabbit hole it sends the American taxpayer down, look no further than the Middle East.

Within the aforementioned omnibus bill, $4.2 billion is appropriated for the Afghan Security Forces Fund. That’s correct. The U.S. is sending $4.2 billion to Afghanistan to continue its seemingly endless endeavor in the Middle East. In recent years, there have been serious concerns regarding U.S. foreign aid to Afghanistan. Furthermore, this news is shocking bearing in mind the release of the Afghanistan Papers, which lay out in detail how senior U.S. officials knowingly misled the public to make it seem as if reasonable progress was being made in the region. The report bluntly states that over the years they “failed to tell the truth about the war,” “making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.” Critical statements from Ret. U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn provoked the extensive investigation that uncovered what many feared to be true. This is not the first time the American public has been fed lies from its government, abetted by the mainstream media, in order to mask the true intent of the war on terror. What is the real reason the U.S. is still to this day in Afghanistan? No one can be sure, but remarkably, opium production has skyrocketed since the U.S. arrived. What is now the longest armed conflict in U.S. history, spanning almost 19 years, there is still no end in sight. How much money has to be spent, and how many lives have to be lost before it’s all said and done with? The U.S. military occupation in Afghanistan is the prime example of foreign policy interventionism gone terribly wrong.

The American government should continue to stand strong with its allies and be an advocate of human rights, but they need to reevaluate the ways in which they do that. The U.S. needs to look at and approach international issues from a cost-benefit perspective. It’s time for a change in the establishment. There are valid questions to be asked about how, where, and why foreign aid is appropriated. These are questions of accountability. The status quo in the American government has gone on long enough, unimpeded, serving foreign interests with little benefit to the American public. The U.S. involvement in Ukraine and Afghanistan are just two instances at different scales that demonstrate this reality seen around the world. President Trump needs to critically assess foreign aid distribution, orient and repurpose the aid to specific points of interest that directly help the U.S.; imagine how much could be accomplished with respect to healthcare, education, and infrastructure if the U.S. started investing in itself more. Moreover, the U.S. would be better equipped to address more pertinent national security problems such as securing the border. President Trump would be addressing policy issues for the left, right, and everybody in between by confronting topics that are owned by his political opponents running for the Democratic nomination. If Trump wants to help solidify his chances at reelection, he should take a firmer stance in his “America First” policy and start putting America first.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending