Noxious Nominations: The Four Horsemen of the American Foreign Policy Apocalypse
print
tell a friend
Photo Credit: Yori Yanover
Kerry, of course, was the most energetic backer of sponsoring Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad before the revolt began. Now he will be the most energetic backer of putting the Muslim Brotherhood into power in Syria. Here is a man who once generalized about American soldiers in Vietnam as being baby-killers and torturers (such things certainly happened but Kerry made the blame collective, except for himself of course).
As for Hagel, suffice it to say that the embarrassing quotes and actions from him in the past–including his opposition to sanctions against Iran–fueled a response to his proposed nomination so strong that the administration had to back down for a while.
What would have happened if President Harry Truman turned over American defense, diplomacy, and intelligence in 1946 to those who said that Stalin wanted peace and that Communist rule in Central Europe was a good thing?
Obama has been president of the United States for four years. Yet in foreign policy, having some decent and competent people in high positions mitigated the damage. Well, the reins are now loosed; the muzzle is off.
I apologize for being so pessimistic but look at the cast of characters. When it comes to Obama Administration foreign policy’s damage on the world and on U.S. interests one can only say, like the great singer Al Jolson, folks, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
To get a sense of his thinking, check out Brennan’s article, “The Conundrum of Iran: Strengthening Moderates without Acquiescing to Belligerence,” published in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (Vol. 618 (Jul., 2008), pp. 168-179). Here’s the conclusion:
If the United States actually demonstrates that it will work to help advance rather than thwart Iranian interests, the course of Iranian politics as well as the future of U.S.-Iranian relations could be forever altered. The Obama Administration followed this advice during its first two years with the result being total failure. The theme of the 2008 article carries over to his view of the Muslim Brotherhood. If the United States shows it is friendly, helpful, and does not oppose their taking power then revolutionary Islamists will become moderate.
For example, he also proposes a U.S. policy, “to tolerate, and even to encourage, greater assimilation of Hezbollah into Lebanon’s political system….” This step, he suggests, will reduce “the influence of violent extremists in the organization.”
Of course, Hizballah does not need to stage terrorist attacks if it holds state power! Terrorism is only a tactic to seize control of countries. If you give revolutionaries their goal then why do they need to continue using such a tactic? Yet putting them in power does not increase stability, improve the lives of people, or benefit U.S. interests. If al-Qaeda, for example, overthrew the Iraqi or Saudi government you would see a sharp decline in terrorist attacks! If the Muslim Brotherhood rules Egypt, Tunisia, or Syria it doesn’t need to send suicide bombers into the marketplaces.
The same by the way would apply to anywhere else in the world. If Communist rebels took power in Latin American or Asian countries you wouldn’t find them hanging out in the jungles raiding isolated villages.
In Brennan’s terms, that means the problem would be solved. Instead, the correct response is parallel to Winston Churchill’s point in his 1946 Fulton, Missouri, speech: “I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines.”
This is what Brennan—and the Obama Administration—fails to understand regarding this point. The danger is not terrorism but a dangerous revolutionary movement that becomes even more dangerous if it controls entire states, their resources, and their military forces.
Originally published at Rubin Reports.
tell a friendAbout the Author: Professor Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.gloria-center.org.
You might also be interested in:
You must log in to post a comment.
No Responses to “Noxious Nominations: The Four Horsemen of the American Foreign Policy Apocalypse”
Loading ...
Rosemarie Jackowski, world famous war.
protester of Bennington, Vermont.
has written a petition to end drone strikes.
Please sign White House petition online.
to Stop Killing Children and innocent civilians.
with U.S. Military Un-Manned DRONE STRIKES.
http://wh.gov/UKpQ
Either each of the four horsemen are naive nitwits, or they have a master plan, and are part of the process, in which case they are merely nitwits, the kind referred to in law enforcement slang as knuckleheads, those who because of stubborn recidivism, work against their own well being and cause collateral damage along the way.
Either each of the four horsemen are naive nitwits, or they have a master plan, and are part of the process, in which case they are merely nitwits, the kind referred to in law enforcement slang as knuckleheads, those who because of stubborn recidivism, work against their own well being and cause collateral damage along the way.
Bitter truth
The focus needs to be on Hagel. His confirmation will do the most harm and is the only one that could be defeated in the Senate if only Senators Gidebrand and Schumer do the right thing.
Hagel has had a midnight conversion on the option of using military force in case negotiations fail to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program.
But Iran and most people everywhere will interpret his confirmation as the end.
of all options are on the table and a green light for it's atomic bomb.
The Senate should give very little weight to what Hagel has to say now and consider the consequence of his confirmation.
A nuclear Iran has sworn to eliminate Israel and every mosque in Iran has a poster "Death To Israel."
After Iran drops an atomic bomb over Tel Aviv, the issue of whether Hagel is anti-Israel or pro-Israel becomes mute.
Iran has a high tolerance for the deaths of huge numbers of people. The war between Iran and Iraq ostensibly over a territorial dispute concerning 0.1% of Iran's land mass had a million casualties.
Iran has spread it's terror all over the globe and has murdered more than a thousand Americans.
It's ideology is identical to Al Quaeda, amd certainly has America, the Great Satan in it's cross hairs.
A Hagel confirmation kills any chance of Iran agreeing to stop it's nuclear weapons program through negotiations. why would they take the tremendous political risk of telling their people that years of sanctions privations was for nothing when they know their is no risk of an American military action?
I believe President Obama's primary motivation in nominating Hagel is that he thinks he would help to deeply cut the Pentagon budget, and not to poke a finger in the eye of the pro-Israel constituency.
But it is a very serious miscalculation of unintended consequences.
The Senate should not confirm Hagel. Senators Blumenthal, Gildebrand, Schumer. Lautenberg, Menendez, Boxer, Cardin and many more that take seriously the Iranian threat and have made promises to their constituents on this issue should vote no just for this reason.