Category Archives: War

Hope For Rubio’s Political Demise, Or Expect More Wars

Bush, Neoconservatism, War

Marco Rubio is the closest to George Bush in his robotic, ruthless ability to “regurgitate the militaristic talking points of the party’s neoconservative wing.” He’s even hired the war criminals that lined the Bush administration. As has Rubio curried favor with the most internationalist, interventionist among the donor-class: Little Marco is bitch to billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson.

Via Foreign Policy Focus:

Adelson doled out an estimated $100 million — more than anyone else in American history — during the 2012 presidential election, at first in support of Newt Gingrich and then to the Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan presidential ticket.

“… another major hardline “pro-Israel” donor: hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer. Rubio’s political career was in fact jump-started by powerful donors in the ideological vein of Adelson and Singer. Norman Braman, a Florida businessman with a decisively hawkish attitude on U.S. Middle East policy, has been the ‘single-largest backer of Rubio’s presidential campaign.’”

And here are the “disgraced foreign policy entrepreneurs” whom Rubio has recruited:

Rubio counts among his foreign policy advisors numerous prominent neocons, including Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, hawkish former senator Jim Talent, former Reagan official and Iran-Contra convict Elliott Abrams, neoconservative writer and historian Robert Kagan, and former George W. Bush national security advisor Stephen Hadley.

Rubio has also been advised by the avowedly militarist John Hay Initiative, an advocacy group founded in 2013 by former Romney advisor Brian Hook and former George W. Bush administration officials Eric Edelman and Eliot Cohen. The Hay Initiative consists of more than 250 “experts,” of whom the vast majority have hawkish track records, and is “structured somewhat like a campaign foreign policy team in waiting,” according to the Daily Beast. Observers have opined that the group is a “rebirth of the Project for the New American Century.” (My hunch was right.)

Another Rubio advisor, neoconservative Council on Foreign Relations fellow Max Boot, recently garnered attention for his call for the United States to unilaterally declare a Sunni autonomous region in Iraq. Rubio promptly echoed him, stating that as president he would “demand” that Iraq’s government grant “greater autonomy” to the country’s Sunni regions.

On his official campaign team, Rubio has appointed Jamie Fly as his “counselor for foreign and national security affairs.” A former director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, another PNAC successor organization that was founded in 2009 by Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol, Fly co-wrote a paper in 2012 with Gary Schmitt (of PNAC fame) that explicitly called for a military attack on Iran that would “destabilize the regime.”

Is Rubio’s full-spectrum saber-rattling just campaign rhetoric, or is it reflective of what he would actually do as president? Either way, his water-carrying for hardline donors and disgraced foreign policy entrepreneurs is bad news for global peace and stability.

READ “Marco Rubio Is Winning the Neocon Primary.”

UPDATED: The 11th Fox News GOP Debate, In Detroit, Highs & Lows

Donald Trump, Elections, Labor, Republicans, Terrorism, War

Overall assessment of the 11th GOP candidates’ debate in Detroit, 3/3/2016: Megyn Kelly was well-behaved; she had the sense to cut the snide comments and the flirty crap. Donald Trump did well except for serious pitfalls on the foreign, skilled-worker visa front, his university, Edward Snowden (100% hero), and other odds and ends. Ted Cruz cruised; no highs no lows. That’s the thing. One expects more from Cruz but one is forever disappointed. Marco Rubio was a robotic mess, if that oxymoron makes sense. He does, however, have a knack for the quick quip. John Kasich surprised in his critique of Hillary Clinton’s war in Libya, but as is always the case with the Republicans, they apply different criteria to Bush’s war crimes. In other words, you can’t trust them. Essentially, if Republicans launch an unwarranted war it’s considered a good thing; if the Dems do the same it’s bad.

TWEETS:

MOST IMPORTANT:

UPDATE: My politcal instincts are GOOD. Trump is already responding to the H-1B missteps I highlighted:

HUMDRUM:

Trump Must Lay Responsibility For Libya At Hillary’s Chubby Feet

Hillary Clinton, Islam, Middle East, War

Donald Trump finished George Bush off and, by extension, brother Jeb’s candidacy. Trump should not be shy about laying Libya at Hillary’s chubby feet—from the invasion to the fiasco of Benghazi.

Republicans have confined their critique of the war Hillary Clinton initiated in Libya to criticism of her role in the Benghazi tragedy. Given their comparable zeal for unconstitutional, unethical and futile wars; Republicans have never seriously gone after the war Hillary launched on Libya; a war that has seen the US leave another Arab country in ruins.

I’ve heard Sean Hannity attempt this line of inquiry. He stopped short of pursuing a critique of the US-led ruination of Libya, perhaps because it would’ve left him and like-minded conservatives vulnerable. After all, had they not cheered a similarity unjust adventure in Iraq? Indeed they did.

The New York Times has a two-part expose, written, naturally, from the utilitarian perspective that it’s OK for the US to launch such wars, provided the war turns out well.

Part 1: In Their Own Words: The Libya Tragedy: Highlights of interviews with decision makers involved in the Libya intervention about what went wrong. Read the series.

Part 2: A New Libya, With ‘Very Little Time Left’ By SCOTT SHANE and JO BECKER: The fall of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi seemed to vindicate Hillary Clinton. Then militias refused to disarm, neighbors fanned a civil war, and the Islamic State found refuge.

RELATED:
“Libya: A War of the Womb.”

“To Be Or Not To Be In Benghazi; That’s The Question.”

“‘Left’ And ‘Right’ Bamboozling You On Benghazi.”

The Russell Kirk We love Is …

Classical Liberalism, Conservatism, libertarianism, Neoconservatism, Political Philosophy, War

… the Russel Kirk who, “Toward the end of his life, … returned to his anti-war beginnings. He went so far as to say that ‘not a single American war … had been absolutely necessary.’ He denounced the neoconservatives as warmongers; and he had no use for National Review. ‘Kirk came to believe that Buckley had sold out to the neocons, claiming in a private letter to [Peter] Stanlis, ‘As Patrick Buchanan remarks, National Review is now the New York office of the New World Order.’”

David Gordon is always streaks ahead of the rest of us mortals. Read David’s review of Russell Kirk: American Conservative, by Bradley J. Birzer (University Press of Kentucky).

I will say that I knew, from my edition of The Conservative Mind, “that Kirk in the 1940s was himself a libertarian, or close to it.” And that: “… he strongly opposed America’s war policy, in particular the use of atomic weapons and the internment of Japanese Americans.”

I didn’t, however, know that Kirk “corresponded with both Albert Jay Nock and Isabel Paterson, both renowned libertarians. Indeed, he favorably discussed them in the first edition of The Conservative Mind.”

Best tidbit from David’s review:

Buckley was a former CIA agent, and the principal point of the [NR] magazine was to reorient the American Right from a noninterventionist foreign policy toward a militant pursuit of the Cold War against Russia and to purge those who dissented from militarism and war. Four of the editors, Willmoore Kendall, James Burnham, Frank S. Meyer, and Willi Schlamm, favored preventive war against Russia. Kendall and Burnham were also former CIA agents; and the late great George Resch told me that Henry Regnery, Kirk’s publisher, called National Review a CIA operation.

READ “The Real Russell Kirk” by David Gordon.