Election 2016

Hillary Clinton's ISIS Strategy is a Warmed-Over Mess But at Least She Wants to *Declare* War…

...rather than pretend whatever it is we're doing is something else.

|

As Robby Soave has noted, Hillary Clinton just laid out an aggressive strategy to contain ISIS and violence in Iraq and Syria. "This is a worldwide fight and America must lead it," the presidential candidate told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations. (Watch the speech on C-SPAN).

Her plan is, to my mind, a barely warmed-over dish of what we've already been doing with weak results: building coalitions in the region, dropping bombs, helping allies, threatening enemies, and the like. You need a scorecard to keep track of all the factions that are simultaneously fighting ISIS and each other, and the complexity only grows when you start factoring in Western countries such as the United States to Russia to France, which is bombing ISIS targets more now after the Paris attacks. Clinton reiterated that Bashar al-Assad must step down and that he's killing more Syrians in the region than ISIS. Given that Syria is essentially a client of Iran and Russia, it seems unlikely that Clinton's objectives will be easily attained. At the same time, Iran, Russia, and Syria are fighting ISIS, as are Kurdish forces that are also fighting ISIS but who are also enemies of Iran and Syria.

Somehow, after a decade-plus of occupying Iraq, the U.S. government not only failed to create a stable government in that country, it has managed to make the entire region less stable than before the 2003 invasion. The idea that the United States can or should be "leading" the next charge is a reach, to say the least.

If her speech (transcript after the jump) is less than clarifying or inspiring, at least Clinton said this:

Congress should swiftly pass an updated authorization to use military force. That will send a message to friend and foe alike that the United States is committed to this fight. The time for delay is over. We should get this done.

Let me amend this slightly: Congress should openly and actively debate passing a new authorization to use military force (AUMF) rather than relying on the one passed in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks (and whose overly broad scope, which covered all parties somehow related to those attacks, clearly doesn't cover ISIS). Clinton isn't exactly leading on this, as various proposals for AUMFs have been defeated earlier this year. Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) have called for just such a thing:

ISIS is not going away.

But Congress has been strangely silent about the war. We criticize the President, but won't vote to authorize, stop or refine what he is doing. Congressional silence sends a message. Our allies wonder whether we have the resolve to work with them to stop this threat. ISIS must take comfort in the seeming ambivalence of Congress. Most damning, our troops—ordered to risk their lives thousands of miles from home—wonder whether Congress even supports the dangerous missions they must carry out every day.

Earlier AUMFs failed partly because they included expiration dates and strictly limited the scope of American actions, especially regarding putting troops back in the Middle East; their failure meant that the administration and interventionists continue to have a free hand based on the essentially unlimited nature of the 2001 AUMF.

Even doves are calling for a new conversation about the limits of force, with Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) saying,

"The situation in France was a horrible tragedy, ISIS is evil and they need to be defeated," says Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C. "If we're going to commit our troops, we're going to put them out there to fight for our country and die for our country, we at least ought to meet our constitutional responsibilities."

Once, Jones was arguably the biggest hawk in Congress (among other things, he led the charge to rename congressional potatoes "Freedom Fries" rather than "French Fries" when France refused to join military actions in Iraq). Over time, he changed his position, and now makes a point of writing the family of every solider killed in combat.

All Americans—and especially our representatives—should agree to this much: It is well past time to stop pretending that the resolution passed in 2001 to find the perpetrators and enablers of the 9/11 attacks plausibly governs today's actions against ISIS. A new authorization would at least begin a discussion in which our leaders would have to responsibly debate what course of action they prefer and why.

Click below to read Clinton's full speech.

 Clinton's speech at CFR:

When the United States was hit on 9/11, our allies treated that attack against one as an attack against all. Now, it's our turn to stand in solidarity with France and all of our friends. We cherish the same values. We face the same adversaries. We must share the same determination.

After a major terrorist attack, every society faces a choice between fear and resolve. The world's great democracies can't sacrifice our values or turn our backs on those in need. Therefore, we must choose resolve. And we must lead the world to meet this threat.

Now, let's be clear about what we're facing. Beyond Paris in recent days, we've seen deadly terrorist attacks in Nigeria, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey, and a Russian civilian airline destroyed over the Sinai. At the heart of today's new landscape of terror is ISIS. They persecute religious and ethnic minorities; kidnap and behead civilians; murder children. They systematically enslave, torture and rape women and girls.

ISIS operates across three mutually reinforcing dimensions: a physical enclave in Iraq and Syria; an international terrorist network that includes affiliates across the region and beyond; and an ideological movement of radical jihadism. We have to target and defeat all three, and time is of the essence.

ISIS is demonstrating new ambition, reach and capabilities. We have to break the group's momentum and then its back. Our goal is not to deter or contain ISIS, but to defeat and destroy ISIS.

But we have learned that we can score victories over terrorist leaders and networks, only to face metastasizing threats down the road, so we also have to play and win the long game. We should pursue a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy, one that embeds our mission against ISIS within a broader struggle against radical jihadism that is bigger than any one group, whether it's Al Qaida or ISIS or some other network.

An immediate war against an urgent enemy and a generational struggle against an ideology with deep roots will not be easily torn out. It will require sustained commitment in every pillar of American power. This is a worldwide fight, and American must lead it.

Our strategy should have three main elements. One, defeat ISIS in Syria, Iraq and across the Middle East; two, disrupt and dismantle the growing terrorist infrastructure that facilitates the flow of fighters, financing arms and propaganda around the world; three, harden our defenses and those of our allies against external and homegrown threats.

Let me start with the campaign to defeat ISIS across the region. The United States and our international coalition has been conducting this fight for more than a year. It's time to begin a new phase and intensify and broaden our efforts to smash the would-be caliphate and deny ISIS control of territory in Iraq and Syria. That starts with a more effective coalition air campaign, with more allied planes, more strikes and a broader target set.

A key obstacle standing in the way is a shortage of good intelligence about ISIS and its operations, so we need an immediate intelligence surge in the region, including technical assets, Arabic speakers with deep expertise in the Middle East and even closer partnership with regional intelligence services. Our goal should be to achieve the kind of penetration we accomplished with Al Qaida in the past. This would help us identify and eliminate ISIS' command and control and its economic lifelines.

A more effective coalition air campaign is necessary, but not sufficient, and we should be honest about the fact that to be successful, airstrikes will have to be combined with ground forces actually taking back more territory from ISIS. Like President Obama, I do not believe that we should again have 100,000 American troops in combat in the Middle East. That is just not the smart move to make here. If we have learned anything from 15 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's that local people and nations have to secure their own communities. We can help them, and we should, but we cannot substitute for them. But we can and should support local and regional ground forces in carrying out this mission.

Now, the obstacles to achieving this are significant. On the Iraqi side of the border, Kurdish forces have fought bravely to defend their own lands and to re-take towns from ISIS, but the Iraqi national army has struggled, and it's going to take more work to get it up to fighting shape. As part of that process, we may have to give our own troops advising and training the Iraqis greater freedom of movement and flexibility, including embedding in local units and helping target airstrikes.

Ultimately, however, a ground campaign in Iraq will only succeed if more Iraqi Sunnis join the fight. But that won't happen so long as they do not feel they have a stake in their country or confidence in their own security and capacity to confront ISIS.

Now, we've been in a similar place before in Iraq. In the first Sunni awakening in 2007, we were able to provide sufficient support and assurances to the Sunni tribes to persuade them to join us in rooting out Al Qaida. Unfortunately, under Prime Minister Maliki's rule, those tribes were betrayed and forgotten.

So the task of bringing Sunnis off the sidelines into this new fight will be considerably more difficult. But nonetheless, we need to lay the foundation for a second Sunni awakening. We need to put sustained pressure on the government in Baghdad to get its political house in order, move forward with national reconciliation, and finally stand up a national guard. Baghdad needs to accept, even embrace, arming Sunni and Kurdish forces in the war against ISIS. But if Baghdad won't do that, the coalition should do so directly.

On the Syrian side, the big obstacle to getting more ground forces to engage ISIS, beyond the Syrian Kurds who are already deep in the fight, is that the viable Sunni opposition groups remain understandably preoccupied with fighting Assad who, let us remember, has killed many more Syrians than the terrorists have. But they are increasingly under threat from ISIS as well.

So we need to move simultaneously toward a political solution to the civil war that paves the way for a new government with new leadership, and to encourage more Syrians to take on ISIS as well. To support them, we should immediately deploy the special operations force President Obama has already authorized, and be prepared to deploy more as more Syrians get into the fight. And we should retool and ramp up our efforts to support and equip viable Syrian opposition units.

Our increased support should go hand in hand with increased support from our Arab and European partners, including special forces who can contribute to the fight on the ground. We should also work with the coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop Assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from the air. Opposition forces on the ground, with material support from the coalition, could then help create safe areas where Syrians could remain in the country, rather than fleeing toward Europe.

This combined approach would help enable the opposition to retake the remaining stretch of the Turkish border from ISIS, choking off its supply lines. It would also give us new leverage in the diplomatic process that Secretary Kerry is pursuing.

Of course, we've been down plenty of diplomatic dead- ends before in this conflict. But we have models for how seemingly intractable multi-sectarian civil wars do eventually end. We can learn lessons from Lebanon and Bosnia about what it will take. And Russia and Iran have to face the fact that continuing to prop up a vicious dictator will not bring stability.

Right now, I'm afraid, President Putin is actually making things somewhat worse.

Now, to be clear, though, there is an important role for Russia to help in resolving the conflict in Syria. And we have indicated a willingness to work with them toward an outcome that preserves Syria as a unitary, nonsectarian state, with protections for the rights of all Syrians and to keep key state institutions intact.

There is no alternative to a political transition that allows Syrians to end Assad's rule.

Now, much of this strategy on both sides of the border hinges on the roles of our Arab and Turkish partners. And we must get them to carry their share of the burden, with military intelligence and financial contributions, as well as using their influence with fighters and tribes in Iraq and Syria.

Countries like Jordan have offered more, and we should take them up on it, because ultimately our efforts will only succeed if the Arabs and Turks step up in a much bigger way. This is their fight and they need to act like it.

So far, however, Turkey has been more focused on the Kurds than on countering ISIS. And to be fair, Turkey has a long and painful history with Kurdish terrorist groups. But the threat from ISIS cannot wait. As difficult as it may be, we need to get Turkey to stop bombing Kurdish fighters in Syria who are battling ISIS, and become a full partner in our coalition efforts against ISIS.

The United States should also work with our Arab partners to get them more invested in the fight against ISIS. At the moment, they're focused in other areas because of their concerns in the region, especially the threat from Iran. That's why the Saudis, for example, shifted attention from Syria to Yemen. So we have to work out a common approach.

In September, I laid out a comprehensive plan to counter Iranian influence across the region and its support for terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas. We cannot view Iran and ISIS as separate challenges. Regional politics are too interwoven. Raising the confidence of our Arab partners and raising the costs to Iran for bad behavior will contribute to a more effective fight against ISIS.

And as we work out a broader regional approach, we should, of course, be closely consulting with Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East. Israel increasingly shares with our Arab partners and has the opportunity to do more in intelligence and joint efforts as well.

Now, we should have no illusions about how difficult the mission before us really is. We have to fit a lot of pieces together, bring along a lot of partners, move on multiple fronts at once. But if we press forward on both sides of the border, in the air and on the ground, as well as diplomatically, I do believe we can crush ISIS's enclave of terror.

And to support this campaign, Congress should swiftly pass an updated authorization to use military force. That will send a message to friend and foe alike that the United States is committed to this fight. The time for delay is over. We should get this done.

Now, the second element of our strategy looks beyond the immediate battlefield of Iraq and Syria, to disrupt and dismantle global terrorist infrastructure on the ground and online.

A terror pipeline that facilitates the flow of fighters, financing, arms and propaganda around the world has allowed ISIS to strike at the heart of Paris last week and an Al Qaida affiliate to do the same at Charlie Hebdo earlier this year. ISIS is working hard to extend its reach, establish affiliates and cells far from its home base, and despite the significant setbacks it has encountered, not just with ISIS and its ambitious plans, but even Al Qaida, including the death of Osama bin Laden, they are still posing great threats to so many.

Let's take one example. We've had a lot of conversation about ISIS in the last week, let's not forget Al Qaida. They still have the most sophisticated bombmakers, ambitious plotters and active affiliates in places like Yemen and North Africa, so we can't just focus on Iraq and Syria, we need to intensify our counter — our counterterrorism efforts on a wider scope.

Most urgent is stopping the flow of foreign fighters to and from the war zones of the Middle East. Thousands — thousands of young recruits have flocked to Syria from France, Germany, Belgium, the United Kingdom and, yes, even the United States. Their western passports make it easier for them to cross borders and eventually return home radicalized and battle hardened. Stemming this tide will require much better coordination and information-sharing among countries every step of the way. We should not stop pressing until Turkey, where most foreign fighters cross into Syria, finally locks down its border.

The United States and our allies need to know and share the identities of every fighter who has traveled to Syria. We also have to be smart and target interventions that will have the greatest impact. For example, we need a greater focus on shutting down key enablers who arrange transportation, documents and more.

When it comes to terrorist financing, we have to go after the nodes that facilitate illicit trade and transactions. The U.N. Security Council should update its terrorism sanctions. They have a resolution that does try to block terrorist financing and other enabling activities, but we have to place more obligations on countries to police their own banks, and the United States, which has quite a record of success in this area, can share more intelligence to help other countries. And once and for all, the Saudis, the Qataris and others need to stop their citizens from directly funding extremist organizations as well as the schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path to radicalization. When it comes to blocking terrorist recruitment, we have to identify the hotspots, the specific neighborhoods and villages, the prisons and schools where recruitment happens in clusters, like the neighborhood in Brussels where the Paris attacks were planned. Through partnerships with local law enforcement and civil society, especially with Muslim community leaders, we have to work to tip the balance away from extremism in these hotspots.

Advertisement

NEXT: Boston to Spend $1.5 Million Encouraging Ladies to 'Lean In' At Work

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Look, does she have a vagina or not?

    1. Irrelevant because she is inevitable.

      1. Irrelevant for many reasons. I think I’d rather do Caitlyn if I had to choose.

        1. John, did you change your handle?

          1. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now.I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss.go to this site home tab for more detai….

            http://www.4cyberworks.com

          2. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now.I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss.go to this site home tab for more detai….

            http://www.4cyberworks.com

    2. She has sort of a seeping flattish area with protuberances, some of which seem to be primitive compound eyes, others of which have no analogue in any other terrestrial life-form.

      1. All of which exhibit cave albinism due to decades without exposure to light.

        1. Her cankles open like poison flowers to reveal fractal rows of jaws-within-jaws.

      2. I thought it was something like this, but between her legs.

        1. Only on full moons.

    3. Depends which robotics firm engineered her. If Japanese, then yes.

    4. I’m not willing to find out. I vote for Warty to do it.

      1. How do you think he became Warty in the first place?

    5. If it does have a vagina, can we reduce Hilary’s POTUS salary by 20%?

      1. You do realize the lie is 70%, not 80%?
        Do not stray from the lie!!

  2. “This is a worldwide fight and America must lead it.”

    Didn’t we get ISIS because someone said the same thing about Saddam Hussein?

    1. It’ll work this time, guy. This time we’ll be able to civilize the Moslems and create a stable democracy.

    2. Not exactly. We got ISIS because Obumbles left Iraq when it was largely under control and The Hildebeast armed the good rebels in Syria.

      *Caveat – There was no end in sight to the Iraq occupation because there was no one competent there to leave the place to. Eventually we were going to leave and it was inevitable that it would descend quickly into what we see now. The only thing that would work would be indefinite occupation which is unacceptable. As for arming the good rebels, that was nuclear grade stupid.

      1. Hillary armed the “good” Syrian rebels with Libyan weapons after we transformed that place into a nest of jihadists. Got an Ambassador killed in the process. Win Win.

      2. If there was no end in sight in Iraq, and the country was bound to eventually devolve into violence, then leaving wasn’t the problem.

        As for arming the Syrian rebels, that was just a small part of the problem. ISIS got a lot of its gear from cowards/sympathizers in Iraq.

        Still, it all goes back to our destabilizing and pointless war. Yes, something like ISIS was probably bound to pop up eventually, but we didn’t need to go and paint a target on ourselves for them. This is a regional conflict that became global because of our intervention.

    3. “Didn’t we get ISIS because someone said the same thing about Saddam Hussein?”

      That was last time.

      This time it’s going to be different.

      1. This time it’s going to be different.

        Last time we elevated them from terrorist organization to a small, poor state. Here comes the Caliphate?

  3. STILL BETTER THAN HILLARY! Oh, wait.

  4. Declare and run a war on an enemy she created with her incompetence?

    That’s comforting.

    1. Screw you, cosmotarian, it’s about time someone cleaned up YouTube!

  5. OT: Hearing another report of someone dressed as a pilot who tried to board a JetBlue flight at LAX without permission. Now they can’t find the guy.

    My guess is that the spate of false alarms with airplanes lately is just ISIS or someone like them putting out feelers, testing the waters. Eventually they will find a weakness and there will be another downed plane.

    1. Why planes though? It seems like there are far more densely populated and softer targets out there. Maybe terrorists suffer a lack of imagination. That’s why I support Hillary for war. She alone has the capacity to bring new horror and hellfire into this world and is the staunchest proponent of violence in this presidential race. Government is violence, so why not vote for the most violent?

      1. She will birth such horrors as this planet has never witnessed! The death-cries of the billions shall echo for ten thousand years as she laughs atop her throne of bone and pain. HILLARY 2016: BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD

        1. And then she will sing the song that ends the world. (Lyrics by Sugarfree)

        2. She is the Kwisatz Haderach

  6. “This is a worldwide fight and America must lead it.”

    So many people have forgotten that Hillary’s criticism of George W. Bush during his administration was that Bush wasn’t going far enough. She’s a bigger neocon that Bush.

    This makes Rand Paul the clear anti-stupid war candidate, doesn’t it?

    All you Democrats, unregistered, swing voters, and isolationist Republicans–if you’re against stupid wars, and you want to use your vote to protest against them, that alarm you’re hearing means it’s time to register Republican so you vote for Rand Paul in the primaries.

    Yes we can!

  7. Muslims have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

    Really? I’m trying to get my head around this statement. How can I both identify a self-declared caliphate as the enemy sponsoring terrorism and deny that they are following a type of Islam? I guess this is the kind of doublethink required to lead a major party to the presidency. Hillary 2016, war now, war forever!

    1. One of Singer’s “Six Pre-Conditions for Thought Reform” in brainwashing cult victims has it that “The more complicated and filled with contradictions the new system is . . . , the more effective the conversion process will be”.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Singer

      If what Hillary said wasn’t contradictory and absurd, her followers might not believe it–because you have to be smarter than a redneck to really grok Hillary, doncha know. She graduated from Yale, and only a stupid redneck would say that the emperor has no clothes.

      P.S. Hillary’s former subordinates at the State Department have it that it’s too dangerous for Americans to travel to Syria, but bringing Syrians here to the United States is supposedly perfectly safe.

      And if you question that logic, too, again, you’re obviously a stupid redneck.

      1. Stupid rednecks are good only for fighting and dying in the Red Queen’s bloody wars, doncha know.

  8. “The time for delay is over.”

    Ever notice that whenever somebody wants to do something, the time for delay is always over?

    The time to delay a stupid ground war in Syria isn’t over. The right amount of time to delay a stupid war is forever.

    Someone should ask Hillary if she would have invaded Rwanda in 1994.

    If only she were half as smart as Reagan when he didn’t invade Lebanon in 1983.

    It’s the same insurgency we failed to put down last time–only even better equipped and more battle hardened and with Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard operating in the same area.

    What’s better about invading Syria now than invading Iraq was before? In fact, what’s different this time about putting down the insurgency om Iraq?

    If Hillary is so incompetent that she hasn’t learned anything from the Iraq War, then how can she be competent enough to be President?

    P.S. How does Hillary plan to pay for this war? Or is it going to pay for itself like Iraq did?

    1. What difference, at this point, does it make?

      1. The other thing Hillary hasn’t learned is that people have a long memory…

        The Reason Obama beat Hillary for the Democratic nomination was because Obama was seen as legitimately anti-Iraq War and Hillary was a huge cheerleader for it.

        Maybe it’s different if no matter who wins the Republican nomination, it’s going to be someone who as at least as pro-Syrian War as Hillary.

        On the other hand, it’s a whole year until the upcoming election, and a lot can happen with swing voter opinion in a year. Not being able to distinguish yourself with swing voters because you’re on the record being just as pro-Syrian War as the Republicans may yet bite her in the ass.

        We can only hope.

        P.S. What’s Liz “Dances With Lies” Warren saying about the Syrian War these days?

        1. If people had a long memory, the mention of an Iraq war would have conjured images of Vietnam and they would have tarred and feathered every Congress Critter who sponsored the authorization for use of force.

          If people even had a short term memory, the mention of entering the war in Syria would conjure images of Iraq and they would tar and feather Hillary (and McCain and Rubio, etc.) right now.

          I think people are dumb (at least when it comes to foreign policy) and short-sighted and easily manipulated.

        2. What’s Liz “Dances With Lies” Warren saying about the Syrian War these days?

          “If the Syrians would just raise taxes on the 1%, this would all get sorted out.”

          1. “The Paris attacks were a direct result of repealing Glass-Steagal!”

        3. “P.S. What’s Liz “Dances With Lies” Warren saying about the Syrian War these days?”

          Worst question evah.

  9. All of this talk about Congressional approval for military action is so quaint.

    The conception that the Congress must approve military action, and that absent this approval the executive may not act, was permanently destroyed during the (Bill) Clinton years. Clinton had the military over in Bosnia, doing the typical bombing of whoever is our enemy at that moment. Pursuant to the War Powers Act, the administration asked for Congressional approval to continue military operations beyond the 90 day window the WPA allows. A vote was held, and it was a tie, thereby not authorizing further engagement.

    Well, Clinton brazenly continued military action as if nothing had happened. A couple Congressmen had the balls to sue over this. They claimed they had standing because their votes had been ignored by the executive. But the court said, no, you don’t have standing, case dismissed.

    There is no way that the War Powers Act can be enforced. Its prohibitions are simply unreachable and therefore have no effect.

    So, any discussion about AUMF is just theater, nothing more.

    1. “All of this talk about Congressional approval for military action is so quaint.”

      I guess calling for Congressional approval is what passes for being anti-war these days.

    2. Heck, if we allow Congress to have any sort of voice, those damned rubes in flyover country who are supposed to supply the bodies for said military action might get the notion that their views actually matter. We can’t have those darn rednecks getting uppity!

  10. So Ben Carson’s a foreign policy horror-show because some guy somewhere with Top Man Credentials *suggested it*…?

    …whereas, Secretary Cankles is now supposed to be relatively-superior by contrast, and given praise….

    …because she’d ask Congress to “reauthorize a blank check policy” to deepen our engagement in foreign conflicts *which she specifically got the US embroiled with* in the first place?

    a new authorization would at least begin a discussion in which our leaders would have to responsibly debate what course of action they prefer and why“”

    Is there any doubt about what Clinton’s ‘preferred course of action’ would supposedly be? or that congress would be likely to restrain her Richard-Perle-in-a-pantsuit act? Did Libya not make her instincts clear?

    Contra the headline – there’s no demand here that Congress “declare war”…. despite the fact that Clinton’s policy is effectively affirming that the US is at war with Syria.

    Arming rebels, and declaring that the leadership of a foreign country “Must Go” is different from “war”… How? because instead of attacking the Syrian Army ourselves, we’re giving TOW missiles and stingers to other people, and letting them do it?

    The vague-‘not in my name’ Foreign Policy view, where Reason damns both sides of the aisle for being hopelessly ‘interventionist’…. i get. Offering even faint-praise to Hillary, after seeing years of her as SecState… is incomprehensible to me.

  11. An AUMF is not a declaration of War.

    And i’m having a hard time understanding how the non-interventionist camp is offering even-faint-praise to Hillary for suggesting that there be some congressional discussion on our current overseas conflicts. Is there any doubt about what Clinton’s ‘preferred course of action’ would supposedly be? or that congress would be likely to restrain her Richard-Perle-in-a-pantsuit act? Did Libya not make her instincts clear?

    1. (*squirrels. thought first post was swallowed by them, tried shorter version; now they regurgitate both. meh)

  12. I think by “lead it” she means “funnel more taxpayer money to the corrupt US military which will eventually make its way to the pockets of the enemy.”

    1. Corrupt US military? More likely corrupt civilian contractors. (with rebates for a few military members, of course.)

  13. When ISIS eventually calls Hilary “The Great Satan”, who in their hearts would really disagree?

  14. And while she was S of S she advocated the same policies? Yes? No?

  15. Vomit. Political vomit, all of it.

  16. An immediate war against an urgent enemy and a generational struggle against an ideology with deep roots will not be easily torn out. It will require sustained commitment in every pillar of American power. This is a worldwide fight, and American must lead it.

    Unless and until Hillary and her ilk are willing to name the exact nature and source of that ideology she is just blowing smoke out her ya ya. It isn’t radical jihadism, it isn’t terrorism here and abroad, it isn’t extremism. It is Radical Islamism. Without the concept of Islamism none of the other has any meaning whatsoever and is incomprehensible. As long as it remains incomprehensible it will remain undefeatable. These psychopaths are the ultimate control freaks, and frankly, bloodthirsty sociopaths such as Hillary have much more in common with them than one might at first think.

  17. Flynn is a CNAS boy and thus a CFR boy — which makes him favorable to the Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is HQed in, and merely ‘posing’ as, our former country, and thus a really dangerous cannon in any senior position.

    But, of course, the above description also exactly fits both supposed ‘choices’ of the Trumpster and Killary in their intended roles as either Faux Emperor or Empress-in-waiting from the rougher sounding neocon ‘R’ Vichy Party and the smoother-lying neoliberal-con ‘D’ Vichy Party respectively of the DGCEmpire’s political-sector.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.