Clinton Beats the Drums of War

Hillary Clinton has beaten the drums of war throughout her political career. In so doing, she confirms the argument that there is no fundamental difference between most members of the two parties, especially when it comes to military interventions. Both as senator and secretary of state she has shown her proclivity for military threats and interventions, ignoring facts on the ground, siding with dictators over popular movements and advocating raining death and destruction upon helpless civilian populations. Let’s look at some examples:

Iraq: In 1998, she defended her husband’s bombing of Iraq, arguing that palace grounds had weapons labs and stockpiles. Neither of which was true. In 2003 Clinton ignored arms control specialists, former United Nations weapons inspectors, investigative journalists, academics, independent strategic analysts, members of her own Party and others, claiming that Iraq possessed chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. She insisted that Hussein (who, she knew, lacked delivery capability), could launch an attack against the U.S. To further whip up support for Bush’s invasion, she advanced a ridiculous claim that Hussein’s secularist regime had close ties to the jihadist Al-Qaeda.

She defended her vote for the Iraq war until her presidential candidacy in 2008, when she flipped from it being the “right vote” to “regretting” her vote because it was a “mistake.” That is disingenuous. Dismissing arguments against an invasion proffered in staff meetings with experts, she cast a calculated vote.

Afghanistan: In 2009, Clinton agreed with Obama’s escalation of the war but sided with the generals advocating for more troops than Obama or Defense Secretary Robert Gates recommended. She opposed Obama’s deadline for withdrawal, arguing that troops should remain longer.

Iran: In 2007, despite ALL contrary expert opinion, Clinton claimed that Iran had a nuclear weapons program and brazenly threatened unilateral military force against Iran in response. Her biases were obvious: a pass for Israel, Pakistan and India, which developed nuclear weapons and never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while maintaining a hawkish stance (“all options are on the table”) towards Iran, which is a signer to the NPT. She vowed to “obliterate” Iran should it attack Israel with its NONEXISTENT nuclear weapons; going further, she refused to rule out a U.S. nuclear first strike.

With abundant hypocrisy, Clinton rails against Iran’s authoritarian theocratic regime, which backs extremist Islamist groups, yet overlooks U.S. support of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar, all authoritarian theocratic regimes which back extremist Islamist groups.

Siding with “friendly” dictators during Arab Spring

In December 2010, the Arab Spring began unfurling its freedom banner. Popular uprisings challenged vicious dictatorships propped up by the U.S., England and France for almost a century. Students, unionists, the unemployed and disaffected in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Algeria, Iraq, Sudan, Palestine and others rose up spontaneously against dictatorial rule, human rights violations, economic decline, political corruption, income disparity, and more. You might think that here, at last, was something the U.S. could sink its teeth into – more democracy! Au contraire. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, representing the U.S. government, took the following positions:

Tunisia: Faced with high unemployment, runaway inflation, corruption, increased poverty and limited human rights, Clinton’s solutions were for a “more open” economy. One month later protesters booted out President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.

Egypt: While millions throughout Egypt demonstrated, marched, and occupied public squares demanding an end to Mubarak and the police state, Clinton, disagreeing with Obama’s call that Mubarak step down, tried to keep Mubarak and his henchmen in power.

Others: Clinton had counter-revolutionary responses in Bahrain (supporting the brutal monarchy), Yemen (siding with generals against the masses), and Morocco (supporting their repressive occupation of Western Sahara).

Trying regime change with “unfriendly” dictators.

Libya: Clinton aggressively pushed to oust Qadafi and supported arming the rebels with no thought as to what might follow. A massive cache of U.S. arms fell into the hands of the militias, who were organized along the fault lines of tribal allegiances. Civil war ensued. A U.S. ambassador was killed. The bloody chaos was a consequence of Clinton’s mindless push for regime change.

Syria: Republicans John McCain and Lindsay Graham welcomed the support of General Petraeus and Hillary Clinton in their quest to convince Obama to arm the rebels against Basheer Assad. Obama chose airstrikes instead. She would have thrown in more force on the side of the rebels and blames Obama for his reticence, saying it gave rise to ISIL.

Clinton has frequently arrived at wrong conclusions, advocated for dangerous schemes and lent a hand in destabilizing sovereign states. These policies caused massive suffering and death — 500,000 in Iraq alone. This prompts two questions: Secretary Clinton, are you habitually incompetent or, like your colleagues in both parties, do you strategically lie to the American people in service of a bi-partisan government that leads the charge for militarism around the globe?

Linda J Nordquist is a writer, photographer, activist, clinical social worker.

#article