2016 August 20 Saturday
If President Hillary Clinton Then More Foreign Interventions

The big name neoconservatives are thrilled about Hillary and this does not bode well for US foreign policy.

Few reputable critics would argue that Hillary is herself a neoconservative. Far more plausible is that she’ll enable the implementation of a neoconservative foreign-policy agenda by casting the neoconservatives’ goals in liberal-interventionist terms, thus garnering Democratic support for initiatives that would face widespread opposition were they spearheaded by a Republican president.

Members of Hillary's foreign policy inner circle are keen to ramp up America's intervention in Syria and overthrow Assad.

If Assad is overthrown and Syria gets put back together under a single government then likely that government will be Sunni majority and more repressive toward minorities and women than is the Assad government. Eventually it could become a more formidable threat to Israel (which the neocons seek to protect) than Assad's regime.

Hillary's foreign policy probably won't be her area of biggest damaging mistakes. Though that depends in part on whether US jets start shooting down Russian jets. She could make really big mistakes in foreign policy, bigger than helping more fundamentalist Sunni regimes come to power.

Hillary's biggest mistake is likely to be Open Borders. Bring in a much bigger lower class even as software advances automate more manual work. Throw in higher minimum wage and an expanded welfare state to support all the unemployed and America becomes even less a republic of limited government and even less a democracy of the people.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2016 August 20 07:18 PM 

bob sykes said at August 21, 2016 4:37 AM:

Hilary Clinton has been at the center of all the aggressive interventions and invasions the US has committed since Serbia. These interventions have accomplished nothing, and they have left Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, Eastern Europe and the Balkans in chaos. Hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed and millions turned into refugees. Dozens if not hundreds of cities have be leveled.

These aggressions, actually war crimes, have brought us to the brink of war with both Russia and China. Only Obama's refusal to further the neocon agenda has kept us out of war. With Hilary, clashes between the US and Russian and US and Chinese militaries are inevitable. The problem will be to prevent them from going nuclear. Considering Hilary's proven arrogance and aggressive nature, that will prove to be impossible.

See you in Hell.

JB said at August 22, 2016 9:57 AM:

neoconservatives’ goals in liberal-interventionist terms

Neo-Conservative goals have always been cast in liberal interventionist terms. So, for that matter, have virtually all Western war efforts since, oh, WW2 - the 1960s. Liberal imperialism it has been called. Since those Liberal beliefs are unworkable the war efforts have mostly been failures. Thsy're a sort of cultural equivalent of Soviet economics.

Black Death said at August 23, 2016 6:14 AM:

The comparison of liberal-neocon-interventionism-imperialism with Soviet expansionism is a good one. Both promoted world views that proved incorrect (class struggle proletarianism vs. making the world safe for democracy). The mixture of traditional Russian imperialism with messianic communist internationalism proved a toxic brew indeed. But as the Soviets discovered to their dismay, workers of different ethnic groups did not regard each other as brothers but as enemies. Their common working class status counted for nothing. So it is with the neocons. They feel that democracy is a universal value that all peoples cherish. Makes sense to them, but not so much in most of the world. In many areas, "democracy" means the right to impose your values on those who differ from you. Sharia law in Muslim majority countries is a good example. Muslims believe in minority rights as long as they are the minority. When they become majorities, minority rights go out the window. The very idea that countries such as Iraq, Libya, Syria or even Turkey are going to become Jeffersonian democracies is preposterous. For these lands, the choice is clear - secular authoritarianism vs. religious fanaticism. (Of course, some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, combine the best of both). Khadaffi, the Assads and Saddam were certainly bad guys, but they held their countries together and more or less protected the rights of religious minorities. Today, those countries are being torn apart by civil wars. Way to go, neocons!

Jim said at August 23, 2016 10:33 AM:

Black Death - During the 1920 Polish-Soviet War Lenin was apparently genuinely surprised that Polish workers and peasants did not welcome and join the Soviet Army but instead fought fiercely against it. This story illustrates the remarkable tendency of left-wing intellectuals to self-delusion.

Black Death said at August 23, 2016 12:59 PM:

Jim -
Great minds do indeed think alike. I almost included that fact in my post. Thanks for mentioning it. Not only Lenin, but Stalin and Trotsky were surprised by the fanatical resistance to the Soviet invasion by the Polish "workers and peasants." Look at this (from WIKI):

Stalin returned to Moscow in August 1920, where he defended himself before the Politburo by attacking the whole campaign strategy. Although this tactic worked, he nonetheless resigned his military commission, something he had repeatedly threatened to do when he didn't get his way. At the Ninth Party Conference on September 22, Trotsky openly criticized Stalin's war record. Stalin was accused of insubordination, personal ambition, military incompetence and seeking to build his own reputation by victories on his own front at the expense of operations elsewhere. Neither he nor anybody else challenged these attacks; he only briefly reaffirmed his position that the war itself was a mistake, something which everybody agreed on by this point.


Stalin always hated the Poles. He took special pleasure in splitting their country with Hitler in 1939. In the Warsaw uprising of August-September, 1944, Stalin held back the Red Army from entering the city until the Germans had killed as many Poles as possible. Also, one of Stalin's top generals, Konstantin Rokossovsky, was born in Warsaw of a Polish father and White Russian mother. Stalin never trusted him because he was Polish.

Seth W. said at September 5, 2016 2:44 PM:

If Hillary Clinton presient we're screwed. If Donald Trump president we're screwed.
Basically, we're screwed.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©