At the same time that Hillary Clinton diligently champions women’s issues – equal pay, rights over their bodies, etc. – she exhibits the testosterone levels of Attila the Hun. Whatever alternatives exist in a given international situation, her somatic response is “send in the troops.” She opted for the disastrous ’03 Iraq invasion despite the obviously false evidence concocted by President Bush; she promoted regime change in Libya, with the result being a totally failed state and haven for ISIS; and she’s now pushing for deeper military involvement in the intractable Middle East morass by demanding a “no fly zone” over Syria that would have us confront the Russian air force with no discernable positive results.
Her overly-aggressive responses are either pathological, or she has no sense that the era of American hegemony, enforced by U.S. military might, is over. President Obama has clearly had that realization, which accounts for his increasing reluctance to involve the U.S., especially militarily, in foreign affairs. Apparently, in their inner-sanctum dealings, Obama must constantly push back against Hillary’s aggressive advocacies. During the debate over U.S. troop increase in Afghanistan, Hillary sided with the military who “knew that if they walked into the Situation Room and they had her, it made a huge difference in the dynamics” (The New York Times, 4/24/16). They demanded – with Hillary’s support – a maximum force of 40,000 troops with no date of withdrawal, while Obama wanted 10,000 fewer troops and a 2011 withdrawal deadline. Obama later fired one of Hillary’s hawkish friends, General McChrystal, for publically defaming the president’s war cabinet.
The same Times article confirms her martial leanings by recounting her closeness with dedicated hawks such as Jack Keane, who “is one of the intellectual architects of the [failed!] Iraq surge…[and] also perhaps the greatest single influence on the way Hillary Clinton thinks about military issues.” Keane, a retired general, is entrenched in the military-industrial complex, sitting on the board of military supplier General Dynamics, and involved with the private security contractor, Blackwater. He is also “the resident hawk on Fox news, where he appears regularly to call for the United States to use greater military force in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.” This is the man who has the ear of a potential U.S. president!
I must confess that I see in Hillary’s perpetual smile something psychologically amiss in her. People who are always smiling are trying to disarm you because they’re hiding something. In Hillary’s case, it’s congenital aggressiveness and ruthless ambition. Basically unprincipled, she brilliantly navigates the bumpy political landscape, blithely switching positions to meet an immediate political need. She and her husband Bill, both from very modest backgrounds, have managed to amass a great deal of wealth and claw their way into the American ruling class. What comes out of her folksy, liberal-sounding mouth is wildly disparate from what she really is: a rich, totally self-serving opportunist who, in securing the socio-economic position she fought so hard to attain, would preserve all that’s wrong with America – its gross inequality, government by plutocracy, and inappropriate militarism. In this, Hillary is a throwback, as insidious and out-of-tune with the times as Donald Trump.
It’s hard to say who of the two would be more dangerous sitting as the U.S. Commander in Chief.
The Manchester Journal 6/17/16