Hillary the hawk sounds off with dozens of flags behind her.
Two things I detest about American politics in the new warmonger era are: 1) The need to brandish dozens of flags to try to project a super patriot image at every major speech venue, and 2) the use of identity politics to brainwash followers into blind support. (In the latter case using race or gender as the primary basis to drive support. In Hillary's case the sounding board is "the first woman president".)
With reference to (1), in a speech last month at a San Diego Naval base Hillary went all out super patriot with flag brandishing to show she would out-Trump Trump in terms of national security. This already sent my warmonger alarms going, before she even commenced her bellicose speech on what we need to do in order to further police the planet. And, in the next instant, I thought how much her speech differed from JFK's Pax Americana address at American University on June 10, 1963. In that address Kennedy had since dropped the cold warrior pose that got him into office, and warned that America cannot be the cop of the world resorting always to American weapons of war and imposing a "Pax Americana". See e.g. the most notable parts of his speech here:
Kennedy's wakeup call likely came during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October, 1962 when the world came within a hair's breadth of World War III - and had a lesser mortal been in charge - we likely wouldn't be having this conversation now. But Kennedy had the steel cojones to face down Gen. Curtis Lemay and the Joint Chiefs who were humping and pumping for a bombing and invasion of Cuba. A move we only learned later (from former Secretary Robert McNamara, in his documentary 'The Fog of War') would have triggered the launch of more than 90 Soviet IRBMs already in Cuba and with single megaton warheads.
Leaders like Kennedy, of course, only come around about once every several generations and likely never will again, after his assassination in November, 1963. The Zapruder film is now likely replayed for every incoming President to remind him (or her, say in the case of HRC) of what happens to those who believe they're bigger than the shadow government (also called "the deep state" - see link .at end.)
However, it is safe to believe that Hillary doesn't have to worry too much about offending that deep state. This is given it is all about national security, especially as the deep state was the likeliest source of Kennedy's demise after he signed NSAM-263 to pull out of Vietnam by 1965.
As evidence of Hillary being all in for more military engagement we have the Clinton email recently released from April, 2012. This clearly reflected the thinking of the then-Secretary of State and her inner circle about one year into the Syrian civil war. It likely still does, which probably makes the national security establishment much more comfy with her than Donald Trump. (As former NSA Director Michael Hayden opined on a CBS Morning spot a week ago). It is safe to say, on reading this email, that it constitutes a putative blueprint for what "Madame Secretary" would seek to do as commander-in-chief. Especially in view of her saber -rattling AIPAC speech, e.g.
Note in particular, Clinton's words:
"The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad."
Seriously? And you think the Russians will just sit by, smile and allow you to do that? (As you think they'd allow you to implement 'no fly' zones) You have to be kidding. Again, this is what Bernie referred to in the debates as lack of judgment.
But she goes on, writing (resonant with her AIPAC speech):
"Negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program will not solve Israel’s security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program — the capability to enrich uranium."
Again, seriously? Yes, and totally controverting the opinions of many nuclear experts. As Joe Cirincione , nuclear compliance specialist and President of 'Ploughshares Fund', put it a year ago in an MSNBC segment:
"This is a way to stop Iran from getting the bomb. without going to war. It has its risks, but those pale compared to the alternatives."
Indeed. He then elaborated on the parameters, to which most critics are oblivious when they yelp that Iranians are too "wily" and have "every incentive to cheat". (Implying the IAEA isn't up to the job of inspection).
"This is not based on trust, this is not based on good intentions. It's not based on the technologies we've used in Iraq, for example. This is 21st century technology, state of the art, fiber optics seals, cameras, sensors, audits, inventories allowing 24/7 inspections in all the declared facilities and the right to inspect suspect facilities including the military sites so much in dispute. One might possibly evade one layer of these inspections but the chances of evading all are quite remote . We can track every aspect of Iran's production and with those inspections there's no expiration date."
The top nuclear physicists also agree this is the case, but one wonders if Hillary even reads what they've said. Perhaps not as I can't imagine her a fan of Physics Today.
Then, to further undermine our confidence we read:
"Iran’s nuclear program and Syria’s civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about — but cannot talk about — is losing their nuclear monopoly. …
“Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted."Israel losing its "nuclear monopoly"? Are you kidding me? Israel, according to the best NSA-CIA estimates, has over 250 nuclear warheads. This includes enough megatonnage to reduce the entire Middle East to radioactive ash. No one else in the region- other than Pakistan (at 140) - has any. This monopoly, one could argue, is in fact a huge contributor to destabilizing the region because other nations - like Syria and Iran - surely realize they can be incinerated with virtually no warning at all. All it would take is one U.S. President hyped up and ready to unleash "warranted military action" - say by invoking an excuse like "Israel's security".
JFK, in 1963, fretted about Israel developing a nuclear capability which is why he wanted to dispense inspectors to its Dimona nuclear plant- which then P.M. David Ben-Gurion had insisted was just for "peaceful" purposes. But it turned out (via back channel intel) Dimona had been processing high grade nuclear materials.
The extant public records released as part of the JFK Records Act and other FOIA requests show clearly that Kennedy was unswerving in his hostility to a nuclear -armed Israel. Having only months earlier seen how precipitously close the world came to nuclear war initiated by Cuban IRBMs - he likely was averse to remotely repeating the experiment with Israel as the U.S. proxy (as opposed to Cuba being the Soviet proxy).
And while many of the background Dimona files are buried as deeply as the CIA's Joannides' files, we do know from the documents track that one American company - The Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation of Pittsburgh, was instrumental in procuring enriched uranium for the Israelis' atomic weapons project.
By the time American inspectors finally arrived at Dimona, Ben-Gurion had pulled a move variously described as nuclear 'three card monte' and atomic 'hide and seek'. In effect, all the inspectors found was a plant dedicated to cheap nuclear power as opposed to atom bombs, as 'Daddy David' originally proclaimed to the young American President. But.....since we know Israel compiled over 200 atomic bombs (ranging from 10 kt to 1 mt) in the intervening years, we know this was a ruse.
The danger of a Syrian war led by Hillary and the neocons should not be lost on anyone. While Trump would definitely be an absolute disaster, a nuclear holocaust initiated by aggressive U.S. actions against Syria and Russia would be even worse.
Hillary's April, 2012 email and her San Diego hawk speech prefigures further American violence on the global stage - now in Syria- which we don't need and can't afford. On this Independence Day, a better move is to consider the words of an Army Iraq War vet (Roy Scranton) writing in the Sunday NY Times (Review, p. 7):
"Perhaps this Fourth of July...instead of celebrating American violence, we might celebrate our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the ideals those documents invoke of an educated citizenry deciding its fate not through war but through civil disagreement. Instead of honoring our troops, whose chief virtues are obedience and aggressiveness, we could honor our great dissenters and conscientious objectors. And instead of blowing things up, maybe we could try building something."