Mideast Turmoil Could Rally Neocons to
Hillary (Le Figaro, France)
"Iraq was the cemetery for the interventionist policies of
the 43rd American president. For his successor, elected in large part because
he was one of the few to have opposed this 'stupid war,' the country is in the
process of exposing, in an equally cruel manner, the dangers of a hasty
strategic withdrawal. ... Hillary recognizes the mistake she made when she
approved the war in Iraq, but remains very cautious on the subject. ... A number of neoconservatives would be ready to
rally behind her, especially if the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan and John
McCain were to choose as its candidate the very isolationist Senator Rand Paul of
Kentucky."
The battle for the Oval Office: If Hillary Clinton can position herself on the hawkish side of any future Republican presidential nominee, she well may garner the support of neoconservatives.
American
responsibility for the Iraq debacle is overwhelming, and gives rise to
contradictory analyses. The blame all comes back to George W. Bush for having
wanted, in 2003, to impose democracy on the country of Saddam Hussein,
imagining that the troops would be "welcomed as liberators." People
close to the former president and those who supported his anti-terrorist "crusade"
reckon that the recent turn of events proves them right. It would be the total
retreat conducted by Barack Obama in late 2011 and the unconditional support
given by Washington to the sectarian politics of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that led to the triumphant momentum of the
jihadists that we are witnessing today in Sunni territory.
In
the United States, both camps in this high-stakes, hyper-media shooting gallery
are recommencing an old battle that is likely to persist into the upcoming
presidential election campaign. Iraq was the cemetery for the interventionist
policies of the 43rd American president. For his successor, elected in large
part because he was one of the few to have opposed this "stupid war,"
this country is in the process of exposing, in an equally cruel manner, the
dangers of a hasty strategic withdrawal.
Bush's
opponents based their arguments on his policy of preemptive military
intervention. Iraq's descent into the hell stems in fact from that fatal
decision. But it is impossible to deny that the situation was much better than
it is today before American troops had retreated and had managed to impose a
truce in the civil war.
The
chaos that has been permitted to develop in Syria was inevitably going to spill
over into neighboring countries. The neoconservatives, who had their hour of
glory during George W. Bush's presidency, are back. They see in the passivity
of Barack Obama toward Bashar al-Assad as the fundamental
cause of the break-up of Iraq. By refusing military backing to the moderate
Syrian opposition when there was still time, Washington promoted the creation
of a vacuum that, with the support of the Gulf kingdoms and Turkey, jihadists immediately
filled.
The
American refusal to intervene for fear of being drawn into new conflicts, and
Obama's incapacity to enforce respect for "red lines" that he himself
has proclaimed, encourages enemies of the United States and their allies to test
how far they can go. "America is not the world's policeman," Barack
Obama explained last September to justify his about-face on Syria and his
refusal to bomb Bashar al-Assad's positions after the
latter's recourse to chemical weapons. If the United States withdraws, other
powers will inevitably fill the space that opens to them. China has taken
advantage by assertting her maritime claims, and Russia
to annex Crimea.
Barack
Obama is simply expressing the immense weariness of Americans after two costly
and fruitless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. What good is it to fight to impose
peace on countries who don't want it? Are the national interests of the United
States really at play in Syria and Iraq? Is it not more urgent to re-establish
the power of the American economy? Put this way, these questions justify the
isolationist tendency which is dominating the United States.
Posted
By Worldmeets.US
With
the accumulation of crises, it isn't at all certain that the current tone is sustainable.
Hillary Clinton is launching her 2016 presidential campaign by distancing
herself from Barack Obama by proposing a more specific foreign policy. The
former secretary of state recognizes the mistake she made when she approved the
war in Iraq, but remains very cautious on the subject and maintains that she
would have acted much sooner to help the Syrian insurrection. A number of neoconservatives
would be ready to rally behind her, especially if the Republican Party of Ronald
Reagan and John McCain were to choose as its candidate the very isolationist
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.
