Home | About | Donate

Why Hillary's Neocon Foreign Policy Will Make the Problem of Islamophobia Worse


#1

Why Hillary's Neocon Foreign Policy Will Make the Problem of Islamophobia Worse

Arun Kundnani

In Khizr and Ghazala Khan, the Democratic Party seems to have found the perfect counter to Donald Trump. Since Trump proposed banning Muslims from the US, his campaign has sought to exploit the fear that Muslims are dangerous and disloyal. But who could think that of the patriotic, constitution-waving Khans, whose son died fighting for the US?


#2

HRC will follow Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard, count on it.


#3

The world view Clinton represents is not what the world or America needs, domestically or especially in the ME/NA. Her hideous depraved cackling mirth at the brutal murder of Muammar Gaddafi during the (her) destabilization and destruction of the Libyan state and society very much influenced/supported by Clinton, tells who she really is as a human being. Her proven/demonstrated craven servitude and treasonous support for Israeli extremism/terrorism, racist occupation, ethnic cleansing, and illegal colonization of the Occupied Territories, as well as overt Israeli/AIPAC subversion of US politics, Congress, foreign policy and war, will only increase, as will "aid" to the Israeli state, under her reign......


#4

This just in - Hillary Clinton continues her servitude to the oil-gas-fracking industry, already emulating "centrist" Billary and Obama betrayals by appointing the odious Ken Salazar to head her "transition team".

Salazar was appointed Obama's Interior Sec.- a morally corrupt tool of big-business, environmental exploitation/degradation, wild animal exterminations and habitat destruction! Salazar is a depraved person, who fits well with the Red Queens long-anticipated rule!


As many have written, a Hillary Clinton administration would see yet more "centrist" neoliberal sellouts and recycled big-money shills, just like Obama recycled the Bill Clinton Rubinite deregulators to his administration.
Billary and his Rubinites rescinded the Glass-Steagall Act bringing us the "economic downturn" robbery and the TBTF bailout of criminal bankers/banks - corporations are NOT people! People make the decisions!

Salazar is, and has been, an oil industry darling and shill, responsible to large degree for the "Deep Water horizon" Gulf oil spill disaster that destroyed Gulf fisheries and much else! Salazar refused to mandate "Acoustic Switches" on Gulf wells that could/would have prevented the "worst oil spill in US history"!
So much for Hillary being serious about trying to reduce global heating and destructions!


#5

Well said. Using the Khan's in the convention was contrived. If you look at the Khan's background you will find a different side of the this poor couple that lost their son. They are a convenient pawn in her march to power.
HRC is a neocon without question. If you think back to the Bush/Cheney administration you can get a good understanding of what that means. You're either with us or against us. The Axis of Evil. The goal has been to destabilize the Middle East and control it for resources and to keep Netenyahu as the sole ME nuclear power, for Israel's safety of course. The end justifies the means.
To think that Clinton really cares about Islamophobia is a stretch. The Clinton's have never been the liberal Democrats they profess to be. They have done very little that really helps the people, instead they served and will serve the elite and their cult of power. Divide and conquer would be more the push for her administration. Don't expect anything truly progressive or even mildly liberal. Think Bush/Cheney and you get a better picture of her ideology under all the liberal double speak.


#6

Just as Obamabots response to anybody questioning Obama's motives or actions has been a quick and terse accusation of "racism", or "would you rather have Bush ?", Hillbots quick and terse response is "sexism" or "would you rather have Trump ?, in all cases followed by immediate shutdown of discussion.

No matter what Clinton does during her eight years as POTUS, Hillbots will always claim that "Trump would have been worse".

Had Obamabots and Hillbots lived in a different land in a different time, they would have been the ones who enabled the first Austrian painter to lead Germany, a truly historic event.

Remember the chanting at CLINTONCON in Philly last month ?

Vote Green in 16 !


#7

If anyone actually doubts Clinton's neoconservative policies, check her new website, Together for America, a website she set up to entice prominent Republicans away from Trump. There you will see endorsements for her from former Bush administration officials, defense contractors, ex military and other participants in this country's pursuit of endless war and regime change. A vote for Clinton is to vote with blood on your hands.


#8

Just to be clear, the Iraq war was started by Bush and Cheney who lied to the American people and to the US Congress. It did not have the backing of the UN. Many members of Congress probably voted to give Bush the authority to go to war because he claimed he needed that authority to put pressure on the UN to go back into Iraq and look for weapons of mass destruction. The UN did go back in so that part worked. However, even though they found no such weapons Bush still went to war claiming Sadaam was involved in 9/11 which was also based on lies about meetings that never took place. Many politicians like Clinton probably voted to give Bush the authority to go to war because the lies of Bush and Cheney and demonizing of Sadaam (who the US previously supported in war against Iran) had whipped up the public to support a war. It took very bold politicians like Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and Bernie Sanders to speak out against giving Bush this authority and to vote against it. In the short run it probably cost them political support. As Mike Morell explained from working with Clinton, she often supports force in order to drive diplomacy. Countries (or dictators) will not negotiate unless they have something to lose. And today this is the problem in Syria. How to find a diplomatic solution to the mess. What would it take to get all the parties to seriously negotiate?


#9

To keep the tax money rolling in for the MIC, there has to be a boogey man to scare the kids with. Wild Indian savages, Reds, Terrorists, it doesn't matter who.


#10

Hillary's "increase in military action" will include setting a no-fly zone in Syria, which guarantees war with Russia. And you thought this summer was hot?


#12

when a nation's elites identify with war and war-making, they must make ample use of propaganda.

In modern America, the PR agencies and war propagandists have teamed up and the fruit of their joint effort is a thorough inversion of language and evisceration of particular frames.

The war On terror is of course a war OF terror, and taking something as odious as torture and re-branding it as "enhanced interrogation" to make it permissible is a good example of how this tainting of language works.

The following (taken from the article) is accurate:

"The neoconservative Robert Kagan said of Clinton in 2014: “I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy.…If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue, it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

"In other words, she will pursue a neoconservative foreign policy dressed up in the liberal vocabulary of humanitarian intervention. Little wonder that neoconservatives like Kagan have turned to support her instead of Trump, and as actively as possible - Kagan recently hosted a fundraiser for Clinton in Washington DC. "

Words are a form of currency. When they are divested of common core meanings, people lose the capacity to understand each other and thereby lack the capacity to form meaningful consensuses.

It's all deliberate... and endlessly dangerous.


#13

Following the Shock Doctrine deployment of: Problem--Reaction--Solution, the following represents the Psychological ramifications of this protocol:

"So long as the government keeps going to war in the Middle East, it will be hard to counter anti-Muslim prejudices among ordinary Americans. Around half of Americans believe Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence among its believers. That belief is false: in fact, global polls indicate that Americans are more supportive of violence against civilians than people in other parts of the world. Attitudes toward violence have little to do with religious belief."

There are certainly warring tribes across Africa--although much of the problem was exacerbated by European colonialists assigning a higher "value" to one tribe than another (largely based on skin tone).

And there have been inter-tribal animosities across much of the Middle East. However, the carving up of the former Ottoman Empire into arbitrary sectors inflamed the cultural and religious differences between Shiite and Sunni and others. The recent wars of aggression further ignited these old fault lines of conflict.

Japan had its imperial hour of power and China may have pushed passed its territories but NO group--more than Anglo-Europeans (largely Christians) have enveloped, colonized, corrupted, and capitalized upon more of the world and its people. They accomplished this using 3 primary forms of violence:

The primary tool is direct military force.

The second tool is financial domination (via patriarchal capitalism and its various carrots and sticks).

The third is ideological with religious theology its cornerstone. (Had the White Male not seen himself in God's image and likeness, and arrogated to himself the Divine Right to Kill and conquer... the phenomenal loss of life bled down the centuries could not have BEEN possible.)

Like the cops that gang up cowardly against the unarmed Black kid and then try to convince the public that THEY were threatened... the same mentality is at work when U.S./NATO beefed up military forces invade other lands and then turn around and insist that the people they target are bad, violent extremists.

It's mostly religious fundamentalists who most thoroughly buy into "the Islamists are violent radicals" argument, too. They are INCAPABLE of looking in the mirror to recognize the degree of depraved indifference to life practiced by those inside their own religious institutions.


#14

Bombs for peace.

No shock to see you making excuses for her warmongering.

Is it $0.34 per post or is there a per-response payment? Any way for us to get a kick-back? As a Clinton supporter kickbacks should be easy for you to understand. Just imagine that 'donations' to the Clinton Foundation came after her State Department did something that economically benefited the donor, instead of before. 'Donations' before the State Department action would be considered a bribe, 'donations' after would be a kickback.

How to categorize money paid for State Department actions, part of the Clinton Compendium of Corruption.


#15

Sunni and Shia lived peacefully in Iraq and, before the U.S. invasion, intermarried. But the U.S. brought in experts in creating death squads to polarize groups.

https://consortiumnews.com/2013/04/07/reagans-death-squad-tactics-in-iraq/


#16

Any neocon and neoliberal policy makes Islamophobia, other racism, and sexism worse.

These things happen because of a steep class hierarchy. The easiest way to get an approximate measure of hierarchy in a post-industrial capitalist society is to measure the money--which, interestingly does not turn out to measure wealth or industry so well as it does iniquity.

Epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson took measures not of poverty but of inequality of income in what he called "rich Western democracies."

It does not mean that there are no other factors, but when the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, all other problems increase. That includes anger against Islamics, Hispanics, women, gays, the transgendered--and, actually, white males.

Here's the short version, at TED:


#17

This is exactly what I've been saying: If you want to vote for Clinton, that's your choice, by all means. Just don't kid yourself that your are in any way, shape or form supporting progressive policies. Quite the opposite, in fact. A vote for Clinton is a vote for neoconservatism and Pax Americana, plain and simple.


#22

"When Genuine Democratic Movements emerge...Clinton sides with her Authoritarian Friends rather than with the Revolutionaries on the Streets."

Domestically, as well.

Right, Bernie?