Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Four More Wars? Candidates' Foreign Policy Advisors Dominated by Hawks

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, The American Conservative. Posted November 7, 2007.


The 2008 hopefuls promised a change in foreign policy -- and then they hired the old guard.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

It may surprise no one that former deputy secretary of defense and ousted World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz still enjoys the red-carpet treatment among Washington's elite. That he indulged in it at the screening of an HBO documentary about 10 wounded Iraq War veterans who barely made it home alive from the conflict Wolfowitz helped to engineer might raise an eyebrow.

Yet he was singled out as a VIP at the Sept. 5 premier of "Alive Day Memories: Home from Iraq" and was still smiling after the screening, which featured insurgent footage of IED attacks, severed limbs, shredded brains, and left hardly a dry eye in the place. Organizers discreetly overlooked Wolfowitz's marquee role in justifying the invasion that brought them all together.

The continued deference to former administration officials extends to the very lifeblood of the city right now -- the presidential election, where neoconservative war boosters still enjoy A-list invites, give and get tons of money, and have the ear of top-tier GOP candidates. Meanwhile, old and new Democratic hawks have largely pushed anti-war liberals to the margins of the establishment, creating think tanks with muscular names and erudite journals to catapult their colleagues into top-level jobs in a new Democratic administration.

Despite the declining appetite for war among regular Americans, the message is clear: when it comes to shaping future foreign policy for either party, hawks and internationalists are in, doves and realists are out.

"My view is, if you want a shift in strategy, you aren't going to get it from these people, who are just hungry for a job in the next administration," observed one Beltway policy wonk. Any conceivable Democratic White House, he noted, would smell a lot like the status quo. Reappearing would be a phalanx of Clinton I protagonists with names like Albright, Holbrooke, Lake, and Berger, followed by a lesser-known generation of liberal interventionists like Peter Beinart, Lee Feinstein, Martin Indyk, and Anne-Marie Slaughter.

They inhabit a growing galaxy of politically ambitious Democrats, most of whom have been careful to criticize President Bush's war in Iraq on mostly tactical points, for hubris and unilateralism, but not his doctrine of regional democratization and preemptive intervention.

It is not so far from their own humble beginnings, after all. Most of the Democratic policy advisers today cut their teeth in the Clinton administration, where they oversaw a disastrous military-humanitarian mission in Somalia, approved strategic strikes and sanctions on Iraq, believed Saddam Hussein was amassing weapons of mass destruction, and ultimately supported his ouster.

But it was in the 1994 NATO bombing of Serbia and the subsequent Dayton Peace Accords that Team Clinton found its foreign-policy mojo.

Richard Holbrooke, today a key adviser to Hillary Clinton , has called the Balkans a huge show of strength and moral authority. "There will be other Bosnias in our lives," the former assistant secretary of state declared in his 1998 memoir, To End a War, about the peace accords he helped broker, "areas where early outside involvement can be decisive and American leadership will be required. ... The world will look to Washington for more than rhetoric the next time we face a challenge to peace."

Anthony Lake, Clinton's national security adviser during the Balkan war, said in a 1993 speech, "We have the blessing of living in the world's most powerful and respected nation at a time when the world is embracing our ideals as never before. We can let it slip away. Or we can mobilize our nation in order to enlarge democracy, enlarge markets and enlarge our future." He's now a top adviser in the Obama campaign.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, considered a close adviser of Mrs. Clinton, was right there with them. In his memoir An American Journey, Colin Powell recalled how, in 1993, he urged the newly-minted Clinton team not to bomb Bosnia too hastily. According to Powell, Albright countered exasperatedly, "what's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

"I thought I would have an aneurysm," wrote Powell, whose similar protests on the road to Iraq would earn him a slow isolation from the Bush inner circle a decade later.

Nonetheless, Holbrooke, Albright, Lake, and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger are "first spear" centurions leading a larger army of Clintonites -- now with wife Hillary or chief rival Barack Obama -- seeking to advance the goals they nurtured in the 1990s. Nearly all were in support of the 2003 invasion of Iraq or discreet about their reservations. Nearly all have re-emerged this campaign season with a renewed belief in Wilsonian international engagement, a continued presence in Iraq, and a hawkish stance on the Middle East.

In Hillary's camp, Jim Steinberg, former Clinton deputy national security adviser and Brookings Institute fellow, joins Martin Indyk, who served as a special assistant for Middle East affairs on the Clinton National Security Council after eight years at the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy and several years at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: neocons, 2008 election, imperialists

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is a Washington, D.C.-based freelance reporter

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Republican or Democrat the War Party Wins ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Nov 7, 2007 1:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All 3 leading Democrats want more defense spending and a larger Army and Marines. All say 2013 would be a good year to get out of Iraq. All the leading Republicans are worse by magnitudes.

The War Party is the political muscle of the corporatocracy and the neoliberal economics that they ply upon the world and indeed, even the United States. The Military is integrated into the very fabric of the House and Senate through base and defense spending, contributions by defense contractors and constant reinforcement through the Main Stream Media.

Ensconced in this spending is the so called "Intelligence Community" that collects the dirt on foreign leaders, dispatches 'economiic hit men', clandestine operatives and black ops enforcers.

All of the above are part and parcel of neoliberal economic colonialism forced on developing nations. The 'foreign policy advisors' are just the pretty face of this new form of colonialism.

These "policy advisors" represent the interests of the multi nationals through the auspices of the WTO , the World Bank and the IMF. It is no acccident that Wolfowitz ended up at the World Bank , McNamara was sent there as well.

What we are looking at is a US policy establishment by , for and of the multi-nationals supported by the Foreign Service , the Defense Department , the NSA , the CIA , the World Bank , the IMF and the WTO while being constantly cheered by the Main Stream Media.

Eisenhower warned off the Miilitary Industrial Complex. In his notes he even included Congressional but he was advised against it. Since that time it has grown into a multiheaded hydra that permeates the entire Federal Government , all its' agencies, the Main Stream Media, all the right wing and moderate think tanks , the vast majority of left wing think tanks, Institutions of higher learning (including all the Ivy League Schools, Stanford, Berkeley, the University of Chicago and more) , NGOs and the European Countries with multi-nationals.

Indeed all the candidates have to pay homage to the War Party and the multi-nationals. This is what these foreign policy advisors are for. The Neocons were just more aggressive in pursuing the ends.

The stakes couldn't be higher. The world is facing an energy shortage that has no solution, Peak Oil.

The choices couldn't be clearer, peace or war. Either we take drastic steps to align our economy to a world with less oil supply every year or we go to war to get it. Capturing oil sounds effectatious but the war would never end , we would bankrupt ourselves , become totalitarian and the oil supply would fall sooner and faster.

The problem is that in this election none of the frontrunners stands for the realignment of our economy or our foreign policy, and this is by design.

Read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" or "Disaster Capitalism".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Israel, the ZPC and the Run-up to the Invasion of Iraq
Posted by: higginslads on Nov 7, 2007 2:15 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Analytically, the differences between Israeli state policy and the leading US Zionist organizations are, with very rare exceptions, indistinguishable. The run-up to the US attack on Iraq is a case in point. From the late 1980’s, through the first Gulf War, the Clinton Administration’s sanctions, daily bombings and territorial separation of northern Iraq, ‘Kurdistan’, from the rest of the country, to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, the Israeli government pressured US Congress-people and senior policy makers toward bellicose policies toward Israel’s ‘enemies’. Israeli state policy urging further US degradation of Iraq was transmitted through the major Zionist organizations and key Zionist officials in the Clinton and later Bush administrations. Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrook, Sandy Berger, William Cohen and others were the most important foreign policy-makers toward the Middle East in the Clinton Administration and they produced and implemented the sanctions, bombings and territorial dismemberment of Iraq. Following their term of office, key Clinton Zionists went to work at pro-Israeli think tanks in Washington. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Zion-Cons in top level positions in the Bush Administration (Ari Fleischer, Paul Wolfowitz, David Frum, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Eliott Abrams, Irving (Scooter) Libby, David Wurmser and others) and key Zionist Congress-members like Senator Joseph Lieberman, called for the US to attack Iraq, as part of a series of sequential wars, to include Syria and Iran. They echoed the policies of the Israeli state and in particular Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Israeli state officials, at no point expressed any reservations or differences with the bellicose efforts of its highly placed liaison agents in the Bush Government, nor with its servile lobby, AIPAC, nor with the pro-Israel Op-Ed writers of the major newspapers and broadcast media. Zionist ideologues prevailed everywhere berating the US military officials for their timid caution. Israel, consistent with its policies since the late 1980’s, encouraged the Bush Administration toward an invasion and occupation of Iraq in all of its top level meetings with Rumsfelt, Powell, Rice and Bush. The Israeli media, with rare exceptions, demonized Saddam, played up his ‘threat’ to the Middle East and Israel’s security, conflated Palestinian suicide bombings with Iraqi support for the Palestinian people’s national aspirations, and energized their fundamentalist Christian allies in the US to follow suit in calling for an invasion of Iraq.

Testimony by former Pentagon analyst, retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski confirms that throughout the period leading to the Iraq war, Israeli military officials, intelligence officers and other high ranking functionaries had daily access with top Zionist Pentagon officials like Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. Frequent consultation, intelligence coordination and joint planning between top Zion-Cons in the Pentagon and top Israeli military operatives in the US indicates that there was close agreement in directing the US to invade Iraq. There was Zion-Con/Israeli agreement, confirmed in the immediate aftermath of the initial ‘successful’ occupation, that Iraq was the first of a series of invasions in the Middle East, to be followed by attacks against Iran and Syria. The Israeli joke current at the time was: ‘Anyone can take Baghdad, real men go for Tehran.’ In November 2002, Ariel Sharon, in an interview with the Times of London, called for the bombing of Iran ‘the day after the US invades Iraq’.

The Deadly Embrace: Zion-power and War: From Iraq to Iran

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You know, I couldn't finish reading this commentary........
Posted by: Pepper on Nov 7, 2007 5:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.... I started getting sooooo angry, I had to stop reading it. For the first time ever, I actually wanted to get up and shoot somebody. These psychopaths are destroying our people, our military, our country, our economy and they have no conscience about any of it.

When I read he laughed and was joking around after seeing those injuries, I realized there are more and more of him out there and even congress is full of those kinds of people. That is why he was treated like royalty.... All I kept remembering was him "spitting in his hand and combing his hair with his hand and that spit". And they are giving him the red carpet treatment???? ABSOLUTELY AMAZING. He is filth, and sick mentally, and deserves to be in jail as part of the traitors who are destroying us from within.

I can't believe our congress and washington elite are doing this, but then psychopaths rule once they achieve their power they have no compunction and no conscience and no moral core to fall back on with respect to the limites the rest of us live with who do have such a conscience. I am beginning to believe there is no cure for the psycho. yet they are more dangerous than any other disease or mental illness and probably should be shot.

Sorry, but given the blood bath and destruction of the lives of our children over greed, profit, banking and oil, I can see no other solution. I am happy if someone can come up with one that would stop all of this.

Its a sad day when the Congress only has 3 men with a conscience and THE COURAGE TO STAND FOR PRINCIPLE. Kucinch, Feingold, and Paul. That is pathetic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ClassAct
Posted by: ClassAct on Nov 7, 2007 9:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Project for a New American Century, that “think tank” to which Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, Libby, and others belonged developed this vision of a future in which the US would be obligated to maintain a military presence, even to fight wars, all over the world at once in order to protect the access of American corporations to the world’s resources is the only vision to which all of the “serious” candidates subscribe. This organization had even selected Iraq as the place to open its campaign, with Iran and Syria as the runners-up. (Oil is, of course, essential to providing all other resources.) Front-runner HRC has a slightly altered vocabulary of “over the horizon capability,” but none offers a significantly different vision except (so I am given to understand) Kucinich, who should select Ralph Nader as his running mate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is exactly what got Jimmy Carter into trouble!
Posted by: war_on_tara on Nov 7, 2007 10:09 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and is why I get queasy when the well-meaning Carter is glorified in progressive circles.

He promised a fresh start, but hired all the wrong people for foreign policy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Momentum
Posted by: willymack on Nov 7, 2007 10:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The neocon juggernaut is on a seemingly unstopable roll, picking up speed and mass with each second. Those REALLY in power continue to rule from the shadows, using surrogates as visible-and expendable-shields to conceal themselves from our citizenry. Until and unless these shadow figures are exposed to public scrutiny as they were in Theodore Roosevelt's day, they'll keep right on robbing us blind until there's nothing left to steal. Let's not kid ourselves, our elected officials KNOW who the shadow figures are, since they're (with a few shining exceptions) the recipients of their largess.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The war machine and the Corporate machine must BOTH be dismantled...
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Nov 7, 2007 10:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... if we are to see anything like peace or democracy again. Clearly, as long as there is a powerful military, it will have its own way in everything it wants, and what it MUST want in order to continue is MORE WAR! To do this, we must also silence the corporations who have battened onto the money available from the overworked, underpaid and overtaxed citizenry. Without these two things, indeed, nothing will change. Instead, we will continue on this road down into darkness; we cannot survive as a creature, much less as Americans, on this road we travel.

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Get a grip!
Posted by: dwaln on Nov 7, 2007 11:41 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Get a grip! This is democracy in action in a complex and dangerous world.

Having said that - People have a lot of illusions about the strengths of democracy and what it's all about.

Remember, (I think it was credited to Bill Cosby's father) - "This family is a democracy, and I run it." Or, the father in 'Pride and Prejudice' when emotionally lobbied by his 'ding bat' wife and too of his least mature daughters, for a questionably supervised vacation, says famously - "And yet I am unmoved."

Democracy is the best way we have of training the most able in every new generation to make decisions. Just like in a family, if you want competent children, you let them make as many choices as possible from as early an age as possible. Every responsible parent, even those who are very liberally democratic, do not let young children vote without restriction on what they eat for breakfast. Neither do they rigidly dictate what will be eaten.

In a round about way Democracy is about promoting Meritocracy and Competence on the societal level. It is not about making the best decisions every time we vote. In fact the wisest old timers would not be doing there job if they did not let us skrew up on every thing short of dissolution of our survival unit/nation state. Notice we don't vote on Monetary policy.

In China they have the same kind of Democracy we do, but only in the Communist Party. It is said that: "If the issue is small, they have a big meeting. If the issue is large, they have a small meeting. And, if the issue is critical, they have no meeting."

[

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Townsend said it Best
Posted by: Chuck23 on Nov 7, 2007 12:03 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Addicted To War
Posted by: braxxian1 on Nov 7, 2007 1:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sorry to say this but America simply seems addicted to war. Since the end of WW2 where the United States was heralded as on of the greatest good guys the world has ever seen you have squandered all that goodwill with and endless list of invasions, covert wars and general skulldudgery.

America used to be looked up to and respected around the world, now you are seen as a nasty bully of a nation that produces little more than trashy hollywood movies, and exports nothing more than weapons and violence.

It's a sad and sorry story for a once great nation. I wounder what the men who fought and died ofon the beaches of Normandy and Okinawa would think of you today.


WAKE UP USA.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hate Only Breeds Hate
Posted by: sofla100 on Nov 7, 2007 5:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
911 gave the right-wing nut jobs the upper hand. Few Americans want to accept or realize, however, that the roots of 911 are in decades of American one-sided support of Israel, support for tyrant governments in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, US support earlier of the Shah, and finally, the positioning of US troops in Saudi Arabia even after the Gulf War (first one) was over. When you have and create such fertile ground for hate, the result is inevitable. Of course, what the USA has done since 911 has just made things worse. The torture, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Iraq, it has all resulted in fueling a holy war against the USA. Then Americans wonder why they are hated so much. They are hated because their leaders (USA) are seen as out to destroy them (Muslims) and their countries and society. It is really very simple.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hate Only Breeds Hate Posted by: Guy Montag
mr.
Posted by: bill5741 on Nov 8, 2007 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where the hell are we getting the money for this nonsense? The Hawks should pay for it out of their own pockets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]