Neo-conservatives appear to view both Russia and China as "threats" --- even though there is little evidence that they are --- and thus are backing confrontational tactics in dealing with both nations.
There are a number of "neo-cons," as they are known, in the Obama administration, both in the State Department and Defense Department. There are also many neo-con voices in the media, particularly at The New York Times and Washington Post.
The Times and the Post have run numerous editorials criticizing Russia for "aggression" in taking over Crimea in 2014 --- even though a huge majority of Crimeans voted in a referendum, understandably, to break away from the neo-fascist coup government in Ukraine and rejoin Russia. The papers have also run a number of hit pieces demonizing Russian President Vladimir Putin.
With her Senate vote in favor of the Iraq War, her push as Secretary of State for the illegal Libya intervention and now as a presidential candidate supporting a possible military attack on Syria, Hillary Clinton is considered closely aligned with neo-con views.
Clinton's pro-war views have gotten far too little attention during the election campaign. The media for the most part has steered away from asking tough questions about foreign policy and exactly what she advocates going forward.
Her opponent, Republican Donald Trump, has raised some valid points about the failures of U.S. foreign policy and suggested we should extend an olive branch to Vladimir Putin and try to work with Russia. He's also said we should now pull back from overseas interventions. This is a welcome approach, and should be taken seriously.
But Trump has gotten little traction with his comments on foreign policy, due to anger over the numerous backwards positions he's taken on domestic issues, such as immigration and the rights of Muslims.
Trump has also undermined his case for a less confrontational foreign policy by advocating a "stronger military." The U.S. military is already far and away the strongest on earth. The U.S. spends $600 billion a year on the military --- we don't need to spend more or enlarge our forces.
As the presidential election campaign proceeds, it is crucial that the media ask the hard questions of both Clinton and Trump about exactly what their foreign policy is, where they stand with respect to both Syria and Russia, and whether they support new military interventions and regime change.
The stakes couldn't be higher.
The United States and the world can ill afford more war.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
1
1
