Globalist War Hawks see opportunity in the Islamic State

Posted on September 3, 2014


 photo DeadlyHawkBrigade_zpse06e8cc3.jpg

Hawks…or Vultures?

I just read a piece posted on Drudge, from the Washington Post, in which the writers, Sebastian Payne and Robert Costa, take note of what they observe as a shift in the GOP, away from the trend of non-interventionism, back towards ‘hawkism’, i.e, the NeoCon perspective and focus. I don’t doubt the numbers, I only question the perhaps over broad application of the context of this shift.

The writers make particular note of Rand Paul, Libertarian leaning Senator from Kentucky and potential contestant in the 2016 GOP Presidential nomination race:

“Even Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a leader of the GOP’s anti-interventionist wing who is seen as a top-tier contender for the 2016 presidential nomination, has joined in the calls for a more hawkish approach.”

This development is not unexpected. Rand Paul has been shifting towards the GOP establishment for several months, and is employing the risky strategy of appeasing so many elements that he winds up with little more than luke warm appeal to any of them. As the Associated Press sees the matter:

The broader debate pits those who favor the GOP’s traditional muscular foreign policy — a group that includes Perry and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio — and those, like Paul and Cruz, who prefer a smaller international footprint. The so-called isolationist approach plays well with grassroots activists and a war-weary public, but worries many Republican officials and donors who prefer an aggressive American role in world affairs. 

I like what Mollie Hemingway in the Federalist has to say in response:

Preferring a smaller international military footprint is hardly isolationism. It could simply indicate support for good old-fashioned statesmanship, propriety, conservatism, or even just an acknowledgment of limited human and financial resources. Certainly there are people whose idea of national defense is so limited that it might be called isolationism — and Paul is certainly closer to these people than Dick Cheney is.

But people who believe in robust trade between nations, healthy use of diplomacy — but also not bombing most of the countries that have serious problems — these aren’t isolationists! And Rand Paul and others whose view of limited government extends to our foreign military entanglements are not accurately termed isolationists.

Costa and Payne, cite a Pew Research Center poll released last week, in which 46 percent of Republicans said the United States does “too little” to help solve global problems — a 28-point increase from the previous poll, last November. The percentage of Republicans who believe the U.S. does “too much” abroad has dropped from 52 percent to 37 percent.

I don’t question the general accuracy of that poll. But if some interpret it as a general shift in public view towards another raft of military opportunism or a wide scale reset on the ‘Global War on Terror’, they are reading too much into the poll. Rand Paul’s actual statement on the Islamic State crisis was this:

“If I were president, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily.”

Even as a limited government critic of the American foreign policy of the past two administrations, I recognize that we have played a role in spawning the Islamic State and correspondingly, we have an obligation to neutralize it.

Had we never played “Chessboard Foreign Policy” in the Middle East, beginning with Osama Bin Laden in the 1980’s and the agitation of sectarian conflicts since then, I might take the position that we should let the situation play out. The slaughter of innocents in Syria and Iraq, is heartbreaking, but the U.S. government ignores suffering committed by terrorists and tyrants on a daily basis elsewhere in the world.

However, it is the very fact that we co-wrote the script (in partnership with Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar) of what is playing out in Iraq and Syria, that binds to us a moral imperative in destroying the Frankenstein of ISIS / ISIL.

And again, Rand Paul’s opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal sums it up the same way as I do, albeit more diplomatically:

“The Islamic State represents a threat that should be taken seriously. But we should also recall how recent foreign-policy decisions have helped these extremists so that we don’t make the same mistake of potentially aiding our enemies again.”

The WaPo writers bring up William Kristol:

William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and a leading pro-interventionist voice on the right, said Republicans are moving back to their “inner hawkishness.” He said that some in the party had been “a little intimidated for a while . . . by the so-called libertarian moment” but that GOP candidates are now showing a greater willingness to extend their foreign policy statements beyond mere attacks on Obama.

“What heartens me is that [candidates] are going beyond that criticism and talking about the need for a different approach, about how we can’t freak out when someone mentions potentially putting boots on the ground,” Kristol said.

William Kristol is a tool who is comfortably in the sheets with the globalist warfare state, where deficit spending or the Constitution or the body count of dead American military troops is no object.  Kristol is John McCain’s conjoined ideological twin on the joys of military opportunism.  The only slight cosmetic difference between them is that Kristol, though he is lavishly generous with the lives of other family’s sons and daughters, never saw an hour’s worth of military duty himself  – a distinction he shares with the de facto President of Bush’s two terms in office, Dick Cheney.

Mr. Kristol, we should  “freak out when someone mentions potentially putting boots on the ground”!  Our track record of doing so over the past 63 or so years, has yielded the outcome of (needlessly) prolonged conflicts, Trillions of dollars of additional debt, flipping one tyrannical regime for another, and in many cases, innocents left vulnerable to the murderous thugs we’ve fortified rather than diminished. And not to be forgotten, the deaths of our only true hero class, without any vindication of the cause they fought for.

If there is war profiteering to be exploited and the power of central bankers to be enhanced, Kristol and his ilk are all in. Words cannot describe my contempt for these syndicate mouthpieces.