Tulsi Gabbard and the Great Foreign Policy Realignment

Her anti-war candidacy and Democrats' growing hawkishness show that the winds are blowing in a new direction.

By JAMES P. PINKERTON • January 16, 2019

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/tulsi-gabbard-and-the-great-foreign-policy-realignment/

“There’s one main issue that is central to the rest, and that is the issue of war and peace.” Those were the words of Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, Democrat of Hawaii, appearing on CNN on January 12, as she threw her hat into the presidential ring.

Gabbard is one of the few Democrats in the 2020 mix who has experience as a combatant in the war. Back in 2004, at the peak of fighting in Iraq, she volunteered for duty with the Hawaii National Guard as it was deployed to that country. So for her, as well as for all the other veterans of our recent wars of choice, America’s Middle East policy is more than an object for armchair strategizing.

Thus did Gabbard smile in agreement when CNN host Van Jones summarized her views as “hawk on terror, dove on regime change.” And most Americans would agree: that is, everybody wants an anti-terrorism policy, but few want more foreign wars and regime changes.

Interestingly, Gabbard’s words and related anti-war actions make her a controversial figure on today’s Left. As one Democratic activist tweeted to her nearly 27,000 followers, “She has defended and met with Assad. She sided with Putin over Obama regarding Syria.” It is true that Gabbard, a long-time critic of military intervention in Syria, went to Damascus in January 2017 to meet with Bashar al-Assad. Moreover, immediately after the 2016 election, Gabbard met even with the dreaded Donald Trump.

Some will say, of course, that this is what diplomacy is all about: one engages people in dialogue, including antagonists, foreign and domestic. For instance, during the Vietnam War, plenty of Americans traveled to North Vietnam—including, most notoriously, Jane Fonda—and while such trips caused storms on the Right, few on the Left were bothered.

Yet these days, the Left is bothered. For example, Rolling Stone, once at the vanguard of the anti-war counterculture, is now among those raining down the thunder on the anti-war candidate. Its headline: “Tulsi Gabbard’s 2020 Campaign May Be Over Before It Starts.”

Yes, times do change. Back in 1972, Senator George McGovern, himself a decorated combat veteran of World War II, ran on a strongly anti-Vietnam War platform—and Rolling Stone was right there with him. In the words of one writer for the magazine, “McGovern is indisputably a man of conscience.” Another RS writer went further: “George McGovern [is] the only candidate in either party worth voting for.”

As we all know, McGovern won the Democratic nomination that year but was then crushed by Richard Nixon in the general election. And yet dovishness survived that defeat. In the 1970s and ’80s, grassroots McGovernites took over much of the Democratic Party.

Of course, those were also the years when the Democrats had a hard time winning the presidency—even as they kept a firmer grip on Congress—and that fact was not lost on party insiders. So by 1992, when Bill Clinton won the presidential nomination, Democrats had refashioned themselves to be more hawkish (the preferred word was “muscular”).

Clinton himself didn’t have much standing as a hawk. He had, after all, avoided the draft during the Vietnam War, and had been a staffer on McGovern’s 1972 campaign. Nevertheless, from the comfort and safety of the Oval Office, he was happy to posture as aggressive.

Later, in 2002, Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, another ex-McGovernite, was joined by most Senate Democrats in supporting President George W. Bush’s Iraq war resolution.

Yet even as many Democrats were given over to the liberal version of neoconservatism, anti-war Democrats had hardly disappeared. For instance, Barack Obama won the 2008 presidential nomination in large part because had opposed the Iraq war. Of course, once he was in office, to the vexation of doves, he chose Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state, thereby giving over much of his presidency to Clinton-style military intervention.

One unexpected consequence of this Obama-Clinton hawkishness was the 2016 intra-party insurgency of Senator Bernie Sanders, a lifelong dove who had voted “no” on that same Iraq war resolution.

Enter Gabbard. Having been elected to Congress in 2012, she resigned her post as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee in 2016 so that she could explicitly support Sanders. (This at a time when the DNC was implicitly supporting Hillary Clinton.)

In other words, looking to 2020, Gabbard can rightfully claim her share of the anti-war mantle—even if Sanders chooses to run again.

Yet these days, it remains to be seen how many Democrats count themselves as anti-war. Indeed, according to a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll, just 29 percent of Democrats support withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria, while 50 percent oppose. As for Afghanistan, by a one-point plurality, Democrats count themselves as hawks.

So what’s going on with the Democrats? Is dovish McGovernism dead? Part of the phenomenon, of course, is knee-jerk opposition to Trump. That is if the president says he wants to get out of Syria and to draw down in Afghanistan, well, that’s the cue for Democrats to take the opposite position. Such is the nature of partisanship.

Yet it’s also true that the Democrats are changing. That is, many neoconservatives, having supported Bush 43 and Republicans, then turned against Trump and the GOP in 2016; they have, in effect, joined the Democratic Party. And in so doing, they’ve given the Democrats a distinctly Hillary-like—if not Bush 43-like—aspect. Most notably, MSNBC, which styles itself as the most progressive of the cable news channels, has become a haven for Bush 43 alums.

Writing in The Intercept on January 11, Glenn Greenwald summed up the new tendency in the Democratic Party:

What’s happening here is far more insidious. A core ethos of the anti-Trump #Resistance has become militarism, jingoism, and neoconservatism. Trump is frequently attacked by Democrats using longstanding Cold War scripts wielded for decades against them by the far right: Trump is insufficiently belligerent with U.S. enemies; he’s willing to allow the Bad Countries to take over by bringing home U.S. soldiers.

Will that sort of rhetorical pile-driving open up a path for Gabbard as the dovish candidate—or will it simply harden the opposition to her? We’ll have to see.

In the meantime, as the Hawks have migrated to the Left, the doves have migrated to the Right. According to that same Politico/Morning Consult poll, 73 percent of Republicans support getting out of Syria: that’s a whopping 44 points more than the Democrats. And 76 percent of Republicans endorse reducing our footprint in Afghanistan.

In other words, within the GOP, the foreign policy positions of, say, Senator Rand Paul and Congressman Justin Amash—joined by, on some days, Trump himself—are in the ascendancy. Indeed, the same survey shows that the bulk of voters take dovish positions on the two foreign conflicts.

Of course, Gabbard is running for the Democratic nomination—and as we have seen, the Democratic Party now abounds with newly arrived hawks. Yet it’s still hard to believe that rank-and-file Democrats are really getting excited about foreign military adventures.

In the meantime, Gabbard is undeniably progressive on most issues. For instance, in 2017, long before Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal was a thing, Gabbard introduced legislation to eliminate fossil fuels by 2035.

In these times, of course, nobody’s crystal ball is working well. And yet it does seem fair to say this much: if Gabbard could somehow win the 2020 Democratic nomination, she’d likely be formidable in the November election. That is, she’s a woman, she’s “diverse”—she was the first Hindu elected to Congress—and she’s a combat veteran with a no-nonsense attitude toward terrorism. And yes, she’s pro-peace. These days, among Americans overall, that’s a winning hand.

Indeed, ever since 2016, when the candidacies of Trump and Sanders seemed to run parallel to each other—and in opposition to their respective party establishments—observers have wondered whether the two political insurgencies, still ongoing, might not ultimately discover that they have much in common. That is, both are more focused on domestic policy than on foreign policy; one might even say that both are more nationalist than globalist.

We might add that such a fusion is already occurring in Europe, where the anti-establishment Right and Left are finding common ground against, most immediately, the European Union—and international institutions in general. Such an alliance has already happened in Italy, where the right-leaning League and the left-leaning Five Stars, joined in an upstart coalition, have taken power in Rome.

Today, in Gabbard’s candidacy, one sees a glimmer of the same sort of possible fusion here in the United States.

Yes, it’s only a glimmer. Yet Gabbard is just 37. She has time.

James P. Pinkerton is an author and contributing editor at The American Conservative. He served as a White House policy aide to both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Pompeo, the U.S., and Iran

By  ROBERT FANTINA

JANUARY 18, 2019

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01/18/pompeo-the-u-s-and-iran/

The United States’ international windbag, Secretary of State (read: War) Mike Pompeo has been acting the imperial blowhard throughout the Middle East. With his boss busy denying that he’s a Russian agent, watching advisors and cabinet members come and go with dizzying alacrity, and dodging porn-star accusations, Pompeo is trotting through the Middle East, sounding war drums.

It seems that Iran, which has long been in the crosshairs of U.S. gunboat ‘diplomacy’, remains firmly targeted. In Cairo, Pompeo promised a “…campaign to stop Iran’s malevolent influence and actions against this region and the world”.

It is with a firm shake of the head that this writer reads such statements, wondering how anyone with even a modicum of intelligence can take such pronouncements seriously. If one is to discuss ‘malevolent influence and actions against this region and the world’, shouldn’t one look, first and foremost, at the United States?

The U.S. currently gives unqualified support to Saudi Arabia, which is decimating the nation of Yemen. Currently, at least 10,000,000 Yemenis, most of them children, are at risk of death by starvation due to the U.S.-supported Saudi onslaught. Several weeks ago, the Saudis dropped a U.S.-made bomb on what they must have thought was a horrifying terrorist group: a school bus full of 10-year-old children. U.S. spokespeople had hardly a word to say about this. Not surprising: if 10,000,000 people at risk of starvation bring no halt to U.S. support of Saudi Arabia, what is one school bus full of little boys? Does none of this qualify as ‘malevolent influence and actions’?

When discussing the U.S.’s ‘malevolent influence and actions’, it is impossible not to mention its support of apartheid Israel’s brutal, inhumane and totally illegal (under international law: remember that old thing?) treatment of the Palestinians. Home demolitions to make room for Israeli-only housing; road construction on which only Israelis can drive (and if such a road intersects an existing Palestinian road, Palestinians cannot cross the intersection); the murders of innocent men, women and children by IDF soldiers and illegal settlers; the complete occupation of the Gaza Strip, with Israel forbidding the import of many basic needs, and the export of almost anything, crippling the economy; the periodic carpet-bombing of the Gaza Strip, with homes, mosques, United Nations refugee centers, hospitals and schools all targeted, all in violation of international law; the brutal harassment of Palestinians who only want to worship at Al Aqsa mosque, to name just a few of Israel’s constant atrocities. The U.S. responds to all this by giving Israel $4 billion in aid every year, more than all other nations receive from the U.S. combined. Is there nothing here that can be considered ‘malevolent influence and actions’?

For years, the United States supported rebel groups that fought for the overthrow of the Syrian government. It provided training and weapons to known terrorist groups, resulting in the death of at least half a million Syrians. With assistance from its allies Russia and Iran, Syria has been able to rid itself of most of these terrorists. Is U.S. financing and training of terrorist organizations not ‘malevolent influence and actions’?

For eighteen years, up to and including today, the U.S. has decimated and occupied Afghanistan, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Afghanis, and the destruction of the country. There is no end of this carnage in site. The reason for the invasion, ostensibly, was to capture Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks on the U.S. Yet bin Laden has been dead for years, but the war rages on. The U.S. is determined to install a puppet government there, but the Taliban only came to power with U.S. support, when Russia was at war with Afghanistan. So the U.S. created the monster it is now fighting. Additionally, the Taliban was willing to surrender bin Laden to any nation other than the United States; he would easily and quickly have been extradited from that nation to the U.S. for trial. But an endless war seemed more appealing to the U.S. government. This all certainly sounds like ‘malevolent influence and actions’ to this writer.

The United States overthrew the functioning government of Libya, leaving that nation as a ‘failed state’. Today, there is no peace in Libya, poverty is rampant, and the country is divided by differing factions that are at constant war with each other. ‘Malevolent influence and actions’, anyone?

And despite all this, pompous Pompeo parades through the Middle East, condemning a nation that hasn’t invaded another country in over 200 years. Compare this to the more than 30 nations the United States has invaded and/or destabilized in just the last 50 years. Those imperial U.S. intrusions have killed an estimated 20,000,000 people, and the slaughter continues today, with no end in sight.

This is not a phenomenon of the current incompetent, bombastic buffoon residing in the White House, or the result of the (until recently) Republican-controlled Congress. For generations, there have been few elected U.S. officials who ever met a war they didn’t love; rarely has there been a covert operation to overthrow a democratically-elected government that both Republicans and Democrats didn’t fully support. No, all this is business as usual for the globe’s most dangerous thug, which, were it an individual, would have long ago been found guilty of mass murder.

What is to be done? What can or will a mainly-ignorant public do, when most of its members prefer to wave a flag than look at reality? Like other imperial nations throughout history, the U.S. will eventually implode under the weight of its own ‘malevolent influence and actions’. It is hard to imagine any other nation emerging as the world’s superpower that will cause as much death, destruction, and suffering as the U.S. has during its long and bloody history. The end of its reign of terror cannot come soon enough.

Robert Fantina’s latest book is Empire, Racism, and Genocide: a History of US Foreign Policy (Red Pill Press).

LA GUARDIA NACIONAL RESPONDE A ESTRATEGIA POLÍTICA Y PRESIONES DE ESTADOS UNIDOS

¿Por qué el gobierno de Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) no optó por un proyecto de reforma y fortalecimiento de las policías estatales y municipales, con controles de confianza, capacidades incrementadas en materia de inteligencia; mejores condiciones laborales y salariales, entrenamiento y capacitación permanentes; y un esquema de asesoramiento, supervisión y evaluación de parte de la sociedad civil y de organismos internacionales?

Por dos razones principales; primero, una estrategia general como la planteada, hubiera implicado años de limpia, reforma y transformación de las policías, con muchos recursos financieros comprometidos para ello, y un acuerdo con gobernadores y presidentes municipales de diferentes partidos políticos. De funcionar la estrategia, recibirían en primer lugar el crédito por mejorar las condiciones de seguridad de la ciudadanía, los gobiernos locales, dejando en un plano menor al gobierno federal; y en segundo lugar, porque el establecimiento político-militar de Washington siempre ha impulsado en América Latina la participación de las fuerzas armadas en el combate al crimen organizado, especialmente al narcotráfico, pues embona de manera perfecta con su estrategia antiterrorista y contrainsurgente, así como con las necesidades de venta permanente de armamento y de vinculación de los aparatos militares estadounidense y latinoamericanos.

Para AMLO, lo principal en esta primera etapa de su gobierno, es afianzar en sus manos las riendas del poder, pues está consciente de que los poderes fácticos, vinculados a diversas actividades criminales, están esparcidos por todo el territorio nacional, precisamente en diferentes gobiernos estatales y municipales. De ahí que iniciar un proceso de reforma policial nacional, implicaría forzosamente confrontar en su territorio a estos poderes, con la posibilidad de que la estrategia fuera permanentemente saboteada y por lo tanto llegar a la mitad del sexenio sin ningún avance significativo en materia de reducción de asesinatos, robos, secuestros, etc.

Por ello, AMLO prefirió conformar un cuerpo de seguridad que le responda directamente a él, manejado por los militares, pues considera que ya se llevó a cabo un experimento de cuerpo civil, con la Policía Federal, y fracasó; por lo que es preferible darle la oportunidad a las fuerzas armadas de hacerse cargo abiertamente de la seguridad pública, mediante la Guardia Nacional (con un componente civil dentro de ella, para atemperar las críticas contra esta propuesta), que pueda dar algunos golpes efectivos y espectaculares, como el caso actual del combate al robo de combustible, y así la ciudadanía vea que el gobierno está avanzando en materia de seguridad. De esta forma se evita entrar en un proceso de reforma de las policías largo, sinuoso, sin garantía alguna de que vaya a funcionar durante su periodo de gobierno; y especialmente, que pudiera terminar fortaleciendo a sus adversarios políticos y no a su gobierno, como él lo desea.

Por lo que respecta a Estados Unidos, está claro que desde el periodo de transición, se le manifestó a AMLO que no verían con buenos ojos el regreso de los militares a sus cuarteles y que preferían un cambio superficial en la estrategia aplicada en pasados sexenios; pero que en el fondo, lo mejor era mantener el combate directo a los cárteles del narcotráfico y a las organizaciones del crimen organizado, principalmente a través de las fuerzas armadas.

AMLO seguramente midió en su relación con Trump y con los Estados Unidos que entrar en confrontación con la potencia hegemónica en varios frentes, como el migratorio (construcción del muro, detención de las caravanas migrantes), el de seguridad y el comercial, le abriría varios conflictos bilaterales, que sumados a los que tendría que enfrentar en el ámbito interno frente a la oligarquía, los partidos de oposición y los grupos del crimen organizado, terminarían por detener y quizás hacer fracasar sus principales políticas públicas en materia social y de infraestructura.

Por ello, AMLO decidió mantener la estrategia de seguridad prevaleciente, con una nueva cara como la Guardia Nacional, para no enfrentar presiones adicionales de Washington, lo que sumado a su aceptación para contener en el territorio nacional a los migrantes centroamericanos que buscan asilo o ingresar de manera indocumentada en Estados Unidos, más la firma del nuevo tratado comercial, le han permitido mantener una relación fluida y de respeto, con el gobierno de Trump.

Pero para equilibrar tanta cooperación con Washington, se echó mano de los principios tradicionales de la política exterior mexicana, al negarse a avalar, hasta ahora, la política golpista impulsada por el gobierno de Trump contra Maduro; aunque las presiones para que dicha política también acabe por alinearse con Washington, están creciendo exponencialmente desde el exterior y en el interior, con los muchos aliados que la potencia hegemónica sigue teniendo en la derecha mexicana (el PAN), los oligarcas y los medios de comunicación, que han criticado sin cesar la posición no injerencista del gobierno mexicano en el asunto de Venezuela.

Así, AMLO prefiere apoyarse en los militares en la estrategia de seguridad para zafarse de un proyecto de reforma policial que implicaría mucho tiempo, dinero y esfuerzo, y que quizás, de resultar exitoso, sería capitalizado políticamente por los gobiernos locales e incluso por el siguiente gobierno federal y no por él; y, al mantener en lo esencial la estrategia prevaleciente de lucha contra la delincuencia organizada, disminuye las presiones estadounidenses en uno de los muchos temas que definen la relación bilateral.

Veremos si tan arriesgada apuesta le resulta en los próximos dos años, antes de las elecciones de medio término, y de la que ha prometido será una consulta ciudadana para ratificarlo o no como presidente de México. 

Rock-firm China-Russia ties prop world order

By Wang Haiyun Source: Global Times Published: 2019/1/15

Recently, voices on a new Cold War by American conservatives repeatedly appear in the press and on the internet. They hold two contradicting views on China-Russia relations. Some believe Beijing and Moscow have formed a strategic alliance, which will pose a huge threat to the US. Others claim current ties are not strong so that once Russia improves its relations with the US and the EU, there would be subtle changes in the equation between Beijing and Moscow.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said on December 21, 2018, "In the face of profound and complex changes in the international landscape, China-Russia relations have demonstrated rock-firm stability and injected many stabilizing factors into the complex and unstable world." Her words clearly define the current China-Russia relations.

Fresh developments in Beijing-Moscow ties last year supported the above belief. Bilateral relations have been not only stable but also better. Why could they reach a "rock-firm" relationship? 

First, from the geopolitical perspective, China and Russia are each other's largest neighbors, playing a significant role in security and development. Without good-neighborliness and cooperation between the two countries, China would dither from exposing its coastal areas as much as it does now or there would be no establishment and development of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which works as a new regional cooperative organization. Being each other's largest neighbors means that Beijing and Moscow share concerns over common security and stability, jointly fighting interference and threats from external powers. 

To Moscow, without China-Russia good-neighborliness and friendly cooperation, it would find it hard to focus on dealing with the worsening security threat from the West or push for its Far East development strategy.

In terms of strategic strength, China and Russia complement each other, enabling one to support the other. China is not only the second largest economy, but its political influence and military power have also increased rapidly. Although Russia is not a superpower anymore, its comprehensive national strength cannot be underestimated; especially in military clout, it is second only to the US. Additionally, Russia excels in diplomacy and strategy. If Beijing and Moscow cooperate with and complement each other, the effect would multiply and benefit the two countries. The Russian and Chinese nations are characterized as combative and enduring respectively. Cooperation enables them to overcome external challenges.

Third, China and Russia hold similar strategic positions and concepts. The two nations are both emerging, non-Western powers, permanent members of the UN Security Council, and countries the US mainly intends to contain. Compared with Western great powers, the strategic objectives and interests of Beijing and Moscow tend to be closer. They both insist on the principle of "non-alignment, non-confrontation, and not targeting a third party," reject rivalry bloc and ideological hegemony. They undertake mutually beneficial cooperation and are concerned about each other's interests. The similarity in their strategic position and concepts boosts strategic cooperation and coordination. 

Furthermore, in the evolution of international relations, when the world is undergoing profound changes unseen in a century, China and Russia have been given new tasks. What US Secretary of Defense James Mattis said, "Russia has more in common with Western Europe and the United States than they have in common with China" is untenable. The prospect of China-Russia ties will be deeper and closer. They are unlikely to form a military alliance as the West predicts, not only because they follow the principle of being a "partnership rather than alliance", but also because there are no necessary conditions for an alliance. An alliance between the two would become the target of the US hegemonic system that may lead to a new confrontation between the two poles, threatening their own security and development.

In the future, China and Russia will deepen their comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination or will be special partners which "see each other as close allies" as Russian President Vladimir Putin said.


The author is executive director of the High-level Think Tank on China-Russia Strategic Coordination. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

Is Bolton Steering Trump Into War with Iran?

by Patrick J. Buchanan Posted on January 15, 2019

https://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2019/01/14/is-bolton-steering-trump-into-war-with-iran/

"Stop the ENDLESS WARS!" implored President Donald Trump in a Sunday night tweet.

Well, if he is serious, Trump had best keep an eye on his national security adviser, for a U.S. war on Iran would be a dream come true for John Bolton.

Last September, when Shiite militants launched three mortar shells into the Green Zone in Baghdad, which exploded harmlessly in a vacant lot, Bolton called a series of emergency meetings and directed the Pentagon to prepare a menu of targets, inside Iran, for U.S. air and missile strikes in retaliation.

The Wall Street Journal quoted one U.S. official as saying Bolton’s behavior "rattled people. … People were shocked. It was mind-boggling how cavalier they were about hitting Iran."

Bolton’s former deputy, Mira Ricardel, reportedly told a gathering the shelling into the Green Zone was "an act of war" to which the U.S. must respond decisively.

Bolton has long believed a U.S. confrontation with Iran is both inevitable and desirable. In 2015, he authored a New York Times op-ed whose title, "To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran," said it all. He has urged that "regime change" in Iran be made a declared goal of U.S. foreign policy.

When Trump announced his decision to withdraw the 2,000 U.S. troops now in Syria, Bolton swiftly imposed conditions: ISIS must first be eliminated, Iranian forces and allied militias must leave, and the Kurds must be protected.

Yet enforcing such red lines would require a permanent presence of American troops. For how, without war, would we affect the removal of Bashar Assad’s Iranian allies, if he declines to expel them and the Iranians refuse to go?

Bolton has an ally in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. In Cairo last week, Pompeo declared it U.S. policy "to expel every last Iranian boot" from Syria.

And though Hezbollah has been a "major presence" in Lebanon for several decades, "we won’t accept this as the status quo," said Pompeo, for Hezbollah is a "wholly owned subsidiary of the Iranian regime."

But how does the secretary of state propose to push Hezbollah out of Lebanon peacefully when the Israelis could not do it in a month-long war in 2006?

Pompeo’s purpose during his tour of the Middle East? Build a new Middle East Strategic Alliance, a MESA, an Arab NATO, whose members are to be Egypt, Jordan and the nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

There are other signs a confrontation is coming soon. The U.S. has objected to Iran’s pending launch of two space satellites, saying these look like tests of missiles designed to deliver nuclear warheads. Yet Iran has never produced weapons-grade uranium or plutonium and never tested an ICBM.

Pompeo has also called for a conclave in Poland in February to bring together an anti-Iran alliance to discuss what is to be done about what he calls "our common enemy."

Over the weekend, Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu boasted of Israel’s latest strike in Syria: "Just in the last 36 hours, the air force attacked Iranian warehouses with Iranian weapons at the international airport in Damascus. The accumulation of recent attacks proves that we are determined more than ever  take action against Iran in Syria, just as we promised."

Israel brags that it has hit 200 targets inside Syria in recent years. The boasting may be connected to Bibi’s desire to strengthen his credentials as a security hawk for the coming Israeli election. But it is also a provocation to the Iranians and Syrians to retaliate, which could ignite a wider war between Israel and Syrian and Iranian forces.

What does the U.S. think of the Israeli strikes? Said Pompeo: "We strongly support Israel’s efforts to stop Iran from turning Syria into the next Lebanon."

In short, forces are moving in this country and in Israel to bring about a U.S. confrontation with Iran – before our troops leave Syria.

But the real questions here are not about Bolton or Pompeo.

They are about Trump. Was he aware of Bolton’s request for a menu of targets in Iran for potential U.S. strikes? Did he authorize it? Has he authorized his national security adviser and secretary of state to engage in these hostile actions and bellicose rhetoric aimed at Iran? And if so, why?

While Trump has urged that the U.S. pull out of these Mideast wars, Pompeo has corrected him, "When America retreats, chaos often follows."

Is Trump looking for a showdown with Iran, which could result in a war that might vault his approval rating, but be a disaster for the Middle East and world economy and do for him what Operation Iraqi Freedom did for George W. Bush?

One thing may confidently be said of the rhetoric and actions of Bolton and Pompeo: This is not what brought out the new populists who made Donald Trump president, the people who still share his desire to "stop the endless wars."

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.

LOS NEOCONSERVADORES Y NETANYAHU A PUNTO DE CONVENCER A TRUMP DE ATACAR A IRÁN

La contundente derrota que Bashar el Assad, Putin, Irán, Irak y Hezbollah propinaron a las petromonarquías del Golfo (Arabia Saudita, Emiratos Arabes Unidos, Bahréin y Qatar)[1], Israel, los neoconservadores, el complejo militar-industrial-de seguridad, Gran Bretaña, Francia, Egipto, Jordania y hasta Turquía, han dejado histéricos, fuera de sí, a la mayoría de estos actores; que ya se frotaban las manos con la balcanización de Siria, el reparto de su territorio y de sus recursos naturales; y por supuesto, la muerte del presidente sirio.

La dispersión y/o destrucción de la mayoría de los grupos terroristas y mercenarios apoyados por estos países, que fueron desmantelados o debilitados por la coalición siria-rusa-iraní-iraquí-palestina, apoyada en algunas regiones del Este y Norte de Turquía por los kurdos, generó una nueva realidad geopolítica en el Medio Oriente[2].

El slogan “Assad debe irse”, ya quedó superado. Por ello, especialmente los neoconservadores que manejan como títere a Trump (Pompeo y Bolton principalmente; apoyados por los senadores Graham, Rubio, Schumer, Cardin, entre otros), junto con el titiritero mayor, Benjamín Netanyahu, decidieron que no iban a retirarse derrotados e impulsaron una estrategia de involucramiento directo de las fuerzas armadas estadounidenses, francesas y británicas, para seguir hostilizando al régimen de Bashar el Assad, a las milicias iraníes y a Hezbollah. Por su parte, Israel ha mantenido sus bombardeos a instalaciones militares sirias y a posiciones iraníes dentro de territorio sirio[3].

Así, el objetivo es no permitir una victoria completa de Siria y sus aliados; mantener en el caos y la guerra permanente al régimen de Assad; y empantanados en esta región a Rusia e Irán.

Pero Trump ya se está hartando de esta “estrategia” que no tiene fin, y por ello, sin consultar con sus “amos”, decidió informar el retiro del simbólico contingente de 2000 soldados que Estados Unidos mantiene en Siria, y que cumple la función de “disuasor” contra los contingentes iraquíes y las milicias iraníes, evitando que establezcan un puente permanente entre Irak y Siria para conectarse con el ejército de Assad. Esto es, lo que buscan es bloquear lo que los estrategas israelíes han definido como “la creciente chií”[4].

No es que tan pequeño contingente militar constituya un factor determinante, sino que está siendo utilizado como “paraguas” de protección para evitar que la coalición ganadora ocupe la mayor parte del territorio sirio, pues cada vez que sirios o rusos han querido rodear la base el Al Tannf[5], en donde se encuentra la mayor parte de las tropas estadounidenses, estas atacan o amagan con atacar a quien lo intente.

Asimismo, neoconservadores e israelíes no quieren que los kurdos queden a merced de un ataque turco, ya avisado por el presidente Erdogan, en vista de que han sido los aliados preferidos de Israel y de Estados Unidos en su lucha contra el gobierno de Assad; y, de hecho, es el único ejército que les queda en el terreno para mantener presión sobre el gobierno sirio.

Pero resulta que tanto Putin como Assad[6], están ofreciendo una alianza a los kurdos para que, a cambio de que no exijan la independencia respecto a Siria, se les ofrezca una región autónoma, que estaría protegida por sirios y rusos, contra cualquier ataque turco; obviamente ello alejaría a los kurdos de sus tradicionales aliados estadounidenses e israelíes; y con ello, uno de los objetivos para mantener a las tropas americanas ahí, es decir la supuesta “protección” a sus aliados kurdos, se desvanecería.

Todo este escenario tan complejo para los neoconservadores y para Netanyahu los ha llevado a conformar un escenario en el que obliguen a Trump a actuar, una vez más, en favor de su estrategia de caos y balcanización del Medio Oriente.

Ahora, desde el Deep State estadounidense (el FBI) y los medios controlados por estos actores (Washington Post, New York Times y Wall Street Journal), se ha lanzado una campaña para acusar a Trump, nuevamente, de aliarse con Putin, a raíz de que no dio a conocer “plenamente” el contenido de su conversación privada con el líder ruso en Helsinki; y que hay en curso una investigación de “contrainteligencia” sobre Trump, en el FBI, por sus supuestos vínculos con Rusia.

Poco antes de ello, Pompeo y Bolton fueron a Israel a afinar la estrategia y recibir instrucciones de Netanyahu para acorralar a Trump con dos objetivos; primero, tratar de revertir la decisión de retirar las tropas de Siria, lo que en principio ya consiguieron, pues lo “convencieron” de que la retirada se alargue por 4 meses; y segundo, iniciar toda una campaña contra Irán (con la próxima reunión anti-iraní a realizarse en Varsovia, Polonia)[7], con objeto de obligar a Trump a iniciar ataques contra este país, sin que exista ninguna razón válida. La que ha esgrimido Pompeo es para obligar a Teherán a “comportarse”, es decir a inclinarse ante el imperio estadounidense y su amo Netanyahu.

La presión para Trump con la investigación del FBI y las acusaciones sobre su reunión con Putin llevan la intención de “ablandarlo”, con objeto de que acepte mantener las tropas en Siria indefinidamente; y sobre todo, de que ordene ataques contra Irán.

A cambio, los neoconservadores y Netanyahu “le bajarán” el volumen a las acusaciones de colusión con Rusia, y dependiendo del nivel de compromiso de Trump con la destrucción de Irán, bien podrían desaparecer por completo la investigación de Robert Mueller y del FBI.

En resumidas cuentas, Trump está, como siempre lo ha estado, atrapado en la red de los neoconservadores, que reciben sus directrices de Netanyahu quien sigue dictando a placer la política estadounidense en el Medio Oriente.

Se avecina una etapa de gran riesgo ante la posibilidad de que estos psicópatas inicien una guerra contra Irán, con todas las graves consecuencias que ello tendrá en el mundo.

---

[1] Por más que ahora Qatar sea visto como un enemigo por parte de Riad.

[2] https://thesaker.is/why-israels-airstrikes-in-syria-are-a-sign-of-weakness-not-strength/

[3] https://www.timesofisrael.com/outgoing-idf-chief-israel-struck-thousands-of-iranian-targets-in-syria/

[4] https://www.iemed.org/observatori/arees-danalisi/arxius-adjunts/afkar/afkar-46/afkar46_existe_chii_burdy.pdf

[5] https://www.crisisgroup.org/trigger-list/iran-us-trigger-list/flashpoints/al-tanf-syria

[6] https://www.yahoo.com/news/damascus-seeks-intensified-talks-kurds-official-140902983.html

[7] https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iran-usa-summit-poland/iran-protests-to-poland-over-iran-focused-summit-idUKKCN1P705U

Sobre la Guardia Nacional

Carlos Fazio

https://www.jornada.com.mx/2019/01/14/opinion/017a1pol

Desde que era presidente electo, Andrés Manuel López Obrador ha venido utilizando un lenguaje críptico para referirse a las fuerzas armadas. Críptico, no en el sentido de algo oscuro, secreto o camuflado, sino referido a algo a plena vista, pero que es de difícil comprensión porque no ha sido expresado en forma clara y nítida y argumentado con base en datos duros. Hay algo en el discurso presidencial sobre las fuerzas armadas −y su participación ahora en una Guardia Nacional bajo mando civil pero que conservará su perfil castrense−, que impele a creerle pero sin dar razones para ello; algo así como un dogma de fe.

Lo anterior podría originarse en las malas relaciones del candidato López Obrador con los antiguos mandos de las fuerzas armadas, y con el incontrastable poder metaconstitucional y las prerrogativas que éstos habían venido adquiriendo durante las gestiones de Ernesto Zedillo, Vicente Fox, Felipe Calderón y Enrique Peña (incluido su activismo político deliberante y la no rendición de cuentas), en el marco de una militarización necropolítica (A. Mbembe) de la seguridad pública, que derivó en una catástrofe humanitaria salpicada de crímenes de lesa humanidad (casos Aguas Blancas, Acteal, El Charco, niños Almanza, Tec de Monterrey, Tlatlaya, Iguala, Tanhuato, etcétera).

AMLO ha dicho que pretende reconvertir una institución represora en un Ejército de paz, pero el progresivo desmantelamiento de las estructuras facciosas de ese poder fáctico, vinculado además de manera estrecha y subordinada a la doctrina de contrainsurgencia y las directrices de las fuerzas armadas de Estados Unidos, requerirá, en la transición, de tacto, tiempo y estrategia.

El pregonado cambio de paradigma contenido en el Plan Nacional de Paz y Seguridad sigue teniendo como pilar de la estrategia a las fuerzas militares; de allí que sea difícil de entender. Dos medidas que apuntan hacia un cambio posible en el Ejército, fueron la disolución del anacrónico Estado Mayor Presidencial y la designación del nuevo secretario de Defensa, general Luis Crescencio Sandoval, rompiendo con la estructura sucesoria diseñada por el mando saliente, general Salvador Cienfuegos.

No obstante, el nombramiento de Sandoval podría haber significado un mensaje de acercamiento a la administración Trump, ligado incluso con la presencia en México, la víspera de la toma de esa decisión, del general Joseph Dunford, presidente de la Junta de Jefes de Estado Mayor del Pentágono. Sandoval −quien según versiones periodísticas no desmentidas carga con la responsabilidad, al menos por omisión, en sendas matanzas de Los Zetas en Piedras Negras y Allende, Coahuila, en 2011 y 2012, cuando el militar era el encargado de la seguridad del Centro de Readaptación Social (Cereso) de Piedras Negras, usado por el grupo criminal como centro de exterminio− cuenta con varios cursos de formación en escuelas del Pentágono, incluidos los de defensa continental; inteligencia y comando, y medios de comunicación en el Colegio Interamericano de Defensa, en Washington.

Entre las argumentaciones iniciales para poner a la Guardia Nacional bajo el mando de la Secretaría de Defensa −y tras señalar que las fuerzas armadas, en particular la Marina, llevaban a cabo operativos que ni siquiera se decidían en nuestro país porque [Felipe] Calderón lo permitió y el otro [Peña Nieto] lo mismo [ver El país saldrá adelante con la obra de la Revolución Mexicana, La Jornada,30/11/18]−, el actual Presidente dijo haber ponderado el profesionalismo, la disciplina, la doctrina nacionalista y el carácter popular(no hay altos mandos vinculados a la oligarquía) del Ejército. Afirmación cuestionable, por lo menos en cuanto al nacionalismo, porque desde 1995, cuando el entonces secretario de Defensa estadunidense, William Perry, abogó en el Campo Militar número 1 por el tercer vínculo (el militar) entre ambos países, la Sedena adoptó la nueva “doctrina democrática liberal […] de estabilidad nacional”, recetada a los ejércitos del área por el Pentágono, que de la mano de una acelerada militarización de la seguridad pública, perseguía concretar otro viejo anhelo de Washington: la creación (en México y otros países) de una gendarmería o guardia nacional, como vía para desgastar y/o apartar a las instituciones armadas de sus responsabilidades constitucionales: la defensa del territorio y la soberanía nacional.

Dada la asimetría de la relación militar bilateral con EU, de Zedillo a Calderón, con la imposición de la Iniciativa Mérida en 2007, se acentuaría la dependencia de las fuerzas armadas mexicanas al Pentágono, asomando más nítidamente el carácter represor del Ejército y la Marina, con los resultados conocidos. Al respecto, en su entrevista con La Jornada, por todo comentario López Obrador dijo: Queremos cooperación para el desarrollo, no cooperación militar.

Cabe consignar que no es totalmente cierta la afirmación del secretario de Seguridad Pública, Alfonso Durazo, de que el Ejército no tiene responsabilidad en la estrategia de Calderón, porque el plan general de acciones contundentes contra el enemigo (la delincuencia organizada) fue concebido por la plana mayor de la Sedena, con el general Guillermo Galván a la cabeza, y quedó plasmado en la Directiva para el combate integral al narcotráfico 2007-12. El plan incluyó el aniquilamiento de presuntos criminales.