dagblog - Comments for " Neocon Kagan Endorses Hillary Clinton"

"Is it possible you see more

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:39:15 +0000

In reply to I think this is a reasonably

"Is it possible you see more separation than exists?" - how about is it possible you see no separation where there are huge differences. Clinton was a junior Senator in the opposition in 2002 while George W Bush was a very popular President with the Republicans holding majorities in House or Senate (at least by Nov 2002). The discussion in September 2002 was requiring inspections out of Hussein or we go to war, and from prior experience Hussein would not budge unless there was some credible threat. Clinton was not given a serious alternative to "inspections + war authorization", and it was going to easily pass with or without her or any other Democrat. She did not support war so much as pushing inspections, since our intelligence was seriously out-of-date by late 2002 and after 9/11 having a possibly armed Hussein in the midst of the region making threats & potentially linking up with some terrorist faction was an unspecified risk we no longer felt comfortable accepting.

Re: LIbya, as the NY Times noted, it was France's baby largely, and during the Arab Spring uprisings in various countries there was concern about protecting both protesters and innocent civilians. This has been a concern from Tiananmen & the Velvet Revolution to independence protests in the Baltic states (Gorbachev noting he'd been rather restrained compared to the Chinese), the protests in Serbia, on through peaceful uprisings in Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Bahrain, Iran, Syria and Libya - only the latter two having an armed rebel component - and Georgia's Rose revolution and Ukraine's earlier Orange Revolution and the more recent Maidan. The human casualties in Benghazi were exaggerated, but as the TImes article noted, our human intelligence was poor and Qaddafi - largely a US ally after 9/11 - didn't help his case by saying he was going to go door to door to wipe out the protestors.

Unlike with the no-flight zones in Iraq, the no-flight zones in Syria and LIbya allow protesters to mix with air strikes, roughly turning the foreign NATO control of the air into an armed contingent of the rebel movements below. It is not clear how much air "protection" or "offense" to provide, much as the Russians used their "no-flight" status to attack Syrian rebels rather than just try to keep the peace.

Kagan is an entirely different matter and hard to reconcile with most of Hillary's efforts in foreign affairs. Hillary in Libya failed in protecting a popular protester-led revolt (one that also grew out of the ethnic split between east and west Libya), not even particularly trying to promote the rebels among, even though the article noted she vetted the opposition to see if they were able to promote a liberaly democracy afterwards (with an over-optimistic "yes" as the answer). At the time, I wanted the EU to step forward with a well-defined observer /aspirant/2nd sphere definition for newly democratic Muslim states, but as usual - ref. "Fuck the EU" - they were way too slow in mobilizing any critical emergency response to building democratic structures for quick adoption, only successfully cooperating on the military side primarily through France & Italy.

The question "what do you do if there's a largely peaceful uprising and the dictator insists on wiping them out" comes up frequently. The answer is not simple and it's not binary and takes into account a lot of considerations. We haven't even begun to take the nuance of foreign policy seriously - it's only "they voted one way once at least, so they're the antiChrist". Simply unhelpful.

I think this is a reasonably

HSG — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:34:54 +0000

In reply to There are many liberals and

I think this is a reasonably fair critique of what I have been writing. I have not embraced nuance. Moreover, the situation is very fraught in the Middle East and we do need to do something. A big reason for the civil war in Syria, though, is the Bush/Cheney war on Iraq which Clinton supported. Another huge problem in the region of course is the Libya intervention which Clinton championed. Yet she has not acknowledged the utter disaster that the regime change strategy has been. It is true that Kagan called for lots of troops on the ground in Syria and Clinton has not done so. Neither however has she argued against such a call and she does claim that more military involvement on the side of the Syrian rebels early on would have resolved the crisis. This makes no sense whatsoever to me. Her call for a "no-fly zone" is also extremely bellicose. You accuse me of failing to see real daylight between Kagan and Clinton. This is not unfair. Is it possible you see more separation than exists?

Yes, I need to unpack that

moat — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 03:15:37 +0000

In reply to Thanks moat for the time

Yes, that second to last paragraph is too sketchy. I will work on that.

Thank you for giving my point of view a hearing. I will keep an eye out for any further comments you put forward regarding the topic(s).

Tactics in place of Strategy; now that is a thing.

Thanks moat for the time

A Guy Called LULU — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 01:49:54 +0000

In reply to I have read a fair amount of

Thanks moat for the time spent and effort expended but to be honest, I am not at all clear on all that you are saying. I expect that I'll come back to this later and also spend some time with your response to Hal which you linked to. I do think that you are on to something when you suggest that strategy has been given up on. Looked at that way I think it is then clear that there are just too damned many tactics being employed.

There are many liberals and

ocean-kat — Sun, 28 Feb 2016 23:44:48 +0000

In reply to Both said action was what was

There are many liberals and democrats who would like a more robust foreign policy. I see Obama's hands off policies as creating problems or at least not solving them. I don't think we can ignore the lack of stability in the region that has lead to the massive and on going refugee crisis in Europe. I don't think we can walk away from these problems and leave them to Europe to solve simply because the refugees can't walk across the Atlantic Ocean to the US.

Your analysis lacks nuance. Your black/white thinking lumps any involvement at all as neocon. There are middle grounds between the neocon Kagan Bush strategy and Obama's mostly hands off policies. I hope Hillary can find that middle ground. It's worrisome to increase our involvement with the risks of too much involvement. Striking some sort of balance is very tricky but something more has to be done.

Does this reference to

moat — Sun, 28 Feb 2016 23:31:14 +0000

In reply to Both said action was what was

Does this reference to Clinton agreeing several months ago to use a small number of special forces vs Kagan's idea to send in 50,000 troops supposed to shore up your misrepresentation of Clinton's remark in the NYT interview that was talking about choices made three years ago?

It is hard to take your positions seriously when you abandon them the moment they no longer serve your purpose or are proved to be simply incorrect.

Hal, we have military

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 28 Feb 2016 23:29:43 +0000

In reply to Both said action was what was

Hal, we have military advisors in every single country in Africa. Which one do you think is in danger of getting "murky"? We have military advisors in Ukraine - there's not a chance we're going to do any fighting in the field. And how is a no-boots-on-the-ground no-fly zone the same as having Kagan's 50,000 troops policing some kind of safe haven? We had a no-fly zone over Iraq for 10 years - worked fine for as far as it went. Aside from the 1998 bombing raid, it was very low contact, low involvement.

And again, you rest behind never ever ever suggesting what you think we should do in precarious humanitarian disasters and military threats, only throwing darts at all your perceived opponents for not being brilliant and doing the wrong thing. Once you start equating everything with everything, ignoring huge obvious differences, it really is useless to prattle on.

Both said action was what was

HSG — Sun, 28 Feb 2016 22:59:19 +0000

In reply to Kagan did and is still

Both said action was what was needed. In 2014, Clinton did not say that she opposed boots on the ground. This past October, she stated she supported the deployment of "special operations" forces "to work with local ground forces in the fight against Islamic State militants." Moreover, the distinction between military advisors and actual troops on the ground is as we all know from our Vietnam history an extremely murky one that tends to become murkier over time. Also Clinton's call for a "no-fly zone" mirrors Kagan's call for a "safe zone". "Big difference?" No difference.

Kagan did and is still

moat — Sun, 28 Feb 2016 21:45:59 +0000

In reply to Per the NYT, Kagan believed

Kagan did and is still calling for U.S. troops on the ground. Clinton was talking about supporting groups fighting Assad.

Big difference.

Per the NYT, Kagan believed

HSG — Sun, 28 Feb 2016 21:32:18 +0000

In reply to The Atlantic interview you

Per the NYT, Kagan believed "action in Syria would have averted the crisis."

Per Hillary Clinton in the Atlantic:

“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton said.

No difference.