Today: Saturday, 18 May 2024 year

Hillary Clinton keeps the same attitude towards the ISIS crisis

In her speech in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Hillary Clinton maintained her approach on the ISIS problem, suggesting the same strategies that lead to a failed U.S mission in the Middle East, says The Huffington Post.

Having the same position regarding the Middle East problem as she did when she was Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton gave a preview on how would will be if she wins the presidential race. And, according to the same source, the connection between her view on the ISIS crisis and the CIA policy will be tighter than ever.

No non-friends in our way

The CIA’s strategy seems pretty simple: if a regime is deemed to be unfriendly to the U.S, get it out of the way. If a competitor like the Soviet Union or Russia has a foothold in the region, try to push it out. Unfortunately, that meant almost always arming violent insurgencies, a strategy that backfired, as we’ve seen already. But let’s not judge Hillary Clinton too harsh. Maybe when she’ll be at the White House. she’ll have a change of heart. In the end, she wouldn’t be the first President to stand up to the military-intelligence agencies.

The Huffington Post says that JF Kennedy came to realize the awful truth that his own military and CIA advisers had contributed to the burst of the Cuban Missile Crisis. And like a man that had nothing to gain from the situation, he was guided by the motto “make love, not war”, as JFK pursued peace, both during and after the Cuban Missile Crisis. That meant saving the world from nuclear annihilation and halting the unchecked proliferation of nuclear arms.

In contrast to JFK’s attitude, Hillary Clinton’s plan towards Middle East conflict is strictly connected with the CIA’s point of view.  Her speech in the Council on Foreign Relations included an impressive number of tactical elements: who should do the bombing and who should be the foot soldiers.

Diplomacy isn’t profitable

Why isn’t Hillary Clinton promoting global diplomacy? Well, because nobody has anything to gain from it, financial speaking, claims the same source. Today’s Middle East terrorism, wars, and refugee crises have been stoked by misguided CIA-led interventions. That’s why we now have wars and violence raging across a 5,000-mile stretch from Bamako, Mali to Kabul, Afghanistan. Libya, Sudan, the Sinai, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan are all cases where the US has directly intervened with very adverse results. Mali, Chad, Central African Republic, Somalia are just collateral damages caught up in U.S’ covert and overt operations.

Hillary Clinton’s Democratic rivals, Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders, are pushing towards a country that works with other nations and with the UN Security Council to build peace in the Middle East, not war. They say that only through compromise can America defeat ISIS and find solutions in the Middle East. Until now, Hillary Clinton has disagreed with them two, but with the upcoming elections approaching, will we see a change of heart from the former Secretary of State?