Warhawks Leaderless?

Warhawks Leaderless without McCain

Could the death of warhawk-in-chief and lead coverup artist Senator John McCain usher in a new era of peace?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“McCain’s Death Leaves Void” ran The Wall Street Journal headline over a front-page story that began: “The death of John McCain will leave Congress without perhaps its loudest voice in support of the robust internationalism that has defined the country’s security relations since World War II.”

Certainly, the passing of the senator whose life story will dominate the news until he is buried at his alma mater, the Naval Academy, on Sunday [Sept. 2], leaves America’s interventionists without their greatest champion.

No one around has the prestige or media following of McCain.

And the cause he championed—compulsive intervention in foreign quarrels to face down dictators and bring democrats to power—appears to be a cause whose time has passed.

Neoconservative Threat, Paul Craig Roberts
Washington’s Perilous War for Hegemony – at the AFP Store.

When 9/11 occurred, America was united in crushing the al Qaeda terrorists who perpetrated the atrocities. McCain then backed President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, which had no role in the attacks.

During Barack Obama’s presidency, he slipped into northern Syria to cheer rebels who had arisen to overthrow President Bashar Assad, an insurgency that led to a seven-year civil war and one of the great humanitarian disasters of our time.

McCain supported the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe and the Baltic, right up to Russia’s border. When Georgia invaded South Ossetia in 2008, and was expelled by the Russian army, McCain roared, “We are all Georgians now!”

He urged intervention. But Bush, his approval rating scraping bottom, had had enough of the neocon crusades for democracy.

McCain’s contempt for Russian President Vladimir Putin was unconstrained. When crowds gathered in Maidan Square in Kiev to overthrow an elected pro-Russian president, McCain was there, cheering them on.

He supported sending arms to the Ukrainian army to fight pro-Russian rebels in the Donbass. He backed U.S. support for Saudi intervention in Yemen. And this war, too, proved to be a humanitarian disaster.

McCain was a war hawk, and proud of it. But by 2006, the wars he had championed had cost the Republican Party both houses of Congress.

In 2008, when he was on the ballot, those wars helped cost him the presidency.

By 2016, the Republican majority would turn its back on McCain and his protege, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and nominate Donald Trump, who said he would seek to get along with Russia and extricate America from the wars into which McCain had helped plunge the country.

Yet, while interventionism now has no great champion and has proven unable to rally an American majority, it retains a residual momentum. This compulsion is pushing us to continue backing the Saudi war in Yemen and to seek regime change in Iran.

Yet if either of these enterprises holds any prospect of bringing about a more peaceful and prosperous Middle East, no one has made the case.

While the foreign policy that won the Cold War, containment, was articulated by George Kennan and pursued by presidents from Truman to Bush I, no grand strategy for the post-Cold War era has ever been embraced by a majority of Americans.

Bush I’s “New World Order” was rejected by Ross Perot’s economic patriots and Bill Clinton’s baby boomers who wanted to spend America’s peace dividend from our Cold War victory on America’s homefront.

As for the Bush II crusades for democracy “to end tyranny in our world,” the fruits of that Wilsonian idealism turned into ashes in our mouths.

But if the foreign policy agendas of Bush I and Bush II, along with McCain’s interventionism, have been tried and found wanting, what is America’s grand strategy?

What are the great goals of U.S. foreign policy? What are the vital interests for which almost all Americans believe we should fight?

“Take away this pudding; it has no theme,” said Churchill. “Britain has lost an empire, but not yet found a role,” was the crushing comment of Dean Acheson in 1962.

Both statements appear to apply to U.S. foreign policy in 2018.

We are bombing and fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen, partly McCain’s legacy. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has sent a virtual ultimatum to Iran. We have told North Korea, a nuclear power with the world’s fourth-largest army, either to denuclearize or the U.S. may use its military might to get the job done.

Lewis Foundation Legal Notice

We are challenging Beijing in its claimed territorial waters of the South China Sea. From South Korea to Estonia, we are committed by solemn treaty to go to war if any one of dozens of nations is attacked.

Now one hears talk of an “Arab NATO” to confront the ayatollah’s Iran and its Shiite allies. Lest we forget, ISIS and al Qaeda are Sunni.

With all these war guarantees, the odds are excellent that one day we are going to be dragged into yet another war that the American people will sour upon soon after it begins.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? and Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, all available from the AFP Online Store.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM
image_print

3 Comments on Warhawks Leaderless?

  1. “When 9/11 occurred, America was united in crushing the al Qaeda terrorists who perpetrated the atrocities. McCain then backed President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, which had no role in the attacks.”

    The 9-11 attacks were carried out by the Israeli MOSSAD, Patrick.

    September 11, 2001 was a false flag attack designed for the express purpose of dragging the US into endless wars in the Middle East, not so coincidentally, waged against every nation that Israel hates and wants to shed American blood and waste American tax payer’s money to destroy, while the Israelis sit in the bleachers, munching kosher certified popcorn and sipping Mogan David wine from their golden goblets and laughing hysterically over how easy it is to snooker the dumb USA population into fighting their wars for them.

    And, by the way, Patrick. I was an original subscriber to your American Conservative magazine and I remember the article titled ‘Whose War’? that appeared in one of the earliest issues. That article detailed the whole Project for a New American Century, discussed the “Clean Break” whitepaper, and the “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” document and listed the names and histories of the mostly, but not entirely jewish neocons and what these evil SOBs were up to with their scheming to drag the USA into 100 years worth of wars that the Israelis wanted to snooker us into fighting against all of their enemies. So, why are you now parroting the same LIES and phony accusations about who the real perpetrators of 9-11 were that those lying neocons were regurgitating – when it is pretty obvious that you and your American Conservative magazine buddies knew full well who were the #1 schemers behind 9-11 and what the ‘New Pearl Harbor’ event that they all said they needed in order to kick off their PNAC agenda?

    Qui Bono, Patty girl. Who benefits from snookering the USA into fighting endless wars against every nation that Israel hates?

  2. Too many Americans are too quite about the lives of our own dying on foreign soil to defend the Banksters and war machine investors . We are looking at almost 2 decades in Afghanistan and more over the entire region for access to the regions natural resources . The grand vision of an America that should by now be as near a Utopia as any could get has decided to stay stuck in the deep bomb craters created by our own ..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


css.php