Hillary Clinton says she’s a feminist, and claimed, astonishingly, while promoting her book “Hard Choices” last year:
“Women and girls … [are] central to our foreign policy,” saying that countries that value the rights of women are “less likely to breed extremism.”
However this statement is completely at odds with her actions as Secretary of State, such as with Libya – of which it has been said was her own project rather than Obama’s – where she put her own vile agenda ahead of the rights of women in Libya, which were light-years ahead of most other Middle Eastern countries. Since the death of Gaddafi, the rights of Libyan women have been rolled back by decades, with them now having to leave the house covering their heads, if not also their faces. It should be noted that the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) – Abdelhakim Belhadj – whose group was backed by NATO air strikes and who afterwards had his photograph taken with leading Washington warmongers John McCain and Lindsey Graham, is now said to be leading ISIS in Libya.
Clinton was also central to the “Friends of Syria” group, an ironic name if ever there was one, which advocates for the violent overthrow of the country’s President Bashar al-Assad. Syria is also one of the few countries in the Middle East where women are treated as human beings. In November, Al Arabiya reported that nightlife has returned to the besieged ancient city of Aleppo. In the government-held half citizens dance the night away underneath the lasers, even on weeknights…whilst in the rebel-held half of the city, cafes and restaurants are divided into men only and family sections, and women do not leave the house without their husbands.
On the Israeli-Palestinian issue she has staunchly defended Israel’s massacres in Gaza, and has said that if she were the Israeli Prime Minister, she would not give up “security” in the West Bank, suggesting that she does not support a two-state solution.
Therefore, Hillary proclaiming herself a feminist, and her claim that women’s rights are important to the Obama administration’s foreign policy is crude and absurd. As Kelley Vlahos wrote in The American Conservative last year:
Hillary Clinton just may prove to be what the defense establishment has been waiting for, and more. Superior to all in money, name recognition, and influence, she is poised to compete aggressively for the Democratic nomination for president. She might just win the Oval Office. And by most measures she would be the most formidable hawk this country has seen in a generation.
“It is clear that she is behind the use of force in anything that has gone on in this cabinet. She is a Democratic hawk and that is her track record. That’s the flag she’s planted,” said Gordon Adams, a national security budget expert who was an associate director in President Bill Clinton’s Office of Management and Budget.
Karen Kwiatkowski, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who has spent her post-service days protesting the war policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, is more blunt. “Interventionism is a business and it has a constituency and she is tapping into it,” she tells TAC. “She is for the military industrial complex, and she is for the neoconservatives.”
Clinton in a state of ecstasy when asked about the brutal death of Gaddafi:
Hillary Clinton Wants You to Call Her a Feminist
Washington’s Al Qaeda Ally Now Leading ISIS in Libya
The Military-Industrial Candidate
Sliver of Aleppo’s once thriving nightlife returns
In his book Petrodollar Warfare, William R. Clark discusses the influence of nineteenth century Jewish philosopher Leo Strauss on neoconservative thinking. Strauss stated that societies were divided into three types of people:
There are indeed three types of men: the wise, the gentlemen, and the vulgar. The wise are the lovers of the harsh, unadulterated truth. They are capable of looking into the abyss without fear and trembling. They recognise neither God nor moral imperatives. They are devoted above all to their own pursuit of the “higher” pleasures.
The second type, the gentlemen, are lovers of honour and glory. They are the most ingratiating towards the conventions of their society – that is, the illusions of the cave. They are true believers in God, honour, and moral imperatives. They are ready and willing to embark on acts of great courage and self-sacrifice at a moment’s notice.
The third type, the vulgar many, are lovers of wealth and pleasure. They are selfish, slothful, and indolent. They can be inspired to rise above their brutish existence only by fear of impending death or catastrophe.
(Strauss quoted in Clark, pp. 100-101)
Strauss claims that only those who realise that there is no such thing as morality – only the right of the superior to rule over the inferior – are fit to govern. However, he also stressed that religion is an essential tool for imposing moral law on the masses, but the wise should not be bound to religion themselves. Which religion is of little consequence. Clark writes that Straussian theory was highly influential on those in the Bush Administration in 2001, and this was apparent in the web of lies concocted in order to wage war on Iraq in 2003. He says:
While the elite are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not be exposed to the truth or they would fall into nihilism or anarchy. His ideology of governing via secrecy, deception, and the imperative of a broad external threat to “inspire the vulgar many” provides a tragic parallel to the neoconservative strategy regarding Iraq.
(Clark, p. 101)
Ex-Deputy Secretary of Defense and prime architect of the Bush Doctrine, Paul Wolfowitz studied under Strauss’ tutorship as a graduate student, and his philosophy is also evident when looking at the careers of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld etc.
Strauss’ principles and their influence on Washington policy-makers are worth bearing in mind when thinking about America’s foreign policy in the Middle East today, specifically its readiness to topple secular governments. Despite Barack Obama being a Democrat president, his administration’s abroad policies continue to toe the neo-con line.
When Bush and Blair invaded and destroyed Iraq, the war was sold to the public as a preventative measure to eliminate Saddam Hussein’s (non-existent) stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, because of the dictator’s (non-existent) ties to al-Qaeda, and – perhaps most insulting of all – to liberate the Iraqi people. When Obama assumed the presidency in 2008, he promised to be the kind of leader to end wars rather than start them, and to seek solutions based on diplomacy and soft power rather than military might. However, while the current administration maintains this friendly facade, it has in reality gone further than ever before to establish American hegemony, covertly using religion as a tool to achieve this.
The toppling of Saddam Hussein converted Iraq from a secular state into a hornet’s nest of sectarian strife and a breeding ground for militant Islam. While this is often considered to be an unintended consequence of the war, in reality this was the desired outcome for the American elite. A unified, secular country may lead to aspirations which do not conform with US interests (meaning those of Wall Street and the energy sector); religious fanaticism is preferable to nationalism.
This reasoning explains why NATO had to intervene in Libya, in the guise of a ‘humanitarian intervention’. Libya’s secular leader Muammar Gaddafi had transformed the once colonised country into the pearl of Africa, and not long before his death had discussed proposals to create an African gold Dinar currency. Today Libya is a failed state, and its gold reserves have been plundered. Contrary to the western media’s narrative of country-wide protests by the Libyan people that were violently repressed by the Gaddafi regime, such atrocities were in reality committed by violent jihadists in order to sow chaos. Battle-hardened fighters whom had killed American and British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan were now receiving NATO air cover in order to overthrow the country’s leadership. Three years later, Libya has two parliaments rivaling for power, and Islamist militias refuse to disarm.
After the ‘successful’ removal of Gadaffi, weapons and al-Qaeda aligned fighters began flowing from Benghazi to Syria, all with the backing of the CIA – in order to destroy the last remaining secular country in the Middle East. As Strauss dictates, the American (and British) public are deceived into believing that our government’s intentions are altruistic. Thus our now open (where it had previously been covert) funding and arming of “moderate” Islamists the Free Syrian Army is portrayed as a move to bring western-style democracy to the Syrian people, rather than continuing to prolong their suffering and fanning the flames of Sunni/Shia sectarianism. Once this operation has been completed, Washington will be well and truly on their Path to Persia. Despite Iran being an Islamic Republic, it remains ambitious, and – compared to say, its regional rival Saudi Arabia – is much more secular in nature; the majority of citizens see themselves as Iranians first, and Muslim second.
Syria and Iran are two of the world’s remaining nations to have a state-run banking system and gold reserves which fall outside of the global private central banking syndicate; once the removal of their current anti-imperial/anti-Western regimes are removed, the long-term geopolitical goals of America’s neo-cons will be almost complete. By maintaining its covert support for violent jihadism and religious fundamentalism in the Middle East, the US ensures that the vulgar many continue to fight among themselves rather than the corporate interests plundering their wealth and resources, and most importantly of all: prevent the Arab states from uniting and turning their attention to the Zionist occupiers – a simple strategy of divide and conquer.
Project for the New American Century
Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?”