In an article published in HuffPo and reprinted in CommonDreams.org, Jefferey Sachs looks at Hillary’s speech to the CFR on ISIS. What he, and probably many others, see is a continuation of our failed policy of regime change spurred on by the “permanent security state” composed of the CIA and the MIC. He starts off with:
Hillary Clinton's speech on ISIS to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) showed clearly what to expect in a Clinton presidency: more of the same. In her speech, Clinton doubled down on the existing, failed U.S. approach in the Middle East, the one she pursued as Secretary of State.
The CIA-led policy in the Middle East works like this. If a regime is deemed to be unfriendly to the U.S., topple it. If a competitor like the Soviet Union or Russia has a foothold in the region, try to push it out. If this means arming violent insurgencies, including Sunni jihadists, and thereby creating mayhem: so be it. And if the result is terrorist blowback around the world by the forces created by the US, then double down on bombing and regime change.
He goes on to describe how US policy has effectively created and armed jihadis like ISIS since the 1980s. And how politicians must appeal to our permanent Security State in order to prevail in elections.
And now we have NATO member Turkey shooting down Russian warplanes. And Clinton wants to impose a no-fly zone. This can’t be to silence the mighty ISIS Air Force. No, apparently we turn our focus again to the wrong enemy, Assad. The same Assad that is backed by the Russians. And what is Assad’s role in “global terrorism?” So, who are we fighting? ISIS? Assad? The Russkies? Furthermore establishing a no-fly zone over Syria is not a snap. They do possess state of the art air defenses provided by the Russians. I had read at one point (I think it was in Jane’s) that it was ranked in the top ten worldwide in this category. Does anyone think that the Russians will take this lying down? Are we ready for a regional proxy WWIII? Will Chelsea enlist and put her boots on the ground?
Of course this is nothing new for the US, and it hasn’t always been Sunni militants. Iran in 1953 when the democratically elected government wanted to nationalize it’s oil. The failed Cuban coup in 1961, which led directly to the Cuban missile crisis. Honduras in 1963 when the interests of the United Fruit company were perceived to be threatened by a democratically elected government. Chile in 1973 when commie-fearing Nixon and his CIA supported the coup led by the brutal Pinochet, after which tens of thousands of dissenters simply vanished. Friedman and the Chicago School then swooped in to comfort the wealthy.
Regime change historically has led to blowback. Maybe not in time for the next US election, but eventually. The policy must end.