kelley hearts michele flournoy

Clinton’s Syria War Plans
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, AmConMag, Aug 16 2016


In a seemingly full-throated promise to voters in Scranton, Pa. on Monday, Hillary Clinton said adding “Pindostani ground troops” in the war against ISIS in Syria “is off the table.” But every message coming from her surrogates in the media and in the Washington defense establishment has been that she will “lean in” harder in Syria, and whether you want to call it “added ground troops” or something else, everyone in her orbit is calling for expanded Pindo intervention including personnel and firepower in the region, even at the risk of confrontation with Russia. For weeks, a parade of high-stepping national-security officials, some barely out of government service, have been rattling their sabers passionately for a Hillary Clinton presidency. From Michael Vickers, a former intelligence official most celebrated for his promotion of hunt-to-kill operations in the War on Terror, to (Ret.) Gen. John Allen and ex-CIA Chief Mike Morrell, there is a growing backbench of Washington establishment macho men, and women, who testify to Clinton’s “run it up the gut” security chops, and more than one has noted her well-publicized break with Obama on Syria. She, of course, having been more hawkish than the other from the start. Her advisors say Syria will take top priority in her first days in office, and, in addition to ISIS, Assad must go. So it is important to examine what a real Clinton Syria policy might look like despite her rhetoric on the campaign trail. There are three things to look at:

  1. What Clinton’s shadow national-security team, specifically her likely defense secretary, Michele Flournoy, and the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), which was founded in anticipation of Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, have said on the subject.
  2. What Clinton’s campaign and foreign-policy surrogates are saying.
  3. The neoconservative refugees from the Republican Party who have thrown their influence behind Clinton.

Flournoy is no stranger to the national-security establishment. Harvard-educated, she went from the ivory tower to Bill Clinton’s first-term administration, where she served in strategic-policy roles in the Pentagon. During the Bush 43 administration, she toiled in the National Defense University as an instructor and entered the think tank world before launching CNAS with Kurt Cambpell. With CNAS, she hoped to advance Clinton’s candidacy around the idea that the flagging war in Afghanistan could be turned around with the same counter-insurgency (COIN) policies that Petraeus had “successfully” executed in Iraq. When Obama won the Democrat nomination instead, the think tank deftly adjusted. Flournoy and Campbell eventually scooped up key posts in the Pentagon and State Dept. She was the third-highest-ranking civilian in the Pentagon before leaving service in 2012. COIN withered on the vine as Afghanistan became a greater quagmire. Flournoy took herself out of the running to replace retiring Sec Def Hagel in 2014. Speculation abounds, but most believe she was keeping her powder dry for Clinton. Flournoy now wears many hats, and one of them is as a national-security advisor to Clinton. And whatever she may have said to the contrary, the CNAS reports she helps to cultivate specifically advocate additional Pindostani personnel in the region for combat purposes, in addition to new airstrikes and direct conflict with Assad forces as well as ISIS. To be exact:

Military commanders on the ground should be authorized to conduct direct-action raids in Iraq and Syria in order to degrade ISIS’ ability to plot external attacks, and sufficient resources should be authorized to carry out and support these operations.

The report that sentence comes from, released in June, was written by a CNAS study group headed by Flournoy. It calls not for a “fundamental shift in current Pindo strategy,” but “some course corrections.” It explained:

Most importantly, it means a willingness to lean further forward in the types of military action Pindostan would take in this territory.

While the emphasis is on arming and training local opposition forces, it calls for the creation of “no bomb zones” in opposition-held parts of Syria to protect them from pro-Assad government airstrikes. This is in line Clinton’s public position, too, according to her campaign website. But the CNAS strategy is much more explicit: While working with the coalition partners who will somehow emerge in 2017, Pindostan will add more boots on the ground. The report asserts at the start that this would not mean “conventional forces” but then goes on to say the strategy would require “quick reaction forces, logistics, intelligence, force protection (e.g. base security), fire support, medical evacuation support and air support,” in addition to advisors and “counter network” personnel. The report also calls for “an expanded campaign of intelligence collection, airstrikes, and direct-action raids” to “further degrade ISIS’ capabilities.” On the no-bombing zones, the report says that Pindostan would retaliate against Assad assets if necessary. It acknowledges the risks of inflaming tensions with Russia, but there seems to be hope of a “power sharing” agreement down the road. The report states:

Establishing a no-bombing zone would risk escalation with Russia, but this concern is manageable given that neither side wants to enter a direct conflict and Pindostan needs to exert some military pressure if it wishes to change Russian and regional calculus and empower more acceptable actors on the ground.

When Defense One published a straightforward piece making many of these points, Flournoy was quick to respond, saying while she advocates all of the above regarding the no-bombing zones and airstrikes, she does “NOT advocate putting Pindo combat troops on the ground to take territory from Assad’s forces or remove Assad from power.” Defense One appended Flournoy’s letter to the story, but it didn’t issue a correction. The piece’s author, Patrick Tucker, told The Intercept:

Strike weapons at standoff distance is troops. Those are military personnel. That is Pindosi military power, at war with the Assad regime. There is just no way around it.

Bottom line: the CNAS authors are calling for increased Pindo military operations in Syria. Gareth Porter recently wrote in “Hillary Clinton and Her Hawks”:

I can’t think of another instance in which a Pindosi presidential candidate was actually planning, via advisors who had drawn up detailed plans, a new war, to actually start an additional war that didn’t exist before… That is even more dangerous and more reckless, because even the authors of the CNAS report acknowledge there is a serious risk of coming into direct conflict with Russian forces in Syria. It’s really quite an astonishing turn of events when you think about it.

But the CNAS report and Flournoy’s op-eds are pretty tame compared to what Clinton’s surrogates have been saying to the media more recently. Reporting from the DNC, the Telegraph got some choice quotes from Clinton advisor Jeremy Bash, a former Pentagon official who founded Beacon Strategies, a “strategic advisory firm” that includes Morell, career bureaucrat and Clintonista Leon Panetta, and Clinton media operative and fixer Phillipe Reines, among others. Bash was unequivocal about Clinton’s Syria “reset,” which would focus not only on ISIS but also on bringing down Assad. He said in an interview with The Telegraph:

A Clinton administration will not shrink from making clear to the world exactly what the Assad regime is. It is a murderous regime that violates human rights, that has violated international law, used chemical weapons against his own people, has killed hundreds of thousands of people, including tens of thousands of children.

It is no secret that Clinton has supported removing Assad from the start and had a famous break with Obama over arming the opposition and establishing so-called no-fly zones. While the White House has focused more on pushing back ISIS’s advances in the region, Clinton and her advisors have made it clear they disagree and that the removal of Assad won’t be off the table. Meanwhile, Morrell says he was “non-partisan” before endorsing Clinton this summer, but in reality he joined Beacon, which is run by longtime members of Clinton’s inner circle, after leaving the CIA in 2013 instead of going to a national-security think tank or an academic perch. That he suddenly became a Clinton champion out of a noble concern for the country, which is the lazy media narrative, is a bit hard to swallow. Morrell told Charlie Rose in August (starting at the 30-minute mark) that Pindo policy should be to make Russians and Iranians “pay a price” for being there, including killing Russians “covertly” and helping to initiate the bombing of Syrian government buildings and installations to “scare” Assad before he is ultimately “transitioned out.” In July, Panetta all but said the same thing to CBS’s Margaret Brennan. He also hinted at the possibility of putting more Pindo boots on the ground, saying:

I think the likelihood is that the next president is gonna have to consider adding additional SOF on the ground to try to assist those moderate forces that are taking on ISIS, and that are taking on Assad’s forces. And we have to increase our air strikes. We’ve got to do all of those things in order to put increasing pressure on ISIS, but also on Assad. We can’t surrender one objective for the other. We’ve gotta continue to press on both fronts.

Christopher Coyne, an associate professor of economics at George Mason University who has written about military interventions, says:

I think the three of them [Bash, Morrell, and Panetta] provide a very clear window into the type of foreign policy one can expect under a Clinton administration. A policy that entails a proactive use of the military to attempt to address a wide range of issues around the world.

Robert Kagan is one of the most influential neoconservatives in Washington, as well as an astute foreign-policy player who has positioned himself among both Republican and Democrat national-security literati as a grand strategy thinker. He says:

I would say the majority of people in my circle will vote for Hillary.

His last book, The World Pindostan Made, is an unabashed paean to Pindo hegemony and interventionist posture, and his made-for-Barnes & Noble books are much admired by Obama. His wife is Bush 43 and Obama State Dept official Victoria Nuland (nee Nudelman – RB), a potential Sec State in a new Clinton administration. TAC’s Phil Giraldi has called Nuland “Hillary’s Hawk in Waiting,” blaming her interference in Ukraine for escalating a crisis with Russia in the region. Kagan was recently featured in an article by Intercept writer Rania Khalek, who covered a recent “foreign policy professionals for Hillary fundraiser.” The event raised $25k for Clinton but also raised eyebrows about which members of Kagan’s “circle” would support her. It’s not hard to start counting. Some of them, like Eliot Cohen, who supported the war in Iraq from his perch at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, have said Clinton is the “lesser evil.” Max Boot, a hardliner if there ever was one, took the step of declaring a break from Republicanism and his endorsement of Clinton in the LA Times, noting she would be more hawkish than Obama. Jamie Kirchick, another familiar neoconservative stalwart, recently penned an article endorsing Clinton entitled:

Hillary Clinton Is 2016’s Real Conservative — Not Donald Trump.

Kagan is the most open about his common ground with Clinton, telling the NYT in a 2014 interview that he is “comfortable” with her foreign policy. No doubt. He and his circle consider Obama’s foreign policy in Syria to be woefully passive. Regime change is again in the air, and Clinton’s left and right flanks are ready to see it through. Kagan said of Clinton’s views:

(It’s) something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that. They are going to call it something else.

Whether additional Pindo boots on the ground will remain “off the table” will be an early test of rhetoric versus reality. They may just call that something else, too.

One Comment

  1. Posted August 18, 2016 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

    I’m reading a lot in the alternative press that Killary has neurological problems and isn’t fit to be president. Have you read anything in the mainstream that would confirm this?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s