The U.S. administration sought on Friday to contain fallout from a leaked internal memo critical of its Syria policy, but showed no sign it was willing to consider military strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces called for in the letter signed by dozens of American diplomats. – Reuters
Two statements issued recently show that Left and Right both expect Hillary to be the next President of the US.
One was a document sent from State Department explaining that targeted military strikes were needed against the Assad government if ISIS were to be defeated. The other was a Conservative suggestion, including a website, that Congress act now to bar excessive spending by the next administration.
Of course, Hillary could still be indicted and forced from the race, but the longer she goes without an indictment, the more difficult it becomes – politically – to subject her to a trial.
The State Department memo was sent by 51 official via a special “dissent channel” and thus did not represent an official State Dept. position.
What triggered the memo, apparently, was the realization that negotiations with Russia over removal of the Assad regime have basically collapsed.
The memo says that neither Assad nor Russia have taken past ceasefires and negotiations seriously and suggests a more robust military approach was needed to force a transitional government in Syria.
While this is logical so far as it goes, the logic begins to break down when it comes to ISIS, which both the Russians and the Syrians are fighting.
According to a CNN report on the memo, the idea is to create a stronger partnership with “moderate rebel forces” that can then battle both Assad and ISIS.
The trouble with this suggestion is that Russia long ago revealed there are no “moderate rebel forces” in Syria. In other words, this third faction is a creation of the Pentagon’s imagination.
This revelation came after Russia began to bomb ISIS and explained that the Pentagon has not been bombing ISIS as claimed but had actually been bombing Syrian infrastructure.
The implication was that the Pentagon didn’t really want ISIS destroyed because ISIS contributed to continual chaos in the area. Ultimately, this chaos would end up affecting Russia itself, which is nearby.
Bombing of the Assad regime directly would be risky since Russia is already operating in the area. But perhaps this is just the point. There are factions in the State Dept. and elsewhere that want an expanded war that can involve Russia directly.
By sending this memo now to the Obama administration, these State Dept. officials lay the groundwork for further military activity when the next president takes over.
Since Trump has been fairly clear that he wants to reduce or eliminate the kinds of foreign war now being waged against Syria, the memo is obviously aimed at supporting a Hillary Clinton war effort.
Clinton seems to be a supporter of almost every war that the US fights. And though she sometimes backtracks and claims her support was a mistake, going forward it seems her warlike instincts regularly resurface.
There would be no reason to send such a memo if these State Dept. officials didn’t believe that Hillary was going to win the election.
In fact, it can certainly be speculated that Hillary’s camp may have had some sort of tangential involvement – or more – in initiating the memo.
It does give her an excuse to move into the White House and expand the war effort quickly.
Meanwhile, Forbes reports that “Conservatives Are Signaling They Expect Hillary Clinton To Win The Election This November.”
This conclusion stems from a “a small announcement” first reported behind a Politico paywall that conservative group supported by billionaires Charles and David Koch introduced a plan to “cut spending and reduce the national debt.”
The plan, titled “Stop, Cut, Fix,” calls on Congress to pass a two-year continuing resolution for fiscal 2018 and 2019 that locks in sequester-level spending.
The Forbes article points out that “stop” is the plan’s most important point and shows clearly that conservative groups except to lose the presidency. It may also indicate these groups expect to lose in Congress as well.
The plan is rather strange because such a “continuing resolution” wouldn’t be binding on a new administration or Congress. “In other words, it wouldn’t actually lock in anything or stop crisis-related spending at all.”
Conclusion: Both of these political statements don’t make much practical sense. They do make sense as “messages” being transmitted to others that core political groups believe Hillary is going to be the next President of the US. These can be seen as statements of support rather than policy suggestions.