I’ve long held the opinion that this administration, when it wants to be competent in foreign affairs, actively attempts to imitate the last administration. Because – and this will come as a shock to the folks who have been drinking too deeply from the antiwar movement’s poisoned wells – the last administration actually was competent at foreign affairs*. Which would be great, except that this administration doesn’t actually know what the last administration is like – so it imitates the fever-dream version of the Bush administration, and then wonders why things keep turning to crud.
Case in point: “More than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military’s Central Command have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials, The Daily Beast has learned.” Although contra the Daily Beast, this situation is not particularly like what happened in 2003. What happened in 2003 was, essentially, that George W. Bush decided to take no chances in trusting the good intentions of an uncontrollable dictator. What’s happening now is that the military cadre that interacts with the Executive Branch is too ready to tell the Executive Branch what it wants to hear, and the Executive Branch is collectively too arrogant – or just too stupid – to realize that this is happening.
The cure? Go out and vote next year. And for the love of God, don’t vote in a way that elects another Democrat. There’s wet rot in that party’s support beams at this point**.
*Barack Obama is proving to be a quite useful baseline at what blithering incompetence at foreign affairs actually looks like. I mean. Slave markets. Sacrificial altars. We were supposed to be past that sort of thing.
**No, the Republicans are not as bad. Slave markets. Sacrificial altars. Take. This. Seriously.
7 thoughts on “News not-flash: Brass altered intelligence reports on ISIS to appease Barack Obama.”
“Not as bad” is damning with faint praise.
Outside of realizing that controlling your borders is one of the most important parts of the nation-state concept, they’re generally pretty good.
But frankly, I’m much more concerned about unmucking our domestic affairs than unmucking our foreign affairs.
The problem is that this administration has been so incompetent at foreign affairs that we’re likely to have a few cities nuked before everything’s said and done, which ain’t exactly gonna be great for our domestic affairs.
The problem is that domestic and foreign affairs are linked. If you don’t unmuck one, you’re going to have a heck of a job unmucking the other.
The Repubs might be better on other things than the border, but only just. They leave me unimpressed.
And the Democrats leave me appalled. I can work with unimpressive people.
*Sigh.* When given a choice between Truly Awful and Slightly Less-Bad, the answer is not “none of the above.” We want better choices? Pay attention and support better choices early. Not doing that lets clowns like Trump and Juan-Ellis Bush get cross country before Truth has got it’s boots on*.
Wait – are you telling me that complaining on the internet isn’t an answer and doesn’t influence the powers-that-be?
Why didn’t somebody tell me this sooner!
I have, for a couple of decades.
It hasn’t done a bit of good.
The GOP primary is deliberately set up to favor whatever squish has the highest name recognition and the most media exposure.
That candidate uses his platform (with the media’s willing assistance) to define the other candidates as unelectable.
This narrative is then “proven” by the caucus in purple Iowa (bow before the ethanol mandate!) and the election in blue New Hampshire (we’re not quite Vermont).
Watching Trump take advantage of this, and watching the GOP establishment being crushed at their own game has me radiating warm scheffenfreude.
For all his many negative qualities, Trump might actually be the best foreign affairs candidate. He’s a shrewd negotiator who never loses sight of his objectives and interests, who share drives a hard bargain, and who is quick to void any contract where the other parties aren’t meeting their obligations.
He won’t get swept up in idealistic gambles, like W’s democracy project.
And he won’t sell us out, like so many of Obama’s “signature achievements”.
Comments are closed.