Πομπεο θα λέτε και θα κλαιτε
Δημοσιεύτηκε: 08 Ιαν 2021, 17:08
με τους άχρηστους που μαζεύει ο Μπαιντεν.
Πήγα να ξεκινήσω να μαρκαρω οτι μου φάνηκε σημαντικό, και τελικά το μαρκαρα όλο.
Tldr. Μάζεψε όλα τα ομπαμοσκουπιδια που διελυσαν την μεση ανατολη δίνοντας το δυνατότερο διαπραγματευτικο χαρτί στον Ερντογάν (το μεταναστευτικο) , και πάει φουλ κόντρα με την Ρωσία γιατί έτσι.
Σε φουλ κόντρα σίγουρα δεν θα περισσεύει κανένας σύμμαχος και όλοι καταλαβαίνετε για ποιον λέμε.
Απορίας άξιο πάντως γιατί οι χιλαριτσες μας έχουν ζαλίσει τα παπαρια για τον τουρκοφιλο Φλυν που έμεινε στην θέση του επί 2 εβδομάδες, και δεν λένε λέξη για τον φιλέλληνα Πομπεο που διατηρεί την θέση του πάνω από 2,5 χρόνια. Αυτόν μάλλον τον έκανε υπουργό ο Ομπαμα.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skept ... ing-175924
Joe Biden’s Foreign Policy Dream Team Is Disappointing
Surveying the views of the Biden foreign policy team, one is struck by the extent of utterly conventional thinking.
hoping that Joe Biden’s presidency might embrace new thinking on foreign policy and a greater receptivity to the concept of restraint needs to abandon such hopes at this point. Most of the president-elect’s personnel selections for defense and foreign policy posts were members of the Obama administration’s junior varsity. Their undeserved elevation to the varsity team reflects the pervasive attitude within the establishment wing of the Democratic Party that everything was just fine with U.S. foreign policy until the irresponsible, “isolationist” Donald Trump wrecked America’s position in the world. The proper goal, according to that view, is to restore the status quo ante.
But everything was not fine with U.S. foreign policy when Obama left office. Far from it. The administration had launched not one, not two, but three disastrous military interventions—in Libya, Syria, and Yemen—thereby sowing more destruction and chaos throughout the Middle East. Obama and his minions also had further damaged already frayed relations with Russia by supporting demonstrators who overthrew the duly elected, pro-Russian president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. Too many of Biden’s announced appointees were proponents of those misadventures.
As I’ve written elsewhere, Biden himself was surprisingly cautious regarding the missions in the Muslim world. He strongly opposed the decision to overthrow Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi—for very good reason, as the subsequent tragic situation in that country confirmed. Biden also was extremely worried that radical Islamist elements were dominating the Syrian rebellion against Bashar al-Assad that Washington and its allies were supporting. His instincts proved to be correct in that case as well. According to Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, “the only senior official who consistently opposed sending more troops to Afghanistan was Joe Biden.”
Unfortunately, Biden exhibited no such worthwhile instincts regarding U.S. policy toward Ukraine and Russia. Indeed, as the transcript of the infamous leaked phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt showed, Biden was the designated point man to bless the successor regime in Kiev that Washington was helping to take power. Nuland was confident the vice president was ready and willing to play that role.
While Biden’s views on foreign policy appear to be mixed, those of his new appointees are almost uniformly troubling. Biden’s choice for secretary of state, Tony Blinken, favored an activist, militarized approach in both Libya and Syria. In the latter case, his policy preference included arming the motley Syrian rebels. Several of Biden’s other choices for key positions, including Jake Sullivan, designated to be national security adviser, and Avril Haines, the nominee for director of national intelligence, have well-earned reputations for embracing regime-change wars and other dubious positions. His choice for secretary of defense, retired Gen. Lloyd Austin, was the head of the U.S. military’s Central Command, and there is little evidence that he ever dissented regarding Washington’s ill-starred Middle East interventions Perhaps worse, Austin comes from the board of Raytheon, one of the corporations profiting the most from Washington’s continued, heavy-handed military presence in that region. We’re unlikely to get consideration of a more restrained Middle East policy from the crew that Biden is forming.
While Biden’s views on foreign policy appear to be mixed, those of his new appointees are almost uniformly troubling. Biden’s choice for secretary of state, Tony Blinken, favored an activist, militarized approach in both Libya and Syria. In the latter case, his policy preference included arming the motley Syrian rebels. Several of Biden’s other choices for key positions, including Jake Sullivan, designated to be national security adviser, and Avril Haines, the nominee for director of national intelligence, have well-earned reputations for embracing regime-change wars and other dubious positions. His choice for secretary of defense, retired Gen. Lloyd Austin, was the head of the U.S. military’s Central Command, and there is little evidence that he ever dissented regarding Washington’s ill-starred Middle East interventions Perhaps worse, Austin comes from the board of Raytheon, one of the corporations profiting the most from Washington’s continued, heavy-handed military presence in that region. We’re unlikely to get consideration of a more restrained Middle East policy from the crew that Biden is forming.
The attitude that Hicks exhibited confirmed that proposals for even the mildest change in NATO policy toward a less dominant U.S. role likely will be summarily dismissed in a Biden administration. Once again, that is not a blueprint for policy innovation.
Surveying the views of the Biden foreign policy team, one is struck by the extent of utterly conventional thinking. That might not be so bad if the underlying assumption that U.S. foreign policy was in good shape before Trump took office was true. But U.S. policy exhibited multiple signs of dysfunction during the pre-Trump era, and those problems badly need to be addressed and corrected. Unfortunately, the policy team that Biden has assembled exhibits little or no ability to undertake that vital task.
Πήγα να ξεκινήσω να μαρκαρω οτι μου φάνηκε σημαντικό, και τελικά το μαρκαρα όλο.
Tldr. Μάζεψε όλα τα ομπαμοσκουπιδια που διελυσαν την μεση ανατολη δίνοντας το δυνατότερο διαπραγματευτικο χαρτί στον Ερντογάν (το μεταναστευτικο) , και πάει φουλ κόντρα με την Ρωσία γιατί έτσι.
Σε φουλ κόντρα σίγουρα δεν θα περισσεύει κανένας σύμμαχος και όλοι καταλαβαίνετε για ποιον λέμε.
Απορίας άξιο πάντως γιατί οι χιλαριτσες μας έχουν ζαλίσει τα παπαρια για τον τουρκοφιλο Φλυν που έμεινε στην θέση του επί 2 εβδομάδες, και δεν λένε λέξη για τον φιλέλληνα Πομπεο που διατηρεί την θέση του πάνω από 2,5 χρόνια. Αυτόν μάλλον τον έκανε υπουργό ο Ομπαμα.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skept ... ing-175924
Joe Biden’s Foreign Policy Dream Team Is Disappointing
Surveying the views of the Biden foreign policy team, one is struck by the extent of utterly conventional thinking.
hoping that Joe Biden’s presidency might embrace new thinking on foreign policy and a greater receptivity to the concept of restraint needs to abandon such hopes at this point. Most of the president-elect’s personnel selections for defense and foreign policy posts were members of the Obama administration’s junior varsity. Their undeserved elevation to the varsity team reflects the pervasive attitude within the establishment wing of the Democratic Party that everything was just fine with U.S. foreign policy until the irresponsible, “isolationist” Donald Trump wrecked America’s position in the world. The proper goal, according to that view, is to restore the status quo ante.
But everything was not fine with U.S. foreign policy when Obama left office. Far from it. The administration had launched not one, not two, but three disastrous military interventions—in Libya, Syria, and Yemen—thereby sowing more destruction and chaos throughout the Middle East. Obama and his minions also had further damaged already frayed relations with Russia by supporting demonstrators who overthrew the duly elected, pro-Russian president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. Too many of Biden’s announced appointees were proponents of those misadventures.
As I’ve written elsewhere, Biden himself was surprisingly cautious regarding the missions in the Muslim world. He strongly opposed the decision to overthrow Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi—for very good reason, as the subsequent tragic situation in that country confirmed. Biden also was extremely worried that radical Islamist elements were dominating the Syrian rebellion against Bashar al-Assad that Washington and its allies were supporting. His instincts proved to be correct in that case as well. According to Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, “the only senior official who consistently opposed sending more troops to Afghanistan was Joe Biden.”
Unfortunately, Biden exhibited no such worthwhile instincts regarding U.S. policy toward Ukraine and Russia. Indeed, as the transcript of the infamous leaked phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt showed, Biden was the designated point man to bless the successor regime in Kiev that Washington was helping to take power. Nuland was confident the vice president was ready and willing to play that role.
While Biden’s views on foreign policy appear to be mixed, those of his new appointees are almost uniformly troubling. Biden’s choice for secretary of state, Tony Blinken, favored an activist, militarized approach in both Libya and Syria. In the latter case, his policy preference included arming the motley Syrian rebels. Several of Biden’s other choices for key positions, including Jake Sullivan, designated to be national security adviser, and Avril Haines, the nominee for director of national intelligence, have well-earned reputations for embracing regime-change wars and other dubious positions. His choice for secretary of defense, retired Gen. Lloyd Austin, was the head of the U.S. military’s Central Command, and there is little evidence that he ever dissented regarding Washington’s ill-starred Middle East interventions Perhaps worse, Austin comes from the board of Raytheon, one of the corporations profiting the most from Washington’s continued, heavy-handed military presence in that region. We’re unlikely to get consideration of a more restrained Middle East policy from the crew that Biden is forming.
While Biden’s views on foreign policy appear to be mixed, those of his new appointees are almost uniformly troubling. Biden’s choice for secretary of state, Tony Blinken, favored an activist, militarized approach in both Libya and Syria. In the latter case, his policy preference included arming the motley Syrian rebels. Several of Biden’s other choices for key positions, including Jake Sullivan, designated to be national security adviser, and Avril Haines, the nominee for director of national intelligence, have well-earned reputations for embracing regime-change wars and other dubious positions. His choice for secretary of defense, retired Gen. Lloyd Austin, was the head of the U.S. military’s Central Command, and there is little evidence that he ever dissented regarding Washington’s ill-starred Middle East interventions Perhaps worse, Austin comes from the board of Raytheon, one of the corporations profiting the most from Washington’s continued, heavy-handed military presence in that region. We’re unlikely to get consideration of a more restrained Middle East policy from the crew that Biden is forming.
The attitude that Hicks exhibited confirmed that proposals for even the mildest change in NATO policy toward a less dominant U.S. role likely will be summarily dismissed in a Biden administration. Once again, that is not a blueprint for policy innovation.
Surveying the views of the Biden foreign policy team, one is struck by the extent of utterly conventional thinking. That might not be so bad if the underlying assumption that U.S. foreign policy was in good shape before Trump took office was true. But U.S. policy exhibited multiple signs of dysfunction during the pre-Trump era, and those problems badly need to be addressed and corrected. Unfortunately, the policy team that Biden has assembled exhibits little or no ability to undertake that vital task.
