No Change in Foreign Policy from 2016 Standard-bearers

With all the turmoil and uncertainty coming from this election cycle, one constant is already known. U.S. Foreign Policy is well under the control of the international interventionists. The career globalists on the American payroll continue to push for more and greater engagements. Step back and consider the premise. Seldom is there an international involvement that is not eagerly embraced, funded and expanded. Based upon this premise, the record of continued failures is better understood. The systemic decline of a once great nation has developed into a pathetic deterioration of an imperial empire.

If you think anything will materially change with the inauguration of a new President, get serious. The prescribed instrument of establishment newspeak on international affairs is Foreign Policy magazine. Stephen M. Walt writes in The Big 5 and the Sad State of Foreign Policy in 2016.

“A Clinton foreign policy will look a lot like Barack Obama’s, but with a decidedly more hawkish edge.

Here’s the real worry: Clinton and her advisors are deeply committed to the familiar strategy of liberal hegemony the United States has followed ever since the end of the Cold War. This worldview sees U.S. leadership as “indispensable”; has never seen an international problem it doesn’t think Washington could fix; and routinely forgets that other states have interests, too, and aren’t always grateful when the United States throws its weight around. Americans like to think “global leadership” is their birthright, but the U.S. track record since 1993 is a mixed one at best. Today’s world is very different than the one of the 1990s — when liberal hegemony was in its heyday — and many elements of the old U.S. playbook aren’t working that well. If you think that events in the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and Africa might require not a bunch of tired verities but some real creativity, the well-worn Clinton team might not be your best bet.”

Harvard professor Walt provides the following assessment on Trump, Cruz and Sanders. “The real worry is that we have no idea what Trump’s foreign policy would be.” “A Ted Cruz presidency would probably make George W. Bush-style “unilateralism” seem like a Quaker meeting.” “For Sanders, foreign policy is mostly an afterthought. He’s not going to squander lots of money on idealistic foreign-policy crusades, and he’s not likely to pick fights with countries that aren’t directly threatening the United States.”

From these brief comparisons, one might presume that Sanders has a more prudent outlook. But before one concludes that the NeoCons are in retreat, their selected mouthpiece still has entrenched support. Also from the Foreign Policy essay:

“Marco Rubio’s political career has been bankrolled by backers with solid neoconservative beliefs (such as Paul Singer, Norman Braman, and Sheldon Adelson), and he’s reportedly getting advice from the same Project for the New American Century–types who led the United States to disaster under George W. Bush. Indeed, in a remarkably tone-deaf bit of advertising, Rubio’s campaign website opens by asking, “Are You Ready for a New American Century?” Gee, where have I heard that one before? It’s therefore no surprise that Rubio’s foreign-policy pronouncements read like old Weekly Standard articles or that neoconservative David Brooks of the New York Times keeps writing columns touting Rubio’s alleged virtues.”

It should be clear, with the implosion of Rand Paul and the unlikelihood of a successful Sanders’ election; no one is left in the race for POTUS that will buck the Foggy Bottom feeders. While Trump could be a surprise, as all the concerted effort to sabotage his Republican chances from the GOP backstabbers illustrate, the real prospects that the beltway institutional bureaucrats would subvert any attempts to shift away from a permanent war of terror policy.

Elections never result in abandonment from a globalist designed foreign policy that only benefits the supra-elite. A return to an America First world view is never allowed to be adequately debated, much less implemented. The prolific protectionism of internationalism is at the core of the entrenched establishment.

This is the most probable deduction any seasoned observer of the way the District of Criminals actually operates. An opposing appraisal from the orthodoxy of the Foreign Policy elites comes from former CIA analysis and patriot Michael Scheuer. His elation in the article, WELL DONE MR. TRUMP!!! Israel-First, Neocons to join Hillary, all America’s enemies in one party, pulls no punches.

“What makes the current Israel First/Neocon seizure so hearteningly severe are not only Trump’s words and apparent America-First foreign policy inclinations, but the fact that he is getting so very many votes. “Could it possibly be,” ponder the likes of Bill Kristol, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Robert Kagan, Michael Bloomberg, Peter King, Elliott Abrams, Eric Edelman, Michael Chertoff, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and John Bolton, “that Americans are not genuinely happy, proud, and eager to have their fellow citizens and soldier-children dying uselessly in wars motivated in large part by the U.S. interventionism we advocate and by America’s subservience to a country that does nothing but degrade the republic’s security and drain its treasury?” “Could it be,” the IF/NC’ers are wondering, “that Trump and the increasing number of voters supporting him know that we Israel-Firsters and Neocons have played them for fools, corrupted their political system and media, and done our best to keep their kids dying in wars meant to serve a foreign nation’s interests at the cost of their own?” Well, it is too soon to tell, but the words of the Israel Firsters and Neocons and their fierce hatred of Trump surely suggest that they fear their war-causing disloyalty has been identified and — at long last — their jig is about up.”

Mr. Scheuer’s hope that the apprehension over Trump’s lack of acceptance of the standard interventionism might be real certainly is bold. Yet the War Party establishment seems to be reacting as if “The Donald” has more in common with an Ayatollah than a John Quincy Adams, who was cited in the essay.

Even if the counterfeit conservatives left the Republican Party and rushed into the open arms of a Clinton Democratic Party, the influence of the beltway technocrats remains within the agencies intercession club and the Pentagon careerists. All the time the lobbyist industry will resist any departure from the proven formula of wasting national blood and treasure in the pursuit of a Greater Israel.

Nothing would be more welcome news if some viable political party would adopt a truly America First foreign policy. The problem is that the entire system runs on a culture of war. The wishes of the people are being thwarted for all to see. The power of the establishment is rallying to prevent the electorate from voting for a peaceful revolution. A Sanders’ campaign is calling for a Revolution. Trump is leading the charge against the Old Guard. Both have popular support that the party bosses are ignoring.

The accepted 2016 Standard-bearers are Clinton and Rubio for the party elites. Each will be obligated to the institutional forces that never foster a prosperous and secure nation. Rubio will be road kill on March 15th. The Hildebeast will be looking for a pass from prosecution so she will not be forced to pardon herself upon taking the oath of office as President.

This farce is the way the establishment transitions into a new Clinton era. Trump is the only person to mobilize the disenfranchised to go to the polls. However, the power elite within the GOP would rather destroy Trump and even vote for Clinton before they would abandon their corporatist and warfare roots.

John Kaminski asks, Is Donald Trump another Obama? His answer while guarded is less than optimistic that Trump is a real alternative or that he could dismantle the prevailing order.

The Washington cartel views themselves as above the hoi polloi. No populist movement will strip power from the government cabal. Circling the wagons is in full effect. The presstitute media drumbeat is deafening. Stop any chance of losing control.

You have never seen this drill played out with more earnest because the masses are waking up. The conditions are building to tap John Lennon’s sentiment from Imagine – “Nothing to kill or die for”. Sanders supporters should hold out and demand a different foreign policy. Nonetheless, the anti-war cause has sunk into the ground under the pressure of societal apathy.

The inconsistency between a greater awareness and a somber outrage about the War Party seems difficult to define. Even if Trump is the second coming of George Patton, let’s have a little faith that any campaign would be swift, complete and victorious.

This might be the best that could be expected. Under Clinton, the Foreign Policy wonks will be sharing lunch with the list of NeoCons that Mr. Scheuer provided.

Is it possible to have an election Coup d'état? As improbable as it seems with the immense intimidation forces at their disposal, the imperial hessian bureaucracy, still has no legitimacy to base their authoritarianism upon.

If you want a balance and rational foreign policy in the next administration, start with making Michael Scheuer Secretary of State. Thusly, that would not happen, so prepare that continued doom will be official policy.