(12-01-2016, 06:55 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ] (12-01-2016, 06:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-01-2016, 06:29 AM)Galen Wrote: [ -> ]What evidence do you have that Trump can be blackmailed?
As far as I can tell, in America one doesn't need evidence to assume the worst of someone who holds a conflicting political view. Seems to be a First Amendment right?
Truth is, the cloud of scandal that has surrounded Hillary and Bill since the seventies is more suggestible of blackmail opportunities. In my own life I tend to avoid people like that because there is usually, but not always, something behind it. That said, Hillary's open animosity toward Russia and tendency to support the wars of the neocons is a matter of concern.
There are also scandals around Trump, of similar merit. How meaningful a scandal is depends on one's political values. Both parties are very ready to assume the worst of the other. Both sides will demonize the other while being ready to forgive one's own.
I occasionally indulge in wishful thinking, wishing for more emphasis on issues, less on scandals, but ad-hominum attacks are a big part of the extreme partisan atmosphere.
***
The word 'neocon' seems to have changed its meaning. It was originally applied to the military and oil aspects of the Bush 43 administration. The manifesto was
Rebuilding America's Defenses. It was thought that high technology gave the US a tremendous edge on the battlefield, that short victorious wars were there for the fighting. The strategic goal as stated in
Rebuilding America's Defenses was to put troops near the oil. The geopolitical center of gravity was no longer in Europe, but in the Middle East.
Many of the authors and signers of
Rebuilding America's Defenses were pulled into the Bush 43 administration. Many saw the Iraq invasion as an implementation of
Rebuilding America's Defenses, an attempt to put troops near the oil, noting that the invasion forces pushed to secure the oil fields rather than the population centers in the early days when the US has some good will among the Iraq population. The building of huge US bases and embassy facilities was seen as a build up for the invasion of the next oil rich country after Iraq was secured.
Of course, Iraq was never secured. The US technological advantage works very well in a conventional war with tanks, front lines and large units of uniform wearing regular forces. The high tech stuff didn't help against insurgent tactics and proxy wars. We are attempting to adapt. Drones, smart munitions and the tactics to use them have come a long way since the Iraq invasion. Still, the notion that putting high tech troops near the oil would make invasion cost effective never panned out.
The political debate of the decade was Republican neocon 'stay the course' as championed by McCain against Democratic 'cut and run' as championed by Obama. Late in the 2008 election campaigns, Bush 43 cut McCain's legs out from under him with a decision to adapt Cut and Run, as well as by revealing that his economic policies were leading to a major collapse. The Republican plan of putting troops near the oil was not cost effective. The ruinous cost of the military intervention combined with a reluctance to raise taxes brought the Bush 43 administration, and the United States, to its knees.
Thus, the Obama / Hillary policy of getting the boys home, of avoiding occupation forces, of reducing the number of boots on the ground is the exact opposite of the original Republican neocon doctrine: serial unilateral preemptive nation building.
The Democrats are still trying to oppose the Middle Eastern factions performing terrorist acts in the West. This was originally Al Qaida, but has become more recently ISIS. They are primarily using drones, special forces and precision munitions... but they are avoiding occupying territory, they are avoiding large numbers of boots on the ground. During the recent campaign Trump disparage this approach, claiming he knew the situation better than the generals, vaguely suggesting a more aggressive decisive policy without getting very specific. We shall have to see what comes of it. I can't really comment on Trump's approach as he hasn't been specific enough. I suspect he was saying stuff that would appeal to the Republican base, that he hasn't got any specific plans yet. This could change easily and soon enough.
Anyway, yes, neocon has become a dirty word. Neocon policies have been discredited. Neocons should not be allowed into the halls of power. For the past eight years the original neocons have been exiled into Republican think tanks and academic posts. I haven't seen any news stories saying Trump is bringing them out of retirement, or that his military doctrines will reprise
Rebuilding America's Defenses. If I see any sign of that I'll push some panic buttons. To soon to push panic buttons. Enough people are pushing panic buttons.
But you are using 'neocon' in a sense quite opposite of its original meaning. Your memories of the Bush 43 years seem to be missing.
