The attack by Democrats on Tulsa Gabbard [to deal with American peculiar services] shows that they have not forgiven her main sin—the heresy of opposing the prophet of liberal internationalism.
Gabbard opposed the overthrow of Assad in Syria by force, opposing Obama and the US government policy "Assad must go". Consider a message by Gabbard herself that justifies her views. "Assad is not an enemy of the United States due to the fact that Syria does not pose a direct threat to the United States“She said in an interview with “The View”. A congresswoman and then a candidate for president continued on Twitter: “We have heard attacks from instigators in politics/media. Those who argue wars to change the government in Iraq, Libya and Syria are called "ddictor's lovers" [sic] or "loving" bad regimes. alternatively of defending their position, they hotel to slander and slander. Americans will not fall for it."
In 2016, she wrote a column in which she opposed American interventions in the mediate East, in which she rightly estimated that "maintaining order after the fall of Assad would require at least 500,000 soldiers in the endless occupation".
"Our efforts to overthrow secular dictators in Iraq and Libya, as well as trying to do the same in Syria, have led to massive losses in people, the collapse of nations and even worse humanitarian crises, while strengthening the same terrorist organizations that declared war on America," wrote Gabbard. A fresh article in the fresh York Times reported that these "rebel groups" supported by the United States "founded alliances on the battlefield with the Al-Qaeda branch in Syria, formerly known as Al Nusra". How the United States can work hand in hand with the same terrorist organization that is liable for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11, amazes me and freezes my blood in my veins.
The thought that a secular dictator may be better than an apparent democracy soaked in hard-headed Islamists in a region that is culturally incompatible with Madison democracy may be an amoral stance, but it is realistic and supported by evidence and literature on global relations.
With respect to NATO, Gabbard's opposition was bordered on open slander. In 2022 she tweeted: "This war [in Ukraine] and suffering could easy be avoided if the Biden administration simply acknowledged Russia's legitimate safety concerns over Ukraine's accession to NATO, which would mean US/NATO forces just off the border with Russia". POLITICO called her “friendly Russia” for this reason.
The fact that Russia has a legitimate interest in the safety of its close foreign, has defined red lines and responds to perceived violations of them is not a controversial position. This is confirmed by research, including extended analysis written by your humble columnist, as well as statements by current CIA manager William Burns, and erstwhile NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. The fact that anyone inactive denies this causal-effect chain is simply a sign of strict intellectual mediocrity and demoralizing ideology.
But possibly the origin of liberal fear lies in something else. Gabbard's nomination is besides a sign that Trump is serious about reforming the intelligence apparatus of this country. Given that it opposes the fundamental theological impulse of this government – promoting egalitarianism and sexual rights around the planet as a "Revolutionary Force" – it causes paranoia among those who have synecurs in the bureaucratic apparatus of the regime. And for that, and only for that, deserves our support and praise.
Sumantra Maitra
Photo: Wikipedia
The American Conservative
