The present election of a new US president is out of line with previous crap coming out of the USA on international relations. The crap game is the same, the tactics are different...

So Gus investigate the National Interest to possibly learn something new. Here The National Interest "about us" tells us:

The National Interest, founded in 1985 by Irving Kristol and Owen Harries, has displayed a remarkable consistency in its approach to foreign policy. It is not, as the inaugural statement declared, about world affairs. It is about American interests. It is guided by the belief that nothing will enhance those interests as effectively as the approach to foreign affairs commonly known as realism—a school of thought traditionally associated with such thinkers and statesmen as Disraeli, Bismarck, and Henry Kissinger. Though the shape of international politics has changed considerably in the past few decades, the magazine’s fundamental tenets have not. Instead, they have proven enduring and, indeed, appear to be enjoying something of a popular renaissance.

Until recently, however, liberal hawks and neoconservatives have successfully attempted to stifle debate by arguing that prudence about the use of American power abroad was imprudent — by, in short, disparaging realism as a moribund doctrine that is wholly inimical to American idealism. This has been disastrous. After the Bush administration’s failure to discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it became abundantly clear that the lack of a debate in Washington was part and parcel of a larger foreign policy failing, which was the refusal to ponder the larger implications and consequences of the promiscuous use of American power abroad. A reflexive substitution of military might for diplomacy, of bellicose rhetoric for attainable aspirations, dramatically weakened rather than strengthened America’s standing around the globe. But today, as Russia, China, and Iran assess and act upon their own perceived national interests, Washington must attempt to understand those nations as they understand themselves.

This is why a return to realism has seldom been more imperative.

read more: http://nationalinterest.org/about-the-national-interest

"Conservative realism" is the raison d'être of this magazine — a conservative Magazine founded by the Father of that ultra-rabid neocon William Kristol. William created the aggressive PNAC where the Cheneys and Bushes lurked, and now the rancid FPI. Both the PNAC and the FPI have been supported by Uncle Rupert.  

Rupert Murdoch is of the same vintage as Irving Kristol (who was born just a year earlier and died in 2009) and as Owen Harries (born 1930). 

Owen Harries is another "Australian" who influenced American foreign policies. Like Rupert and Irwing, Owen is of course a conservative. But while Rupert has been a participant in the neo-con hubris, Owen seems to have been far more cautious. Owen was not in favour of the war on Iraq. As mentioned above " the refusal to ponder the larger implications and consequences of the promiscuous use of American power abroad" is a major problem in regard to the planet's future. Here is Owen Harries at his last Boyer lecture in 2003:

Against this background, what can be said about the policy of the Howard government over the last year and a half? That has been a policy of unhesitating, unqualified and, given the attitude of many other states, conspicuous support for the United States in its wars against terrorism and against Iraq. As such, it is a policy that can be and has been defended both on Menziean grounds - that is, protecting one's own security and paying one's insurance premium to a great and powerful friend, and in terms of our values, given that it was tyranny and terror that were being attacked.

Many people whom I respect have found that this combination of arguments a compelling one, demanding support for the policy of the Howard government. I would like to explain why, on realist grounds, I have not.

First, a bit of self-protective ground-clearing. As things have not exactly gone according to plan in Iraq since Saddam Hussein was overthrown, and, as a favourable outcome seems less than certain, it might seem that I'm simply being wise after the event and second guessing the government, a Monday morning quarter-back, as the Americans say. This isn't so. As it happens, I published a relevant piece on Australian-US relations in the Australian Financial Review on the 10 September 2001: that is, precisely one day before the terrorist attack on New York and Washington. In it, I argued that, and I quote:

"Australia should proceed carefully and without illusion in dealing with its powerful ally. For one thing, post Cold War American foreign policy is still, in some respects, a work in progress, and those who get too close to it run the risk that a piece of the scaffolding might fall off and hit them.

Even more important, while the United States is by historical standards a benevolent hegemon, a hegemon is what it is. Not only is its power vast, but it is concerned to use that power ... to create a world in its own image with institutions and rules determined by Washington...

While such a world would have many attractions, the attempt to bring it into being will inevitably generate serious opposition and a great deal of strife and conflict. It would be inappropriate and dangerous for a country of Australia's limited means and interests to associate itself closely with such an enterprise."

I went on to maintain that 'however sweet the rhetoric and however warm the hugging, the priorities of the two countries are likely to differ at least as often as they coincide'.

I believe that, while these arguments had validity before 9/11 and the Iraq War, they, and some additional ones, have even more validity today. 

read more at : http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/boyerlectures/lecture-6-punching-above-our-weight/3459850

Harries, though, like many conservatives has failed to show acknowledgement that the war on Saddam was a massive con job. The "failures of "intelligence" was a cop-out for what was the manipulation of facts and the creations of grand lies in order to satisfy the criteria of WAR. We knew that from 2002. But at least Harries, six month after "Mission Accomplished" recognised that it could become a cock up and an unnecessary one at that.

 

Owen Harries had worked for Fraser and to say the least Fraser was not as enamoured with the Yanks — contrary to John Howard or Tony Abbott or even Malcolm Turnbull. Though Harries has been in favour of Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War and a strong proponent of the US-Australian alliance. He can be a critic of this alliance as well, such as Australia joining in the Iraq war — and my feeling is that the rise of George W Bush and his minions would have worried Harries for good reasons.

So, even amongst conservative intellectuals, there are divergence between gung-ho aggression and "realism". At present, the Neo-Cons in the US State Department want to bomb the shit out of Assad, regardless of the consequences. That memo is a disgrace. That John Kerry, a Christian and a Democrat, subscribes to this idea is a disgrace. I don't think that the Israelis would be happy with the removal of Assad for him to be replaced with Sunni extremists. That the American cannot see the grave dangers, including a nuclear war, in this next step to the Syrian conundrum is because their desire to please the Saudis and hurt the Russians is more important than "realism".

So the Neo-Cons, inside the Republican AND democrat parties don't think with their heads. They want to shoot everything that moves... They want supremacy of the American Empire and that is that — by force and by crooked robbery. The appearance of confusion here is that Hillary Clinton has always embraced the Neo-Con foreign policies, while now, Donald Trump — supported by Rupert — is arguing for placing a brake on the US aggression, including reducing NATO's fiddles. Reversal of roles? What is Rupert smelling in the wind...?

What's going on? I can sense some major deception coming towards us. Nothing is done without a purpose at this level. The hot and cold shower treatment. Nothing can be judged at face value. Such shift of ideas is not done without any reason, like sacrificing a pawn in a game of chess to gain an advantage for the rook. On the surface Trump appears like a maniac, but on the issue of friendship with Russia and other foreign policies, anathemic to the Neo-Cons, he makes far more sense than Hillary.  

Hum, what game is being played? 

Cash? The power of money? Do these clever conservatives, Rupert and Owen, know things we don't know? For example, that it would be easier to conquer Russia and China with a honey trap rather than try to hit them with bricks?

Do they realise now that the Saudis are exporting Wahhabi terrorism like the US has been selling Coca-Cola to the rest of the world for yonks? Are the Americans intellectual conservatives starting to realise they don't own the entire planet? Have they come to their senses and realised that most of the hypocrisy of the past 40 years in US foreign policies is starting to show through? The duplicity of intent? Hum, I sense some more duplicity on the horizon. Another clever trap.

Have the Neocons realised that a new more discreet con job has to be implemented because the old formula has been exposed...? Is there some overlap in the softening stance and the hardening stance? Is the trick to do a slight shift to Hillary, in order to satisfy both the Democrat machine AND the Neo-cons Republicans? Win-win for aggressive tactics?

One can see uncertainty, but I have difficulty pointing the goal. Well, not the goal really. I mean the MEANS to achieve the goal. The clear goal has been for the US to dominate the planet but the tactics of imperialism have to now be different and adjusted to suit the times. So what will it be? Competition or co-operation? Can the USA see Russia as an equal partner rather than a backward vassal —or an enemy? Will the US stop their ineffective punishing of Russia, including sanctions that are hurting Europe more than the Russians, and stop the ban from Russia participating in the Olympic track and field, especially when the USA athletes have not been shy in using "substances"? Can the USA deal with China without using threats and sabre-rattling? Can the US coppers stop thinking that a black passer-by in the street has to be a target-practice? Will the USA eventually see that 99 per cent of terrorism everywhere, originate from Saudi Arabia? Or will the USA still continue to sponsor the Saudis, because they know things we don't know? I doubt they know anything, just fancy demented illusionary hubris. The Yanks are naive at many levels but are dedicated to play international relations like a ruthless game of Monopoly, including cheating with the banks.

Eventually, they will loose... The problem is to know when and how much damage to the world one of US tantrums could do. So will it be unilateral confrontation or multi-lateral co-operation without dictating terms?

I leave it to Owen Harries, if he still has his complement of marbles, to elaborate. He has more direct experience than me on this track and field — though I have been at it for a long time (started around 1951), and I have seen blue murder over and over on the international scene.

Gus Leonisky

Your local florist. Mimosa is in bloom at this time of the year in Sydney