Most US Troops Have Unfavorable View of Obama’s Time as Commander in Chief, Poll

Many US troops hold an unfavorable view of President Barack Obama’s time as their Commander in Chief, perhaps explaining why they voted at a 2-1 ratio for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton.

A new poll, conducted by the Military Times/Institute for Veterans and Military Families, found that 51.5 percent of members of the military hold either “very unfavorable” or “somewhat unfavorable” views of the outgoing President’s time in office. Just 36 percent of those polled found his time in office to be either “very favorable” or “somewhat favorable.”

“His moves to slim down the armed forces, move away from traditional military might and overhaul social policies prohibiting the service of minority groups have proven divisive in the ranks,” the Military Times reported. “His critics have accused him of trading a strong security posture for political points, and for allowing the rise of terrorists like the Islamic State group whom the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were supposed to silence.”

Obama’s move to decrease military personnel was one of the biggest complaints according to the survey, as 71 percent think the numbers should have instead been increased. Another issue is the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq, which 59 percent of the military personnel polled said they believe made America less safe. Additionally 64 percent said that the President lacks focus on the biggest dangers facing the nation, with 64 percent believing that China is a significant threat.

 There were some issues where Obama polled well among service members, particularly in the use of drones and special forces teams for precision strikes, something which 60 percent of those polled approve of. They also agree with the President’s belief that building strong alliances with foreign powers helps to secure America.

“That’s a conflicted response to a president who entered the White House vowing to end US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan but instead leaves as the first American president to oversee two full terms with combat troops deployed to hostile zones,” the Military Times noted.

When looking at results by branches, the Marine Corps held the least favorable view of Obama, with 60 percent viewing his time in office as unfavorable. The Navy had the most members who view his time favorably, but even there only 43.4 percent held a positive view of his presidency.

Donald Trump: Hyper-Competitive ‘Alpha Male’ Who ‘Fixes Things’

The victory of Donald Trump has caught many by surprise. What kind of person is the newly elected American president? According to Gwenda Blair, US author and Trump’s biographer, Trump is polite, professional, very individually minded and hyper competitive.

Americans used to see Donald Trump “as the guy in charge who fixes things” Gwenda Blair, a US journalist and author of “The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a Presidential Candidate” highlighted in her interview with Radio Sputnik.

So, what kind of person is Trump?

“He was very polite, professional, not particularly interested in introspection,” Blair, who met Trump while writing his life story, told Radio Sputnik.

“He is someone who is very individually minded,” she continued, “Who speaks about America first, who wants to be first in line, who’s very much for a market economy, who would perhaps be the guy. Somebody who’s very shrewd about competition.”

According to Bair, Trump can be even called “hyper competitive.” The journalist remarked that those who followed the US presidential campaign couldn’t fail to notice it.

“[He is] spending his entire life, being able to size up his rivals and find some little points of give and to go for it. We saw it during the campaign here and I think we are going to see that on the world stage. He’s very sharp, very quick on that,” she underscored.

Likewise, Blair’s book about the Trumps is a story of a fierce competition and brilliant success.

“My book was about Donald, his father and his grandfather,” Blair said, “His grandfather emigrated here from Germany in 1885. And the book was published in 2000. So it gave the readers a very interesting picture of a century of American capitalism. And three men, who in their different times, different places, different eras, really were able to see their target market and market to it extremely successfully as we’ve seen most recently with Donald.”

Although polls predicted a solid Hillary Clinton victory over her political opponent, Trump has eventually come out on top. His astounding victory has caught many by surprise.

What lies at the root of Trump’s success?

Blair believes that Trump “saw an opportunity in an electorate who were very unhappy with the status quo, who were very receptive to a message that Washington is broken, that the elite establishment that’s responsible for how things are now is at the very least irresponsible, probably criminal and probably corrupt.”

In this context the only way to sort things out is to get someone in from the outside, she explained.

“It’s a kind of romance with disruption, with the idea, that you will turn it all over upside down and get rid of the bad people and keep the good people. And that’s a very complicated process of sorting out who’s who,” Blair noted.

The journalist called attention to the fact that the Trumps have made much of their fortune due to their ability to use government programs, sometimes jumping at opportunities to exploit loopholes to create their wealth.

“Donald Trump himself has made, his father before him, and Trump now, much of their fortune due to their being able to use government programs, very creatively, pushing the tax code to absolute limits in order to escape taxes, losing money, other people’s money, and then being able write that loss against his own future income in the next 20 years on an extraordinary level,” she pointed out.

“Is that brilliant, unpatriotic — however people might characterize that — it certainly was a successful tactic,” Blair noted.

That means Trump knows the system well and can fix it. And Trump’s other message was that he could get rid of the establishment that is keeping the American electorate from what it deserved, she added.

“Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it,” Trump told the audience at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland this July.

“The problems we face now — poverty and violence at home, war and destruction abroad — will last only as long as we continue relying on the same politicians who created them in the first place,” then Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump emphasized.

“He is an alpha male, he is used to being in charge and he takes that role and people responded that they want somebody to fix things,” Blair underscored.

‘US Empire’ Will ‘Attack Countries’ to Maintain Economy, Under Clinton or Trump

The United States that has imperial ambitions will continue to favor military resolutions to the conflicts waging wars to maintain its economy and military posture regardless of who becomes the next president, a newly elected member of the Icelandic Parliament from the Pirate Party of Iceland.

The US presidential elections will be held on November 8 with main two contenders for the presidency – Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump.

“I think that America is an empire and it behaves like an empire. It matters very little who sits as a president. It would continue on the same course until something a lot more drastic happen. It seems that regardless of the leader the United States will continue to attack countries in order to maintain their economy and their way of life,” Sunna Aevarsdottir said.

She underlined that the US aggressive foreign policy during Barack Obama’s term would remain regardless who becomes the next president.

“I do think that Hillary would be any worse than Obama that invaded 8 countries since he took office. I do not see any fundamental change. I do not think that Trump would have offered any better solution either,” Aevarsdottir noted.

She added that though the Pirate Party did not talk a lot about the presidential elections in the United States, the people were worried about Trump’s behavior and his references to nuclear weapons.

According to Aevarsdottir, the Icelandic Pirate Party favored US Democratic Party presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who lost the party’s nomination to Hillary Clinton. “If there was any candidate that the Pirate Party supported, it would have been Sanders and he is out of the race now,” she said.

According to preliminary results of Saturday’s parliamentary election in Iceland, the Pirate Party came third with 14.5 percent of the votes.

‘Seed for Endless Wars’: Clinton May Trigger Chaos in Egypt, Collapse of Syria

In case of winning the US elections and becoming the US president, Hillary Clinton may ramp up the US involvement in the Middle East, causing Egypt’s destabilization and Syria’s defragmentation, member of the French National Assembly’s defense committee Nicolas Dhuicq told sources.

US Democratic presidential nominee Clinton on different occasions during her election campaign pledged to increase the US influence in the Middle Eastern region, to create safe zones inside Syria, increase pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and boost support to the armed opposition.

“Clinton is disquieting because [US President Barack] Obama had taken lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan failures. Clinton knows it too… but she seems to be thinking in simplistic terms of religious identities and ethnicities to define her foreign policy. So I fear she could destabilize Egypt and try to favor a federal solution for Syria… which is a seed for endless wars between groups,” Dhuicq said.

During her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton voted for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and supported the idea of arming and training Syrian rebels in 2012. She was also a vocal supporter of operation in Afghanistan in 2009.

Clinton, who seems to favor use of force based on the list of her foreign policy priorities that imply possible use of US military, is much more dangerous to the world’s peace and security than her Republican rival Donald Trump, Alexander Neu, a member of the German parliamentary committee on defense told source.

“In my opinion, Clinton might be much more dangerous for the world peace and security than Trump. But both candidates are a mirror of the American society,” Neu said.

According to Clinton’s campaign website, in order to maintain the US military posture, provide national security and country’s influence abroad, the US army could be potentially involved in deterring Iran’s nuclear aspirations, defeating Daesh, countering China’s cybersecurity threat and containing Russian “aggression.”

The US presidential election is set for November 8 with Clinton and Trump being two major contenders for the presidency.

Clinton Campaign Clings to Debunked Conspiracy Theory About Trump’s Russian Bank

The Clinton campaign has repeatedly pushed an article linking Donald Trump with a Russian bank, even though multiple outlets – including the New York Times – have disputed the claims.

On Monday, Slate’s Franklin Foer published an article with an explosive revelation. According to Foer, a number of cybersecurity experts claim that a private computer server in Trump Tower appeared to be directly connected to Alfa Bank, a commercial institution in Russia. This was the latest in an ongoing mainstream media narrative that the Republican nominee is secretly a Kremlin puppet.

The legitimacy of Foer’s article was immediately called into question. A number of outlets, including the Daily Beast and the New York Times, said they had looked into the story as well, but found it lacking.

“[FBI] agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead – which they ultimately came to doubt – about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank,” the Times reported.

“FBI officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank,” the Times continued. “But the FBI ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts.”

Foer claimed that the server activity “appeared to follow the contours of political happenings in the United States.” Writing for Vox, Timothy Lee pointed out that

“If anything, the chart shows the opposite of that.” “In short, this chart seems to be totally unrelated to the political calendar. It provides no support for the idea that the Kremlin was using it as a back channel before and during the Republican National Convention in mid-July,” Lee writes.

Despite the fact that the Slate story was debunked almost as soon as it was published, the Clinton campaign has seized it as part of its arsenal of Russophobic tactics to defeat Trump.

“The Washington Post piled on, attacking the Foer report, saying ‘For all of Foer’s exegesis of the situation – culminating, he admits, with a lack of certainty about what it all means – it seems likely that the simplest answer isn’t that someone affiliated with Trump or his campaign set up a backchannel method for contacting someone at Alfa Bank in Russia,'” says Sam Sacks of Radio Sputnik’s Unanimous Dissent.

“The Intercept also has a pretty thorough takedown of the Foer piece, published on Tuesday. So too do a number of computer researchers, including people who were cited in the Foer piece, coming out and saying that the Foer piece is garbage.”

Unfortunately, these grand Russian conspiracy theories distract from the legitimate issues of Trump’s campaign, including his proposals to ban Muslims from the country and his frightening insinuations that nuclear weapons could be used in the Middle East to combat terrorists.

How Putin Derailed the West

“Nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.”

— Zbigniew Brzezinski, “Between Two Ages: The Technetronic Era”, 1971

“I’m going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria….not only to help protect the Syrians and prevent the constant outflow of refugees, but to gain some leverage on both the Syrian government and the Russians.”

Why is Hillary Clinton so eager to intensify US involvement in Syria when US interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have all gone so terribly wrong?

The answer to this question is simple. It’s because Clinton doesn’t think that these interventions went wrong. And neither do any of the other members of the US foreign policy establishment. (aka–The Borg). In fact, in their eyes these wars have been a rousing success. Sure, a few have been critical of the public relations backlash from the nonexistent WMD in Iraq, (or the logistical errors, like disbanding the Iraqi Army) but–for the most part– the foreign policy establishment is satisfied with its efforts to destabilize the region and remove leaders that refuse to follow Washington’s diktats.

This is hard for ordinary people to understand. They can’t grasp why elite powerbrokers would want to transform functioning, stable countries into uninhabitable wastelands overrun by armed extremists, sectarian death squads and foreign-born terrorists. Nor can they understand what has been gained by Washington’s 15 year-long rampage across the Middle East and Central Asia that has turned a vast swathe of strategic territory into a terrorist breeding grounds? What is the purpose of all this?

First, we have to acknowledge that the decimation and de facto balkanization of these countries is part of a plan. If it wasn’t part of a plan, than the decision-makers would change the policy. But they haven’t changed the policy. The policy is the same. The fact that the US is using foreign-born jihadists to pursue regime change in Syria as opposed to US troops in Iraq, is not a fundamental change in the policy. The ultimate goal is still the decimation of the state and the elimination of the existing government. This same rule applies to Libya and Afghanistan both of which have been plunged into chaos by Washington’s actions.

But why? What is gained by destroying these countries and generating so much suffering and death?

Here’s what I think:  I think Washington is involved in a grand project to remake the world in a way that better meets the needs of its elite constituents, the international banks and multinational corporations. Brzezinski not only refers to this in the opening quote, he also explains what is taking place: The nation-state is being jettisoned as the foundation upon which the global order rests. Instead, Washington is  erasing borders, liquidating states, and removing strong, secular leaders that can mount resistance to its machinations in order to impose an entirely new model on the region, a new world order. The people who run these elite institutions want to create an interconnected-global free trade zone overseen by the proconsuls of Big Capital, in other words, a global Eurozone that precludes the required state institutions (like a centralized treasury, mutual debt, federal transfers) that would allow the borderless entity to function properly.

Deep state powerbrokers who set policy behind the smokescreen of our bought-and-paid-for congress think that one world government is an achievable goal provided they control the world’s energy supplies, the world’s reserve currency and become the dominant player in this century’s most populous and prosperous region, Asia. This is essentially what Hillary’s “pivot” to Asia is all about.

The basic problem with Washington’s NWO plan is that a growing number of powerful countries are still attached to the old world order and are now prepared to defend it. This is what’s really going on in Syria, the improbable alliance of Russia, Syria, Iran and Hezbollah have stopped the US military juggernaut dead in its tracks. The unstoppable force has hit the immovable object and the immovable object has prevailed…so far.

Naturally, the foreign policy establishment is upset about these new developments, and for good reason. The US has run the world for quite a while now, so the rolling back of US policy in Syria is as much a surprise as it is a threat. The Russian Airforce deployed to Syria a full year ago in September, but only recently has Washington shown that it’s prepared to respond by increasing its support of its jihadists agents on the ground and by mounting an attack on ISIS in the eastern part of the country, Raqqa. But the real escalation is expected to take place when Hillary Clinton becomes president in 2017. That’s when the US will directly engage Russia militarily, assuming that their tit-for-tat encounters will be contained within Syria’s borders.  It’s a risky plan, but it’s the next logical step in this bloody fiasco. Neither party wants a nuclear war, but Washington believes that doing nothing is tantamount to backing down, therefore, Hillary and her neocon advisors can be counted on to up the ante. “No-fly zone”, anyone?

The assumption is that eventually, and with enough pressure, Putin will throw in the towel. But this is another miscalculation. Putin is not in Syria because he wants to be nor is he there because he values his friendship with Syrian President Bashar al Assad. That’s not it at all. Putin is in Syria because he has no choice. Russia’s national security is at stake. If Washington’s strategy of deploying terrorists to topple Assad succeeds, then the same ploy will be attempted in Iran and Russia. Putin knows this, just like he knows that the scourge of foreign-backed terrorism can decimate entire regions like Chechnya. He knows that it’s better for him to kill these extremists in Aleppo than it will be in Moscow. So he can’t back down, that’s not an option.

But, by the same token, he can compromise, in other words, his goals and the goals of Assad do not perfectly coincide. For example, he could very well make territorial concessions to the US for the sake of peace that Assad might not support.

But why would he do that? Why wouldn’t he continue to fight until every inch of Syria’s sovereign territory is recovered?

Because it’s not in Russia’s national interest to do so, that’s why. Putin has never tried to conceal the fact that he’s in Syria to protect Russia’s national security. That’s his main objective.  But he’s not an idealist, he’s a pragmatist who’ll do whatever he has to to end the war ASAP. That means compromise.

This doesn’t matter to the Washington warlords….yet. But it will eventually. Eventually there will be an accommodation of some sort. No one is going to get everything they want, that much is certain. For example, it’s impossible to imagine that Putin would launch a war on Turkey to recover the territory that Turkish troops now occupy in N Syria. In fact, Putin may have already conceded as much to Turkish president Tayyip Erdogan in their recent meetings. But that doesn’t mean that Putin doesn’t have his red lines. He does.  Aleppo is a red line. Turkish troops will not be allowed to enter Aleppo.

The western corridor, the industrial and population centers are all red lines. On these, there will be no compromise. Putin will help Assad remain in power and keep the country largely intact. But will Turkey control sections in the north, and will the US control sections in the east?

Probably. This will have to be worked out in negotiations, but its unlikely that the country’s borders will be the same as they were before the war broke out. Putin will undoubtedly settle for a halfloaf provided the fighting ends and security is restored. In any event, he’s not going to hang around until the last dog is hung.

Unfortunately, we’re a long way from any settlement in Syria, mainly because Washington is nowhere near accepting the fact that its project to rule the world has been derailed. That’s the crux of the matter, isn’t it? The bigshots who run the country are still in denial. It hasn’t sunk in yet that the war is lost and that their nutty jihadist-militia plan has failed.

It’s going to take a long time before Washington gets the message that the world is no longer its oyster. The sooner they figure it out, the better it’ll be for everyone.

Haitian Senate President Exposes Clinton Foundation: “Hillary Clinton Tried To Bribe Me!”

Former Haitian President of Senate is speaking out to tell the truth about Clinton Foundation at a Trump event! The former president said that Clinton was trying to buy him. She tried to appeal to him (bribe him).

She defrauded the people of Haiti…

 “I spent 4 hours with Bill Richardson to tell Bill Clinton not to invade Haiti.

A week later the embassy called me and told me that Bill Clinton has a messenger for him.

He came and told me to sign with Bill Clinton, join his movement and Clinton will make me the richest man in Haiti.

I told him he is a principled man and I will not sell out…

A week later, Clinton revoked my visa.”

He just challenged Trump to ask Hillary Clinton to publish the audit of all the money they have stolen from Haiti in 2010.

World Famous Physician Believes Vladimir Putin May Have Poisoned Hillary Clinton

Following Hillary Clinton’s near-collapse at the 9/11 memorial, the internet was flooded with jokes about how her campaign would find a way to blame Russia. But nobody actually expected it to happen…

Bennet Omalu, a forensic pathologist who discovered a pattern of chronic traumatic encephalopathy in dead NFL players, has suggested that the candidate should have blood work done to see whether she’s been poisoned.

‘‘I must advice [sic] the Clinton campaign to perform toxicologic analysis of Ms. Clinton’s blood. It is possible she is being poisoned,” Omalu tweeted Sunday evening.

Omalu didn’t stop there. He then asserted that the reason for his worry is that he does not trust Russian President Vladimir Putin or Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

‘‘I do not trust Mr. Putin and Mr. Trump. With those two all things are possible,” Omalu tweeted in a follow-up.

Nigerian-born Omalu rose to fame after becoming obsessed with the deaths of former Pittsburgh Steelers players while working in the coroner’s office of the city. He proved that players had been suffering from brain damage due to blows to the head, likely obtained while playing.

Notably, his fringe musings on a poison plot by the Republican nominee or the Russian president made headlines in several publications that previously wrote off left-of-center concerns about Clinton’s health as “conspiracy theories.”

A.C.L – This is how completely ridiculous and mentally unstable the main stream media and the Clinton campaign is… Please, supply them with the “RED PILL ” only!

Truth About 9/11

By Eric Margolis

“America’s strategic and economic interests in the Mideast and Muslim world are being threatened by the agony in Palestine, which inevitably invites terrorist attacks against US citizens and property.”

– Eric Margolis, Sun Media, Sept 2, 2001 (nine days before the Sept 11 attacks against New York and Washington DC.)

As Americans enter the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on their nation, they still have not understood the true cause of these dreadful attacks.

Who can blame them? Our politicians and media have totally obscured the truth behind these and subsequent attacks that we call ‘terrorism.’ While we mourn 9/11, US B-52 heavy bombers are raining bombs on what’s left of Afghanistan in a futile attempt to crush tribal forces (aka Taliban) fighting western occupation.

We did the same thing in Laos in the 1980’s, as President Barack Obama properly noted during his visit there last week. Laos has never recovered and Afghanistan won’t either.

Since 2015, the US has dropped at least 32,000 – 1,000-2,000 lb. bombs on Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan – all Muslim nations. US bomb inventories are running critically low as arms makers work overtime.

9/11 was a revenge attack conducted by mostly Saudi nationals who claimed they wanted to punish the United States for supporting Israeli oppression of Palestine, and for what they claimed was the US ‘occupation’ of Saudi Arabia.

That’s as much as we really know. We have never gotten the full story about 9/11. The best we can do is ask “qui bono,” who really benefitted from the attacks?

The 9/11 narrative was immediately twisted by President George Bush into a spurious claim that America had been attacked by Muslims because of its ‘freedoms’ and her ‘way of life.’ This deceit opened the Pandora’s box from which issued the rising wave of Islamophobia and Crusading fever sweeping over the US and Europe.

America was attacked for what it had been doing all over the Muslim world, not for what it was. Most Americans don’t know that the first CIA ‘regime change’ in the Mideast occurred in Syria, way back in 1948. We’re still at it today.

Ever since, the US, Britain and France – the imperial three musketeers – have been breaking and making regimes across the Mideast and Africa, and installing vicious dictators to do our bidding, earning enemies from West Africa to Tajikistan.

Hillary Clinton said this week that if elected president she would advance ‘American exceptionalism’ and assure the new world order. These are code terms for imperialism and hegemony. If Clinton wins, look forward to foreign and military policy directed by Goldman Sachs and the neoconservatives.

Donald Trump vows a major increase military spending at a time when America’s infrastructure is rusting or collapsing and its debt soaring. Both Trump and Clinton warn of growing security threats to America from ISIS and North Korea. In reality, the greatest internal threat is the type of Saturday night gang shoot-outs in Chicago that have killed 500 people so far this year.

ISIS is a military pipsqueak – a bunch of 20-something hooligans. North Korea only wants to be left alone to its misery. Washington, Paris, and London need the ISIS bogeyman today, just as they needed al-Qaida and the Soviet Union before, to justify budget-busting new arms spending and keeping the population whipped up with bogus war fever.

Internationally, the greatest threat to America’s security is, of course, nuclear armed Russia which has enough intercontinental and sea-launched missiles to wipe the United States off the map. Accordingly, Washington’s most important foreign and national security priority is maintaining calm, well-mannered relations with Russia and its leadership.

Instead, we have Hillary Clinton and her frantic war party neocons trying to provoke Russia at every turn and giving Moscow the impression that she will start a war with Russia. It was precisely such war talk and sabre rattling that in 1983 during the Able Archer crisis brought the US and USSR to within minutes of a full-scale nuclear war.

For all Trump’s bluster and Islamophobia, he is absolutely right about seeking good relations with Moscow. The schoolyard demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin by the Clinton camp and its tame US media is childish, shameful and unworthy of a great power.

Former Deputy Undersecretary of US Navy Predicts War with China is ‘Inevitable’

In an editorial on Saturday, the retired naval officer, writing on behalf of the neoconservative think tank The Hudson Institute, predicted that a bloody naval conflict with China was imminent.

The Former Deputy Undersecretary of the US Navy under both President Ronald Reagan and President George H.W. Bush penned a troubling editorial on Saturday calling on the Obama administration to taking a more hawkish stance against Chinese expansionism predicting that war with Beijing is inevitable and that the United States should do everything necessary to limit China’s strength in the meantime.

“A key component of the next president’s foreign policy must be to compel China to respect international law. Otherwise, we may be faced by a conflict with a growing navy at a time when ours is decreasing in size,” said Seth Cropsey. “Obama has not made this imperative any easier.”

The naval officer turned think tank war hawk contested Beijing’s claim to the South China Sea’s disputed islands citing the decision by the international tribunal at The Hague on July 12 and blasted the Obama administration’s response to the decision saying it “wholly ignored the military character of China’s actions to date in the South China Sea.”

Cropsey contends that contrary to a statement made by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2015 to President Obama stating that the islands of the South China Sea would not be militarized, China has nonetheless “continued construction of hardened hangars demonstrat[ing] Beijing’s intent to deploy combat aircraft to the islands.”

He surmised that China’s foreign policy is one of expansionism and imperialism where might makes right citing Beijing’s former Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi out of context who said, “China is a big country and other countries are small countries, and that’s a fact.”

Cropsey argues in his piece further that China has its own brand of exceptionalism, distinct from American exceptionalism, that is somehow not predicated on the “rule of law” or “accepted norms of international behavior,” but rather the country’s power to ignore international law altogether.

The position that he lays out somewhat astoundingly is that of former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, whose name has been floated as the next Secretary of State, who wrote in a 2000 article that apart from the words expressly laid out in treaties international law does not exist at all because, essentially, it is based on custom and if you violate that custom repeatedly then the customary international law changes.

Nonetheless, Cropsey returns to his opinion that “China does not respect international law” whereas “Japan and the United States do” before calling for a more adversarial posture towards Beijing because “the next US administration needs to understand that our fate as a great power is inseparable from America’s continued role as a great Pacific power.”

As tensions continue to mount on the high seas at least some American military officials believe it is wise to provoke and isolate China just short of military conflict in order to limit the consequence of an inevitable war – a frightening reality for the wellbeing of the world that was once unthinkable.