A Putin lackey. An Assad-apologist. Tulsi Gabbard goes by many monikers, following her challenge on the problematic Democratic Presidential candidate Kamala Harris. That she’s a Kremlin-sponsored plant. That she’s publicly liked by many of the bogeymen of US and international politics. And the Democratic media establishment comes crawling out of the woodwork to discredit, and defame, the Hawaiian Representative.
Why though? Well, for all intents and purposes, because she wants to end American Interventionism (more modernly referred to as the War on Terror). End the US’s self-imposed role as world police.
And heavens forbid that the US stop micro-managing the affairs of other countries! Heavens forbid that they stop destabilizing and infiltrate world powers in an effort to propagate a new cold war. For how would a world look like without the bluster of America on the world stage? Surely Putin and Jinping would take over and divvy up the world according to their wishes instead. And surely, the world is better off with a belligerent stars-and-striped big brother. A big brother so aggressive that, as of the time of writing, it has become so violent onto itself that there have been more mass shootings this year within its borders than days have passed in 2019.
Look, I have no idea if Congress Representative Tulsi Gabbard is being sponsored by Russian interests, like #MoscowMitch and #LeningradLindsey, or if such smears against her comes solely from the Kamala Harris campaign management. But just meeting and talking with a foreign despot, such as Syrian Assad, can’t intelligently be construed as an act of support. Because meeting with foreign despots and elected leaders alike is pretty much the definition of statemanship, regardless if you like them or not. Nothing about international politics would work if you refused to meet with and talk to your opponents.
And despite being used against Gabbard as some sort of stupendous proof that she supports foreign dictators, she argues one thing very well. And that one argument is undeniably true; American Interventionism has been universally destructive ever since the end of the second World War.
Korea still stands divided. The war never ended, despite the US’s “benevolent” involvement. Famously, the US lost the Vietnam war. Every American coup perpetrated in Central and South America in the 80’s and 90’s has been followed by massive bloodshed and a spiral of violence that many nations still struggle to climb out of. Afghanistan is still a shit-show, with the ever beaten – never defeated Taliban on the rise again. Iraq is no better off vis-a-vis security and safety than it was under Ba’ath party tyranny, despite that the American mission was “accomplished”. And even though the Orange Hydra has declared ISIL defeated (which it isn’t), Syria is still in shambles.
The World never asked for the US to impose its distorted will upon all others. We never asked them to become the timeless world cops that they paint themselves as. Because American Interventionism has never been about protecting freedoms or human rights. If so, America would already be elbow-deep in conflicts with Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, Congo, Turkey, Russia, India, Indonesia, Brazil, and the list goes on. Because American Interventionism was always about imposing US will on other nations. Not values or living standards, but profit margins for private interests. The US hasn’t been a world saviour since 1944. It is not a good guy standing up in the face of Russian or Chinese influence. The rest of the world, eastern and western both, with the glaring exception of Israel, does not see a friend when they look at America. We see a bully. Just another bad guy.
And the first thing that you have to do if you want to change that, if you want to stop being a bully, a bad guy, is to stop doing bad things. Just like Gabbard proposes.
/Sebastian Lindberg 6/8-2019
WastedWords 