Retrospect - Klintons

Kosovo: Radical Masterstroke

Understanding How the Clintons are Using Kosovo



Kosovo is not what it seems.



As an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation who was our staunch ally during World Wars I and II, it so obviously violates International Law, the U.N. and NATO Charters, and the Helsinki Accords it has understandably fractured legislatures from the British Parliament to the Russian Duma.



As a military exercise unjustified by national interest and lacking a political objective that can be achieved by military means, it accelerated the process of "ethnic cleansing" - severe but marked more by threats of force than actual violence - into an epic tragedy of senseless suffering. But while we've been busy just using these facts to counter the Press and the President's emotional appeal to false moral indignation, we've missed the real purpose of the Kosovo Campaign. Let's see how the dots are connected.



Three things we know about Mr. and Mrs. Clinton: 1) they have a partnership that transcends the marriage relationship, 2) she has a vision, a strategy, and an agenda which he shares and executes, and 3) as David M. Bresnahan writes, "[e]verything they do is contrived and manipulated. Nothing is real. Everything is controlled and staged. It's all a game, and all that matters is winning." The game is the Clintons' strategy to achieve their vision. Understanding their vision and strategy is the key to understanding the otherwise absurd nightmare of Kosovo.



A mistake often made is to classify the Clintons as liberals, they are not. As David Brock carefully explains in The Seduction of Hillary Rodham, Mrs. Clinton's vision combines the ideas of Saul Alinsky, lawless prophet of the radical left, with those of hard-line communism. Alinsky wanted "to advance from the jungle of laissez faire capitalism to a world worthy of the name of human civilization . . . where the means of economic production will be owned by all of the people instead of just a comparative handful."



Hillary's background as Chairman of the Board at the Legal Services Corporation and the New World Foundation brought her into close contact with communist groups not only in the West but also in Africa, Central America, and Palestine. Her tenure as chair of the Children's Defense Fund gave her "a vision of big government as an instrument of virtue and moral progress," and "confirm[ed] her belief that reform could best be achieved coercively, through top-down government edicts," according to Brock.



Hillary's strategy - and therefore Bill's - is an accidentally brilliant nuance of Saul Alinsky's. Alinsky's strategy had only one component, "attaining power through any and all means." Alinsky wrote "whatever works to get power to the people, use it . . . . ask of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means only whether they will work." As Brock quotes Alinsky:



"Power is the very essence, the dynamo of life . . . . It is a world not of angels but of angles, where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles; a world where we are always moral and our enemies are always immoral; a world where 'reconciliation' means that when one side gets the power and the other side gets reconciled to it, then we have reconciliation . . . ."

Alinsky, like Lenin, called for professional revolutionaries, agitators who would destroy the system from the outside, and it was this one point that Hillary changed. Believing that Alinsky's type of radicalism would not go over well with "the kind of people I grew up with in Park Ridge," she decided that she could best seize power by working within the system. She applied to Yale Law School rather than take a job with Alinsky organizing the poor.



But she adopted the rest of Alinsky's power-grab tactics completely. Of her senior thesis at Wellesley she told the Washington Post, "I basically argued that [Alinsky] was right . . . You know I've been on this kick for 25 years." And indeed she has, at the Women's Equality Summit on March 16 she continued to parrot Alinsky saying she is "bring[ing] about the humanization of politics." Her thesis is now under lock and key, but Alinsky's tactics are known and include:



1) the purposeful incitement of political opposition to misdirect their energies,



2) playing power groups against one another,



3) going "outside the experience of the enemy to cause confusion, frustration, and fear," and



4) use of personal information to intimidate opponents, especially those holding up key legislation.



And in light of these tactics and the goal of seizing as much power as possible by any means we can begin to understand what the Clinton's are doing in Kosovo, and the rest of the world.



Stories out of Washington suggest Hillary might run for the Senate and Bill is almost isolated, shunning aids and dreaming of erasing the stain of impeachment with a Nixonian foreign policy coup. These are obvious distractions. Even the press sees that Senator from New York is a giant demotion from policy initiator to policy compromiser. And Nixon's foreign policy achievements were Chinese engagement, Russian detente, and withdrawal from Vietnam, not the Clinton goals of Chinese appeasement, Russian provocation, and wanton aggression in an unwinnable quagmire.