'gender gap' or same old crap?

national media in the US are making much of the apparent schism between the boys and the girls in america's foreign policy establishment. it seems like guys like robert gates at defense were against US involvement, while ms. clinton over at state were for taking the more ballsy approach. as hillary's henchwoman put it:

"“Now we have a chance to support a real new beginning in the Muslim world – a new beginning of accountable governments that can provide services and opportunities for their citizens in ways that could dramatically decrease support for terrorist groups and violent extremism,” she wrote. “It’s hard to imagine something more in our strategic interest.”
“Any use of force must be carefully and fully debated, but that debate has now been had,” wrote Dr. Slaughter, now a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University. “It’s been raging for a week, during which almost every Arab country has come on board calling for a no-flight zone and Colonel Qaddafi continues to gain ground. It is time to act.”" CSMonitor.com

one has to wonder about these two-faced knuckleheads. the foreign policy establishment, as it serves as the diplomatic wing on the corporate-security state, is always looking for ways to advance business interests, over and above any concern for the liberty and rights of oppressed people under america's favored autocrats and dictators.

far from championing freedom and democracy, in the much-ridiculed formulation of bushy cheneyism, the CIA is always on the match to sow internal discord, and manipulate domestic politics in places around the world, to ensure that those who end up atop the pyramid will bring stability to their nations.

this has meant either right-wing military dictatorships on the one hand, or religious fundamentalists like the taliban on the other. being a left-leaning, populist leader has far too often been a one-way trip to the grave.

in spite of hillary's apparent acquisition of a set of brass nuts, we can be sure that the prattling on about supporting accountable governments that provide services and opportunities for their citizens is not to be taken at face value. if anything, it simply represents a struggle between two factions within the establishment, whose methods and goals cannot be divined from the surface appearance of things.