"The idea that somehow [we] should delay this operation because of others' concern about the humanitarian situation in Mosul; that doesn't make sense."

~ Josh Earnest, White House Spokesman, 22 October 2016

On October 17, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi announced the beginning of the long-touted military campaign aimed at retaking the Iraqi city of Mosul from ISIS terrorists. The announcement was met with much applause in Western and Gulf State political circles, but there are justified concerns about an imminent humanitarian disaster accompanying the campaign.

The expected atrocities from ISIS have already begun: they have already reportedly executed 284 men and boys in the Mosul area,executed 16 citizens by throwing them off a bridge and forcibly taken at least 550 families from villages around Mosul into the city to be used as human shields.

The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) warned that more than half a million children and their families face extreme danger following the launch of the operation. In a UNICEF press release, Spokesperson Peter Hawkins said "Mosul's children have already suffered immensely over the past two years. Many could be forcibly displaced, trapped between fighting lines, or caught in the cross fire."

The International Committee of the Red Cross said civilians face an impossible choice: stay in Mosul and risk being attacked or bombed, or flee and risk everything. Speaking on RT News on 17 October, Red Cross spokeswoman Sarah Alzawqari said the organisation expects there will be a humanitarian catastrophe, with up to a million people expected to flee their homes, adding to over 3 million already internally displaced refugees. They will flee with nothing and live in fear, Alzawqari said, as they desperately seek safety. She further said the Red Cross has humanitarian supplies for approximately 300,000 people, leaving supplies well short if the displacement reaches the 1 million mark.

Many people have fled to the Debaga refugee camp on the outskirts of Erbil, which is already at capacity, overflowing with 30,000 refugees. There are fears that ISIS fighters will flee among the refugees, posing security problems for the Iraqi and Iraqi Kurdistan authorities. Some men are being held separately until they can be given security clearances by the Kurdish Peshmerga.

The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) currently faces major economic woes, unable to pay its public sector employees' wages. It is severely underprepared to cope with an expected influx of refugees from the fighting in Mosul. It has estimated it will need $284 million to deal with the refugee crisis, money it simply does not have. As such, it is reaching out to international donors to fill the funding gap. As it stands, the humanitarian organisations will be overrun, scrambling to supply the most basic of needs in an environment of overwhelming internal displacement. In a lesson on the paranoia and hostility of Europe towards refugees who flee to the continent, Vian Rasheed, the head of the Erbil Refugee Council, said, "They have a few thousand refugees show up in Europe and they start to worry. When fighting broke out in Mosul in 2014, we had 100,000 people show up in one night at checkpoints."

Just as there is concern about the harmony, level of cooperation and potential for conflict among the Iraqi-led coalition forces, so too concern is held of possible mistreatment of civilians fleeing the fighting. Any male over the age of 14 will be viewed with suspicion lest they be ISIS fighters mixing with the refugees, who may be used to launch surprise attacks in nearby areas, such as we have seen in Kirkuk, or who may be able to flee and rejoin ISIS forces elsewhere.

In fact, we already know that ISIS forces will be fleeing Mosul to join the effort to oust Assad in Syria because Iraqi commanders confirmed to the Washington Post before the operation began that this is a fundamental part of their strategy to retake the city:

The western side of the city will be left largely open, which may make for a less protracted fight inside than if it was besieged. "We'll try to give them an escape to run to Syria," Maj. Salam Jassim, a commander with Iraq's elite special forces, said of the militants.

If vetting in refugee camps looking for those with ISIS links is the worst civilians have to bear, they can be thankful. They may face far worse, however, from militias who may question why they couldn't leave a city of over 1 million presided over by what now appears to be far less than 12,000 ISIS fighters, unless they are ISIS sympathisers, or even ISIS fighters. Accusations of the execution of civilians in the battle to retake Fallujah in June should be a sobering thought for anyone tempted to get caught up in the hype about the heroic liberation of Mosul.

On 1 June Kataeb Hezbollah fighters entered the village of Saqlawiyah near Fallujah, using loudspeakers to tell the residents they had nothing to fear. The United Nations accused the militia of separating women and children from men and teenage boys, taking the latter group to undisclosed locations, with reports of at least 50 executions - the fate of the rest remains unknown.

In the context of 25 years of incessant violence, the terror that ISIS has struck in the minds of Iraqis, the sectarian divisions that have opened up and a disunified coalition seeking to liberate Mosul from ISIS, it can be expected there will be human rights abuses.

As in the case of the staggering destruction of Ramadi during the campaign to retake it from ISIS in late 2015, we can expect to see large-scale damage to the city of Mosul in addition to the inevitable mass carnage.

In Ramadi, the central hospital and main train station were reduced to piles of rubble, along with thousands of other buildings in the city. At least 64 bridges were completely destroyed, leaving the Iraqi government, caught in an economic crisis induced by falling oil prices and the war against ISIS, struggling to fund the reconstruction of the devastated city.

The "destroying the city in order to save it" was compliments of US-led coalition air strikes, which sought to pound ISIS targets in order to rout them from the city.

We can expect the same in Mosul, with the dichotomy of siege versus liberation swung heavily in favour of the liberation narrative by the Washington-obedient mainstream media. Regarding Mosul, we will not hear terms such as "barbarity," "war crimes," or "worst humanitarian catastrophe since World War ll" from deceitful Western politicians or their servants in the media. Obfuscating the extent of human suffering, we will instead hear plenty of coded phrases such as the operation being a "complicated" or "prolonged" campaign, that ISIS will put up "fierce resistance," and that there are "humanitarian concerns." That is as close as they will come to admitting the truth of humanitarian catastrophe under siege conditions. From time to time you may hear the thoroughly distasteful whitewashing term, "collateral damage," although this is most likely to come under duress from State Department and White House spokespeople trundling out scripted responses to publicity and criticism of civilian casualties.

We can't expect to see any probe into suspected war crimes in Mosul by the United Nations Human Rights Council. This is reserved for the actions of Syria and Russia as they seek to drive Al-Qaeda terrorists and their allies out of the city of Aleppo, which they have terrorised for more than four years.

Russia has indicated early in the campaign that it is willing to up the ante on the US by stating an airstrike on a funeral procession in the Iraqi city of Daquq, which killed dozens of civilians, was a war crime. The US-led coalition has denied its planes struck the funeral, a standard response in such cases. Perhaps it may soon acknowledge it was a "deliberate error," based on false intelligence, similar to the claim of Saudi Arabia after its airstrike on a funeral hall in Yemen. The gloves are off in the information war; Russia, coming under intense accusations of war crimes in Syria, is rightfully exposing war crimes carried out by the US, crimes which have a years' long history in Iraq.

This more strident approach to confronting the US-led coalition on civilian deaths can be seen in Russia stating it has radar data proving that Belgian war planes conducted the airstrike on Hassadjek in Aleppo province, Syria, which killed 6 people on 18 October. It gave precise times of the air operation, surely done to send the clear message to Washington that it knows exactly when and where it carries out operations, and that it is well prepared with its radar and defence systems for any provocations.

Ministry of Defence Spokesman General Igor Konashenkov provided further discomfort for the Belgians and Americans, saying:

"I'd like to stress that this was not the first time when the international coalition conducted airstrikes against civilian targets and later denied responsibility for them," he said. "Coalition warplanes have hit weddings, funerals, hospitals, police stations, humanitarian convoys and even Syrian troops fighting Islamic State[IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL] terrorists."

The US bears primary responsibility for the flaring of sectarian clashes in Iraq which have left thousands dead after its genocidal sanctions regime from 1991 until its brutal invasion in 2003, all based on the lies of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction and having ties to Al-Qaeda. The litany of lies, such as Colin Powell's fiction at the United Nations of mobile chemical weapons laboratories traversing the country, have been exposed and widely condemned. The power vacuum after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the dismantling of state institutions—apart from protecting the oil and interior ministries—notably that of the military, the carving up of Iraq's resources for western energy giants, and the sponsoring of renegade militias, all gave rise to ISIS, and has largely destroyed the cradle of civilization.

The use of depleted uranium by the US in the wars in Iraq has led to a forty-fold increase in the cancer rate in the country. Its boastfulness about the military advantage of weapons with depleted uranium vanishes when challenged over the long-term health effects on the Iraqi population. Its further use in Syria in late 2015, now admitted by the US, gives cause for concern over potential future health effects there. This is exacerbated when we factor in the duplicity of the US, which seems incapable of telling the truth on anything in Syria or Iraq. We may have to hold our breath and hope the US decides not to use depleted uranium in the battle for Mosul.

The United Kingdom, too, has a place in the Iraq hall of shame, eagerly following the US into the slaughter and mayhem.Felicity Arbuthnot recounts some of the crimes in Basra carried out by British forces during their occupation of the city. The role of Tony "I would do it again" Blair is well documented in the Chilcot Report, and we can only hope that justice can be served after the heinous crimes carried out under his Prime Ministership. However, despite the fact Chilcot delivered a devastating indictment of not just Blair, but also the institutions of the UK state, he is likely to be able to continue on in lucrative advisory roles, public speaking engagements, and, who knows, if he can weather the Chilcot storm, re-enter politics.

The liberation of Mosul will not rid Iraq or Syria of ISIS. The campaign however may help the campaign of Hillary Clinton, poised to become the next (hopefully not last) president of the USA on 8 November. Like so many other things around crooked Hillary, the operation seems to have been rigged to occur at the most strategic time for her campaign. Yet another example of how the US uses other countries and stage manages events to promote its own interests - to hell with the fate of the recipient country.

Flying kites, safe and friendly neighborhoods, women in freely chosen attire attending college, watching movies at the cinema, attending festivities... these are some of the details of happy memories several of my Afghan friends and relatives recall during the 70s. If 15 years ago, the criminal and illegal US invasion of Afghanistan had not taken place, and if it weren't for the invasion of US-trained Mujahideen and if societal, infrastructural, and economic development had continued, the youngest generation of Afghans would today be making similar memories, and perhaps even better ones.

While the consensus in the mainstream media these days is that the Russians cause suffering wherever they set foot, the USSR actually helped build infrastructure (such as universities and dams) in the country before the Mujahideen started to emerge. The Soviets were forced to leave, and the country was left with a growing cancer that was intentionally induced by the West. As current US presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, said during an On The Record interview that took place on July 19, 2010:

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan we had this brilliant idea that we were going to come to Pakistan andcreate a force of Mujahideen and equip them with Stinger missiles and everything else to go after the Soviets inside Afghanistan.

And we were successful. The Soviets left Afghanistan, and then we said; "great, good-bye!", leaving these trained people, who were fanatical, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, leaving them well-armed, creating a mess, frankly, that at the time we didn't really recognize, we were just so happy to see the Soviet Union fall and we thought "fine, we are OK now everything is going to be so much better".

Now you look back. The people we are fighting today, [al-qaeda] we were supporting in the fight against the Soviets.

Those words alone make it clear that the fate of the Afghan population was never a concern, their mission was to get the Russians out of an area that is of geopolitical interest to Clinton and her Western warmongering colleagues.

The mess that they 'mistakenly' created is one that serves their agenda well, because the US never truly left Afghanistan. To this day, the US has rooted itself all over the country and is in charge of most, if not all, military operations under the pretext that Afghanistan would be lost without them and that the situation would worsen if all troops were to be withdrawn. (That's right, Obama's "you can take that to the bank" promise to bring the troops home from Afghanistan was a lie.) A mere glimpse at the results from their 15 year occupation and the conclusion is that the Afghan population would be far better off without US 'assistance'.

'Oops, We've Done It Again and Again', Violence Against Civilians by the US Army
In an article (entitled 'The Kill Team: How U.S. Soldiers in Afghanistan Murdered Innocent Civilians') published by Rolling Stone, author Mark Boal lays out the gruesome details of how a group of clearly ponerized US soldiers started plotting to kill and killing innocent Afghan civilians for sport in Kandahar, southern Afghanistan, where they were based. The group's known victims were: Gul Mudin, age 15; Marach Agha, age 22; and Mullah Allah Dad, age 45. The soldiers took pictures of themselves celebrating their kills, while others collected fingers of their victims as a trophy. As expected, once the murders were revealed within the particular military unit and beyond, the matter was shoved under the rug:

"Even before the war crimes became public, the Pentagon went to extraordinary measures to suppress the photos - an effort that reached the highest levels of both governments. [...] The message was clear: What happens in Afghanistan stays in Afghanistan."

It is chilling to know that individuals in such positions can so easily kill civilians, the very people they claim to be protecting. But asWSWS author Joanne Laurier states: "Atrocities such as those carried out by the "Kill Team" have long been employed in counterinsurgency operations by the US and other imperialist powers to "pacify" populations that resist occupation, from India to Kenya, Ethiopia to Angola, Algeria to Vietnam. The US military provides the training and weaponry with which its soldiers maim and kill. The drive by the American ruling elite to dominate the globe creates the conditions where individual psychosis and sadism must flourish."

With such a lack of regulation and serious psychological screening for army personnel, we can only wonder how many other brave US soldiers have committed similar atrocities and have gotten away with it. What we do know is that there have been countless US war crimes in Afghanistan that have gone unpunished, such as deadly airstrikes that, overall, have claimed thousands of innocent lives.

In 2015, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported that there have been around 600 drone strikes that together killed more than 2,000 people. In a report published in February this year, the Bureau states: "The rate at which civilians are being killed by US airstrikes in Afghanistan is at its highest point since 2008." The UN reported that: One in every four casualties was a child, and one in ten a woman. In October last year, 'The Drone Papers' revealed that, in general "nearly 90 percent of people killed in [US] airstrikes were not the intended targets" over one five-month period.

To name just three fairly recent examples; on 3 Oct 2015, a US airstrike hit a hospital in Kunduz, killing at least 50 doctors, patients and civilians, and leaving 400 wounded; on 12 Aug 2016 a US airstrike hit a house in Minari, leaving 20 civilians dead; on 28 Sept 2016 a US airstrike hit a private residence in Achin, 15 civilians were killed.

The US response to any of these 'Oopsy-Daisy' mistakes is: (a) Taliban were hiding there (b) Afghan forces called for air support. (c) Our deepest condolences, the attack was a profound tragedy. Whatever their reasoning and regardless of the amount of 'apologies', the facts are clear: airstrikes continue to kill innocent civilians. Why? Firstly, it is to simply create more chaos and instability in the country, the goal after all was never to liberate the people of Afghanistan, but rather to oppress and contain the country through 'controlled chaos'. Second, US military technology and coordination is ridiculously imprecise. Drone operators, for example, have great difficulty discerning what they're seeing on the screen (see Behind the Headlines: Kill Chain: America's drone warfare - Mindless mayhem or 'strategy of terror'?).

Leaving?! But Someone Has To Keep An Eye On The Poppies
It's almost common knowledge that poppy cultivation increased significantly after the US invasion. Since 2002, most of the world's heroin comes from Afghanistan. John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) has said that "roughly 500,000 acres, or about 780 square miles, is devoted to growing opium poppy". As he notes, that's equal to more than 400,000 US football fields.

Despite the fact that US and other western nations claim they have funded campaigns to eradicate poppy crops (the US invested$7.5 billion), poppy farming in Afghanistan continues to increase. Any 'results' that are reported regarding crop eradication are minimal, to say the least. For example, the 'Afghanistan Opium Survey 2014: Cultivation and Production' by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan Ministry of Counter Narcotics, reported the following:

In the Eastern region, cultivation decreased in Kunar, Laghman and Kapisa provinces by 33%, 27% and 19%, respectively, but increased in Nangarahar province by 16%. Cultivation in Nangahar again reached the level it had before becoming poppy-free in 2007. Only 34 hectares of opium poppy cultivation were eradicated in Nangarhar province in 2014.

In the North-Eastern region, Badakhshan saw a 77% increase in opium poppy cultivation, from 2,374 hectares in 2013 to 4,204 hectares in 2014. This happened despite the eradication of 1,411 hectares of opium poppy in 2014.

In the Northern region, Balkh province regained its poppy-free status. However, Sari Pul province lost its poppy-free status, though its level of cultivation remained very low. Opium cultivation in Baghlan province increased by 19%, to 168 hectares in 2014 from 141 hectares in 2013. (p.13)

Note that there is a slight decrease here, and then a slight increase there, when one province achieves poppy-free status, another province loses it. It is pretty clear that this is nothing but a smokescreen to maintain the illusion that the US and Western countries are fighting a war on the drug trade.

According to Iranian police officials, drug production in Afghanistan has increased 40 fold since the 2001 US invasion, and the Iranian Interior Minister Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli said during a meeting with governors of Iranian and Afghan border provinces that "western countries earn $50bln to $60bln from drug trafficking". The money gained by the cultivation is most probably, as many have speculated, used to finance CIA operations, which makes it favorable for the US to keep Afghanistan as its very own Opium Factory.

One among the many negative results of this US-built heroin factory is a massive increase of heroin users in Afghanistan. The SIGAR reported that since 2005, the number of users (including women and children) has increased 10 fold (shades of the British 'opium wars' against China in the mid-19th Century). Meanwhile in the US, heroin use and heroin-related overdose deaths have increased likewise, The Center for Disease Control writes: "Between 2002 and 2014, the rate of heroin-related overdose deaths more than quadrupled, and more than 10,500 people died in 2014." In addition, heroin use more than doubled among young adults aged 18-25 in the past decade. To some people in Western nations, what happens abroad is none of their concern, but it is a mistake to think that the effects of the actions of Western warmongering regimes abroad will not affect the lives of Western adults and those of their children. But I digress.

Peace and Freedom Can Never Prevail Under US Rule, But Might Develop With Help From Russia, China, Iran

On October 7, 2001, former US President George W. Bush announced to the world that strikes against al-Qaeda and the Taliban have begun. He ended his presidential address with: "the battle is now joined on many fronts. We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter; and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail."

Many years later,

• the Taliban control at least half the country and their power is expanding.
• the unemployment rate has jumped to 40 percent in Afghanistan in 2015, a 15 percent increase
• at least a quarter of Afghan children between ages 5 and 14 work for a living or to help their families
• 90 percent of women and 63 percent of men cannot read and do not have an education, as reported by Afghan Women's Writing Project in 2013
• sexual and domestic violence against women increased as reported by United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner and United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan in 2009
• Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world (GDP per capita: $2,051) despite possessing large gas and oil wealth and $trillions in mineral wealth. It is now said to be the third most corrupt country in the world

In addition, hundreds of thousands of Afghans have died since the arrival of Mujahideen/Taliban/NATO/ISIS, and the judicial, political, policing, and cultural systems are so corrupted that it is difficult for many Afghans to find true justice or understanding and support from officials. Furthermore, any attempts made by Afghan tribes to realize peaceful solutions are sabotaged by Western forces. In a nutshell, peace and freedom did not prevail, in fact they have been intentionally destroyed. To use the words of a senior Italian diplomat, Afghanistan is "NATO's success story".

Just as the Afghan population was not a concern when the US government piggybacked the Mujahideen into Afghanistan, the people were not a concern when NATO invaded and occupied their country. As SOTT editor Joe Quinn stated in a recent article, the real agenda has been:

In addition to access to oil and gas, the invasion and (ongoing) occupation of Afghanistan was designed to place a strategic US military chess piece on the board, right between China and Iran, and between Russia (including the Central Asian 'stans') and Pakistan and India, and thus access to the Indian Ocean and shipping routes to Asia. Afghanistan is also right along the route of one of several planned 'silk roads' that would be used to transport energy resources and commodities across Eurasia and 'knit' the continent's countries together in a de factoeconomic and political alliance.

So the heavy US military presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan projected US power directly into two very strategic positions on the global 'chess board' with the intent of supplanting Russia/China-led and dominated Eurasian integration.

It is very difficult for me, and I think for probably many, to see any hope for improvement for Afghanistan and its people. But there are a few countries whose helping hand might give hope for the future:

• Russia: Zamir Kabulov, the Russian President's special envoy for Afghanistan, stated that Russia "consistently lends comprehensive assistance" to the existential security problems. In January this year, Russia delivered 10,000 AK-47 assault rifles to the Afghan army along with accompanying ammunition, and in November last year delivered 57 KAMAZ trucks, worth $2.5 million - free of charge. In addition, Afghanistan has shown interest in July this year to enhance its cooperation with Russia against terrorism. Afghan National Security Adviser Hanif Atmar told Sputnik: "The reason I am here is to ask Russia for help [fight Islamic State]. Russian help was extremely helpful and effective [in fighting terrorism]."
• Iran: In early September this year, the Afghan Foreign Minister discussed closer security cooperation and a joint fight against terrorism with Iran. Its western neighbor has also helped with fighting drug trafficking. And there is a sea port in the making: "Iran appears to be following the Russian and Chinese example with a planned sea port in Chabahar (in partnership with India) on Iran's Arabian sea coast that would not only facilitate shipping of Iran's vast energy resources to India and Asia, but provide a corridor to the sea for Afghanistan to exploit the $trillions in minerals coveted (and currently illegally claimed) by the USA."
• China: Afghanistan along with Pakistan and Tajikistan have joined China in a military alliance against terrorists. The alliance, known as the Quadrilateral Cooperation and Coordination Mechanism, was announced in early August this year. There are also plans to construct the New Silk Road by China that will allow "trains to travel from China's city of Kashgar to the Afghan city of Herat, and then connect to Iran after crossing Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Access to Iran's various seaports would ensure that Afghanistan could begin exporting at a much higher rate."

All of this would provide Afghanistan with many opportunities to strengthen its economy and its relations with countries whose aim actually is to help the country back on the road to peace and real freedom. The first order of business in that task, however, is to free Afghanistan from the destructive presence of the American military and the pernicious influence of US politicians.

In a long and often exasperating presidential campaign, Americans and the world have been subjected to Donald Trump's odious and often incoherent rhetoric, and from both sides much vitriol and endless accusations of deceit, crookedness and sexual misconduct.

In this largely policy-free contest, Hillary Clinton's approach to the immense challenges facing the United States has escaped serious scrutiny. Yet, how America views its place in a rapidly transforming world has far-reaching implications not only for security at home and abroad, but for the economy, financial markets, the environment and much else.

How is it, then, that a former secretary of state, who loudly proclaims her intimate knowledge of world affairs, has given so little attention to the grave dangers looming on the horizon? Part of the explanation is that Clinton's campaign has judged the electorate as unwilling or unable to tune in to a serious discussion of international risks and opportunities.

Two other factors are worth noting. The positions Clinton has usually espoused, whether on Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya, have generally gravitated towards the use of military force. Nothing in her presidential campaign suggests a change of mind. But at the risk of alienating an increasingly war weary public, her minders have judged discretion to be the better part of valour.

Clinton has an acknowledged grasp of detail on many international issues. But neither her public utterances nor her stewardship of US diplomacy offer a compelling picture of a world in profound transition, or of the challenges this poses for both domestic and foreign policy.

Tension with Russia and other challenges

The first and most obvious challenge is the steady deterioration in Russo-American relations, which are now at their lowest ebbsince the mid-1980s.

Perhaps the key factor has been NATO's expansion right up to Russia's doorstep, absorbing much of Eastern Europe and even the three Baltic states (formerly part of the Soviet Union). Another factor is US deployment of a ballistic missile defence system in Romania, soon to be followed by a similar deployment in Poland. Russia has denounced these policies as a threat to its security and part of a new American containment strategy.

Putin's response has been to restore Russia's influence. This has meant strengthening its position in eastern Ukraine, annexing Crimea, taking issue with western military intervention in Libya, offering the Assad regime in Syria strong military support, and pursuing a far more assertive role at the UN Security Council and in several regional conflicts.

Both Russia and the United States now regularly cite the unfriendly actions of the other side as justification for ambitious nuclear weapons modernisation programs. In the case of the United States, these are estimated to cost some US$355 billion over the next decade.

Another major challenge is posed by China's rise as an economic superpower and the expansion of its economic and diplomatic influence. There is also the particular challenge of its military muscle, most starkly in the South China Sea. Other critical developments include: North Korea's expanding nuclear capabilities; the intractable post-intervention conflicts in Afghanistan and the Middle East; the spreading tentacles of violent jihadism; the proliferation of humanitarian emergencies, whether in Syria, Iraq or Yemen; the unprecedented levels of human displacement resulting from these conflicts; and the rise of the far right in different parts of the Western world.

Clinton's response to a complex and changing world

How then, does Clinton propose to address these and related challenges? In the words of her election manifesto, by pursuing "a policy of strength". This includes preserving and strengthening military alliances, notably NATO; "standing up to Putin"; holding China accountable for any actions deemed destabilising of the existing order, whether in relation to trade, cyberspace, human rights or territorial disputes; holding on to a "qualitative military edge"; and maintaining a "rock solid commitment to the values that have made America great".

These one-liners are strong on rhetoric and dangerously weak on substance. What does "standing up to Putin" or "holding China accountable" mean in practice? The intention, one must assume, is to preserve the military, diplomatic and economic dominance the United States once enjoyed, even though the strategy is tantamount to King Canute stemming the tide.

We are witnessing a dramatic shift towards a multipolar, multi-centric world, in which Russia and China, Europe, India, Brazil and others will increasingly help to shape financial, economic, environmental and security outcomes. We will not always share their perspectives and priorities, but there is no alternative to engaging them in a global dialogue. The complex relationships now taking shape cannot be reduced, as Clinton intimates, to cooperation where interests converge, and confrontation where they diverge.

Similarly, when it comes to a resurgent Iran, an impulsive North Korean regime, or an upsurge of Islamist radicalism, responses that rely on the application of military power are unlikely to yield the desired result. Existing alliance arrangements are also likely to be increasingly problematic. Long term mutually advantageous economic cooperation and dialogue mechanisms, in which civil society as well as governments are active participants, are likely to bear greater fruit.

On all this, the Clinton campaign has said remarkably little, except for generalities reminiscent of Cold War rhetoric. We've heard nothing about the lessons to be drawn from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria and Yemen, or the "war on terror" more generally.

Might there be limits to the utility of military power? This is almost certainly not Clinton's view, if one is to judge from her past pronouncements on the invasion of Iraq, the surge in Afghanistan, the use of force in Libya, or the unqualified support of Israel. Similarly with her voting record in the Senate and her close affinity with Pentagon thinking, and perhaps most strikingly her support for the positions advocated at different times by such key military figures as Generals Stanley McChrystal, David Petraeus (who later served as CIA director) and James Keane (also known as the resident hawk on Fox News).

And what of the future of nuclear deterrence and the prospect of a renewed nuclear arms race? Will a Clinton presidency pursue the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons (clearly articulated by Obama in his first year as president but subsequently abandoned)? Or will it connive with other nuclear states and pressure allies to obstruct efforts to negotiate a new treaty on the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons? All the indications are that Clinton will choose the latter course.

Even on such issues as the handling of humanitarian emergencies, responses to the unprecedented number of people displaced by conflict (estimated at 65.3 million), or the urgent need for UN reform and international regulation of financial markets, the Clinton campaign has had virtually nothing to say.

Perhaps the greatest disservice the Trump circus has done to the human future - with the media as its willing accomplices - is the failure to lay bare these deeply entrenched and deeply troubling weaknesses in the Clinton profile. We may be in for a rather torrid time.