Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAdding Up the Costs of Hillary Clinton’s Wars
There is so much in the article by Conn Hallinan, a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus, it's really worth the read.
Excerpts:
A Failure of Imagination
At a recent rally in Indianola, Iowa, Clinton said that Senator [Bernie] Sanders doesnt talk much about foreign policy, and when he does, it raises concerns because sometimes it can sound like he really hasnt thought things through.
The former secretary of state was certainly correct. Foreign policy for Sanders is pretty much an afterthought to his signature issues of economic inequality and a national health care system.
But the implication of her comment is that she has thought things through. If she has, it isnt evident in her memoir, Hard Choices, or in her campaign speeches.
Hard Choices covers her years as secretary of state and seemingly unconsciously tracks a litany of American foreign policy disasters: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Georgia, Ukraine, and the Asia pivot thats dangerously increased tensions with China.
At the heart of Hard Choices is the ideology of American exceptionalism, which for Clinton means the right of the U.S. to intervene in other countries at will. As historian Jackson Lears, in the London Review of Books, puts it, Clintons memoir tries to construct a coherent rationale for an interventionist foreign policy and to justify it with reference to her own decisions as Secretary of State. The rationale is rickety: the evidence unconvincing.
At a recent rally in Indianola, Iowa, Clinton said that Senator [Bernie] Sanders doesnt talk much about foreign policy, and when he does, it raises concerns because sometimes it can sound like he really hasnt thought things through.
The former secretary of state was certainly correct. Foreign policy for Sanders is pretty much an afterthought to his signature issues of economic inequality and a national health care system.
But the implication of her comment is that she has thought things through. If she has, it isnt evident in her memoir, Hard Choices, or in her campaign speeches.
Hard Choices covers her years as secretary of state and seemingly unconsciously tracks a litany of American foreign policy disasters: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Georgia, Ukraine, and the Asia pivot thats dangerously increased tensions with China.
At the heart of Hard Choices is the ideology of American exceptionalism, which for Clinton means the right of the U.S. to intervene in other countries at will. As historian Jackson Lears, in the London Review of Books, puts it, Clintons memoir tries to construct a coherent rationale for an interventionist foreign policy and to justify it with reference to her own decisions as Secretary of State. The rationale is rickety: the evidence unconvincing.
<snip>
Clinton often costumes military intervention in the philosophy of responsibility to protect, or R2P. But her application is selective.
She takes credit for overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, for example. But in her campaign speeches shes not said a word about the horrendous bombing campaign being waged by Saudi Arabia in Yemen. She cites R2P for why the U.S. should overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria, but is silent about Saudi Arabias intervention in Bahrain to crush demands for democracy by its majority Shiite population.
Clinton, along with Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, and Susan Rice, the Obama administrations national security advisor, has pushed for muscular interventions without thinking or caring about the consequences.
And those consequences have been dire.
She takes credit for overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, for example. But in her campaign speeches shes not said a word about the horrendous bombing campaign being waged by Saudi Arabia in Yemen. She cites R2P for why the U.S. should overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria, but is silent about Saudi Arabias intervention in Bahrain to crush demands for democracy by its majority Shiite population.
Clinton, along with Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, and Susan Rice, the Obama administrations national security advisor, has pushed for muscular interventions without thinking or caring about the consequences.
And those consequences have been dire.
<snip>
Would Hillary be more inclined toward an aggressive foreign policy?
Certainly more than Obama Clinton pressed the White House to intervene more deeply in Syria, and was far more hardline on Iran. On virtually every foreign policy issue, in fact, Clinton is said to have led the charge inside the administration for a more belligerent U.S. response.
More than the Republicans? Its hard to say, because most of them sound like theyve gone off their meds. For instance, a number of GOP candidates pledge to cancel the nuclear agreement with Iran. While Clinton wanted to drive a harder bargain than the White House did, in the end she supported it.
However, she did say shes proud to call Iranians enemies, and attacked Sanders for his entirely sensible remark that the U.S. might find common ground with Iran on defeating the Islamic State
Certainly more than Obama Clinton pressed the White House to intervene more deeply in Syria, and was far more hardline on Iran. On virtually every foreign policy issue, in fact, Clinton is said to have led the charge inside the administration for a more belligerent U.S. response.
More than the Republicans? Its hard to say, because most of them sound like theyve gone off their meds. For instance, a number of GOP candidates pledge to cancel the nuclear agreement with Iran. While Clinton wanted to drive a harder bargain than the White House did, in the end she supported it.
However, she did say shes proud to call Iranians enemies, and attacked Sanders for his entirely sensible remark that the U.S. might find common ground with Iran on defeating the Islamic State
<snip>
Its more polite than the make the sands glow atavism of the Republicans. But in the end, its death and destruction in a different packaging.
http://fpif.org/adding-costs-hillary-clintons-wars/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 670 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (13)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Adding Up the Costs of Hillary Clinton’s Wars (Original Post)
Nanjeanne
Feb 2016
OP
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)1. Probably more than the $100/year extra I'll pay in taxes to get healthcare with Bernie's plan
OTOH it doesn't really matter, since I'll get my money back 200 times over, every year, in healthcare savings. Not having a war-mongering PNACer in office would be over and above that.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)2. Silly author! Dead brown people aren't a cost!!
msongs
(70,119 posts)3. good thing bernie keeps voting to pay for them eh? nt
Nanjeanne
(5,435 posts)4. Yes he doesn't want our vets to suffer.