Former Secretary of State (and Senator and First Lady) Hillary
Clinton has based her campaign for president of the United States States
heavily on her many years of foreign policy experience.
Especially outside the United States, that is typically regarded as an automatic positive, but that assumption deserves a critical review. Relying on “experience,” after all, is only a positive if the record is a good one that deserves to be extended.
The record demonstrates that she certainly is a hawk – someone who believes strongly in the utility of military force and is ready to use it. There is ample evidence in support of this contention.
Her actions as Senator and Secretary of State as well her speeches and campaign statements paint picture of a would-be President who views the world in terms of an ominous threat environment.
She believes that core American interests are being challenged across the globe. She is a firm advocate of intervening on a preventive basis (e.g. Syria, Libya), as well as on a preemptive or defensive basis.
She is dedicated to keeping putative rivals to the United States, like China or Russia, in a subordinate position.
This complex of attitudes puts a considerable amount of blue water between her and Barack Obama. Indeed, early in her campaign she made a point of criticizing the White House for its overly restrained policies vis-à-vis Syria’s Assad, Russia’s Putin and China’s Xi.
She only switched tacks when it became evident that she needed to associate herself closely with the Obama record in the face of the unexpected Sanders insurrection.
Read more: Is Hillary Clinton a Warmonger? - The Globalist
Especially outside the United States, that is typically regarded as an automatic positive, but that assumption deserves a critical review. Relying on “experience,” after all, is only a positive if the record is a good one that deserves to be extended.
The record demonstrates that she certainly is a hawk – someone who believes strongly in the utility of military force and is ready to use it. There is ample evidence in support of this contention.
Her actions as Senator and Secretary of State as well her speeches and campaign statements paint picture of a would-be President who views the world in terms of an ominous threat environment.
She believes that core American interests are being challenged across the globe. She is a firm advocate of intervening on a preventive basis (e.g. Syria, Libya), as well as on a preemptive or defensive basis.
She is dedicated to keeping putative rivals to the United States, like China or Russia, in a subordinate position.
This complex of attitudes puts a considerable amount of blue water between her and Barack Obama. Indeed, early in her campaign she made a point of criticizing the White House for its overly restrained policies vis-à-vis Syria’s Assad, Russia’s Putin and China’s Xi.
She only switched tacks when it became evident that she needed to associate herself closely with the Obama record in the face of the unexpected Sanders insurrection.
Read more: Is Hillary Clinton a Warmonger? - The Globalist
No comments:
Post a Comment