Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy

[AUbritt 611]

Again, I want to say that I don't want to turn the whole Presidential campaign into 'what to do about Daesh'. But I do think it's a pressing issue, and one that can reveal a lot about a candidate's foreign policy position.

I know a lot of people will just reject Hillary oughtright. But, I hope we can talk here about specific claims Hillary makes and specific issues. If people just want to hate on Hillary, I'm asking them to take it to another thread.

So, I found this article from the summer of 2014 and would like to start the discussion there. Here's an excerpt of a quote from an interview with HC.

The interviewer presses her on the issue of Obama's 'don't do stupid stuff' foreign policy, asking whether it's a case of underreach compared to Bush's overreach. Her answer is that it's not a sufficient guiding principle for foreign policy, which leads into the following:

One of the reasons why I worry about what’s happening in the Middle East right now is because of the breakout capacity of jihadist groups that can affect Europe, can affect the United States. Jihadist groups are governing territory. They will never stay there, though. They are driven to expand. Their raison d'être is to be against the West, against the Crusaders, against the fill-in-the-blank—and we all fit into one of these categories. How do we try to contain that? I’m thinking a lot about containment, deterrence, and defeat. You know, we did a good job in containing the Soviet Union, but we made a lot of mistakes, we supported really nasty guys, we did some things that we are not particularly proud of, from Latin America to Southeast Asia, but we did have a kind of overarching framework about what we were trying to do that did lead to the defeat of the Soviet Union and the collapse of Communism. That was our objective. We achieved it.

Now the big mistake was thinking that, okay, the end of history has come upon us, after the fall of the Soviet Union. That was never true, history never stops and nationalisms were going to assert themselves, and then other variations on ideologies were going to claim their space. Obviously, jihadi Islam is the prime example, but not the only example—the effort by Putin to restore his vision of Russian greatness is another. In the world in which we are living right now, vacuums get filled by some pretty unsavory players.

In the article, she also takes a hard line on Iran (doesn't want them to have any nuclear enrichment) and Hammas (she's very pro-Israel). If the discussion can be about actual issues and not simply devolve into name-calling and partisanship, I'll try to find more recent stuff we can talk about.

[cooltigger21 0]

The whole Russian reset thing was her idea.

[AUbritt 611]

The whole Russian reset thing was her idea.

Sorry, I don't know what you're referring to, cooltigger. One thing that stands out to me in this article is that there was the Hillary who served as Secretary of State and Hillary who's (at that time) about to announce her Presidential candidacy. How she acted toward Israel as SoS doesn't sound like how she'd act as President.

Please explain the Russian reset thing or give me a link so I can figure out what you mean.

Here's a column from yesterday by David Brooks on Hillary's post-Paris position.

This week we had a chance to watch Hillary Clinton respond in real time to a complex foreign policy challenge. On Thursday, six days after the Paris attacks, she gave a comprehensive antiterrorism speech at the Council on Foreign Relations.

The speech was very impressive. While other candidates are content to issue vague calls to get tough on terror, Clinton offered a multilayered but coherent framework, not only dealing with Daesh but also putting that threat within the crosscutting conflicts that are inflaming the Middle East.

[AURaptor 1,122]

The whole Russian reset thing was her idea.

Did you note the expression on the Russians face, when she presented to him that goofy red button ? And she didn't even get THAT word right ! The word that was on the button " Overcharged ". And then she says " We won't let you do that to US! " It was HER gift to HIM!

Talk about total incompetence. !

[cooltigger21 0]

Remember the idea that we not treat Russia as an adversary and have a reset button on that. The idea was that we could work with them. They weren't really bad. This failed to take into account the the entire history of Russian aggression. Remember Obama promising more flexibility to decrease our nuclear weapons and scrap the nuclear defense shield for east Europe. That was just a sign to Putin to move ahead with his plans.

[AUbritt 611]

Here's an excerpt from the speech Clinton just delivered, which Brooks was referring to:

Daesh is demonstrating new ambition, reach, and capabilities. We have to break the group’s momentum, and then its back. Our goal is not to deter or contain Daesh but to defeat and destroy Daesh.

But we have learned that we can score victories over terrorist leaders and networks only to face metastasizing threats down the road. So we also have to play and win the long game. We should pursue a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy, one that embeds our mission against Daesh within a broader struggle against radical jihadism that is bigger than any one group, whether it’s al-Qaida or Daesh or some other network.

An immediate war against an urgent enemy and a generational struggle against an ideology with deep roots will not be easily torn [sic] out. It will require sustained commitment in every pillar of American power. This is a worldwide fight, and America must lead it.

Our strategy should have three main elements: one, defeat Daesh in Syria, Iraq, and across the Middle East; two, disrupt and dismantle the growing terrorist infrastructure that facilities the flow of fighters, financing arms, and propaganda around the world; three, harden our defenses and those of our allies against external and homegrown threats.

...

Of course, we’ve been down plenty of diplomatic dead ends before in this conflict, but we have models for how seemingly intractable multi-sectarian civil wars do eventually end. We can learn lessons from Lebanon and Bosnia about what it will take. And Russia and Iran have to face the fact that continuing to prop up a vicious dictator will not bring stability.

Right now I’m afraid President Putin is actually making things somewhat worse. Now, to be clear, though, there is an important role for Russian to help in resolving the conflict in Syria, and we have indicated a willingness to work with them toward an outcome that preserves Syria as a unitary nonsectarian state with protections for the rights of all Syrians, and to keep key state institutions intact. There is no alternative to a political transition that allows Syrians to end Assad’s rule.

Now, much of this strategy on both sides of the border hinges on the roles of our Arab and Turkish partners, and we must get them to carry their share of the burden with military intelligence and financial contributions, as well as using their influence with fighters and tribes in Iraq and Syria. Countries like Jordan have offered more, and we should take them up on it, because ultimately our efforts will only succeed if the Arabs and Turks step up in a much bigger way. This is their fight and they need to act like it.

So far, however, Turkey has been more focused on the Kurds than on countering Daesh. And to be fair, Turkey has a long and painful history with Kurdish terrorist groups, but the threat from Daesh cannot wait. As difficult as it may be, we need to get Turkey to stop bombing Kurdish fighters in Syria who are battling Daesh and become a full partner in our coalition efforts against Daesh.

The United States should also work with our Arab partners to get them more invested in the fight against Daesh. At the moment they’re focused in other areas because of their concerns in the region, especially the threat from Iran. That’s why the Saudis, for example, shifted attention from Syria to Yemen. So we have to work out a common approach.

In September I laid out a comprehensive plan to counter Iranian influence across the region and its support for terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas. We cannot view Iran and Daesh as separate challenges. Regional politics are too interwoven. Raising the confidence of our Arab partners and raising the costs to Iran for bad behavior will contribute to a more effective fight against Daesh.

And as we work out a broader regional approach, we should of course be closely consulting with Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East. Israel increasingly shares with our Arab partners and has the opportunity to do more in intelligence and joint efforts as well.

Now, we should have no illusions about how difficult the mission before us really is. We have to fit a lot of pieces together, bring along a lot of partners, move on multiple fronts at once. But if we press forward on both sides of the border, in the air and on the ground, as well as diplomatically, I do believe we can crush Daesh’s enclave of terror.

And to support this campaign, Congress should swiftly pass an updated authorization to use military force. That will send a message to friend and foe alike that the United States is committed to this fight. The time for delay is over. We should get this done.

Now, the second element of our strategy looks beyond the immediate battlefield of Iraq and Syria to disrupt and dismantle global terrorist infrastructure on the ground and online. A terror pipeline that facilitates the flow of fighters, financing, arms, and propaganda around the world has allowed Daesh to strike at the heart of Paris last week, and an al-Qaida affiliate to do the same at Charlie Hebdo earlier this year.

Daesh is working hard to extend its reach, establish affiliates and cells far from its home base. And despite the significant setbacks it has encountered, not just with Daesh and its ambitious plans, but even al-Qaida, including the death of Osama bin Laden, they are still posing great threats to so many.

[AURaptor 1,122]

When ever I hear anyone from govt talking about having a " comprehensive " approach to something, that translates to nothing but ineffective, bloated bureaucratic rubbish.

It looks great on paper, and in a slick powerpoint presentation, or as some broad ranging administrative plan, but in the real world, it almost never works.

[homersapien 11,357]

When ever I hear anyone from govt talking about having a " comprehensive " approach to something, that translates to nothing but ineffective, bloated bureaucratic rubbish.

It looks great on paper, and in a slick powerpoint presentation, or as some broad ranging administrative plan, but in the real world, it almost never works.

Whaaaaaa?

So you prefer half-assed plans that address only part of the problem. Riiiight. :-\

[AURaptor 1,122]

I prefer focused plans which address the actual problems at hand, and not some over reaching, broad brushed approach, which wastes money, manpower and resources on trivial matters which other wise could be better spent on tackling real, actual issues.

Like securing the southern border, for one. Do that, do it first, do it right, and THEN follow up on other issues.

W talked about a " comprehensive " plan, and it ended up not getting done at all. Too many projects going on at once, gets attention off of the most important areas, and we end up w/ a big white elephant of a project , where no one area is ever close to completion. It's a bureaucrats wet dream, and nothing but a giant money pit which never gets filled in.

[cooltigger21 0]

I prefer focused plans which address the actual problems at hand, and not some over reaching, broad brushed approach, which wastes money, manpower and resources on trivial matters which other wise could be better spent on tackling real, actual issues.

Like securing the southern border, for one. Do that, do it first, do it right, and THEN follow up on other issues.

W talked about a " comprehensive " plan, and it ended up not getting done at all. Too many projects going on at once, gets attention off of the most important areas, and we end up w/ a big white elephant of a project , where no one area is ever close to completion. It's a bureaucrats wet dream, and nothing but a giant money pit which never gets filled in.

Comprehensive immigration reform means we do amnesty now in return for a promise of security later. The security never comes.

[RunInRed 16,373]

Poll: Clinton tops Trump, GOP field on handling terror

Americans trust Hillary Clinton to handle the threat of terrorism more than any of the leading Republican candidates for president in the wake of the Paris attacks, according to a new poll.

The Democratic front-runner leads most of the GOP candidates by a wide margin, and tops GOP front-runner Donald Trump by 8 points and second-place Ben Carson by 9 points.

The closest gap is with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who is within the margin of error of Clinton, with Clinton at 46% and Bush at 43%.

The Washington Post-ABC News poll out Monday asked Americans if they would trust Clinton or one of five Republican candidates more. She led Trump 50% to 42%, Carson 49% to 40%, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz 47% to 40%, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio 47% to 43%.

The poll did not ask about Clinton's Democratic opponent, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

http://www.cnn.com/2...poll/index.html

[AURaptor 1,122]

Sorry, I don't buy that poll one bit. Trump isn't my guy, but I'd gladly side with him over Hillary Benghazi Rodham Clinton

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

The plan she talked about in that speech

Here's an excerpt from the speech Clinton just delivered, which Brooks was referring to:

Daesh is demonstrating new ambition, reach, and capabilities. We have to break the group’s momentum, and then its back. Our goal is not to deter or contain Daesh but to defeat and destroy Daesh.

But we have learned that we can score victories over terrorist leaders and networks only to face metastasizing threats down the road. So we also have to play and win the long game. We should pursue a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy, one that embeds our mission against Daesh within a broader struggle against radical jihadism that is bigger than any one group, whether it’s al-Qaida or Daesh or some other network.

An immediate war against an urgent enemy and a generational struggle against an ideology with deep roots will not be easily torn [sic] out. It will require sustained commitment in every pillar of American power. This is a worldwide fight, and America must lead it.

Our strategy should have three main elements: one, defeat Daesh in Syria, Iraq, and across the Middle East; two, disrupt and dismantle the growing terrorist infrastructure that facilities the flow of fighters, financing arms, and propaganda around the world; three, harden our defenses and those of our allies against external and homegrown threats.

...

Of course, we’ve been down plenty of diplomatic dead ends before in this conflict, but we have models for how seemingly intractable multi-sectarian civil wars do eventually end. We can learn lessons from Lebanon and Bosnia about what it will take. And Russia and Iran have to face the fact that continuing to prop up a vicious dictator will not bring stability.

Right now I’m afraid President Putin is actually making things somewhat worse. Now, to be clear, though, there is an important role for Russian to help in resolving the conflict in Syria, and we have indicated a willingness to work with them toward an outcome that preserves Syria as a unitary nonsectarian state with protections for the rights of all Syrians, and to keep key state institutions intact. There is no alternative to a political transition that allows Syrians to end Assad’s rule.

Now, much of this strategy on both sides of the border hinges on the roles of our Arab and Turkish partners, and we must get them to carry their share of the burden with military intelligence and financial contributions, as well as using their influence with fighters and tribes in Iraq and Syria. Countries like Jordan have offered more, and we should take them up on it, because ultimately our efforts will only succeed if the Arabs and Turks step up in a much bigger way. This is their fight and they need to act like it.

So far, however, Turkey has been more focused on the Kurds than on countering Daesh. And to be fair, Turkey has a long and painful history with Kurdish terrorist groups, but the threat from Daesh cannot wait. As difficult as it may be, we need to get Turkey to stop bombing Kurdish fighters in Syria who are battling Daesh and become a full partner in our coalition efforts against Daesh.

The United States should also work with our Arab partners to get them more invested in the fight against Daesh. At the moment they’re focused in other areas because of their concerns in the region, especially the threat from Iran. That’s why the Saudis, for example, shifted attention from Syria to Yemen. So we have to work out a common approach.

In September I laid out a comprehensive plan to counter Iranian influence across the region and its support for terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas. We cannot view Iran and Daesh as separate challenges. Regional politics are too interwoven. Raising the confidence of our Arab partners and raising the costs to Iran for bad behavior will contribute to a more effective fight against Daesh.

And as we work out a broader regional approach, we should of course be closely consulting with Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East. Israel increasingly shares with our Arab partners and has the opportunity to do more in intelligence and joint efforts as well.

Now, we should have no illusions about how difficult the mission before us really is. We have to fit a lot of pieces together, bring along a lot of partners, move on multiple fronts at once. But if we press forward on both sides of the border, in the air and on the ground, as well as diplomatically, I do believe we can crush Daesh’s enclave of terror.

And to support this campaign, Congress should swiftly pass an updated authorization to use military force. That will send a message to friend and foe alike that the United States is committed to this fight. The time for delay is over. We should get this done.

Now, the second element of our strategy looks beyond the immediate battlefield of Iraq and Syria to disrupt and dismantle global terrorist infrastructure on the ground and online. A terror pipeline that facilitates the flow of fighters, financing, arms, and propaganda around the world has allowed Daesh to strike at the heart of Paris last week, and an al-Qaida affiliate to do the same at Charlie Hebdo earlier this year.

Daesh is working hard to extend its reach, establish affiliates and cells far from its home base. And despite the significant setbacks it has encountered, not just with Daesh and its ambitious plans, but even al-Qaida, including the death of Osama bin Laden, they are still posing great threats to so many.

She never produced this plan in September...this highlighted was talked about on some of the news shows by retired generals this summer when asked how to defeat this threat....of course she was in on the arming of the rebels in Syria which lead to arming the Daesh...but no one really wants to talk about Benghazi and her role in the arming of the "Rebel" groups...and don't say they only armed the "Good" rebels as they had no way of knowing which faction was good and which were bad...She talks a good game but when pressed she falls apart on subjects if she hasn't been pre-briefed. Why do I not trust her intentions? She has stated repeatedly "see last debate" that she would carry on the Obama policies which clearly aren't working....

[RunInRed 16,373]

Sorry, I don't buy that poll one bit. Trump isn't my guy, but I'd gladly side with him over Hillary Benghazi Rodham Clinton

Why? Because it doesn't tell you what you want to hear? Suiting the news that only suits you ... that's always been your narrative.

[AURaptor 1,122]

First of all, Polls aren't "news". They can be fashioned and any number of ways, and it depends on who is being asked the questions.

Second of all, I don't buy that any thinking human being with any basic knowledge of who Hillary is, can put her in front of anybody running on the right. Benghazi, Russian reset button, sniper fire on the tarmac in Bosnia…

If this poll was taken from the audience of The Vew, or possibly a Hillary campaign rally, then I can believe those results.

[kd4au 1,145]

It's my belief that Daesh was created by Clinton and Obama and that is why Obama refuses to actually kill any of them.He drops leaflets warning them before even bombing or hits targets that are of no value.Her words may sound good but her actions as SoS have not back up her talking points.

[kd4au 1,145]

Why did that get changed to daesh.I wrote I S I S.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Why did that get changed to daesh.I wrote I S I S.

That's just how we roll here.