Mediaboss Marketing

Exclusive: President Trump has shattered the hope of many peace-oriented Americans that he would pull back from U.S. foreign interventions, but Hillary Clinton might have pursued even more wars, notes James W. Carden.

By James W. Carden

The alliance between neoconservatives and the Democratic foreign policy establishment, which is largely made up of former Obama administration officials and former Clinton campaign surrogates, has been much noted of late, particularly since the formation of the German Marshall Funds Alliance for Democracy Project which brings together high-profile members of both groups in an effort to fight what is loosely (and often inaccurately) defined as Russian disinformation.

Those who applaud the new alignment are quick to point out that Donald J. Trump who, by virtue of his volatile temperament and his alarming ignorance and inexperience, is a menace to his country and the planet. And at this stage in Mr. Trumps presidency, that would seem unarguable.

And yet, Clinton partisans charge that those who withheld their support from Clinton not only bear responsibility for Trump, but also had no right to do so since it was, according to them, obvious that Clinton would have been, among other things, a more responsible steward of U.S. foreign policy than Trump.

And so, given the extreme bitterness that Hillary Clintons loss has engendered among a number of prominent members of the liberal commentariat, it might be worth looking at what her campaign promised with regard to foreign policy to see if the above criticism holds water.

The argument here isnt that Trump isnt awful (which is something Ive never argued); its that hes proven to be every bit as bad as some of us reasonably expected Clinton would have been; and if one takes the time to consult the Clinton campaigns own briefing papers and fact sheets, one will find that on issue after issue, Clinton invariably took hawkish positions that reflected the fact that Clinton was (and remains) a saber-rattler par excellence very much on par with the current occupant of the White House.

When North Korea conducted a nuclear test in September 2016, she released a statement, if not quite promising fire and fury, that did declare: North Koreas decision to conduct another nuclear test is outrageous and unacceptable. This constitutes a direct threat to the United States, and we cannot and will never accept this.

No Regrets on Regime Change

Beyond that, Clinton remained a firm believer in regime-change strategies.On Syria, the Clinton campaign proposed instituting a coalition no-fly zone in the air coupled with safe zones on the ground to protect Syrian civilians and create leverage for a diplomatic resolution that includes Assads departure. She supported the deployment of special operating forces to Syria and strongly urged President Obama to arm moderate rebels in support of the eventual removal of the brutal Assad regime.

Clinton also favored escalation in other hot spots.On Iran, the Clinton campaign outlined a plan to counter Irans other malicious behavior which included pledges to deepen Americas unshakeable commitment to Israels security; expand our military presence in the region; increase security cooperation in areas like intelligence sharing, military backing and missile defense with our Gulf allies, to ensure they can defend themselves against Iranian aggression; and build a coalition to counter Irans proxies.

When we also factor in Clintons support for the NATOs illegal airstrikes on Kosovo (1999), her vote to authorize the second Iraq War (2003), her enthusiastic support for sending more troops to fight and die in Afghanistan (2009), and her disastrous embrace of regime change in Libya (2011) and Syria (2012), how can anyone be sure that her administrations foreign policy would have been much of an improvement over what we now have?

Indeed, those who threw their support behind Clintons vision of American world leadership, like those associated with the Alliance for Democracy, really, with the notable exception of Trumps abandonment of the Paris Climate Accord, have little to complain about.

Trump has done much as Clinton would have done by, among other things: slapping sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea; pledging unlimited support toIsrael; reassuring our allies in the Persian Gulf and eastern Europe; condemning Russias actions in eastern Ukraine; expanding military operations in eastern Syria; and lobbing none-to-veiled threats at the left-wing government in Venezuela.

So while its easy and almost certainly emotionally satisfying to the legions of Clinton supporters to tell themselves (and their readers) that of course Hillary would have been a better of steward of U.S. foreign policy than Trump, that assertion remains both unprovable and, given her record, highly questionable.

James W. Carden served as an adviser on Russia policy at the US State Department. Currently a contributing writer at The Nation magazine, his work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Quartz, The American Conservative and The National Interest.

See the original post here:
Hillary Clinton Promised Wars, Too - Consortium News