Hillary Clinton frequently takes the more hawkish position on foreign policy debates in this campaign. If we are to believe what she says, those of us who desire an end to the Iraq war are right to be concerned. But is she really hawkish? Might Clinton’s hawkish views be like her husband’s 1992 middle class tax cut in the face of massive deficits.
Tax cuts are part of the Republican brand. So is hawkishness; Republicans are always "standing up" to somebody or another.
The United States has an enormous military establishment, one of the few in the world capable of fighting a big war without mobilization. In my lifetime, America has fought three big wars: Vietnam, the Gulf War and now Iraq. The first war was lost; few believe it was a worthwhile endeavor. The second looked like a win until 911 (US troops sent to Saudi Arabia essentially created al Qaeda). Now we have Iraq which hardly seems like a resounding success.
Since 1953, having a large war-fighting ability during wartime has provided no apparent benefit relative to the pre-1947 policy of a small peacetime military. From a policy standpoint having a big military today is a waste of resources.
A big military makes a lot of sense politically for Republicans since the vast majority of the military-industrial complex is Republican. It just doesn’t make sense for Democrats. It may well make sense for a Democrat to talk hawkish in order to get elected, but to actually follow a hawkish policy simply gives your power it to the other side. And surely, Clinton, like most politicians, wants that power for herself.