One of the constant complaints that critics from the left have is that Hillary Clinton is just as quick, or even quicker on the nuclear trigger than Donald Trump is. But the facts speak otherwise. First of all, while Mr. Trump would use nuclear weapons in situations where President Barack Obama would use drones, I simply don’t see Hillary Clinton as the kind of person who would do that. She carefully calculates every word and action she says on the trail. I’m not saying there is anything wrong with that; it’s just the kind of person she is.
The reality is that Hillary Clinton came out twice against President Obama’s nuclear weapons “modernization” program. This may surprise some people who see her as nothing more than a hawk — one of her influences is Dwight Eisenhower. Specifically, she is one of the first presidential candidates to take his words about the military industrial complex to heart:
Two good questions. I’m a great admirer of President Eisenhower… I think he was very far-sighted when he gave that speech about the necessity for us to be careful about the military-industrial complex, as he called it. I don’t think there’s any doubt that we have always had two conflicting imperatives. We need to have a strong defense, everybody agrees with that. But how we do it and how much it costs is subject to debate. And I think we are overdue for a very thorough debate in our country about what we need and how we are willing to pay for it. Because I think some of the decisions that have been made, because of the sequester, which just cut without regard for the effectiveness of the program or the impact of it being eliminated, was much too blunt an instrument. I think we should have a high-level commission of really well-respected people from different walks of life, who have not lived their life completely in the military-industrial world, really taking a hard look, the same way we have had to in the past look at closing bases. A system was put in place where there could be somewhat less influence from Congressional politics, and I’d like to see such a commission come up with recommendations. Because what I hear all the time, that I saw as a senator – I served on the Armed Services Committee – [and] what I saw as Secretary of State is that very often the leadership of the Defense Department wants to eliminate certain spending, or wants to change it, maybe put it somewhere else where they think it’ll do more good, and … they’re stopped by Congress. So what I’m looking for is a way of avoiding that.
This was in September of 2015. In January, the Intercept, no friend of the secretary, nonetheless reported on this interaction between a peace activist and the secretary:
Hillary Clinton signaled the potential for a major national security policy reversal this week after she told an activist in Iowa that the planned $1 trillion nuclear weapons modernization program “doesn’t make sense.”
Despite a momentous speech embracing nuclear disarmament in Prague in April 2009, President Barack Obama has stunned critics by embarking on an aggressive effort to upgrade the military’s nuclear weapons program, including requests to buy 12 new missile submarines, up to 100 new bombers, and 400 land-based missiles, along with upgraded storage and development sites.
The decision has been called the greatest expansion of nuclear weapons since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Clinton’s comments came in response to a question after a Des Moines campaign event from Kevin Rutledge, a coordinator with the American Friends Service Committee’s “Governing Under the Influence” project. Staff and volunteers with the project in Iowa and New Hampshire have been peppering presidential candidates with questions about corporate influence over military policy, immigrant detention, and other issues.
This was one of my biggest concerns about Hillary, speaking as a Sanders supporter in the primary. But based on this, I am satisfied that she will continue the policy started by the President with the ultimate goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. This is why she supports the Iran Deal as well. Furthermore, Hillary would build on President Obama’s successful work on the new START Treaty with Russia, a treaty which she helped negotiate.
Clinton was also asked in Iowa if she would prefer more reductions between the U.S. and the Russian to 1,000 nuclear weapons apiece, Secretary Clinton responded by saying, “Absolutely. I mean that’s why I worked so hard on what’s called the New START Treaty. We gotta do more.” We look forward to hearing more substantial policy specifics from Secretary Clinton, given her extensive experience with nuclear issues, and with her help in President Obama’s New START treaty that reduces nuclear missiles, and has substantial spending cuts on the United States’ nuclear arsenal.
And when Hillary talks, people, including the President, listen. To the Weekly Standard’s dismay, the President, as they reported in May, is walking back his plans for nuclear “modernization.”
On the heels of President Obama's regrettable speech at Hiroshima, White House official Ben Rhodes, of "echo chamber" infamy, doubled down on the president's commitment to the nuclear disarmament agenda Obama laid out in Prague early in his first term. Specifically, Rhodes revealed that the Obama administration is considering reneging on its commitment to modernize the nuclear deterrent.
"I can promise you today that President Obama is continuing to review a number of ways he can advance the Prague agenda over the course of the next seven months. Put simply, our work is not finished on these issues," Rhodes said at a recent Arms Control Association event.
So, from being a done deal, President Obama’s “modernization” work is now “not finished.” We owe Secretary Clinton a debt of gratitude for striking a blow for world peace.
We do not see Hillary’s foreign policy as hawkish at all, but principled — being actively engaged in world affairs rather than the isolationism which led to World War II.
Instead of the isolationism which led to a world war, or the doctrine of preemptive warfare that got us Iraq and Afghanistan, we have a continuation of the internationalism which has prevented a third world war from taking place.