In an article that will be read by many and both praised and condemned, a writer for the New York Times Magazine goes deeply into why Hillary is more hawkish that President Obama, examples of differences, and how she might run foreign and military policy if elected. These two points in two paragraphs jumped out at me:
Her affinity for the armed forces is rooted in a lifelong belief that the calculated use of military power is vital to defending national interests, that American intervention does more good than harm and that the writ of the United States properly reaches, as Bush once put it, into “any dark corner of the world.” Unexpectedly, in the bombastic, testosterone-fueled presidential election of 2016, Hillary Clinton is the last true hawk left in the race.
snip
Neither Trump nor Cruz favors major new deployments of American soldiers to Iraq and Syria (nor, for that matter, does Clinton). If anything, both are more skeptical than Clinton about intervention and more circumspect than she about maintaining the nation’s post-World War II military commitments. Trump loudly proclaims his opposition to the Iraq War. He wants the United States to spend less to underwrite NATO and has talked about withdrawing the American security umbrella from Asia, even if that means Japan and South Korea would acquire nuclear weapons to defend themselves. Cruz, unlike Clinton, opposed aiding the Syrian rebels in 2014. He once supported Pentagon budget constraints advocated by his isolationist colleague, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. Thus might the general election present voters with an unfamiliar choice: a Democratic hawk versus a Republican reluctant warrior.
NY Times Magazine: "How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk"
Also this:
Jack Keane is one of the intellectual architects of the Iraq surge; he is also perhaps the greatest single influence on the way Hillary Clinton thinks about military issues.
snip
Among other steps, he advocated imposing a no-fly zone over parts of Syria that would neutralize the air power of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, with a goal of forcing him into a political settlement with opposition groups. Six months later, Clinton publicly adopted this position, further distancing herself from Obama.
snip
“I’m convinced this president, no matter what the circumstances, will never put any boots on the ground to do anything, even when it’s compelling,” Keane told me. He was sitting in the library at his home in McLean, Va., which is lined with books on military history and strategy. His critique of Obama was hardly new or original, but much of it mirrors the thinking of Clinton and her policy advisers. “One of the problems the president has, which weakens his diplomatic efforts, is that leaders don’t believe he would use military power. That’s an issue that would separate the president from Hillary Clinton rather dramatically. She would look at military force as another realistic option, but only where there is no other option.”
NY Times Magazine: How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk
Different people feel differently about military interventions. I have been skeptical of them since I was a teenager during the Vietnam War. This post goes into great depth on Hillary’s evolution and thinking and how in 2016, after President Obama’s general peace, American may be ready for more war.
“There’s no doubt that Hillary Clinton’s more muscular brand of American foreign policy is better matched to 2016 than it was to 2008,” said Jake Sullivan, her top policy adviser at the State Department, who plays the same role in her campaign.
Maybe so. We have not seen a lot of body bags lately. I suspect there be two reactions to this article. Some will say it overstates Hillary’s beliefs about military interventions. Others will agree with her. Where do you a stand? Please discuss.
This is not a candidate post, although some will treat it that way. The New York Times magazine article will be seen by many people, hundreds of thousands. It is very in-depth and discusses Hillary’s views and history in depth. It is sympathetic to her views.
