Clinton Won’t Be Out Gunned

In a piece by Clinton that will appear in the November/December
issue of Foreign Affairs, we get a glimpse into the broad strokes
of her foreign policy thinking. On the flip side, John McCain offers his views as well. “It’s “An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom – Securing America’s Future” versus Clinton’s “Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century.” We know all about McCain’s idea of “securing America’s future.” No thanks. As for Clinton…

Interesting that no one is talking about this section.

… ..We must return to a pragmatic willingness to look at the facts on the ground and make decisions based on evidence rather than ideology. … .. A STRONGER AMERICA Ending the war in Iraq is the first step toward restoring the United States’ global leadership. The war is sapping our military strength, absorbing our strategic assets, diverting attention and resources from Afghanistan, alienating our allies, and dividing our people. The war in Iraq has also stretched our military to the breaking point. We must rebuild our armed services and restore them body and soul. We must withdraw from Iraq in a way that brings our troops home safely, begins to restore stability to the region, and replaces military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in securing Iraq’s future. To that end, as president, I will convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of defense, and the National Security Council and direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home, starting within the first 60 days of my administration. … .. - Hillary Rodham Clinton

A viable plan to bring our troops home, starting
within the first 60 days of my administration. It’s as good as you’re going to get from any candidate looking towards his or her first days in office. It speaks of immediately crafting a redeployment plan to get us out of Iraq upon taking charge.

Words like diplomacy and unilateralism are used liberally
throughout. But the standard nonsense of “all options must remain on the
table” are as well. But giving the boys something to hear that’s recognizable has it’s value if you’re a woman vying for commander in chief.

Worst section:

But we lost that opportunity by refusing to let the UN inspectors finish their work in Iraq and rushing to war instead. Moreover, we diverted vital military and financial resources from the struggle against al Qaeda and the daunting task of building a Muslim democracy in Afghanistan. At the same time, we embarked on an unprecedented course of unilateralism… ..

This isn’t for primary voters. It’s language of a general election. No progressive is going to buy this rubbish. “We” means Congress, of which Clinton is a part. Congress screwed up on the Iraq war vote. Recasting it at this point is just silly, because her movement on Iraq has been accepted by most, except for the people who will never vote for her anyway. Again, it’s not for Democrats.

Clumsiest paragraph:

We need more than vision, however, to achieve the world we want. We must face up to an unprecedented array of challenges in the twenty-first century, threats from states, nonstate actors, and nature itself. The next president will be the first to inherit two wars, a long-term campaign against global terrorist networks, and growing tension with Iran as it seeks to acquire nuclear weapons. The United States will face a resurgent Russia whose future orientation is uncertain and a rapidly growing China that must be integrated into the international system. Moreover, the next administration will have to confront an unpredictable and dangerous situation in the Middle East that threatens Israel and could potentially bring down the global economy by disrupting oil supplies. Finally, the next president will have to address the looming long-term threats of climate change and a new wave of global health epidemics.

Call rewrite, stat. Mission: fix hodgpodge.

Most alarming and easily distorted is below. See
Ezra Klein for proof: Will Hillary Clinton Bomb Iran? With due
respect to Mr. Klein, we are wise to be skeptical, but hyperbole doesn’t serve
anyone. General Wesley Clark and Ambassador Joseph Wilson are not toadies. What part of StopIranWar doesn’t Klein understand? Clinton’s language is standard stuff,
especially if you’re going after “serious” people. Though again, to
think that any U.S. president wouldn’t follow the “all options must remain
on the table” foreign policy path is ludicrous. It’s ingrained in U.S.
doctrine and is standard script for presidential wanna bes, though I still can’t stand it.

The Bush administration has opposed talks with our adversaries, seeming to believe that we are not strong enough to defend our interests through negotiations. This is a misleading and counterproductive strategy. True statesmanship requires that we engage with our adversaries, not for the sake of talking but because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims. The case in point is Iran. Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies, and Israel. It is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The Bush administration refuses to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, preferring to ignore bad behavior rather than challenge it. Meanwhile, Iran has enhanced its nuclear-enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah, and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to hurt its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression. As a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table. On the other hand, if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives. This will let the Iranian people know that our quarrel is not with them but with their government and show the world that the United States is prepared to pursue every diplomatic option. Like Iran, North Korea responded to the Bush administration’s effort to isolate it by accelerating its nuclear program, conducting a nuclear test, and building more nuclear weapons. Only since the State Department returned to diplomacy have we been able, belatedly, to make progress. Neither North Korea nor Iran will change course as a result of what we do with our own nuclear weapons, but taking dramatic steps to reduce our nuclear arsenal would build support for the coalitions we need to address the threat of nuclear proliferation and help the United States regain the moral high ground.

The Middle East:

… .. Getting out of Iraq will enable us to play a constructive role in a renewed Middle East peace process that would mean security and normal relations for Israel and the Palestinians. The fundamental elements of a final agreement have been clear since 2000: a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank in return for a declaration that the conflict is over, recognition of Israel’s right to exist, guarantees of Israeli security, diplomatic recognition of Israel, and normalization of its relations with Arab states. U.S. diplomacy is critical in helping to resolve this conflict. In addition to facilitating negotiations, we must engage in regional diplomacy to gain Arab support for a Palestinian leadership that is committed to peace and willing to engage in a dialogue with the Israelis. Whether or not the United States makes progress in helping to broker a final agreement, consistent U.S. involvement can lower the level of violence and restore our credibility in the region. … ..

Clearer than ever before. But as I’ve written, I’m still wondering about
Clinton’s reported statement that she is against dividing Jerusalem, which is
in direct contrast with the Clinton
Parameters. I’ve still not gotten anything back from camp Clinton on that
one, though the above paragraph does lay out her philosophy for the first time.
Here’s the part in Daniel Levy’s post that started me wondering.

But one sentence from the Hillary Clinton press release of September 10 stands out. (Curiously, the the statement is not up on Clinton’s campaign website.) In staking out her position on “Standing with Israel against terrorism,” Hillary Clinton defends Israel’s right to exist with “… an undivided Jerusalem as its capital.” Oddly enough, this places her in direct contradiction with the plan put forward by a certain President Bill Clinton in December 2000. Clinton vs. Clinton on Israel, by Daniel Levy

No Democrat will take six years before discovering the Middle East anew, then whip up a last ditch effort and call it “one of the top priorities.”

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Monday described the pursuit of Middle East peace as one of the top priorities of the remaining 15 months of the Bush administration and said she would devote every ounce of her energy to achieving a long-sought end to the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians.

Embarrassing drivel from Secretary of State Rice.

Bottom line of Clinton’s article: Nobody is going to say this woman is soft. Got
it?