Hillary Clinton distances herself from Obama's foreign policy

Reuters, quoting an interview with The Atlantic:

Hillary Clinton distances herself from Obama's foreign policy

"The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad - there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle - the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled," Clinton said.

Click to expand...

Asked about Obama's slogan of "Don’t do stupid stuff" to describe his foreign policy thinking, Clinton said, "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle."

Click to expand...

She directly seems to attribute the rise of ISIS to Obama's refusal to arm the Syrian rebels, which she was for.

She may have a point. I'm not sure if it would have worked, since it was hard to identify who should be armed, and they might easily turn against us afterwards.

Regardless of her having a point or not, it is disgraceful that for election advantage, she is now spitting at an administration she was a part of.

On the other hand, regardless of her antics, it is clear to me at this point that the Obama doctrine of non-intervention in foreign affairs is a disgrace. He is proving to be one of the worst US presidents in history, and the entire world is about to pay the price. No, I don't want the US to be the police of the world, but we can't disengage abruptly without a solidly supported international order to keep things going. We were fulfilling this role; we suddenly withdrew, and now the world is a mess.

By the way, we won't fix the ISIS mess with three airstrike sorties, taking down one convoy and one artillery piece. Obama's wishy-washy half-baked commitment will not solve anything.

I say so in spite of having voted for Obama twice, something I now regret and am ashamed of. Not that the alternatives were any good, anyway, but by now I'm sick and tired of Obama and wish he'd resign.

Anyway, I'm packing too much into this original post (because I'm so frustrated with Obama). Maybe we should just discuss what Hillary said - does she have a point, and is it disgraceful to speak up against her former boss (in order to earn votes)?

Opinions?

So stupid. The bulk of the syrian rebels are ISIS. So arming them more than they have already been supplied with would just result in a stronger ISIS today.

Sure, why not arm the Syrian rebels? It's either us or some other country (because they WILL be supplied), so we might as well get the money. As for arming them to stop ISIS? :lamo

GreatNews2night said:

Reuters, quoting an interview with The Atlantic:

Hillary Clinton distances herself from Obama's foreign policy

She directly seems to attribute the rise of ISIS to Obama's refusal to arm the Syrian rebels, which she was for.

She may have a point. I'm not sure if it would have worked, since it was hard to identify who should be armed, and they might easily turn against us afterwards.

Regardless of her having a point or not, it is disgraceful that for election advantage, she is now spitting at an administration she was a part of.

On the other hand, regardless of her antics, it is clear to me at this point that the Obama doctrine of non-intervention in foreign affairs is a disgrace. He is proving to be one of the worst US presidents in history, and the entire world is about to pay the price. No, I don't want the US to be the police of the world, but we can't disengage abruptly without a solidly supported international order to keep things going. We were fulfilling this role; we suddenly withdrew, and now the world is a mess.

By the way, we won't fix the ISIS mess with three airstrike sorties, taking down one convoy and one artillery piece. Obama's wishy-washy half-baked commitment will not solve anything.

I say so in spite of having voted for Obama twice, something I now regret and am ashamed of. Not that the alternatives were any good, anyway, but by now I'm sick and tired of Obama and wish he'd resign.

Anyway, I'm packing too much into this original post (because I'm so frustrated with Obama). Maybe we should just discuss what Hillary said - does she have a point, and is it disgraceful to speak up against her former boss (in order to earn votes)?

Opinions?

Click to expand...

Don't understand me wrong. Obama is not my hero and he has been pretty bad in many of his actions out there and has done real damage with his silly red lines that he was not willing to back up, when his bluff was called. He did badly in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

But there is a redeeming feature that is very, very important. I think he is also doing this less than optimally, but he is making it clear to our allies in Europe that he is there to help but that they must learn to take the costs both in treasure and bodies of their own security in the international arena and that the US will no longer sign the bill alone.

GreatNews2night said:

Anyway, I'm packing too much into this original post (because I'm so frustrated with Obama). Maybe we should just discuss what Hillary said - does she have a point, and is it disgraceful to speak up against her former boss (in order to earn votes)?

Opinions?

Click to expand...

What "votes?" Is she going to run for presidency?

joG said:

Don't understand me wrong. Obama is not my hero and he has been pretty bad in many of his actions out there and has done real damage with his silly red lines that he was not willing to back up, when his bluff was called. He did badly in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.

But there is a redeeming feature that is very, very important. I think he is also doing this less than optimally, but he is making it clear to our allies in Europe that he is there to help but that they must learn to take the costs both in treasure and bodies of their own security in the international arena and that the US will no longer sign the bill alone.

Click to expand...

What does this mean he wouldn't back up his red line when his bluff was called?

DDD said:

What "votes?" Is she going to run for presidency?

Click to expand...

Most likely!!!

Montecresto said:

Most likely!!!

Click to expand...

Hurray!!!

:applaud

:july_4th:

Montecresto said:

What does this mean he wouldn't back up his red line when his bluff was called?

Click to expand...

It means that it is better not to issue what appears to your listeners to be an ultimatum and then not do, what was understood to be your threat, when the ultimatum is broken, to leave it dangling on an open note.

True, this may seem simpler than it is. You may have been misunderstood to begin with or the ultimatum was technically not broken, or the solution you then found was better than was understood. You might want to argue that the important people knew you did, what you said. That is all very intellectual and fine in that respect. But it does not really cut it and confuses other decision makers and more importantly their populaces.

Rainman05 said:

So stupid. The bulk of the syrian rebels are ISIS. So arming them more than they have already been supplied with would just result in a stronger ISIS today.

Click to expand...

That was not the alternative. Islamist groups were not the carriers of the movement against the Assad dynasty at the beginning. They came to the scene later long after the situation had collapsed from civil unrest into civil war. The time to stop the affair was in the period between when Assad first shot at demonstrators and when he used aircraft.

joG said:

It means that it is better not to issue what appears to your listeners to be an ultimatum and then not do, what was understood to be your threat, when the ultimatum is broken, to leave it dangling on an open note.

True, this may seem simpler than it is. You may have been misunderstood to begin with or the ultimatum was technically not broken, or the solution you then found was better than was understood. You might want to argue that the important people knew you did, what you said. That is all very intellectual and fine in that respect. But it does not really cut it and confuses other decision makers and more importantly their populaces.

Click to expand...

Right, well Obama had every intention of backing up his red line. However, there were others bound to prevent it. Namely, he was denied a resolution for use of force at the UN by Russia and China on three occasions, the UK pulled its support for military action, Obama couldn't get congressional approval and 70% of Americans were against it. So, the only failure was in drawing the red line to begin with as he was denied all options to enforce it unless you would advocate he act as a belligerent.

Montecresto said:

Right, well Obama had every intention of backing up his red line. However, there were others bound to prevent it. Namely, he was denied a resolution for use of force at the UN by Russia and China on three occasions, the UK pulled its support for military action, Obama couldn't get congressional approval and 70% of Americans were against it. So, the only failure was in drawing the red line to begin with as he was denied all options to enforce it unless you would advocate he act as a belligerent.

Click to expand...

I would agree that red lines should be drawn only, when you can and will enforce them. There is no excuse.

joG said:

I would agree that red lines should be drawn only, when you can and will enforce them. There is no excuse.

Click to expand...

IOW he should have flipped the finger to the UN, UK, congress and the majority of Americans and launched military strikes on Syria. And this even though, the UN investigation did NOT lay blame for the chemical attack on president Assad, and though there were reports that the opposition in fact had used them, ok.

Rainman05 said:

So stupid. The bulk of the syrian rebels are ISIS. So arming them more than they have already been supplied with would just result in a stronger ISIS today.

Click to expand...

Isn't that what Benghazi was all about?

I'm sure there are people out there who are impressed by Hillary's new-found position...but I'm not one of them. It's all political. It sets her up if she ever announces a run for President.

Big deal. It might help her get elected, but it doesn't mean she would be any better in the foreign policy department than Obama is.

Mycroft said:

I'm sure there are people out there who are impressed by Hillary's new-found position...but I'm not one of them. It's all political. It sets her up if she ever announces a run for President.

Big deal. It might help her get elected, but it doesn't mean she would be any better in the foreign policy department than Obama is.

Click to expand...

Anybody that doesn't see thru H.C. is naive. Don't be fooled, she had her own reservations for arming the rebels, despite what she says now.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-arming-syrian-rebels-could-help-al-qaeda/

"What difference, at this point, does it make?"

Seems like she had distanced herself back in the first term.

American said:

Isn't that what Benghazi was all about?

Click to expand...

No. No, it isn't.

Hillary Clinton is the last person who should be giving advice on foreign policy, after all she voted for the Iraq war which turned out to be a total abomination, and FAILURE...

The words that come out of her piehole i take with a grain of salt..

Rainman05 said:

No. No, it isn't.

Click to expand...

So Benghazi was not about a CIA operation to arm Syrian rebels?

OMG! Libs are so gullible. This woman, (that was the person charged to develop and carry out Obama's policy) now comes out and says she never agreed with it? Are kidding me?

And the dolts will vote for this lying POS.

GreatNews2night said:

She directly seems to attribute the rise of ISIS to Obama's refusal to arm the Syrian rebels, which she was for.

Click to expand...

IMO, on this point, the former Secretary of State is almost certainly not correct. Had the U.S. armed the rebels in Syria, one would probably see an even more dangerous ISIS today. ISIS is an extremist ideological movement that opportunistically exploited Syria's weakened central authority. That central authority was weakened in the face of an armed sectarian uprising. A more potent rebel movement would have created an even more favorable climate for ISIS to gain access to weapons and put it in a stronger position than it presently is. One should bear in mind that repeated UN reports observe that all parties to the conflict are ignoring civilian protections, engaging in atrocities, etc. ISIS fit well within the mix and early U.S. weapons supplies would have created an even deadlier cocktail of extremism.

The President's big problem was drawing a red line that was not credible to begin with, because there were no critical U.S. interests at stake. That absence of interests undermined credibility. In such cases, the U.S. should not set red lines. Nevertheless, the President was able to tactically correct himself and salvage a large gain from Syria's turning over most or all of its chemical weapons arsenal.

joG said:

I would agree that red lines should be drawn only, when you can and will enforce them. There is no excuse.

Click to expand...

Enforcement is only assured when critical national interests are at stake. In the case of Syria, no such interests were at stake.

American said:

So Benghazi was not about a CIA operation to arm Syrian rebels?

Click to expand...

What?
No.

What?

Benghazi is in Libya. Syria is a whole different country. To get from Libya to Syria you have to through 3 countries. It's a whole different thing.

donsutherland1 said:

Enforcement is only assured when critical national interests are at stake. In the case of Syria, no such interests were at stake.

Click to expand...

Well..... Really? This is not a game with unknown players. You learn from how players acted in the past.
If a red line is drawn it becomes critical national interest, because everyone sees, what you do, when the line is crossed and adapt their strategy accordingly. So if you do nothing, you have sent a signal that, what you say can be ignored. This will increase your costs in later engagements.