• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Clinton distances herself from Obama's foreign policy

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...

It adds fuel to the rumor that Obama and OFA will throw their weight behind Elizabeth Warren in 2016.
 
donsutherland1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

But the arming was done, not to the extent that hawks wanted, and as such is largely responsible for the strength of IS.
 
joG said:
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.
Click to expand...

The red line was drawn, he "allegedly" crossed that line, and the chemical weapons have been removed. That problem solved.
 
joG said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you are suggesting that a nation should act when it draws a red line, I agree. Otherwise, credibility is eroded. But that's a different point.

My point concerns the issue as to why deterrence failed. When it comes to deterrence, one of the essential elements is whether the target nation (Syria in this case) knows a country is sufficiently strong to carry out its threat and whether it is willing to do so. There's little doubt that Syria knew that the U.S. is sufficiently strong to deliver on its threat. The latter element was in doubt, because the threat was not tied to critical American interests. Syria calculated that the U.S. might not be willing to deliver on the threat, because absent critical interests there was nothing to all but require U.S. military action. Rhetoric is far cheaper than concrete interests. Hence, Syria ignored the red line and deterrence failed.
 
donsutherland1 said:
If you are suggesting that a nation should act when it draws a red line, I agree. Otherwise, credibility is eroded. But that's a different point.

My point concerns the issue as to why deterrence failed. When it comes to deterrence, one of the essential elements is whether the target nation (Syria in this case) knows a country is sufficiently strong to carry out its threat and whether it is willing to do so. There's little doubt that Syria knew that the U.S. is sufficiently strong to deliver on its threat. The latter element was in doubt, because the threat was not tied to critical American interests. Syria calculated that the U.S. might not be willing to deliver on the threat, because absent critical interests there was nothing to all but require U.S. military action. Rhetoric is far cheaper than concrete interests. Hence, Syria ignored the red line and deterrence failed.
Click to expand...

What emboldened president Assad was the fact that both Russia and China denied the US a resolution for force in Syria, and Russia in particular vowed that they would NOT allow the US to do to Syria what was done to Libya.
 
Any credible potential Democratic candidate would distance themselves from Obama's foreign policy. He frankly has a very poor record there so offering a critical perspective pre-2016 election is required. Hillary will say, and rightly so, that the buck stops with the President - not the Secretary of State. The reason Libya, Syria, Iraq and possibly Afghanistan in the future will plunge into chaos is because of indecision and incompetence by Obama and his staff. Hillary will be able to claim she tried to sway the WH to save the 100,000 + Syrians who died after the famed "red line" statement, only to be over ruled by Obama.

I in no way believe Hillary's hands are clean here - but she and her campaign staff will certainly post the doubt on an ailing and feckless Obama who's last term is quickly approaching, and may proffer herself as the "HAWK" on international issues such as the melting middle east. If Rand Paul runs against her, it will be a curious role reversal with a Democrat running as the hawk, and the Republican running as the dove.
 
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...
Does this site have a tap dancing award? Holy ****! :lamo

Dood has been lost on foreign policy since day one. He began alienating world leaders right out of the gate. No one trusts him. Theres no way he could form a coalition of willing participants. He is a failed community organizer...that was the limit and extent of his skill set...doing a bad job trying to provide support for enrollment.
 
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...

As for the Syrian Rebels, the weapons we gave where in the hands of the Turks to distribute. We really didn’t have that much say in whom they ended up with. We had to trust the Turks. I am sure some if not most ended up with organizations within the rebels that are not our friends.

As far as Hillary stating her view point as being a disgrace, she has that right. She is no longer in government and who knows, the disagreement over arming the Syrian Rebels may be one of the main reasons she resigned. She has to worry about making herself more popular with the American people if she is to run successfully for president in 2016. Distancing oneself from an unpopular president and some of his policies is nothing new. Landrieu, Hagan, Begich, Pryor, all have done so this year while running for re-election in the senate. Hillary just joins a long list that could be getting longer.

The presidents non-interventionist policies is exactly what most Americans wanted. They wanted out of Iraq, they want us out of Afghanistan, they didn’t want us to bomb in Syria. But as you say, the emergence of ISIS has shown that without someone to replace our steadying influence, the bad guys can run wild. We’ll see how the airstrikes work out, the president has authorized a bunch more and has given the military the leeway to conduct those airstrikes when and where they see fit. This in my opinion is a step in the right direction.

I think in protecting the Kurds, a loyal U.S. ally is a must. I still have mixed feelings about the Maliki government. He is way too cozy with the Iranians and I am sure the Iranians would not let him fall. Assad also has provided a few airstrikes to help Maliki out, the same Assad we are bent on taking out of power. That in my opinion is a mistake, Assad is the only person able to bring stability to Syria and he is a foe of ISIS.

Back to Hillary, I don’t blame her. She needs to let the public know what she would do different. If she is to win in 2016 and if the president continues to only receive a 40% approval rating, she will need to do more distancing than just this from him.
 
Montecresto said:
What emboldened president Assad was the fact that both Russia and China denied the US a resolution for force in Syria, and Russia in particular vowed that they would NOT allow the US to do to Syria what was done to Libya.
Click to expand...

I don't believe Syria really placed great weight on the idea that the U.S. depended on Security Council resolutions for authorization to use military force, though the absence of such a resolution might have been an additional factor in Syria's calculations. Russia, in particular, felt that the U.S. had gone beyond the understanding of the resolution that was adopted concerning Libya and had taken a position that it would not support similar resolutions in the future. From Russia's perspective that it felt ambiguity was used to move beyond what it felt was a position of consensus (civilian protection, not regime change), I can understand the position they've taken on such resolutions. China's position is more complex and involves more variables.
 
Perotista said:
As for the Syrian Rebels, the weapons we gave where in the hands of the Turks to distribute. We really didn’t have that much say in whom they ended up with. We had to trust the Turks. I am sure some if not most ended up with organizations within the rebels that are not our friends.

As far as Hillary stating her view point as being a disgrace, she has that right. She is no longer in government and who knows, the disagreement over arming the Syrian Rebels may be one of the main reasons she resigned. She has to worry about making herself more popular with the American people if she is to run successfully for president in 2016. Distancing oneself from an unpopular president and some of his policies is nothing new. Landrieu, Hagan, Begich, Pryor, all have done so this year while running for re-election in the senate. Hillary just joins a long list that could be getting longer.

The presidents non-interventionist policies is exactly what most Americans wanted. They wanted out of Iraq, they want us out of Afghanistan, they didn’t want us to bomb in Syria. But as you say, the emergence of ISIS has shown that without someone to replace our steadying influence, the bad guys can run wild. We’ll see how the airstrikes work out, the president has authorized a bunch more and has given the military the leeway to conduct those airstrikes when and where they see fit. This in my opinion is a step in the right direction.

I think in protecting the Kurds, a loyal U.S. ally is a must. I still have mixed feelings about the Maliki government. He is way too cozy with the Iranians and I am sure the Iranians would not let him fall. Assad also has provided a few airstrikes to help Maliki out, the same Assad we are bent on taking out of power. That in my opinion is a mistake, Assad is the only person able to bring stability to Syria and he is a foe of ISIS.

Back to Hillary, I don’t blame her. She needs to let the public know what she would do different. If she is to win in 2016 and if the president continues to only receive a 40% approval rating, she will need to do more distancing than just this from him.
Click to expand...

It's a matter of bad US policies in the ME that have strengthened and emboldened militant Islamic jihad.

Anyway, that's pretty close to an endorsement Pero! Good gawd, no more Bush's and no more Clintons, we don't need America to become an oligarchy.
 
Last edited:
donsutherland1 said:
I don't believe Syria really placed great weight on the idea that the U.S. depended on Security Council resolutions for authorization to use military force, though the absence of such a resolution might have been an additional factor in Syria's calculations. Russia, in particular, felt that the U.S. had gone beyond the understanding of the resolution that was adopted concerning Libya and had taken a position that it would not support similar resolutions in the future. From Russia's perspective that it felt ambiguity was used to move beyond what it felt was a position of consensus (civilian protection, not regime change), I can understand the position they've taken on such resolutions. China's position is more complex and involves more variables.
Click to expand...

I think that means we basically agree at that point.
 
Montecresto said:
The red line was drawn, he "allegedly" crossed that line, and the chemical weapons have been removed. That problem solved.
Click to expand...

So you say. And it is good that (some of?) the chemicals are gone.
Sorrily that is not the way it seems to be interpreted, which is the main thing in this game. This red line has been made out to be one in a row with other red lines and options on tables from Obama's past; which these were no longer registers nor matters. He is not perceived to be a man to stand to his threats. That is not good in a President.
 
donsutherland1 said:
If you are suggesting that a nation should act when it draws a red line, I agree. Otherwise, credibility is eroded. But that's a different point.

My point concerns the issue as to why deterrence failed. When it comes to deterrence, one of the essential elements is whether the target nation (Syria in this case) knows a country is sufficiently strong to carry out its threat and whether it is willing to do so. There's little doubt that Syria knew that the U.S. is sufficiently strong to deliver on its threat. The latter element was in doubt, because the threat was not tied to critical American interests. Syria calculated that the U.S. might not be willing to deliver on the threat, because absent critical interests there was nothing to all but require U.S. military action. Rhetoric is far cheaper than concrete interests. Hence, Syria ignored the red line and deterrence failed.
Click to expand...

It was essentially the same calculation Saddam had made, when he bet that the Moscow-Berlin-Paris axis would prevent Bush from deposing him.
 
joG said:
So you say. And it is good that (some of?) the chemicals are gone.
Sorrily that is not the way it seems to be interpreted, which is the main thing in this game. This red line has been made out to be one in a row with other red lines and options on tables from Obama's past; which these were no longer registers nor matters. He is not perceived to be a man to stand to his threats. That is not good in a President.
Click to expand...

What was Obama's threat?
 
Ockham said:




US military involvement.
Click to expand...


Enormous consequences! What I was asking is for specifics. At any rate, the UN's report on the use of chemical weapons did not place blame on president Assad, and there were reports that the rebels were the ones to have used them but no confirmation anywhere. Those weapons have been and are being removed.
 
Montecresto said:
Enormous consequences! What I was asking is for specifics. At any rate, the UN's report on the use of chemical weapons did not place blame on president Assad, and there were reports that the rebels were the ones to have used them but no confirmation anywhere. Those weapons have been and are being removed.
Click to expand...

You asked for a threat and I gave you a specific - US military involvement was the threat.
Why are you confused?
 
Montecresto said:
It's a matter of bad US policies in the ME that have strengthened and emboldened militant Islamic jihad.

Anyway, that's pretty close to an endorsement Pero! Good gawd, no more Bush's and no more Clintons, we don't need America to become an oligarchy.
Click to expand...

LOL, actually I am busy with the 2014 senate predictions, I really haven’t given 2016 much thought. But I do understand candidates, potential candidates of the same party as an unpopular president running away from him. At least keeping him at arm’s length. You see that this year with Begich, Landrieu, Hagan, Pryor refusing to be seen with the president all the while accepting the tons of cash he raises at his fund raisers. Hillary is a politician, one should expect her to do the same.

I do not have a problem helping out the Kurds with airstrikes. The Kurds have been loyal to us and unlike Maliki’s troops, they are willing to fight to protect what is theirs. In fact with the help from some of our airstrikes, the Kurds have been able to recapture some villages and towns that ISIS originally took from them. I am half a mind just to let Iran, Syria and Russia decide Maliki’s fate. As an old military man, I am leery about getting involved protecting a country whose own forces refuse to fight. That is a recipe for disaster.

No, no endorsement of Hillary. But I would be surprise to see 2016 be a race between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. They seem to be the strongest candidates the two major parties have to offer, at least at this point in time.
 
joG said:
It was essentially the same calculation Saddam had made, when he bet that the Moscow-Berlin-Paris axis would prevent Bush from deposing him.
Click to expand...

What we also learned after the war was that Saddam Hussein so greatly feared Iran, that he could not abandon ambiguity on the WMD front. He believed that if Iran knew that Iraq had not resumed WMD activities or possessed no WMD, that Iran would pose a mortal threat to Iraq. In other words, he believed he was "stuck" between international demands and obligations he had made regarding WMD and his fears of Iran.

My guess is that those fears were the primary reason he chose not to fully cooperate with the international inspections. After all, even when he was faced with certainty concerning military force following his invasion of Kuwait in 1990 with all the Permanent Members of the Security Council unopposed to the authorization of force, he still refused to withdraw unconditionally from Kuwait. Then, as was the case in 2003, he placed greatest priority on his own considerations as he saw them.
 
Ockham said:
You asked for a threat and I gave you a specific - US military involvement was the threat.
Why are you confused?
Click to expand...

No confusion, I listened to Obama for that 90 seconds and didn't quite hear what you did. Perhaps he specifically threatened president Assad through our ambassador, or other courier. Not some vague serious consequences during a press conference. We do know that he sought a UN resolution for force early on, however failed to secure one, we know that he lost UK support for such, that congress failed him any authorisation and that the American public was steadfastly against it. It would appear that removing the chemical weapons would deny another breach of the red line though.
 
donsutherland1 said:
What we also learned after the war was that Saddam Hussein so greatly feared Iran, that he could not abandon ambiguity on the WMD front. He believed that if Iran knew that Iraq had not resumed WMD activities or possessed no WMD, that Iran would pose a mortal threat to Iraq. In other words, he believed he was "stuck" between international demands and obligations he had made regarding WMD and his fears of Iran.

My guess is that those fears were the primary reason he chose not to fully cooperate with the international inspections. After all, even when he was faced with certainty concerning military force following his invasion of Kuwait in 1990 with all the Permanent Members of the Security Council unopposed to the authorization of force, he still refused to withdraw unconditionally from Kuwait. Then, as was the case in 2003, he placed greatest priority on his own considerations as he saw them.
Click to expand...

You mean to say that Saddam feared Iran more than the US.
 
Perotista said:
LOL, actually I am busy with the 2014 senate predictions, I really haven’t given 2016 much thought. But I do understand candidates, potential candidates of the same party as an unpopular president running away from him. At least keeping him at arm’s length. You see that this year with Begich, Landrieu, Hagan, Pryor refusing to be seen with the president all the while accepting the tons of cash he raises at his fund raisers. Hillary is a politician, one should expect her to do the same.

I do not have a problem helping out the Kurds with airstrikes. The Kurds have been loyal to us and unlike Maliki’s troops, they are willing to fight to protect what is theirs. In fact with the help from some of our airstrikes, the Kurds have been able to recapture some villages and towns that ISIS originally took from them. I am half a mind just to let Iran, Syria and Russia decide Maliki’s fate. As an old military man, I am leery about getting involved protecting a country whose own forces refuse to fight. That is a recipe for disaster.

No, no endorsement of Hillary. But I would be surprise to see 2016 be a race between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. They seem to be the strongest candidates the two major parties have to offer, at least at this point in time.
Click to expand...

What does that say for us when Clinton and Bush are our two strongest potentials! Dear lord.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom