Hillary ARTICLES 2014

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton having lunch at the White House
President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at White House.
Hillary Clinton gave an interview to Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic that was published Aug. 10 regarding foreign policy, and while more nuanced than the coverage of it reflected, she  is still wrong that the hard power of the United States is as, um, powerful, in getting results as she believes. By contrast, President Barack Obama has always been skeptical of the claims of hard powerists, and basically repeated that view in an interview with Thomas Friedman.

President Obama has it right and the former secretary of state has it wrong.

Here is some of what Clinton said, in this case, about Syria:

JG: You go out of your way in Hard Choices to praise Robert Ford, who recently quit as U.S. ambassador to Syria, as an excellent diplomat. Ford quit in protest and has recently written strongly about what he sees as the inadequacies of Obama administration policy. Do you agree with Ford that we are at fault for not doing enough to build up a credible Syrian opposition when we could have?

HRC: I’m the one who convinced the administration to send an ambassador to Syria. You know, this is why I called the chapter on Syria “A Wicked Problem.” I can’t sit here today and say that if we had done what I recommended, and what Robert Ford recommended, that we’d be in a demonstrably different place.

JG: That’s the president’s argument, that we wouldn’t be in a different place.

HRC: Well, I did believe, which is why I advocated this, that if we were to carefully vet, train, and equip early on a core group of the developing Free Syrian Army, we would, number one, have some better insight into what was going on on the ground. Two, we would have been helped in standing up a credible political opposition, which would prove to be very difficult, because there was this constant struggle between what was largely an exile group outside of Syria trying to claim to be the political opposition, and the people on the ground, primarily those doing the fighting and dying, who rejected that, and we were never able to bridge that, despite a lot of efforts that Robert and others made.

The problem with this is there simply was no reasonable way to do what Clinton describes. Indeed, America's history in trying to do things like this has been abysmal failures, as discussed below the fold.


As President Obama said:

With “respect to Syria,” said the president, the notion that arming the rebels would have made a difference has “always been a fantasy. This idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, that was never in the cards.” Even now, the president said, the administration has difficulty finding, training and arming a sufficient cadre of secular Syrian rebels: “There’s not as much capacity as you would hope.”

The “broader point we need to stay focused on,” he added, “is what we have is a disaffected Sunni minority in the case of Iraq, a majority in the case of Syria, stretching from essentially Baghdad to Damascus. ... Unless we can give them a formula that speaks to the aspirations of that population, we are inevitably going to have problems. ... Unfortunately, there was a period of time where the Shia majority in Iraq didn’t fully understand that. They’re starting to understand it now. Unfortunately, we still have ISIL [the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant], which has, I think, very little appeal to ordinary Sunnis.” But “they’re filling a vacuum, and the question for us has to be not simply how we counteract them militarily but how are we going to speak to a Sunni majority in that area ... that, right now, is detached from the global economy.”

Speaking of Iraq, and in terms that apply more broadly, the president said:
“We cannot do for them what they are unwilling to do for themselves,” said the president of the factions in Iraq. “Our military is so capable, that if we put everything we have into it, we can keep a lid on a problem for a time. But for a society to function long term, the people themselves have to make decisions about how they are going to live together, how they are going to accommodate each other’s interests, how they are going to compromise. When it comes to things like corruption, the people and their leaders have to hold themselves accountable for changing those cultures.... ... We can help them and partner with them every step of the way. But we can’t do it for them.”
Again, President Obama is right.

The media likes to talk about foreign policy "achievements" the way they talk about legislatures "doing something." They believe the mere act of having "done something" is an accomplishment in itself and that governments have to "do something" to have effective foreign policies. This is the essential problem of foreign policy "experts." (current Secretary of State Kerry blunders constantly because of his drive for "achievements.")  They see NOT "doing something" as failure in and of itself. This is the type of thinking that leads to "doing stupid shit," as the president was reported as saying.

Clinton's response to a question on that was problematic:

JG: Is the lesson for you, like it is for President Obama, “Don’t do stupid shit”?

HRC: That’s a good lesson but it’s more complicated than that. Because your stupid may not be mine, and vice versa. I don’t think it was stupid for the United States to do everything we could to remove Qaddafi because that came from the bottom up. That was people asking us to help. It was stupid to do what we did in Iraq and to have no plan about what to do after we did it. That was really stupid. I don’t think you can quickly jump to conclusions about what falls into the stupid and non-stupid categories. That’s what I’m arguing. [Emphasis supplied.]

While Clinton is right that no one should jump to conclusions about what is stupid and non-stupid, she ignores that the impulse she appears to be defending, to "do something," seems to always lead to "stupid shit."

We confronted (and still confront) this attitude from liberal interventionists like George Packer. In 2005, I wrote about it:

It is NOT moral to adopt an unwise policy that does more harm than good even if the intention of the policy is moral. Indeed, it is IMMORAL in my view.

And this is the fundamental point. Packer wants to grasp the mantle of the "right thing to do" even if unwise. I categorically reject that. It was the wrong thing to do and not moral.

Not to accept that is to not learn from your mistakes. Packer, it seems to me, and no, I have not read his book, just his posts, has learned nothing.

When Clinton says, "It was stupid to do what we did in Iraq and to have no plan about what to do after we did it. That was really stupid," she misses the point. Yes, the Bush administration was incompetent in its conduct of the Iraq debacle. But there was no competent way to do something that stupid—"what we did in Iraq." Clinton seems to not have learned that lesson.

James Fallows, reacting to the Clinton interview, has a similar take.

The easiest and least useful stance when it comes to foreign policy is: Situation X is terrible, we have to do something. Or its cousin: Situation X is terrible, you should have done something. Pointing out terribleness around the world is not even half of the necessary thought-work in foreign policy. The harder and more important part—what constitutes actual statesmanship—is considering exactly which “something” you would do; and why that exact something would make conditions better rather than worse; and what Pandora’s box you might be opening; and how the results of your something will look a year from now, or a decade, when the terribleness of this moment has passed. [. . .]

Of course everyone including Clinton “knows” that you should only do something when it’s smart and not when it’s stupid. In her books and speeches, she is most impressive when showing commanding knowledge of the complexities and contradictions of negotiating with the Russians and Chinese, and why you can’t just “be tough” in dealings with them. In those specifics, she can sound like the description I just came across, in Christopher Clark’s The Sleepwalkers, about some pre-World War I Balkan leaders: “It is a characteristic of the most skillful politicians that they are capable of reasoning simultaneously at different levels of conditionality. [One Serbian figure] wanted peace, but he also believed—he never concealed it—that the final historical phase of Serbian expansion would in all probability not be achieved without war.”

But in this interview—assuming it's not "out of context"—she is often making the broad, lazy "do something" points and avoiding the harder ones. She appears to disdain the president for exactly the kind of slogan—"don't do stupid shit"—that her husband would have been proud of for its apparent simplicity but potential breadth and depth. (Remember "It's the economy, stupid"?) Meanwhile she offers her own radically simplified view of the Middle East—Netanyahu right, others wrong—that is at odds with what she did in the State Department and what she would likely have to do in the White House.

Fallows gets it exactly right. Now, to be clear, Clinton did say:
JG: Is there a chance that President Obama overlearned the lessons of the previous administration? In other words, if the story of the Bush administration is one of overreach, is the story of the Obama administration one of underreach?

HRC: You know, I don’t think you can draw that conclusion. It’s a very key question. How do you calibrate, that’s the key issue. I think we have learned a lot during this period, but then how to apply it going forward will still take a lot of calibration and balancing.

Perhaps we can be optimistic that Clinton, who surely is running for president, was making a political calculation regarding her own candidacy, and sees the need to find some distance, even if just rhetorically, from a president whose popularity has waned. Maybe there's nothing more to it than that.

But the issue is too damn important for such wishful thinking, Now more than ever, it is important that should Clinton run for president, she face a primary opponent who forces her to explain herself on this. Don't get me wrong, I fully expect Clinton will win if she runs, but the issues matter and while campaign promises are not worth the paper they are written on, how we discuss issues in elections does have strong effects on the discourse surrounding such issues, which in turn has actual impact on the policies that emerge.

So it is important to have folks out there saying Clinton is wrong on this, and President Obama is right. This is my two cents doing just that.  


Hillary Clinton took a swipe at President Obama on the specific issue he got elected on and she lost on. Yet, like some people who refuse to accept reality, she believes that kicking the President at a low point in his polls would somehow vindicate her biggest political blunder. Instead of accepting neocon type policies as proven failures, she seem to believe the current state in Syria and Iraq somehow vindicates her.

In yesterday’s post titled “Obama slams reporter’s Right Wing adopted talking point as bogus and wrong,” Hillary Clinton was quoted from the Atlantic jabbing the President.

This is what Clinton said about Obama’s slogan: “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”

She softened the blow by noting that Obama was “trying to communicate to the American people that he’s not going to do something crazy,” but she repeatedly suggested that the U.S. sometimes appears to be withdrawing from the world stage.

Maybe Hillary Clinton does not quite understand what stupid stuff means. Her interview reveals that she is not much different than John McCain or Lindsey Graham on foreign policy. Yesterday she backtracked releasing the following statement through her spokesman.
Hillary Rodham Clinton called President Obama on Tuesday to assure him that comments she made in a recent interview with The Atlantic were not intended “to attack him, his policies or his leadership,” according to a statement released by Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman.

“Secretary Clinton has at every step of the way touted the significant achievements of his presidency, which she is honored to have been part of as his secretary of state,” said the statement released by the spokesman, Nick Merrill. “Like any two friends who have to deal with the public eye, she looks forward to hugging it out when they see each other tomorrow night.”

That is when Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are set to attend a party on Martha’s Vineyard held by Vernon E. Jordan Jr., a longtime friend to former President Bill Clinton.

Inasmuch as Hillary Clinton backtracked, she showed that she may have the same propensity to doing stupid stuff that American leaders have been espousing for decades. Hillary Clinton is an ‘Israel can do no wrong’ absolutist. She fails to see that in that stance she hurts America’s security. While it is true that firing rockets indiscriminately into Israel is a war crime, it is an unrealized war crime because of American and Israeli superior technology (Iron Dome). A minority of militants should not sentence a population to death and despair.

Hillary Clinton claims Hamas was better able to manage the coverage. Really? It is hard to misrepresent 1900+ dead, mostly innocent Palestinians, and a large percentage of buildings turned into rubble in Gaza at the same time that Israel remains pristine with less than one hundred mostly soldiers dead. This lack of empathy is emblematic of neocons. It causes the aggrieved to lash out.

Hillary Clinton speaks of jihadist groups as if they really present an existential threat to the United States. She says the following.

One of the reasons why I worry about what’s happening in the Middle East right now is because of the breakout capacity of jihadist groups that can affect Europe, can affect the United States. Jihadist groups are governing territory. They will never stay there, though. They are driven to expand. Their raison d'être is to be against the West, against the Crusaders, against the fill-in-the-blank—and we all fit into one of these categories. How do we try to contain that? I’m thinking a lot about containment, deterrence, and defeat
Does that not sound like George W Bush rhetoric? Does Hillary Clinton really believe that gunmen in pickup trucks, a few stolen tanks, and video cameras displaying their propensity to decapitate and execute their fellowman are threats to the US. We have aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, destroyers, tanks, nuclear bombs, ICBMs, armed drones, night vision, and many other tools of killing. We invested billions for this. Anyone can put a video on YouTube with bold claims. But should that scare the lone Superpower?

While jihadist are formidable in their territory, they are but a nuisance to us. If we are looking for folks to fear, we need not look further than our local armed right wing militias and armed crazy US citizens. While Americans may fear scary jihadist videos, our government should know better lest their intent is to keep the military industrial complex overfunded.

Hillary Clinton now believes that somehow Americans could arm appropriate factions in Syria. History just seems to repeat itself.

When Hillary Clinton was asked to elaborate on her organizing principle, she fell into Republican talking points.

I think people want—and this is a generalization I will go ahead and make—people want to make sure our economic situation improves and that our political decision-making improves. Whether they articulate it this way or not, I think people feel like we’re facing really important challenges here at home: The economy is not growing, the middle class is not feeling like they are secure, and we are living in a time of gridlock and dysfunction that is just frustrating and outraging.
This was the perfect segue for Hillary Clinton to be truthful about what ails America and the American economy. The economy is growing unlike what the GOP talking points say. The problem is that most of that growth is going to the top one percent. Hillary Clinton failed to state that growth would be much better absent a proven failed austerity policy demanded by the GOP. She failed to call out Republicans on their intransigence that prevented infrastructure, research, and other spending necessary to rebuild the country and boost the economy for years to come. Americans want to know  why things are not working and what the next president will do for the working poor and working middle class.

Many now tout the Clintons as being the wise ones in the Democratic Party. It was not so when Bill Clinton was in power.Many now assume former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are politically virtually infallible. They should recall that President Bill Clinton never got 50% of the vote and that absent a strong third party candidate he may not  have been president.

With all his faults President Obama won over 50% of the vote for his election and reelection. He passed a healthcare bill that has eluded presidents for nearly a century. He has changed our foreign policy from brute force to a game of chess (sometimes even good chess players make bad moves). And he has kept the country viable throughout Republican intransigency , sabotage by certain corporations, and a corrupt Supreme Court. Hillary Clinton should remember that if Al Gore had run on Bill Clinton’s record, the Supreme Court would not have had the chance to appoint George W Bush president. Running from her record with President Obama is not a winning strategy.

There are two Republicans that have begun the triangulation process. Rand Paul’s isolationist, no war, marijuana leniency, prison reform policies, and his new found love for non-white people could pay dividends in our low information society. A new Mitt Romney finding love for the 47% by supporting a living wage may make some give him a second look. It is imperative that there are other credible candidates like Elizabeth Warren, Howard Dean, Amy Klobuchar, or other more middle class centric candidates in the 2016 Democratic Presidential Primary. Otherwise the 2016 coronation of Hillary Clinton will look just like her 2008 coronation, not in a primary but in the actual presidential race.



Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.