{"id":4210,"date":"2008-03-03T12:11:15","date_gmt":"2008-03-03T19:31:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.amptoons.com\/blog\/archives\/2008\/03\/03\/clinton-vs-obama-on-foreign-policy\/"},"modified":"2008-03-03T12:11:15","modified_gmt":"2008-03-03T19:31:03","slug":"clinton-vs-obama-on-foreign-policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=4210","title":{"rendered":"Clinton vs. Obama on foreign policy"},"content":{"rendered":"

Foreign Policy In Focus compares Obama’s and Clinton’s foreign policy teams<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Obama advisors like Joseph Cirincione have emphasized<\/a> a policy toward Iraq based on containment and engagement and have downplayed the supposed threat from Iran. Clinton advisor Holbrooke, meanwhile, insists<\/a> that “the Iranians are an enormous threat to the United States,\u201d the country is \u201cthe most pressing problem nation,\u201d and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is like Hitler.<\/p>\n

…it may be significant that Senator Clinton\u2019s foreign policy advisors, many of whom are veterans of her husband\u2019s administration, were virtually all strong supporters of President George W. Bush\u2019s call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. By contrast, almost every one of Senator Obama\u2019s foreign policy team was opposed to a U.S. invasion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

(Here’s a link to a similar piece on Huff post<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Zunes, the author of the FPIF post, also wrote criticizing Obama’s foreign policy positions<\/a>, which shows a politician who has some progressive ideas on foreign policy, but has refused to stand up for them consistently. But Clinton’s record is significantly worse, because she is<\/em> consistent. Her approach to foreign policy, going back to her husband’s administration, has been steadily hawkish and militaristic<\/a>, and she has a Bush-lite hostility to international law<\/a>. I’ve seen some Clinton supporters suggest she might be a “stealth dove”; that’s wistful thinking.<\/p>\n

No one can predict the future with certainty. But if their records and advisers are any indication, Clinton’s foreign policy will be more militaristic and more belligerent than Obama’s. That will translate into thousands or tens of thousands more needless deaths, both of US soldiers and of the citizens of whatever other countries we bomb and invade.<\/strong> That alone, for me, overwhelms all of the reasons I might prefer Clinton over Obama as a candidate.<\/p>\n

That said, Clinton did recently make a significant move to the left on one foreign policy issue.<\/p>\n

Last week, The Nation<\/em> posted an article criticizing Obama’s position on mercenaries in Iraq<\/a>:<\/p>\n

A senior foreign policy adviser to leading Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has told The Nation<\/em> that if elected Obama will not “rule out” using private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. The adviser also said that Obama does not plan to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009, when a new President will be sworn in. Obama’s campaign says that instead he will focus on bringing accountability to these forces while increasing funding for the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the agency that employs Blackwater and other private security contractors. (Hillary Clinton’s staff did not respond to repeated requests for an interview or a statement on this issue.) […]<\/p>\n

The US Embassy in Iraq is slated to become the largest embassy in world history. […] Obama’s proposed increase in funding to the diplomatic security division would ostensibly pave the way for a protective force composed entirely of US government personnel, but the process of building that force would likely take a long time.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The day after The Nation<\/em> posted the article on their website, Clinton announced<\/a> that she was co-sponsoring legislation to ban the use of private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.<\/p>\n

The Nation<\/em> correctly points out that Clinton’s sudden advocacy of a ban is a political ploy — the bill (S. 2398 — pdf link<\/a>) was written and proposed by Bernie Sanders back in November<\/em>, yet Clinton only decided to co-sponsor it now, the day after Obama is prominently criticized on this issue. Windows aren’t this transparent.<\/p>\n

Obama supporters<\/a> argue, probably correctly, that before this week Obama has shown more interest than Clinton in addressing the mercenary problem. To which I say: What have you done for us lately?<\/p>\n

So what if Clinton is acting like a cynical hypocrite? So do all successful politicians, Obama included. All else held equal, I prefer to vote for the cynical hypocrite who takes a stronger position on private contractors in Iraq. (But all else isn’t equal, which is why I’m still planning to vote for Obama.)<\/p>\n

If elected, Clinton won’t do what this bill calls for — which is replacing “at least 48,000” private contractors in Iraq in six months. We don’t have an additional 48,000 trained security personnel, and I don’t know of any plausible plan to recruit and train them in six months. But that doesn’t negate the importance of Clinton staking out this position. Even if Clinton won’t come through with a total ban, the position she’s staked out will increase the pressure on her, if she becomes President, to reign in the private contractors more than she would otherwise; and that she’s forced Obama to defend his position puts similar (but lesser) pressure on Obama, if he wins. Furthermore, if the candidates have to compete with each other by trying to out-left each other on foreign policy issues, then that’s good.<\/p>\n

So unlike some other Obama supporters I’ve read, I give credit to Clinton for her sudden support of banning mercenaries.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Foreign Policy In Focus compares Obama’s and Clinton’s foreign policy teams. Obama advisors like Joseph Cirincione have emphasized a policy toward Iraq based on containment and engagement and have downplayed the supposed threat from Iran. Clinton advisor Holbrooke, meanwhile, insists that “the … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4210","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-elections-and-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4210","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4210"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4210\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4210"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4210"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4210"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}