One aspect of Hillary Clinton’s political record that hasn’t gotten nearly enough attention during the 2016 campaign is her foreign policy. This is inexcusable, not just because foreign policy in general is one of the areas where the president has the freest reign to shape policy, but because Hillary has already made it clear that the US can expect to become bogged down in at least one more war in the Middle East if she wins.
Hillary’s support for a hyper-interventionist American foreign policy has been one of her defining traits ever since she took to the national stage as First Lady:
As First Lady from January 1993, she encouraged her husband Bill and his secretary of state Madeleine Albright to attack Serbian forces in the disintegrating Yugoslavia—in Bosnia in 1994 and Serbia in 1999. She’s stated that in 1999 she phoned her husband from Africa. “I urged him to bomb,” she boasts.
Keep in mind, none of the wars raging in the Balkans during the 90s had anything to do with American national interests, let alone American national security – yet Hillary’s immediate instinct when seeing a foreign conflict was to find a way to insert the US in it, not merely as an honest broker or in other diplomatic capacities, but as a warring party dropping bombs on those she had deemed the Bad Guys.
Hillary’s preference for military might over diplomatic solutions made her support for George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq predictable, especially in a political context in which many Democrats thought opposing the upcoming Iraq war would hurt them politically. However, Hillary stood out from most Democrats as a true believer in the war – not content with simply voting for the foreign policy disaster of a generation, she stood by it long after the original justification (Saddam possessing WMDs) had been proven false, and kept repeating some of the most ludicrous pro-war talking points:
She was also the only Democratic senator to make the absurd claim—strongly challenged by scholars, diplomats and other observers—that the secular Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein was supporting the Salafist Islamist Al-Qaeda movement. And more than a year after the U.S. invasion and the Bush administration’s acknowledgement that Iraq had neither any WMDs nor any ties to Al-Qaeda, Clinton insisted it was “the right vote,” adding “I don’t regret giving the president authority.
For a politician generally considered unprincipled and dishonest, a shameless panderer who will say whatever she thinks will win her votes, it’s worth noting that Hillary stuck by her warmongering even as it hurt her politically. In fact, that’s very much understating it – Hillary’s support for and continued defense of Iraq war was a big reason she lost to Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary, and given how weak of a general election candidate John McCain turned out to be, it could be argued that Hillary’s warmongering cost her the presidency that she had so desperately desired for decades.
Did such a traumatic experience change Hillary’s foreign policy outlook? Hell no – when Obama foolishly appointed her Secretary of State, Hillary ended up distinguishing herself as one of the foremost cheerleaders for bombing Libya after the country descended into civil war:
Both inside and outside the Obama administration, Mrs. Clinton was among the most vocal early proponents of using U.S. military force to unseat Gadhafi. Joining her in making the case were French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and her successor as secretary of state, John F. Kerry.
The Libya intervention turned out to be a disaster: Hillary’s humanitarian bombs ended up throwing Libya into anarchy and turned the country into a safe haven for ISIS. It also had more far-reaching consequences, such as greatly destabilizing Mali, boosting Nigeria’s Islamist Boko Haram terrorist group and flooding Europe with refugees, both real and fake.
It’s again important to remember that intervening in Libya had nothing to do with US national interest or national security – it was done for the benefit of Libyans, who most Americans have no connection to and very little in common with, and it ended up destroying their country anyway. It was also done to encourage and strengthen the so-called Arab Spring, which consistently ended up spreading instability and death throughout the Middle East, and in fact quickly became something of an Islamist Winter. In other words, there was no good reason for the US to attack Libya, and yet thanks in large part to Hillary Clinton it did, with disastrous consequences.
Did Hillary learn from this mess at least? Of course not! When Syria also found itself in the grips of civil war (thanks Arab Spring!), Hillary again supported US military intervention. Not only that, she supported US intervention on behalf of the so-called Syrian rebels, basically putting the US on the side of Islamists and terrorists, and fighting against Syria’s Christian population and other Syrian religious minorities, as well as secular Sunnis.
However, Hillary has still managed to save her most unhinged bit of warmongering for last, namely with her support for no-fly-zones in Syria – AFTER Russia had already started bombing ISIS and the rest of Hillary’s precious terrorists/rebels! Understand what might very well happen if Hillary gets her way – the US trying to force Russian planes out of Syria’s airspace could easily provoke a military conflict between Russia and the US, which would almost certainly prove catastrophic. Need I remind you that Russia is in possession of a gigantic arsenal of nuclear weapons, or that it is ruled by a strongman who has yet to blink first when facing confrontation with the West?
Let’s not mince words here – the foreign policy currently advocated by Hillary Clinton will put the world straight on course for World War 3:
— Partisangirl 🇸🇾 (@Partisangirl) September 24, 2016
Just contemplate that for a moment: World War 3, and for what?! Protecting Muslim terrorists in Syria and undermining Assad, Syria’s secular ruler? Say whatever you want about Donald Trump, at least he opposes this madness. And even ignoring that apocalyptic Worst Case Scenario, every sign still points in the direction of Hillary Clinton being an unhinged warmonger who could very well be worse than Bush and Cheney. And even if you are generally a hawk, ask yourself this: Should the US really keep spending billions, potentially even trillions of dollars on wars of choice that do nothing to advance American interests, security or values? Hillary isn’t just a warmonger – she’s a stupid, incompetent warmonger.