Hillary Clinton's foreign policy hangup. (voting, Iraq, candidacy, Republicans)

[wutitiz]

The debate between conservatives and liberals on domestic issues tends to be pretty predictable. Conservatives want limited government and decisions in the hands of individual wherever possible. Liberals prefer decision making power in the hands of the collective.

When it comes to foreign policy, the debate gets fuzzy. There are people on both left and right who would like to see us stay out of the business of other nations where possible, and there are people on both sides who want an activist foreign policy with strong engagement of other nations, whether friend, foe, or other. Hillary Clinton falls solidly into the latter category, and I think that this could prove to be problematic for her candidacy. Some of the voting blocks to which she wants to appeal will be less happy with her, the more they learn about her foreign policy philosophy.

Hillary is an advocate of "smart power" a term coined by Joseph Nye, pentagon official under Pres. Bill Clinton:
Smart power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Smart power seeks to actively engage other nations with all available tools, including foreign aid, sanctions, and military force.

Hillary's approach to Libya as Secretary of State offers a case in point. In early 2011 the 'Arab Spring' came to Libya. Protesters demanded change, and ruler Muammar Qaddafi cracked down. Hillary sprung into action.

Originally Posted by HRC

Hillary told her aides she was convinced that Libya presented a unique opportunity for America to exercise a new kind of international leadership...

(HRC: State Secrets and the rebirth of Hillary Clinton by Jonathan Allen (Bloomberg) and Amie Parnes (thehill.com), p 216.

Hillary went to Paris to meet with the foreign minister of the UAE, who was also the head of the Gulf Corporation Council (GCC) representing various wealthy Arab oil states.

If Abdullah was looking for a hawk, he had come to the right person. While European countries were still stuck on no-fly zones, Hillary was thinking about a comprehensive military action that included strikes on Qaddafi's ground forces...

(HRC, p. 219)

In short, it was no accident that Hillary Clinton supported the war in Iraq. Since the debacle of Iraq, it is my impression that many Americans on both left and right prefer staying out of foreign entanglements as much as possible, and this could prove to be a big liability for Hillary Clinton in 2016. I note that for Republicans who wish to win in 2016, this is also an argument for having Rand Paul on the ticket, whether at the #1 or #2 spot.

[cb at sea]

We DO NOT need another Clinton (or Bush) in power. period.

[greywar]

Most folks dont mind talking, interacting etc. Its when military power is used that we get all uptight.
But...make no mistake, honoring our treaties if ally is attacked is a completely different story.

[wutitiz]

Originally Posted by greywar

Most folks dont mind talking, interacting etc. Its when military power is used that we get all uptight.
But...make no mistake, honoring our treaties if ally is attacked is a completely different story.

Hillary Clinton was fully in favor of the use of military power in Libya. From HRC:

...it was pretty clear that she was pushing for military force...And on the question of using American force, she had split from Gates, the Pentagon chief whom she had courted from the beginning of the administration.

Hillary had come to the fore in Washington and Paris to create a war--promise, peril, and all.