June 17, 2016
Hawkish State Department
officials and Official Washington’s neocons are eager for a Hillary Clinton
presidency, counting on a freer hand to use U.S. military force around the
world, but that future is not so clear, says Michael Brenner.
By Michael Brenner
Is Hillary Clinton a
warmonger? Well, the record demonstrates that she certainly is a hawk – someone
who believes strongly in the utility of military force and is ready to use it.
There is ample evidence in
support of this contention. Her actions as Senator and Secretary of State as
well her speeches and campaign statements paint a picture of a would-be
President who views the world in terms of an ominous threat environment, who
believes that core American interests are being challenged across the globe, who
is a firm advocate of intervening on a preventive basis (e.g. Syria, Libya) as
well as a preemptive or defensive basis, who is dedicated to keeping putative
rivals like China or Russia in a subordinate position.
This complex of attitudes puts
a considerable amount of blue water between her and Barack Obama. Indeed, early
in her campaign she made a point of criticizing the White House for its overly
restrained policies vis a vis Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Russia’s Vladimir Putin
and China’s Xi Jinping. She only switched tacks when it became evident that she
needed to associate herself with the Obama record in the face of the unexpected
Sanders insurrection.
The specific criticisms
directed at HRC from those who find her too hawkish are well-known. They
include her vote in favor of the Iraq war; her cheerleading for the Global War
on Terror in all its aspects; her collaboration with the Robert Gates-led
faction to push President Obama into a major Afghan escalation; her advocacy of
direct military action in Libya to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi and in Syria to
unseat Assad; her unbending attitude toward containing Iran even after the
nuclear accord; and her bellicose language in calling Putin another “Hitler’
after Russia’s seizure of the Crimea.
Hillary Clinton’s big foreign
policy address at the Council on Foreign Relations reinforced the impression of
a hard-liner across-the-board who thinks primarily in terms of power balances
and its deployment. In addition, her full-throated endorsement of Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s actions left no room for accommodating the
concerns of those realists who see the United States as inflicting unnecessary
harm on itself through its unqualified backing of everything Israel does.
Praise from Neocons
It is no coincidence that she
has drawn admiring remarks from Robert Kagan and other neoconservative
luminaries who envisage her as a President sympathetic to their audacious,
muscular conception of American foreign policy. The coalescing of the neocons
and the gung-ho liberal interventionists who pushed hard for the Libyan
intervention (Samantha Power, Ann-Marie Slaughter, Susan Rice) who now promote
aiding the Saudis and Gulf Cooperation Council in Yemen, and wading into Syria
involves a number of people who worked for Clinton in the State Department
and/or figure prominently among her current advisers.
The outstanding example is
Victoria Nuland – Clinton’s spokesperson at State and now Assistant Secretary
of State for Europe – who has aggressively spearheaded the anti-Russian
crusade. Previously, she had been principal deputy foreign policy advisor for
Vice President Dick Cheney.
Nuland was escorted into the
Obama administration by Strobe Talbot who was her boss at Brookings and viewed
her as his protege. Talbot himself, who had been Deputy Secretary of State
during the second Bill Clinton administration, has moved progressively toward
the hawkish end of the foreign policy establishment continuum (admittedly a
rather short band width these days). The affiliation at Brookings of the
prominent neocon Robert Kagan, Nuland’s husband, may have cemented the deal.
Some of Hillary Clinton’s
defenders argue that her hawkish views must be understood in a political
context. Her presidential ambitions, they explain, dictated that she find a way
to overcome the liabilities she incurred on national security matters as a
supposedly liberal Democrat, as heir to the Clinton dynasty that emphasized
building bridges of cooperation in foreign relations – at least as seen by
Republican critics, and as a woman.
That became an imperative
after 9/11. So, we saw a series of moves in the form of votes and rhetoric
designed to make her look tough. Hence, the much publicized buddying with John
McCain on senatorial junkets to faraway places with strange sounding names
highlighted by reports of her matching her macho colleague in knocking back
shots of vodka.
We should bear in mind that
foreign policy never had been a prominent concern of HRC. Most certainly not
national security. It was a slate of domestic issues that drew her attention
and on which she was knowledgeable. Her prepping only began seriously when she
set her sights on winning the Democratic nomination in 2008.
Conviction or Expediency?
It is reasonable to infer that
what began as an exercise in political expediency hardened into genuine
conviction – at least insofar as general predisposition is concerned. There is
no evidence of HRC having formulated a comprehensive strategy for the U.S. in
the world, much less a theoretical model of what international affairs are all
about.
At the same time, though,
there is abundant reason to believe that her hard-edged rhetoric and policy
proposals do express her views – however nebulous they may be. Her few concrete
proposals have been half-baked and unrealistic: the idea of enforcing a “safe
zone” in northern Syria being a case in point. All that it might accomplish is
to create a secure base for Al Qaeda/Al Nusra and their Salafist partners while
carrying the high risk of an encounter with Russian military forces operating
in the area.
Does this mean that an HRC
Presidency automatically would mean the dispatch of American troops to Syria?
Intensified military efforts against ISIS in Iraq? The insertion of American-led
force into Libya? Further provocation of Russia in Eastern Europe including an
invitation to Ukraine to join NATO as first offered by George W. Bush?
It is premature to answer
those questions in the affirmative. Jingoistic rhetoric is easy when you’re on
the outside. When you are the one who actually has to make the decisions about
military deployments and to anticipate dealing with the unpredictable
consequences, anyone will move with a measure of caution.
Hillary Clinton is more likely
to stumble into a war than calculatingly start one – for a number of reasons.
First, there are no obvious places to intervene massively with ground troops,
no tempting Iraq circa 2003. Iran has been high on the neocon hit list, but the
nuclear accord removes what could have been a justification. Iraq (again) and
Syria are also theoretical candidates. Who, though, is the enemy and what would
be the purpose?
ISIS obviously; but now it is
being contained and slowly is degrading. American boots on the ground simply
would ensure an open-ended guerrilla war. As for Al Qaeda/Al Nusra in Syria, it
is not seen as an enemy, rather as a tacit ally within the “moderate’ camp.
There is Assad. With Russia on
the ground, however, and the lack of a Western consensus or prospect of an
enabling United Nations Security Council resolution, an invasion to replace the
Ba’ath regime with Salafists of the Islamic State and/or Al Qaeda could not be
rationalized even with the agitation of the Kagans and Samantha Power. In
addition, this is an assignment that the Pentagon brass do not want – in
contrast to the CIA. After all, we have spent enormous amounts of blood and
treasure to immunize Afghanistan against a terrorist presence much smaller than
what exists now in Syria – to no avail.
Libya is the one place where a
substantial American force could be dispatched. The argument for doing so would
be Afghanistan redux. Still, in the absence of 9/11-like event, that would be a
hard sell to the American public.
The chances of war by
miscalculation are higher. Obama’s bequest to his successor is a United States
stranded in a mine field in the Middle East bereft of friends or diplomatic
GPS. Hillary, of course, bears a large share of responsibility for creating
this hazardous topography, and for the prevailing hyper-active habits of
American policy – a potentially lethal combination.
For one, maintaining a state
of high tension with Iran creates opportunities for incidents to occur in the
Persian Gulf. Too, American and Iranian forces in Iraq mingle like oil and
water. So, there is some possibility of relatively minor encounters escalating
into serious combat by stoking the political fires among crazies on both sides.
Playing with Matches in
Ukraine
The other combustible
situation is Ukraine. There, the narrative of Russia as an aggressor hell-bent
on regaining its Eastern European empire has led to a series of provocative
military moves by Washington via NATO that are generating another Cold War. The
strength of ultra-nationalists in Kiev, encouraged by their backers in the
Obama administration and the fiery rhetoric of American military commanders,
have killed the opportunity for a resolution of the conflict in eastern Ukraine
as embodied in Minsk II.
Paranoia is sweeping the
Baltic states and Poland – again with active connivance of the “war party” in
Washington. Hillary Clinton is a charter member of that group. While one can be
certain that she hasn’t thought through the implications, and one can be
reassured by Putin’s sobriety, the lack of prudential thinking makes this the
most dangerous of situations.
Then, there is the Bill
factor. He is the joker in the pack. We know that Hillary consults with him on
all questions of consequence as a matter of routine. He is her all-purpose
confidante. It is inescapable that he will act as an eminence gris in the White
House. So a key issue is the role that he will play and the counsel that he
will offer. There is good reason to believe that he will serve to tone down
Hillary’s war-mongering tendencies – such as they are.
After all, what Bill Clinton
craves at this stage of his life is being back in the White House where he can
prowl at will and whisper in his wife’s ear. He relishes that historically
unique position. He relishes being on parade. It’s the status that counts – not
the doing.
In any case, he has few
convictions about the most salient foreign policy issues. Hence, his instinct
will be to avoid 3:00 a.m. phone calls, grave crises and the risks they entail.
Bold acts that require courage and fortitude never have been his strong suit.
Like Obama, he is not cast in the heroic mold.
We should be thankful for
that.
Michael Brenner is a professor
of international affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. mbren@pitt.edu
