Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Clinton’s Foreign Policy: The Known Unknowns

Regardless of Hillary Clinton's national security predilections, a future Clinton administration will rapidly discover that U.S. foreign policy options are in fact quite limited. The default course is thus likely to be “more of the same” of the Obama administration’s policies and approaches.

Lobelog

Despite the further stresses introduced by the Federal Bureau of Investigation last week into this most stressful of modern campaigns, Hillary Clinton is still the odds-on favorite to be elected US president. If that judgment is validated on the morning of November 9th, America’s friends and allies abroad can begin to exhale. Whatever opponents have said about Clinton in the presidential campaign, no one can honestly deny that she is smart, savvy, articulate, experienced, and, more-often-than-not, levelheaded.

But true friends of America abroad shouldn’t return to normal breathing patterns just yet. 

First the good news. Despite presidential campaign turmoil and disharmony not seen since the American Republic’s early days—and politics was even rougher back then—after the votes are counted and despite whatever Donald Trump says or does, the American ship of state will, as always, soon right itself. There is also no doubt that, intellectually and temperamentally, Clinton will be a steadying influence on American politics and US engagements abroad.

More good news is that, whatever the new team’s predilections before assuming office, it will rapidly discover that US foreign policy options are in fact quite limited. The default course is thus likely to be “more of the same” of the Obama administration’s policies and approaches. Overall, that is not a bad thing.

But here the good news may end.

Clouds on the Horizon

As of now President Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy agenda is unknowable. Even she can’t know until she occupies the Oval Office, receives her first CIA-produced Presidential Daily Brief, and decides what to do, if anything, about what she learns. Only then will we begin to see her true instincts and attitudes as opposed to what she had to say to get elected. Although grossly unfair, a woman seeking to be commander-in-chief must take muscular stands on the hustings, especially on using military force.

In three areas—Russia, Iran, and Syria—she has advanced hawkish views that do not reassure all of America’s friends, especially in Europe. Perhaps in office she will modify these views. But trends in American thinking can be gleaned. With challenges from Russian President Vladimir Putin, in Ukraine first and now Syria, the US foreign policy community is drifting toward long-term confrontation with Moscow, beyond what the US and NATO are doing to reassure Central European allies. Likewise, there is little support for testing whether relations with Iran can be improved, other than preserving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which establishes limits on its nuclear program. An increasingly dominant view in Washington, fostered by Sunni Arab states and Israel, is that Iran presents the most serious enduring threat to US interests in the Middle East. As for Syria and the Islamic State (ISIS or IS), candidate Clinton has begun to hedge her bets but has said she will be more assertive with U.S. military power.

Those who look to the US for leadership abroad must recognize that it will be deeply affected by what President Clinton must do at home. Modernizing US infrastructure can no longer be postponed. Further, both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump both struck the same nerve with a large segment of middle- and working-class Americans who feel left behind by economic changes, including globalization, that have kept their incomes stagnant for decades. President Clinton cannot ignore this political upheaval as she works to create a society that is indeed “stronger together;” and she must ask for major investments to enable the country to compete effectively with others, notably China. That means reduced resources and less attention for the outside world. Likewise, she will be challenged on trade liberalization. During the campaign, she was forced to back off on her support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is also in trouble. She has sought wiggle room by promising to be a tough negotiator, but no one should expect strong US support for freer trade anytime soon.

Meanwhile, US security policy will continue rebalancing to Asia and the Pacific. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter makes that clear in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. Much of that rebalancing is military, and, in a widespread Washington view, the Pentagon should deemphasize the Middle East and Europe (again) as soon as possible—although the timetable has been delayed by the need to destroy IS (short-term) and contain Russia and Iran (longer-term).

Looking at Europe and Asia

Hillary Clinton is an internationalist who opposes American retrenchment. But in the Middle East, she has so far shown no inclination to try extracting the US from the middle of the Sunni-Shia civil war, and she goes along with the visions for the region presented by Arab states (notably Saudi Arabia) and Israel.

She will also likely pay even less attention to European concerns than did either George W. Bush or Barack Obama, neither major-league Atlanticists. Overall, Europe qua Europe is becoming less central to the United States (Brexit does not help.) Donald Trump’s inelegantly phrased scorn for allies who don’t pay their defense bills is mainstream Washington thinking.

Meanwhile, European allies can expect the Clinton administration to ask them to do more: countering Russia in Central Europe, helping stabilize the Middle East, and joining the United States in building a new security architecture for the Far East. The allies are unlikely to respond, which will exacerbate what is becoming a “drift” away from Europe. Like all US presidents, Hillary Clinton will emphasize America’s fealty to transatlantic relations. But Europe should not expect much help in coping with its internal problems, including its refugee burden, itself, ironically, in major part a product of misconceived American policies in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The lesson for America’s friends and allies abroad thus seems clear. There will be anxious times ahead, even with Hillary Clinton as the 45th president of the United States.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


Falsely demonizing all Muslims, their beliefs, and their institutions is exactly the wrong way to make Americans safer, because the more we scare ourselves with imaginary enemies, the harder it will be to find and protect ourselves from real ones.


Division in the ranks of the conservative movement is a critical sign that a war with Iran isn’t inevitable.


Donald Trump stole the headlines, but the declaration from the recent NATO summit suggests the odds of an unnecessary conflict are rising. Instead of inviting a dialogue, the document boasts that the Alliance has “suspended all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.” The fact is, NATO was a child of the Cold War, when the West believed that the Soviets were a threat. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and there’s no way Moscow would be stupid enough to attack a superior military force.


War with Iran may not be imminent, but neither was war with Iraq in late 2001.


Donald Trump was one of the many bets the Russians routinely place, recognizing that while most such bets will never pay off a few will, often in unpredictable ways. Trump’s actions since taking office provide the strongest evidence that this one bet is paying off handsomely for the Russians. Putin could hardly have made the script for Trump’s conduct at the recent NATO meeting any more to his liking—and any better designed to foment division and distrust within the Western alliance—than the way Trump actually behaved.


RightWeb
share