• World
    • Africa
    • Asia Pacific
    • Central & South Asia
    • Europe
    • Latin America & Caribbean
    • Middle East & North Africa
    • North America
  • Coronavirus
  • Politics
    • US Election
    • US politics
    • Donald Trump
    • Brexit
    • European Union
    • India
    • Arab world
  • Economics
    • Finance
    • Eurozone
    • International Trade
  • Business
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Startups
    • Technology
  • Culture
    • Entertainment
    • Music
    • Film
    • Books
    • Travel
  • Environment
    • Climate change
    • Smart cities
    • Green Economy
  • Global Change
    • Education
    • Refugee Crisis
    • International Aid
    • Human Rights
  • International Security
    • ISIS
    • War on Terror
    • North Korea
    • Nuclear Weapons
  • Science
    • Health
  • 360 °
  • The Interview
  • In-Depth
  • Insight
  • Quick Read
  • Video
  • Podcasts
  • Interactive
  • My Voice
  • About
  • FO Store
Sections
  • World
  • Coronavirus
  • US Election
  • Politics
  • Economics
  • Business
  • Culture
  • Sign Up
  • Login
  • Publish

Make Sense of the world

Unique insight from 2,000+ contributors in 80+ Countries

Close

Hillary Clinton: A Hawk in the Wings

By John Feffer • Oct 26, 2016
President Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, news on Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama, Barack Obama, US foreign policy, US foreign policy in the Middle East, Middle East policy, ISIS, Islamic State, Syria, Russia, Iran, news on America

Hillary Clinton © Bastiaan Slabbers

After a mere eight years in which diplomacy narrowly edged out militarism, the foreign policy elite rallying around Hillary Clinton has forgotten the lessons of the Bush era.

When Barack Obama was running for office in 2008, he was determined to redirect US military efforts away from the “bad war” in Iraq and toward the “good war” in Afghanistan. This commitment to extricate the US military from the dismal aftermath of a botched exercise in regime change earned Obama the exaggerated designation of “peace candidate.”

Jump ahead eight years and listen to how history rhymes. Today, the Obama administration is reluctant to pour more resources into a failed regime change effort in Syria and far more intent on confronting the Islamic State (IS) in the battle for Mosul and, ultimately, its capital of Raqqa. Once again, the “good” war competes for attention with the “bad” war.

Meanwhile, the candidate that challenged Obama as too naive and peace-loving back in 2008 is poised to succeed him as president. Once again, Hillary Clinton has staked out a more hawkish position. And this time she has a large chunk of the foreign policy elite behind her. As Greg Jaffe wrote recently in The Washington Post:

“In the rarefied world of the Washington foreign policy establishment, President Obama’s departure from the White House — and the possible return of a more conventional and hawkish Hillary Clinton — is being met with quiet relief.                

“The Republicans and Democrats who make up the foreign policy elite are laying the groundwork for a more assertive American foreign policy, via a flurry of reports shaped by officials who are likely to play senior roles in a potential Clinton White House.”

The foreign policy elite is mercurial and amnesiac. It wasn’t that long ago that this elite expressed not-so-quiet relief at George W. Bush’s departure from the White House and the return of a more conventional and dovish Barack Obama. And what of the more assertive policy of Hillary Clinton? Now that the truly apocalyptic threat of Donald Trump is receding, the lesser catastrophes of a Clinton administration beckon: perhaps Libya II or an expanded role in Yemen.

Still, as Jaffe points out, plenty of Obama’s foreign policy advisors continue to warn of the considerable risks of greater US military involvement in the region. And, as Josh Rogin suggested this week in his Post column, even Clinton’s Middle East advisors are divided on this question. So, as it turns out, the foreign policy establishment has not quite established its position.

The headlines are full of the ongoing tragedy of Aleppo and the upcoming showdown in Mosul. But then there’s the battle that determines the battle. Forget the inanities of Trump for a few moments to consider what’s taking place behind the scenes. The latest skirmish over the future of US foreign policy in the Middle East is about to begin.

Embed from Getty Images

Is there still a chance to influence the trajectory of the hawk as she leaves behind the corpses of her challengers and wings her way to the White House?

No Good Solutions

It’s remotely possible that the United States and its allies, if they’d acted quickly and with maximum power, could have helped to dislodge Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad during the Arab Spring by funding militias on the ground and providing them with air support.

However, even if the Obama administration had embraced such a strategy, which then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported, Assad and his allies might have fought back to achieve the same kind of stalemate that prevails in Syria today. Or, if Assad had fallen, Syria might have descended into the same kind of maelstrom that has enveloped Libya. The cautionary example of Iraq, a truly poisonous gift from the Bush administration, no doubt helped to stay Obama’s hand.

The options on offer today are no better than in 2012. The Obama administration backed a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) plan to arm several thousand “moderate” rebels to fight their way to power in Syria, and the CIA wants to increase the flow of weaponry. At best, these rebels have managed to achieve a punishing stalemate. At worst, as one unidentified US official told The Washington Post, the units are “not doing any better on the battlefield, they’re up against a more formidable adversary, and they’re increasingly dominated by extremists.”

Sending more weapons for a ground offensive wouldn’t do much, since the conflict is waged most effectively at the moment by air. Providing more sophisticated anti-aircraft weapons to the rebels would risk opposition from Turkey and escalation by Russia.

Clinton, meanwhile, has proposed a “no-fly zone” in northern Syria that would presumably create “safe havens” for Syrians fleeing the conflict zones and facilitate humanitarian relief to those stuck in places like Aleppo. For Americans weary of a conflict that has killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians and turned millions into refugees, such a proposal has a certain appeal. Finally, the US would be doing something robust to increase the peace.

But such a zone, as Clinton herself has admitted, is no pacifist solution. It would “kill a lot of Syrians,” she said back in 2013, and draw both the US and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) more deeply into the military conflict. And then there’s the problem of World War III when US planes start shooting down Russian bombers. Ben Rhodes listed the Obama administration’s reasons for opposing such a zone:

“If you had an area of geography in Syria where planes couldn’t fly over it, people would still be killing each other on the ground. ISIL [Islamic State] doesn’t have planes, so that doesn’t solve the ISIL problem. They would still be able to massacre people on the ground. And we would have to devote an enormous amount of our resources — which are currently devoted to finding ISIL and killing them wherever they are — to maintaining this no-fly zone.”

A third option would be to focus less on Assad in Syria and more on the Islamic State, which has emerged as Obama’s preferred strategy. But that plan has its own problems. The administration has emphasized the role of Iraqi forces in liberating their own city of Mosul. But the campaign relies heavily on US air strikes as well as the participation of half of the 5,000 American troops that are still on the ground in Iraq. The recapture of Mosul, even if successful, could drag on for many months, and the Islamic State is not the kind of entity that sues for peace.


Fair Observer - World News, Politics, Economics, Business and CultureFair Observer provides you deep and diverse insights for free. Remember that we still have to pay for servers, website maintenance and much more. So, donate now to keep us free, fair and independent.


There will be no “mission accomplished” moment for the Obama administration or its successor. Returning to its stateless mode if and when Raqqa falls, IS could prove even more dangerous for the United States and its allies as the terrorist outfit redirects its energies toward inflicting pain on its distant tormentors.

Hillary Clinton and the Meatheads

The Obama administration, for all its use of military force over the last eight years, at least has acknowledged the limited utility of that force. The president has time and again said that military intervention should not be the first tool deployed from the national security toolbox. Despite all the “just war” realism he included in his Nobel Peace Prize speech, Obama has pushed back against his more gung-ho advisors, including Clinton, who have clung to the notion that the US military can determine facts on the ground.

Like Trump, the foreign policy elite in Washington yearns to be unshackled. After a mere eight years in which diplomacy narrowly edged out militarism, this elite has forgotten the lessons of the Bush era. Historically, this is no surprise. John Kenneth Galbraith once said: “The foreign policy elite was always the world’s biggest collection of meatheads.” As an economist, Galbraith knew a meathead when he saw one. Such meatheads are doomed to repeat the history that they didn’t understand even as they were living through it.

It’s relatively easy to point out the flaws in the various options available to the Obama administration in Syria and Iraq. In order to preserve the better parts of the Obama legacy—the nuclear deal with Iran, the elevation of diplomacy, the willingness to lead from behind—what can be done short of cordoning off the entire Middle East and retreating into a fortress of solitude?

First of all, the next administration should widen its engagement with Iran beyond the narrow focus on nuclear issues. Any sustainable solution in Syria and Iraq will require the involvement of Iran—the posturing of the recent Center for American Progress report on US policy in the Middle East notwithstanding. Pursuing economic and political engagement with Tehran must include a place at the table for the Rouhani administration in negotiations on Iraq and Syria. It’s time to stop complaining about Iranian “meddling” and instead take advantage of the country’s cross-border influence.

Embed from Getty Images

The United States also has to rebuild a working relationship with Russia. I’m no fan of Vladimir Putin, and I’ve devoted several columns to what I find objectionable in Russian policy in Ukraine, Syria and elsewhere. But if the US could negotiate important agreements with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, surely we can find a modus operandi with the current residents of the Kremlin. Finding common ground in the Middle East can have additional spillover benefits for arms control and perhaps even reducing tensions in eastern Europe.

Regime change in Syria is a mirage at the moment. Assad is not going anywhere as long as he can count on the firm support of Russia and Iran. Yes, he’s a war criminal. But to prevent the further commission of war crimes, sometimes it’s necessary to make a deal with the devil. His punishment will come eventually—just as it did for Slobodan Milosevic six years after the Dayton Accords. In the meantime, Washington has to pursue a diplomatic deal that stops punishing ordinary Syrians every day.

The Islamic State, however, is not a force that is subject to negotiations. I don’t foresee a non-military solution to the specific problem of the would-be caliphate’s territorial ambitions. But the US should not head up this fight. IS wants nothing better than an epic confrontation with America. Syrians and Iraqis must take the lead against IS, with Turkey, Iran and even the Gulf states playing crucial roles. In the best-case scenario, admittedly a long shot, the terrorist faction inadvertently reduces the conflict between the Shia and Sunni states that cooperate in its annihilation.

The CIA plan, the no-fly zone, the military focus on IS—these are not long-term strategies. They are proposals that satisfy a bipartisan foreign policy elite that bays for “something to be done.” The true challenge for the next administration is to resist the call of the meatheads.

But that won’t happen without a counterforce that brings together a set of nongovernmental organizations working for peace in the region, some sympathetic politicians and officials, and a group of foreign policy experts who have not fallen prey to the amnesia that periodically descends upon the Beltway concerning the destructive impact of US military intervention.

Donald Trump is almost history. The far more complex challenge of Hillary Clinton’s Middle East policy awaits.

*[This article was originally published by FPIF.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: Bastiaan Slabbers

Share Story
Categories360° Analysis, North America, Politics TagsHillary Clinton, International political magazine, International political news, News on America, News on Hillary Clinton, President Hillary Clinton, United States, US politics news, US presidential election news, world news analysis
Join our network of more than 2,000 contributors to publish your perspective, share your story and shape the global conversation. Become a Fair Observer and help us make sense of the world.

READ MORE IN THIS 360° SERIES

An Opportunity to Fill the Leadership Void in Korea
By Michael Lammbrau • Nov 22, 2016
Beyond 2016: Moving America Forward
By Ryan J. Suto • Nov 21, 2016
Why Sex Scandals Didn’t Hurt Donald Trump
By Ellis Cashmore • Nov 20, 2016
Donald Trump and the New World Order
By Abhinav Pandya • Nov 19, 2016
The Myth of Anarchy in the Age of Trumpism
By Emre Kucukkaya • Nov 18, 2016
How to Deal With the Trump Administration
By John Feffer • Nov 17, 2016
Can America Come Together Again?
By Nigel Hey • Nov 15, 2016
Bringing Change to America Starts With You
By Larry Beck • Nov 15, 2016
Donald Trump and the End of Liberal History
By Joachim Koops • Nov 14, 2016
Will President Trump Live Up to Expectations?
By John Bruton • Nov 14, 2016
A Trump Administration on the Middle East
By Gary Grappo • Nov 13, 2016
Will Donald Trump Bring Change to America?
By Sean Stone • Nov 13, 2016
How Presidential Candidates Are Sold to the People
By Peter Isackson • Nov 11, 2016
Stephen Colbert Signs Off on the US Election
By Fair Observer • Nov 11, 2016
The Black Swan Moment of Donald Trump
By Steve McCabe • Nov 10, 2016
It Can’t Happen Here (But It Just Did)
By John Feffer • Nov 10, 2016
The United States of Trump
By Tahir Abbas • Nov 09, 2016
This is Not TV: Donald Trump Elected President
By Kholoud Khalifa • Nov 09, 2016
5 Things That Explain Donald Trump’s Victory
By Anthony Gaughan • Nov 09, 2016
Everything You Need to Know About the US Election
By Sara El-Yafi • Nov 08, 2016
Thank You, Mr. Trump
By Anna Pivovarchuk • Nov 08, 2016
Why is Hillary Clinton So Unpopular?
By Matthew Kolasa • Nov 07, 2016
The Republican Party Beyond Trump
By Matthew Kolasa • Nov 07, 2016
Hillary Clinton and the Neocons
By John Feffer • Nov 05, 2016
Trump Exposes America’s Institutional Breakdown
By Larry Beck • Nov 01, 2016
Halloween Fright: Donald Trump’s Victory Address to the Nation
By Peter Isackson • Oct 31, 2016
Hillary Clinton’s Email Scandals
By Fair Observer • Oct 29, 2016
Donald Trump's Rebranding of US Politics Matters
By Carlos Figueroa • Oct 28, 2016
This is How the Anti-Trump Was Destroyed
By Veena Trehan • Oct 28, 2016
How Big Data is Shaping the US Presidential Election
By Fair Observer • Oct 27, 2016
Clinton Will Win, Trump Will Protest
By Peter Isackson • Oct 24, 2016
The Phenomenon of Donald Trump Will Live On
By Tom Benner • Oct 18, 2016
India Makes Sense of the American Election Circus
By Atul Singh • Oct 16, 2016
Republican Party “Patriots” Fail America
By Larry Beck • Oct 10, 2016
Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump: Who Will Win?
By Chye Shu Wen • Oct 07, 2016
Make America Debate Again: The Qualifying Round
By Peter Isackson • Sep 29, 2016
Trump, Putin and the Kremlinization of American Politics
By David Uwakwe • Sep 22, 2016
What US Presidential Candidates Should Be Asked
By Larry Beck • Sep 19, 2016
Donald Trump Has Resurrected a Confederate Worldview
By Ian McCredie • Sep 06, 2016
Angry and Stupid Put Us All at Risk
By Larry Beck • Sep 06, 2016
Why Latinos Support Donald Trump
By Bryan Betancur • Aug 13, 2016
Feeling the Bern in November Can Change the System
By Peter Isackson • Aug 01, 2016
What Really Matters in This Election Cycle
By Naomi Wolf • May 30, 2016

Post navigation

Previous PostPrevious The World This Week: Vietnam, Japan, the Asia Pivot and the Obama Doctrine
Next PostNext As Brexit Approaches, Europe’s Left is Divided
Subscribe
Register for $9.99 per month and become a member today.
Publish
Join our community of more than 2,500 contributors to publish your perspective, share your narrative and shape the global discourse.
Donate
We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your donation is tax-deductible.

Explore

  • About
  • Authors
  • FO Store
  • FAQs
  • Republish
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Contact

Regions

  • Africa
  • Asia Pacific
  • Central & South Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & Caribbean
  • Middle East & North Africa
  • North America

Topics

  • Politics
  • Economics
  • Business
  • Culture
  • Environment
  • Global Change
  • International Security
  • Science

Sections

  • 360°
  • The Interview
  • In-Depth
  • Insight
  • Quick Read
  • Video
  • Podcasts
  • Interactive
  • My Voice

Daily Dispatch


© Fair Observer All rights reserved
We Need Your Consent
We use cookies to give you the best possible experience. Learn more about how we use cookies or edit your cookie preferences. Privacy Policy. My Options I Accept
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Edit Cookie Preferences

The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.

As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media.

 
Necessary
Always Enabled

These cookies essential for the website to function.

Analytics

These cookies track our website’s performance and also help us to continuously improve the experience we provide to you.

Performance
Uncategorized

This cookie consists of the word “yes” to enable us to remember your acceptance of the site cookie notification, and prevents it from displaying to you in future.

Preferences
Save & Accept