Is Hilary Clinton really a Hawk as her critics like to claim?
I take “hawk” to mean someone who prefers military solutions to alternatives in circumstances where the alternatives might reasonably be expected to work. Going to war against Japan in 1941 was not hawkish; invading Panama in 1989 was.
By this standard, is Hilary a hawk?
Certainly her vote to authorize the Iraq war can be seen as hawkish. It was an unjustified war, and sanctions provided a reasonable alternative to deal with legitimate international concerns about the Saddam Hussein regime.
If I were forced to judge Clinton solely on that Iraq war vote, I’d call her a hawk, and I’d oppose her. But of course, it would be stupid to judge a person with a decades-long record in public life on just one vote. Indeed, it would be stupid to judge a recent Secretary of State on a single vote cast as a junior Senator over a decade ago.
For me a far better standard is Clinton’s positions on Libya, Iran, and Syria.
LIBYA
There is no doubt that Clinton strongly supported U.S. military action in Libya, so the question is, were there reasonable alternatives?
To begin with, let’s be clear that Libya was no Iraq: the Libyan liberation movement directly appealed to the West for help, there was a broad consensus in Europe that the intervention was necessary, there was strong support from the Arab League, there was a UN Security Council mandate rooted in the Responsibility to Protect, and the intervention was carried out under the auspices of NATO.
As for alternatives, there were probably none that would have met the standard of the Responsibility to Protect.
Juan Cole is as good as it gets on these issues. Here is what he had to say in support of the intervention in his “Open Letter to the Left on Libya” in March 2011:
The proposition that social problems can never be resolved by military force alone may be true. But there are some problems that can’t be solved unless there is a military intervention first, since its absence would allow the destruction of the progressive forces. Those arguing that “Libyans” should settle the issue themselves are willfully ignoring the overwhelming repressive advantage given Qaddafi by his jets, helicopter gunships, and tanks….
If we just don’t care if the people of Benghazi are subjected to murder and repression on a vast scale, we aren’t people of the Left.” www.juancole.com/...
My conclusion is that on Libya, Clinton got it right, notwithstanding the post-intervention mess, which I mainly credit to the failings of a Republican Congress.
IRAN
The Iran deal is probably Hilary Clinton’s single greatest international success, though of course it was only concluded after her tenure as Secretary of State. I include it here because it is important evidence of her ability and willingness to find reasonable alternatives to military force.
Clinton’s work to build an international consensus to isolate Iran and force it to the negotiating table has been lauded by everybody who matters. Her work in 2009-2010 to convince American allies – many with significant economic interests in Iran – to join in the sanctions regime was centrally important.
On Iran, Clinton again got it right.
SYRIA
I have no clue what can be done about Syria. I reject the notion we should stand aside. To repeat what Juan Cole said about Libya, if we don’t care if people “are subjected to murder and repression on a vast scale, we aren’t people of the Left.” On the other hand, I reject the notion that the U.S. can solve the Syrian crisis by massive intervention. Has Clinton offered a real solution? No. Nor has Sanders, nor anyone else. (Here is Juan Cole’s critical assessment of both Clinton’s and Sanders’ positions on Syria: www.juancole.com/...).
Some have criticized Clinton by claiming that she supports large-scale intervention. I see no evidence of this. Indeed, she mainly seems to support the status quo: U.S. special forces are already on the ground, and U.S. bombing raids and cruise missile attacks are already happening. The talk of a no-fly zone is empty political rhetoric. It is aimed at Assad, and Clinton has correctly said that it can only happen with Russian agreement. What we need to reach an agreement with Russia about is ousting Assad (where there is now a glimmer of hope), and when that happens the no fly zone becomes moot.
On Syria, on balance I take Clinton, not because she’s offered a solution (she hasn’t), but because her accomplishments on Iran make me believe she is the candidate most likely to negotiate a solution.
It seems to me that most of the claims that Clinton is a hawk are based on the argument that she is more willing to use military force than Sanders (or Obama). This is certainly true, but it is not the same thing as saying that Clinton is eager to use force or sees it as a first resort. One might as well say that Sanders is a hawk because he is more willing to use military force than Rand Paul.
Clinton understands international affairs in a way than no other contender in this race does. In Libya and Iran she proved her ability to negotiate hard, gain international consensus, and act when action was needed.
For me, Hillary is the clear first choice in the international arena.