The roots of Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy

[Peter1469]

The roots of Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy (https://geopoliticalfutures.com/the-roots-of-hillary-clintons-foreign-policy-2/)

A good article about the basis of Clinton's foreign policy. It is a bit long and technical.


To understand her foreign policy (https://geopoliticalfutures.com/what-clinton-and-trump-are-really-saying-on-foreign-policy/), it is important to understand the evolution of American strategy since the fall of the Soviet Union. Clinton is a creature of the beliefs, values and illusions that dominated American policy from 1991 until 2008. By understanding that world, we can understand Clinton’s core beliefs and then consider the extent to which they have evolved. Clinton represents the American and global consensus that emerged after the Cold War (https://geopoliticalfutures.com/germany-warns-of-the-danger-of-war/).

The US overly bought into the idea of lasting peace and believed its superpower status alone would keep the international community together. Instead what happened was nations putting their self interests over the old Cold War alliance interests.


The view of the Clinton administration was that it led a worldwide coalition to manage a global consensus. None of these issues represented significant threats, but each had to be dealt with. Minor irritants might become more significant and with limited effort could be controlled.

These were side issues. The central issue was managing global economic growth. The 1990s were a period of large-scale development, and it was assumed that increased trade and international investment would perpetuate this growth and create a peaceful and prosperous world. Therefore, the primary interest of the Clinton administration was shaping the international economy. This was the strategic issue of the decade. The rest were secondary.

In other words, the focus was not on vital issues, but rather side issues. We missed the forest for the trees.


Hillary Clinton gives every indication that she still thinks the post-Cold War is tattered but can be redeemed. Some people believed in the League of Nations and the Congress of Vienna long after they had ceased to exist in any meaningful way. As a tactician she may understand this, doing things differently on a case-by-case basis. But as a strategist, she does not see a strategic shift having taken place. It is difficult to abandon a world you thought permanent, even when that world is gone. And this will be the difficult part of a Hillary Clinton presidency. She is disciplined and coherent, but that turns out to be her trap.

Read the entire article.

[donttread]

The roots of Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy (https://geopoliticalfutures.com/the-roots-of-hillary-clintons-foreign-policy-2/)

A good article about the basis of Clinton's foreign policy. It is a bit long and technical.



The US overly bought into the idea of lasting peace and believed its superpower status alone would keep the international community together. Instead what happened was nations putting their self interests over the old Cold War alliance interests.



In other words, the focus was not on vital issues, but rather side issues. We missed the forest for the trees.



Read the entire article.

Sorry, I can't read any article that uses the words "Clinton" and "values" in the same sentence

[TrueBlue]

Sorry, I can't read any article that uses the words "Clinton" and "values" in the same sentence
People who have learning problems and challenges usually can't.

[Peter1469]

Sorry, I can't read any article that uses the words "Clinton" and "values" in the same sentence
It is a bit long and technical.

[ripmeister]

It is a bit long and technical.

Thank goodness for something that is actually about policy regardless of dontreads dismissive. While I'm by no means a foreign policy wonk what is written here makes sense to me for the most part. I'm not sure I buy the contention of an equivalency between Clinton and the neo-cons in terms of their world view but Clinton would seem to be more of hawk than your typical liberal. The question is does she have the capability to reform her world view, the strategic recognition of a changed world paradigm. The real telling part of the article though is in the final paragraph about Trump having no understanding of these dynamics.

[Peter1469]

Thank goodness for something that is actually about policy regardless of dontreads dismissive. While I'm by no means a foreign policy wonk what is written here makes sense to me for the most part. I'm not sure I buy the contention of an equivalency between Clinton and the neo-cons in terms of their world view but Clinton would seem to be more of hawk than your typical liberal. The question is does she have the capability to reform her world view, the strategic recognition of a changed world paradigm. The real telling part of the article though is in the final paragraph about Trump having no understanding of these dynamics.

The author of the article likely does not put much stock in terms like neocon and liberal war hawk, as I do. I think his point is simply that she is living in the past and has not modified her strategic thinking for the geopolitical realities we face today. And I believe he would agree that all of our political leaders- at least those in power, suffer from the same problem. It may help to know that the author places little stock in personalities. He is focused on geopolitical realities and constraints that all nations face in charting their course in the international reality.

[ripmeister]

The author of the article likely does not put much stock in terms like neocon and liberal war hawk, as I do. I think his point is simply that she is living in the past and has not modified her strategic thinking for the geopolitical realities we face today. And I believe he would agree that all of our political leaders- at least those in power, suffer from the same problem. It may help to know that the author places little stock in personalities. He is focused on geopolitical realities and constraints that all nations face in charting their course in the international reality.

Thanks for the insight. I guess the fundamental question then is in light of this new paradigm who is the best candidate. While Clinton may be living in the past she is also known to be a good listener si I can see her being amenable to an alternate view. I don't see that ability in Trump at all. I don't think Trump has a clue as to the nuances that exist in foreign policy. He is a bull in a china shop and that makes him dangerous.

[Peter1469]

Thanks for the insight. I guess the fundamental question then is in light of this new paradigm who is the best candidate. While Clinton may be living in the past she is also known to be a good listener si I can see her being amenable to an alternate view. I don't see that ability in Trump at all. I don't think Trump has a clue as to the nuances that exist in foreign policy. He is a bull in a china shop and that makes him dangerous.

None of the above I would think. :smiley:

[ripmeister]

None of the above I would think. :smiley:

None of the above what?

[Peter1469]

None of the above what?Which of the two would be better.

[ripmeister]

Which of the two would be better.

in my view Clinton. Having said that what conclusions do you draw fro the article in terms of our choice for POTUS.

[Peter1469]

in my view Clinton. Having said that what conclusions do you draw fro the article in terms of our choice for POTUS.

I think the author would not take that bait.

I would say that I know Hillary will fail and fail badly.


Trump may do worse, or not.

On edit. Trump has some serious advisors from the realist school of thought. If he just did what they said he would be fine. But we know that is not likely to happen.

[ripmeister]

I think the author would not take that bait.

I would say that I know Hillary will fail and fail badly.


Trump may do worse, or not.

On edit. Trump has some serious advisors from the realist school of thought. If he just did what they said he would be fine. But we know that is not likely to happen.

Fair enough

[exploited]

I think the author would not take that bait.

I would say that I know Hillary will fail and fail badly.


Trump may do worse, or not.

On edit. Trump has some serious advisors from the realist school of thought. If he just did what they said he would be fine. But we know that is not likely to happen.

You do understand that Trump is a moron right? It is hinted at here but not fully acknowledged.

[AZ Jim]

It really doesn't matter now to debate Clinton/Trump. Clinton will win in a big way. In the post mortem the GOP needs to address carefully is where did they lose the people and why?

[Bethere]

It really doesn't matter now to debate Clinton/Trump. Clinton will win in a big way. In the post mortem the GOP needs to address carefully is where did they lose the people and why?They abandoned the mainstream with sarah Palin and Joe the plumber. They flirted with it previously but now there is no turning back.Since Rush Limbaugh went national the gop has lost 5 of 6, soon 6 of 7, presidential popular votes.

[AZ Jim]

The roots of Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy (https://geopoliticalfutures.com/the-roots-of-hillary-clintons-foreign-policy-2/)

A good article about the basis of Clinton's foreign policy. It is a bit long and technical.



The US overly bought into the idea of lasting peace and believed its superpower status alone would keep the international community together. Instead what happened was nations putting their self interests over the old Cold War alliance interests.



In other words, the focus was not on vital issues, but rather side issues. We missed the forest for the trees.



Read the entire article.I don't try to start anything to read that I might not live long enough to finish but there is no question Trump knows nothing about foreign policy.

[Peter1469]

It really doesn't matter now to debate Clinton/Trump. Clinton will win in a big way. In the post mortem the GOP needs to address carefully is where did they lose the people and why?

We don't know that yet. Not all of Hillary's emails have been dumped.

[Peter1469]

I don't try to start anything to read that I might not live long enough to finish but there is no question Trump knows nothing about foreign policy.

The article isn't about Trump. His name is brought up once, and in a negative context.

[Tahuyaman]

Sorry, I can't read any article that uses the words "Clinton" and "values" in the same sentence


People who have learning problems and challenges usually can't.

No, people who place an emphasis on upstanding character and integrity in our elected officials can't.

[Tahuyaman]

I don't try to start anything to read that I might not live long enough to finish but there is no question Trump knows nothing about foreign policy.


The article isn't about Trump. His name is brought up once, and in a negative context.

When you can't find a way to tout the virtues of your candidate, you attack the opponent.

Hillary Clinton and her followers are believers in the Saul Alinski model.

[Peter1469]

Anyway the article was interesting.