Hillary Clinton takes a very hawkish stance on National defense. When analyzing the differences between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, it is this national security hawkishness which strikes me as the most important policy difference between the two. Even John McCain is less hawkish than Clinton on national security.
Today the Carpetbagger Report has a very good analysis of the issue and how it is being shaped in the media. For the record, I believe an aggressive policy of saber rattling only encourages nuclear proliferation. Certainly, aggressive Iranian actions will incur a response from the U.S. and the world community. Talking about it in bellicose terms now seems like an empty threat or a provocation which should lead to an acceleration of Iran’s nuclear program and an increasing shift in power to hardliners within Iran.
The logical response to the U.S. threat is to build a nuclear deterrent before one can be disarmed. This is what the invasion of Iraq has taught Iran. Moreover, right now is the perfect time to move forward on nuclear issues because Iran knows that the U.S. is bogged down for some time in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their calculus certainly has to be that the U.S. cannot take on Iran’s much more potent military threat as well. This plays to the hardliner’s advantage and is not what we want to have happen.
Hillary Clinton’s national security strategy is very dangerous indeed.
Related posts:
