Part I: Senator John McCain

In the second part of this series, we examine the beliefs that guide the most experienced candidate in the Democratic field, Senator Hillary Clinton. For a long time, one of the central planks of her campaign is the strength of her experience, but such a claim begs the question - what does our collective experience with Hillary teach us about her prospective policies if she were elected president? As with Senator John McCain, Hillary Clinton also wrote an article for foreign affairs detailing her beliefs about the future of the world and America's place within it. There are less statements of policy this time as compared to Senator McCain's piece, but what is said is quite interesting. 

On the question of Iraq

Ending the war in Iraq is the first step toward restoring the United
States' global leadership. The war is sapping our military strength,
absorbing our strategic assets, diverting attention and resources from
Afghanistan, alienating our allies, and dividing our people. The war in
Iraq has also stretched our military to the breaking point. We must
rebuild our armed services and restore them body and soul.

We must withdraw from Iraq in a way that brings our troops home
safely, begins to restore stability to the region, and replaces
military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries
around the world in securing Iraq's future. To that end, as president,
I will convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of defense, and
the National Security Council and direct them to draw up a clear,
viable plan to bring our troops home, starting within the first 60 days
of my administration.

While working to stabilize Iraq as our
forces withdraw, I will focus U.S. aid on helping Iraqis, not propping
up the Iraqi government. Financial resources will go only where they
will be used properly, rather than to government ministries or
ministers that hoard, steal, or waste them.

On Israel

Getting out of Iraq will enable us to play a constructive role in a
renewed Middle East peace process that would mean security and normal
relations for Israel and the Palestinians. The fundamental elements of
a final agreement have been clear since 2000: a Palestinian state in
Gaza and the West Bank in return for a declaration that the conflict is
over, recognition of Israel's right to exist, guarantees of Israeli
security, diplomatic recognition of Israel, and normalization of its
relations with Arab states. U.S. diplomacy is critical in helping to
resolve this conflict. In addition to facilitating negotiations, we
must engage in regional diplomacy to gain Arab support for a
Palestinian leadership that is committed to peace and willing to engage
in a dialogue with the Israelis. Whether or not the United States makes
progress in helping to broker a final agreement, consistent U.S.
involvement can lower the level of violence and restore our credibility
in the region.

On Afghanistan and Terrorism

The forgotten frontline in the war on terror is Afghanistan, where
our military effort must be reinforced. The Taliban cannot be allowed
to regain power in Afghanistan; if they return, al Qaeda will return
with them. Yet current U.S. policies have actually weakened President
Hamid Karzai's government and allowed the Taliban to retake many areas,
especially in the south. A largely unimpeded heroin trade finances the
very Taliban fighters and al Qaeda terrorists who are attacking our
troops. In addition to engaging in counternarcotics efforts, we must
seek to dry up recruiting opportunities for the Taliban by funding
crop-substitution programs, a large-scale road-building initiative,
institutions that train and prepare Afghans for honest and effective
governance, and programs to enable women to play a larger role in
society.

On China and Russia

It is a mistake, however, to see Russia only as a threat. Putin has
used Russia's energy wealth to expand the Russian economy, so that more
ordinary Russians are enjoying a rising standard of living. We need to
engage Russia selectively on issues of high national importance, such
as thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions, securing loose nuclear weapons
in Russia and the former Soviet republics, and reaching a diplomatic
solution in Kosovo. At the same time, we must make clear that our
ability to view Russia as a genuine partner depends on whether Russia
chooses to strengthen democracy or return to authoritarianism and
regional interference.

Our relationship with China will be the
most important bilateral relationship in the world in this century. The
United States and China have vastly different values and political
systems, yet even though we disagree profoundly on issues ranging from
trade to human rights, religious freedom, labor practices, and Tibet,
there is much that the United States and China can and must accomplish
together. China's support was important in reaching a deal to disable
North Korea's nuclear facilities. We should build on this framework to
establish a Northeast Asian security regime.

When reading the article, it becomes obvious that there is a difference in style between McCain and Clinton. McCain, for all his militaristic hawkishness, is upfront about strategies which he will adopt. Hillary's article focuses more on "what is wrong" rather than "what specific policy I will support." Similarly, it becomes overwhelmingly clear that much of our problems in the international sphere is attributed the our presence in Iraq. Whether it is our weakening military and diplomatic power, our lack of focus on the Mid-east peace process or our inability to deal with the true war on terror, it seems that the majority of Hillary's article is spent tying different issues to Iraq.

While I agree that Iraq has become a debacle that requires more and more American commitment every day, I also think it's overly simplistic to believe simply leaving Iraq will bring our allies back to the table or that humanitarian aid is enough to diffuse a political conflict rife with ethnic undertones. The situation in Iraq has become very complicated, and asking even the best and brightest to come up with an effective withdrawal strategy in 60 days seems a bit unrealistic. The fact is, we have no idea what will happen when we withdraw from Iraq. While American presence certainly exacerbates some tensions in the region, American power also quells some of the worst violence. As a Foreign Policy in Focus article points out:

Indeed, whatever
choices the next president makes with regard to Iraq are going to be
problematic, and there are no clear answers at this point. Yet one’s
position regarding the invasion of Iraq at that time says a lot about
how a future president would address such questions as the use of
force, international law, relations with allies, and the use of
intelligence information.

As a result, it may be significant that Senator Clinton’s foreign
policy advisors, many of whom are veterans of her husband’s
administration, were virtually all strong supporters of President
George W. Bush’s call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq.

I suppose that becomes the crux of the problem with Clinton's current approach. Her approach, much like that of others, seems too optimistic, and when push comes to shove, I believe a president surrounded by a set of advisers who have been indoctrinated in old Foreign Policy ideas are more likely to make the same traditional decisions. For all her talk of experience, Senator Clinton has never sat in National Security meetings with her husband nor has she dealt with advanced diplomacy. 

I think it is clear that Hillary Clinton's policies will be largely reflective of her husband's policies. And while diplomats and statespeople like former secretary of state Madeline Albright, former national security adviser Sandy Berger and Richard Holbrook are qualified experts (certainly more than I), I'm not sure if I feel comfortable leaving the question of Iraq to people 1) whose first inclination was to invade and 2) whose experience largely comes  in a pre-9/11 world where the US enjoyed strong international standing. The choice here is not simple, a withdrawal from Iraq not only could relaunch the civil war there, but it could also embolden the Iranians. And while I certainly prefer Senator Clinton's message of hope and diplomacy to Senator McCain's militaristic overtones, I have my doubts about the feasibility of her policy.

The next part of this 4 part series will examine the ideas of the least experienced candidate in this field of four, Governor Mike Huckabee. Look for it sometime this week.