Missing the Mark
Hillary Clinton has already missed the mark once. She admits it openly in her book "Hard Choices": Her support for George W. Bush’s war in Iraq in 2002 was a mistake. The voters who rejected her as the Democratic candidate for the White House saw things the same way. Instead, they sent into the race Barack Obama, who had always called Bush’s campaign against Saddam stupid.
Clinton is also missing the mark with her criticism of the president: Saying that arming the Syrian resistance earlier would have prevented the rise of the terrorist Islamic state sounds good, but it makes little sense. There were too few “moderates” in Syria who could have been brought into position against Assad’s well-trained armed forces overnight. U.S. air attacks would have then helped the terrorism brigades of the Caliphate the most.
Therefore, Obama correctly concluded that beyond a militarily enforced Pax Americana, the key to the resolution of the conflict lies not in Syria but Iraq. Thus, he tried to sway still-Prime Minister Maliki via influential Shiites to pave the way for a regime that is concerned with reconciliation. Clinton may criticize this pragmatism as foreign policy without a guiding principle. However, she should remember that the current catastrophe in the region is the result of a policy that followed big visions, but instead lit the fuse of a powder keg.
Clinton is also missing the mark with her criticism of the president: Saying that arming the Syrian resistance earlier would have prevented the rise of the terrorist Islamic state sounds good, but it makes little sense. There were too few “moderates” in Syria who could have been brought into position against Assad’s well-trained armed forces overnight. U.S. air attacks would have then helped the terrorism brigades of the Caliphate the most.
Therefore, Obama correctly concluded that beyond a militarily enforced Pax Americana, the key to the resolution of the conflict lies not in Syria but Iraq. Thus, he tried to sway still-Prime Minister Maliki via influential Shiites to pave the way for a regime that is concerned with reconciliation. Clinton may criticize this pragmatism as foreign policy without a guiding principle. However, she should remember that the current catastrophe in the region is the result of a policy that followed big visions, but instead lit the fuse of a powder keg.