Hillary Clinton the hawk

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump will probably lose the election to Hillary Clinton next month. No doubt many people will breathe a sigh of relief, given Trump’s extreme positions on immigration, torture and other issues. But, while Clinton may not share those views, her stance on foreign policy is alarmingly hawkish.

Take the example of Syria, where President Bashar al-Assad and his allies are attacking eastern Aleppo. In the second presidential debate, Clinton called the situation there “catastrophic,” and supported the idea of a no-fly zone to protect civilians. While her intentions might be noble, the consequences of such a policy could be disastrous. To clear the airspace around Aleppo, the United States and its allies would likely need to target Syrian and Russian planes and air defence systems. Given the determination of Assad and Vladimir Putin thus far, there is no reason to believe that they would just give up and go home.

So, Clinton’s plan would see the US launching a war with Syria and Russia (a major nuclear power). Speaking to Goldman Sachs in 2013, Clinton admitted that intervening in Syria would be difficult and might "kill a lot of Syrians."

It could also suck in other countries, such as Turkey and Iran, which also have a stake here. Pundits across the political spectrum have raised the alarm about the dangers of imposing a no-fly zone. Historian Michael Burleigh wrote in the Mail on Sunday that such a move could even result in a third world war.

Politicians are sceptical, too. In the UK, Prime Minister Theresa May and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson have both urged caution. The Obama administration doesn’t seem keen either. The Pentagon is especially cautious, with Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, telling the Senate Committee on Armed Services that controlling Syrian airspace would require war with Syria and Russia. It is also not clear that such a zone would stop the bloodshed, as ground forces, including jihadi groups, could still operate. Indeed, one suspects a no-fly zone could be used as a pretext for removing Assad from power. Toppling the Syrian leader may sound attractive in principle but, in a country now teeming with Islamic militants, one dreads to think what might come next.

With the pitfalls of a no-fly zone so widely recognized, Clinton could change her mind without losing much credibility. So why doesn’t she? Is it about votes? Pro-war policies probably won’t win over many of the millennials who supported Bernie Sanders, her rival for the Democratic nomination. Perhaps she is trying to emphasize her hostility to Putin, given Trump’s favourable comments about the Russian leader and the Kremlin’s alleged interference in the election.

It is more likely that Clinton supports this policy because she actually believes in it. After all, she has a long record of backing military interventions, even in risky situations. During Bill Clinton's administration she urged her husband to intervene in Kosovo in 1999, and also argued for strikes against Saddam Hussein in 1998. Then, as a senator in 2002, she famously voted for George W Bush’s war in Iraq, though this is a decision that she now regrets.

But Iraq did not dampen Clinton's commitment to military intervention. As Secretary of State from 2009-12, she consistently called for armed force. She was a strong supporter of President Obama’s surge of US troops into Afghanistan at the end of 2009. She was in favour of the raid that took out Osama Bin Laden (others in the administration, like Vice President Joe Biden, were hesitant). Moreover, she forcefully supported a no-fly zone to protect civilians from Libyan tyrant Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 over objections from the Pentagon. Nato’s intervention escalated far beyond its initial humanitarian aim and led to the demise of the Gaddafi regime. But the US and its allies did little to guarantee Libya’s long-term security and the country spiralled into anarchy, allowing ISIS and other militant groups to spread. Only last week there was an attempted coup in Tripoli against the new UN-backed government.

The mayhem in Libya has not deterred Clinton from pursuing an interventionist course in Syria. In mid-2012, she argued that America should arm the anti-Assad rebels, a proposal rejected at the time by Obama. Perhaps earlier intervention by the US might have steered the conflict down a different path. But other attempts to funnel arms to rebels have seen weapons falling into the hands of jihadists.

In light of these problems, Obama’s decision not to follow Clinton’s 2012 proposal was understandable. Even on the Iran deal, one of Obama’s foremost achievements as president, Clinton was initially sceptical about diplomacy, insisting that all other options (including military force) remain “on the table.” As one of Obama’s top advisers told CNN last week, Clinton “supported taking military action on a lot of the questions that emerged” in White House debates. Her gung-ho approach appears to have been rewarded by the defence industry, which has pumped substantial sums of money into her campaign.

Trump attacked Clinton’s foreign policy in the second debate in early October, denouncing the idea of a no-fly zone and criticizing her record in Libya and elsewhere. Although Trump initially supported the wars in Iraq and Libya, too, he still has a point. Clinton’s fondness for military intervention appears dangerously blind to recent history and realities on the ground. Whatever that means for Syria, we may soon find out.