If anyone doubted which presidential candidate would be more likely to embroil us in yet another Middle East ground war if elected, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reassured Americans it would not be her in a counterterrorism speech delivered Wednesday at Stanford University in California. The speech was a direct rebuke of the warlike rhetoric emanating from the GOP candidates in the wake of yesterday’s terrorist attacks in Brussels that killed 31 people and wounded 270.
Yesterday, republican senator and GOP candidate Ted Cruz immediately called for more aggressive policing of America’s Muslim communities, implying that American Muslims were akin to gang members and in danger of being radicalized. His GOP counterpart Donald Trump said Cruz’s plan was “a good idea.” Clinton offered vigorous disagreement with her GOP rivals’ desire to treat American Muslims “like criminals.”
“It’s hard to imagine a more incendiary, foolish statement,” she said, calling Muslims a “first line of defense” against terrorism. “One thing we know that does not work is offensive, inflammatory rhetoric that demonizes all Muslims.”
Clinton also took aim at those who, like Trump and Cruz, would use the terrorist attacks as justification to push the United States into another Middle East war:
We can’t let fear stop us from doing what’s necessary to keep us safe. Nor can we let it push us into reckless actions that end up making us less safe. For example, it would be a serious mistake to stumble into another costly ground war in the Middle East. If we’ve learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s that people in nations have to secure their own communities. We can, and I argue must support them, but we can’t substitute for them.
Instead, Clinton called for greater diplomacy, including working more closely with our Middle Eastern allies and NATO, an organization Trump has suggested “may be obsolete” and too expensive an obligation for the United States to continue.
Like Cruz, Trump has routinely depicted Muslims as villains. Recently, he explained how Muslims around the world do not respect America and described his desire to use torture or nuclear weapons to secure their respect. Clinton condemned the bellicose rhetoric from the GOP candidates as wrong, counterproductive, and dangerous. She also took a swipe at Cruz’s repeated call for “carpet bombing [ISIS] to oblivion”:
It would also be a serious mistake to begin carpet bombing populated areas into oblivion. Proposing that doesn’t make you sound tough. It makes you sound like you are in over your head. Slogans aren’t a strategy. Loose cannons often misfire. What America needs is strong, smart, steady leadership to wage and win this struggle. To do that we need to strengthen America’s alliances in Europe, Asia, and around the world.
Clinton said the United States should intensify its air campaign against ISIS and reiterated Secretary of State John Kerry’s conclusion that ISIS is carrying out genocide. United Nations investigators reached the same conclusion in March 2015.
Clinton’s speech outlined her plan for dealing with ISIS, which largely involves intensifying President Obama’s approach:
"We should intensify the coalition air campaign against its fights, leaders, and infrastructure; step up support for local Arab and Kurdish forces on the ground and coalition efforts to protect civilians; and pursue a diplomatic strategy aimed at achieving political resolutions to Syria's civil war and Iraq's sectarian divide.”
She did not specify whether air campaigns would include negotiating no-fly zones, as she and the leaders of Germany and Turkey called for previously. However, Russia’s military presence in Syria makes it impossible for any coalition to establish no-fly zones in the country. Although Russia appears to have withdrawn half its air force from Syria, it has left several bombers and attack helicopters behind, which it has regularly used to bomb Syrian towns and civilians hostile to President Assad. Kerry and other allies continue to negotiate with Russia on a solution to the complicated situation.
Clinton highlighted several non-military strategies she would like to pursue in fighting ISIS, including more international cooperation in shutting down the terrorist group’s financial and travel networks. She also called for an “intelligence surge” and stronger efforts to counter ISIS’ social media outreach and recruiting. She acknowledged the difficulty of balancing law enforcement’s need to access mobile encryption and the “legitimate worries” people have about civil liberties and privacy. Clinton said finding solutions will take time and require collaboration between the tech community and the government.
Compared with the empty bombastic bluster of her republican opponents, Clinton’s speech showcased her depth of knowledge regarding the complicated foreign policy issues our next president will continue to face. Her emphasis on finding diplomatic solutions was a stark contrast with Cruz’s and Trump’s bellicose language.
For anyone with an understanding of foreign policy who values diplomacy, the choice next November could not be clearer. A vote for Secretary Clinton is a vote for strengthening alliances and promoting cooperation against a common world enemy. A vote for Cruz or Trump is a vote for more destabilization in the Middle East, bringing back torture as official policy, and violating the civil liberties of American Muslims.