Note: The opinions and comments stated in the following article, and views expressed by any contributor to In Homeland Security, do not represent the views of American Military University, American Public University System, its management or employees.
By John Ubaldi
Contributor, In Homeland Security
The two top contenders for both the Democratic and Republican parties for president are Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, but do we have any idea what their foreign policy would look like if they are elected president of the United States?
What foreign policy vision do they have for the United States if elected president? All we have is what they have stated on the campaign trail or placed on their respective webpages.
Of the two candidates Hillary Clinton has at least listed various positions regarding foreign policy on her campaign website, where Donald Trump has nothing at all on foreign policy, except his China trade policy and immigration. All we have to go by are his statements as a guide.
Neither candidate has laid out a broad vision of what role they see the United States taking in the international arena, and when they do comment it is always in reaction to international events.
Clinton has repeatedly stated she would follow the leadership of President Obama on foreign policy, but has listed vague pronouncements on her campaign website as to how she would lead the U.S. if elected.
On her campaign website she states that she would never allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and would vigorously enforce the nuclear agreement with Iran and implement a broader strategy to confront Iran’s bad behavior in the region. Clinton would have the U.S. confront and defeat ISIS by working with our allies in the region and by building up the Iraqi military and its governing capacities.
However, nothing is mentioned about what replaces ISIS. What about Syria or the refugee crisis which has engulfed Europe with migrants fleeing the ongoing Syrian civil war? What about Libya, where Clinton had a direct hand in convincing President Obama to intervene in toppling Muammar Qaddafi in 2011—that nation is on the verge of being a failed state.
Unfortunately, Clinton never goes into great detail on how any of this would be accomplished, since our allies in the region strongly distrust the U.S. because of the polices of the Obama administration, on which she served as Secretary of State. Most people see Clinton as an extension of Obama’s polices.
Clinton continued to state on her website that in an interconnected world, people are hungry to partner with America, and many share our vision for the future. Hillary says that she will strengthen our alliances and nurture new relationships across the globe. In order to ensure that America maintains successful global partnerships, she says that she will strengthen alliances, create stronger partnerships across the globe, and engage in a global civil society.
Again, she never goes into great detail how she would accomplish this, or in what areas she would break from President Obama on foreign policy, considering the United States currently has strained relationships with our allies around the world, with our adversaries viewing the U.S. as a retreating superpower.
Donald Trump is a far different candidate to gauge how he would engage the world, nothing is listed on his campaign website, nor has he laid out a vision for U.S. foreign policy.
His bombastic and often over the top rhetoric has left many wondering how this would play out on the international stage. Last week’s Republican debate show cased many aspects of his foreign policy.
Moderator of the Fox News debate Bret Baier asked Donald Trump a pointed question:
BAIER:Mr. Trump, just yesterday, almost 100 foreign policy experts signed on to an open letter refusing to support you, saying your embracing of expansive use of torture is inexcusable. General Michael Hayden, former CIA director, NSA director, and other experts have said that when you asked the U.S. military to carry out some of your campaign promises, specifically targeting terrorists’ families, and also the use of interrogation methods more extreme than waterboarding, the military will refuse because they’ve been trained to turn down and refuse illegal orders. So what would you do, as commander-in-chief, if the U.S. military refused to carry out those orders?
TRUMP: They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me.
BAIER: But they’re illegal.
TRUMP: Let me just tell you, you look at the Middle East. They’re chopping off heads. They’re chopping off the heads of Christians and anybody else that happens to be in the way. They’re drowning people in steel cages. And he — now we’re talking about waterboarding.
This really started with Ted, a question was asked of Ted last — two debates ago about waterboarding. And Ted was, you know, having a hard time with that question, to be totally honest with you. They then came to me, what do you think of waterboarding? I said it’s fine. And if we want to go stronger, I’d go stronger, too, because, frankly … that’s the way I feel. Can you imagine — can you imagine these people, these animals over in the Middle East, that chop off heads, sitting around talking and seeing that we’re having a hard problem with waterboarding? We should go for waterboarding and we should go tougher than waterboarding. That’s my opinion.
BAIER: But targeting terrorists’ families?
TRUMP: And — and — and — I’m a leader. I’m a leader. I’ve always been a leader. I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it. That’s what leadership is all about.
BAIER: Even targeting terrorists’ families?
Donald Trump continued to repeat he would have the military target the families of terrorists, with many in the national security establishment bewildered by his rhetoric and what a Trump presidency would mean for the United States.
In January, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, in both the Bush and Obama administrations stated, “I think that these guys, men and women, are making these broad pronouncements, [and] it’s clear they don’t know what they’re talking about,” Gates continued to cite the more inflammatory rhetoric about “bombing the shit out of them,” which he attributed to “the leading candidate,” referencing Donald Trump.
The fiery rhetoric by Donald Trump either plays to his base or he truly believes what he says, we just don’t know how he would conduct foreign policy.
We still have no idea who Donald Trump leans to or would trust for national security advice. In this debate he mentioned Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Retired Vice Chief of Staff, General Jack Keane, and retired U.S. Army Colonel Jack Jacobs as individuals he likes, but we are not sure who currently briefs him on national security matters.
As the presidential election moves forward the two top candidates have not articulated a foreign policy vision for the country, with both candidates having their own set of difficulties regarding international affairs, but whoever assumes the presidency will face enormous challenges on day one!
Let’s hope both Clinton and Trump are challenged now on their foreign policy statements….but again, to repeat what I learned in the Marines, hope is not a strategy.
Comments are closed.