What's (So Badly) Wrong With Hillary Clinton's New Foreign Affairs Article?

[DrFunkenstein]

Although she does hit on the bare minimum of the Democratic platform, there are huge - and very telling - gaps in Clinton's recent article.

The article represents her best forum for laying out a grand vision for an audience of policy wonks, rather than campaign trail sound bites, and she fails badly to understand the nature of the war on terrorism and the long-term course of action required to win (as much as one can "win" such assymetrical warfare on a global scale).

First, it must be said that Clinton barely mentions the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, which continues to be a central issue for the Arab world (although not the U.S. media).

Although she does mention a Palestinian state, her three remarks are wholly from the Israeli perspective.

(T)he next administration will have to confront an unpredictable and dangerous situation in the Middle East that threatens Israel and could potentially bring down the global economy by disrupting oil supplies.

...

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.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601-p0/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html

There is only one other mention of the conflict in the article, and that regards Iran's lack of support for Middle East peace.

Failure to acknowledge the importance of Middle East peace as a critical front in the war on terror is a relatively minor issue, though.

Far more importantly, Clinton simply has no vision for dealing the war on terror for, say, the next 25 years (to give a relatively arbitrary longterm timespan). While she looks to address the current problems (without rocking any boats), she presents little to suggest getting to the heart of the issue.

Here is perhaps one of the most telling passages of how she fails to understand what we are dealing with.

In the cities of Europe and Asia -- such as Hamburg and Kuala Lumpur, which were the springboards for 9/11 -- terrorist cells are preparing for future attacks. We must understand not only their methods but their motives: a rejection of modernity, women's rights, and democracy, as well as a dangerous nostalgia for a mythical past. We must develop a comprehensive strategy focusing on education, intelligence, and law enforcement to counter not only the terrorists themselves but also the larger forces fueling support for their extremism.

While Clinton suggests looking at the motives of the terrorists, what she finds is remarkably similar to the conclusions of the Bush administration. All of the motives she lists are easily tossed aside: they are the wrong-headed ideas of a bunch of radical reactionaries.

She makes no mention of the geopolitical concerns bubbling in the region, the deep economic despair and joblessness, the inadequate infrastructure (which still has not arrived to Iraq), the desire for governmental accountability (even within an Islamic state), the downside of globalism, a lack of respect and frequent violation of their cultural beliefs, America's dealing with totalitarian regimes according to convenience, and, of course, the Palestinian situation.

There are ways that a Presidential candidate can address these issues without giving up the integrity of the United States. And by "address," I mean do more than talk about them.

Here is an example of how it was done in the last Democratic race, excerpted from Sen. Kerry's foreign policy speech from January 2003.

It's critical that we recognize the conditions that are breeding this virulent new form of anti-American terrorism.

A combination of harsh political repression, economic stagnation, lack of education and opportunity, and rapid population growth has proven simply explosive. The streets are full of young people who have no jobs, no prospects, no voice.

We must drain the swamps of terrorists; but you don't have a prayer of doing so if you leave the poisoned sources to gather and flow again. That means we must help the vast majority people of the greater Middle East build a better future.

The Bush Administration has a plan for waging war but no plan for winning the peace.

The United States and its transatlantic partners should launch a high-profile Middle East trade initiative designed to stop the economic regression in the Middle East and spark investment, trade and growth in the region.

It should aim at dismantling trade barriers that are among the highest in the world, encouraging participation in world trade policy and ending the deep economic isolation of many of the region's countries.

We should build on the success of Clinton Administration's Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Since the United States reduced tariffs on goods made in "qualifying industrial zones," Jordan's exports to the US jumped from $16 to $400 million, creating about 40,000 jobs.

We should also create a general duty-free program for the region, just as we've done in the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Andean Trade Preference Act.

Democracy won't come to the greater Middle East overnight, but the U.S. should start by supporting the region's democrats in their struggles against repressive regimes or by working with those which take genuine steps towards change.

These countries suffer from too little globalization, not too much.

Without greater investment, without greater trade within the region and with the outside world, without the transparency and legal protections that modern economies need to thrive, how will these countries ever be able to grow fast enough to provide jobs and better living standards for their people?

But as we extend the benefits of globalization to people in the greater Middle East and the developing world in general, we also need to confront globalization's dark side.

Finally, we must have a new vision and a renewed engagement to reinvigorate the Mideast peace process. A great nation like ours should not be dragged kicking and resisting - should not have to be pressured to the task of making peace.

Without demanding unilateral concessions, the United States must mediate a series of confidence building steps which start down the road to peace. Both parties must walk this path together - simultaneously. And the world can help them do it.

While maintaining our long term commitment to Israel's existence and security, the United States must work to keep both sides focused on the end game of peace. Extremists must not be allowed to control this process.

We must embark on a major initiative of public diplomacy to bridge the divide between Islam and the rest of the world. We must make avoidance of the clash of civilizations the work of our generation.

That is what a tough, credible progressive vision can look like without sounding wishy-washy. More importantly, we simply cannot reduce the levels of hatred and contempt that fuel the ranks of terrorism without such responses. We cannot afford another 4 years of tough talk coupled with some band-aids thrown over some of the worst excesses of the Bush administration.

Simply suggesting that we close Guantanamo and reduce nuclear proliferation is not nearly enough. Moreover, failing to misunderstand the roots of terrorism is a mistake that could have the most unfortunate consequences imaginable.

We need someone who will address these problems directly with a fresh approach that focuses on hope for the future, not on band-aids for the present.

Here's a start, taken from Sen. obama's foreign policy speech in April 2007:

A recent report detailed Al Qaeda’s progress in recruiting a new generation of leaders to replace the ones we have captured or killed.

They operate freely in the disaffected communities and disconnected corners of our interconnected world – the impoverished, weak and ungoverned states that have become the most fertile breeding grounds for transnational threats like terror and pandemic disease and the smuggling of deadly weapons.

The true desire of all mankind is not only to live free lives, but lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and simple justice.

Delivering on these universal aspirations requires basic sustenance like food and clean water; medicine and shelter. It also requires a society that is supported by the pillars of a sustainable democracy – a strong legislature, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and an honest police force. It requires building the capacity of the world’s weakest states and providing them what they need to reduce poverty, build healthy and educated communities, develop markets, and generate wealth.

As President, I will double our annual investments in meeting these challenges to billion by 2012 and ensure that those new resources are directed towards these strategic goals.

I know that many Americans are skeptical about the value of foreign aid today. But as the U.S. military made clear in Camp Lemonier, a relatively small investment in these fragile states up front can be one of the most effective ways to prevent the terror and strife that is far more costly – both in lives and treasure – down the road.

In this way, billion a year in foreign aid – which is less than one-half of one percent of our GDP – doesn’t sound as costly when you consider that last year, the Pentagon spent nearly double that amount in Iraq alone.

It’s time, as well, for a President who can build a consensus at home for this ambitious but necessary course. For in the end, no foreign policy can succeed unless the American people understand it and feel a stake in its success – and unless they trust that their government hears their more immediate concerns as well.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fpccga/

That's the vision gap.