{"id":258,"date":"2016-07-01T21:25:10","date_gmt":"2016-07-02T01:25:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/?p=258"},"modified":"2017-02-14T15:06:13","modified_gmt":"2017-02-14T19:06:13","slug":"varieties-hawk","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/index.php\/2016\/07\/01\/varieties-hawk\/","title":{"rendered":"Varieties of Hawk: Clinton v. Trump on Foreign Policy"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reminder: The Consistent Life Network’s blog is for the airing of a wide variety of views connected to the consistent life ethic. Therefore, the views are those of the author and not necessarily of the organization. Political elections are especially likely to elicit sharply differing perspectives from consistent-lifers.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

by John Whitehead<\/p>\n

\"John

John Whitehead<\/p><\/div>\n

For an American peace advocate, the two major political parties rarely offer appealing candidates in a presidential election. The 2016 election is no exception to this rule. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the presumptive nominees for the Democratic and Republican Parties, respectively, seem dedicated to the continued use of American military force around the world. However they might differ in other respects, on foreign policy both take a hawkish stance.<\/p>\n

Hillary Clinton\u2019s many years in public office have given her a substantial record of hawkish decisions. During her eight years in the Senate, Clinton voted in favor<\/a> of the broadly worded authorization to use military force in response to the September 11th<\/sup>, 2001, terrorist attacks. This vote led to the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. She also voted<\/a> to authorize military force in Iraq, leading to the invasion of that country in 2003. As Barack Obama\u2019s secretary of state, Clinton was the leading foreign policy official during the administration\u2019s escalation of American involvement in Afghanistan, the targeted killing campaign against alleged terrorists, and the Libyan war.<\/p>\n

In the case of the Libyan intervention, media<\/a> reports<\/a> indicate that Clinton played a prominent role in shaping the administration\u2019s policy: a dubious distinction in light of how the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi led to civil war and chaos in the country. Clinton\u2019s foreign policy aide Jake Sullivan described her<\/a> as being \u201ca critical voice on Libya in administration deliberations, at NATO, and in contact group meetings\u2014as well as the public face of the U.S. effort in Libya. She was instrumental in securing the authorization, building the coalition, and tightening the noose around Qadhafi [sic] and his regime.\u201d<\/p>\n

Other statements from former colleagues about Clinton are similarly worrying. Dennis Ross, who served on the National Security Council during Clinton\u2019s tenure as secretary of state, commented<\/a>, \u201cIt\u2019s not that she\u2019s quick to use force, but her basic instincts are governed more by the uses of hard power.\u201d Anne-Marie Slaughter, who served under Clinton as director of State Department Policy Planning, commented<\/a> \u201cwhen the choice is between action and inaction, and you\u2019ve got risks in either direction, which you often do, [Clinton would] rather be caught trying.\u201d While some might consider Slaughter\u2019s statement a testimonial to decisiveness, those who wish to see an end to American wars should be concerned by the prospect of a commander-in-chief whose default preference is for \u201caction,\u201d even in the face of risk.<\/p>\n

In contrast to Clinton\u2019s substantial public record, Donald Trump\u2019s lack of prior service in public office leaves no guide to his foreign policy stance apart from his public statements\u2014a poor basis for judgment, even when a presidential candidate less mercurial than Trump is concerned. For whatever they are worth, however, Trump\u2019s statements indicate a hawkishness comparable to Clinton\u2019s.<\/p>\n

Despite recent claims to have opposed the Iraq War, Trump\u2019s statements on that conflict in 2002-2003 show his position to have been simply a muddle<\/a>: he once expressed vague support for the war that gave way to equally vague criticisms. Trump\u2019s position on the Libyan war has been similarly confused<\/a>, moving<\/a> from support to opposition to support again. His attitude toward the Afghan war is not much clearer<\/a>. Whatever else these shifting positions demonstrate, they do not show a firm commitment to peace.<\/p>\n

Moreover, during his presidential campaign, Trump has infamously made that should alarm peace advocates. He has torturing members of ISIS through techniques such as waterboarding. Trump has also repeatedly<\/a> called for<\/a> killing terrorists\u2019 families. The overall impression left by Trump\u2019s public utterances is of a candidate willing to use military force ruthlessly and recklessly.<\/p>\n

The choice between Trump and Clinton is a demoralizing one for someone committed to peace and an end to hawkish foreign policies. This choice becomes even more dismaying, however, when viewed in the context of recent electoral history.<\/p>\n

Barack Obama has hardly been a dovish president, but peace advocates could at least take some satisfaction in his opposition, while still an Illinois state senator, to the Iraq War. In 2008, this opposition made him more appealing, for many Democratic voters, than Hillary Clinton and contributed to Obama winning the Democratic nomination that year. Obama appeared to be, if not a genuine \u201cpeace candidate,\u201d at least less hawkish than Clinton\u2014and of course he appeared considerably less hawkish than George W. Bush. A kind of incrementalism in foreign policy seemed plausible in this context: the Democratic president elected in 2008 was less hawkish than the alternatives and perhaps his successor would be less hawkish still and so American foreign policy could be nudged along in the direction favored by peace advocates.<\/p>\n

Yet after eight years of Barack Obama, peace advocates find themselves presented with major party candidates who are both more hawkish than Obama. The apparent incremental progress toward peace under Obama seems to be slipping away in light of the current choices. This should make peace advocates, including those who support a consistent ethic of life, wary of an incrementalism that accepts hawkish candidates because they are somewhat less hawkish than the alternative. Such a strategy might not lead to net improvements in American foreign policy in the long term.<\/p>\n

\"Tom

Tom Taylor (left) and John Whitehead (right) holding our banner at the March for Life 2016<\/p><\/div>\n

Consistent life ethic advocates, and others who care about peace, should consider more radical approaches than choosing the less hawkish major party option. One alternative is to put far less emphasis on precisely who occupies the office of president and instead advocate for reducing the overall power and importance of the presidency as an institution. The tremendous concentration of power, particularly the power of the national security establishment, in a single person\u2019s hands may be far more decisive in shaping foreign policy than the political party to which that excessively powerful person belongs.<\/p>\n

Another, non-exclusive, alternative is to renew the peace movement at the grassroots, building an energetic, vocal lobby against war and the national security establishment. If such a lobby constantly challenged hawkish policies when pursued by politicians of either major party, this might serve to change the larger political context in which those politicians operate. A more dovish foreign policy consensus shaped by such a lobby could create better electoral options than \u201chawkish\u201d and \u201cslightly less hawkish.\u201d Such a cross-partisan goal would also fit in well with the larger cross-partisan philosophy and mission of he consistent life ethic.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Reminder: The Consistent Life Network’s blog is for the airing of a wide variety of views connected to the consistent life ethic. Therefore, the views are those of the author and not necessarily of the organization. Political elections are especially likely to elicit sharply differing perspectives from consistent-lifers. \u00a0 by John Whitehead For an American… <\/p>\n