In a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations today in New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democratic frontrunner, called for accelerating the operation against the Islamic State, with the U.S. at the helm. Her recommendations included a no-fly zone, more frequent airstrikes, and more special operations troops to assist the ground troops in Syria and Iraq.
She stated that "Our goal is not to deter or contain ISIS but to defeat and destroy ISIS," in a subtle jab at President Obama, who stated the day before the Paris attacks that the group was "contained". "But we have learned that we can score victories over terrorist leaders and networks only to face metastasizing threats down the road. So we also have to play and win the long game." However, she was cautious not to completely alienate Obama, reassuring that she was only intensifying his plan.
Clinton sharply criticized her Republican candidate counterparts for using fear to discriminate against Muslims, and their intolerance of Syrian refugees in the U.S. She said that the Paris attack should not be used to "score political points." Clinton showed off her impressive foreign policy background, but she ran the risk of inflaming Democratic voters who are allied with Obama and are wary of Bush-style interventionism in the Middle East.
The bulk of her plan involved combining airstrikes with ground troops, especially in cooperation with the oil-rich Persian Gulf states which are allies of the U.S. yet have remained silent about the Syrian Civil War. She called for a no-fly zone to be established in northern Syria, along the border with Turkey. In her open confrontation against ISIS, Clinton's policies may be seen as aligning with Russia and Iran, which back Assad's regime, though she also criticized those countries.
What do you guys think of Hillary's recommendations? Do they seem like they could work?
How should the United States approach ISIS?
Is it acceptable to use the Paris attacks as political tools? Is this really what the Republican candidates are doing, or is Hillary bashing them in a move that's just as political?
Does Clinton risk alienating some of her Democratic voters?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-syria-islamic-state.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/19/hillary_clinton_our_goal_is_not_to_contain_isis_but_to_defeat_and_destroy_isis.html
5 comments:
Watching Clinton's speech was simply inspirational. With all the anti muslim sentiment I am thrilled that someone is finally acknowledging that the religion and the majority of people who follow this faith are not the problem. This drastic difference between her response and the republican candidates' responses humanized her and gave her an appealing edge. I also agree with Will, I think where she said "Our goal is not to deter or contain ISIS but to defeat and destroy ISIS," was extremely powerful. Talking about containment is one thing, but defeating such a feared terrorist group is a completely different matter. I think Hilary did a great job in this speech. With the debates you only really get to see a short response on an issue, and media highlights snippets of speaking. However, watching this Clinton laid out her ideas for foreign policy and the steps to achieve it; this was especially moving because Hilary is the secretary of state. Therefore she gave an in depth look at how the policy was formed. Over all I think this speech and her reaction was spot on and will help her in her campaign for president.
I agree that a more aggressive and direct approach needs to be taken when fighting ISIS. Skirting around the problem and viewing a series of terrorist attacks as "contained" is ignoring the problem at hand because these attacks are not contained at all. ISIS has been tearing across the Middle East and gaining more and more power, as well as launching attacks in Lebanon and Turkey. Furthermore, if there is not reaction than ISIS is far more likely to escalate attacks so that they no longer seem so contained. The United States has been hesitant in its approach to fighting ISIS, but this infringement into the Western world and extension beyond the normal territories of conflict is a red flag that ISIS is serious about its business and not a force to be ignored. I do believe that Hilary's plan could truly work as it addresses the problem head on and would hopefully strike fear into the leaders of ISIS. The Paris attacks should not be used as political tools,but whenever something so shocking happens it will of course raise questions of what needs to be done and the effect that it has on the world. Clinton does run the risk of alienating Democrats who are wary of increasing military spending and increasing involvement in the Middle East; however, she is one of the only candidates to give a clear and concise response to the attacks in Paris and how to deal with ISIS. Clinton's command of foreign affairs and knowledge as former Secretary of State may also offer her an advantage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/world/middleeast/beirut-lebanon-attacks-paris.html?_r=0
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/19/politics/hillary-clinton-isis-speech/
I think that Hillary’s recommendations could work because the United States needs a plan for what to do and when in the Middle East. The current government isn’t doing very much to accomplish the goal of defeating and destroying ISIS but Hillary seems to have a plan to do so. Starting with the no-fly zone, frequent airstrikes, and more special operations troops to assist the ground troops. The United States should approach ISIS aggressively. Up to now, we haven’t done anything with ISIS that has had a major impact. It is acceptable to use the Paris attacks as a political tool only to show what has to be prevented and what steps need to be taken to achieve that goal. With this stance, Hillary does risk alienating some of her Democratic voters because she openly was disagreeing with Obama’s plan while still enforcing it and encouraging it.
I am sorry Katie, but I have to disagree. I think that especially after seeing the past Democratic debate, Clinton seems to be nothing but a demagogue. When the moderator asked about her affiliation with Wall Street, especially about whether or not she will be influenced by these donors. In response, she randomly noted that 60% or her private donors will female, and noted that she helped Wall Street rebuild after 9/11 in the pander of the century. To me, this seems to be another attempt to rile up Democratic who are aggressive on foreign policy. I think that is would be rash to become affiliated in the Middle East on our own once again, especially under the leadership of one who was a proponent of the Iraq War at its onset. While I agree that ISIS should be wiped out, it should only happen with the help of the global community. Clinton is just capitalizing on post-Paris hysteria to appeal to voters. A no-fly zone will only escalate the United States' solo involvement in the area, and I do not think it will make a huge difference other than to create greater animosity with Russia.
Post a Comment