Regardless of who is elected president in November of 2008, it’s pretty likely we’re going to continue to have an interventionist foreign policy. Here’s Hillary Clinton’s track record
Clinton favored intervention in Haiti in 1994. She favored intervention in Bosnia in 1995. She favored intervention in Kosovo in 1999. As first lady, Clinton said, “I am very pleased that this president and administration have made democracy one of the centerpieces of our foreign policy.” Before the Kosovo war, she phoned Bill from Africa and, she recalled later, “I urged him to bomb.”
and some observations on on Barack Obama’s foreign policy:
In an address on national security to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars on August 1, 2007, Obama stated that as President he would consider military action in Pakistan in order to attack al-Qaeda, even if the Pakistani government did not give approval.
He’s also come out in support of intervention in Darfur and hasn’t ruled out military intervention in Iran.
I won’t bother to document the leading Republican candidates’ views. Rudy Giuliani sounds like Bush on steroids.
The remarkable thing about American foreign policy is its degree of continuity despite the lack of, well, a policy.
The remarkable thing about American foreign policy is its degree of continuity despite the lack of, well, a policy.
Okay, that’s likely to be the funniest line I read this week! (Please note that the humor of the statement comes from the truth of the statement.)
It hearkens back to a year long debate that I had with Richard Leopold, from whom I took American Diplomatic History 40 years ago. His fundamental position was that America did not have and has never had a foreign policy. I argued that American foreign policy was an emergent phenomenon.
Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran to keep them from getting nuclear weapons if economic sanctions don’t work.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story?ctrack=1&cset=true