The differences between SoS Clinton and SoS Kerry
President Obama foreign policy record has not been one of consistency. It has fluctuated, and that fluctuation seems to mirror who is working as point-man (i.e. Secretary of State) at the time.
Hillary Clinton had the office from January 2009 to January 2013. John Kerry has been there since.
Let's look at U.S. foreign policy during this era.
One of the first things Obama/Clinton did was a troop surge in Afghanistan.
The Surge was over by 2013, and now only 13,000 troops remain in Afghanistan.
By 2014, 74% of the U.S. military personnel who have given their lives serving in the Afghan War died after the Afghan Surge started.
By all indications, the Afghanistan Surge was a failure, and the Administration has no Plan B.
In conjunction with the Afghanistan Surge was a dramatic increase in the use of drones for assassination by Obama/Clinton, especially in Pakistan.
Up to 90% of those killed by drone strikes were unintended.
Interestingly, the number of drone strikes dropped dramatically once Clinton left the Obama Administration.
There is one nation missing from the chart above - Libya.
Even President Obama admits that he screwed up with Libya.
Now let's look at the other side of the coin - diplomacy.
The biggest diplomatic coups of the Obama Administration can be said to be:
1) the Iran Nuclear Deal .
It was negotiated and signed in 2015. Negotiations started in Geneva in November 2013.
2) normalizing relations with Cuba. This process began December 2014.
With the exceptions of the rise of ISIS and Russian tensions, Obama's foreign policy has been significantly less warlike since Clinton left office.
Whether that is coincidence or directly related is up to you to decide. But if it's only coincidence, then you must question if Clinton deserves any credit or blame at all.
Comments
Kerry
actually fought in a war. Something you will never see a Clinton do.
He realized the futility and horror of throwing weapons around. Hillary will never understand that.
I fully expect more nation building and regime change under a Clinton presidency. That and her lies are the main reasons I will never vote for a Clinton.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
I disagree! The Clinton's are veterans of one big, long war...
...that being the Class War, and they sure as fuck weren't on our side...
I want my two dollars!
The Imaginary Casualties
I agree about the Clintons being veterans of the Class War. As such, they don't see the casualties of that war any more than they see the casualties of military war, an event which they would equate with the struggle to aid the wealthy in taking ever more from the rest of us. As long as nothing happens to them or theirs, the Clintons couldn't care less.
As for Obama, more proof that he's no liberal. He is instead the tool of freebooters.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
at least she made it
and they say i can't say a nice thing about HRC
CA Democrat
The Imaginary Casualties
I agree about the Clintons being veterans of the Class War. As such, they don't see the casualties of that war any more than they see the casualties of military war, an event which they would equate with the struggle to aid the wealthy in taking ever more from the rest of us. As long as nothing happens to them or theirs, the Clintons couldn't care less.
As for Obama, more proof that he's no liberal. He is instead the tool of freebooters.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
Kerry is a war ciminal just like Clinton.
Doesn't matter what his chicken ass self did back in the day, now he's an imperialist warmonger. He's been instrumental in the illegal and inhumane war in Syria and the war in Ukraine. He's lied his ass off so many times I can't count them. This Vietnam Era Vet thinks Kerry is a traitor to humanity.
Here's an article about what Skull and Bones Kerry really did
in Vietnam.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/26/what-john-kerry-really-did-in-vie...
IMO, Kerry has been an improvement
over Clinton. It seems as though Kerry believes in diplomacy first.
gjohnsit, I cannot read your first graph, but I am guessing that it is showing the numbers of troops deployed has decreased since Kerry became SOS.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Graphic changed
you should be able to read it now.
Thank you!
Now the graph is really readable.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Afghanistan isn't on Hillary
Obama campaigned in 2008 on the surge. That's his blunder.
Libya, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Somalia, Honduras, Ukraine - those are Hillary's.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
It was on her watch
Otherwise you could exonerate her of all of these blunders if you wanted to.
There's a difference...
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Not in politics
For instance, a Hillarybot would point out that Obama had the final say in every single case.
And they would be right, so then how can you say Hillary is to blame?
Not sure
she didn't have his family under seige: there were too many close calls with the President's safety: and she began the muslim rumors: has benefitted from Rush Limbaugh and is now openly courting Republican DONORS: not voters: just the money: this was planned. IMHO HRC and Bill have been ready to sandbag anything the President does that curbs the corporate agenda: and their media hounds will unleash: Look at the current BS with all of the MSM who are in the bag for them: they are also locked on Wall Street and Banks: he got 4/5ths the Presidency under continued BUSH/CLINTON alliance.
Not sure
she didn't have his family under seige: there were too many close calls with the President's safety: and she began the muslim rumors: has benefitted from Rush Limbaugh and is now openly courting Republican DONORS: not voters: just the money: this was planned. IMHO HRC and Bill have been ready to sandbag anything the President does that curbs the corporate agenda: and their media hounds will unleash: Look at the current BS with all of the MSM who are in the bag for them: they are also locked on Wall Street and Banks: he got 4/5ths the Presidency under continued BUSH/CLINTON alliance.
so, why then is there such a rise in tension with Russia
and what did Kerry do to prevent that? I would hope that Kerry might be an improvement over HRC, but am not convinced yet.
If Bernie became president, who he would chose for SoS and how bold would he be to leave the past behind and start over?
Why Russia?
NATO expansion is one reason. Syria, which began under Clinton with her running arms from Libya to Syrian "moderate" rebels is another.
Russia also suffered from the decline in oil and gas prices (related to the boom in US production).
Then there was Ukraine. I see that as a Putin blunder in response to the Ukrainian orange revolution.
On the plus side, Russia has been a positive ally re: the Iran deal, and Putin got Syria to destroy its chem weapons stocks (preventing a US attack on Syria's ,ilitary) and is just as adamant against ISIS (perhaps moreso) than we allegedly are.
But Russia sees any move to oust Assad as a threat to its economic interests. The Saudis have long wanted to run a pipeline through Syria to Turkey. For that they needed two things - get rid of Assad, and replace with Sunni government (radical or not did not matter to them)
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Why ...
...needed NATO to expand?
...who else sees Putin's action in Ukraine as a blunder? I tried to understand it, but can't. I doubt that it was a Russian blunder.
...If the Saudis want so much their own pipeline through Syria to Turkey, why don't they fight it out with those two countries by themselves? Why does the US need to support them?
It's all a blunder and the US had "something" to do with it. I mean why don't you let everybody play by themselves in their own backyard and get out of other countries front and backyards.
Above my paygrade. Need books and not blogs to read about it.
Because Russia has always regarded their neighbours
e.g., the Baltic states, Belarus (Byelorussiya), Ukrainija, Transcaucasia (Aze, Arm, Turkmenistan, Gruziniya) as still legitimately within their sphere of influence.
The Baltics declared independence in 1918 after the revolution. Their languages and cultures are nothing like Russia. Estonian language and culture is far closely related to Finnish (or some would say the other way around) than to Russian.
These nations were members of the League of Nations. Their independence was never questioned until 1944 when Stalin "rolled" Churchill and Roosevelt at Yalta.
The Baltics' illegal incorporation into the USSR was never recognized de jure by the Western powers, and their independence after the 1991 coup was recognized as a re-establishment of the legally constituted and recognized 1918 republics.
Russia is constantly harassing the Baltics and stirring up trouble among the imported Russian population in the nations' eastern flank.
I remind you that after the Soviet annexations, hundreds of thousands of Balts, including the "intelligentsia", were forcibly deported to Siberia in cattle cars only to replaced by hordes of non-native Russians who could not even speak the language.
The native languages were suppressed and Russian became the lingua franca.
Russia has now disputed the 1991 re-establishment of Baltic independence and has begun a program of harassment and violations of the states' territorial integrity.
These nations are NATO members by their own volition, because they know full well that otherwise they would be at the mercy of the Russian bear.
Jut as a point of clarification.
And if anyone wants to yell "fascist nazis", go ahead, and I've an answer to that as well.
I'm still a social democrat though and I've voted for Canada's socialist Parties (CCF/NP/NDP) all my life.
But no f%%%g way will I trust the Russians. Ever.
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
I understand, I learn that part of history slowly
I don't ask you for trust, I ask you for understanding that we are as well at the mercy of the US and NATO and not only the Russians. Somehow there seem to be a lot of people scared about a lot of things. And there seems a lot of emotions running around for over hundred years, which all of the sudden become so bad that it can easily cause a full blown war. I wished that people would not constantly fan the flames of the sins of the past, because they seem only to result in inciting more fires, deadly ones.
I learned about the "hatred" of some people in the Baltic states, Poland and Ukraine vis a vis Russia, on the other hand the population there is very much mixed with Russians and intermarriages. So, why one can't get over those tension and sins of the past is not easily understood by some Europeans, I guess. (oh yeh, fuck the EU...)
It would take a lot of time to find the sources for what I want to express. There was something not quite right about the acceptance of the Baltic states into NATO, someone had broken some promises. I am sure you know more about it than me. And I don't want to discuss it further. I just remember vaguely that I had to search for my boss for proofs how that promise was broken. But have no more recollection or access. Sorry for that.
So, I don't want wars on Eastern European soil between Western military and Russian military. It's insane and I do not trust most of the Western media explanations of how bad the Russians are either. It's hyped up. I just say "Stop the Shit". In the end Russian propaganda (including some of RT) and US / Western media propaganda is equally bad and shitty. But the bombs and the wars will fall on European territory and not on US one. As long as that is the case, I don't easily follow any side's propaganda wars.
Your reference to Fascist Nazis I don't understand in your comment. Oh, btw, there were a lot of "Fascist Nazis" deported in cattle cars to Siberia (my father included). I wouldn't use the fact that for example my father became a disabled person through US bombardments in Rumania and a Russian POW in a Siberian camp some months later to use in any political argument. Everyone has his stories of the past. We pretend to learn from history, mostly that doesn't happen. Memories of past sins of our ancestors haunts us and are revived easily.
Even my father would not have had such emotions against the Russians to not recognize what that kind of distrust could cause. And he was able to have some love for Uncle Sam as well. Now, all I see is frigging online and media propaganda and quite disturbing developments enabled by US foreign policies. Enough people have died in both world wars from Europe, Russia and the US, there is really no reason to get into a third one, based on memories of the old ones' underlying causes.
I am sorry that I have aroused your emotions with my comments, though. Let's try to have some peace and no more wars. I can't stand the thought of wars again in Europe.
The "Russian Bear"?
I have no idea what your "fascist nazis" are. ???
However, your hatred of Russia and neoconish striving for a renewed Cold War is very clear. One wonders at the source. If anyone should be anti-Russia by family history, it's me. My Polish relatives were under the thumb of Russia for generations. My grandfather was spirited away to America in 1913 to avoid the Tsar's draft on young Polish men. My Finnish relatives suffered mightily at the hands of the Russians.
But your unreasoning hatred is baffling. Russia annexed the Eastern Bloc in 1944 after losing 20 million Russians to German invasion. Russian history revolves around invasion by foreign nations, Napoleonic France among them. They have good reason to be fearful of encroachment by NATO.
I cannot accept your desire to restart the Cold War and your aim of destroying Russia. This is the 21st Century. It's time to grow up and put armed conflict behind us.
I tend to agree more with you generally,
although I think I might see things a little bit differently than you. I see PNAC's dirty fingers all over the bedeviling of Russia AND China. But when talking politics - especially foreign policy - there are a thousand shades of grey.
Putin pushing himself back into a position of power was perfect cover for NATO to bedevil him. NATO knew they were pressing the issue trying to lure Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, especially with talk of joining the EU. It knew neither country was ready culturally or monetarily to join either institution. And with that darn "Star Wars" defense shield right in Russia's backyard, what "former foe" wouldn't go into paranoid overdrive?
But I am of the mind we need to get our men and women back stateside. Ye High Muckety-Mucks of the U.S. have all but declared war on the whole world - whether by design or by fumbling the ball, and we keep adding more countries to the list. In addition to the ME, PNAC has wanted to bring down Russia and China in the worst way. What better way than for old Cold War Warriors restarting the Cold War anew.
Besides, those old war-mongering High Muckety-Mucks have to do *something* to keep themselves in power and money. They're not about to go gently into that dark night...
No one (certainly not I) here are
I just want them to stop harassing their neighbours, to recognize that Eastern Europe is lost to Russia, and to accept that any desire to return to the "status quo ante 1991", especially through the use of threats and coercion, is contrary to international norms of behaviour.
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
Wow
That Drone Strike link is astounding!
I can't understand why those stats weren't headline news, for weeks on end.