Hillary as president will be a disaster

The Benghazi attack is arguably a more egregious example of her incompetence, not least because she failed to heed any of the warnings about possible terror strikes against US diplomats in Libya

At a time when the West is crying out for strong leadership from Washington, confirmation that Hillary Clinton is seeking the Democratic nomination for next year’s presidential election hardly inspires confidence. In the video Hillary posted on the internet announcing her candidacy, she made it clear that she would be pursuing a populist, socially liberal strategy, primarily aimed at securing blue-collar votes.

There is no mention in the 90-second clip about the kind of leadership she intends to provide on the world stage if her challenge for the White House is successful, which is just as well given her less-than-impressive performance during the four years she spent as secretary of state.

Many on the Left, both in the US and in Britain, are still trying to cling to the fiction that Hillary’s idealist attempts to cast American foreign policy in a fresh, nonconfrontational light during her term at the State Department was a brilliant success.

Commenting on Hillary’s declaration, President Barack Obama, her rival for the Democratic nomination in 2008, said that, based on her “outstanding” track record at the State Department, she would make “an excellent president”.

In London, meanwhile, the Royal Institute for International Affairs has even awarded her the prestigious Chatham House Prize for what it claims were her foreign policy accomplishments.

Yet, looking back at her record, it could equally be argued that Hillary’s tenure as secretary of state was an unmitigated disaster. This started with her ridiculous attempt to “reset” relations with Moscow at the beginning of her term, and ended with the deadly attack on the US consulate in Benghazi in 2012 by Islamists, in which four people were murdered, including the ambassador, Christopher Stevens. Despite Hillary’s clumsy effort in 2009 to ingratiate herself with Sergei Lavrov, her Russian opposite number, by presenting him with a box that was supposed to include a red “reset” button (instead the State Department mistakenly had the Russian word for “overcharged” engraved on the box), the Russians have lost none of their appetite for confrontation with the West.

From last year’s illegal annexation of Crimea to this week’s incident in which a US reconnaissance aircraft was buzzed by Russian warplanes over the Baltic, Russia is testing the West’s nerves. On Tuesday, the Royal Navy was even obliged to deploy HMS Argyll, a Type 23 frigate, to escort a Russian destroyer and two support ships as they passed through the English Channel.

The Benghazi attack is arguably a more egregious example of Hillary’s incompetence, not least because she failed to heed any of the warnings about possible terror attacks against US diplomats in Libya. She did nothing to implement improved security measures at the consulate that might have saved the lives of Stevens and the other victims.

Military campaign

Moreover, in the wake of the attacks, Hillary was responsible for Washington adopting the policy whereby it washed its hands of Libya, even though American participation in the military campaign to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 was instrumental in turning the country into the Islamist-dominated, lawless basket case it has become. Looking back, Hillary’s inadequate response to major foreign policy challenges echoes her husband’s unconvincing performance during his presidency in the Nineties.

Throughout Bill Clinton’s eight-year tenure at the White House, the president earned a reputation for being conflictaverse, occasionally lobbing the odd salvo of cruise missiles at Saddam Hussain when he refused to comply with UN weapons inspectors and resisting Tony Blair’s calls for ground troops to be deployed in the Balkans to prevent more ethnic cleansing.

The most damning indictment of Clinton’s hands-off approach is contained in the findings of the 9/11 Commission report, which argues that his refusal to take effective measures against Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaida terror cell in Afghanistan resulted in the September 11 attacks. Today, with so many new threats on the horizon, the last thing the West needs is another Clinton in the White House. And yet, when you look at the feebleness of the West’s response to Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), as well as Russia’s appetite for military adventurism, it could be argued that the Clintonian doctrine of avoiding confrontation at all costs has become the accepted mantra for handling international crises.

Indeed, it is an approach that has been readily adopted by all the main political parties in Britain, none of which has found it necessary to highlight defence and security issues in their election manifestos. This week, the Tories happily boasted of steering Britain towards a “bright, more secure future” without making any firm commitment to provide adequate funding for the military after the election.

While Hillary will be hoping she can also avoid discussing bothersome security issues, it is in everyone’s interests, on both sides of the Atlantic, that a more convincing candidate emerges in the race for the White House if threats such as Russia and Daesh are to be prevented from making further inroads. Rather than always allowing the enemy to gain the upper hand, we need leaders in both the White House and Downing Street who have the strength of character to fight for what they believe in.

● Looking back at her record, it could equally be argued that Hillary’s tenure as secretary of state was an unmitigated disaster. This started with her ridiculous attempt to “reset” relations with Moscow at the beginning of her term ...

● While Hillary will be hoping she can also avoid discussing bothersome security issues, it is in everyone’s interests, on both sides of the Atlantic, that a more convincing candidate emerges in the race for the White House ...