Transcript read Hillary Clinton's speech on fighting ISIS

[karynnj]

Source: Time

So the task of bringing Sunnis off the sidelines into this new fight will be considerably more difficult. But nonetheless, we need to lay the foundation for a second Sunni awakening. We need to put sustained pressure on the government in Baghdad to get its political house in order, move forward with national reconciliation, and finally stand up a national guard. Baghdad needs to accept, even embrace, arming Sunni and Kurdish forces in the war against ISIS. But if Baghdad won’t do that, the coalition should do so directly.

On the Syrian side, the big obstacle to getting more ground forces to engage ISIS, beyond the Syrian Kurds who are already deep in the fight, is that the viable Sunni opposition groups remain understandably preoccupied with fighting Assad who, let us remember, has killed many more Syrians than the terrorists have. But they are increasingly under threat from ISIS as well.

So we need to move simultaneously toward a political solution to the civil war that paves the way for a new government with new leadership, and to encourage more Syrians to take on ISIS as well. To support them, we should immediately deploy the special operations force President Obama has already authorized, and be prepared to deploy more as more Syrians get into the fight. And we should retool and ramp up our efforts to support and equip viable Syrian opposition units.

Our increased support should go hand in hand with increased support from our Arab and European partners, including special forces who can contribute to the fight on the ground. We should also work with the coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop Assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from the air. Opposition forces on the ground, with material support from the coalition, could then help create safe areas where Syrians could remain in the country, rather than fleeing toward Europe.



Read more: http://time.com/4120295/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-isis/

---

The whole thing is there -- 4 paragraphs can't really cover. She is far more hawkish than Obama/Kerry -- and views Russia as negative.

[oberliner]

1. Assad butchering his own people definitely complicates things

As HRC points out, many Syrians are more interested in ousting Assad than in fighting ISIS.

And the fact the Russia is pro-Assad as well doesn't help the situation.

[bigdarryl]

2. More ground troops is not going to go over well with the democratic party voters

TOTAL!! bullshit the million dollar question I have is why are we so hell bent on taking Assad out anyway.This sounds like some neocon bullshit.

[REALforever]

6. Did You See Something about US Ground Troops In that speech?

I sure didn't.. It's best to be objective instead of subjective when judging OTHERS actions IMO.. You?

[adir]

10. It's right there in the article.

To support them, we should immediately deploy the special operations force President Obama has already authorized, and be prepared to deploy more as more Syrians get into the fight. And we should retool and ramp up our efforts to support and equip viable Syrian opposition units.

What do you think the Obama special operations force is? Highly trained ground troops. And Hillary wants to prepare to send more.

[bigdarryl]

12. Yep

[REALforever]

3. So the "Doveish" Approach would be do NOTHING?

C'mon, what she stated is basically common sense in view of what we have faced when it comes to this "War on Terror".

She is not asking to start a war with Syria, like Bush did with Iraq. In that regard she' wants to stop Assad from killing the people that are fleeing. That's quite "doveish" IMO.

So if I can get this right, YOU would prefer that the US do NOTHING

This Hillary vs Bernie shit is why I barely read this forum anymore. But, has made me rejoin because I don't want to see you types elect Trump

[Robbins]

5. supporting bernie isn't electing trump

but i expect that from clinton supporters.

I don't want americans to die in middle east and guess who pays for all this war.not the top 1% but the disabled and seniros on social safety net.

Clinton is friendly with Kissinger and the bushes.

[karynnj]

7. The comparison is to Obama -- who is definitely doing more than "nothing"

Last edited Thu Nov 19, 2015, 10:21 PM - Edit history (1)

The fact is that Obama has created a 65 nation coalition including many Arab countries. They have reduced the land ISIS has by 25% and they are acting to do most of the things that Clinton speaks of. In addition, this last weekend, there was a Vienna summit that included Russia, Iran, the UN, Saudi Arabia, EU, France, UK and many other countries. They now have a framework for getting a political transition and a cease fire in Syria.

Where HRC seems to differ - is that she is doubling down on training the Syrian rebels - even though an expensive, concerted effort led to the embarrassing result of now having about FIVE fighters from the program. In addition, she is proposing a no fly zone ---against Assad. How do you do that - especially as the Russian and the Syrians have planes in the air. Note that Obama pointed out that the no fly zone is not against ISIS - which is not using planes.

This is NOT Hillary vs Bernie shit -- this is trusting President Obama and Secretary Kerry over Hillary Clinton. (I do see that SOME of the logic that people like Kerry have been key in getting accepted - specifically that it can not be US/Western people as ground troops and you need people living in the region to be there to provide governance as they take back land. Neither of those men are involved in the Presidential campaign.

[bemildred]

11. +1. nt

[Depaysement]

22. Very good post

Hillary is still invested in the Syrian rebels and anti-Iranian rhetoric. A no-fly zone means direct conflict with Russian Su-24s and 25s. This is daft.

[adir]

13. "Do NOTHING"?

No, the US should do something. It should get out of the Middle East. That is the only to solve the terrorism problem in Europe and America. The people who live there are adults. We should leave them to sort things out for themselves. We are not their parents.

[uppityperson]

19. I thought you might've decided one of the hobbies I suggest were right for you

[Old Codger]

4. Brings to mind

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein

Gonna do another regime change because that has worked so well all the other times..

More hawkishness just what we need in an already out of control insane situation which was perpetrated by these same actions...

[Truprogressive85]

8. No country for Hawks

1. Attacking Putin/Russia as if the Russians don't share an interest in defeating Deash

2. Calling for Assad to go and place him with who ? Iraq and Libya ring a bell

[MBS]

9. Thanks for posting this information

This seems completely consistent with her past votes, past policy speeches and written documents and throughly confirms my prediction that HRC would be much more hawkish than Obama and Kerry. . . and unfortunately so, since Obama and Kerry are much more aligned to my view of foreign policy than HRC.
In short, though I'm not pleased, I'm also not surprised.
But she will have my vote in the general election, if she is the Dem. nominee.
Because any of the Republican candidates would be a nightmare.
Because she has the experience to be president.
And also because , whatever my several doubts, I do believe that HRC would appoint good and competent people to the Supreme Court. And if a far-right Court gets entrenched in our country for the next few decades, our already-ailing democracy is over.

Rinse and repeat: SCOTUS, SCOTUS, SCOTUS.

[karynnj]

17. +10000

I wonder if the timeline from Vienna might make HRC's plans obsolete by the time she took office. In the best case, there is a working ceasefire and a transitional government has worked out the constitution and called for elections, no US President will do anything than let it play out. Like the Iran deal, if it is working -- no one is going to change this INTERNATIONAL solution.

In fact, it might be that the specter of a return to neocon might lead to urgency on the part of the world to try to resolve anything we can. while President Obama and Secretary Kerry are in their offices.

[Kelvin Mace]

20. The GOP is not going to allow her, or any other Dem to

appoint anyone to the SCOTUS, unless they are to the right of Scalia. We lost the court when Biden botched the Thomas hearings and again when the Dems refused to filibuster Alito and Roberts.

This is a dead issue.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

14. Russia supports Assad.

Assad is a terrible human being. Russia picked the wrong side, IMHO. I view them negatively as well.

[karynnj]

21. Actually, it is not clear there was a good side

Many of the rebels - previously identified as "moderates joined ISIS or Al Nusra. Russia was allied with Syria for decades - so, it's not that they "picked" a side. Just because Assad is a wrong side - and he is - does not mean there was a right side.

As Obama has said - Syrians deserve a choice that is not ISIS/AQ AND not Assad.

[starroute]

15. And this "second Sunni awakening" business

As if the first one had been anything real and not just a matter of us bribing tribal leaders.

Here's an NPR interview from a year ago September indicating that the Obama administration was already hoping to do just that -- and finding that the bitterness left over from the first go-round and Sunni distrust of the Shi'ite-dominated Iraqi government might be insurmountable obstacles.
http://www.npr.org/2014/09/11/347738168/obamas-isis-plan-a-sunni-awakening-part-two

And an LATimes article from the previous June saying much the same thing.
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-iraq-sunni-awakening-20140624-story.html

And here's a Newsweek article from this past January raising more questions.
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/02/06/awakening-part-ii-301906.html

All of them make clear that the notion of Bagjhdad "embracing" Sunni and Kurdish forces and creating an effective national guard is a pipe dream. So what Hillary is really calling for is US troops on the ground.

Can you spell Q-U-A-G-M-I-R-E?

[adir]

18. Exactly.

+1.

[pinstikfartherin]

16. The question and answers were interesting.

Her answers to the questions revealed, to me at least, that even her ideas don't really address the things we need to address. Like Saudi Arabia, like the fact that our arming of the rebels hasn't proved helpful.

In other words, it was nothing really new, IMO.

[riversedge]

23. A REC for the morning crowd.