You could hear the gravitas and experience in Sec. Clinton's FP address, right from the start

[bigtree]

...good tone, good appearance.

On substance... no ground troops in combat in Iraq or Syria, though, more airstrikes; more U.S. bombing in support of local and regional forces. Still, parroting the need for 'advisers' hedge and including an intention to 'embed' them with foreign troops.

I think that's a slippery slope, especially if included in some new resolution. It reeks of a wider war. Anytime American forces are involved in that region, they generate more resistance that they can put down.

Moreover, conflating the terrorist fight with ambitions at regime change in Syria, as Sec. Clinton did today, has contradictory aims and counterproductive effects which also auger wider U.S. military commitments.

I can't help project my own dissatisfaction with the Obama administration's approach to ISIS, Iraq, and Syria - with which Sec. Clinton was intimately involved - onto the presentation. I heard a bit of talk at the beginning of her address about objecting to the number of forces deployed during the last invasion and occupation of Iraq, but I didn't hear a sufficient admonition from Sec. Clinton about the autocratic use of our military forces which, both characterized the Bush administration's approach to warring, and many of Pres. Obama's justifications for his present military involvement in Iraq. Those justifications include his use of Bush-era resolutions as 'authority' to commit forces. I would like to see some distancing from that deliberate muddle of excuses for avoiding legislative accountability.

I didn't hear anything about the reflexive use of force either, although, Sec. Clinton did outline several diplomatic initiatives and was very specific about cooperation efforts and initiatives she'd likely pursue with our allies and others in the affected region.

There was also a very knowledgeable discussion about anti-terrorist measures short of war, such as law enforcement and efforts to stem the financing of terrorist networks.

Sec. Clinton made a vague reference to our privacy rights which needed much more discussion in light of her support of the Patriot Act.

There was a very strong defense of Syrian refugees, though she still didn't provide a number to be admitted that she'd regard as acceptable.

It was, overall, a very strong speech; well-balanced and substantive, even though I found many areas of dissatisfaction and disagreement.

[msrizzo]

1. Thanks for your fair analysis

I missed it.

[bigtree]

2. the c-span link lets you replay the speech

here: http://www.c-span.org/video/?400960-1/hillary-clinton-national-security-address&live#

click on 'watch from beginning'

[riversedge]

5. Thank you

[bigtree]

10. you're welcome

[JaneyVee]

3. Great analysis.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. You are a gentleman. I wish I had the discipline to remain as objective as you are.

bigtree, you are a beacon of light in a sea of darkness.

[Cheese Sandwich]

6. But is she still demanding regime change in Syria?

That's one of the main policies that led to Syria becoming a failed state in the first place.

[jeff47]

12. Yes. In fact, she wants to send more arms to rebel groups to accomplish it. (nt)

[closeupready]

7. LOL

[bigtree]

8. thanks for the kick

[closeupready]

9. Very welcome.

[jeff47]

11. Her speech was crap designed to sound good.

First, you seem to have missed her call for regime change in Iraq.

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.

The Shia that dominate Iraq's government are not about to arm the factions that want to separate Iraq into three countries. Also, arming the Kurds is going to make Turkey very, very angry.

Second, she throws out the magic reconciliation fairy in Syria

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.

The rebel groups in Syria are "preoccupied with fighting Assad"? WTF? The entire reason they exist is to fight Assad.

Also, they are multiple factions because they don't all agree with each other. That's why Assad still has the largest military in Syria.

Also, "our efforts to support and equip viable Syrian opposition units" has been the primary method that ISIS has armed itself.

Next big problem: She seems to forget Russia is actually in Syria right now:

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.

Uh...there's this other superpower on the planet that's flying planes in Syria. And they are not our "European partner". In fact, they are bombing those "viable Syrian opposition units" Clinton wants to build up. Why on Earth would they respect our "no-fly zone"?

She also seems utterly unaware of the military capabilities of the countries in the region.

Countries like Jordan have offered more, and we should take them up on it, because ultimately our efforts will only succeed if the Arabs and Turks step up in a much bigger way. This is their fight and they need to act like it.

Jordan can't do more, because Jordan lacks precision bombs. They only have "dumb" bombs that are going to blow up large numbers of civilians.

She also doesn't seem to understand Turkey's situation at all:

So far, however, Turkey has been more focused on the Kurds than on countering ISIS. And to be fair, Turkey has a long and painful history with Kurdish terrorist groups. But the threat from ISIS cannot wait. As difficult as it may be, we need to get Turkey to stop bombing Kurdish fighters in Syria who are battling ISIS, and become a full partner in our coalition efforts against ISIS.

Turkey is attempting to fend off a civil war. Roughly the Eastern 1/3rd of Turkey is Kurdish, and they very much want to join a newly-formed Kurdistan. Which would be created by the US arming Iraqi Kurds.

Her plan is to tell Turkey to just ignore the brewing civil war because we want them to fight ISIS instead. Why on Earth would they agree to the destruction of their country because we want them to?

Next, she seems to not know the religious sects involved:

In September, I laid out a comprehensive plan to counter Iranian influence across the region and its support for terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas. We cannot view Iran and ISIS as separate challenges. Regional politics are too interwoven. Raising the confidence of our Arab partners and raising the costs to Iran for bad behavior will contribute to a more effective fight against ISIS.

Uh...Iran doesn't like ISIS. Iran is Shiite. ISIS is Suni. ISIS wants to destroy Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas too. If you actually want to exploit the sectarian conflict in the Middle East to destroy ISIS, you need to let Iran loose on ISIS. Not contain them.

She shifts to the "broader fight" and immediately calls for more spying:

Most urgent is stopping the flow of foreign fighters to and from the war zones of the Middle East. Thousands — thousands of young recruits have flocked to Syria from France, Germany, Belgium, the United Kingdom and, yes, even the United States. Their western passports make it easier for them to cross borders and eventually return home radicalized and battle hardened. Stemming this tide will require much better coordination and information-sharing among countries every step of the way. We should not stop pressing until Turkey, where most foreign fighters cross into Syria, finally locks down its border.

The United States and our allies need to know and share the identities of every fighter who has traveled to Syria. We also have to be smart and target interventions that will have the greatest impact. For example, we need a greater focus on shutting down key enablers who arrange transportation, documents and more.

She also gives yet another pass to Wall Street:

They have a resolution that does try to block terrorist financing and other enabling activities, but we have to place more obligations on countries to police their own banks, and the United States, which has quite a record of success in this area, can share more intelligence to help other countries.

Apparently, UBS's "Ooops! Sorry! We won't do it again!" was sufficient.

Hey look! Internet Censorship! That works SO well!

Radicalization and recruitment also is happening online. There’s no doubt we have to do a better job contesting online space, including websites and chat rooms where jihadists communicate with followers. We must deny them virtual territory just as we deny them actual territory.

(snip)

We need more of that, including from the private sector. Social media companies can also do their part by swiftly shutting down terrorist accounts, so they’re not used to plan, provoke or celebrate violence.

Also, we can't allow the little people to have encryption:

Another challenge is how to strike the right balance of protecting privacy and security. Encryption of mobile communications presents a particularly tough problem. We should take the concerns of law enforcement and counterterrorism professionals seriously. They have warned that impenetrable encryption may prevent them from accessing terrorist communications and preventing a future attack. On the other hand, we know there are legitimate concerns about government intrusion, network security, and creating new vulnerabilities that bad actors can and would exploit. So we need Silicon Valley not to view government as its adversary. We need to challenge our best minds in the private sector to work with our best minds in the public sector to develop solutions that will both keep us safe and protect our privacy.

This is a speech designed to sound like she knows foreign policy. The actual policy she lays out is crap.

[Bread and Circus]

13. "reeks of a wider war" <<< ding ding

[bigtree]

14. kick

[mcar]

15. Good objective analysis

Thanks bigtree