Clinton's Foreign Policy Speech: Designed to sound good, while being full of crap.

[jeff47]

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. We can not make them all get along because they deeply disagree on many issues. So much so that they would rather endanger their goal of overthrowing Assad by remaining fractured.

Also, "our efforts to support and equip viable Syrian opposition units" has been one of the main methods 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"?

Russia in Syria is doing the exact opposite of what she calls for. And there's nothing in this speech to deal with that enormous problem.

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. Their aircraft are not even equipped to drop US-built precision bombs, so we can't just hand over a big pile of boom.

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. 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.

Also, 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.

Finally, we can't allow the little people to have encryption or the terrorists win:

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 contradicts itself in multiple places, and does not demonstrate much understanding that these countries and groups have their own interests that we can not dictate.

[Scuba]

1. Since when does the US have "quite a record of success" in policing banks?

I guess when one is as beholden to banks as Hillary is, a gentle slap on the wrist for widespread fraud is "success."

[roguevalley]

21. she can wag her finger and say STOP THAT! any ideas from a woman who bought the

bull and voted to create this is just noise to me.

[Unknown Beatle]

26. Or a "Cut it out!" shout from her to the banks.

[NV Whino]

2. I seem to remember that she was part of the crew

Who destroyed the Sunnis in the first place. Is that an oops I hear, Mrs Clinton?

[sorechasm]

5. Pure Genius!

HRC has a plan to fund MIC to infinity and beyond by funding both sides of the same wars.

[Fumesucker]

3. Not quite a Gish Gallop, let's call it a Gish Trot...

[ibegurpard]

4. it was full of gravitas...

[jeff47]

6. And not much else. (nt)

[Cheese Sandwich]

7. Great post

She made a good point on Turkey but the rest of it is full of holes. It's hawkish posturing.

[jeff47]

9. IMO, Turkey is one of the weakest areas of her speech.

In her speech, she wants to give the Kurds more weapons, and tell Turkey to leave them alone.

Turkey faces an actual existential crisis from the Kurds - Turkey in its current form stands a good chance of no longer existing if the Kurds get stronger.

Meanwhile, ISIS is not much of a threat. After all, Turkey can invoke the NATO charter if ISIS invades.

According to her speech, Clinton thinks that asking Turkey to "cut it out" will get them to ignore an enormous threat and fight a minor threat.

[Cheese Sandwich]

34. IMO Turkey needs to evolve a little on the Kurdish question

They should be in talks about autonomy.

I would echo what starroute said on post #10

[jeff47]

36. They should, but it's very, very hard to give up roughly 1/3rd of your country.

The entire Middle East needs to adjust its borders to align with the ethic/tribal/sectarian identities of the people. But that very much hurts the people who are "in charge" within the current borders.

So it's going to be a long, brutal and horrific mess for a long time. Our active military presence makes it longer and messier.

(And imagine just how bad it will be if we prolong the status-quo long enough for the Saudis to get nukes)

[starroute]

10. She even gets Turkey wrong

Turkey is more of a threat to the Kurds than the Kurds are to Turkey.

In June, Erdogan's party failed to gain an absolute majority because a new party consisting of both Kurds and progressives did unexpectedly well. That why why he quickly called a second election that was held a few weeks ago and gave him the absolute majority he needs to turn the country into an Islamist dictatorship under his own absolute rule.

At the same time, he's been bombing the Kurds under the pretext of fighting ISIS -- while allowing the free flow of ISIS recruits and smuggling operations over the Turkish border. All indications are that he's trying to plunge Turkey into a civil war against the Kurds as a way of furthering his own ambitions.

So counting on Turkey on anything but more of the same at this point is ludicrous.

[winter is coming]

8. Holy cow. If that's what she brings to the table vis a vis foreign policy,

I don't want any of it.

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. Glad you made this an OP!

Great post!

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[FlatBaroque]

12. When you are one of the chief architects of this clusterfuck

you have to dance a little

[Walk away]

13. I can't wait until Bernie solves the problem by giving the Syrians $15 an hour!

When is he giving this speech I keep hearing about????

[jeff47]

14. Ironically, that would be much more effective.

One of the major causes of the civil war in Syria is poverty and lack of food caused by the drought. Giving Syrians piles of cash would probably do more to stabilize the country than all the bombs we have dropped.

[Scuba]

22. /\_/\_This right here_/\_/\

[Hepburn]

30. Certain beats bombing the heck out of them and creating more terrorists.

Hint: IWR.

[DownriverDem]

15. Reality Bites

Elections are won in the middle. It's who will the country feel comfortable with on all issues. Foreign policy issues are the ones that come up unplanned. Wake up. I will proudly vote for Hillary. She is for a lot of what I support. However if Bernie gets the Dem nomination, I will vote for him. What is it about hateful Bernie supporters? Bernie is nothing like the hate you post. It saddens me to read many Bernie supporters hateful comments.

[jeff47]

18. Accurately quoting Clinton and discussing those quotes is hate?

You should probably stop defining hatred down.

Also, you are wrong about this:

Elections are won in the middle.

The big group of voters in the middle disappeared when the Southern realignment completed.

Only 11% of the electorate is willing to vote across party lines. And they nearly split in half every election. They are also the least-informed voters, primarily voting on a whim. So they can not be reached via policy.

40% of the electorate are "marginally attached voters", who will never cross party lines, but will not vote if they do not like their party's candidate.

The roughly half of those that are Democratic-leaning are to the left of reliable Democratic voters. That's why they stayed home en-masse in 2010 and 2014, and 2012 was much closer than 2008. They stayed home.

You are aiming for 5.5% of the electorate. I'm aiming for 20% of the electorate. Perhaps we should go with the group that is 4 times larger if we actually want to win elections?

[Vincardog]

19. Elections are NOT won in the "middle" that is the tripe the DLC and third way have been selling to

Excuse their pandering to and passing policies benefitting the ownership class.
The "hate" some see from the Bernistas is simply the realization of their sellout and the rejection of their propaganda.

[Autumn]

16. Alrighty then.

This is.... never mind

[fbc]

17. K&R

[Cosmic Kitten]

20. The common thread is continued neo-liberal hegemony

Her plan is a continuation
of the neo-con plan for
American uni-polar domination.

It's about deposing Assad,
controlling energy flows through
and around Afghanistan and Syria.
And, exploiting and exacerbating
the religious civil war between
Shia and Sunni Islam.

What is most disturbing is that
Hillary appears to favor the
radical fundamentalist Sunni.
No doubt because she favors the Saudis.

[msongs]

23. I agree w/the OP. quit disrupting ISIS' online operations & let them bomb airliners w/impunity.

well actually I don''t agree with the OP on respecting ISIS' internet communications.

"Also, 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."

[jeff47]

31. What you're missing is the US government doesn't actually control the Internet.

As a result, it isn't possible to actually censor the Internet so that ISIS can not use it for recruiting.

Instead, the attempt at censorship will only harm bystanders. Because they aren't the ones who know how to avoid it.

[CoffeeCat]

24. She'll say anything during the campaign season...

...and I feel sorry for anyone who buys her schtick.

We'll be at perpetual war in the Middle East if she gets near the White House.

She's got some big-time cozy relationships with Boeing. They donated $900,000 to the Clinton foundation and a coalition of defense contractors, led by Boeing--was given $165 billion in contracts for fighter jets by Hillary Clinton's State Department. It's been widely reported that she championed the deal.

Seriously people! Is this the kind of corporate, neocon pathology that we want representing the Democrats? If I wanted a neocon cheerleader as President, I'd support Ted Cruz.

Enough of her!

http://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/arms-sales-ok-d-by-hillary-clinton-s-state-department-raise-questions

[Evergreen Emerald]

25. Anonymous internet poster versus SOS

Yeah. You are joking right?

[karynnj]

27. Maybe you could take a crack at challenging his comments?

In fact, reading his comments - most of why I think he is correct is having listened to detailed explanations by President Obama and his current Secretary of State, who are working to try to end the civil war in Syria -- not continue it. Here's hoping that before she or a Republican is President they succeed and have a working ceasefire and transition.

I am not surprised by her position - she has signaled it consistently. I had hoped that she would consider the changes of Russia's active involvement - which raises the stakes of a no fly zone against Assad, which was already too high and - for the most part - ignored the agreement from Vienna. (I detect a difference in commitment to diplomacy between them and HRC.)

[Evergreen Emerald]

28. I don't need to take a crack at it

Perhaps the Sanders colored glasses are distorting the views of you two.

[karynnj]

29. Sanders has nothing to do with this -- and incidentally I am far more impressed by Obama and Kerry

than Sanders. The op does a great job articulating points where he has major problems with Clinton's position. It is interesting that her team is positioning it as continuing and accelerating Obama's position -- yet, it is at complete variance with what he is calling for. My guess, they assume no one will look at it closely - as the op did. They are trying to get both the "we need to kick more ass" crowd AND the majority of Democrats who are in line with Obama's position.

[DhhD]

35. More Clinton Team. Seems many are going through the revolving door from BC to HRC to

privatiztion posts; seems like.

http://www.boeing.com/company/bios/timothy-keating.page
snip
Keating began his association with the Clinton administration in 1992 by serving on the transition team preparing for confirmation of the President's Cabinet.
more at link

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-complex-corporate-ties-1424403002
snip
Among recent secretaries of state, Hillary Clinton was one of the most aggressive global cheerleaders for American companies, pushing governments to sign deals and change policies to the advantage of corporate giants such as General Electric Co., Exxon Mobil Corp., Microsoft Corp. and Boeing Co.
more at link

[jeff47]

32. Because you have to be SOS to notice a proposal contradicts itself.

[WillyT]

33. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[beam me up scottie]

37. Well done, jeff!

Too bad her meaningless talking points and saber rattling are red meat for her fan club, they'll eat it up without giving it a second thought.

More regime change, more internet censorship, more boots on the ground!!!

USA! USA! USA!

[BootinUp]

38. Point by Point reply

jeff47 wrote
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.

A: All of the parties she mentions would be motivated by the elimination of ISIS, in addition to other considerations. The other considerations would be very complex I am sure, but one of the components is the fact that the US would take actions with or without their direct approval. Those actions and other considerations would be different with their direct involvement than without.

jeff47 wrote
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. We can not make them all get along because they deeply disagree on many issues. So much so that they would rather endanger their goal of overthrowing Assad by remaining fractured.

Also, "our efforts to support and equip viable Syrian opposition units" has been one of the main methods that ISIS has armed itself.

A: The first step is for the US to get buy in from all the major players that hostilities against Assad and vice-versa would cease in return for the no-fly-zone. The no-fly zone would be attractive to those fighting Assad because bombs would no longer be indiscriminately falling on them.

jeff47 wrote
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"?

Russia in Syria is doing the exact opposite of what she calls for. And there's nothing in this speech to deal with that enormous problem.

A: The way to get Russia on board is 1) stop hostilities against Assad, 2) Frame a no-fly zone as the only way to deal with the refugee crisis and civil war 3) Apply pressure on Russia through a broad coalition. 4) Other considerations that are important to Russia

jeff47 wrote
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. Their aircraft are not even equipped to drop US-built precision bombs, so we can't just hand over a big pile of boom.

A: She clearly stated in the preceding paragraph the kinds of things Jordan and other Arabs and Turkey might do:

"And we must get them to carry their share of the burden, with military intelligence and financial contributions, as well as using their influence with fighters and tribes in Iraq and Syria."

jeff47 wrote
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?

A: Clearly, she does understand the situation since she said "As difficult as it may be..." In other words, the US would use some combination of carrots and sticks to make it happen.

jeff47 wrote
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. 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.

A: You took it out of context. What she is talking about is there are other ways to put pressure on Iran, see the plan from September that she mentions.
EDITED: Clintons plan is to gain moderate Arab support to help tackle ISIS. Not to inflame another Sunni/Shia death match. This part of her plan is not rocket science.

jeff47 wrote
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.

A: Sorry, I don't really understand what you object to in the preceding two graphs. Most people, like 60+% are going to want the free-flow of ISIS members into and out of Europe halted in just about whatever way it can be, lol. I would rather a Democrat makes the final call on any changes than a repuke.

I am going to stop there, as the rest of your disagreements with her are less foreign policy and more privacy related issues. Maybe we talk about that after foreign policy.

[jeff47]

42. No, more like restating her speech as if that changes anything.

A: All of the parties she mentions would be motivated by the elimination of ISIS, in addition to other considerations.

ISIS is not their top threat. Getting rid of ISIS is nice. But the Shia controlling Iraq are in far more danger from the Kurds and the Sunnis that remain.

You also ignored Turkey.

The other considerations would be very complex I am sure, but one of the components is the fact that the US would take actions with or without their direct approval.

Yeah...how exactly is giving guns to the Shia's enemies without their approval going to turn them into allies?

A: The way to get Russia on board is 1) stop hostilities against Assad, 2) Frame a no-fly zone as the only way to deal with the refugee crisis and civil war 3) Apply pressure on Russia through a broad coalition. 4) Other considerations that are important to Russia

1 Means the rebels stop helping us. Deposing Assad is their primary goal.

2 No-fly zone has absolutely nothing to do with refugees. The theoretical goal of such a zone is to prevent Assad from using his air force against the rebels. But his air force is basically non-functional now. That's why Russia is acting as his air force.

And since Russia is acting as his air force, they are not going to respect a "no fly zone". Now what? You want to shoot down Russian aircraft in order to enforce the no fly zone?

3 Yeah, how'd that pressure through a broad coalition work on preventing Russia from annexing Crimea?

and 4 is just insulting. At least have the integrity to say "I don't know".

A: She clearly stated in the preceding paragraph the kinds of things Jordan and other Arabs and Turkey might do:

"And we must get them to carry their share of the burden, with military intelligence and financial contributions, as well as using their influence with fighters and tribes in Iraq and Syria."

Jordan is not a wealthy country, so not much from financial contributions. They also have little to no influence with "the fighters and tribes in Iraq and Syria". So no, that isn't how Jordan can help.

The only thing Jordan has is a military. But they do not have the logistics to support deploying their troops to Syria, and they do not have the technology for their air force to avoid slaughtering lots of civilians.

A: Clearly, she does understand the situation since she said "As difficult as it may be..." In other words, the US would use some combination of carrots and sticks to make it happen.

Let me try rephrasing that in a way you might understand.

"As difficult as it may be to give New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California to Mexico....."

That is the sort of scale of what she is asking. Would you find that acceptable? Do you think the Republicans would? 'Cause Turkey has the equivalent of Republicans, and they're currently the ones in power.

A: You took it out of context. What she is talking about is there are other ways to put pressure on Iran, see the plan from September that she mentions.
EDITED: Clintons plan is to gain moderate Arab support to help tackle ISIS. Not to inflame another Sunni/Shia death match. This part of her plan is not rocket science.

That Sunni/Shia death match is already happening in Yemen. To claim you're going to get "moderate Arab support" to ignore that in order to fight ISIS is to pretend the US would abandon West Berlin in 1984.

Who's got one of the biggest and most effective militaries in the region? Iran. Who has the greatest ethic, tribal and religious animosity to ISIS? Iran. Who's currently tying up other Arab states in a proxy war in Yemen? Iran. You either get Iran directly involved in the fight on ISIS, or you make it impossible for the "Moderate" Arab nations to act against ISIS militarily in any significant way.

A: Sorry, I don't really understand what you object to in the preceding two graphs. Most people, like 60+% are going to want the free-flow of ISIS members into and out of Europe halted in just about whatever way it can be, lol.

Remember that Snowden guy? Remember how up in arms so many people were about what he leaked?

Clinton's asking to ramp that up. A lot.

[BootinUp]

43. One thing is for sure

the plan she has put forward depends on many details being worked through, and at no point does it involve large scale US ground forces. Either you are greatly exaggerating the difficulty or she is greatly underestimating the difficulty. I will mention that prior to the Paris attacks General Wes Clark wrote an article recommending an approach very similar to what she has outlined here. And I trust his opinion on it.

[jeff47]

44. I'd find that much more acceptable if she were O'Malley or Sanders

But one of her campaign's main "selling points" is her foreign policy experience. And ignoring Russia is WAY too big of a gaping hole in a plan by someone who's supposed to be a master at diplomacy.

[BootinUp]

45. Still can't figure out what you mean "Ignoring Russia"?

QUESTION: Jim Ziren (ph), Madam Secretary. Hi. Back to the no- fly zone. are you advocating a no-fly zone over the entire country or a partial no-fly zone over an enclave where refugees might find a safe haven? And in the event of either, do you foresee see you might be potentially provoking the Russians?
CLINTON: I am advocating the second, a no-fly zone principally over northern Syria close to the Turkish (ph) border, cutting off the supply lines, trying to provide some safe refuges for refugees so they don’t have to leave Syria, creating a safe space away from the barrel bombs and the other bombardments by the Syrians. And I would certainly expect to and hope to work with the Russians to be able to do that.
You know, the Russians have, as you know, then I primarily focused on Assad’s enemies and not on ISIS. I think that has changed, and there is an indication that has changed. After Hollande comes here, he’s going to go to Moscow to see Putin, and I — and as I said earlier, I think getting Russia to play a role in that and getting Assad to understand that what happens to him will be a result of a political resolution, which Secretary Kerry is undertaking right now, but to have a swath of territory that could be a safe zone both for Syrians so they wouldn’t have to leave but also for humanitarian relief. And I think that it would give us this extra leverage that I’m looking for in the diplomatic pursuits with Russia with respect to the political outcome in Syria.

[jeff47]

46. Yes, ignoring Russia.

CLINTON: I am advocating the second, a no-fly zone principally over northern Syria close to the Turkish (ph) border,

Guess where Russia's been doing a large portion of their bombing?

"International pressure" utterly failed with Crimea and Ukraine. Why on Earth would it suddenly get Putin to abandon one of his last and most strategically important allies?

Again, if she wasn't trying to sell herself as a master diplomat, I wouldn't be nearly as critical on this point. But she is trying to sell herself as a master diplomat.

[Segami]

39. Kick!

& R.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

40. This makes perfect sense to Republicans....

Iran is to be destroyed in Reagan's name, amen.

Putin looks good with his shirt off. (rowr!)

Israel? What have they got to do with it?

The rebels against Assad need to remember they work for US and we work for the Saudis.

The winner will be determined by who can be bought cheap.

[EndElectoral]

41. kick..good post.

[reformist2]

47. Hillary's 68-pronged plan of applying pressure, sanctions, arming rebels, etc. will give us more war

Anytime you hear someone talk about arming some random rag-tag group in the Middle East, alarm bells should go off, and one should run as far as possible from such people.

When will we ever learn, the only way to end the senseless violence is to STOP FUNDING IT!!

[Hekate]

48. Hmmm. Complex speech. The People call out for simplicity. So does the Media. Simple answers!

We must have simple answers! Simple declarative sentences!

The GOPers will answer the call....