National Security Policy - Clinton vs. Bush

As President Bill Clinton took office the principle adversary of the United States for nearly half a century crumbled. Clinton stated soon thereafter that the United States found itself in a unique position, suggesting that with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, America would be able to put aside the rivalry of the cold war and focus on the betterment of the general human condition. His suggested intent was to improve economies, bear down on civil rights abuses, decrease greenhouse gas emissions, and generally be more neighborly to America’s global neighbors. In a word, Clinton’s national security strategy involved engagement, engagement of every nation that wanted to engage.

Unfortunately his strategy seemed to included a whole lot of engaging and not a whole lot of acting. In case after case, Clinton refused to take risks. It was easy for him to deploy American troops to far off areas, launch tomahawk missiles and engage in outraged rhetoric, but when America’s security demanded real forceful response, when America’s security was imperiled by outside threats, his response was to cut military spending and expect America’s defenses to do more work on less pay.

Terrorist attacks and numerous engagements of American military personnel dotted the Clinton Administration’s time in office. The first World Trade Center bombing, Khobar Towers, Kenya/Tanzania embassy bombings and the USS Cole highlight the rising strategic imperative terrorism posed to the United States. Interstate conflicts of Clinton’s tenure include Bosnia, Haiti, Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as numerous African engagements from Liberia to Tanzania. The defining moment of Clinton’s national security strategy of engagement came, I believe, when shortly after taking office, on October 3-4, 1993, American military personnel attempted to capture Mohamed Farrah Aidid, a Somali warlord in the capital, Mogadishu. Defining because it set the pattern for future potential American military confrontations throughout Clinton’s presidency, that of inaction. Clinton ordered the withdrawal of American troops within days of the incident. Although American troops were frequently deployed throughout his presidency, Clinton thereafter shied away from committing American troops to combat but more than a dozen times sent American forces to police the globe. Clinton too heavily engaged in the left wing philosophy that pacifism and appeasement are rational means of confronting legitimate threats to America’s national security.

When George W. Bush took office he set about increasing support for America’s military (albeit not by much) and assembling a national security strategy that took on very definite threats rather than cavorting in vagaries as a means of evading problematic issues. Those threats included rogue states, Weapons of Mass Destruction and terrorism, with heavy emphasis on ballistic missile defense. Bush initially believed America’s greatest threat would come from rogue sovereign states such as Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. His BMD plans suggest he thought the threat of a ballistic missile attack was America’s gravest threat. Perhaps he believed there was no grave threat and BMD was a rational focal point for national security direction. Although Bush included terrorism in his national security assessments, he certainly didn’t give it the attention it probably deserved (it’s easy to say that in hindsight).

Terrorism has been a problem for the United States for decades and the number of attacks against American interests worldwide since the 1970s is quite notable. Ronald Regan saw dozens of terrorist attacks in his time in office, from both drug cartels and Islamic extremists, Clinton experienced the same, and George W. Bush should have had the foresight to realize that unconventional and asymmetric warfare would likely be a major source of international strife in the new millennium. While Clinton may be scorned for his flighty and noncommittal approach to national security, dabbling in numerous engagements around the world, George W. Bush, upon transition, may be seen as incognito when it comes to the reality of the threats he faced. The actual risk posed by some rogue state was probably quite minimal, especially regarding ballistic missiles, but if he had learned from the Clinton administration, he would have realized that small but heated conflicts crossing religious and cultural lines were the most persistent and notorious of the conflicts faced by past presidents.

Bush came around quickly following September 11, 2001 and although he didn’t entirely abandon his previously held positions regarding rogue states and BMD, he redirected the course of American national security to more effectively counter the threats posed by Islamic extremism and terrorism generally. He took the battle to the extremists rather than waiting for the battle to come to the homeland. He set about “winning hearts and minds” and more fully engaged civilizations in order to root out the ideologies that feed extremism.

The difference between the Clinton administration’s national security strategy as it played out, and the Bush administration’s was moderate. The difference between the national security strategy of the first 8 months of the Bush administration, and the strategy that followed was much more pronounced.

Election 2008: Hillary Clinton (D)

Foreign Policy: Human rights should be key in U.S. foreign policy. Broker Israel-Palestine peace.

Iraq: Iraq is a mess. Supported the war but criticizes strategy. Favors gradual redeployment of troops from Iraq. Criticizes civilian contract awards in OIF and OEF campaigns.

War on Terror: Anti-terror not anti-Islam.

Taxes: Cut taxes if budget permits. Companies should be taxed for on- and off-shore operations. Federal tax dollars should be distributed based on population. Tax cuts should go to students, families w/children, elderly, etc.

Social Security: Support Social Security.

Trade: Favors free trade in some cases but not others. Globalization is overrated.

Government: Pay down national debt. Balance the budget. Opposes soft money contributions. Favors campaign finance reform. Government is not always the answer.

Immigration: Favors guest worker and path to citizenship programs. Give illegal aliens social security benefits.

Homeland Security: Favors nuclear test ban. Supports funding for missile defense.

Economy: People should be able to support their families. Favors minimum wage increases (tie it to congress’ wage increases). Favors stricter rules on bankruptcy. Supports unions.

Education: Promote after school programs. Favors school uniforms. Opposes vouchers. Improve public schools – not degrade them by diverting their funding. Shift corporate tax cuts to education. Increase funding for federal student aid programs. Favors charter schools and school choice. Favors smaller class sizes and more teachers.

Health Care: Supports affordable health care and prescription drugs for all. Cut the fat in health care system. Stronger regulation of tobacco. Families and children are paramount. Permit re-importation of drugs

Welfare: If you work hard, you shouldn’t have to live in poverty. Jobs and affordable housing are critical.

Abortion: Supports Abortion. Supports partial-birth abortion.

Civil Rights: Sexual orientation a basis for hate crimes. Favors cell phone wiretapping. Favors gays in the military. Favors married couple benefits for gay couples. Favors reasonable restrictions on gun access (felons, etc.). Register all handguns.

Energy: Conserve. Favors drastically reducing oil dependence. Increase fuel efficiency standards. Prohibit oil drilling in ANWR. Develop alternative energy vehicle technologies. Favors Kyoto Protocol.

Compare Hillary Clinton's views with:

Rudy Giuliani
Barack Obama
John McCain
John Edwards
Mitt Romney
Bill Richardson
Sam Brownback
Newt Gingrich
Joe Biden