Much has been made over the hawkish tendencies of Hillary Clinton. She voted for the Iraq War in ’02, supported Obama’s Afghanistan surge in ’09, strongly advocated for intervention in Libya in ’11, and has called for a no fly zone in Syria on the campaign trail. The New York Times Magazine wrote this wonderful profile on how the junior senator from N.Y. who sat on the Senate Armed Services Committee became the hawk that she is today.
Her critics often lump her in with John McCain, the hawk to end all hawks, which I think is unfair but you can’t deny her trend to advocate for the use of military force. You’ll recall the term “smart power” that, as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was famous for employing. She focused on building coalitions and approving sanctions as a way to manipulate outcomes and using force only when necessary.
We’ll have to wait and see how she would use the military if she gets elected but I think some of the perceptions on her are a little exaggerated. Is she more likely than Obama to take more forceful position on issues like Syria? Probably. Is she some trigger happy stateswoman that is just waiting for the next conflict so she can send some troops? No.