Hillary the Hawk

The Cairo Review of Global Affairs, Winter 2016: Her hawkish views go well beyond her strident support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and subsequent occupation and counter-insurgency war. From Afghanistan to Western Sahara, she has advocated for military solutions to complex political problems, backed authoritarian allies and occupying armies, dismissed war crimes, and opposed political involvement by the UN and its agencies. In Michael Crowley’s 2014 story in TIME, Obama administration officials noted how she was “skeptical of diplomacy with Iran, and firmly opposed to talk of a ‘containment’ policy that would be an alternative to military action should negotiations with Tehran fail.” Clinton disapproved of the opposition expressed by Pentagon officials regarding a possible U.S. attack on Iran because she insisted “the Iranians had to believe we would use force if diplomacy failed.”

The Five Lamest Excuses for Hillary Clinton’s Vote to Invade Iraq

In These Times February 1, 2016: Also published in:
Common Dreams, Counterpunch, Consortium News, Democratic Underground, News.Alayham.com, Antiwar.com, Foreign Policy in Focus, My Trust In Conflict, Portside.org, RINF.com, Reddit, The Scott Horton Show radio, and referenced in other media. e.g., Mondoweiss.net.
  The primary reasons Clinton gave for supporting President George W. Bush’s request for authorizing that illegal and unnecessary war have long been proven false. As a result, many Democratic voters are questioning — despite her years of foreign policy experience — whether Clinton has the judgment and integrity to lead.

What We Can Expect From Hillary Clinton on Israel/Palestine

Truthout December 5, 2015 and republished in FreeList.org: Hillary Clinton’s support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq (a flagrant violation of the UN Charter) and Morocco’s illegal annexation of occupied Western Sahara, as well as her hostility toward the International Criminal Court and attacks against the UN and key agencies, raise concerns her election would bring a return to the Bush administration’s neoconservative rejection of longstanding international legal principles…

Obama’s Escalation in Syria

The Progressive November 5, 2015 [and the Huffington Post]
Obama’s plan to send up to 50 U.S. Special Forces to “train, advise and assist” armed militia fighting forces of the so-called “Islamic State” in Syria marks an escalation in U.S. military involvement and raises serious legal, political, strategic, ethical, and constitutional questions and may open the way to a far larger and dangerous military entanglements.

Bipartisan Attacks Against Anti-occupation Divestment Campaigns

National Catholic Reporter September 8, 2015
[Republished by the Huffington Post & PeaceandJustice.org]
In April, the student senate at Earlham College, a Quaker liberal arts institution in Indiana, approved a resolution by consensus recommending the college endowment divest from three U.S. companies (Motorola, Hewlett Packard and Caterpillar) which directly support the Israeli occupation in violation of international law. The resolution (thus far ignored by the college’s board of trustees) follows decisions by a number of Quaker-affiliated organizations — as well as the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ, and other nonprofit groups — to divest from these companies. The response was swift…

The Troubling Implications of Hillary’s Anti-BDS Letter

Foreign Policy In Focus July 10, 2015
[Republished by Arab America, Common Dreams, Counterpunch, Groupe Gaulliste Sceaux, the Huffington Post, Tablet Magazine, Truthout, and ZNetwork.org] On July 2, Hillary Clinton wrote a letter to Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban, a strong supporter of the right-wing Netanyahu government, denouncing human rights activists who support boycott/divestment/sanctions (BDS) against the Israeli occupation.

Hillary Clinton, phosphates, and the Western Sahara

National Catholic Reporter May 12, 2015 [Also by the Huffington Post]
For more than a half-century, a series of UN resolutions and rulings by the International Court of Justice have underscored the rights of inhabitants of countries under colonial rule or foreign military occupation. Among these is the right to “freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources,” which “must be based on the principles of equality and of the right of peoples and nations to self-determination”…