Hillary's Umbrella of Deterrence is dangerous - comments by Doug Bandow, former asst to Reagan

[dkf]

But Doug Bandow, a former special assistant to President Reagan, says this proposal is a dangerous one.

"It’s one thing to promise to respond to a nuclear attack by a potential global hegemon, the Soviet Union, against a major ally, such as Germany or Japan, especially when Washington has deliberately disarmed them," he wrote last year in The National Interest. "Very different is to promise to protect Jordan or Kuwait, friendly countries, true, but neither historic nor important allies, against an attack by Iran, a regional power without global reach. The latter is an extraordinary extension of a doctrine fraught with danger."

That's because, he wrote, such an umbrella "makes conflict more likely in other ways. First, if the U.S. commitment is not credible, there is no deterrent effect. ...Second, if war erupts, U.S. involvement (assuming America makes good on its promise) is automatic. Washington loses the ability to weigh costs and benefits in the particular case at the particular time...Third, offering to lend America’s military to a friendly nation reduces the latter’s need to develop its own defense and foster its own alliances. This perverse impact of U.S. defense promises and deployments is evident in East Asia today. The primary example is Japan, which only now, six decades after the end of World War II, is debating a more active defense and foreign policy that is commensurate with its abilities and interests."

He calls the policy "reckless."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/clintons-umbrel.html

[sandnsea]

1. First, the ME wants us out

Injecting ourselves further will guarantee that various factions become even more entrenched, fan the flames and guarantee a war. Reckless? It's pure insanity, not even neocon lite, it's neocon on steroids.

[me b zola]

2. I really hope this gets more discussion

Only a few voices have mentioned Hillary's new foreign policy stance since the debate.

"...an extraordinary extension of a doctrine fraught with danger." Yes indeed.

[Zachstar]

6. It hopefully will be after PA.

[anonymous171]

3. Proves what I've been saying: Hillary isn't a republican in democrat's clothing.

She's a fucking Neocon.

[dkf]

4. Here is some analysis on DKOS

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/17/13636/3860

What Clinton is proposing is a very ambitious and a major security and political shift in the Middle East. Essentially, she is proposing a AGTO (Arabian Gulf Treaty Organization). This is the New Cold War with Iran as the central enemy. I cannot believe that Iran would be willingly isolated in the way that Senator Clinton is proposing. Russia and China would more than likely be interested in offsetting the U.S. influence that this Gulf Alliance would create. If you think that the current atmosphere is tense the proposal that Clinton is advancing would be a step up.

Another problem with what Clinton is asserting is that it cannot occur in a vacuum. Iraq is still ongoing and will be for at least two years into the next presidency. Iran will more than likely respond to this increased tension and pressure by exerting its influence in Iraq. All of this instability would not have a positive effect on the price of oil.

Sen. Clinton has advanced an interesting new security arrangement for the middle east. The confrontational nature of this proposal though is in keeping with her history of votes like AUMF and Kyl-Lieberman. The question of extending a nuclear umbrella is a serious one and Senator Clinton needs to be asked exactly what her plan is here.

[Mags]

5. Obama loves the Reagan years , so do his folk, guess that

to them this means Obama is right, cause the Reagan admin. is who they follow.

[anonymous171]

7. More distractions from the actual issues.

Stay on topic please.

[dkf]

9. These types of comments are coming from all sides.

I haven't seen anyone supporting Hillary's position yet.

I wish you would address the concerns because this is the most worrying thing I've heard in this campaign. I highly doubt John McCain would go this far, not even Dick Cheney.

She's to the right of everyone. Amazing.

[Leopolds Ghost]

12. The one good thing Reagan did is seriously consider BANNING ALL NUKES w/ Gorby at Reykjavik.

[PM7nj]

8. I wonder if she even knows what she said...

Hillary seems to wing it a lot when she is talking national security. She wants to seem tough, and doesn't really think things out. (IWR, anybody? Kyl-Lieberman?) This is in complete contradiction to many of her other policies, which she knows in incredible detail and can rattle off facts left and right.

[malletgirl02]

16. I think you might be right

I don't know what is scarier, she really believes this is the right course of action or she really doesn't know what she is saying.

[Jim Sagle]

10. Bandow's an isolationist. Fuck'm.

[sandnsea]

11. kick

I can't believe this is all the response this got. I love how DU beats the hell out of that woman over the flag pin, but all the threads on the security umbrella have dropped like rocks. Some folks need some mirrors.

[malletgirl02]

13. I agree

This issue is way more important than a damn flag pin.

[cornermouse]

14. Now you're using a Reagan Republican to justify your attack?

:eyes:

[kwenu]

15. He's being kind. It's INSANE and proves she is NOT the person for the top job.

[malletgirl02]

17. I know I posted two times

I know I posted two times already, but this is way to important to sink.

[cyndensco]

18. The only reason I have convinced myself to vote for her if she steals the nomination

is I do not want my two college-aged sons going to a bogus war. She is beating the drum as loud and steady as the others. She scares me.