She would put any non-nuclear armed Middle Eastern state who agrees to stay that way under the protection of the United States, with the threat of "Massive Retaliation" upon any country that attacks a country under this umbrella.
This is to the right of even the neocons.
Basically it means that we will step in to any dispute between Middle Eastern countries.
From the debate:
we've got to deter other countries from feeling that they have to acquire nuclear weapons. You can't go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say: Well, don't acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you're also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup and we will let the Iranians know that. Yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation, but so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under this security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/17/13636/3860Here are the comments from today's Meet the Press:
Tim Russert: What did you think of Hillary Clinton's "Umbrella of deterrence" saying that she would defend countries other than Israel who are attacked by Iran.
David Brooks: Well you asked the question. I am amazed like you may be that it didn't become a bigger issue.
What it says I think to a lot of Americans, if two Arab Countries or two Middle Eastern countries get in a war then we're going to get in the middle of it?
I think post Iraq this is the last place Americans want to be. Its a potentially wide open thing to say. I don't know why she would have said it, what policy thinking behind it was. It seems to me extremely perilous.
Michelle Norris: It doesn't seem like it would be post Iraq. We would probably still be engaged in Iraq, you know when this sort of dilemma would present itself.
E.J. Dionne: And the term "Massive Retaliation" is a pretty strong term that she used in the course of that debate.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5591993&mesg_id=5591993Doug 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://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5592415&mesg_id=5592415Hillary voted for war against Iraq and Iran. I didn't think it could be possible, but she could get us into more wars than McCain.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(416 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
