The United States
currently faces more danger than at any time since the conclusion of the Second
World War. However, in the
candidates’ debates, and in media coverage overall, questions and reviews about
the international perspectives of the two contenders for the job of commander in
chief, and their views on foreign affairs and national security in general, are
few and far between. At a time when global affairs are more unsettled than at
any time over the prior seven decades, that lack of appropriate emphasis by the
press has not served the public well.
Trump and Clinton
portray each other as unqualified for the role as America’s top policy maker on
foreign affairs. Clinton emphasizes Trump’s inexperience and his blunt
language. Trump points to America’s deterioration in influence and military
strength during the period when Clinton served as Secretary of State.
Here is a basic
summary of the candidates’ broad positions, gleaned from their speeches,
position papers, and various statements:
Clinton outlines
her policy in several key points: Continuing traditional relationships with
allies, embracing diplomacy and development, being “firm but wise” with rivals,
and enacting an overall strategy for confronting terrorists. She strongly
supports the Iran nuclear deal, of which she was an architect. She would
increase the number of refugees from Syria, and support more opportunities for
illegal immigrants to move into the U.S. mainstream.
Her position on
U.S. military strength is somewhat more dovish than President Obama’s. Of
particular note is her reluctance to support generally accepted levels of
funding for the maintenance and modernization of the American nuclear
deterrent. She has not taken a clear stand on international trade agreements,
both supporting and opposing the Transpacific Partnership at various times. She
mixes in domestic policy with her international perspectives by calling for
greater economic equality at home.
Trump’s basic
approach to foreign affairs and national security includes increasing military
spending and insuring that U.S. conventional and nuclear armed forces are the
world’s strongest; pressuring allies to pull their own weight, (often in blunt
language) and if they do so, providing substantial U.S. support to deter
threats to those nations; opposing the Iran nuclear arms deal; halting illegal
immigration; and stopping the flow of refugees from areas that threaten the
U.S. with terrorism. He would use ground troops if necessary to combat ISIS,
but would refrain from becoming involved in foreign disputes which America has
no stake in. He believes that international trade agreements have harmed more
than helped the American economy and the American worker.
There have been
specific areas of very sharp disagreement between the two:
Trump points out
that due to the Obama/Clinton “Reset” with Russia, Moscow now, for the first
time in history, possesses the world’s most powerful nuclear arsenal. Clinton
emphasizes that Trump has frequently stated that Putin has restored Russian
pride.
Clinton notes
that the Iran nuclear deal prevented Tehran’s near-imminent acquisition of an
atomic bomb. Trump counters by noting that the agreement freely allows Iran to
build nuclear weapons within the next decade, and provided the world’s chief
sponsor of terrorism with a vast amount of funding which could be used to
further support those activities.
Trump has
endorsed a more muscular policy stance towards China’s pacific adventurism,
while Clinton tilts towards a more diplomatic approach.
Perhaps the
greatest overall debate between the two contenders is the battle of Clinton’s
claim to significant experience versus Trump’s outlining of significant policy
failures under her watch. Clinton contrasts her eight years as the first lady
and key advisor to President Clinton, her tenure in the U.S. Senate, and her
role as Secretary of State to Trump’s inexperience. Trump counters with the
unprecedented decline in America’s fortunes and the numerous missteps that
occurred during her tenure, including the transfer of nuclear supremacy to
Russia, the dissent into chaos in the Middle East and the rise of terrorism,
and the growing aggressiveness of China
Frank Vernuccio
serves as editor-in-chief of the New York Analysis of Policy & Government (usagovpolicy.com).
He is the co-host of the syndicated radio program, Vernuccio/Novak Report, and
is also a contributor to Fox News. His columns appear in many newspapers. After
graduating Hofstra Law School, he was a legislative editor for a major publishing
company, then served in both Republican and Democrat Administrations. Following
the 9/11 attack, he was appointed to run the hard-hit Manhattan branch of the
New York State Workers Compensation Board.
Comments
The most
significant difference is that Hillary is all in for the UN takeover of the US
and Trump is not. Trump is a Constitutional free market American and will end
the UN takeover, despite the fact that all the politicians and big companies
have supported the UN takeover up until now.
Trump
would also reduce foreign aid, social engineering, excessive environmentalism
and bureaucracy. He will support free speech and national sovereignty across
the world.
Trump’s
unleashing of US oil, gas, coal and mineral extraction will put needed pressure
on the Arab countries.
Norb
Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment