Exclusive: Trump And Clinton’s Solutions For The Middle East

Two of the most appealing advantages of Clinton as president are her established diplomatic relationships with governments all across the globe and her extensive experience working with international relations. Because of Clinton’s image as “an American Iron Lady”, she is usually perceived as stubborn and shrewd.  Contrarily, her diplomacy stances have actually proven her to be more rational than anything else.  In 2008, the United States had inherited international dissent from the Bush Administration.  As Secretary of State, one of Clinton’s primary responsibilities was to focus on America’s foreign policy.  Clinton accepted this role and contributed to U.S. diplomacy through a variety of insightful decisions, many of which are illustrated in her memoir Hard Choices.   During her four years in office, Clinton eased tensions with Europe, supported human rights activity in regions plagued by tyranny and terrorism, as well as made numerous notable foreign appearances and diplomatic visits.

Donald Trump (multi-billionaire and the Republican front runner) may not have had the same background with foreign policy, yet his ideologies are still widely met with favouritism by many American because the policies not only sound simple, but also heightens American status and effectively appeals to patriotism.

One of the more popular discussions for presidential candidates revolves around selecting a correct course of action towards Israel and the Middle East.  The U.S.-Israel relationship has always had a fundamental influence on activity in the Middle East.  During Clinton’s recent address at AIPAC, she not only directly criticized Trump’s stances as being dangerous, but also subtly promised to differentiate herself from the Obama’s status quo through enhancing their alliance.  She foreshadows her potential hard-line position on foreign policy as president through her remark, “some things aren’t negotiable and anyone who doesn’t understand that has no business being our president”…an obvious reference to Trump’s earlier comments implying that everything can be negotiable.  Clinton further establishes her stance through stating that she was prepared to enforce sanctions on Iranians again should they revive their nuclear program.

Terrorism (mainly from the Middle East) continues to be one of the world’s most complicated issues that demand an immediate solution.  With the disbandment of Al Qaeda,  rose the world’s current greatest terrorist group: ISIS.  Using fearful tactics, ISIS continues to violate human rights and impose terror through the false pretense of motivation by the Islamic faith.  Their extensive and effective propaganda extends to the Western world-demonstrated best through their recruitments of Western youth who eventually become sex slaves or child soldiers.  In response to ISIS, Trump offers his naive insight and almost child-like strategies.

“Take back the oil.”  Trump said during his interview with Bill O’Reilly from Fox News.  “Once you go over and take back that oil, they have nothing.  You bomb the hell out of them, and then you encircle it, and then you go in.”

“I would hit them so hard,” the presidential candidate continued.  “I would find you a proper general, I would find the Patton or MacArthur.  I would hit them so hard your head would spin.”

Nevertheless, when asked to expand on these plans, specifically when asked to confirm his intent to send military ground troops into Syria, the GOP front runner refuses to comment with the excuse that he does not wish to inform his “game plan” to the opposing force.

Clinton’s solution for ISIS seems far more credible and realistic given her previous experience fighting terrorism in the Obama Administration.   Clinton is firmly against sending American troops into the conflict zone, since previous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan confirmed that to be a counter-productive decision.  Clinton favours resolving ISIS with military troops already present in the area, most specifically, the Sunni tribes.  According to her plans, such efforts would be aided by additional intelligence units, sustained pressure on the Baghdad government, as well as maintaining focus that may be strayed by the Syrian Civil War.  Clinton asserts that this combined approach will not only choke off ISIS supply lines but will also provide leverage in diplomatic relations.

“Let me be sort of a neutral guy, let’s see what—I’m going to give it a shot,” Trump said during an MSNBC town hall, when addressing his plans for the Middle East. “It would be so great.”

Clinton’s response?  “Let us never be neutral or silent in the face of bigotry.  Let’s defend the shared values that already make America and Israel great.”

By MARGARET LU Mar. 23, 2016 on USCNPM