Hillary Clinton’s Admits Failing in North Korea, Paves Road for Next Failure in Iraq and Syria!

First from the Daily Caller News Foundation, Hillary Clinton admits that her North Korean polices have been a massive failure:

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton admitted Friday that it is time for a new strategy to counter the threat posed by North Korea.

A reporter asked Clinton how she would change the U.S.-North Korea policy if elected president, noting her policy as secretary of state under the Obama administration “clearly failed.”

take our poll - story continues below

Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?

  • Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Trump Takes Away Congress’ Annual Ribeye ‘Picnic’, Sends Steaks To…

“Amy, I think it’s clear that the increasing threat posed by North Korea requires not only a rethinking of the strategy, but an urgent effort to convince the neighbors, most particularly China, that this is not just a U.S. issue,” said Clinton, after meeting with a bipartisan group of security experts in New York City.

Clinton’s remarks come one day after North Korea detonated its fifth and most powerful nuclear test, which caused a 5.3 magnitude tremor. She and Republican nominee Donald Trump have traded jabs over national security ever since both candidates appeared on NBC’s “Commander-in-Chief Forum” Wednesday, the same day Trump announced his ten-point national security plan.

Then, Clinton promised that she would ignore the entire National Security establishment on Iraq and Syria and follow her own, already failed path, in Iraq and Syria:

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s Wednesday pledge not to send ground troops to Iraq or Syria breaks with the national security establishment she has generally aligned herself with.

“We are not putting ground troops into Iraq ever again. And we’re not putting ground troops into Syria,” Clinton said. Her comments are profoundly confused with current U.S. policy; the U.S. has nearly 5,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq and another 300 special operators embedded in Syria. Clinton has signaled she not only agrees with this policy, but will bolster them as president.

Clinton’s comments contradict the national security establishment she has aggressively courted throughout the 2016 campaign. It has by and large supported her candidacy. The lack of a sizable U.S. ground presence in Iraq is generally agreed upon as a major precipitating factor behind the rise of Islamic State. Similarly, the lack of U.S. force in Syria is seen as a hindrance to U.S. influence over the Syrian battlefield.

Senior U.S. military officials told the Obama administration in January, 2016, the U.S. needs more troops in Syria to accelerate the defeat of ISIS. “With more capacity, you can do more,” Derek Chollet, a former assistant secretary of defense in the Obama administration, told The New York Times when advocating for an increased U.S. presence in Syria.

“The war against ISIS and Islamic extremists cannot be won by inches,” Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services Mac Thornberry said in a statement in July. Thornberry continued that troop level considerations are “taking a back seat” to operational needs in the war against ISIS.

Clinton’s new stance also flies in the face of her entire record as secretary of state. As a member of President Barack Obama’s cabinet, she supported a massive surge of troops into Afghanistan, wanted to keep a large contingent of U.S. forces in Iraq, forcefully pushed for U.S. intervention in Libya and advocated for a more robust U.S. role in the early days of the Syrian civil war.

These positions were generally in line with the national security establishment and thinking of top U.S. military generals. Clinton’s closest national security surrogate, retired Marine Gen. John Allen, advocated Tuesday for a prolonged U.S. effort in Afghanistan. Clinton has publicly committed to backing Baghdad’s government, and stated she will implement a no-fly zone in Syria if elected.

Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services John McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham called in 2015 for a sizable U.S. force contingent in Syria. “The only way you can destroy the caliphate is with a ground component,” Graham said. “The aerial campaign is not turning the tide of battle.”

Clinton’s new stance seems to echo Obama’s own on U.S. involvement in Libya. Obama committed to a no-fly zone in Libya, but drew a line in the sand with U.S. ground intervention. The no-fly zone ended up knocking Libyan leader Mohamar Gaddafi out of power, but plunged the nation into civil war and chaos. Libya remains a failed state in 2016, with the second largest ISIS affiliate outside of Iraq and Syria.


Constitution.com 🇺🇸

I am the supreme law of the United States. Originally comprising seven articles, I delineate the national frame of government. My first three articles entrench the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress; the executive, consisting of the President; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Articles Four, Five and Six entrench concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments and of the states in relationship to the federal government. Article Seven establishes the procedure subsequently used by the thirteen States to ratify it. I am regarded as the oldest written and codified constitution in force of the world.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.