Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Max Fisher, Vox, April 27, 2016: Is Hillary Clinton really the foreign policy super-hawk she is portrayed to be?
Hillary Clinton is largely perceived as a war hawk. New York Magazine fed that narrative recently with a lengthy article by Mark Landler. Max Fisher of Vox noted the article's findings, but also cited a simple Score Card by Global Zero which paints a different picture of her. Fisher notes:
"On every issue that Global Zero measured, Clinton is indicated as far less hawkish than all three of the Republican candidates, and as basically tied with Bernie Sanders. She supports the Iran nuclear deal; the Republicans all oppose it. She supports using diplomacy to solve the North Korean nuclear crisis; John Kasich is the only Republican to do so. She supports negotiating with Russia to reduce nuclear weapons; no Republican candidate does.
"This measured only policies related to nuclear weapons, and so is far from comprehensive. But on these major geopolitical challenges — including the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs, which seem among the few crises that could plausibly draw the US into war — Clinton is significantly more dovish than all three Republican candidates."
"Clinton's policies and past record suggest that her vision of power includes military force as well as diplomacy, so that while she is more likely to act in foreign affairs, she is also more likely to do so peacefully."
The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is more complicated...a mix of dovish actions and hawkish actions depending on the specific situation. What it suggests to me personally is that she carefully thinks about actions before taking them, maybe the one exception being her vote on the Iraq war.
Fisher's article is worth reading for those who are ready to slap the hawk label on her so readily.