Hillary Clinton's 'Greater Experience' is Not a Reason to Vote for Her

A reason often given to US voters for voting for Hillary Clinton is that she is more experienced - especially in foreign policy - than Donald Trump.

Hillary Clinton does indeed have far more experience than Donald Trump. Unlike Donald Trump she actually worked in an official capacity as part of her husband’s administration when her husband was President. She has also served as Senator of New York State and as Secretary of State in President Obama’s administration. Trump by contrast has never held an official post or elected office.

Hillary Clinton’s record however shows that her greater experience is not a reason to vote for her.

Hillary Clinton supported the wars against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq of which the first took place during her husband’s Presidency.  She was the prime mover of the war against Libya. She was an outspoken supporter of calls for more action by the US in the wars in Ukraine and Syria.  She has called for US arms to be sent to the Ukrainian government and for bombing by the US air force of the Syrian army and government.

Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State supported the coup which overthrew the democratically elected President of Honduras. She has called for a stronger line against China in the conflict in the South China Sea. 

She has criticised the creation of the Eurasian Union — despite this being entirely peaceful — which she has compared to the USSR — and has said the US should do all in its power to prevent it.

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported the eastward expansion of NATO — the first steps of which were taken during her husband’s Presidency — and she supports the installation of anti-ballistic missile systems and US military bases in eastern Europe.

Hillary Clinton also supports the doctrines of “liberal interventionism” and “US exceptionalism” — which were also first aired during her husband’s Presidency.

Last but not least, Hillary Clinton is an outspoken supporter of Israeli policy in the Middle East. By way of example, she gave passionate support to Israel during the Israeli military intervention in Lebanon in 2006, refusing to criticise Israel in a way that at the time exposed her to criticism for ignoring the plight of Lebanese civilians.

Hillary Clinton’s position has therefore been consistent in every conflict since she first became a significant figure in US politics in the 1990s. She has consistently supported confrontation in place of compromise.  

Moreover there is nothing to suggest that Hillary Clinton’s views have changed or that she entertains any doubts about her stance. On the one occasion when she has appeared to retract her earlier support for a war — the 2003 invasion of Iraq — it has been impossible to avoid the impression that she did so for purely political reasons — because she realised that she would never become US President unless she did so.

This contrasts with the position taken by Donald Trump who not only says the Iraq war was a mistake but who has spoken — however vaguely and inconsistently — of a need to reach out to other states and to look for compromises.

Unsurprisingly Hillary Clinton has the enthusiastic support of those like the neocon ideologist Robert Kagan who can be relied upon to call for war whenever the opportunity arises and who have made clear they prefer her to Donald Trump.

The first test for a statesman should be their commitment to peace. At a time of heightened international tension, international terrorism and proliferation of nuclear weapons that ought to be obvious. 

Everything known about Hillary Clinton suggests that as President she would fail that test.

To say therefore that she is the right person to be US Presidency because of her previous experience despite her previous actions and her known views on foreign policy is not merely wrong. It is irresponsible.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.