Skip to main content

Hillary Rodham Clinton: Addressing the National Security Chal...

Popularity Report

Total Popularity Score: 0
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...

Rank

Bookmark History

Saved by 1 people (0 private), first by anonymouse user on 2008-04-16


Public Comment

on 2008-04-16 by efeghali

Thesis: Critical to fighting this new 21st century war is a fundamental re-orientation away from a unilateral posture to a multilateral strategy that strengthens all who participate.

Public Sticky notes

So, this morning, I'd like to talk about the dangers of pursuing a policy of unilateralism and the need for allies in every aspect of our security. Critical to fighting this new 21st century war is a fundamental re-orientation away from a unilateral posture to a multilateral strategy that strengthens all who participate.

Highlighted by efeghali

Having achieved quick military success, we should not repeat the same mistakes that were made in 1989. Yet, I fear that unless we and our NATO allies ramp up our involvement in this forgotten front line in the War in Terror, we stand in danger of doing so.

Highlighted by efeghali

take a hard look at how we treat our allies and how we expect them to work with us in providing security and reconstruction in these two countries.

Highlighted by efeghali

Republican Senators Hagel and McCain; Representatives Wolf and Shays, along with Joe Biden, and a chorus of Democrats, understand that to gain allies we need to share control.

Highlighted by efeghali

Now, I believe, as I think any American believes that we should never put alliances before our own security, but it's my point that abandonment of alliances can harm our security. And I think we're beginning to understand that.

Highlighted by efeghali

We also have to consider creating new institutions and alliances. I really appreciate the proposals by Senator Biden to create an international antiterrorist organization to deal with security threats that we face in common.

Modeled on NATO, such an organization would focus on the unique military and non-military challenges that terrorism poses. We understand that terrorism has a global reach. We need to have a global cooperative approach in order to deal with it.

Highlighted by efeghali

our own military forces are being stretched too thin.

Highlighted by efeghali

That means, more, not fewer troops.

That's why I've joined Senator Jack Reed and Senator Chuck Hagel and others to push for a larger army. It is just recognizing the reality that we are above authorized levels and there's no real end in sight for the continuing stresses and expectations that our Army, in particular, is going to be expected to meet

Highlighted by efeghali

But I also believe that winning the War on Terror will not happen by military strength alone. This is fundamentally about America's values and leadership. President Bush has said that the terrorists hate freedom. And he is absolutely right

Highlighted by efeghali

First, the idea of winning hearts and minds has been derided by some. But I don't think that we can overlook its singular importance. And we need to do more to combat the influence of hatred and bias and, for example, I think, with respect to education, we are doing far too little around the world.

Highlighted by efeghali

Second, we need to fully fund our development programs and I applaud the Administration for its efforts in the Millennium Challenge Account

Highlighted by efeghali

But I am supporting the effort to try to create conditions in which at least we can build support within the Congress for more foreign aid to go to many of the most distressed parts of the world.

Highlighted by efeghali

We also have to do more on women's rights and roles.

Highlighted by efeghali

By far, the smartest most effective, easiest thing we could do right now is to expand the Nunn-Lugar Act. This bipartisan law signed by the first President Bush and strongly supported by my husband, during his terms, channels money to the former Soviet Union to destroy weapons and to employ the scientists who created the weapons of the WMDs there. And to ensure that plutonium and uranium are rendered useless.

We know that, thanks to Nunn-Lugar, enough fissile material to make five thousand nuclear bombs is now out of harm's way. As much good as that law has accomplished already, it could do even more if we expanded it. But efforts to do so have been rebuffed at every turn.

Highlighted by efeghali

Well, I believe that we do need a tough-minded muscular foreign and defense policy. But one that respects our allies and seeks new friends even as we move against known enemies.

Highlighted by efeghali

Now, I say this not simply to propound some golden rule of international affairs. But because I really do think this is in our national security. You know, throw-weight used to be a term to describe the explosive power of a nuclear missile. In this Administration, throw-weight seems to be how much we can bully other nations to do our way.

Highlighted by efeghali

Readers (1)