Mrs. Clinton’s Syria Strategy
By THE EDITORIAL BOARDNOV. 20, 2015
In
a speech on Thursday, Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a strategy for fighting the Islamic State that shows significant differences with President Obama’s. Some of her ideas make sense; others are familiar retreads, previously rejected, that remain problematic. But her speech gave voters her vision for dealing with terrorism after the Paris attacks. The Republican candidates have offered only destructive ideas like closing mosques, barring refugees and sending thousands of American troops to the battlefield.
Mrs. Clinton has a record of being more hawkish than Mr. Obama on America’s role in the world, and that came through in her comments to the Council on Foreign Relations. It was a more polished performance than her rocky showing at Saturday’s Democratic
debate.
Unlike President Obama, Mrs. Clinton
supports a no-fly zone over northern Syria, close to the Turkish border. This also offers the clearest contrast with her rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination. Senator Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley both say a no-fly zone would be unworkable and deepen American involvement. Mrs. Clinton argues that in addition to providing a safe haven for Syrians fleeing the bombs of President Bashar al-Assad and severing Islamic State supply lines, it would give the United States leverage in negotiations with Russia and others over a political settlement to Syria’s civil war.
Since the war began in 2011, the Obama administration has rejected proposals for a no-fly zone because they would require a significant military commitment: knocking out Mr. Assad’s air defenses, mounting an extended American air patrol and stationing ground troops to protect the zone and the refugees.
In the past, American officials have said there is no legal basis for such action. Mrs. Clinton said a no-fly zone would have to be imposed by a multicountry coalition. She expressed optimism that Russia, whose intervention has complicated the airspace in Syria, would cooperate. But it is unclear whether Russia would do that, and there are many other unanswered questions.
Mrs. Clinton rejected the idea of reintroducing huge numbers of American combat troops in the Mideast, as Republicans have urged. Senator Lindsey Graham
would put 10,000 Americans on the ground in Iraq. Jeb Bush,
in a speech on Wednesday, called for a United States-led global coalition, with American and other troops on the ground, to take out the Islamic State “with overwhelming force.”
Mrs. Clinton is, however, opening the door to a bigger, and accelerated, role in the region. She said the 50 Special Operations troops Mr. Obama has approved in Syria may not be enough. She also urged that the 3,500 American troops in Iraq as trainers and advisers be given greater “flexibility” to work on the front lines with the Iraqi Army.
Perhaps her sharpest break with Obama policies was a declaration that the fight in Syria is no longer about first ousting Mr. Assad and then focusing on the Islamic State, also called ISIS or ISIL. “We have to prioritize,” she said. “We need to get people to turn against the common enemy of ISIS.” It is unclear how that will affect her call for a more robust international coalition against the Islamic State, since Saudi Arabia and Turkey have long focused on overthrowing Mr. Assad.
It was encouraging to hear Mrs. Clinton bluntly demand that Turkey, a NATO ally, finally seal its porous border, a major channel for Islamic State fighters, arms and oil sales, and stop bombing Syrian Kurds who are fighting ISIS. She promised to pressure the government in Iraq to arm Sunnis and Kurds, who are vital to the fight against the Islamic State, or else Washington would do it.
She pulled no punches in insisting that to defeat the extremists, Sunni states, notably Saudi Arabia, must finally stop their citizens from financing extremists and address the conditions extremists exploit, namely poverty, repression and corruption.
At a moment when questions of national security are so urgent, Mrs. Clinton has given voters and the other candidates in both parties much to think about and debate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/opinion/mrs-clintons-syria-strategy.html?ref=opinion&_r=0