Northern Ireland

Here's a nice rundown of the Clinton campaign's Northern Ireland mumbo-jumbo. I think what her husband's administration did there was a very legitimate achievement and very much highlights some of the shortcomings of the George W. Bush approach which has no comparable examples of constructive U.S. engagement in the troubles of the world. It also highlights John McCain's catastrophically poor understanding of foreign affairs as, at the time, he denounced the Northern Ireland initiative as a sellout of a key U.S. ally doomed to failure.

So it's not a bad issue for Clinton to raise, in its way. But she wants to raise it as an example of her personal foreign policy chops and the evidence just isn't there. It's normal for a new president to have little direct foreign policy experience, and either Clinton or Obama would fit that bill. But Clinton seems determined to pretend she's some kind of seasoned hand that she isn't.

Comments

It's normal for a new president to have little direct foreign policy experience, and either Clinton or Obama would fit that bill.

Ditto McCain! Let's not concede this ground. Fighting in a war is not 'foreign policy experience'. It's military experience. Very different thing. Indeed, as you've noted, McCain's experience, worldview and interest focus almost entirely on tactics, not strategy or policy-making.

Posted by Ryan | March 28, 2008 8:36 AM

Care to link to the McCain denunciation?

Posted by DavidS | March 28, 2008 8:41 AM

Care to provide a counter-argument?

Posted by Ted | March 28, 2008 8:48 AM

Actually, I take back my snark, in case you're just looking for the source. And actually, I believe the original source here was a letter written to Josh at TPM. The writer argued that McCain had a tactical mindset, but no strategic view of the larger purposes of e.g. our presence in Iraq.

MY may have said something similar, but I don't recall -- perhaps Ryan does.

Posted by Ted | March 28, 2008 8:50 AM

Nothing wrong with a bit of snark, Ted!

My comment was a reaction to Matt's claim that McCain had "denounced the Northern Ireland initiative as a sellout of a key U.S. ally doomed to failure."

Just wondered what he said and when.

Posted by DavidS | March 28, 2008 8:57 AM

I visited Belfast on a business trip about 5 years ago. We were treated like royalty because Hillary Clinton is my senator. I have never felt so aprreciative of our political leaders as I did then, to see the outpouring of thanks and admiration of Americans on the part of the Irish in Northern Ireland. I don't understand her desire to embellish an example of a positive impact that America had. Its a great story. She is such a monster.

Posted by An Outhouse | March 28, 2008 9:03 AM

The writer argued that McCain had a tactical mindset, but no strategic view of the larger purposes of e.g. our presence in Iraq.
********************

Well I have no experience of any relevant kind, so it's no surprise that I'm equally baffled by the strategic view of the larger purposes of our presence in Iraq.

Posted by aleks | March 28, 2008 9:05 AM

"Well I have no experience of any relevant kind, so it's no surprise that I'm equally baffled by the strategic view of the larger purposes of our presence in Iraq."

That's because you are too clever to understand the strategic importance of a country that abuts the world economy's most important waterway and separates the Muslim world's major Shia (Iran) and Sunni (Saudi Arabia) powers. To you, Afghanistan -- a barren, landlocked, 4th World country -- is the more strategically important country.

Posted by Juan | March 28, 2008 9:11 AM

Actually, Juan, it's Pakistan that I think is most important. Pakistan is near Afghanistan though, so you get partial credit.

Now that you've opened my eyes to the fact that Iraq has both oil and sectarian division, would you explain the strategic view of the larger purposes of our presence in Iraq?

Posted by aleks | March 28, 2008 9:15 AM

1) What would be really DANGEROUS would be if Hillary BELIEVES her PR about herself.

That , if elected President, she would be inclined to ignore advice from competent people in the Pentagon, State Department, or CIA in favor of her own mystical link with the universe.
Or should I say -- an alternate reality?

Posted by Don Williams | March 28, 2008 9:16 AM

As a Foreign Service Officer, I was marginally involved in the N. Ire. peace process for awhile. Many people had fingers in that pie. HRC played a very minor -- though not unhelpful -- part in the overall attempt to push the peace process along, chiefly by making a couple of speeches to women's groups in N. Ireland and in whatever part she played in hosting the main players during their trips to the White House. So she can legitimately take credit for that. Her claim to having had a more substantive role is nonsense. The real question is whether she is deluded enough to think her contribution was significant. Ditto her "particular memory" of running across the tarmac in Tuzla after a "corkscrew landing." Over-the-top exaggeration or delusion?

Posted by Traven | March 28, 2008 9:22 AM

That's because you are too clever to understand the strategic importance of a country that abuts the world economy's most important waterway and separates the Muslim world's major Shia (Iran) and Sunni (Saudi Arabia) powers. To you, Afghanistan -- a barren, landlocked, 4th World country -- is the more strategically important country.

You know, Juan, "abuts" ain't the same as "controls". Iraq's at the top of the Gulf, not the mouth. Kuwait, Saudi, Iran and the UAE all lie between it and the open ocean.

And it's funny, because I'd say that Pakistan (160 million people, nuclear weapons, largest and most professional army of any Muslim nation in the world) is probably a bit more of a power than Saudi Arabia (sparsely-populated pathetically corrupt oil state dependent on mercenaries and expat labour to survive). Even Egypt's more of a power than Saudi.
And, given that, guess what nation separates the Muslim world's real Shia and Sunni powers? That's right - Afghanistan!
But thanks for playing.

Posted by ajay | March 28, 2008 9:32 AM

A number of things the HRC camp is saying is silly, we can all agree. However MY, I recall a number of posts last year that (paraphrase) "Hillary probably has the most prior experience of any presidential candidate since the men who wrote the actual Constitution". So what's with the constant turnabout now, not even including your normal caveats.

Posted by Shock Mouse | March 28, 2008 9:33 AM

My comment was a reaction to Matt's claim that McCain had "denounced the Northern Ireland initiative as a sellout of a key U.S. ally doomed to failure."

Just wondered what he said and when.

This pretty credible-seeming site quotes McCain as saying:

"Motivated by romantic, anachronistic notions of Irish republicanism, some prominent Irish-Americans persuaded the president (over the objection of the State Department) to jump headfirst into the Northern Ireland problem, severely straining our relations with London." McCain [said--mw] that by President Clinton's "mistaken involvement in the Northern Ireland problem, President Clinton has deepened the risk to his credibility and further damaged relations with our British allies." [Foreign Policy, Summer 1996]

Posted by Matt Weiner | March 28, 2008 9:35 AM

>>at the time, he denounced the Northern Ireland initiative

Yeah, I'd be interested in that too. Seems like an excelent example of poor foreign policy instinct.

Posted by lutton | March 28, 2008 9:36 AM

Ted, you may be right -- maybe it wasn't Matt who wrote that bit about McCain's tactical vs. strategic view. I've seen it in a couple of places but am not absolutely certain one of them was here. Don't have time to look it up.

Posted by Ryan | March 28, 2008 9:41 AM

Two thoughts here.

First, that quote from McCain in 1996 is so incredibly silly that I can't even believe it. The idea that the British would sour on our relationship because we got involved in the peace process is beyond absurd. It misunderstands every aspect of the British-American relationship, the Clinton-Blair relationship, Blair's personal relationship with Catholics, the shift in Irish-Americans' emotional and strategic relationship to Northern Ireland that occurred throughout the late 80s and early 90s, etc, etc, etc.

Almost everybody except, apparently, John McCain believed that all governments were interested in peace, and further, that the President of the country with the world's largest Irish-descendant population and the world's largest English-descendant population, a country that also happened to be the world's pre-eminent superpower, had a legitimate role in the discussion.

McCain's statement is just beyond DUMB.

Second, I can't help but feel for Hillary on some of these arguments. On the one hand, she did a lot of silly stuff and claims it as "foreign policy experience." On the other, this wasn't totally her fault as it resulted largely from the Clinton White House ham-handedly overreacting to her role in the health care debacle and the "President Clinton and Her Husband" tropes. They just tried to fit her into a more traditional but still visible First Lady's role.

Mind you, this doesn't make the lack of experience false. Moreover, she has not exercised foreign policy leadership in the Senate, which is nobody's fault but her own. Still, I feel like some of the criticism of her overreaching claims cross from "experience not there" to "her stuff was silly," which isn't quite as fair.

Posted by jhupp | March 28, 2008 9:48 AM

McCain's statement is just beyond DUMB.

Yep. That whole page is crunchy goodness for debunking McCain's supposed foreign-policy cred.

Posted by Matt Weiner | March 28, 2008 9:52 AM

Hillary's big negative has always been getting over the commander-in-chief threshold in the minds of the rural white voters in the Mississippi and Ohio Valleys she will need to win the White House.

Thus:
-Getting a seat on the Armed Services Committee
-Pro-war votes, cluster bomb votes, etc...

All the talk about commander-in-chief thresholds and McCain-Clinton patriotism is designed to negate the difference between her and McCain regarding her ability to be the boss-man. Maybe if rural whites males see no difference in military manliness they'll vote for Clinton on economic issues.

The thing about bullshit is that if you repeat it often enough people will eventually buy-in. It seems to work for Axe Body Spray.

And for god's sake don't tell anyone you spoke at some international women's conference that just screams (dog whistle?) feminazi.

Posted by Mike | March 28, 2008 10:02 AM

McCain may be beyond dumb, but his statement probably had little to with Blair, as John Major was still in power in 1996.

Posted by DavidS | March 28, 2008 10:12 AM

Right. Whoops. Good point. But the rest is true!

Posted by jhupp | March 28, 2008 10:14 AM

Matt, the Bush administration has at least one achievement of this type -- the North/South Sudan peace agreement seems to have held pretty well.

Posted by MHD | March 28, 2008 10:16 AM

Of course, the peace process was in bad shape in 1996 - the year the IRA ended their ceasefire and bombed Manchester and London. Would be interesting to read the full McCain article...

Posted by DavidS | March 28, 2008 10:24 AM

Actually, we did seriously piss off the British when we first gave Gerry Adams a visa over their vehement objections. But when Tony Blair came to power the Brits saw the advantage of getting the US in on the game, especially as it was a way to get the US more involved in stopping the flow of funds (and thus guns) from Irish Americans to Sinn Fein/IRA. And once things got rolling, there was constant coordination between DC and London. The eventual outcome proved the wisdom of getting involved -- which was pushed by prominent Irish-Americans like Kennedy (Ted and Jean Kennedy Smith, Clinton's ambo to Ireland) and Chris Dodd.

Posted by Traven | March 28, 2008 10:26 AM

Relations between Major and Clinton were always pretty testy - I think Major resented the way that Clinton was so obviously looking forward to Blair's arrival.

Posted by DavidS | March 28, 2008 10:34 AM

"Motivated by romantic, anachronistic notions of Irish republicanism, some prominent Irish-Americans persuaded the president (over the objection of the State Department) to jump headfirst into the Northern Ireland problem, severely straining our relations with London."

Is this the McWalt and O'Mearsheimer theory of irish ethnic lobbying?

Posted by TheF79 | March 28, 2008 10:55 AM

romantic, anachronistic notions of Irish republicanism

romantic, anachronistic notions of Irish republicanism: bad

romantic, anachronistic notions of Iraqi republicanism: good

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 28, 2008 10:57 AM

The thing is that W did indeed save the N.I. peace process. See Thanks, Dubya.

People shouldn't forget this. Blair and Bush are perfectly capable of pursuing a peace process when it suits them.

Posted by Chris Dornan | March 28, 2008 12:08 PM

I still can't believe Monsters, Inc. called Lord Trimble a "crankpot." Great diplomacy skills, assholes.

Posted by Monster | March 28, 2008 12:08 PM

It's worth digging through some of the links in that post, particularly for the PhD thesis by Mary Alice Clancy who seems to have had good access to State Department officials.

My favourite line is from one former official (http://url.ie/avz): Bill Clinton "...is a s—t, but ultimately he is a thinking man’s s—t".
The strongest role was played by Bush's 'closer' Mitchell Reiss, who alone of the three governments was determined to make the acceptance of normal policing the dealbreaker.

If Bill schmoozed Sinn Fein into beginning the Peace Process™, Bush drove them to a hard deal that in some respects they didn't want to accept.

Posted by Mick Fealty | March 28, 2008 1:18 PM

Isn't former IRA sympathiser and Noraid fundraiser Peter King big for McCain now, after backing Rudy initially? (He's on the supporters list at the campaign website.)

King was 'up the Ra' during the time of the worst violence in NI and the mainland. That he's now considered some kind of expert on counterterrorism and homeland security, thanks to his House committee position, would be laughable if it weren't deeply depressing.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 28, 2008 2:04 PM

Since I don't make a habit of reading the Daily Telegraph the following is a straight crib from Alex Massie. Toby Harnden, of the Torygraph, writes about Andrea Mitchell's interview with James Rubin:

[James Rubin] pulls out a piece of paper and reads a quotation from the late Mo Mowlam, former Northern Ireland Secretary, about Hillary helping to bring about an economic boom.

Mitchell: "As you know, there are others, like David Trimble, who disagree."

Rubin: "I've met David Trimble. And he's pretty much the only one. He's a Protestant, they traditionally go with the Conservatives. I think we have a John Hume, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, who said…"

Mitchell: "It was David Trimble who shared in that prize, Jamie."

Rubin: "Right, and I know these people. I've been living over there. David Trimble is a crankpot and what he said about her was demeaning. He said, 'Oh well, maybe she accompanied her husband on a couple of trips'. As a woman, Andrea, I would think you would recognise when somebody is trying to demean the activities of a woman. She was an important First Lady in foreign policy. I know. I was in that administration and we understood she was not serving tea and cookies, she played a significant role."

Posted by ndm | March 28, 2008 2:04 PM

Clinton Campaign Postulate No. 145: Protestants don't count.

Posted by Jeff R | March 28, 2008 7:37 PM