Hilary Clinton

Independent Reading and Writing 1

Aaron, David Miller. "If Hillary Clinton had won in 2008, what would her foreign policy have looked like?" Opinion: The Washington Post 15 Aug. 2014. Web. 27 Aug. 2014. .

If Hillary Clinton had won in 2008, what would her foreign policy have looked like?

Summary: Due to Hillary Clinton publically criticized President Obama’s foreign policy in interview with the Atlantic, voters had been raising questions that if Hilary Clinton had won in 2008 and had been the one in the Oval Office since 2009, what would her foreign policy be and how much different would it be than President Obama’s.

New Vocabulary:
1. 1) Adamantly 2) “And in the Atlantic interview, she was adamantly against the idea that Iran has a right to enrich uranium” 3) ADV 4) Definition: utterly unyielding in attitude or opinion in spite of all appeals, urgings, etc.
2. 1) Bilateral 2) “After the sultan of Oman offered Clinton a back channel for secret bilateral diplomacy, it was her State Department, specifically Bill Burns and Jake Sullivan, that staffed it on the U.S. side.” 3) ADJ 4) pertaining to, involving, or affecting two or both sides, factions, parties, or the like: a bilateral agreement; bilateral sponsorship.
3. 1) Meddling 2) “As for Ukraine, put Clinton in Obama’s shoes during the past several months of Putin’s adventurism in Crimea and his meddling in eastern Ukraine, and it’s hard to see what she might have done differently to impose greater costs on Russia, let alone to counter and reverse Putin’s support for pro-Russia separatists. Military force isn’t an option.” 3) Noun 4) to involve oneself in a matter without right or invitation; interfere officiously and unwantedly:
Stop meddling in my personal life!
4. 1) Vetted 2) “But more — training and equipping carefully vetted elements of a dysfunctional and divided opposition — wasn’t all that far from what Obama eventually came to accept in 2013.” 3) Verb 4) to examine or treat in one's capacity as a veterinarian or as a doctor.
5. 1) amenable 2) Not every problem today has a solution that is amenable to U.S. military or diplomatic power — or to Clinton magic. 3) ADJ 4) ready or willing to answer, act, agree, or yield; open to influence, persuasion, or advice; agreeable; submissive; tractable: an amenable servant.
6. 1) Transactor 2) “They both are transactors, not ideological transformers — smart, pragmatic centrists largely coloring inside the lines in a world of long shots and bad options.” 3) Noun 4) a person who carry on or conduct business, negotiations, etc.:
7. 1) Mullah 2) “She says in her memoir “Hard Choices” that she regretted the president’s refusal to take a harder line with the mullahs in response to their crackdown on the Green Revolution in 2009.” 3) Noun 4) (in Islamic countries) a title of respect for a person who is learned in, teaches, or expounds the sacred law.
8. 1) squabble 2) “U.S. relations with Russia were at rock bottom after the Georgia war and the preceding squabbles over Kosovo, missile defense and NATO expansion.” 3) Verb (used without object) 4) to engage in a petty quarrel.
9. 1) marshaling 2) “So Clinton, like Obama, would have fallen back on some package of steps, including marshaling the Europeans, nonlethal military assistance to Ukraine, tough rhetoric and sustained sanctions.”
10. 1) Jihadist 2) “failure to help build up a credible fighting force [in opposition to Bashar al-Assad] left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.” 3) Noun 4) an Islamic fundamentalist who participates in or supports jihad, especially armed and violent confrontation.

Questions:
Level 1:
1. What is the name of Hilary Clinton’s memoir?
Answer: Hard Choices
2. How many agreements did President Bill Clinton reached with the Israeli prime minister?
Answer: Bill Clinton reached two agreements with the Israeli prime minister.
Level 2:
1. Who is the intended audience of the article? How do we know?
Answer: Voters in general. In the introduction of the article, the editor wrote if Hilary Clinton wants to run in 2016, voters would want to know how she would have handled the foreign affairs that President Obama had handled.
2. Based on the article, briefly explain and give at least two examples on how would Hilary Clinton have handled foreign affairs if she was in President Obama’s shoes?
Answer: Compare to Obama, Hilary Clinton focuses more on foreign policies and diplomacy. However, there would not be drastic difference between the two. Not only Hilary Clinton is more aggressive and intransigent than Obama on dealing with foreign affairs, but also Clinton had a more interventionist view than Obama. For example, Russian military intervention in Ukraine and military intervention in Syria.
If Hilary Clinton was the president, she would have send troops rather than weapons to Syria because it takes a lot to win a war than armed rebels. Furthermore, aiding the rebels by creating no-fly zones and launching air strikes to Syrian government forces.

Level 3: If you were elected as the president of the United States of America in 2008, how would you deal with these foreign affairs?
Response: The few foreign affairs that President Obama dealt with were Iran, Arab-Israeli peace, Russia and Ukraine, and Syria. America intervened and sanctioned Iran because Iran was suspected of being involved in developing nuclear arsenals. America along with almost the entire EU sanctioned Russia because Crimea wanted to be independent from Ukraine and to join the Russian federation. America militarily intervened Syria because Syria had violated the Geneva Protocol by using inhuman chemical weapons. These are the few foreign affairs that America had intervened in the past few years. However, were all these intervention necessary? If I were elected as the president of the United States of America, I would definitely not intervened Iran and Russia. However, I would absolutely invade Syria because Syria had violated the Geneva Protocol, Syria is the closest friend with Iran, and Syria has lot of Petroleum. The Violation of the Geneva Protocol is strictly forbidden and any countries or nations that had violated the Protocol can be target as war criminal and be invaded with this reason. The use of weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear, radiological, biological, chemical weapons, is strictly forbidden. However, the Syrian government used Sarin, or GB, is an organophosphorus compound with the formula [(CH3)2CHO]CH3P(O)F. It is a colorless, odorless liquid, used as a chemical weapon owing to its extreme potency as a nerve agent. It has been classified as a weapon of mass destructionin UN Resolution 687. Production and stockpiling of sarin was outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, and it is classified as a Schedule 1 substance. The Syrian used Sarin against rebels and civilian and caused estimated casualties about 1300 which included 46 rebels and the rest are mainly children and civilians. A government that could authorize a chemical weapon strike on civilian population does not have the right to exist. This is one of the reasons that I would send troops to invade Syria. The second reason for invading Syria is that Syria is Iran’s best friend and by neutralizing Syria, I am actually weakening Iran. America and Iran is not actually best friends with each other. Iran is one of the most anti-America countries along with North Korea and etc. If America wants to strengthen its power in the Middle East, Iran is one of the countries that America has to sooner or later defeat. The last reason to invade Syria is simple, because of petroleum. This is why every other country on this planet that wants Middle East countries to be friends with them. Nowadays, the guy who owns petroleum owns the world and by taking over Syria and the rest of Middle East is the way to achieve it.
Why I would not intervened Iran and Russia is because Iran and Russia have nuclear arsenals. If I intervened Iran and Russia, the worst scenario would be a global nuclear war that will result the extinction of human. The best scenario would be Iran giving up on developing nuclear arsenals and Russia obediently backing up and giving Crimea back to Ukraine. Both of the two scenario seem to be impossible, so the way to avoid starting a full-scale war with either Russia or Iran is do not intervene with either of them. If I really become the president of the strongest and most influential country in the world, I would do a lot of things but the most important thing I would devote my life into is to make the world a better place for everyone and be friends with every country so that there would be no war, famine, and any kind of misfortunes.