19:30 GMT +317 October 2019
Listen Live
    Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton walks to the podium to address the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in Washington, U.S., June 10, 2016

    Trump's No Fool: Hillary's American Empire is the Real Danger

    © REUTERS / Gary Cameron
    World
    Get short URL
    9466
    Subscribe

    Hillary Clinton likes to blast Donald Trump's foreign policy, but his ideas actually make more sense, Ivan Eland wrote in US magazine National Interest.

    Hillary Clinton says that Donald Trump "will take our country down a truly dangerous path" if elected president but her own belligerence belies her claim and in fact a Clinton presidency would make America a less safe place, Ivan Eland wrote in National Interest on Friday.

    Earlier this month Hilary Clinton made a major foreign policy address in which she criticized Trump's statement in April that Japan and South Korea should have their own nuclear armaments rather relying on the US because it is costing too much money.

    "I would rather have them not arm, but I'm not going to continue to lose this tremendous amount of money. And frankly, the case could be made that let them protect themselves against North Korea. They'd probably wipe them out pretty quick," Trump said.

    "If they fight, you know what, that'd be a terrible thing. Terrible…. But if they do, they do."

    In response, Hillary Clinton said that Trump is "not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes – because it's not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin."

    In the National Interest, Eland points out that despite criticism from Clinton, Japan and South Korea, Trump's foreign policy idea actually makes more sense.

    "Clinton and much of the US foreign policy elite, Republican and Democrat alike, obsess about Trump saying what should be obvious. It would not be a catastrophe if Japan and South Korea—stable, democratic societies and good world citizens—were able to deter aggression, if need be, even with nuclear weapons."

    Eland wrote that the US' "essentially irrational policy" of mutual defense makes even less sense now than it did during the Cold War, because there is no plausible scenario by which these US allies would be called on to defend the US.

    "Donald Trump is wise to question the United States' outdated, inflexible and costly commitment to protect large numbers of nations around the world," especially since the US now has a $19 trillion national debt.

    "Such formal and informal alliances are the core of an overextended American foreign policy that requires having hundreds of US military bases overseas and conducting countless—now seemingly perpetual—military campaigns, such as the wars Clinton supported in the Balkans, Iraq and Libya, to support this informal American Empire," Eland wrote.

    Related:

    US Diplomats Urging Military Action in Syria Hope Clinton Wins Presidency
    Do Hillary Clinton and Daesh Really Share the Same Financial Backers?
    State Department Won’t Release Clinton TPP Emails Until After Election
    Tags:
    foreign policy, nuclear war, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Asia-Pacific, United States
    Community standardsDiscussion
    Comment via FacebookComment via Sputnik