Would Hillary be a hawk if elected?  

 

Jeremy Shapiro and Richard Sokolsky say no. Stephen Walt says maybe. I disagree and largely for the very reason they raise. Both articles agree that if she becomes president Hillary will be a “domestic president.” This would mean she would be expected to focus on “health care, family issues, and promoting the rights of women and social justice generally.” But all politics whether domestic or international are local and politics do not get put on hold because you are President. And this explains Hilary’s long recorded inclination to use force abroad. It is politics (i.e. what will help her bid for pursuing power). Her political ambitions have pressured her to be more hawkish than others because of the obstacles she faces because of her 1) gender and 2) party affiliation.

Hillary’s history of being a hawk is well documented. I suspect that a good deal of her hawkish outlook was born in the politics associated with the first gulf war, a war that was by most metrics an unqualified success. With the exception of the Iraq surge of 2007, there are few instances when she didn’t agree to use the American military. Examples include Iraq (both 1991 and 2002), Hati (1994), drone strikes in Pakistan, the Afghanistan surge (2009), Libya (2011), the Yellow Sea and North Korea (2011), the Pivot, and supporting Syrian rebels.

The source of this long list of pursing political objectives through hard power is (I believe) identity based. Hillary is confronting multiple biases. She is both a women and a member of the Democratic Party and both sets of identities have an uphill battle in earning credibility for their security credentials.

Since the height of the Cold War, the Republicans have typically been the party many believe to be more competent on security matters. Noah Gordon has an excellent piece in the Atlantic discussing this. According to Noah, “Republicans have owned domestic security since 1970. For nearly all of the past 40 years, polls have consistently shown that Americans trust Republicans to handle security—and the related issues of foreign affairs and the military—better than Democrats.” The perception of Republican strength on military matters is mostly a result of the different party’s priorities. Republicans focus federal monies on bombs, Democrats on alleviating poverty. The perceptions that take shape by these spending priorities are confirmed by signature events like Carter’s mishandling of the Iran Hostage crisis, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Bill Clinton dodging the draft, and an awkward Michael Dukakis in a tank. This bias is so strong that it was John Kerry, and not George Bush, who had the more difficult time persuading the voters of the quality of his military service. This is all ironic considering the Democratic party has usually been the party that as lead the country into war.

The gender bias Hillary faces is more obvious. Typical gender associated traits which shape our lives are too banal to discuss here (men are aggressive, women are nurturing). These biases permeate all aspects of life and the voting public will evaluate a female candidate against what they expect a female to be. See here and here. Assuming women are soft on security is odd as history is littered with women leadership taking their state to war. Margaret Thatcher invaded the Falkland Islands. Golda Meir presided over the Yom Kippur War. And Indira Gandhi fought Pakistan. Nevertheless, gender norms are powerful constraints that, unless Hillary changes gender, will be a factor in Hillary’s foreign policy decision-making process. She wouldn’t let the first female president be the administration that lost Taiwan or allowed Iran to cross the nuclear threshold.

So Hillary has two attitudes that she needs to address. One is that she is soft on security because she is a Democrat. The other is that she is soft on security because she is a woman. Because these biases are rooted in her identity, they are perceptions that need constant attention whether Hillary Clinton is a Senator, Secretary of State, or President. I may be reaching but I assume that combating such perceptions played a large part in guiding her decision making process on employing American force abroad during her public career. I see no reason why she would not make such political calculations once in office and expect her to be just as much as hawk while president as she was in the past.