Clinton's Strategy?

Does Hilary Clinton have a foreign policy strategy?
I would define a strategy (grand strategy or vision to be simple) as your plan to deal with all current and future military threats and challenges, whether they be military, political, or economic.
For all the faults of the Bush Admin (of which there are many, particularly foreign policy ones) at least they had a vision. Most would suggest their strategy was one of preemption or offensive realism. The plan would be to confront threats before they reach our shores. We all now know how dumb this strategy was, attack a potential threat and you miss the actual threats (Iran and NK). You also make new ones (unstable Iraq, embolden Iran). Its the "Minority Report" version of international affairs. Bad movie, bad policy. But what alternative does Clinton offer?

Now, am I unfairly picking on Hilary? Maybe. But she is the front runner for the Dems who are likely to win this round. She also consistently attacks Bush's mistakes, so it is only fair to ask what guidance and views would she put forth if elected?

To start off, most international history books now cite Bill Clinton as an extreme foreign policy failure. From his reluctance to get involved in genocide (Rwanda) and other human rights disasters (Haiti) to his half-hearted attempts to deal with our future enemies (Iraq and NK) and weak attack on Kosovo that limited military options, he failed all around. Lucky for him, this whole Iraq thing has done more damage than Bill ever did, so no one seems to mention that anymore. So if she is running on this nostalgia for the good old Bill days, I am of course going to be critical.

So does she offer anything new or different for the future?

On Iraq
"Asked in Red Oak how she would disengage from Iraq, she gave a precise, nuanced and up-to-the-minute answer: Withdraw the troops from the areas of sectarian conflict like Baghdad, keep a small force fighting al-Qaeda in al-Anbar province, move some troops to the Turkish border, protect the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and other civilian facilities, maintain a special-operations capability. And then, instead of the usual lip service to training Iraqi forces, she said, "We may also leave some forces to help train the Iraqis if there seems a chance this Iraqi government will get any better. But I'm doubtful about that."
I would think Turkey might not like the above idea. Also, leaving only troops to protect the embassy might make them consistent targets.

"Sen. Clinton has explained that she is not sorry for voting as she did; she only regrets "the way the president used the authority."
I am not really sure how you can regret the way Bush used his authority. You give someone the authority to go to war, they go to war, and then you are upset with them?

"After all, she has long supported using the U.S. military to serve humanitarian aims, and it's logical to conclude that the experience in Iraq has done little to shake her faith."
This statement is consistent with what I have been saying for years, failures are never learned. People only learn from success. How can you be for humanitarian efforts yet against Iraq? Wasn't the whole issue humanitarian in the first place (before the WMD thing)?

It has been stated that her service on the Armed Services Committee gives her unparalleled national security expertise. I don't see how this can be the case. Look at the bills passed during the last Congress. It doesn't really seem like they are debating issues relevant to foreign policy. Her own Senate webpage on her national security/foreign policy successes/initiatives is largely bare of real foreign policy issues. Where is her position on Iran, North Korea, or even Russia?

The best case we have for Clinton's foreign policy strategy comes from a 2006 speech. Things did not go well from the begging when I read this quote:
"We need the founders' understanding that a stronger America comes from strengthened bonds with other nations"
Which is funny if one remembers Washington's quote about avoiding alliances or how American screwed over France to make peace with Britain after the Revolution.

"We need new vision and leadership in the global fight against terrorism."
Agreed, so what your vision?

So here it is, wait for it...
"They include our enduring friendship with Israel, our firm commitment to the security and well-being of our own people, our friends and our allies, and a belief that dreams of democracy and human rights are ones that America can and must help make real."
So what new vision does she propose? That we remain friends with Israel, protect ourselves, and advance the course for democracy and human rights (isn't that what we did in Iraq?). Stunning reversal.
It seems like we will stay the course in the Middle East, plus try to piss off some other states like Saudi Arabia.

What changes does she propose?
"We have to be conscious of the humility that is necessary in the exercise of power."
Good idea, too bad the whole Iraq war and the world's hatred of the US makes this a moot point.

I just love this part
"I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines...U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not — must not — permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations."
So to solve the problems in the world in the face of 'outsourcing," America will outsource our issues to China, Russia, and the UN. Way to stay away from the flip flopping thing Hilary.

Overall, I am not convinced that Clinton can provide the foreign policy leadership required now. This is not to say that I see someone better, I just don't like the idea that she might be the solution. Candidates need to propose a real vision, not a bunch of criticisms and banal statements that no one would object to.