Say what you will about Donald Trump as a person but he is not the warmonger-in-chief candidate for president in 2016. In an ironic partisan turn from the American political environment circa 2004 or so, that mantle absolutely and squarely belongs to Hillary Clinton.
And this warmongering is not new. While in the Senate representing New York, Clinton voted in favor of the disastrous invasion of Iraq, setting up the dominoes that would ultimately lead to the regional destabilizing vacuum that gave rise to ISIS. She openly saber-rattled to fight a proxy war with Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. She has repeatedly called for the unilateral establishment of a Syrian no-fly zone, a policy that would virtually guarantee direct military conflict – and likely escalation to outright war – with Russia.
Any combat veteran will tell you, of course, it is one thing to fight stateless, largely unsupported and undertrained terrorists and insurgents, and quite another to directly engage a world power which maintains a modern military, budgeting, training, and a state-of-the-art nuclear arsenal to boot. This reality is particularly relevant today when the military has, over the past decade plus, steadily pivoted away from such warfare models to a style arguably better suited to tackle terrorists but woefully ill-suited to challenge more traditional foes like Russia and China (e.g., tanks and electronic warfare are not especially helpful against Sunni insurgents, yet are quite handy against other major state militaries). Indeed, it has been over 70 years now since American armed forces last fought a conflict in which they had to significantly account for force multipliers such as close air support or combined arms warfare.
Maybe she is the best candidate for today’s far more globally contentious world, or perhaps she has a hand in why it is so contentious in the first place. Ultimately, that is each individual’s choice to make, but Democrat (and other) voters who decide to cast their lot with Clinton own her warmongering agenda going forward one way or another. They cannot reasonably claim to be pacifists, anti-war, or anti-nuclear proliferation while supporting such widespread statist violence (and this does not even address Clinton’s domestic violence plans). It will be quite difficult for me at least to sympathize with these voters when their children, siblings, and other friends and loved ones are conscripted in the coming years to fight an unnecessary world war with Russia (and/or China), or if these aforementioned loved ones parish in a nuclear exchange.
Even the Russians appear afraid of (or, at least averse to) a Clinton presidency and a consequent state of war and are reportedly making real preparations for just such a potentiality – hardly a position reasonably consistent with his having a supposedly more dangerous finger on the nuclear “button.”
I have said numerous times that the “squeaky wheels” in society often get what they want but rarely stop to seriously or intelligently question if they will want what they get. There are multiple reasons to support or reject a given candidate for president, and I am making no explicit endorsement here as both are distasteful in their own ways, but if avoiding global war and nuclear proliferation is important to you at all then Clinton is clearly not a candidate that is consistent with such principles.