Perhaps the greatest foreign policy blunder in the history of the world was on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s watch. A very broad statement, but in my experience with third world nations it becomes apparent very quickly the most important goal of a tin-plated despot is to hold on to power.
The American model of peaceful transition of power from party to party is not the norm in the entire world. A country in which I was stationed had an election; the government changed and promptly hung the former president, his wife and brother. Some third world leaders need to hold on to power to remain among the living and to hold onto the vast wealth they accumulated. Most will do anything to maintain absolute authority.
Now we come to the worst blunder in the history of foreign policy. Muammar Gaddafi “the Mad Dog of the Mideast” according to my absolute favorite president, Ronald Reagan. A tin-plated despot, butcher and all-around vile person, Col. Gaddafi quickly came to the conclusion in 2002/3 that the existence of weapons of mass destruction, even the belief that a dangerously unstable third world dictator had them, would incur the wrath of the United States.
Mr. Gaddafi, witnessing the outcome of the Iraq war and the demise of his comrade Saddam Hussein, and in keeping with rule one for a third world tyrannical ruler, staying alive, he voluntarily dismantled his nuclear weapons program. He also dismantled his chemical weapons and intercontinental ballistic missile programs.
Col. Gaddafi had in excess of 850 tons of mustard and sarin gas and a robust and well-funded nuclear weapons program as well. Gaddafi allowed real unrestricted IAEA inspections; did The Mad Dog of the Mideast do this out of the goodness of his heart? No, he made a deal with the United States and the United Nations that if he relinquished his very large weapons of mass destruction programs and allowed unfettered inspections, we would simply let him live out his life unmolested. Libya’s equipment for producing weapons of mass destruction is currently sitting in bunkers in Tennessee.
Libya under Gaddafi had been a state sponsor of terrorism and if he continued to sponsor terrorism the deal was canceled and he was fair game once again. So we must ask ourselves why President Obama’s administration and Secretary of State Clinton openly and publicly supported the anti-Gaddafi forces?
American naval and air forces attacked Gaddafi along with allied forces; however, that” because the others are doing it” argument was wrong on the second grade playground and it is still wrong. The United States was the major player in the dismantling of Libya’s weapons programs, and not keeping our word will result in no nation relinquishing its program short of force.
Is the world a better place because Gaddafi was unceremoniously shot in the head standing in a drainage ditch by Libyan Rebels? The short-sighted answer is yes, but any skilled diplomat, anyone with the good sense to look to the future of the world and who has a basic understanding of the mind set of dictators, would disagree in the strongest way possible.
President Clinton paid North Korea two billion dollars in fuel and food to end their nuclear weapons program and, they promptly used the money they saved on food and fuel to build nuclear weapons. If we asked North Korea once again to surrender its nuclear weapons, they will say not no, but hell no; look what happened to Gaddafi. Any Third World leader will never give up a weapons program because they feel if Muammar Gaddafi had not believed the United States would honor its word and he had kept his weapons of mass-destruction, he would be alive and still in power today. Again rule one is to stay alive.
The Iran nuclear deal could be cited as an example of the folly of my argument; however, the Iranian nuclear deal has holes in it large enough to drive a M1A2 main battle tank through, and despite what President Obama states, in the best case it merely postpones the inevitable. Why would we think the Iranians will not do exactly what the North Koreans did and use the billions in unfrozen assets to build the bomb?
No tin-plated despot will ever end a nuclear weapons program because the fear of them detonating a device in the United States or anywhere in the world will keep them in power. They are correct — no nation with a nuclear device has ever been attacked, with the exception of Israel. Israel would have used its nuclear weapons if it meant protecting Israel’s existence.
Had Ukraine held on to the nuclear weapons it controlled when it broke from the Russian Socialists, the Russians never would have attacked them.
Secretary of State Clinton also committed a true blunder when she allowed Ukraine to announce it was going to expel Russian troops from bases on the Crimean Peninsula, especially Sevastopol. The Ukrainians’ actions resulted in the inevitable Russian invasion, and a crisis that should have been avoided by simply extending the leases on the Russian bases. The Russians lost millions defending Sevastopol in World War II, and anyone with basic political knowledge could have seen the Russian invasion coming. A tragedy could have been avoided if Secretary Clinton had pressured the Ukrainian government to extend the leases. She was very aware of the plans to expel the Russians even though the invasion happened shortly after she resigned.
President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have a dangerous track record when it comes to halting the spread of nuclear weapons. If a Hillary Clinton presidency does not concern you, perhaps you should rethink it.