In several discussions about Hillary Clinton being elected in '08, the most obvious difference that emerges between her administration and the OTL Obama one is on foreign policy. It's true that the differences between Obama and Hillary were exaggerated during the primary, and even on foreign policy there is a wide overlap. But Syria is a key difference. It is known that Clinton (alongside Panetta and Petraeus) advocated an earlier, more aggressive arming of the Free Syrian Army. So how would Clinton have responded to the Syrian Crisis? And what would the outcome be?
Since 2012, many hawkish Democratic foreign policy hands have long proposed things like "humanitarian corridors," or a no-fly zone. People have proposed air strikes to disable Assad's army, more aggressive arming of the Western-backed opposition, and even a plan for cyberwar.
I can easily see Hillary committing to all of these things - small steps in early 2012, escalating more heavily after reelection in 2012 to include an outright sustained bombing campaign, the "humanitarian corridors," and the like.
End result? It wouldn't shock me if these kinds of actions succeeded in forcing Assad out of power, either as the result of a coup or even the rebels succeeding in driving Assad out (perhaps with some more key defections). But the end result is likely to be, IMO, the exact same power vacuum you're seeing now, with the country split into multiple fiefdoms. A weak government composed of former exiles might exercise control in Damascus and a few other major cities, but with the coast controlled by militias / remnants of the Assad regime, the Kurds on their own, and ISIS and al Nusra in control of the east. Only this time, the US would be far more heavily involved.
Also, I would think the Iranians would be far less likely to reach out for a possible nuclear deal, as Assad's fall would probably make the hardliners in the regime even more distrustful of US intentions.
Thoughts?
Since 2012, many hawkish Democratic foreign policy hands have long proposed things like "humanitarian corridors," or a no-fly zone. People have proposed air strikes to disable Assad's army, more aggressive arming of the Western-backed opposition, and even a plan for cyberwar.
I can easily see Hillary committing to all of these things - small steps in early 2012, escalating more heavily after reelection in 2012 to include an outright sustained bombing campaign, the "humanitarian corridors," and the like.
End result? It wouldn't shock me if these kinds of actions succeeded in forcing Assad out of power, either as the result of a coup or even the rebels succeeding in driving Assad out (perhaps with some more key defections). But the end result is likely to be, IMO, the exact same power vacuum you're seeing now, with the country split into multiple fiefdoms. A weak government composed of former exiles might exercise control in Damascus and a few other major cities, but with the coast controlled by militias / remnants of the Assad regime, the Kurds on their own, and ISIS and al Nusra in control of the east. Only this time, the US would be far more heavily involved.
Also, I would think the Iranians would be far less likely to reach out for a possible nuclear deal, as Assad's fall would probably make the hardliners in the regime even more distrustful of US intentions.
Thoughts?