The criticism of Clinton to Obama's foreign policy

Hillary Clinton's criticism of Obama's foreign policy, in part justified, are the most obvious sign of the opening of the election campaign for the presidential race next venture. Setting the date the judgment of the Obama doctrine is almost entirely negative and it is a clear signal that the Republican electorate, which appears split and therefore unable to express its strong enough candidate for the presidential contest. The excessive good disposition towards the Israeli government, according to the Clinton forced to produce an extremely tough response to the rockets of Hamas is purely functional electorate jew and its economic strength, but puts Clinton as too little objective in front of excessive response of Tel Aviv, which resulted in many civilian casualties. Right in front of this factor, the former Secretary of State, has charged completely the fault of the civilian casualties to the strategy of Hamas to hide their military infrastructure in civilian homes. Answer to this objection is relatively easy, if we consider the conditions under which Israel has forced 1.8 million people to live, landlocked ground or into the sea. The Clinton appears to be too lenient with the country of Israel, do not ever naming the artificial obstacles placed in the way by the government in Tel Aviv to the path of peace, which is the project of two states in the same territory. The Israeli prime minister, often angry with Obama and Kerry, in the case of affirmation of what may be the first female president of the United States, must feel safe to have a new ally uncritical, able only to secure their support, without interference in the plans for expansion of the colonies. For Clinton's approval of Israel is central to its strategy of foreign policy, especially in the Middle East; a strategy that appears to be at once muscular and interventionist, in contrast to the prudent, but actually with poor results of Obama. The pressure of radical Muslims, according to Clinton, comes from an attitude of Obama too soft, resulting from the intention not to put more than the United States as the dominant power, and above all characterized by a policy based on interference in the internal politics of states. This same criticism has been leveled even by Republicans environments, which they saw as a sign of weakness and loss of importance and thus influence the American withdrawal, which is required, however, the majority of the population. If there is a note to do with Obama is just the will to keep at all costs its election commitments relating to the withdrawal of American troops from the war zones of the world, without adapting this strategy in a more elastic way the course of events and developments Cities that are marking this historical period. What happened, in fact, demonstrated a certain rigidity of Obama to follow its policy, without knowing how to adapt each time to the answers that it was necessary that the United States would provide as a major world power. A fundamental error was to favor the scenario of Southeast Asia without first having solved the Middle East problem and have it rather aggravated by a too hasty withdrawal from Iran and based essentially on the electoral programs. Despite these flaws Obama got decent results with Iran, but the strategy has failed politically with the countries of the Persian Gulf, responsible, albeit unintentional, the growth of the Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant. A more involved approach would have certainly caused the internal criticism, but it would create many difficulties for the degree of strength and autonomy of radical Sunni militias. However, the criticism of Hillary Clinton do not seem generous, Obama tried a different setting of American foreign policy coming from the diagram that defined many opponents of imperialism; but no so much on the non-use of weapons and force the Obama doctrine is proving loser, as the lack of political courage to deal with far more choices net, due, in part, to the fact of being hostage to their own political and cultural sectors as the one from which the Clinton administration. If Bill's wife becomes president will be forced to address these issues from very different angles, which go beyond mere criticism to gain votes from Republicans.