As someone who has a sister in the National Guard, she has chosen to defend our country. That also means that she will be asked to fight any war that our next Commander-in-Chief directs us into. The two most viable candidates as of 2016 were Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Donald Trump. The Iraq War is seen as being the greatest fault of the Bush Administration, and almost 15 years later, we are still there. Relations have not improved, nothing has stabilized, and people are once again beginning to question why.
A large part of President Obama’s initial platform during his 2008 run for the presidency was that he would direct the United States military out of Afghanistan and Iraq, along with closing Guantanamo Bay. These campaign promises have never come to complete fruition, having continued military presence in both countries, and the camp remaining open. These perpetual wars, and proxy wars, have created much instability in the Middle East. We have been left with the choice to leave people with no real government, and choosing to remain and attempt to rebuild what we helped to destroy. Instead of attempting to rebuild, our military has been faced with the current threat of ISIS, which has launched us into Syria. The next Commander-in-Chief needs both the forethought and temperament to handle the situation in the Middle East, but they must also have solid and consistent plans.
In 2002, after the tragic events of September 11th, 2001, the Senate took a vote on whether or not to invade Iraq. Hillary Clinton, a senator of New York at the time, voted in favor of the war in Iraq. This is a very important foreign policy decision to make, and this decision ended up costing the both the United States and the Middle East a lot of time, resources, and most importantly, lives. Because of the invasion of Iraq, the area is arguably much more unstable than it was before the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Donald Trump has used Clinton’s vote on the Iraq War against her, while claiming that he himself was against the war from the beginning. Later in his campaign, evidence emerged that in 2002 he supported the war in Iraq, as he stated on the Howard Stern radio talk show. He frequently tried to deny that he initially supported the war in Iraq, but after audio clips emerged, it was pointless to keep trying to convince people that he never initially supported it. Eventually, Clinton changed her stance on the war in Iraq, claiming she was tricked by the Bush administration into believing that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. This turned out to be massively incorrect, and our entire reasoning for entering Iraq was lost. While Trump was not in office at the time of the senate vote on the Iraq War, if he was - as evidenced by his 2002 remarks stating we should invade - he would statistically have voted for the war. This means that neither viable candidate was against the war that caused massive instability in the Middle East that we are still fighting almost 15 years later.
As for their current, and recent, suggested policies regarding Iraq and the Middle East as a whole, the two most viable candidates have managed to stay very far apart on the issues, while remaining similarly oblivious. Trump has been noted as suggesting bombing oil fields in the Middle East, leading to the death of not only enemies, but allies. When questioned about whether or not the government of Iraq would like their oil fields being bombed, Trump responded, “There is no government in Iraq. The so-called ‘government’ in Iraq went to Iran to meet with Iran. Iran is going to take over Iraq … Who cares?” Clinton has been quoted as saying that she’d like to withdraw entirely from the area, leaving yet another vacuum that would be filled by terrorist groups, much like the ones we are already fighting. “...they would have to step up and make these decisions.” With the Middle East as destabilized as it is, this doesn’t seem entirely feasible. Neither candidate shows empathy or consistent judgment.
The one area the candidates seem to truly differ on is their treatment of military veterans. Hillary is running on a platform that promotes a revitalization of VA hospitals and other veteran resources, has frequently spoken pridefully of our men and women in uniform, and wants to work to rebuild the VA healthcare system. She has not said much of anything that directly counters her spoken views, and her actions. Trump’s platform does call for a 10-point overhaul of the VA hospitals, along with treatment specifically for PTSD. This does not align with his near-mocking of MIA/POW veterans in July of 2015. Trump was quoted as saying he did not view Senator John McCain as a war hero, simply because he was captured. In the military, POWs are highly respected, and are regarded as war heroes. As of the summer of 2016, he had no interest in rescinding his remarks, or apologizing to the Senator. He also stated in 2016 that veterans who commit suicide, or who have PTSD, “can’t handle” the trauma of war, as if war is something to be “handled”. This, once again, shows little empathy, and it shows a major flip-flop in Trump’s opinions, leading me to question what his actual stance on these issues is.
Both viable candidates seem to have poor judgment from time to time, lack the correct amount of empathy to largely handle military and veteran relations, and do not seem fit for the job. I would want someone as President who has had a consistent political background, consistent views, and consistent empathy. Neither major party’s chosen candidate has shown me these things throughout the 2016 election cycle.
I live in fear for my sister under a Trump presidency. I hope we do not start any more needless wars, such as with North Korea. Trump is unfit for the presidency and his constant tweeting at Kim Jong-un makes our country appear insanely unstable and vulnerable. I cannot fathom what the future holds for our country and I weep over the loss of a real genuine candidate such as Bernie Sanders.