Hillary Clinton on Obama’s Foreign Policy: What’s So Bad About “Don’t Do Stupid Stuff”

Well, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have apparently kissed and made up, at least for public consumption. This followed a kerfuffle in the wake of an interview with Jeff Goldberg of The Atlantic in which Clinton specifically criticized the administration’s policy on Syria and, more generally, its “don’t do stupid stuff” approach to foreign policy. On the latter, the former secretary of state said: “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.” Observers speculated that Clinton was attempting to distance herself from Obama preparatory to her presumed run for the presidency in 2016. In point of fact, the criticisms of Obama’s foreign policy represented a very small part of the interview and were generally hedged. For instance, after the comment on the lack of an organizing principle, Clinton said: “I think he (Obama) was trying to communicate to the American people that he’s not going to do something crazy.” On the other hand, Clinton is a very savvy politician who assuredly knew that any criticism of Obama in a high-profile interview would be bound to make news.

But what of her general point, that “don’t do stupid stuff is not an organizing principle”? Perhaps she’s right. But not doing stupid stuff is surely a precondition to effective foreign policy. Prudence remains a critical element in true statesmanship, a reflection of the uncertainties of world affairs and an acknowledgement of the limits of power. All the organizing principles in the world aren’t going to help if leaders embark on feckless, costly adventures. (See: our invasion of Iraq in 2003). I should also note that Clinton doesn’t articulate in the interview what she believes our organizing principle should be. One suspects, from earlier comments, that it is something along the lines of an affirmation of America as an “indispensable” power in world affairs. To say this, of course, is to say very little; it would be endorsed by almost everyone in our foreign policy elite, from Barack Obama to Bill Kristol. As an organizing principle, the indispensability of the United States is a thin reed, indeed. It does not specify when and how our influence should be exercised nor, for that matter, how we should prioritize our efforts in a world where even the United States faces constraints on its military and economic might. This is not a particular criticism of Clinton. Vague principles — usually trotted out as “vision” — are the stuff of foreign policy declarations.

Lastly, there is an obvious irony in Clinton’s criticism of Obama’s risk-averse, “don’t do stupid stuff” approach. As a U.S. Senator, she voted for our war with Iraq, though she would later regret her position. Despite her volte-face, the fact remains: faced with one of the most consequential decisions any law-maker must take — whether or not to go to war — Clinton endorsed the folly of our invasion of Iraq. There may be some virtue to the maxim “don’t do stupid stuff,” after all.

Joe Barnes is the Baker Institute’s Bonner Means Baker Fellow. From 1979 to 1993, he was a career diplomat with the U.S. Department of State, serving in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.

This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.