Evaluating Hillary Clinton's Performance as Secretary of State

As the United States reaches the halfway mark of President Obama's second term, it is time to reflect on his decision to appoint Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Originally viewed cynically, this move has ignited a debate on the effectiveness and impact of her tenure in the role.

Initial Skepticism and Rationale

Initially, many critics saw this appointment as a strategic move to bolster Hillary Clinton's resume, preparing her for a future political role. Some even argued that it was a political favor, given that she has close ties to the President. However, evaluating her performance requires a more comprehensive view of her achievements and shortcomings.

Challenges and Performance

During her term, Hillary Clinton has faced several significant challenges in the realm of foreign policy. Notably, issues such as Afghan corruption, the Israel/Palestinian conflict, and the ongoing uprisings in the Maghreb and SW Asia have required intensive diplomatic efforts. Her preparedness and performance on these fronts have been questioned.

For instance, the inability to make significant progress on long-term foreign policy issues has prompted various criticisms. While some have argued that she has been caught off guard by certain events, such as the democratic uprisings and the drug cartel hostilities in Mexico, others have pointed out a lack of significant achievements in these areas.

Political Considerations

From a political perspective, the appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State was a strategic move. It aimed to pacify her supporters and enhance her credibility within the Democratic Party. While these efforts may have been effective, any subsequent replacement would likely face the same challenges, suggesting a need for a more robust foreign policy strategy.

Contrasting Views

There are diverse perspectives on Hillary Clinton's performance. Some argue that her tenure has been seriously lacking, citing her poor handling of critical issues. On the other hand, there are those who believe she has excelled in the role, defying initial expectations. These individuals highlight her political acumen and ability to navigate complex diplomatic situations.

One supporter notes, 'I personally think that Hillary Clinton has done an impeccable job as Secretary of State. Yes, it surprises the heck out of me, but she has proven that political skill is as important as a background in foreign affairs.' This perspective emphasizes the importance of political astuteness in diplomatic roles.

Conclusion

Overall, the evaluation of Hillary Clinton's performance as Secretary of State reveals a complex picture. While her appointment was initially viewed with skepticism, her actual performance has led to differing opinions. Regardless, this debate underscores the importance of critical evaluation and adaptability in the realm of foreign policy.