How did analysts view Bill Clinton’s strategy?

Evaluations presented by American commentators around the conclusion of the first Clinton Administration were not supportive – incoherent, indecisive, inconsistent, and lacking a clear focus continued to be the most frequently heard characterizations of its foreign policy.  The Neo-Wilsonian orientation of Clinton’s foreign policy also continued to attract criticism. The Clinton administration rated highest on how it conducted diplomacy; sustaining American hegemony, attracting quality people to the foreign bureaucracy, and conducting personal diplomacy.  Its lowest grades were received on questions dealing with a vision: the ability to make tough choices, balancing rhetoric and action, and developing a coherent strategy outlook. By the end of Clinton’s second term, a more balanced assessment had emerged where conservatives continued to find much to fault in his foreign policy. Analyst Stephen Walt also argued that Clinton’s foreign policy was “well suited to an era where there is little to gain in foreign policy and much to lose. The American people recognized this and have made it clear they want neither isolationism nor costly international crusades.”

The post How did analysts view Bill Clinton’s strategy? appeared first on interaksyonph.