Hillary and human rights

From the November 15th Democratic debate:

BLITZER: You say national security is more important than human rights. Senator Clinton, what do you say?

CLINTON: I agree with that completely. The first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America. That doesn’t mean that it is to the exclusion of other interests.

There’s been a bit of talk in the interwebs over this answer, but – contrary to expectations I guess – I don’t find it terribly controversial.  The first obligation of the president is to protect and defend the United States and not to promote human rights.  Now, as Senator Obama noted when asked the question, the two aren’t mutually exclusive (which makes it a bad question on Blitzer’s part), but it’s not controversial to state that one takes precedence over the other.

The problem with the answer has more to do with the political establishment itself, rather than Hillary Clinton. 

Most – if not everyone – in Washington equates American “security” with American “interests.”  Quite frankly, the physical security of the United States is above question.  Of course, there is the (relatively small) danger of a terrorist attack.  But even the worst-case scenario – a (low-yield) nuclear weapon going off in an urban center – would leave the rest of the country unblemished.  Not to say that it wouldn’t be absolutely terrible, but simply to point out that the “destruction” of the United States by external forces is – at this point in time – extremely unlikely.

When we use military force, we are almost always defending the “interests” of the United States.  There isn’t a concrete definition for “American interests,” by they range from economic interests, to diplomatic interests, to the security of an ally or a region.

I’m not necessarily opposed to defending the various American interests, but I would appreciate a bit of honest rhetoric from the ruling class.  When Senator Clinton says, “I agree with that completely,” what she means that there will be some circumstances when the economic/diplomatic/political interests of the United States outweighs human rights of a particular group of people.  I would really appreciate it if she (and every other politician in the Beltway) would just come out and say that.

It would gives us something to actually debate, as opposed to blathering mindlessly about meaningless soundbites.