Following in the footsteps of those who preceded her in her post, the US Secretary of State has formed the theory of “smart power" by altering the theory of “soft power" of military academic Joseph Nye. The essence of her theory is that the United States should make use of all the various means of diplomacy, politics, the media, the military and the intelligence apparatus (in cooperation with friends and allies) in order to achieve its goals (interests). Such a perspective is perfectly in tune with the policy of President Barack Obama, who has withdrawn from Iraq and decided to withdraw from Afghanistan, yet at the same time, approved of bombing Libya and showered Israel with funds and weapons, so that it may be superior to all of its enemies (where are they?). And it is not unlikely for him to agree with it on bombing Iran, when the objective circumstances in the Middle East become ripe – or when Syria becomes exhausted and neutralized, or divided. The fact is that Clinton's theory of “smart power" does not differ much from Condoleezza Rice's theory of “creative chaos", which was perfectly in tune with the thinking of the Neoconservatives and with George Bush Junior's obsession with changing the world through political and diplomatic power, whenever possible, and through military power, when such methods fail. The truth is that American foreign policy does not differ much between Republicans and Democrats, as both parties share the same racism. They divide the world into backward countries in need to be taught American values, and advanced countries in need of Washington's leadership to guide them. None are more experienced than the Arabs when it comes to the foreign policy of the two American parties and of the successive administrations that have occupied the White House. Indeed, the outbidding between the two on loving and embracing Israel starts well before the presidential elections, and escalates after one has reached the White House and settled there, to begin serving Zionist plans. Clinton provided an example of her theory being applied, saying: “Last year the State Department trained nearly 7,000 law enforcement and counterterrorism officials from more than 60 countries. Working with the United Nations and other multilateral organizations, we have supported capacity building in Yemen, Pakistan, and other frontline states. Indonesia offers a good example of how this kind of partnership can pay off. When Jakarta decided to form an elite counterterrorism unit, the State Department provided training and equipment. Experts from the FBI and the Department of Justice shared their experience with police and prosecutors". The George Bush Administration was a pioneer in training officials and ordinary citizens, as well as members of the military, to apply democracy, combat terrorism, support the “free" press and establish research centers. Clinton's former Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman admitted to having spent five hundred million dollars in Lebanon on the media (smart power) back when he was US Ambassador in Beirut under Bush and Rice. Clinton's theory does not add anything new to the directions taken by American foreign policy. It merely showcases the ability of the Democrats to compete against the Republicans in making of nations their followers with Obama's cleverness rather than Bush's recklessness. Amusingly, the Neoconservatives still insist on their methods and hold against the Obama Administration the fact that it has not been decisive on many issues, including that of the war taking place in Syria. The theorist of eradicating the notion of Arabism and promoter of uprooting the Baath Party in Iraq and in Syria, Fouad Ajami, wrote: “The sight of Hillary Clinton cutting a rug on the dance floor this week in South Africa gives away the moral obtuseness of America's chief diplomat. That image will tell the people of the besieged Syrian city of Aleppo, under attack by a merciless regime, all they need to know about the heartlessness of US foreign policy". Ajami accuses Clinton of “trivializing" American foreign policy because she does not take strong stances. He is in a hurry to bomb Syria, just like he was a hurry to invade Iraq. He does not like all of the financial and “non-lethal" military aid Washington is offering the opposition. Spreading democracy for him does not bear delays. There is nothing in his lexicon called social development, and the Arabs deserve only oppression and to be forcefully turned into followers. Between Clinton's use of “smart power" to confront “the foolish", and Ajami's theorizing about hurrying to kill them, there is one common denominator called American racism.
