Lisa Sharon Harper is cofounder and executive director of NY Faith & Justice in New York City. This is her reflection on the answer Senator Clinton gave to her question at Sunday night’s Compassion Forum for the presidential candidates. The full exchange between Harper and Senator Clinton is below.

I thought Senator Clinton’s answer was excellent for what she said, but I wished she would have gone further. The question was fundamentally about her foreign policy making regarding how she will allocate U.S. Troops. Bill Clinton was the first U.S. president to allocate U.S. Troops for a purely humanitarian mission during the Serbian aggressions against Bosnia and Kosovo. Upon entering office Bush declared he would never allocate troops for purely humanitarian missions. For the U.S. to become involved under his administration, the conflict would have to be a direct threat to American interests. This declaration, in fact, offers reason to hold suspect Bush’s claim that the Iraq war was a humanitarian mission focused solely on the goal of freeing the Iraqi people.

So, my question was meant to ask Senator Clinton if she would return to the foreign policy crafted by her husband. If so, this would tell us something of how she would approach the current devastation in Darfur, for example. If not, it would indicate that her foreign policy was stuck in the Bushies’ cold war paradigm.

What was excellent about Hillary’s answer was that it recognized that the United States does not hold the same moral weight in the world as it did when Bill was president. Trust has been broken. Her admonition that before we can begin talking about allocating troops, we must restore the United States’ reputation as a humanitarian nation was deeply discerning. Then she offered specific ways we could do that. This was inspiring and well spoken. But there was something left wanting in the end.

She never said “Yes, once the foundation of trust has been re-established, I would be willing to commit troops to a purely humanitarian mission under the leadership of a foreign flag.” She avoided a direct answer to the basic question. I can imagine that one reason was because she would be bound, upon entering office, to abide by that commitment. And what purely humanitarian mission would the world call on the U.S. to engage? Darfur.

I wanted her to go further. I wanted her to inspire, but she didn’t.

The truth is, she is not one to inspire now and let down American hopes later. With time to think about it and even after talking with several Obama supporters who liked the realism in her answer, I agree the reality of our stretched military does in fact preclude her from promising humanitarian action until we are adequately disengaged from Iraq. The reality of the Iraq war and its toll on troop readiness is a reality Bill did not have to deal with when he crafted his humanitarian foreign policy.
Last night, Hillary said what she meant and meant what she said and though I was not inspired by her answer, my respect for her grew because of it.

The Compassion Forum exchange:
Lisa Sharon Harper: Senator Clinton, underdeveloped nations and regions that lack widespread access to education and basic resources like water, and they tend to be some of the most unstable and dangerous regions of the world. Places like Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan.
Our national security is at stake, but our military is stretched. As president, would you consider committing U.S. troops to a purely humanitarian mission under the leadership of a foreign flag?
Senator Clinton: Well, let me start by saying, No. 1, I believe strongly that we have to get back to leading on issues like health care and education and women’s rights around the world. I have introduced legislation called The Education for All Act. And it’s bipartisan. I introduced it first in ’04 and then we reintroduced it on a bipartisan basis in ’07.
And the work that I would want to do to have the United States lead the world in putting the 77 million kids who aren’t in school into school, having us lead when it comes to health care, particularly in malaria, T.B., HIV/AIDS, but also women’s health which has been woefully
neglected.
I believe we should demonstrate our commitment to people who are poor, disenfranchised, disempowered before we talk about putting troops anywhere. The United States has to be seen again as a peacekeeper, and we have lost that standing in these last seven years.
Therefore, I want us to have a partnership, government to government, government with the private sector, government with our NGOS and our faith community to show the best of what America has to offer.
You know, I really appreciated President Bush after the tsunami struck, asking his father and my husband to represent the United States and our concern for the people who have been devastated.
And, yes, the military was there delivering supplies. That sent a loud message and it was resonating throughout South Asia — in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world. America’s favorability rose dramatically because we were seen as caring and compassionate toward those with whom we had very little contact or, in fact, some, you know, level of distrust previously.
So I think we have to concentrate first and foremost on restoring our moral authority in the world and our standing in the world. And there are lots of ways that the United States military can be helpful and can show the better face of America. After the Pakistan earthquakes, we sent in military teams to help people. So I think that is my emphasis right now.
Before we get to what we might do hypothetically, let’s see what we will do realistically to rebuild America’s moral authority and demonstrate our commitment to compassionate humanitarianism.