But What About Those Terrorist Camps?
- 05.01.2008 - 8:08 PMIn the second half of her interview with Bill O’Reilly, airing tonight, Hillary Clinton claims there’s nothing left for the U.S. military to do in Iraq:
First of all, I believe that our military has fulfilled all their military missions . . .There’s no doubt in my mind. They got rid of Saddam Hussein, which they were asked to do. They gave the Iraqis free and fair elections. They gave the Iraqi government the space and time to make the decisions that only the Iraqis can make for themselves . . . There is no military solution to what we face in Iraq, which is unprecedented. It is dangerous, it is unstable.
Well, some might argue that it’s Iraq’s very instability that requires our commitment to staying on and helping. One might even put it this way:
It will matter to us if Iraq totally collapses into civil war, if it becomes a failed state the way Afghanistan was, where terrorists are free to basically set up camp and launch attacks against us.
In fact someone did put it that way: Hillary Clinton. That was her argument against troop withdrawal in late 2005. It’s now 2008, and Iraq is leaps and bounds ahead of where it was then. If she couldn’t justify risking a failed Iraq when things felt truly hopeless, how can she be so dismissive of it now?
Back then, she was concerned about giving Iraqis “an open-ended invitation not to take care of themselves.” It was a good point, and luckily, Iraq didn’t consider our presence as such an invitation. The Sunni Awakening, political reconciliation, and Maliki’s fight against the Sadrists are all clear indications that Iraqis are indeed taking care of themselves.
But we also know that they’re doing it with our help. Maliki successfully routed Mahdi militias out of Basra with the assistance of the U.S. military. That this victory directly led to the country’s largest Sunni bloc coming back into Iraq’s government is a crystalline example of how American force continues to help move Iraq toward viable statehood.
Hillary clearly has no problem contradicting her own weighty proclamations. But in flip-flopping on this one she reveals an unsettling indifference toward a struggling ally.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
May 1st, 2008 at 8:56 PM
It’s actually NOT a good point, that one about Iraqis not taking care of themselves (I realize that was just an aside in this post, but it hit a long-standing sore point). It’s part of the weird mix that got us 2005-2006. Fostering dependence is a sensible concern, of course, but to diagnose much of what we have found frustrating about Iraqi behavior as simple dependence is and has been wrong. And the attempt to strike that perfect balance between signalling irresolution or unreliability and pushing Junior to take up more responsibility has proven impossible, and probably damaging, especially in the key area of security.
One must distinguish between sectors where this game of chicken makes sense, and where it can lead to disaster. Case in point: at the moment, Congress is mulling attaching conditions and limits to US reconstruction monies in such a way that may induce Iraq to commit more of its oil-flush revenues to the effort. That’s probably not a terrible idea, if it’s done carefully, but even there, it’s crucial to recognize that a major factor holding back Iraqi spending has been the absence of trustworthy systems of accounting and control in government programs. Iraq has had large amounts of funds burning a hole in its pocket for years now - but many officials fear committing funds due to weak controls, lack of experience in contracting, etc. There are interlocking layers of chickens-and-eggs here - but scaring the Iraqis into doing what we want is a pretty dicey approach, and does not speak well of the sophistication of almost everyone involved.
In the area of security the game of chicken has been reckless and counter-productive. Because Iraqis - arguably with some reason - often interpret these little foot-stamping exercises about drawing down force levels and expecting Iraqis to step up to the line as indications we are not committed to a positive outcome. A lack of resolve. And from their perspective, the rational response has often been to hold back, to avoid taking risks. The Americans look like they can’t wait to leave - but the former Ba’athist thug, or local Shi’a gangster, down the street aren’t going anywhere, and most people in that well-brutalized country tailor their behavior accordingly, directly affecting the effort to secure the country. On balance, I think it’s very likely the effect of our attempts to express impatience and hint at reducing our commitment on the security side has been to delay progress towards our objective of a peaceful and self-sustaining Iraq.
Americans from Clinton to actual military commanders stupidly utter this phrase about there being “no military solution,” which misstates the issue completely. In a situation like Iraq, there is no solution that isn’t 95% military, especially in the early stages, when security IS the issue.
We invaded Iraq to eliminate the intolerable threat posed by the former regime - a mission that was accomplished and whose rationale remains as solid today as it was in March 2003. We stayed on because it was/is in our interest to do so. We’re not doing the Iraqis a favor, however genuine and natural our tendency to help them have a chance to share some of the advantages we enjoy here in the USA.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:12 PM
At least it appears she has given it more thought and consideration than Sen. Obama (D-Steve Urkel) has.
Not much comfort, I know.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Michael Totten admirably writes about the increasing improvement of Iraq’s military. We are already weaning the Iraq government from being overly dependent on our soldiers. Hillary Clinton is not trying to talk rationally about Iraq. She is merely scared to death of the left-wing crazies who dominate so much of the nomination process. They want America to abandon its allies immediately.
The Democrats are unofficially committed to dishonest pacifism. They cannot be trusted to adequately handle threats to our security. I will even go one step further: The Democratic Party is finished as a viable political entity able to provide national leadership.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:18 AM
Breaking the unofficial Contentions rule that one doesn’t actually engage other commenters or apparently read their comments, I’ll add to Mr. Thomson’s comment a little detail: the date on which the Democratic Party officially ceased to be a viable political entity WRT national security issues was January 12, 1991. Look it up. Jaw-dropping.
I think I recall an astounding exit poll datum from 1992: something like 80% of CLINTON voters approved of Bush 41’s foreign policy management. Think about that for a second.
My growing fear is that, as we can prevail in the ugliest and stupidest way possible, given the material and fundamental superiority we have over our various adversaries - we will. The mediocrity of most of the policy class, the cowardice of the political class, and the distraction of the populace may result in just this sort of path to success. One labors, daily, to resist the devastating conclusion that the magnificent Americans in uniform fighting today’s battles are, in the end, chumps. My ratio of days in which I fail to resist that conclusion is approaching 50%.
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:36 AM
Great post, Abe. I could hardly improve on your excellent analysis, and research, that I urged the readers of my blog to your words.
As you note, it’s a tragedy that Iraq — with American military, financial and diplomatic help — appears close to achieving what the 2005 version of Hillary said was vital to America’s national security. It’s also a tragedy that there really are no more statesmen of principle in the Democratic party.
Which is why they cannot be given all the levers of power in Washington at this time of war.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:10 AM
I pine for the halcyon days of 2004 when the dems were deriding Dubya’s NG service and insisting that only a combat veteran can lead the nation in time of war.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:05 PM
I too think that The D Party is in decline. The influence of the far left, embodied in the Daily Kos/HuffPo, on those Dems who used to be more centrist is telling. The election of a San Francisco liberal to lead the House is also telling. There is also the taming of the “Blue Dog” Dems by that same San Francisco liberal so that they’ll fall into line behind her and abandon their more centrist views. People like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan are given fawning attention by the MSM.
I know that in recent times the political winds have favored the Dems. But I have to think that this all is ultimately going be their detriment. America is said to be a center-right country. Or at least it’s a whole lot more center than the above mentioned people of influence. If things stay as they are, doesn’t logic dictate that centrist Dems and Independents will drift rightward - providing of course that the Republicans don’t themselves go in the John Birch direction?