Hillary Clinton sees keeping some forces in Iraq to fight al Qaeda and deter Iranian aggression

[ProSense]

If Elected

Clinton Sees Some Troops Staying in Iraq if She Is Elected

By MICHAEL R. GORDON and PATRICK HEALY
Published: March 14, 2007

WASHINGTON, March 14 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced but significant military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain in Iraq after taking office would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more-nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of “bringing the troops home.”

Snip...

Mrs. Clinton’s plans carry some political risk. Although she has been extremely critical of the Bush administration’s handling of the war, some liberal Democrats are deeply suspicious of her intentions on Iraq, given that she voted in 2002 to authorize the use of force there and, unlike some of her rivals for the Democratic nomination, has not apologized for having done so. Senator Clinton’s proposal is also likely to stir up debate among military specialists. Some counterinsurgency experts say the plan is unrealistic because Iraqis are unlikely to provide useful tips about Al Qaeda operatives if American troops curtail their interaction with the Iraqi public and end their efforts to protect Iraqi neighborhoods. But a former Pentagon official argued that such an approach would minimize American casualties and thus make it easier politically to sustain a long-term military presence that might prevent the fighting from spreading throughout the region.

Snip...

With many Democratic primary voters favoring a total withdrawal from Iraq. Senator Clinton appears to trying to balance her own short-term political interests with the need to retain some flexibility to deal with the complexities of Middle East. Like other Democratic candidates, she has called for engaging Iran and Syria in discussions and called on President Bush to reverse his troop buildup.

Sniip...

“It would be fewer troops,” she said. “But what we can do is to almost take a line north of — between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region the ones that are going to remain for our antiterrorism mission; for our northern support mission; for our ability to respond to the Iranians; and to continue to provide support, if called for, for the Iraqis.”

more...

[pennylane100]

1. Well maybe she should ask Chelsea to volunteer

to put her life on the line. At least I would like her a little more if she were willing to pay a personal price for her beliefs.

[IndianaGreen]

4. The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.

Those are the words of Eugene Debs which ring as true today as they did in 1918:

The feudal barons of the Middle Ages, the economic predecessors of the capitalists of our day, declared all wars. And their miserable serfs fought all the battles. The poor, ignorant serfs had been taught to revere their masters; to believe that when their masters declared war upon one another, it was their patriotic duty to fall upon one another and to cut one another's throats for the profit and glory of the lords and barons who held them in contempt. And that is war in a nutshell. The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and all to lose--especially their lives.

They have always taught and trained you to believe it to be your patriotic duty to go to war and to have yourselves slaughtered at their command. But in all the history of the world you, the people, have never had a voice in declaring war, and strange as it certainly appears, no war by any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people.

And here let me emphasize the fact--and it cannot be repeated too often--that the working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the working class who freely shed their blood and furnish the corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone declare war and they alone make peace. Yours not to reason why; Yours but to do and die. That is their motto and we object on the part of the awakening workers of this nation. If war is right let it be declared by the people. You who have your lives to lose, you certainly above all others have the right to decide the momentous issue of war or peace....

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/debs-speech.htm

[IndianaGreen]

2. Hillary has never criticized the war in Iraq, only the mismanagement of it.

Thank you Hillary for making it clear what many of us have always suspected and said about you. Hillary won't end the war in Iraq!

[The Magistrate]

3. This Is Pretty Foolish, My Friend

And probably just campaign noise.

The logistics of maintaining any sizeable force north of Baghdad only are pretty tenuous, and it is a most disadvantageous place for basing a reaction foprce.

It is very unlikely this would actually be done.

[karynnj]

8. Hillary said this is what she will do

So, if you want to call any one "silly" than it should be direceted to Hillary. To call it "campaign noise" is wrong - this was a position she opted to take.

I hope people see what the Begalas and Carvilles wanted when they whined about John Kerry's campaign - which nearly led to him unseating a war time President.

[The Magistrate]

9. My Comment To An Old Friend Here, Ma'am

Indicated a degree of overlap in our views, which sometimes happens when the moon is right, and has happened in this matter. It also contained some of my reasons for thinking this is unlikely to be a course actually carried out, that my friend is knowledgeable enough to appreciate.

[karynnj]

16. Point taken

I do think there are reasons to take this as more than campaign noise. As I do not have a candidate I support, I have been trying very hard to see what the world views of the candidates are. It is important to see how they view the US fitting into the world. There are elements of this article that concern me - I know I can't have Kerry as President, but I would prefer someone who I trust as much in terms of international relations.

[sandrakae]

5. Hilary just lost whatever chance she had of getting my vote.

[McCamy Taylor]

6. She is protecting "vital interests"---the northern oil fields. Check out

a map of Iraq's oil fields and you find that the northern most ones happen to lie exactly where she plans to station her troops.

Could Hillary be planning to protect the investments of US oil companies? Her husband, Bill's biggest failing, IMO, was the way that he was always willing to suck up to big American business even if it meant screwing citizens of other countries out of their rightful wealth.

[ElizabethDC]

7. Obama has also said he might keep a small number of troops in Iraq

according to this article:

(Senator Barack Obama, a rival of Mrs. Clinton, has said that if elected president, he might keep a small number of troops in Iraq.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/washington/15clinton.html?ei=5065&en=d79bee3027e8df42&ex=1174536000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

[Cameron27]

10. You're being overlooked...

"Senator Barack Obama, a rival of Mrs. Clinton, has said that if elected president, he might keep a small number of troops in Iraq."

[ProSense]

13. Can't overlook this

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

[ProSense]

11. Clinton's plan

is completely different from Obama's (and if he's advocating the same thing, it's still ridiculous). The article in the OP and the one you linked to are about Clinton and her statements:

The idea of repositioning American forces to minimize American casualties, discourage Iranian, Syrian and Turkish intervention, and forestall the Kurds’ declaring independence is not a new one. It has been advocated by Dov S. Zakheim, who served as the Pentagon’s comptroller under former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Mr. Zakheim has estimated that no more than 75,000 troops would be required, compared to the approximately 160,000 troops the United States will have in Iraq when the additional brigades in Mr. Bush’s plan are deployed.

“It would be far fewer troops,” she said. “But what we can do is to almost take a line sort of north of — between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region, the ones that are going to remain for our antiterrorism mission, for our northern support mission, for our ability to respond to the Iranians, and to continue to provide support, if called for, for the Iraqis.”

One question raised by counterinsurgency experts is whether the more limited military mission Mrs. Clinton is advocating would lead to a further escalation in the sectarian fighting, because it would shift the entire burden for protecting civilians to the nascent Iraqi Security Forces. A National Intelligence Estimate issued in January said those forces would be hard-pressed to take on significantly increased responsibilities in the next 12 to 18 months.

[The Magistrate]

17. The Two Plans, Ma'am, Differ In No Important Particular

Both stem from the same concern, which is that serious students of the region and its current situation are in no doubt that the withdrawl of U.S. forces from Iraq will be the signal for greatly increased blood-letting and chaos. The political consequences of this, in the United States, are hard to calculate, but many have a reasonable fear it could be turned to attacks on the 'who lost Iraq'?' line against the authors of U.S. withdrawl, that could prove damaging some years down the road. There is also the immediate concern that predictions of increased blood-letting and chaos can be used effectively against proposals for withdrawl before they are executed. These plans are attempts to fend off this line of attack in advance, by displaying what will at least look to the un-tutored eye as measures to ward off and mitigate this expected result of U.S. withdrawl. The problem with them is that they will not work on the ground in Iraq, and because they will not, they are unlikely to be stuck to by any new President, no matter what he or she says during the campaign.

[flpoljunkie]

14. Obama's plan: Troops remain as "basic force protection, counter-terrorism, training Iraqis"

The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. It is not a continuation of the occupation, as is Hillary Clinton's plan--a plan that Lieberman and the neocons could, no doubt, embrace.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

At the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations in November 2005, Senator Obama called for: (1) a reduction in the number of U.S. troops; (2) a time frame for a phased withdrawal; (3) the Iraqi government to make progress on forming a political solution; (4) improved reconstruction efforts to restore basic services in Iraq; and (5) engaging the international community, particularly key neighboring states and Arab nations, to become more involved in Iraq. In January 2006 he traveled to Iraq and met with senior U.S. military commanders, Iraqi officials and U.S. troops in Baghdad and Fallujah.

Senator Obama introduced legislation in January 2007 to offer a responsible alternative to President Bush's failed escalation policy. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's expectations. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the 13 benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met.

[SOS]

21. Obama supports the ISG recomendations:

RECOMMENDATION 40: The United States should not make an open-ended commitment to
keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq.
RECOMMENDATION 41: The United States must make it clear to the Iraqi government that
the United States could carry out its plans, including planned redeployments, even if Iraq does
not implement its planned changes. America’s other security needs and the future of our military
cannot be made hostage to the actions or inactions of the Iraqi government.
RECOMMENDATION 42: We should seek to complete the training and equipping mission by
the first quarter of 2008, as stated by General George Casey on October 24, 2006.

This is very different from Hillary's PNAC plan for 75,000 to stay in an open-ended commitment.
Although it's hard to tell exactly how Hillary feels about an open-ended commitment:

"I do not think it is a smart strategy, either, for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment. Nor do I think it is a smart strategy to set a date certain" - Hillary Clinton, June 2006

In June she said it is not a smart strategy to have an open-ended commitment and today she says she wants to keep 75,000 troops in Iraq as President.

:shrug:

[job777]

12. Sounds like

Lyndon Johnson when he became president. Oh my.

[flpoljunkie]

15. Hillary's plan is one that could be embraced by Joe Lieberman, Bush and his neocon supporters

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/washington/14cnd-clinton.html

[SOS]

19. It's an actual PNAC plan

As mentioned in the Times article and in a post above, this is PNACer Dov Zakheim's plan.

[flpoljunkie]

20. Thanks, SOS. Here is what the Times' article said about Rummy's man, Dov S. Zakheim...

The idea of repositioning American forces to minimize American casualties, discourage Iranian, Syrian and Turkish intervention and forestall the Kurds’ declaring independence is not a new one. It has been advocated by Dov S. Zakheim, who served as the Pentagon’s comptroller under former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Mr. Zakheim has estimated that no more than 75,000 troops would be required, compared with the approximately 160,000 troops the United States will have in Iraq when the additional brigades in Mr. Bush’s plan are deployed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/washington/14cnd-clinton.html?pagewanted=2

Dov S. Zakheim was a signatory to the "Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century," Project for the New American Century, September 2000.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf (Note: this is a 90 page pdf file)

[SaveElmer]

18. There isn't a single serious withdrawl plan that removes all troops...

Murtha, Feingold, all envision U.S. troops in the region for security purposes...

[karynnj]

23. In the region, yes - In Iraq, NO

It is also clear that Hillary's reasons go well beyond those of Murtha, Feingold, Kerry and most other Democrats.

[MGKrebs]

22. This is worse than watching Alan Greenspan.

It was always so amazing watching financial analysts parse every detail, nuance, implication, and subtlety out of every single word he uttered. He had to be so very careful to not say anything too dramatic lest the markets crash people start jumping out of windows. Clinton isn't even the nominee and it's the same treatment.

[EndElectoral]

24. How many is some? She's sounding more and more like GW