Clinton foresees residual force in Iraq if she is elected

[GaryC 7]

WASHINGTON: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton says that, if elected president, she foresees a "remaining military as well as political mission" in Iraq and 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 Tuesday in her Senate office, the New York senator said the scaled-down military presence she would maintain in Iraq would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence, even if it reached the level of ethnic cleansing. She declined to estimate the number of troops she would keep in Iraq.

In outlining how she would handle Iraq, Clinton articulated a more nuanced position than the one she provides at campaign events, where she has backed the goal of "bringing the troops home," a stance that pleases many of the Democratic voters she needs to win her party's nomination.

Rather, she said there were "remaining vital national security interests in Iraq" that would require an ongoing deployment of troops.

"So I think it will be up to me to try to figure out how to protect those national security interests and continue to take our troops out of this urban warfare, which I think is a loser, and I do not believe it can be successful," Clinton said.

She said it would matter to the United States if Iraq became a failed state that "serves as a petri dish for insurgents or Al Qaeda."

"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."

While Clinton criticized President George W. Bush's current troop reinforcements as an escalation of war, she also said of the plan, "We're doing it, and it's unlikely we can stop it."

"I'm going to root for it if it has any chance of success," she said of the Bush plan, "but I think it's more likely that the anti-American violence and sectarian violence just moves from place to place to place, like the old Whac-A-Mole. Clear some neighborhoods in Baghdad, then face Ramadi. Clear Ramadi, then it's back in Falluja."

The interview with Clinton is the first in a series that The New York Times is conducting with presidential candidates on Iraq.

Like other candidates for the Democratic nomination, Clinton has called for engaging Iran and Syria in discussions about stabilizing Iraq and has called on Bush to reverse his troop buildup. But it was clear in the interview that she believes the next president is likely to inherit an Iraq still plagued by sectarian fighting and occupied by a sizable number of U.S. troops.

"The choices that one would face are neither good nor unlimited," she said. "From the vantage point of where I sit now, I can tell you, in the absence of a very vigorous diplomatic effort on the political front and on the regional and international front, I think it is unlikely there will be a stable situation that's inherited."

On the campaign trail, Clinton has repeatedly vowed to bring the war to a close should the fighting still be going on if and when she takes office. "If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will," she has said.

But in the interview, she suggested that it was likely that the fighting among the Iraqis would continue for some time, as would an American military presence. In broad terms, her strategy is to abandon the U.S. military effort to stop the sectarian violence and to focus instead on trying to prevent the strife from spreading throughout the region by rearranging American troop deployments within Iraq. She identified a potential location where some of the remaining forces might be based: an area that extends north of the Iraqi capital toward Kirkuk.

"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 anti-terrorism 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."

Clinton described a mission with serious constraints. "We would not be doing patrols," she added. "We would not be kicking in doors. We would not be trying to insert ourselves in the middle between the various Shiite and Sunni factions. I do not think that's a smart or achievable mission for American forces."

Clinton acknowledged that under her strategy American troops would remain virtual bystanders if Shiites and Sunnis killed one another in sectarian attacks that resembled the ethnic cleansing campaigns in the Balkans.

"That may be inevitable — it certainly may be the only way to concentrate the attention of the parties," Clinton said.

Asked whether Americans would endure having troops in Iraq who do nothing to stop ethnic cleansing there, Clinton replied: "Look, I think the American people are done with Iraq. I think they're at a point where, whether they thought it was a good idea or not, they have seen misjudgment and blunder after blunder, and their attitude is, what is this getting us? What is this doing for us?"

"No one wants to sit by and see mass killing," she said. "It's going on every day. Thousands of people are dying every month in Iraq. Our presence there is not stopping it. And there is no potential opportunity I can imagine where it could.

"This is an Iraqi problem — we cannot save the Iraqis from themselves. If we had a different attitude going in there, if we had stopped the looting immediately, if we had asserted our authority — you can go down the lines, if, if, if."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/15/news/clinton.php

[Robor007 0]

After years of, 'Stay the course', I'm glad to hear another plan.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Why wouldn't she? She voted for the war in the first place.

[Robor007 0]

Why wouldn't she? She voted for the war in the first place.

As did a majority of her colleagues.

[Dan J 277]

Now that we have gotten ourselves into this mess, we cant just walk out of it and expect it all to be good. We would leave a broken country that will probably destabilize the rest of the region. Then you will get a real war on terror, not just rhetoric.

But at the same time, staying the course is another phrase for fattening the pockets of defense departments and private military companies. We need a new plan. Just leaving doesn't work.

[almaty 19]

good..bring the boys and girls home..

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Why wouldn't she? She voted for the war in the first place.

As did a majority of her colleagues.

But this thread is about Hillary.

[Alex+R 0]

Why wouldn't she? She voted for the war in the first place.

As did a majority of her colleagues.

Unlike many of her colleagues, Hilary still stands by her vote for the war. Gross.

[dalegg 143]

I'm sensing a real divide in the Left. I'm really going to roll over laughing when Harry Brown comes in and gets another Republican elected.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I'm sensing a real divide in the Left. I'm really going to roll over laughing when Harry Brown comes in and gets another Republican elected.

It's going to happen like that. The Dems don't have an electable candidate.

[Alex+R 0]

I'm sensing a real divide in the Left. I'm really going to roll over laughing when Harry Brown comes in and gets another Republican elected.

It's going to happen like that. The Dems don't have an electable candidate.

If race doesn't get in the way, I think Obama will be highly electable.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I'm sensing a real divide in the Left. I'm really going to roll over laughing when Harry Brown comes in and gets another Republican elected.

It's going to happen like that. The Dems don't have an electable candidate.

If race doesn't get in the way, I think Obama will be highly electable.

I'd vote for him if he was a Libertarian.

[William33 110]

I'm sensing a real divide in the Left. I'm really going to roll over laughing when Harry Brown comes in and gets another Republican elected.

It's going to happen like that. The Dems don't have an electable candidate.

If race doesn't get in the way, I think Obama will be highly electable.

He does not have the experience. Not going to happen.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Obama could pull it off. If he got nominated, I'd probably vote for him just for the symbolic value of breaking the WASP stranglehold over the Presidency. That would be sweet.

[Robor007 0]

Why wouldn't she? She voted for the war in the first place.

As did a majority of her colleagues.

Unlike many of her colleagues, Hilary still stands by her vote for the war. Gross.

Maybe she suffers from the same flaw as GWB >> Too proud and stubborn to admit when their wrong?