One of the negatives dogging Hillary over the occupation of Iraq has been her seeming endorsement of a continuing Troop presence there, which some have estimated might require as many as 75,000 troops stationed in permanent bases inside Iraq and in neighboring countries, like Kuwait.
On yesterday's Hardball (MSNBC) there was extensive coverage of the Presidential debate hosted by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Anyone watching Hillary's performance could be forgiven for thinking she had changed her tune on having a permanent presence in Iraq. However, if we dissect the Clintonian double-speak, then it appears that her position is fundamentally unchanged. As often happens with the Clintons, it's necessary to carefully parse the semantics and, in this case, it all depends on what you mean by "permanent".
One of the negatives dogging Hillary over the occupation of Iraq has been her seeming endorsement of a continuing Troop presence there, which some have estimated might require as many as 75,000 troops stationed in permanent bases inside Iraq and in neighboring countries, like Kuwait. She spelled out her strategy in an interview with the New York Times (published 3/14/2007), where she made it clear that she would retain a significant force in Iraq to "contain the extremists", "help the Kurds manage their various problems in the north" and "provide logistical support, air support, training support" for the Iraqi government. Hillary seems in little doubt that US interests are inextricably tied to the fortunes of Iraq:
"I think we have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq, and I’ve spoken about that on many different occasions.
I think it really does matter whether you have a failed province or a region that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda. 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.
So I think we have a remaining military as well as political mission, trying to contain the extremists."
On yesterday's Hardball (MSNBC) there was extensive coverage of the debate hosted by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, featuring Democratic presidential hopefuls, including front runners: John Edwards, Barack Obama and, of course, Hillary Clinton. Anyone watching Hillary's performance could be forgiven for thinking she had changed her tune on having a permanent presence in Iraq. However, if we dissect the Clintonian double-speak, then it appears that her position is fundamentally unchanged from 3 months ago. As often happens with the Clintons, it's necessary to carefully parse the semantics and, in this case, it all depends on what you mean by "permanent".
So, here's what Hillary said today, three months after the NYT interview:
"I have, for some time, said that we may still have remaining vital national security interests that are important to America. You know, we cannot let Al Qaeda have a staging ground in Iraq. And, finally, we have made common cause with some of the Iraqis themselves in Al Anbar province so that they are actually working with American forces against Al Qaeda. That doesn’t take a lot of American forces but I think we have to look carefully about continuing that. We also have to look at how the Kurds are being treated. We also have to pay attention to Iranian influence. I don’t know that we need very many troops to do that. And finally we will have to protect our interests. We will have an embassy there. And if the Iraqi government does get its act together, we may have a continuing training mission. But that’s a limited number of troops with very specific missions; no permanent bases, no permanent occupation." (bold emphasis added)
In not so many words, Hillary is re-iterating the major planks of her strategy laid out in the NYT article, namely: protect US interests, prevent Al Qaeda from establishing any kind of safe-haven in Iraq, provide Logistical, training and Air support for Iraqi forces and provide protection for the Kurds. Hillary then attempts to sugar-coat what, on the face of it, would still appear to be a major undertaking by our Military by saying: " I don’t know that we need very many troops to do that.". Anyone who is thinking: "huh?" can be forgiven for feeling somewhat confuzzled. The intention of this statement is to create the impression that Hillary's strategy will only require a small, affordable force to implement, while at the same time not actually stating or committing to any hard numbers. This is Clintonian double-speak at its very finest and duplicates her artful avoidance of stating any hard numbers for force-size in the NYT piece.
So, what is the Hillary strategy for Iraq likely to require in terms of numbers of troops? John B. Judis' write-up on the NYT interview in The New Republic contains the following tidbit:
"Michael Gordon and Patrick Healy, who conducted the interview, noted that former Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim, who has developed a strikingly similar plan, estimates that 75,000 American troops would be needed to carry his plan out. That's about half of the current force stationed in Iraq.".
This seems a lot more than most people might imagine when they hear: " I don’t know that we need very many troops to do that.". In fact, if you actually break down the kinds of missions this force will need to fulfill under Hillary's plan, then it doesn't seem like an over-ambitious number at all. Under Hillary's plan, our forces would be tasked with: securing the border, carrying out seek and destroy missions against Al Qaeda in Al-Anbar and anywhere else they might try and gain a foothold, provide on-going logistical support to the Iraqis, provide training, provide air-cover for US and Iraqi operations and provide a force to protect the Kurds in the North. Presumably, this force would also have protecting the Iraqi Oil Fields and production facilities as a top priority.
When you add it all up, this doesn't look a whole lot different from the plan for the long-term (50-60) year presence in Iraq that has been floated by the White house and Military top-brass over the last couple of weeks. In fact, it's more or less the same plan. The only difference seems to be that Hillary would not leave our troops between the Sunni and Shia factions, as they carry on their civil war, and would start to draw down our troops sooner.
Assuming that Hillary's plan would require around 75,000 troops stationed in and near Iraq, how long would the force have to remain at this strength? Well, that's almost impossible to estimate. Presumably, this force could start to be reduced when Al Queda has been irradiated from within Iraq, the borders are secure enough to prevent incursions of foreign fighters and weapons, the Iraqi forces are able to carry out most security duties without requiring US logistical support or training and the Kurds no longer need protecting from anyone. I don't think anyone should hold their breath waiting for any one of these things to happen, but Hillary told Chris Matthews: "...that’s a limited number of troops with very specific missions; no permanent bases, no permanent occupation".
Since when did "limited" come to mean half the current force and what does "permanent" really mean in this context? Well, if you're Hillary, you don't have to define either of these terms: you just let the audience think what they want to think. Surprisingly, the usually tenacious Chris Matthews didn't try to pin Hillary down to any hard numbers but just let her skate.
The reality is: large, heavily fortified bases have already been built in Iraq and more are currently under construction in the expectation that large numbers of our troops will be in Iraq for many years to come. This is not a fact that is widely reported in the Mainstream Media, but has been covered on the net. This Salon article from last year describes the massive undertaking that is currently underway. Indeed, it would be unrealistic for the force required to implement Hillary's plan not to have bases from which to operate and for those bases not to be well protected in what is essentially hostile territory.
To be fair to Hillary, she did say in her NYT interview that the majority of troops in Iraq would withdraw to bases outside of Baghdad, but, of course, these wouldn't be permanent bases, oh no. They might look like they are intended to last us into the next century, but, really, they're just there until no longer needed (whenever that is). Even then, there is a fundamental flaw with this plan. As Hillary herself points out, the US will maintain the largest and costliest Embassy on the planet in Baghdad on a permanent basis. That Embassy will need protecting by a sizable number of troops for the foreseeable future and they will need to be based in and around the Green Zone, not out in the boonies and they will likely be engaged with the insurgents on a regular basis.
The other major issue facing any long-term occupation is logistics. The Military relies on long supply lines coming up from Kuwait. These supply lines will need to be protected (along with the Baghdad airport) for as long as a hostile environment exists in Iraq and that will require a good number of Troops out in the field and very vulnerable to attack. Just how long these brave women and men would be expected to put their lives at risk executing Hillary's plan is anyone's guess. It all depends on what you mean by "permanent", really.