Hillary Clinton’s plan for Iraq is based on the idea of vastly reducing our American troop presence in the country as soon as possible. Her plan also includes leaving some troops in the country to defend the American embassy and to attack Al-Qaeda in Iraq. This last point has drawn her fire from rival candidates such as Bill Richardson and John Edwards. Both of them support pulling all combat troops from Iraq and contend that her plan amounts to a continuation of the war. I think they are wrong. Please read the ENTIRE diary before disagreeing with me.
Let me mention several things first of all. Hillary voted for the war and that was a huge mistake. Her refusal to apologize for her vote baffles me. Why would you not apologize for voting for a war that has turned out to be one of the worst strategic blunders in our history? There’s no good reason not to apologize. Democrats who voted for the war probably voted for it because either they didn’t fully analyze the intelligence or they didn’t want to be on the wrong side of a popular war. Hillary was a part of that, and boy did she screw up.
That being said, I think that her plan for Iraq going forward is realistic. Because of where we are right now, we have got to think of the Iraq conflict as broken down into two central issues: the Iraqi civil war, and the Al-Qaeda presence in the country. In order to solve the first conflict, we have to begin to remove the vast majority of our forces there. Iraqis need an incentive to control their own country and come together. If they read in the newspaper that America is no longer going to play referee between the two sides, the moderates in the country are more likely to find common ground in a common need for security. So we gotta end our massive troop presence. The second problem I mentioned is also a problem, like it or not. We made the mistake of invading Iraq, and in doing so, we are responsible for the presence of Al-Qaeda in the country. The fact that this terrorist group did not exist in the country before George Bush took us there to me does not mean we have no obligation to fight it. I think we have an obligation to track down Osama Bin Laden and his supporters wherever they are. Osama is not in Iraq, duh. A group is there, however, that espouses his ideology and is essentially an offshoot of his organization. So in this sense, along with drawing down the troop presence, I completely understand why Hillary wants to leave some troops in the country to run missions against Al-Qaeda. We can’t allow them to boost their recruitment further by declaring to the world that they have driven the Americans out of Iraq. Pulling out most of the troops while focusing our efforts on the terrorists in the country I think will help us refocus our efforts on the people who are responsible for 9/11. Most people supported the invasion of Afghanistan because that war was actually meant to respond to 9/11, unlike the imperialist adventure in Iraq. Now a branch of Bin Laden’s group is in Iraq, and I think we would be foolish not to continue to fight them as we take ourselves out of the Iraqi civil war as we should.
Hillary also wants to leave some troops in the country to protect our embassy. This makes sense to me also. If there was a civil war going on in any country, we would do what was necessary to protect our embassy, it’s just common sense. Richardson, if I understand what he is saying, would pull out every single American soldier. The embassy would burn. I don’t think that’s a good idea. Keeping soldiers to defend the embassy and to run missions against Al-Qaeda does not amount to a continuation of the war, let’s be honest with ourselves. A surge is a continuation of the war, keeping soldiers to referee the Iraqi civil conflict is a continuation of the war, Hillary’s plan is about something different. It’s about pulling out the troops, defending our embassy and fighting terrorists. Makes sense to me.
Some people will obviously disagree with me on the fighting terrorists in Iraq part. I almost feel like a republican saying "we should attack them!", but that’s just it. We should want to attack Al-Qaeda. The important thing is and I think Hillary understands this, is that you don’t defeat terrorism simply by attacking a couple crazies in Iraq. That’s minor. We have got to bring in the moderates by solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that leaves us open to waves of hatred across the world. We have got to revive American diplomacy and bring Iran and Syria out of isolation. We have got to stop interfering in countries’ internal affairs for our own economic gain. When human rights are being abused and intervention is the only option, we’ve got to learn to use force as a last resort, to cooperate with the international community and go through international institutions that legitimize our efforts. We’ve got to start restoring American leadership in the world on issues like global warming, fighting poverty, and nuclear disarmament. That’s how you bring in moderates and fight what terrorism really is – an ideology. I think that Hillary gets this more important element but also understands that you can’t simply let Al-Qaeda go free in Iraq. That’s why I think her Iraq plan is best. Don’t get me wrong though, 75% of Edwards’ attacks on Hillary are completely fair, but not this one. He’s trying to group her plan in with those of the republicans with his "continuation of the war" charge and that’s just not even close to reality.
I still don’t have a candidate by the way. I like Hillary’s Iraq plan, but I don’t really trust her and 49% of the population won’t vote for her. I like Biden but I have doubts about his Iraq plan and about his ego. I like Edwards but I have doubts about his Iraq plan. I like Obama but I have doubts about his healthcare plan. I like Dodd but I have doubts about his ability to inspire. I like Kucinich but he is not electable. I like Richardson, but he is a god-awful debater and I have doubts about his Iraq plan. I like everything about Wes Clark but...well...nevermind...