First, a disclaimer: I am a supporter of Hillary's presidential campaign. I support her not in spite of her third way politics, but because of them. I will outline in this diary why I support her through focusing on her position in Iraq. But whether you support, or more likely (given the audience here) detest her, I welcome serious policy discussion of our options in Iraq.
The Clintons are constantly being accused of being triangulators, with the notion that they have their fingers to the political wind and are constantly changing positions to try to be the most popular. However, I think the real meaning of triangulation is not taking three positions at once, or constantly shifting the legs of your tripod, but having a third way philosophy distinct from the traditional left and traditional right.
Furthermore, this third way philosophy isn't so much a pragmatic one of trying to seize center ground and win elections, but rather a political approach based on an understanding of the maturation of socio-economic trends around the world. Often these third-way positions ARE popular with the public, as evidenced by Bill Clinton's great popularity. However, Hillary shows with her most recent statement on Iraq that she is willing to take a third-way position even when it is potentially unpopular or risky, at least with the primary voters she is now courting. That is bold and honest, not cautious and mealy-mouthed, as she is often accused of being.
Back to socio-economic trends. Simply put, the industrial era of much of the 20th century -- in which the working class on the one hand was pitted against the bourgeoisie, and simultaneously the colonized global South was pitted against the industrialized global North -- is now ending, replaced by an emerging post-industrial era termed by Castells as "informationalism," based on globalization, post-Fordist organizational relations, knowledge economies, and rapid technological change. In such an era, the traditional left-right polarizations (labor vs. capital, South vs. North) are no longer the central driving forces of international politics.
In terms of world affairs, that means the old anti-imperialist leftist view of "U.S. out now" no longer makes sense in many contexts, because military conflicts around the world cannot be boiled down to simple anti-imperialism. I haven't seen any polling on this site on the matter, but I assume that many if not most people on this site actually supported U.S./Nato intervention in the former Yugoslavia as a way of trying to bring stability to a region and protect innocent lives, and I also assume that many if not most people have supported U.S./Nato intervention in Afghanistan. And, indeed, many people on this site probably wish the U.S. would have intervened more in places like Rwanda to protect human lives.
That brings us back to Iraq. I personally think that the world community had a legitimate interest in deposing one of the most vicious dictators on the world, who had invaded neighbors several times and butchered his own people (and, indeed, support for regime change in Iraq has been virtually unanimous among both Democrats and Republicans going back to the Clinton administration). And yes, the fact that Saddam's regime sat on a huge amount of oil raised the stakes in the matter, not so much from a colonialist angle (of us wanting to steal Iraq's oil), but rather due to the fact that anti-democrat trends in the Mideast (whether of the secular variety such as the Baathists or the fundamentalist variety in Saudi Arabia) can project their power and strength more throughout the region and world due to their oil wealth, thus causing much more misery and danger for the world's people. Stabilizing Rwanda matters for the people of Rwanda--tremendously of course. Stabilizing the Mideast matters for the people of the world, because an unstable Mideast could lead to global nuclear conflict.
For these reasons, the authorization of war vote was not a mistake, in the sense that the U.S. and world needed to put as much pressure as possible on the Baathist regime to comply with UN resolutions. And, indeed, if the U.S. had been successful in putting together the kind of international coalition of forces as it had for the Yugoslavia or first Gulf War conflicts, and simultaneously had been successful in winning and maintaining the support of the strong majority of Iraqi people, there was nothing wrong in principal with deposing such a vicious and dangerous regime. Of course, as we all know, it didn't turn out that way, and Hillary, Edwards and everyone else correctly regrets having given Bush authorization for the war.
So what do we do now? Once again, the left reverts to its anti-imperialist call of "U.S. Out Now," whereas the right basically says pour larger and larger amount of troops in for "victory." In contrast to both positions, Hillary (and, indeed, most thoughtful critics of the war) contend that we need to extracate ourselves from the civil war while maintaining some kind of ongoing U.S. presence to guard against extreme negative consequences. Let's consider three possible ones that Hillary has referred to:
(1) A base for international terrorism. Yes, Iraq became a centerpoint of international terror after the war, rather than before it (at least in terms of stateless terror, rather than the state terror of Saddam's regime), but, be that as it may, that's the deck of cards we have now. Just as we have a legitimate interest in preventing radical terrorists from consolidating their forces in Afghanistan/Pakistan, we also have a legitimate and important interest in preventing radical terrorists from consolidating their forces in Iraq. A failed statelet in a part of Iraq that becomes a center of international terror will be just as dangerous as the Taliban/Al Qaeda state in Afghanistan became.
(2) The Kurds. The Kurds are the largest group in the Mideast without their own state, and in that sense deserve as much or more sympathy as that given to other oppressed groups. What's more, they are working to build an autonomous region within Iraq that is freer, more prosperous, and more respectful of people's rights than almost any other in the Middle East. They deserve our protection and support.
(3) Iran. The U.S. has already strengthened Iran by knocking out two of its enemies (Taliban and, especially, Saddam Hussein). A too-hasty, poorly planned total withdrawal from Iraq could strengthen Iran's hand further, while in appropriate presence in Iraq could act as a check on Iran.
Of course, any U.S. efforts in these three areas can also backfire. Maintaining force in Iraq can help to contain international terrorists, but it can also inspire international terrorists. A too-close identification between the U.S. forces and the Kurds could harm U.S. relations with Turkey. And a continued U.S. presence in Iraq could continue to push Iraqi Shiites into a closer relationship with Iran. In other words, achieving U.S. goals through an ongoing U.S. military presence in the country is not easy or simple.
Hence the call for serious discussion. If you think the U.S. should get out now, say so -- but also try to present arguments as to why you think that's the best course of action. For example, do you also think the U.S. should get "out now" of Afghanistan? If not, what's the difference? Why do we have a legitimate interest in combating international terror in Afghanistan but not in Iraq? Do you think that the Kurds do not deserve our support? Why not? Is Iran a threat to world interests or not, and how can that threat be checked? If all U.S. troops are based in "the region" rather than in Iraq, how will that limit their ability to accomplish legitimate goals, such as defending the Kurds? If the U.S. pulls out immediately and completely from Iraq, what do you think will happen in the country.
Or, alternately, if you think the U.S. should maintain some troops in Iraq, what should their mission and goals be?
The bottom line is that it's easy for Kossacks or others to shout "out now" without concern for the consequences, but U.S. Senators know that their actions have consequences. What do you think U.S. policy in Iraq should be post-Bush, and what do you foresee as the likely consequences of the policy you propose?
Comments are closed on this story.