March 14, 2007: A relatively sensible Hillary on Iraq...

... not the party hack à la Pelosi ... surfaces in this NYT article. I wonder what the Move On crowd says about this, assuming they read anything. And I wish Hillary would show respect for the American public by talking like this on the campaign trail. Too much to ask in these partisan times, I suppose.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

wouldn't surprise me a bit if
Hillary and Bill coached the (late) Yassir Arafat
on the importance of keeping your real intentions
hidden from the public and being very selective(Arabic vs English)
about on-the-record comments.

/only moderate sarcasm

Posted by: gumshoe at March 15, 2007 1:20 PM

There are 2 messsages that need to be communicated to the various regional players in Iraq.

1) If they truly want a regional conflict...the US might very well opt out. The Saudi's could surely purchase some nukes off of Pakistan to "level the playing" field so to speak.

2) If the regional players don't want a regional war...then the US would be favorable to remaining in Iraq as a stabilizing force for a substantial period of time.

Without completely detaching from reality, one can easily make the case that the various regional players have been jockeying for position in the "Post US" Iraq. The historical examples of Vietnam and Somalia are prime examples. The Iranians aren't interested in a Saudi puppet state and he Saudis aren't interested in an Iranian puppet state on their borders.

So while I can't stand Hillary...her statements are somewhat consistant with US goals in regards to Iraq.

Posted by: Soldier's Dad at March 15, 2007 5:37 PM

According to the NYT, Mrs. Clinton says that 1) "...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".

BUT!

2) They "...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".

Were 2) to happen, which is possible should the number of U.S. troops to be significantly reduced, how could Clinton possibly pursue 1)? If she were pursuing 1), how could our troops not get involved if 2) were to occur?

Mr. Simon, I generally agree with your views, but you are wrong to call this "relatiely sensible", even for Hillary. For her to make those two statements is silly. If she actually believes they can both be concomitantly pursued, she is delusional.

Posted by: GreaterFool at March 15, 2007 7:49 PM

...even if it descended into ethnic cleansing

That is the part that caught my eye. My thought is ....wanna bet? Bill did not want to do Kosovo, but good ole Jack Chirac plopped himself on the White House lawn and in we went. Just watch ethnic cleansing on the news cycle several times, and we'll see US forces back in the middle. Who knows what she's really gonna do? Keeping everyone guessing is her strategy for now. She's only looking to elections. She'll do what she wants when and if she gets in office, until circumstances put her in a bind.

Posted by: Barry Dauphin at March 15, 2007 9:36 PM

Email This Post