Clinton on Iraq

Frustrating as it is that the major Democratic presidential contenders won't just adopt my views on Iraq, it's even more frustrating that they're all pretending to share my views. Here's a neat video Matt Stoller put together highlighting the differences between Hillary Clinton's "end the war" rhetoric on the campaign trail and her actual policies:

Probably the best guide we have to the thinking of people likely to advice Hillary Clinton on national security issues is CNAS's "Phased Transition" plan which I believe is what Stoller references in the video.

Comments

To be fair Bowers points out that it is also Obama's plan.

Is there another withdrawal plan with as much detail or attention to contingencies?

Posted by tib | September 7, 2007 8:28 AM

Although, Stoller thinks that he's a god among men, perhaps it is that people prefer the plans of Clinton, Obama, et al. to Stoller's.

Posted by JoeCHI | September 7, 2007 8:34 AM

perhaps it is that people prefer the plans of Clinton, Obama, et al. to Stoller's

No, they don't. There's a reason why Clinton keeps obscuring her position on Iraq: it's actually fairly unpopular.

As for the video itself: great idea, poor execution. I realize Matt Stoller isn't a professional video editor or anything, so I cut him some slack for not putting together anything especially flashy, but I'd love to see someone with some actual editing skills put something together for this.

Posted by Christmas | September 7, 2007 9:02 AM

Joechi You do know that when Hillary gets elected, that people will actually expect the war to well and truly end. For troops to come home, right? What do you think is going to happen to the Democratic party in 2010, and 2012 when that doesn't happen? You're an idiot, and probably a hack, who wants to get what they want. You know full well that what you spout is bullshit, you just don't care.

I'm starting to wonder, JoeChi, if you really actually care about the Democratic parties future? You must realize, on some level, that keeping a sizable number of troops in Iraq will either completely destroy the Democratic party, or ruin it's electoral chances for a generation.

Posted by soullite | September 7, 2007 9:05 AM

>>people likely to advice Hillary Clinton

advice is a verb now? I like your blog and all, but, dude, you are one sloppy writer.

Posted by jim | September 7, 2007 9:16 AM

Matt is, apparently, impervious to advice about spellchecking and proofreading his work. He gets a lot of it, and the work never gets any better.

Posted by THS | September 7, 2007 9:42 AM

Matt is, apparently, impervious to advice about spellchecking and proofreading his work. He gets a lot of it, and the work never gets any better.

He's impervious to advice because we all read his blog despite the gross lack of spellchecking and proofreading. Look, Yglesias, if you're reading these comments at all, for fuck's sake start doing at least a single re-read of your posts after you write them. This post isn't so bad, but in the past you've made errors that have either utterly obscured the meaning of the post or changed it entirely (by, for example, excluding words like "not" or "don't" from sentences where they were otherwise intended). I realize you've no reason to listen to what I say, but you're old enough now that this isn't a charming quirk anymore; it's just kind of a pain.

Posted by Christmas | September 7, 2007 10:17 AM

In fairness, the CNAS plan does at least explicitly call for the removal of all troops at some point, which seems more dovish than previous statements which suggested that even after two terms of Clinton there would still be troops in Iraq (which of course would be political suicide)

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | September 7, 2007 10:49 AM

Senator Clinton could not ask for better enemies. If I was a Democrat running for the president of all of America, not San Francisco or Cambridge Massachusetts, I would plead with Matt Stoler to make more videos about how I care too much about winning the war in Iraq. I think this is all coordinated.

Posted by Eli Lake | September 7, 2007 12:59 PM

Surely you're aware that the vast majority of democrats, let alone the public at large, who want out of Iraq don't live in San Francisco or Cambridge. That's a pretty hackish thing to say.

Posted by mad6798j | September 7, 2007 3:27 PM

"hackish" - Hey, I resemble that remark...

Seriously, Lake is known for this.

What I find funny is that anyone is surprised that a politician like Clinton is basically LYING about her actual intentions in her campaign ads.

When did this become news? Or even YouTube videos?

Clinton is lying. Obama is lying. Edwards is probably lying (I say probably because he's actually calling for no more funding NOW for this nonsense which I haven't heard Clinton or Obama actually support - but who know what he'll do once he's in office?)

And it all doesn't matter anyway. Bush and Cheney are about to expand the war to Iran, Syria and Lebanon. NONE of the Democratic candidates are calling them on this. NONE of them.

Trust me, the troops WILL be coming home from Iraq. In body bags.

I'd say we stand at least a twenty, maybe thirty, percent chance of having the US forces in Iraq "decimated" (i.e., losing at least ten percent of the force level in casualties, say, 15-20,000 dead) within the next year or so - if Iran is attacked. Alternatively, if the US evacuates quickly enough, that figure may be lower - but then almost all US equipment that can't be flown out will be left behind.

And we will NOT have "permanent bases" in Iraq - because the Iraqis will be running those bases after they've chased us out after the Iran war starts.

Besides, anybody talking about leaving troops in Iraq to do ANYTHING is clueless about the nature of the Iraqi resistance. US troops in Iraq will do NOTHING but "force protection" in Iraq if they are reduced to too low levels - which is basically any level significantly lower than where they are now.

Today or yesterday, some British Lt. Colonel complained about how the Brits had "not lost" in Basra because his troops could go on patrols basically anywhere in Basra - and not be engaged directly by the Shia militia. This demonstrates his complete and total lack of knowledge of how things work in an insurgency and how things are working in Iraq.

The same situation will be true of any US troops left in Iraq. They will be able to go anywhere as a body supported by gunships and jets.

But they won't materially change anything happening in Iraq vis-a-vis either the resistance or the sectarian conflict.

So what's the point of having them there?

Force projection? Where? Turkey? Nope. Iran? That's already in the cards - and will result in losing most of them as the Iraqi Shia take them apart along with the Iranian IRGC. Syria? Israel already has them in their sights. Plus Syria isn't going to do anything requiring US troops to invade them. Like what scenario? Syria STARTS a war with Israel? Don't make me laugh. Assad may be a dentist, but he's not that stupid.

So, other than bombing Afghanistan civilians to death from bases in Iraq, what "force projection"?

It's ruminant evacuation. The only "force projection" is FOR THE OIL COMPANIES BENEFIT.

Period.

And as long as you have hundreds of miles of pipeline and no US soldier stationed along every 100 feet of said pipeline, no Iraqi oil is going to either the US or Israel (except maybe the Kirkuk pipeline to Haifa if that ever gets done.)

As for the notions that the US military will have "training missions" or whatever, hah! After what the US has done in Iraq, ANY US soldier in Iraq who is not guarded 24x7 will have his throat cut within 48 hours of landing - probably by the Iraqi military assigned to guard him.

The ONLY option for the US now is complete and total withdrawal as quickly as logistics and force protection allows. Which, according to that study cited earlier here and elsewhere, if we start NOW, we can be totally out within 9-12 months.

And THAT is the stance that any Democratic candidate who wants to abide by the US public's wishes should be taking.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 7, 2007 9:21 PM