NY Times, March 15, 2007
If Elected ...
Clinton Says Some G.I.s in Iraq Would Remain
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and PATRICK HEALY
WASHINGTON, March 14 Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a remaining
military as well as political mission in Iraq, and says that if elected
president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda,
deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi
military.
In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said
the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain 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.
In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton
articulated a more nuanced position than the one she has provided at her
campaign events, where she has backed the goal of bringing the troops home.
She said in the interview that there were remaining vital national
security interests in Iraq that would require a continuing deployment of
American troops.
The United States security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned
into a failed state that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al
Qaeda, she said. It is right in the heart of the oil region, she said.
It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of
regimes, to Israels interests.
So it will be up to me to try to figure out how to protect those national
security interests and continue to take our troops out of this urban
warfare, which I think is a loser, Mrs. Clinton added. She declined to
estimate the number of American troops she would keep in Iraq, saying she
would draw on the advice of military officers.
Mrs. Clintons plans carry some political risk. Although she has been
extremely critical of the Bush administrations handling of the war, some
liberal Democrats are deeply suspicious of her intentions on Iraq, given
that she voted in 2002 to authorize the use of force there and, unlike some
of her rivals for the Democratic nomination, has not apologized for having
done so.
Senator Clintons proposal is also likely to stir up debate among military
specialists. Some counterinsurgency experts say the plan is unrealistic
because Iraqis are unlikely to provide useful tips about Al Qaeda if
American troops end their efforts to protect Iraqi neighborhoods.
But a former Pentagon official argued that such an approach would minimize
American casualties and thus make it easier politically to sustain a
long-term military presence that might prevent the fighting from spreading
throughout the region.
Mrs. Clinton has said she would vote for a proposed Democratic resolution
on Iraq now being debated on the floor of the Senate, which sets a goal of
withdrawing combat forces by March 31, 2008. Asked if her plan was
consistent with the resolution, Mrs. Clinton and her advisers said it was,
noting that the resolution also called for a limited number of troops to
stay in Iraq to protect the American Embassy and other personnel, train and
equip Iraqi forces, and conduct targeted counterterrorism operations.
(Senator Barack Obama, a rival of Mrs. Clinton, has said that if elected
president, he might keep a small number of troops in Iraq.)
With many Democratic primary voters favoring a total withdrawal, Senator
Clinton appears to be trying to balance her political interests with the
need to retain some flexibility. Like other Democratic candidates, she has
called for engaging Iran and Syria in talks and called on President Bush to
reverse his troop buildup.
But while Mrs. Clinton has criticized Mr. Bushs troop reinforcements as an
escalation of war, she said in the interview, Were doing it, and its
unlikely we can stop it.
Im going to root for it if it has any chance of success, she said of Mr.
Bushs plan, but I think its more likely that the anti-American violence
and sectarian violence just moves from place to place to place, like the
old Whac a Mole. Clear some neighborhoods in Baghdad, then face Ramadi.
Clear Ramadi, then maybe its back in Falluja.
Mrs. Clinton made it clear that she believed the next president is likely
to face an Iraq that is still plagued by sectarian fighting and occupied by
a sizable number of American troops. The likely problems, she said, include
continued political disagreements in Baghdad, die-hard Sunni insurgents, Al
Qaeda operatives, Turkish anxiety over the Kurds and the effort to prevent
Iran from crossing the border and having too much influence inside of Iraq.
The choices that one would face are neither good nor unlimited, she said.
And from the vantage point of where I sit now, I can tell you, in the
absence of a very vigorous diplomatic effort on the political front and on
the regional and international front, I think it is unlikely there will be
a stable situation that will be inherited.
On the campaign trail, Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly vowed to bring the war
to a close if the fighting were still going on when she took office as
president. If we in Congress dont end this war before January 2009, as
president, I will, she has said.
In the interview, she suggested that it was likely that the fighting among
the Iraqis would continue for some time. In broad terms, her strategy is to
abandon the American military effort to stop the sectarian violence and to
focus instead on trying to prevent the strife from spreading throughout the
region by shrinking and rearranging American troop deployments within Iraq.
The idea of repositioning American forces to minimize American casualties,
discourage Iranian, Syrian and Turkish intervention, and forestall the
Kurds declaring independence is not a new one. It has been advocated by
Dov S. Zakheim, who served as the Pentagons comptroller under former
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Mr. Zakheim has estimated that no
more than 75,000 troops would be required, compared to the approximately
160,000 troops the United States will have in Iraq when the additional
brigades in Mr. Bushs plan are deployed.
While Mrs. Clinton declined to estimate the size of a residual American
troop presence, she indicated that troops might be based north of Baghdad
and in western Anbar Province.
It would be far fewer troops, she said. But what we can do is to almost
take a line sort of north of between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically
put our troops into that region, the ones that are going to remain for our
antiterrorism mission, for our northern support mission, for our ability to
respond to the Iranians, and to continue to provide support, if called for,
for the Iraqis.
Mrs. Clinton described a mission with serious constraints.
We would not be doing patrols, she added. We would not be kicking in
doors. We would not be trying to insert ourselves in the middle between the
various Shiite and Sunni factions. I do not think thats a smart or
achievable mission for American forces.
One question raised by counterinsurgency experts is whether the more
limited military mission Mrs. Clinton is advocating would lead to a further
escalation in the sectarian fighting, because it would shift the entire
burden for protecting civilians to the nascent Iraqi Security Forces. A
National Intelligence Estimate issued in January said those forces would be
hard-pressed to take on significantly increased responsibilities in the
next 12 to 18 months.
Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources and operations,
remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq, the estimate noted,
referring to the American-led forces.
Mrs. Clinton said the intelligence estimate was based on a faulty premise
because it did not take into account the sort of phased redeployment plan
she was advocating. But she acknowledged that under her strategy American
troops would remain virtual bystanders if Shiites and Sunnis killed each
other in sectarian attacks. That may be inevitable, she said. And it
certainly may be the only way to concentrate the attention of the parties.
Asked if Americans would endure having troops in Iraq who do nothing to
stop sectarian attacks there, she replied: Look, I think the American
people are done with Iraq. I think they are at a point where, whether they
thought it was a good idea or not, they have seen misjudgment and blunder
after blunder, and their attitude is, What is this getting us? What is this
doing for us?
No one wants to sit by and see mass killing, she added. Its going on
every day! Thousands of people are dying every month in Iraq. Our presence
there is not stopping it. And there is no potential opportunity I can
imagine where it could. This is an Iraqi problem; we cannot save the Iraqis
from themselves. If we had a different attitude going in there, if we had
stopped the looting immediately, if we had asserted our authority you can
go down the lines, if, if, if
--
www.marxmail.org
