NYT: Clinton Sees Some Troops Staying in Iraq if She Is Elected

[Faryn Balyncd]

New York Times:

Clinton Sees Some Troops Staying in Iraq if She Is Elected


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 but significant 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 in Iraq after taking office 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.

............“It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”........“So I think 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 the military officers who would have to carry out the strategy.

Mrs. Clinton’s plans carry some political risk. Although she has been extremely critical of the Bush administration’s 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 Clinton’s 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 operatives if American troops curtail their interaction with the Iraqi public and 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 redeploying all combat forces by March 31, 2008. Asked if her Iraq 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 counter-terrorism operation.”.............With many Democratic primary voters favoring a total withdrawal from Iraq. Senator Clinton appears to trying to balance her own short-term political interests with the need to retain some flexibility to deal with the complexities of Middle East. Like other Democratic candidates, she has called for engaging Iran and Syria in discussions and called on President Bush to reverse his troop buildup.......But while Mrs. Clinton has criticized Mr. Bush’s troop reinforcements as an escalation of war, she said in the interview, “We’re doing it and it’s unlikely we can stop it.” ....


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/washington/14cnd-clinton.html?ex=1331524800&en=205ac04e1a67b900&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Transcript of Interview

Audio (mp3)

[acmavm]

1. Well, isn't that lovely? The people of this country want OUT. But Hils

has a plan. Not what her consituents want, but what the hell right?

[Tellurian]

9. OBama said the same thing.. "some Troops will remain in Iraq."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/washington/15clinton.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1173964453-lYo3QyESukRU7Zh4zr5Hzw

[SOS]

15. Obama did not say the "same thing"

Obama has endorsed the ISG recommendations.
Hillary has adopted the plan of PNACer Dov Zakheim.
The ISG recommendations and the PNAC plan are not the same.
Can you provide a link where Obama says he wants to keep 75,000 troops in Iraq past 2009?

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rockymountaindem]

12. Oh God

For the last time, the "*Israel* lobby" (aka the far-right wing of AIPAC) is NOT the *Jewish* lobby! How many times do we have to say the same thing?

[Gman]

13. Let me rephrase that to...

the far RW Jewish lobby. Still, what in hell did they do on Capitol Hill in the last few weeks?

[PADemD]

3. She is definitely NOT getting my vote.

[ClintonTyree]

4. HIll, Hill, Hill, Hill, Hill.....

you just keep shoving that foot of yours deeper into your mouth all the time, don't you? :eyes: Methinks Hill is just as beholding to the military industrial complex as any Rethuglican, maybe more so in some instances.

There once was a time when I would have supported Hillary with every fiber of my being. That time has long passed.

[AtomicKitten]

5. Obama expressed the same notion.

Senator Barack Obama, a rival of Mrs. Clinton, has said that
if elected president, he might keep a small number of troops in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/washington/15clinton.html?ei=5065&en=d79bee3027e8df42&ex=1174536000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

[flpoljunkie]

8. No. Obama's plan: Troops remain as "basic force protection, counter-terrorism, training Iraqis"

The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. It is not a continuation of the occupation, as is Hillary Clinton's plan--a plan that Lieberman and the neocons could, no doubt, embrace.

At the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations in November 2005, Senator Obama called for: (1) a reduction in the number of U.S. troops; (2) a time frame for a phased withdrawal; (3) the Iraqi government to make progress on forming a political solution; (4) improved reconstruction efforts to restore basic services in Iraq; and (5) engaging the international community, particularly key neighboring states and Arab nations, to become more involved in Iraq. In January 2006 he traveled to Iraq and met with senior U.S. military commanders, Iraqi officials and U.S. troops in Baghdad and Fallujah.

Senator Obama introduced legislation in January 2007 to offer a responsible alternative to President Bush's failed escalation policy. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's expectations. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the 13 benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq /

[AtomicKitten]

10. I don't see a huge difference in the ideas the candidates have expressed.

Neither plan is particularly fleshed out, certainly not enough to make a legitimate comparison.

[tanyev]

6. Somebody's got to man those 14 permanent bases.

:banghead:

[Laughing Mirror]

7. Ain't that the truth

I would even vote for a candidate who came out and actually said that. Just for being totally honest. How refreshing that would be.

[SaveElmer]

11. There is not one plan from anyone...Feingold included...

That does not include leaving some troops in the area...

[ErikViking]

14. Disappointed

Hi!
My name is Erik. I have spent some time on another American message board (usmessageboard.com). I am from Sweden and 35 Years of age. I'd very much like to know what you have to say about this (Couldn't start a new thread):

I think the US attack on Iraq was a hastened descision based on bad intelligence. The effort thereafter has been magnificent. US has taken full responsability and made it clear that Iraq is not going to abondoned. I can't find an historical example of such conquerers. US followed a possibly bad descion with character and consistency.

But now. (My suspicions alla along) Due to how a president can only stay in office for two periods, GWB has lost his ambition to DO right. Instead he is worried about how history will judge him. So Iraq has become an internal American political issue that no one really carries a serious intrest for. 20k troops to Iraq? Big deal. That doesn't do it in my eyes.

So what to do?

Maybe the time has come to take the responsability out of US hands. UN and EU has to side with US and all bad-will that resulted from this whole war needs to be forgotten. Instatly. We are talking about lives of innocent people whos country has been crippeled. Sadly enough i think Politicians in EU, UN and US has a long way to go before recognizing the only logical next step. Why can't those discussions be held right now? What is it that I fail to see here?

A lesson that US should have learned now:
Don't make any life/death comittments over an 8 year+ period. US political system doesn't support that.

A lesson that everyone should have learned by now:
Act on the current situation. WTF is wrong? People are still arguing about why the invasion was made, failing to see the good it brought and still might bring. Stop whining and start helping instead!

I am disappointed in:

GWB, for failing his comittment.

EU, for not being able to see beoynd their noses and thus creating even more problem. (Actually I think some people LIKE to see a US failiure just be able to point a finger later on. Disgusting.)

UN, for what it has become, although it isn't "it's" fault, since it is nothing more than the states represented.

My own government, for just avoiding taking a stand and speak up. We have a good tradition for peacekeeping and all that stuff. Wotrh nothing if we don't speak up.

Brittain, for saying one thing and doing another. Withdrawing troops but supporting US? How?

The Arab world, for counter-producing just "beacuse" and that way killing their own. "ALL intentions of US must be evil. Stop them from saving lives!" Is that how they think?

In most people, for only viewing the world from a predefined political standpoint.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

16. Hi Erik! Welcome to DU!!

Great post!