Centerfield

doesn't she - and other Dems - realize that Iraq will still be a problem on their watch? It seems they think that iraq will be perfect and calm by jan 2009. Supporting troops (as painful as it is) in iraq could help promote stability. Then Hillary can claim to solve W's mess in Iraq and promise not to do what he did if elected President.
Escaping Iraq will make her prime target #1 for the right wingers as the civil war progresses (as well as the ME crisis) through her term in office.

Posted by: Rachel at January 17, 2007 09:54 AM

Everyone is concerned over al-Maliki. Even McCain said he is the piece of the puzzle that could be missing. Are we resigned to the fact that if al-Maliki doesn't work out, then we will fail and should withdraw? It seems to me that the issue is more complex then that.

Hillary is not going to tack far enough left to please her base over Obama. She voted for the war and he was against it, I don't think she overcomes that fact with the base. If she beats him it will be because of issues other than the Iraq war, probably because the lack of experience argument eventually sticks.

I also agree with Rachel. Fine, we leave, what then? Are the Democrats proposing that we sit and do nothing as Syria and Iran tear Iraq apart? Is that in the best interest of national security? I would like to hear more from Obama and Hillary in regards to what happens after the withdrawal. Diplomacy is all fine and good, but what goals will diplomacy accomplish and why is it we are assuming that Iran and Syria will even be in a mood to be diplomatic? What is the common interest for them to sit down at the table with the United States?

The phased withdrawal argument to me seems to be lacking a lot of substance and detail. Furthermore, it is politically convenient, which makes me skeptical right from the start.

Posted by: Starbucks Republican at January 17, 2007 10:09 AM

Notice that the preferred term of democrats so far is redeployment, and that they have assiduously avoided using the term withdrawal. Any clever person can see that this is the key wiggle word. Redeploy is roughly congruent to "use in a different way and/or different place." It can be used to refer to a variety of things. That's why it's the chosen word. HC's interviewer this am did his best to pin down HC, and she danced away pretty deftly. Don't expect Obama or Clinton to get pinned down on this.

So far it seems to me that the majority of folks using the term withdrawal are pro-war folks seeking to criticize critics of Bush's plans, and the farther left reflexively anti-war doves.

Are Obama and HC they playing some poilitics here? Of course they are, and frankly, they have to.

Let's not lose sight of the problem with the alternative rhetoric that failure in Iraq is not an option. this rhetoric seeks to cast the outcome in Iraq as a matter of choice on our part. But the sensible folks watching how things are unfolding in Iraq know that the choice is WAY more in the hands of Iraqis than in our hands. We can guide, cajole, train, help, rebuild, and finance for only so long. In other words, it's as though we are saying that the failure of the horse to drink is not an option. But we all know that while you can lead a horse to water, you can't make him drink. That's the conundrum we're facing. And no amount of insistence upon the crucial importance of getting the horse to drink will change that.

Al-Maliki? I would say that its a given that the clock is ticking on him quite loudly. The surge plan relies in large part on a shift in the rules of engagement to confront more insurgents militarily, especially Al-Sadr's Mahdi army. If that doesn't start happening with fair frequence on Al-Maliki's watch, within the next month or two, he's going to get broomed out. Will Iraq's legislature take the lead on this with us operating behind the scenes, or will we need to step more blatantly from behind the curtain and strong-arm events? I dunno, but I think it's a certainty that Bush's revised plan doesn't go down in flames because Al-Maliki is busy fiddling. And I'm sure he knows that. We've told him this several times by now.

Posted by: bk at January 17, 2007 10:53 AM

I think Brian's speculation is right. It will take a discussion of our overall strategy to clarify Obama's and Hillary's positions. Hillary will not show she is weak towards Israel. Obama is avoiding the topic altogether. Right now neither have anything to say about this .

They have little to say about Somalia. .

They have nothing to say about Afghanistan or the failure of Sunnis to stop provoking the Shia in Iraq and even taking to the street to praise Saddam. What yelling has she done with the Saudis?

Obama and Hillary seem to be saying the Shia in Iraq are not worth helping anymore, but say nothing about Russia, Syria, Iran, China and Arab moderates who are either helping to make matters worse, or are avoiding responsibility. McCain has mentioned this. Lieberman has made this point. Edwards instead is busy telling Congress to cut funding to Iraq while trying to link MLK to Iraq.

Not much from the Democrats including Obama about Sudan, Nigeria, North Korea or anywhere that US force might play a stick-role to add stability. I wonder how Obama explains to American blacks his relative silence on Sudan and Somalia. I think this myopic pandering can only make Republicans happy, forgetting the dangerous splits in their own ranks.

Such a lack of opinion can only show the grip candidates on the Left are having. There is less of this on the other side with McCain taking on religious extremists again while Hagel and other Republicans try to score points with the public.

I have listen to Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, Biden, Obama, Hillary, Edwards, Murtha and others in the last two weeks ruining their opportunity to co-opt the national security issue rather that seizing the moment and retaking the lead. This makes me conclude that they are still quite unprepared for 2008 and convincing the voters once more crap hits the fan that they are the best choice.

Perhaps "24" is placating the fear we have of terrorism. How everyone can watch LA burn and not even discuss the REAL behavior taking place TODAY is crazy? And isn't it ironic that LA can be nuked, Kieth is our hero and yet the Left could could less about the actual behaviors of our adversaries who would love to make American TV become reality? I can't but notice how their icon Jimmy Carter, has come under fire for his leftist take on the Middle East. Had that been Cheney's book, many Kossaks would be calling for his impeachment. Carter's own staff resigned in protest of his views. I mention this because despite the Left's denial and pandering (Republicans do it too) the dangers are growing as we speak.

I think our DOD sees it getting more dangerous. Just consider some of the research projects needed to thwart the growing risks.

I wait to hear from Obama or other candidates about real strategy and real threats. Until they do, it is as lame as "Stay the Course".

Posted by: Maxtrue at January 17, 2007 11:15 AM

It might be worth at least entertaining the possibility that Clinton is actually sincere. Certainly, as noted above, there are lots of concerns, from other quarters as well, about whether the Iraqi government is willing (or able) to come thru on their part of what is planned. And nobody seems to be under the illusion that the number of troops being added will be sufficient, WITHOUT that action by the Iraqis, to accomplish anything.

So if the Iraqis aren't going to come thru, what are our choices? We could 1) try coming up with the 100,000 or so additional troops which would be required to cope without them, 2) redeploy within Iraq [perhaps to Kurdistan?] so the Iraqis can have their civil war without us, or 3) withdraw. At least, if there's a fourth option, I haven't come across it. If Option 1 is not possible, that makes redepolyment actually the most assertive of the choices -- unless the Iraqis surprise everybody by actually taking active steps to control the militias.

Posted by: wj at January 17, 2007 12:27 PM

It might be worth at least entertaining the possibility that Clinton is actually sincere.

I agree. It's also worth considering that Democrats are in a delicate position here. Recall that Gerald Ford counseled democrats against the bloodbath that Vietnam withdrawal would bring, and that this came to pass.

Supporters of the democrats are more opposed to the war. As things go poorly and public discontent grows, there's plenty of concurrence between the politically advantageous and the rationally defensible.

Anyone running for President on the democratic saide of the ledger has to understand that they have to stay on top of circumstances. here's the thing... the first one out the door might look like a coward at first, but if a stampede ensues, the later consensus might be that you were the leader. And so on. Obama stakes out a position, and Clinton has to consider how long she can maintain course without tacking. LIke I said, this was to be expected. I think HC has held a more responsible position on Iraq than many other folks within her party, regardless of what any of speculates about what her motives might be. Can she hold such a position and run for President? I don't see how. Would she do much good by conditionally supporting Bush and trying to lead her party where it doesan;t want to go? I kind of doubt it. Look how that worked out for Lieberman. It's another horse-water situation.

If things keep going poorly, GOP candidates have to decide about such tacking as well. To his credit, John McCain seems to be willing to keep holding the smelly sock, and IIRC, Romney has voiced support for Bush's plan as well. Will that last? The next thing to look for if you are reading tea leaves is the first truly credible GOP candidate who starts talking about "redeployment." My guess? Guiliani decides not to run, McCain continues clutching the sock, Romney keeps licking his finger and judging the wind.

Posted by: bk at January 17, 2007 12:47 PM

preferred term of democrats so far is redeployment

vs. withdrawel. And on the other side "surge" vs "escalation". The first/key step to any political debate: "Establish your positive buzzwords and yours (their) perjorative labels/busswords" Posted by: c3 at January 17, 2007 01:23 PM

True Chris, very true. Still, but I think redeployment is more defensibly vague, and suggests the possibility that we'd redeploy troops in such a way as to guard against a retreat that turned into a rout. Redeploy may not mean un-deploy, IOW. It also may mean that, but not certainly. That makes it a better weasel word.

IMO the GOP has a hard sell if and whenever they try to deny that the surge is an escalation. More troops, more aggressive rules of engagement. I heard Condoleeza Rice stumbling quite badly over this. they're better off saying "it is what it is' than trying to win "it's not an escalation."

IOW, surge isn't an especially effective weasel word, it's just a euphemism that holds something of a positive visceral connotation.

Posted by: bk at January 17, 2007 01:53 PM

I think we as Americans - not Hillary, not W. - may have to concede that we are in Iraq for the lonnnnggg haul. Like Germany, like Japan, like Korea. Let's make a sand curtain.
I suggest putting a "temporary" base in Baghdad while taking advantage of our friendly Kurds' and set up a "temporary" land base in the Kurdistani region.
1.we call it "temporary" because we have that ruling that we would not make permanent bases in Iraq. Fine. We leave when they stabilize
2.the Kurds want Kirkuk oil fields. US could protect those interests (mind you I don't know who pumps those fields, but in Dec 05, a Norwegian oil company wanted to negotiate solely with the Kurds)
if there are flareups in iraq, we'll be there to respond.
3. create a DMZ type border between Kurdistan and Turkey

yeah, I know these ideas have many drawbacks, but it's a start. I have too much time on my hands. I need to go back to sports ;)

Posted by: Rachel at January 17, 2007 03:07 PM

Hillary Clinton cynically chasing her base polls?

Say it ain't so!

Posted by: Tully at January 17, 2007 04:03 PM

LOL! Who said "cynically?" Not me. Tully did it. Tully did it.

Posted by: bk at January 17, 2007 04:21 PM

Rachel,

Actually, Stratfor's George Friedman has been endorsing much of your idea for quite some time now. He has us in two bases instead of just one, though: one in Kurdistan, the other in the southern Shi'a province of Muthanna (and parts of Basra), where we would serve as a strategic guard to protect the Saudi and Kuwaiti regimes from otherwise-inevitable incursion by Teheran (or Teheran-encouraged) forces. It would be easy to resupply bases there from Kuwait, and Muthanna is so wide open that you could easily establish the base.

I'm against the strategy- I favor a variation of H.R. McMaster's wiser (and hence ignored by politicians) "Go Long" approach- but it's out there, and a lot of people are floating it around.

Posted by: Bobby at January 17, 2007 04:50 PM

A few recent quotes to add to the conversation about the Middle East and Iraq's neighbor, Iran. Keep in mind, Obama says "redeployment" and negotiate with Iran and Syria.

a Carter follow-up to the Arab Press

Iran needs the atom and the laser

a good place to start negotiating

Posted by: Maxtrue at January 17, 2007 07:57 PM

Hillary has supported "talking" to Iran. Here is an interesting view on Iran. Note Hizb"Allah has made some contact in Iraq. Complicity

Posted by: Maxtrue at January 17, 2007 09:18 PM

going long

Posted by: Maxtrue at January 17, 2007 09:49 PM

Actually, Stratfor's George Friedman has been endorsing much of your idea for quite some time now.

I didn't know that, Bobby. thanks, I'll look it up.
And I absolutely do not agree with talking to the very people who are making life hell for the iraqis. Obviously, Clinton and Obama aren't reading the news or listening to Iraqi blogs like Iraq the Model and neurotic Iraqi wife (though she believes the issues are more within Iraqi society than without).
Please pardon the pun, but talking to Syria and Iran is rather collaboration-ist. And there are too many vets (and history buffs) who remember where THAT led.

Posted by: Rachel at January 18, 2007 03:55 PM

and I'll look up McMaster's approach

Posted by: Rachel at January 18, 2007 03:58 PM

"Phased redeployment" = "episodic cut and run"

Posted by: Tully at January 18, 2007 04:04 PM

If one takes note of the statements and shuffling going on in the administration since November, a pattern emerges. It seems to contradict mainstream thinking. The Iraq, Study Group suggests negotiation with Iran. Hillary and Obama quote this report and advocate the same position. Gates, who was part of the ISG, has signed on to Bush position on surge and no negotiation. Democratic leaders rejecting the Bush plan, often refer to the vast majority of foreign policy experts who support the ISG. Funny, many of the numerous experts I have read on the web reject the Baker Report.. Hillary has mentioned “all those military experts” who reject the Bush plan, but it is odd that those serving now are excluded from this list. Is Go Long and its hybrid a creation of the Bush administration? Does Hillary think Bush is forcing the military to continue into defeat? Note, that while the Baker Group was talking privately to Syria (who declared their desire to "help"), Assad was busy knocking off political leaders in Lebanon and re-supplying Hizb'Allah.

Most observers see a tipping point coming, with world opposition to Iranian nukes, domestic unrest in Iran, Iranian support of terror groups, Iranian meddling in Iraq and even South America. Who would negotiate with the existing Iranian mindset, and from a position of perceived weakness (which Iran believes we are experiencing)? Does any Democrat have any plan to increase our leverage now before such negotiations?

Iraq necessarily involves Iran (and Syria), American strategy in the Middle East (Israeli/Palestinian & Shia/Sunni) and the global war on terror-using groups. If Hillary or other Democrats think they can run around the issues by running against Bush, they will be disappointed. I must give Hillary credit; she has walked a difficult line between the base and centrist reality.

Posted by: Maxtrue at January 18, 2007 05:01 PM

Rachael,
See the link above called GO LONG....

Posted by: Maxtrue at January 18, 2007 05:03 PM

opppsss, I meant, "going long"

Posted by: Maxtrue at January 18, 2007 05:06 PM

Why is it "odd that those now serving are excluded" from the list of those voicing skepticism? Suppose, for example, that you are a general on active service who thinks that the surge is a terrible idea. Your choices are 1) resign, so you can speak out, or 2) try to take care of your troops by making the best you can out of a bad situation. Speaking out, while on active duty, is just a slightly indirect way of resigning (option 1).

Posted by: wj at January 18, 2007 05:36 PM

H.R.McMaster and Petraeous have plenty of latitude to "speak out". It is rather strange to think the military doesn’t game and objectively gauge all options. For numerous reasons (Iraq is NOT the only "situation), Going Big is not an option (not that under ANY circumstances it COULDN'T be done). Given the remaining options of Go Home and Going Long, what indicates that Going Home is REALLY what the military thinks? I think that Gates, Fallon, Hayden and Rice seem to be on the same strategic page and perhaps Gates explained rather clearly, why we must project strength and not weakness of resolve. I posted a link to Gaza Civil War. Another link to Hisb'Allah and Iran. It is odd that you might feel "group think” could pervades the DOD with the range of contingencies CENCOM it must be gaming. Do you think our military experts think Iraq is lost or that they aren’t trying to gain the initiative? Do you think our military experts think we should duck out of sight in Iraq and let the Wild Sectarian West Show actually become the Civil War Show? See my post by Bryon from Iraq. He goes into the present dynamics of good JAM bad JAM..I have to believe (not quite the same way one might believe in miracles) that our military learns and adapts.

Given the present futility in "negotiating" with Syria or Iran, how exactly would a "surge" be a catastrophe in Hagelian proportions (and I don't mean the philosopher)? I do believe the Bush team did erroneously twist the initial plan for Iraq and made many bad mistakes that fueled failing. That truly is Bush's baggage, but rehashing hardly helps us with our present dangerous uncertainties. In front of the not-so-subtle shift towards Iran and Iraq, Rice is sent to revisit the Hamas impasse with Abbas and Olmert while the administration crunches the numbers.

Before Iraq, there were signs of discomfort within the military over Going Big versus Going Long, or a phased, well thought out plan to move from Go Big to Going Long. There has been disagreement about the "kind" of military we are shaping and what the role of US forces must be in the decades to come. This is a bit different “speaking out” than the consternation now over Iraq policy. We are there and many are a number of adversaries around the periphery of our military force. I think strategic mistakes that would risk our forces and the flow of oil are priority to planners and perhaps the biggest confusion is the timing of options and unknown unknowns should behavior trump diplomacy. I would love to hear what Democrats think our stick and carrot are? We have already offered much, even a reactor to Iran. I would also love to know the wrestling over the "big picture" going on right now that ultimately effects the tactics used in any given situation. Given its location and importance, Iraq is certainly a country, like Afghanistan, that should not be lost to extremism. Perhaps the world watches the Middle East like Americans watch 24. Unfortunately, the Middle East produces 24s and “calling 911, usually precedes creating a 9/11.

The question is whether Hillary or Obama support Going Long. I guess that is based on their views regarding the Middle East, Iran, Hamas, Hizb'Allah and Syria in particular, which they haven’t really shared. Actually Hillary has a number of hawkish sounding speeches and of course, she has weathered a media beating (winning huge at home).. It is funny that Moore’s threat against Congressional Democrats has not materialized and the KOS post above this reflects some of the reasons. Under anti-war heat, Obama steered Left first and I believe he has almost caught himself in a trap. I think catching a media buzz now is aided by the voter’s extremely short memory. Clinton has deftly ante-upped. Now, who has the better centrist credentials? Hillary and Clarke. With Biden sadly flaking out and Edwards trying to light his rather pandering Middle World message, Richardson antes with a Going Left strategy of his own. As Iraq heats up, the front runners are already maneuvering while Gore, Kerry, Vilsak and others have dropped off the excitement meter.

My money is on Clinton, unless Obama pulls a Bill Clinton, and anticipates the next issue to Co-opt, which I'm guessing is Iran, Terrorism and the Middle East. You can’t start sounding too partisan shrill without revealing the larger strategic differences between what you are ranting and a reality check (not that media can be counted on for this). In general, candidates must cater to the base now until polls show some people breaking away. Its too early now. Clinton has the money and muscle to be around in the fall, no matter what arguments spill presently. She has showed strength by not always towing the line to the Left. Her danger is that the centerline might shift more to the Left and she is caught between Hagel and Lieberman. Still, she can take a shot left for appeal and recover, whereas Obama to be seen flip-flopping passions and strategies would fuel his critics and dampen his appeal. This is shrewd. Leftist Bloggers do not like Hillary. It might not be so difficult for her to maneuver Obama into to the not-to-well-liked-position too, or she might ante him into supporting cutting funding, thus screwing his portfolio come elction. Interestingly, Pelosi has defused this possibility temporarily by declaring she would not cut funds. She'll take the heat before the infighting gets reckless and the candidates “anti” into the abyss. Smart move that some Blue Dogs must have emailed her.

Posted by: Matrue at January 18, 2007 09:00 PM

Somehow a Clinton/Obama ticket might secure an eventual Presidency for him. That might be better than running and losing. Interesting...

Posted by: Matrue at January 18, 2007 09:11 PM

I suspect Brian is right about this having more to do with Obama than anything else. Which really is a testament to Obama. I mean, Hillary's political creds are major league, especially compared to Obama's.

I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree with Starbucks Republican that Hillary is not going to tack far enough left to please her base over Obama. But I would go further and say that she's between a boulder and a very hard place because of that fact.

I don't see how Hillary can win in 08. I really don't. I've got close friends on the Left and she is not very well liked. Most of the Right won't ever get beyond the fact that her last name is Clinton. Which leaves the middle. And I just don't see enough of the middle making up ground she'll lose on the Left and Right.

What's keeping her bouyed in the polls is sheer name recognition, IMHO. When push comes to shove in '08 I don't believe that name recognition will be enough for her.

What I don't think a lot of folks outside of the progressive Left perhaps don't realize is that Hillary lost a significant swath of the Leftist base long before the Iraq War vote because of how she appeared to meekly accept Bill's lustful ways. Feminists in particular were disgusted by that and haven't either forgotten or forgiven it.

The alternatives would have to be pretty heinous for her to win back that segment of the Left, IMHO.

Posted by: Kevin at January 18, 2007 10:54 PM

Recall that Gerald Ford counseled democrats against the bloodbath that Vietnam withdrawal would bring, and that this came to pass.

That's true. But look also at how spectacularly the very argument which got us so deeply entrenched there in the first place failed to come to pass. Communism didn't sweep SE Asia and we're now on relatively good terms with Communist Vietnam - thanks in large part to... (drum roll) John McCain!

If McCain ends up leading the charge for the Right in 08, and I suspect he will, and the GOP try to make political hay by drawing what they feel would be an advantagous parallel with the Vietnam withdrawel... Well, suffice to say that "double-edged sword" springs to mind rather quickly.

Posted by: Kevin at January 18, 2007 11:05 PM

Phased redeployment" = "episodic cut and run"

Almost everyone on both sides has maintained that we'll eventually decrease our troop presence in Iraq and redeploy troops elsewhere. So "Phased redeployment" is simply an accurate description of what everyone agrees we are going to do, sooner or later.

The disagreement lies with the issues of when we'll start decreasing our presence, and the rate at which we do so. Democrats deserve criticism for their unwillingness to describe how and when they envision redeployment.

But "Cut and run" is pure demonologial hyperbole. Ad hominen. It's no different than saying that the democrats are chickens, pussies, babies, or girly-men.

Posted by: bk at January 19, 2007 09:06 AM

Brian, it is more than their unwillingness to describe how and when. First, we must create the conditions that would allow us to leave. We need Iraqis to play a big role. Democrats have no plan for this. Instead, they call redeployment their plan and negotiating the key to stability. They deserve harsh critcism for pretending they have a better strategy for preventing a far more dangerous escalation of violence and terror. In fact, their plan hurts real chances for negotiating, as Gates has pointed out..

Posted by: Matrue at January 19, 2007 05:00 PM

How does this play into Hillary's take on our strategy in the Middle East? I think our adversaries sense we do have resolve, that the Iranian people are angry at their government, that they are not making the strides they hoped, that the Cedar Revolution lives and the world is barely waking up in disgust to what extremists have really been up to. I think they will overplay their hand. I guess Bush had nothing to do with this escalation and that Democratic resolve shaped this situation. Let us negotiate with Syria as Iran and Syria get desperate and consider toppling Lebanon soon.

Posted by: Maxtrue at January 19, 2007 11:33 PM