Hillary Clinton seems to have found a way to get people from moving beyond her disastrous “dead broke” claims, but not in a way that is likely to please those voters tired of wars and military interventions. Clinton used an interview this week to criticize the “failure” of President Obama’s policies in Syria and to insist that she wanted a more interventionist military approach. President Obama was quoted responding to such criticism by calling it “horseshit.” It seemed a return to the 2008 election where Clinton campaigned on her hawk credentials in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars — a mistake for many Democratic and independent voters. Recently, she changed her mind and said that the Iraq War was a mistake despite her refusal to listen to a chorus of critics of the war at the time when it was a popular political move. Despite that change, Clinton is suggesting that she would have armed the Syrian rebels and acted more aggressively to stop the Islamic State.
In the interview with prominent foreign affairs writer Jeffrey Goldberg, Clinton attacked Obama’s decision not to quickly and strongly support the Syrian rebels and said that the West Wing’s foreign policy mantra — “Don’t do stupid stuff”— is “not an organizing principle.” She seemed to brush over the fact that that the same course that led us into repeated costly military campaigns or that many of the rebels at the time were found to be committing atrocities like the regime. Then there is the fact that many of our weapons have already ended up in the hands of the Islamic State in places like Iraq — as we saw in Afghanistan with Al Qaeda.
The statements were a replay of Clinton’s much maligned campaign against Obama in 2008 that she was the one who could handle the “3 a.m. phone call.” As someone who supported both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, many insisted that they did not want any more such calls.
The change in strategy and message may not be coincidental. A major poll this month by NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showing Obama’s approval rating at an “all-time low.” The interview was widely viewed as designed to separate Clinton from the declining fortunes of both Obama and the Democratic Congress.
Putting aside the timing, Clinton has repeatedly shown herself to be closer to George W. Bush than Obama on military interventions. She used the interview to reaffirm her absolute support for Israel and her credentials in committing U.S. military resources in foreign conflicts.
Nevertheless, while criticizing Clinton on the attack against Obama and interventionist drumbeat, liberal writers like Joan Walsh at Salon.com are still cited in the article below as still expecting to support Clinton for the next president. It is part of a continuing rift on the left of our political spectrum. It is not clear what are the dominant values of the Democratic Party going into this election. Civil liberties and war issues used to be a rallying point for liberals. However, those issues have been seriously undermined by the Obama Administration and the Clinton campaigns in 2008 and 2014. Clearly, some agree with Clinton’s hawkish views and others are drawn to the chance of electing a female, even one with opposing views. However, there remains a remarkably fluidity in the defining values for the party going into the election beyond the dominant blue state/red state rhetoric that the Republicans are simply worse. That narrative is clearly not working but seems to be the only theme upon which the party is advancing consistently. There is the immigration issue but that has proven extremely risky and does not appear to have paid off politically. Indeed, some black leaders and voters have publicly opposed the effort by Democratic members to push for legalizing the status of millions of undocumented individuals. We are, as the Chinese curse says, living in interesting times.
Source: Politico
leejcarroll: “In July 2006, we learned that the Bush administration closed its unit that had been hunting bin Laden.”
leejcarroll: “yes Hussein was a bad guy, no question but do we then go after every bad guy who kills their people.”
Again, this is why it’s critical to view OIF in the context of the whole 1991-2003 Iraq enforcement. Our relationship with Saddam wasn’t our relationship with “every bad guy” – see my comment to slohrss29 at August 13, 2014 at 2:08 pm. Dealing with unsavory actors in the international community is normal for the US. That’s how we initially approached Saddam. Intervention to the degree of regime change is an exceptionally high bar; we even suspended the Gulf War short of regime change in order to try keeping Saddam in power with rehabilitation via compliance and disarmament to a mandated standard.
We tried our best to rehabilitate Saddam but Saddam wouldn’t, until Clinton established: “The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government — a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.”
Even so, following Clinton’s pronouncement, “Iraq has abused its final chance”, Bush opted to give Saddam another final chance, but Saddam opted again, for the last time, to try beating the ceasefire rather than complying with it.
leejcarroll,
The story of what happened with Obama’s SOFA negotiation with Iraq is more complicated than that. As Max Boot points out, the quoted Maliki position was the same for the Bush negotiation of the 1st post-UN, sovereign Iraq-US SOFA. So what changed? The US President did.
See Max Boot, WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203554104577003931424188806
And Michael Gordon, NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/failed-efforts-of-americas-last-months-in-iraq.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&smid=pl-share
leejcarroll: “us having been lied into the war.”
Again, read the primary sources for a proper understanding of the law and policy basis of OIF. Start with the basic essentials I listed for you.
I didn’t want to spoon-feed you, but okay. To illustrate the compliance (mandated standard of cooperation and account) basis of the Iraq enforcement, excerpts from President Clinton’s announcement of Operation Desert Fox:
Clinton didn’t cite the intel, demonstrated possession, and certainly not unaccounted for destruction. Why? Because Iraq’s guilt was presumed. The Iraq enforcement was about Iraq curing its guilt by proving compliance with the mandates in US laws and UNSC resolutions. The “clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere” (Clinton) was imputed from Saddam’s noncompliance, not demonstrated nor even intel-indicated possession.
Bush made an error of presentation when he cited the intel, but he was also clear that the enforcement procedure was unchanged. For OIF as for ODF, whether Iraq was in compliance – not the intel – was the trigger. When the UNSCR 1441 inspection period concluded with the UNMOVIC finding of “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues”, that was the trigger along with Iraq’s noncompliance on non-weapons mandates.
Hillary Clinton is a duplicitous megalomaniacal selfseeking woman who will say anything to anyone if she feels it will better her chances in aspiring to positions of power where she can then attempt to lord over her fellow
citizensserfs in her petty authoritarian manner.Her disastrous charade of leadership was on full public display when she was busy rubber stamping various warfare/surveillance/torture/bailout state initiatives while keeping one of New York States senate seats warm before being gifted the opportunity as US Secretary of State to make various war like pronouncements around the world as a perverse form of foreign diplomacy.
Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power and Susan Rice ( 3 chickenhawks who have never seen a war they didn’t support) are directly responsible for the failed state known as Libya.
Rampant militarists who think nothing of sending someone else’s loved ones off to fight and die thousands of miles from their homes in support of bankrupt/stillborn ideologies should be denied access to power at every turn.
http://www.vox.com/2014/8/12/5992793/hillary-clintons-interview-shows-both-how-she-might-win-and-how-she “4. She presents Democrats, to a surprising degree, with the same choice they faced in 2008. There’s no doubt that Clinton is more prepared to answer that 3am call. But they may not like the call she makes immediately after. There are a lot of liberals out there who would prefer a nuclear Iran to a war with Iran. Many of them believe, rightly or wrongly, that President Obama quietly agrees with them. Clinton does not agree with them, and they’re going to know it.”
Jim, yes Hussein was a bad guy, no question but do we then go after every bad guy who kills their people. Should we have troops on the ground in say North Korea? and other countries where this is happening. Maybe Ukraine too, in order to stop Putin.
The world should be dealing with Iraq and ISIS, not just the US. Our children should not be put at risk. That was why Obama left Iraq.
“When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible,” al-Maliki told reporters in Baghdad. “The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started.” http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44998833/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/iraq-pm-immunity-issue-scuttled-us-troop-deal/#.U-9I5kZ0y00
leejcarroll: “Yes getting rid of Saddam was so good that instead they have ISIS growing and Maliki.”
Blaming President Bush for current events in Iraq relies on the fallacy of attenuated causation. The proximate causes of the crisis in Iraq are, one, the construction of ISIS in Syria that combined with, two, the U.S.-abandoned vulnerability of Iraq. Both conditions arose from post-Bush events, such as the degeneration of the Arab Spring, that are related to policy course changes made by Obama that fundamentally deviated from Bush’s foreign policy.
President Bush was right to enforce the Gulf War ceasefire and then stay in Iraq to secure the peace the same way the US stayed to secure the peace in Europe and Asia after World War 2. When Bush left office, the Iraq mission was a success.
President Obama was wrong to leave Iraq prematurely. America’s protection was needed for the continued progression of Iraq’s pluralistic liberal reform and constructive role in the Middle East and the welfare of the Iraqi people. Instead, the feared danger of Obama’s feckless ‘lead from behind’ approach to the Arab Spring and irresponsible exit from Iraq is being realized.
In March 2002, just six months after 9/11, Bush said of bin Laden, “I truly am not that concerned about him…. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.”
In July 2006, we learned that the Bush administration closed its unit that had been hunting bin Laden.
In September 2006, Bush told Fred Barnes, one of his most sycophantic media allies, that an “emphasis on bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism.”
leejcarroll,
Infecting the American body politic with a fundamental lie about the 1991-2003 Iraq enforcement to win the White House in 2008, but then metastasizes to misguide American leadership, thus causing multiplying, compounding harms in the world is not patriotic.
leejcarroll: “Had Bush gone after Bin Laden, whom he said did not concern him and wasn;t worth the thought, maybe just maybe Iraq qouldnt be where it is now.”
That’s not how Islamic terrorism works. Osama bin Laden, while he rose to become an industry leader, was not a one-man monopoly. Nor was he even the only leader of al Qaeda. Fighting terrorism is like fighting cancer. Removing a malignant tumor is necessary but by itself is not a sufficient treatment.
Bush never stopped chasing bin Laden. Bush simply meant that the military piece of clearing al Qaeda from its operational base in Afghanistan had been accomplished, and while the full-spectrum War on Terror continued on, the personal threat of bin Laden had been reduced. bin Laden had gone to ground (most likely) outside Afghanistan, chased by counter-terror methods other than the conventional military method used to break the al Qaeda operational base in Afghanistan.
To wit, Obama NSA advisor, Tom Donilon (Meet the Press, 08MAY11):
Eric: http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/05/former-colin-powell-chief-of-staff-bush-didnt-want-to-get-bin-laden/
Former Colin Powell Chief of Staff: Bush didn’t want to get bin Laden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o “I’m not worried about him” he said because “His network was was destroyed.”
Bush said he wasn’t worried about Bin Laden.
“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority…. I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.”
Fix: Death was just as final and wounds hurt just as much in our proudest wars like the Revolutionary War, Civil War, and WW2, as they did for obscure wars like the Mexican-
WarAmerican War and Spanish-American War, as they did for modern controversial wars like Vietnam and Iraq.Annie: “Don’t expect grieving military parents to agree with your belief”
Please convey to them my take on the issue, and more importantly, the primary sources that show their children served in a mission that was, in fact, right on the law and justified on the policy.
While their personal grief as military parents stands alone, they at least can be proud and comforted knowing their children’s sacrifice was for a cause that was as just and honorable as any in modern American history – despite the lies that sully the honor their children earned.
The death and pain of war are not conditioned on justification, honor, or popular politics. Death was just as final and wounds hurt just as much in our proudest wars like the Revolutionary War, Civil War, and WW2, as they did for obscure wars like the Mexican-War War and Spanish-American War, as they did for modern controversial wars like Vietnam and Iraq.
The American heritage of the US military is so deep – deeper even than the American nation it has served since before the nation was born – because it’s been carved by generations of American blood.
While their personal grief as military parents stands alone, they at least can be proud and comforted knowing their children’s sacrifice was for a cause that was as just and honorable as any in modern American history – despite the lies that sully the honor their children earned.
Unlike the Vietnam war the troops are appreciated for what they have done, the sacrifices they have made, despite us having been lied into the war.
You seem to want to make it a package deal; because you believe the war was just the military who fought/are there should be honored but if you do not believe it was “just and honorable” and Bush went after the right people then you must therefore not honor the sacrifices.
It is a false logic.
Jim22: “For me personally, even if I remove WMD’s from the equation, it still seems like a just war due to Saddam and how he treated his people and to be perfectly honest”
The humanitarian piece of the Iraq enforcement wasn’t optional. It was a foundational mandate in the Gulf War ceasefire that was every bit as serious as the weapons piece and codified in US law independently of the UNSC resolutions.
The basic UNSC resolutions of the Gulf War ceasefire were UNSCR 687 and UNSCR 688. UNSCR 688, which addressed humanitarian issues, while post-numbered actually pre-dates UNSCR 687, which covered weapons and terrorism issues.
Add: A proper understanding of Operation Iraqi Freedom is not arcane.
Albeit like many JDs, my BA is in political science, one doesn’t need a political science background to learn the truth. One simply needs to read the primary sources. The explanation is straightforward. With a law and policy trail extending over at least 3 presidencies, OIF is arguably the best grounded mission in terms of law and policy in modern US military history.
Whatever his shortcomings in the application of his Iraq enforcement, President Clinton in concert with Congress meticulously developed the law, policy, and procedure that President Bush carried forward to resolve the festering Saddam problem. Contra rafflaw’s assertion that “While too many Dems got caught up in the fervor, it was a lie spread by the Republican administration,” the reason that Democrats supported OIF was Clinton officials and Clinton-era Congressmen were more experienced with the Iraq enforcement than President Bush.
That the primary sources for OIF are easily accessed on-line makes it incredible that the false narrative against OIF took hold so that even people who should know better, like Professor Turley, have been successfully tricked.
I provided the basic essentials to leejcarroll upthread, but I’ll repeat them here:
The basic essentials for understanding OIF in the proper context include the 1990-2002 UNSC resolutions for Iraq (at minimum, see UNSCRs 687, 688, and 1441), Public Law 107-243 (the 2002 Congressional authorization for use of military force against Iraq), President Clinton’s announcement of Operation Desert Fox (the penultimate military enforcement step that set the baseline precedent for OIF), President Bush’s remarks to the United Nations General Assembly and excerpts from the 2003 State of the Union, the March 2003 UNMOVIC Cluster Document (summary) that triggered Bush’s final decision for OIF, and the Iraq Survey Group’s Duelfer Report.
Links here:
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2014/05/operation-iraqi-freedom-faq.html#furtherreading
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2004/10/perspective-on-operation-iraqi-freedom.html provides links to primary sources beyond the basic essentials, along with other sources that have informed my take on the issue.
Jim22,
Thanks. It’s important to set the record straight on the Iraq mission because the effect of the false narrative against OIF isn’t contained. The false narrative against OIF, which was defined by the basic principles of modern American leadership, has infected and corrupted our active foreign policy under Obama with the consequence of multiplying, compounding harms.
From my OIF FAQ:
As explained in Presidential statements, US laws, and UNSC resolutions across 3 US administrations, the answer to ‘Why Iraq?’ is ‘All of the above’. As President Bush pointed out leading up to OIF, the founding reasons for UN enforcement converged on Saddam.
Of course oil is part of the equation with everything else. I want us off fossil fuels as much as anyone, but until we make that switch on a macro-scale, oil is what we got. There’s a reason President Carter formally established security and stability of the Middle East as a primary national security interest and President Reagan extended the Carter Doctrine, which was the strategic motive for President Bush to intervene with Iraq and President Clinton’s whole-presidency preoccupation with the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement.
For us, ‘war for oil’ isn’t about seizing ownership like we’re colonial-era imperialists. It’s about the reliability, security, and stability of the region.
Every international-relations major’s education must include the political economy of energy. See my responses to slohrss29 upthread. Economy neither replaces nor displaces war. War is in the context of everything else, economy is the closest thing we have to an everything else, and energy fuels the economy. Economy is the way we live.
Lee – “Jim, Had Bush gone after Bin Laden, whom he said did not concern him and wasn;t worth the thought, maybe just maybe Iraq qouldnt be where it is now.”
Lee, Maybe just maybe if we hadn’t taken out Saddam Iraq would be worse than it is today. Playing “what if’s” is easy and can be played all day long. What we do know is that Saddam was a really bad guy killing 100’s of thousands of people and the world is better off with out his rule.
Annie, Don’t view this as an attack, since I’m just curious. After reading Eric’s posts and seeing his reasoning, why do you not consider it a just war? For me personally, even if I remove WMD’s from the equation, it still seems like a just war due to Saddam and how he treated his people and to be perfectly honest, I’m willing to say that there is an oil component to the war being just since energy (like it or not) is important to modern society and trying to keep that “stable” is part of that importance.
In the end I thank our military for removing one more tyrant. Maybe that is where it should have ended though.
Help… my comment has fallen and can’t get up!
Shhh… Hillary will never call it a WAR CRIME when a Democrat (or Republican for that fact) does it.
Republicans/Democrats = WAR CRIME PARTY
Obama’s Pentagon Covered Up War Crimes in Afghanistan, Says Amnesty International
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/11/amnesty-us-concealed-troops-war-crimes-in-afghanistan-as-recently-as-last-year.html
Thank you Darren.
Eric,
I made a longer comment that was eaten by WordPress, but I do want to quickly say instead of apologizing, now you question my feelings as a military mother based on my opinion on the Iraq war. That’s is no better, try again. I hope you don’t expect all military members or their mothers to agree with your belief it was a just war. One might feel relieved and proud IF one felt it was a just war, but it wasn’t.