What does that mean? It means that our troops would no longer be there to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence, violence between Shiites and Sunnis. That is to say, the main cause of violence, no? More than that, if a real massacre emerged between the Shiites and Sunnis we wouldn’t get involved, but we’d still be in the region. This makes no sense whatsoever. If our remaining troops aren’t there to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence, why bother going? And protection from ethnic cleansing is one of the few justifications for war I actually support–it’s why I think we should send some peace keepers to Sudan to end the genocide there. If we’re not there to stop the current violence, and we’re not there because of WMDs, and we’re not there to build democracy, and we’re not there to prevent ethnic cleansing, why are we there at all? Perhaps the objective could be made more clear–what are our troops supposed to be protecting while they’re there if not the Iraqis. If she acknowledges that some troops should come home, why not all of them?
Her answer:
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 Israel’s interests.”
Oh right–“If” Iraq turned into a failed state. Black gravy. Al-Qaeda. Israel. I think I’ve heard these arguments before.
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?”
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
The mission, whatever there once was of it, is no longer clear. It is clear, however, that Iraq is now in the midst of a bloody civil war that we have no right to tamper with and every interest to leave behind.
We have got to make it clear to House Democrats, Presidential hopefuls, the current Administration and the world at large that this is not what the American people want. That’s why it’s so important to attend the protest of the war on March 24th. I hope you can make it, because once again it’s time for action.
You are certainly right that Hillary Clinton’s suggestion could use more coherence. If Iraq were like Yugoslavia where one was concerned with what the Serbian army was doing, her suggestion makes a lot of sense.
<
p>
However, it isn’t Yugoslavia and it isn’t the Sudan.
<
p>
The only argument I might see for maintaining a force nearby is if Anbar province should turn into a training camp for Al Qaeda.
The antiwar folks (we antiwar folks) have been pushing to frame the Iraq hostilities as a civil war, but that doesn’t seem right.
<
p>
It’s more that enough Sunnis want to make Iraq ungovernable until their demands are met, that various Shiite factions are exacting revenge and overdoing the security thing to the level of horrible human rights abuses. Further, various armed groups of Shia seem to be maneuvering to gain power. Meanwhile, the Kurds are trying to expand their sphere of influence.
<
p>
This is certainly not like the Wars of the Roses or the American Civil War. It is more chaotic. There is no General Lee to get to surrender.
There may be a good reason for it, but I don’t understand why Hillary Clinton must always sound like the Democratic candidate most eager to use military power. Perhaps her analysis of these matters is just different from what I see. Perhaps she feels a need to emphasize a willingness to use military power because the Republican noise machine insists on painting her as the most liberal of liberals. Perhaps that’s what her various “listening tours” turn up as what Americans want.
…the American Civil War was not really a civil war, in a classical sense.
<
p>
Regardless of the classification, Iraq is a classic case of organizations jockeying for power in a power vacuum. Similar to Lebanon 1975-89 (or -98?) If the Sunni Saudies want to protect their Sunni Iraqi brethren, they should do so.
<
p>
The problem for the Saudis is that there is no oil in the Sunni dominated middle of Iraq, so there is no profit for them to do so. The oil is in the northern (Kurdish dominated) parts of Iraq and southern (Shi’ite dominated) parts of Iraq. So, really, what is the profit for the Saudis in protecting their Sunni brethren?