Thoughts on Clinton’s Iraq Speech

Hillary Clinton this morning gave a major speech on Iraq.

After the jump, significant breakdown and analysis.

I’m going to go through parts of the speech and comment. All portions bolded are bolded by me.

[T]he critical question is how can we end this war responsibly and restore America’s leadership in the world? It won’t be easy. There is no magic wand to wave. Bringing our troops home safely will take a president who is ready to be Commander-in-Chief on day one, a president who knows our military and has earned their respect. Bringing lasting stability to the region will take a president with the strength and determination, the knowledge and confidence to bring our troops home; to rebuild our military readiness, to care for our veterans, and to redouble our efforts against al-Qaeda. If you give me the chance, I will be that president.

This is the bind Clinton is in. On one hand, she is being attacked from the left by Obama who says it is not respect that matters, but judgment. And her response to that is to play up her experience and respect. And yet on the other hand, if experience and earning the respect of troops are what matters, John McCain almost certainly crushes her on those topics. Can you imagine the olded sentences being run by McCain in a campaign ad against Clinton? I can.

I will start by facing the conditions on the ground in Iraq as they are, not as we hope or wish them to be. President Bush points to the reduction in violence in Iraq last year and claims the surge is working. Now, I applaud any decrease in violence. That is always good news. But the point of the surge was to give the Iraqis the time and space for political reconciliation. Yet today, the Iraqi government has failed to provide basic services for its citizens. They have yet to pass legislation ensuring the equitable distribution of oil revenues, yet even to pass a law setting the date of provincial elections. Corruption and dysfunction is rampant, and last week General Petraeus himself conceded that no one, in either the U.S. government or the Iraqi government, feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation.

While Petraeus certainly did make that point, he did not strike the same negative tone that Clinton seemed to imply.

So by the middle of this summer when the additional surge forces have been sent home, we’ll be right back at square one with 130,000 or more troops on the ground in Iraq.

Whenever I see an idiom like “square one” it always catches my eye. What does that mean? By any measurement, things after the surge will be at the very least slightly better than they were before the surge. And if the measurement is in progress of the Iraqis, as Clinton said before, the number of the troops in Iraq should be aside from the point, not a critical element. Aside from positing that there is a civil war in Iraq, Clinton doesn’t really come back to this point. Whatever is going on in Iraq, it’s more complicated than a civil war, at least as the term is understood in this country. Imagine the Civil War in American … with every state out for itself. That’s the sort of complexity in Iraq. And it’s not really addressed here. Or by either Obama or McCain, for that matter.

The strength of our military is at stake. Only one of our army brigades is certified by the army to be ready. Our armed forces are stretched to near the breaking point with many of our troops on their second, third, or fourth tours of duty. Our economic security is at stake. Taking into consideration the long-term costs of replacing equipment and providing medical care for troops and survivors’ benefits for their families, the war in Iraq could ultimately cost well over $1 trillion. That is enough to provide health care for all 47 million uninsured Americans and quality pre-kindergarten for every American child, solve the housing crisis once and for all, make college affordable for every American student, and provide tax relief to tens of millions of middle class families.

Others, like Obama, Edwards, and Kerry in 2004 have made this argument (Remember “opening firehouses in Baghdad and shutting them in the United States of America”?). It’s a nice shout out to liberals but I’m not convinced this line of argument is very convincing for independents. There’s a strong thread in American history of sticking to a cause and fighting through challenges. As Rep. Robert Goodloe Harper said of the French in 1798, “Millions for defense but not one penny for tribute.” Now, there’s no connections between the XYZ affair and Iraq. (Even Stephen Hayes and liberals would together admit that.)

The point is a broader one, that the culture in America has long approved of spending money for idealistic international goals that they would otherwise not want to spend at all. Put simply, I think if a President had racked up the large deficit on domestic programs that Bush has generated for defense that the popular reaction would be far more fierce.

“They both want to keep us tied to another country’s civil war, a war we cannot win. That in a nutshell is the Bush/McCain Iraq policy. Don’t learn from your mistakes, repeat them. Well, here is the inescapable reality. We can have hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground for 100 years, but that will not change the fact that there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq.

Is that a quiet acknowledgement that her vote was a mistake? Or just that her initial support of the war was a mistake?

By her own logic, she is right that America cannot win the war in Iraq - because the fight is going to be won or lost by Iraqis, not Americans; but she doesn’t explain how Iraqi politicians cannot do what is right. It seems to be “they haven’t, so they won’t.” That’s not terribly convincing to people torn on whether to stay in Iraq or get out, which is a rising view.

The question seems to be not whether there is a military solution, but rather how long ought the military be a crutch of those who do have the power for a political solution. John McCain seemed to imply quite a while (depending on the context of his 100 years comment; I’ll defer to his Korea analogy for the moment.) Clinton and Obama seem to imply not much longer at all. But no one seems to give a convincing rationale: McCain uses languange like sticking to the cause, whereas Obama and Clinton use words like the troops being caught in the middle of a civil war. It’s quite unpersuasive language when you actually take some time to think about it, for both sides. There is one other argument …

We simply cannot give the Iraqi government an endless blank check. Each passing month we stay in Iraq gives the Iraqi government more time to avoid the hard decisions on how to split the oil money and how to share political power. Senator McCain and president bush claim withdrawal is defeat. Well, let’s be clear, withdrawal is not defeat. Defeat is keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years. Defeat is straining our alliances and losing our standing in the world. Defeat is draining our resources and diverting attention from our key interests.

Here is what an esteemed authority has to say on the internal logic: “A deadline is a wonderful idea that allows you to extract work from someone without all that tedious mucking about with people and management skills. All you do is pick a date usually, but not always, in the future, and announce to all concerned that this is absolutely positively the last moment the last moment by which the work can be finished. Optionally, you may outline what events will transpire if this deadline is missed, such as reduced pay, loss of employment, diminished sexual attractiveness, company buildings falling down, or perhaps the general decline of western civilization.” The esteemed authority? Stephen Fry reading an entry from the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

The point of that tangent is this: Clinton - and Obama too - seems convinced that there is only one way to facilitate the Iraqis coming together. I’m not sure that’s the case. It seems possible there’s either multiple ways or no ways at all.

More to the point, I’m confused by her definition of defeat. I used to think defeat was Iraqis not coming together politically. Now, Clinton defines it as staying in Iraq indefinitely. (Moreover, does anyone suggest keeping troops in Iraq for that long under the circumstances they are there now? Moreover, 100 years ago people were saying the Titanic was the future of ocean liners.) Or is she talking about defeat in Afghanistan now? It’s not really clear. But a general sense that “bad things will happen” is not necessarily defeat. And that’s something McCain can push back against.

Now, withdrawal is not risk-free, but the risks of staying in Iraq are certain. And a well-planned withdrawal is the one and only path to a political solution. The only way to spur the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future and to ensure that we don’t bear that responsibility indefinitely. The only way to spur other countries to do their part to help secure stability in the region. The commitment to staying in Iraq has driven President Bush’s foreign policy. It looks like it would drive Senator McCain’s foreign policy as well, but it will not drive mine. My foreign policy will be driven by what is in America’s national security interests.

Read the bolded part. I have one question: Why? Is this a pragmatic judgment after meeting with key figures? Is this your theory on resolving civil wars? Has it been demonstrated to work elsewhere if that’s the case? She doesn’t say.

The American people don’t have to guess whether I’m ready to lead or whether I understand the realities on the ground in Iraq or whether I’d be too dependent on advisers to help me determine the right way forward. I’ve been working day-in and day-out in the Senate to provide leadership to end this war. That’s why I cosponsored legislation with Senator Robert Byrd to reauthorize the war, legislation that would actually end the president’s authority to fight it.

I’m not prepared to say that any of the three remaining candidates can understand the war without the help of advisers. Moreover, it’s questionable on it’s own grounds whether they should even try. The last president to act that way regarding a war was Nixon in Vietnam. Just from the Democratic side, after all the criticisms Democrats have laid on George W. Bush for failing to see their point of view, do they want a President who proudly says her own views are enough?

And I refuse to judge a Senator based on what they co-sponsor. That’s not indicative or work, it’s indicative of an endorsement of the plan. Like I said in a previous debate liveblog, I just co-sponsored five things while writing this sentence.

“I believe what matters in this campaign is not just the promises we’ve made to end the war; what matters is what we’ve actually done when it came time to match words with action. Because more than anything else, what we’ve done is an indication of what we’ll do.

I think it’s slightly more than that. It’s also a matter of trust. Obama’s constant record on the war has earned him more trust amongst Democrats. Clinton’s mixed record taints her subsequent action and makes it look like she’s pandering. It’s the same reason Clinton gets points on health care among Democrats for the failure of the issue; she stood up for something even in the face of unpopularity. Her failure on health care cemented her reputation by proving that she stood by it. Obama also took such a stance. Both are getting credit for their tough stance in this primary.

And when Clinton says what you have done is indicative of what you will do, she has to be aware that the line is a double edged sword.

“Now, my Democratic opponent talks a great deal about a speech he gave in 2002, and I commend him for making that speech. Speaking out for what you believe is a solemn, patriotic duty. He is asking us to judge him by his words, and words can be powerful, but only if the speaker translates them into action and solutions. Senator Obama holds up his original opposition to the war on the campaign trail, but he didn’t start working aggressively to end the war until he started running for president. So when he had a chance to act on his speech, he chose silence instead. And out campaigning Senator Obama tells voters that as president he’d withdraw combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months, but one of his top foreign policy advisers told a different story. She told a British television reporter, and I quote, “he will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or as a U.S. Senator.” Senator Obama has said often that words matter. I strongly agree. But giving speeches alone won’t end the war and making campaign promises you might not keep certainly won’t end it. In the end the true test is not the speeches a president delivers, it’s whether the president delivers on the speeches.

First, let’s be clear: no Senate action through the present time was going to end the war. A legitimate question could be raised as to whether meaningful oversight emerged quickly enough, but that’s not what Clinton is talking about here. She seems to imply more legislative effort could have ended the war. The Democrats did not and do not have the votes to do that. So I’m not sure what the point is.

Second, Marc Ambinder points out that Clinton in this segment simply isn’t dealing with the reality on the ground. Having a plan doesn’t mean you stick with it no matter what (again to the Bush point above). If Al Qaeda starts some sort of major operation in Iraq a year from now, President Hilalry Clinton wouldn’t necessarily stick with the one to two month brigade plan. Samantha Power was just acknowledging that both of these plans are best case scenarios (and they have the SAME plan for 99% of it. Every Democratic voter knows this.)

Moreover, a Clinton adviser made similar comments, as Ben Smith pointed out.

Point being, I was expecting a policy speech on Iraq, not political softballs from Clinton.

“I have concrete, detailed plans to end this war, and I have not waivered in my commitment to follow through on them. One choice in this election is Senator McCain. He’s willing to keep this war going for 100 years. You can count on him to do that. Another choice is Senator Obama who has promised to bring combat troops out in 16 months, but according to his foreign policy adviser, you can’t count on him to do that. In uncertain times, we cannot afford uncertain leadership.

Samantha Powers point was not something opaque or technical. It’s that no one knows what Iraq is going to be like in January. Clinton herself famously told Gen. Petraeus that thoughts on the surge working required a “willing suspension of disbelief.” And I doubt anyone would have expected Iraq to be in the situation it is in now a year ago.

It’s more frustrating for me because I know that Sen. Clinton knows all of this.

“I will also implement a proposal that I, Representative Murtha, and others have been calling for, requiring that before any brigade is deployed, the Secretary of Defense must certify to Congress that it is fully combat ready. Sending brigades that do not meet this standard puts our soldiers in danger and our mission in Iraq or elsewhere at risk.

This seems rather risky to me. I assume there would be exemptions for contingencies and emergencies. But with a large force in the field, and a choice to leave troops overseas longer, or deploy a brigade not totally ready, I imagine the choice can’t always be to leave troops in the field.

In addition to removing American troops from Iraq, I will also work to remove armed private military contractors who are conducting combat-oriented and security functions in Iraq. For five yeas their behavior and lack of supervision and accountability have often eroded our credibility, endangered U.S. and Iraqi lives and undermined our mission. Now, Senator Obama and I have a substantive disagreement here. He won’t rule out continuing to use armed private military contractors in Iraq to do jobs that historically have been done by the U.S. military or government personnel. When I am president I will ask the Joint Chiefs for their help in reducing reliance on armed private military contractors. With the goal of ultimately implementing a ban on such contractors.

Clinton was hit earlier in the campaign for Mark Penn having ties to Blackwater.

Jeremy Scahill a couple weeks ago wrote on Obama’s position regarding Blackwater and similar operations. A senior adviser to Obama told him, “”If Barack Obama comes into office next January and our diplomatic security service is in the state it’s in and the situation on the ground in Iraq is in the state it’s in, I think we will be forced to rely on a host of security measures. … I can’t rule out, I won’t rule out, private security contractors. … I will rule out private security contractors that are not accountable to US law.” Scahill was unconvinced though that such accountability was possible.

Scahill also found curious that Clinton only supported such a ban on organizations after Obama’s position was made clear. He wrote: What interesting timing! A day after this story went live on TheNation.com, Sen. Hillary Clinton, whose staff refused for a week to answer my questions about her position on private security forces, released a statement announcing that Clinton is now co-sponsoring legislation to “ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq,” saying, “The time to show these contractors the door is long past due.” Why February 28, in the middle of a tough political campaign? Why not after last September’s Nisour Square massacre, when Blackwater operatives killed 17 Iraqi civilians? Or, better, before it? Regardless of the curious timing, this makes Clinton the most significant US political figure to date to issue such a call. We will be monitoring closely how much of a legislative priority this becomes for Sen. Clinton.

I’m not sure this is a “substantive agreement” as Clinton says as much as it is a difference in emphasis. Even Clinton admits such a ban could not happen right away. The difference seems that Obama wants more accountability, whereas Clinton does not want them at all .. eventually.

We’ve had a lot of talk in this town and elsewhere about earmarks, and I am one of those who believe we need more transparency and disclosure in the earmark process. But no-bid contracts are ten times more costly than earmarks, and when I introduce my legislation to eliminate no-bid contracts, I could not get, at least as of this moment, Senator McCain’s support for that.

It’s interesting that McCain could also not get Clinton to release her earmarks for any year.

The second part of my plan involves working to secure stability within Iraq as we bring our troops home, stability that will be key to a successful withdrawal of our troops. I believe it’s really quite simple, greater political and economic stability means safer conditions for our departing troops and a smoother disengagement from our military’s actions across Iraq. Right now no one doubts that the Iraqi government is failing its citizens. Government officials refuse to take the steps need to order to advance a solution, improve the economy, quell sectarian violence and better the lives of ordinary Iraqis. These failings are, in part, the fault of the Iraqis and in part due to the Bush administration’s failure to match military efforts with political ones.

This is for reference for the next several paragraphs.

When I’m president, we will pursue a more integrated strategy. We’ll empower local leaders and use U.S. and international influence to press the Iraqis to reach political reconciliation, and I will call on the United Nations to strengthen its role in promoting this reconciliation. Not having been a party to the mistakes of the path five years, the U.N., which has already provided valuable technical assistance in Iraq, is far more likely to be viewed as a neutral, honest broker than the United States, especially when it acts on behalf of a broad coalition of concerned states and the international community.

I am not so sure about this.

Moreover, if reconciliation were this easy, I imagine the Bush administration would have done it. They’re already doing some empowering, as Clinton referenced in a paragraph I cut out.

I will also call upon the U.N. to help oversee the resettlement of the millions of refugees who have fled Iraq or have been displaced internally. Many are living in desperate conditions creating not just a humanitarian crisis but one affecting regional stability that poses direct threats to our security here at home which we must address immediately.

This is also true. But resolving a humanitarian crisis on this scale is not going to be quick or easy. If cleaning up New Orleans has proven to be that difficult, imagine doing that on a larger scale when the preceding infrastructure is far worse or nonexistent.

The next section of Clinton’s speech is actual policy: making the Iraq government spend more oil revenue on providing services and building the country, and tracking down black market oil. There’s not really any political attacks in this section, and as such it actually is pretty convincing.

Clinton concludes with a look towards diplomacy:

Ten months from now we will have a new opportunity to reach out and engage our allies. One of my very first international meetings as president would be with our treaty allies and our friends in the region including the Gulf States, Jordan, Egypt, and our European allies. Over the course of my career I have known and worked with many of these leaders already, and I will send them a very clear message - what happens in Iraq affects all of our interests, and it is all of our responsibility. It’s time we did our part and paid our fair share. I will then convene a regional stabilization group composed of these key allies, other global parties, the states bordering Iraq. The mission of this group will be to develop and implement a strategy to create a stable Iraq. I would include in this regional stabilization group Iran and Syria. We must convince all countries in the region and beyond to refrain from getting involved in the Iraqi civil war, to hold themselves and others to their past pledges to provide funding in Iraq, and to support the central role for the United Nations.

I’m not sure that message will be very convincing; the effort in Afghanistan is pretty weak aside from Britain.

And I’m not sure pure neutrality in the Iraqi Civil War is the issue here: Clinton herself said a strike force would be maintained by the US to go after AL Qaeda. Is Clinton saying that no matter what, as long as Al Qaeda or their allies don’t rule the country she does not care what happens? Given what she has said about being an advocate for intervention in the Rwandan genocide, I doubt that’s the case. More likely, she wants to find a justification for telling Turkey and Iran to stay out.

On the whole, though, the political attacks were disappointing, and the policy parts of the speech don’t reflect much different about Iraq than she could or did say months ago. It’s just an updated version annotated with new attack lines.

I expected more to deal with the change in conditions since July.