December 22, 2007
Reuters reports a “refocus on Iraq” in the Democratic presidential primary:
JOHNSTON, Iowa (Reuters) - The Iraq war dominated the presidential campaign on Friday, with Hillary Clinton facing charges she flip-flopped on withdrawing forces and the White House rebuffing Mike Huckabee’s criticism of its foreign policy.
As the violence in Iraq has fallen in recent months in response to the deployment of additional U.S. troops, the war has become less of a daily issue among candidates for the November 2008 election.
But less than two weeks before Iowa kicks off the state-by-state party nomination contests, Democrats seized on the former first lady’s suggestion on Wednesday that U.S. troops could come home within a year. Previously she had declined to commit to withdrawing all troops within 5 years.
………….
Clinton’s campaign argued she has not changed her position, but rather has consistently supported withdrawing one to two combat brigades from Iraq each month. There are 20 brigades in Iraq now with 3,000 to 5,000 troops each.
The Clinton campaign has done a great job of centering the discussion on domestic policy. Truth be told, when it comes to domestic affairs, Senator Clinton does have the most experience; it’s likely that as president she’d be pretty effective at getting policies through Congress. And I’m sure plenty of people (I know quite a few) are supporting her for for just that reason.
But…I think we should judge the candidates based solely on their foreign policy judgement. The president doesn’t actually have much leeway on domestic matters; he/she is constrained by congress, the states and public opinion. When it comes to our relations with the would however, the president essentially makes policy by fiat.
The Iraq War is and will be a defining issue for the forseeable future. I guarantee that ten years from now, we’ll be asking candidates if they supported to war. I don’t think this is a bad thing. Those politicians not blinded by visions of a Pax Americana were able to see that the war would be an absolute disaster. But the political climate - with plenty of jingoism and blind patriotism - made it quite advantageous to support the war, and it took a bit of courage to oppose it.
I’m inclined to support those figures who opposed the war from the beginning. I think it demonstrates both good judgement and an ability to take a stand even when it’s not a good thing - politically - to do. My main cause for opposition to Senator Clinton has entirely to do with her Iraq positioning. She supported the war for political reasons, and even when the whole shabangabang was going straight to hell, she was unwilling to admit error (which to me at least, indicates an ideological attachment to the war).
Her Iran posturing follows the same pattern. She votes in support of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment - giving the Administration good justification if they decide to attack Iran - and continuously talks of “leaving all options on the table” with regards to negotiating with Iran. She still operates with the assumption that military force is always an acceptable option.
That shows - to me - judgement which is short-sighted and irresponsible. I’m glad that the primaries are coming back to Iraq, I think you can tell a lot about any given candidate based solely on where they stood in 2003, and I don’t think Hillary Clinton looks favorable by that light.
