Redstate

She's Against Whatever You Dislike About The War

By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 — Comments (25) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Today's NY Daily News carried an op-ed by Hillary Clinton (co-signed by whoever it is that signs stuff for Robert Byrd these days) that seems to say...well, in typical Clinton fashion, its meaning would appear to depend on the reader. Let's walk through and see if we can make sense of the words she pours past our eyes:

On Oct. 11, 2002, the Senate gave President Bush authority to use force against Iraq. Nearly five years later, it is time for Congress to say enough is enough.

The American people have waited long enough for progress in Iraq. They have waited long enough for the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future.

OK, so she is calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq? That's the position of many in her party; it's foolish in the extreme, but at least has the virtue of clarity. But if it's clarity you are expecting, you have forgotten what the Clintons are all about.

Read On...

Today, more than 150,000 members of our armed forces are caught in a civil war. According to the Pentagon, overall levels of violence in Iraq have not decreased since the surge began. The last three months have been the deadliest period for American troops since the start of the war.

Note: if by "the surge" she means the expansion of the number of troops in Iraq to the cited 150,000 figure, that has only barely come on line in the past few weeks. Unfortunately, leading Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) have difficulty grasping a military strategy that requires more than one syllable to describe. The new rules of engagement have been in place since February, but the actual escalation in boots on the ground only became complete in the past month.

It is time for the waiting to end and for our troops to start to come home.

OK, withdrawal then.

That is why we propose to end the authorization for the war in Iraq. The civil war we have on our hands in Iraq is not our fight and it is not the fight Congress authorized. Iraq is at war with itself and American troops are caught in the middle.

Now, the idea that what is going on in Iraq is "civil war" is debatable as a matter of military doctrine as well as popular understanding among Iraqis, given the large areas of the country not engulfed in conflict and the absence of organized factions that are openly seeking to secede from or overturn the government. But leave that aside - there certainly is violence perpetrated by factions looking in general to undermine the government. Leave aside for now the fact that there is also substantial foreign (esp. Iranian) involvement in Iraq, and that we are fighting as well Al Qaeda in Iraq, which one would think of as an important foe to be rid of.

The fact is, while the mission endorsed by the 2002 resolution - the use of force to remove the threat presented by Saddam's regime - has long since been accomplished, a resolution authorizing an invasion always assumes that the U.S. may well stay to do post-war reconstruction, a task which has frequently throughout history involved putting down armed insurrections (ask the Congress that authorized the Spanish-American War).

At a recent Senate hearing, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was asked if the 2002 authorization still applies to Iraq. His response was surprisingly candid: "I don't know." . . .

Well, that proves yet again why Gates is such a pathetic excuse for a spokesman for an Administration policy he shows no signs of agreeing with, but it also means he's uninformed. Argue if you like that the war is a bad idea, but it's ridiculous to contend that the Administration is proceeding without proper legal authority. In fact, that's precisely why Senator Clinton has to propose changing the law.

The 2008 defense authorization bill is now before the U.S. Senate. This legislation presents a vital opportunity for Congress to step up and force the President to change course in Iraq. Amending the bill to deauthorize the war would do exactly that. We intend to lead that effort.

"Change course"? I thought the point of this op-ed was to, well, "deauthorize the war," which would involve not doing what is no longer authorized.

If the Bush administration believes that the current war, as it is being executed, is critical to America's future, then it should make the case and let the people decide. Explain to the public why our young men and women should be sent into the middle of a fight between religious factions. Explain why we should continue to devote $10 billion each month to this fight.

"[A]s it is being executed" is another dodge here...and if the goal is to stop the war, then say you are for doing that, not merely that you want him to "explain" himself, which Heaven knows the President has done often enough, albeit rarely as well as he might have.

Prior to the vote on the original authorization of force in 2002, we worked to limit that authority to one year. Unfortunately, the amendment failed — a fact rendered all the more distressing in hindsight.

Oh, a 1-year time limit would have been a brilliant way to enter a war. Recall that many critics of the war predicted a protracted Stalingrad-style battle for Baghdad alone, with as many as 3,000 casualties, and others predicted ten times that. Recall also that many of the Democrats who supported the authorization wanted more time to first be spent trying to bluff Saddam. Can any serious person think it would have been a good thing to get into a seige situation with a ticking clock?

Anyway, the defeat of that time limit clearly shows that what Congress did authorize was more open-ended, as wars generally are.

By deauthorizing the original use-of-force resolution this year, we would put a stop to the President's failed strategy and require him to articulate a new policy that takes into account the desires of the American people, the reality in Iraq and the recommendations of military experts. . . .

Leaving entirely unsaid what that should be.

Our men and women in uniform toppled the dictator. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has established a parliament and elected a president and a prime minister. Yet our troops remain in Iraq and our President remains unmoved by any arguments to change course.

How?

Note that we have about reached the end, yet there is no discussion here at all of the regional and global consequences of withdrawal, or indeed of anything at all. It's Iraq in a Vaccuum.

As Bush admitted in his State of the Union address in January, "This is not the fight we entered in Iraq." We could not agree more. This is not the fight Congress authorized, Mr. President. If you want to continue to wage this fight, come to Congress and make your case. Otherwise, bring our troops home.

That's President Bush to you, Senator. So, are we back to bringing the troops home, or not? That depends what you want to believe - whatever it is, Senator Clinton is for it.