« The Times Will Correct The Kristol Column | Main | Superdelegates From Florida, Michigan May Be Seated »

HRC's Challenge To Obama And McCain

17 Mar 2008 01:10 pm

Five years after the start of major combat ops, as John McCain and Dick Cheney visited Baghdad, as the financial markets melt down, as the media focuses on her opponent's tricky associations, Hillary Clinton sees a vaccuum and and is filling it with tales of her own bravery, a new set of principles about withdrawing from Iraq, and some words for her rivals, near-term and short-term. One-to-two-brigades per month. Clinton is still going to face the same problems Sam Power knows Obama will face, but the luxury Clinton has is that no Clinton adviser is going to acknowledge this... and an Obama adviser already has... and so Clinton has the political foot-hold here, even though reality is likely to confront them similarly. Here's the full speech.

Some key paragraphs after the jump.

The first two paragraphs are what I'd call a riposte au Sinbad:

“Good morning. I want to thank Secretary West for his years of service, not only as Secretary of the Army, but also to the Veteran’s Administration, to our men and women in uniform, to our country. I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia, and as Togo said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the First Lady. That’s where we went.

“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.

Some boilerplate:

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.
Assessment of the surge:
“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.
To Sen. McCain:

"... Senator McCain will gladly accept the torch and stay the course, keeping troops in Iraq for up to 100 years if necessary."

“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.

“And don't just take it from me. At his confirmation hearing, Admiral Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that without national political reconciliation, no amount of troops in no amount of time will make much of a difference. 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.


“For the past five years, I have served on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan three times. I have met with our soldiers and military leaders. I have met with Iraqi, local, regional, and national elected and other influential officials. Here at home I’ve attended countless meetings and committee hearings where I have challenged high-ranking Pentagon officials and military leaders investigating the situation in Iraq, probing the facts presented, and demanding real answers to tough questions. And I am honored that more than 30 of America’s most esteemed former admirals and generals, including two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and five retired officers of the four-star rank have endorsed my candidacy.


“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.

“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.

“The most important part of my plan is the first step, to bring our troops home and send the strongest possible message to the Iraqis that they must take responsibly for their own future. No more talk of permanent occupation, no more policing a civil war, no more doing for the Iraqis what they need to be doing for themselves. As president, one of my first official actions will be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my Secretary of Defense and my National Security Council and direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to start bringing our troops home within the first 60 days of my taking office. A plan based on my consultation with the military to remove one to two brigades a month, a plan that reduces the risks of attack as they depart.

Comments (8)

Actually a Hillary adviser who is a general aknowledged it too (his name escapes me right now) but it didn't get any play.

Yes, this morning on Morning Joe, Wesley Clark said "his candidate" knew there could be no timeline set for withdrawl. I'm surprised no one is talking about this. Welsey Clark said almost the exact same thing Samantha Powers did.

“I have concrete, detailed plans to end this war, and I have not waivered in my commitment to follow through on them."


Anyone who can speak of "concrete", "detailed plans" to end a war where the situation is fluid, loaded with multiple interdependencies, positive and negative feedback / feedforward loops, contingencies, surprises, and just the plain unexpected don't understand lesson 1 of war about the Fog of war.

For those who are not military professionals, the Fog of War is nicely summarized as:

"The term seeks to capture the uncertainty regarding own capability, adversary capability and adversary intent during an engagement, operation or campaign." (Wikipedia

That is why only an idiot would go into a war with a concrete, detailed plan (or to withdraw with such a plan).

The best laid plans will be obsolete the second action starts or the moment the President elect becomes the President and then sees the real picture.

What is needed is a Commander-in-Chief who understand the general principals and goals, and then improvise as needed to achieve them. Along the way, trade-offs that appear good can and often will turn bad, and vice-versa. The game is to stay focused and true to the goals even as mistakes are made over and over again.

That takes a quick study, a person with outstanding judgment, who can adapt, improvise, and learn.

I find it remarkable that Hillbilly will state on the record that she has a "concrete", "detailed paln" to withdraw when any competent military strategist would have told her such a plan is worth about as much as her plans to win the nomination in Iowa.

I would rather have President OBammBamm get there, study the situation with all the facts available to POTUS, and then make whatever decision that is best for the nation --- even if that decision means staying in Iraq indefinitely.

At the very least, President OBammBamm will be up front with us and if there really are vital interests that require that sacrifice, we will know.

Forgive me, but I trust OBammBamm's judgment.

Clinton aide Gen. Jack Keane seems to differ with Hillary's plan, saying:

"I have no doubts whatsoever that if she were president in January '09 she would not act irresponsibly and issue orders to conduct an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the consequences, and squander the gains that have been made."

http://www.nysun.com/article/72209?page_no=2

At least Nixon was more efficient. He just said he had a secret plan to end the war and that was that. Hillary's equally detailed plan is just a dragged out version of Nixon's, which boils down to "well, trust me this time."

"Secret plan to end the war"?

Don't knock it...It worked for Nixon in 1968 (Vietnam) and for Eisenhower in 1956 (Korea).

From today's "Head of State"

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/making-turn.html

Monday, March 17, 2008

Making The Turn: Clinton's Newest Move--And How Obama Can Respond

In a speech today at George Washington University, Hillary Clinton indicated the next clever move of the Clinton camp--making a turn from attack on Obama by insinuation and surrogates, to a serious and detailed speech on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, leveled largely against Bush and McCain. Having drawn Obama out to respond to the attacks, the plan is clearly to now outflank, moving forward on the issue of Iraq, thus leaving Obama standing amid the mire of the attacks while also attempting to underscore the foreign policy "experience" argument and to turn the narrative towards the general.

Wearing an incongruously joyous shamrock-covered scarf, Clinton spoke in even and leveled "3. a.m." tones of soldiers "who have made the ultimate sacrifice" and who have "experienced wounds both visible and invisible to their bodies, their minds and their hearts."

That President Bush seems to want to keep as many troops after the surge as before...is a clear admission that the surge has not accomplished its goals. Meanwhile, as we continue to police Iraq's civil war, the to our national security, our economy, and our standing in the world continue to mount." She then tied the ongoing expense in Iraq to her core domestic issues--health care for the uninsured, pre-K for children, solving the housing crisis, providing support for college students, and offering tax relief.

Repeatedly tying the failed policy of Bush to that of McCain, and citing chairman of the J.C.S. Mullen, she invoked the "unescapable reality"--we can have troops on the ground for 100 years--but there is no political solution" to the war in Iraq.

The payoff: "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 losing our reseources and diverting attention from our key interests."

A deft move. As Obama prepares to level strong attacks against Clinton in response to the onslaught of the previous weeks, Clinton is now premptively changing the message and focus to Bush, McCain, the war in Iraq, and withdrawal. Underscoring the latter is certain to draw media attention, and is intended tactically to leave Obama standing in the echo of his return attacks, in the potential position of being a step behind, with the questions of Clinton, however legitimate, unanswered. After having leveled the most broad-brush attacks against Obama, the Clinton camp is now attempting to place Obama in the perceived position of leveling attacks, rather than dealing, as they now happen to be, "with the serious issues of the day."

What Obama can do:

Do *not* avoid Clinton's newest turn. Instead, come strong--having first *tied* Clinton's speech to the questions that will now be raised about her, e.g.

"Hillary Clinton, has raised questions about fitness for office--at the same time that, as the person running second in this contest, she has said that I would make an excellent Vice President. She has questioned my experience, when she has less experience governing, and key figures from her husband's Administration who were with her at the time have that that experience did not occur. We know the other charges that have been leveled.

Now, when Mrs. Clinton is having questions raised about herself, serious questions about her own fitness for governance, about her own "experience", about her own--let's say politely veracity, in statements that she has made and is making, now--she would like to change the discussion. Now--she would like to focus on the "serious issues".

Well, I have to wonder. I know...I know...this is just her newest change, the newest hoodwink...but, still, I just have to wonder. Where was she when we were focusing on the serious issues? Where was she focusing he concerns when Congress took the vote on Iraq? Where has she been when we have been focusing week after week on the serious issues of resolving the war in Iraq, on providing security for our nation?

Just what will her next change be, next week? Do we want a President who does not know what she will say from week to week? Who does not know who she will be at 3 a.m."

And so on.

Instead of letting her simply make the turn, and playing catch-up, let her make her turn--and then box her within it, by tying it to and framing it within the context of her previous changes and actions.

Cite:

Head of State

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/making-turn.html

It is a bit late in the game for her "to move forward on Iraq." Her vote in favor of the war undermines her credibility.

The sniping by her surrogates are recognized by the public as desperation measures.

Meanwhile Obama picks up more superdelegates and late round Iowa delegates...Soon it will be revealed that she in fact lost Texas as well.

If she only conducted her campaign with competence from Day One she might not be in such a dire position.