Well, if I had a vote that is. From the New York Times, '
If Elected ...Clinton Says Some G.I.’s in Iraq Would Remain':
WASHINGTON, March 14 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.
This is almost exactly my view with the caveat that I would aim by fair means and foul to actively destabilize, subvert, and undermine Iran rather than merely to 'deter it' (the deterrability of Iran being open to question, I think). It perfectly encapsulates the least-bad-response to what seems to me the case that:
- The counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq is probably beyond recovery; but,
- the consequences of packing it in leaving Iraq a failed state maelstrom which sucks in the rest of the region (even more than it does already) are too high a price to pay.
2 comments:
'would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military'
How many troops would that require? How many of the present priorities has she eliminated?
If that's all it takes to get a vote, Dubya deserves a third term!
60,000 or less, according to people I've talked to.
Dubya a third term? Puhleeeze!
Post a Comment