Whoa. Hillary Would Keep Troops In Iraq As President. No, Really.

My Goodness! Hillary sounds like someone who takes seriously the complexity of being President. (4.00 / 1)

I thought we were going to keep this blog focusing on Albany? That said, let me give a dissenting view on the reaction to Hillary's comments. 

So Hillary allows that, under her Presidency, the U.S. could continue to have some troops in the Middle East.  The instant negative reaction to that statement among the on-line progressive, out-of-Iraq community is, IMHO, unwarranted and overblown.  I know this is going to piss off some of my friends, and a lot of strangers, but the bumper-sticker simplicity of the reception to Hillary's positions and positioning is getting tiresome.  Agree or disagree, she's not the great Satan, she's a serious player, and we should start listening with some sensitivity instead of knee-jerking like the mirror-image of Faux News yahoos.  We've got to get past assuming that everyone who is not purely all-the-way-and-completely-out-now is Bush redux, and start asking better questions and listening to the answers.  Or we're going to end up just hearing what we want, and getting pandered to by sloganistas.

Look, I'm not carrying any water for Hillary - I'm still waiting for someone in this cycle to earn my support for the Democratic nomination; I haven't completely ruled out any of the grown-ups. But the giant gotcha-gasp every time Hillary takes a position that can't be fairly reduced to an isolationist slogan only makes those doing the gasping sound simpleminded, and trivializes the debate.  I was a Dean supporter early, and was not thrilled with the Kerry candidacy, but I thought one of his (potential) strengths as a possible President, if not as a candidate, was the ability to entertain nuance, the ability to have and develop positions that had more depth than the first bullet point.  That contrasted nicely with the Holy Simplism of GWBush.  Now if only Kerry had been able to communicate that nuance without reminding me of Treebeard.

And, whatever else one might think of Hillary, you have to admit that she takes serious and complex policy positions, she has depth, and (except for some memorable lapses on largely symbolic issues that still leave a really bad taste), she seems unwilling, on serious, Presidential stuff, to pander with shallow slogans.  On refusing to give THE APOLOGY, she says you don't get do-overs, she wouldn't have voted as she did if the information had been presented correctly, and that if the correct information had been presented a war authorization would never even have come to a vote.  She's plainly right about that.  She says she gave deference at the time to the President which, in light of hindsight, was unwarranted. I take that as polite speak for "few of us at that time truly understood what an irresponsible and corrupt a**h*** this guy really is." 

Just for the moment, let's look past the Bush presidency.  Unless you're going to take the position that the U.S. has no strategic interests in the region - and even the UPJ crowd don't take that line - the notion of the world's one remaining superpower not having any meaningful presence in the Middle East is silly.  As to whether that presence should include some personnel within Iraq, say to protect the Kurdish region, or to inhibit Iranian incursion, that's something we ought to talk about.  I don't think we should be engaged in policing an Iraqi civil war (although many who say that would say the opposite if the civil war were in, say, Africa), and I think we shouldn't have been engaged in instigating one (which, in effect, is what we did by toppling a tyrant and then immediately dismantling his army, creating a vacuum). But I'm not running for President, and I'd really like to hear from those who are what their serious thinking is on that kind of stuff, if only to show that they are thinking about it. 

---

by: NY Spotlight @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 10:47:05 AM CDT

I disagree (4.00 / 1)

So Hillary allows that, under her Presidency, the U.S. could continue to have some troops in the Middle East

Ms. Clinton wants SOME troops in the MIDDLE EAST, NY Spotlight? The NY Times is much more specific than that: it's probably close to 75,000 troops in Iraq, down from our current level of 160,000 troops. That still sounds an awful lot to me like the neocon dream of using Iraq as the US's military and political base from which to try to pacify the Middle East.

Where you see her taking serious and complex policy positions, I see her as pandering to the right of center foreign policy establishment. I have particularly  watched with alarm as she has tried to place herself somewhat to the right of George W Bush with regards to Iran's "nuclear threat." 

Yes, we have a strategic interest in the Middle East, but to equate having a "meaningful presence" with permanent American military bases housing 75,000 American troops is not where most Democrats are today.

Sorry, but where you see nuance, I see the same old thing in brand new drag, and I suspect, thankfully, so will most primary voters.

---

by: JohnS @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 13:23:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bingo. (0.00 / 0)

What you said.

---

by: Bouldin @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 15:15:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're misquoting, John. (4.00 / 1)

John:

The figures you're quoting -- 75,000 or more -- are NOT attributed in the Times article to Hillary, but to a Pentagon official.  The only statement by Hillary on the subject of troop numbers is a paragraph later in the same article:

"'It would be far fewer troops,'" she said.

My whole point, which you've obviously missed, but which you've now illustrated nicely, is that if you start listening with a partisan filter already in place, you're not going to hear what gets said, and then you're going to repeat what you think you heard, instead of what was really said.  Unless, of course, the purpose is to say things to persuade, without regard to their truthfulness.  (You know, like the yellowcake that never was). I don't know if there is a proper place for that kind of sophistry, selective misquotation and false attribution, but that's the coin of the hacks who pollute the airwaves with their partisan counterpoint dialogues of the deaf.  It's just not useful as a form of genuine exchange of ideas. It reduces political discussion to a session of competing football cheers, and cheapens the process. Can't we do better here? 

---

by: NY Spotlight @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 19:42:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Um... (0.00 / 0)

if you start listening with a partisan filter already in place

Yeah, I have that partisan filter. It's called "being a Democrat". Perhaps Hillary, and you, might care to find out what that's all about. Here's a hint: it's not about extending the life of George Bush's mistakes, it's about righting them.

I swear, these Hillary sock puppets are popping up all over the intertubes, and they all sound the same. It's usually some variation on "Shut up, hippie, and leave this complicated politics and government business to the grown-ups".

Whatever.

---

by: Bouldin @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 21:03:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

actually, no... (4.00 / 1)

...but thanks for playing!

In case there was any confusion, Spotlight's point about "partisan filters" was that you aren't reading for the whole story, you're reading as part of a narrower search for content confirming your view.  Which is a bad idea, if you don't want a warped perception of reality.

This tendency to search for info confirming previously held beliefs is demonstrated in the psych/poli-sci literature for pretty much everyone (Rep, Dem, or other) who consumes a lot of news.  I imagine all of us on TAP, posters, commenters, and lurkers (hi!) alike, probably qualify.  We probably should try to fight it more than we do.

Also, props for the "I don't agree with you, therefore you are a sockpuppet" routine.  Double points if you accuse me of being one! =D

Make no small plans.

---

by: demahir @ Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 01:23:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Can we accuse you of deep and independent thinking? (0.00 / 0)

Your comment reflects in a very interesting way on the evolving structure of the blogosphere in the delivery of news content.  This technological structure does, in fact, allow a greater latitude to feed self-reinforcing ideas back to bolster already held beliefs.  It also can reinforce a sense of belonging through the adoption of social conventions- as in the "sock puppet routine" or some of the other slang associated with parts of the blogosphere.  This is both constructive, in terms of building "community of interest," as well as destructive (making it difficult for individuals of different social backgrounds to integrate or feel comfortable participating).

I'm convinced that one of the ways that we counteract the negatives of this exciting new technology is to reward and reinforce independent thought. So, thank you, thank you.  That may not be too cool, as independent thought is less clever and funny, and more, well, analytical and questioning, than affirmative "holler-backs" (they, too, have a place, though) and scathing put-downs (only rarely appropriate, IMHO).

Learn to think critically, people!  The NY tribe needs your brainpower, too.

---

by: robinia @ Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:19:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Feh. (0.00 / 0)

Let me condense the miasma of blah-blah you've thrown up here and bring it back to the original point: Hillary said she wants the troops to come home. Now, she is superseding and essentially retracting that statement, which in turn is classic triangulation. That is the issue here, not more, not less.

The clouds of verbiage about communications theory, selective reinforcement and the deep meta about blogospheric interaction really have no bearing on the facts at hand.

So as you said, thanks for playing, but beware the burning strawmen in your immediate vicinity. Re: sockpuppet, I can't help but notice that you're freshly signed up as of today, and that this is indeed your first contribution. If the shoe fits, walk the runway.

---

by: Bouldin @ Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 11:08:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're obfuscating, NY Spotlight. (0.00 / 0)

I wasn't quoting,  nor did I claim to, NY Spotlight.

In the article, Ms Clinton declined to name the exact number of troops, saying thay she would draw on the advice of military officers. The Times then clues us in, saying Ms Clinton's plan is not new, and compares it to one that had been previously advocated by Pentagon comptroller, Dov S. Sakheim, who estimated that no more than 75,000 troops would be required.

Thus I felt fairly confident in writing: "it's probably close to 75,000 troops in Iraq" that the Clinton plan would require.

---

by: JohnS @ Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 12:16:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fuzzy math.... (0.00 / 0)

....not that I am a Clinton supporter (am not), but there is a huge gulf between Clinton saying she would consult with military specialists on determining a number of troops to leave, and a particular military specialist saying he thought the number necessary would be "not more than" (we write that as < ) 75,000.  Can't make that "Clinton wants to leave 75,000 troops." Did you ever have the benefit of an algebra class?

On to big words, which Bouldin has growled about us using above ("blah, blah, blah"). "Obfuscating" is being purposely confusing.  NY Spotlight is not doing that.

Sometimes the brain must be stretched to handle the material, not the material shrunk to handle the brain.

THINK-- the endorphins feel great.

---

by: robinia @ Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 17:03:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fuzzy words, rather. (0.00 / 0)

Fact 1: Clinton said she wants the troops out.
Fact 2: Clinton now says she wants the troops in.
Fact 3: These statements are incompatible.
Fact 4: Throwing up smokescreens to hide Fact 3 isn't smart, rather, it's indicative of a weak argumentative posture.
Fact 5: Insinuating that people are stupid or ill-educated ("Did you ever have the benefit of an algebra class?") reduces still further the attractiveness of your argument, by making it clear that you can't address the facts cited above and must instead resort to ad hominems.

QED.

---

by: Bouldin @ Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 18:04:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ok... (4.00 / 1)

Re F1-3:
Ok, that's a valid literal reading of her words.  But you could say that "bringing the troops home" was an oversimplified version of "bringing the bulk of the troops home and not policing the country", in which case "bringing the preponderance of the troops home" would be compatible with "leaving a few there, with a different mission from their current one".  I don't take literally every slogan and sound bite politicians offer.  Maybe I'm wrong not to do that, but hey, that's how I roll.

Re F4: Proceeding from the assumption that taking slogans literally is absurd may be incorrect, but it certainly isn't a smokescreen.  Are you really accusing Robinia of intellectual dishonesty?

Re F5: You're complaining about ad hominem?  Pot, meet kettle.  Le sigh...

Make no small plans.

---

by: demahir @ Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 20:18:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Au contraire (0.00 / 0)

Allow me to suggest that what you write here is in no way related to what I actually wrote; for example, even a close reading will not result in the conclusion that I use the term, or the concept, of 'intellectual dishonesty' in reference to Robinia. May I additionally suggest that I'm competent enough a writer that, had it been my intent to express what you seem to have read into my argument, I would have done so. I tend to call spades spades; it's part of my charm.

You, meanwhile, must explain, most importantly to yourself, how Hillary's mutually exclusive statements can be honestly brought under one hat. My guess would be that this is ultimately a sterile endeavor doomed to futility, but my selfish interest in my own amusement inclines me to issue that taunt. Your ability to discount politicians' statements as 'slogans' and assign them no power to bind said politicians would indicate a pleasing ability to tie yourself in knots. Please, proceed.

---

by: Bouldin @ Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 23:17:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Condescenscion not necessary (0.00 / 0)

robinia

Interesting that you use the expression "fuzzy math" in your attack on me. That was crappy little trick George W Bush used to avoid addressing Al Gore's actual economic figures in their 2000 presidential debates. Like George Bush, you leave it at that, not addressing the reasoning behind the numbers I came up with.

Again, to my reasoning:  the NY Times article said that the Clinton plan is not new (did you actually READ the Times article?), and that something like it had previously been advocated by the Pentagon's comptroller, Dov, S. Zakheim, who said that it would require 75,000 troops. If, as Ms. Clinton says in the article, she will follow the advice of the Pentagon, again, as I first stated, I'd have to assume that probably means around 75,000 troops.

OBFUSCATE: to be evasive, unclear, or confusing

I would say characterizing Ms Clinton's plan as having "some troops in the Middle East" is obfuscation. The plan specifically calls for troops to be in Iraq, not the "fuzzier" Middle East, and the Times article suggests that the troop level could likely be around 75,000 troops.

Now. Calls for raising the level of dialogue are very noble, but when you accuse others of  "sophistry, selective misquotation and false attribution, ...the coin of the hacks who pollute the airwaves," or "Sometimes the brain must be stretched to handle the material, not the material shrunk to handle the brain," --- I'm not sure that's raising the level of dialogue. It's certainly not addressing how I came up with the number 75,000.

So, if you really want to raise the level of dialogue, why don't you and NY Spotlight trot your nasty, sorry asses up to a Clinton townhall and ask:

1. What is the number of American troops military experts are telling you must be stationed "between Baghdad and Kirkuk ... for our antiterrorism mission; for our northern support mission; for our ability to respond to the Iranians; and to continue to provide support, if called for, for the Iraqis"? I assume she's consulted military experts (you know, like Dov, S. Zakheim) to come up with her plan. She knows the numbers. Share.

2. Are those troops staying permanently?

3. Does she flatly reject the idea of permanent military bases in Iraq?

Until she addresses those questions, she is obfuscating, too.

---

by: JohnS @ Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 09:02:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pax, please (0.00 / 0)

Didn't mean to make you feel bad, sorry if I did.

Don't think that presidential candidates should make hard-and-fast public commitments about troop levels and movements over a year out before the time when they would actually be privy to the intelligence (some classified) a Commander-in-Chief uses to make those decisions.  Would assume that any troops stationed in Iraq might, indeed, move throughout the Middle East.  Armies do move, they do not stay planted. Not meaning to be confusing, just reflecting the idea that stationed troops are usually available to a region, not just a base. Do think that flexibility in responding to world conditions is necessary for the leader of a superpower country-- current Prez has shown the folly of inflexibility.

This quote is not from me: "sophistry, selective misquotation and false attribution, ...the coin of the hacks who pollute the airwaves,". But, I do agree that making too big a fuss over a candidate's small statements, coupled with a particular military expert's projection, to bolster already-held views, is not really helpful. The quotes both being in the same NYTimes article does not mean much to me.

I do think that stretching our brains is vital-- and, I try to do it myself as often as possible.  I do read the NYTimes daily, and I know they quote a number of military experts (incl. retired ones), and, even in the military, there is not hard-and-fast agreement about these things.  It is just too complicated and serious a business to stridently call the shots from the peanut gallery, although we should be informed and analytical, and vocal.

As far as making demands on Hillary... I'm not supporting her for President, so, I'm focusing my letters to her and conversations with her staff on the issues that I think she should attend to now as Senator from New York (peace now is surely one of those, but not the only one). Should she become our candidate, which I hope she doesn't, I will focus on her differently.

---

by: robinia @ Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:02:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What I Expect from Candidates (0.00 / 0)

robinia

Your nasty remarks didn't make me feel bad, they annoyed me.

I agree that  that presidential candidates should not make hard-and-fast public commitments, but Ms Clinton must certainly be aware of the approximate number of troops necessary to implement her plan. Please explain to me why it would not be appropriate to share that approximate number with primary voters.

She has also dodged the issue of permanent military installations in Iraq. How in the world can she pursue diplomatic efforts in the region with American troops stationed permanently in Iraq?

I agree that stretching our brains is vital, but even more vital are clearcut proposals from Democratic nominees for dealing with the mess in Iraq. Especially from candidates who have been so hard-right with regards to Iran, and who appear so desperate to stay in the good graces of the Kenneth Pollack pro-war neoliberal wing of the Washington foreign policy establishment.

This is not "calling shots from the peanut gallery," it's called asking for the kind of information necessary to make informed choices in the voting booth. And when a candidate refuses to come up with numbers of troops necessary to implement his or her plans for Iraq, I will feel perfectly free to make the kind of inferences that I made on this thread.

Which neither you nor NY Spotlight have yet to adequately address, other than to toss around insults.

---

by: JohnS @ Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:56:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

My disappointment reaches new levels every day. (0.00 / 0)

The Times interview is not surprising, well maybe it is, since she continually talks about bringing home the troops.

All I can say is UGH.  Also, I did not vote for in the either the primary or the general election.

---

by: dems need balls @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 15:21:11 PM CDT

?? (0.00 / 0)

Can I ask, does your screen name mean that you don't think Dems should have any females among them, or, do you mean the colloquialism that equates having male reproductive equipment with courage (also demeaning to women)?

---

by: robinia @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 17:05:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]