Clinton: I'll Ignore Genocide
Hillary Clinton made an astonishing statement on her policy for Iraq if elected President, in an interview with the New York Times yesterday. She refused to commit to total withdrawal from Iraq, saying that she would keep American troops in Anbar to fight terrorists, a stance that will not endear her to the anti-war Left in her party. At the same time, she said she would refuse to send troops back into Baghdad, even if a genocide took place:
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 but significant military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain in Iraq after taking office would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.
In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more-nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of “bringing the troops home.”
More nuanced? It's abysmal, cynical, and completely self-serving. To commit the US to inaction in the face of genocide is nothing short of breathtaking, especially with the Left agitating for action -- and rightly so -- in Darfur. It should also remind voters of Bill Clinton's record in Rwanda.
This statement shows a complete lack of strategic and tactical thinking on the part of someone who want to assume the role of Commander in Chief. The key to stabilizing Iraq and beating the terrorists who have nested in Anbar is restoring order to its capital. If the central government falls, the other goals she mentions -- deterring Iran, protecting the Kurds, and so on -- will go right out the window. If Baghdad falls into utter chaos and ethnic cleansing, the rest of the nation will follow suit in short order, and Anbar will be the least of our problems.
That really would put the US contingent in Iraq in an untenable position. If Baghdad collapses, the Shi'ite south will likely fall into the hands of the radicals -- cutting off our lines of communication. We won't be able to resupply through the Gulf any longer, and Turkey made it clear in 2003 that they had no interest in assisting our logistics. Saudi Arabia has no desire to see us return to their territory, and Syria is obviously not going to cooperate, either.
Hillary has revealed herself as a joke on military strategy, and more importantly, on moral grounding. Who can say in these days and times that the US should stand by and watch a genocide take place within a day's drive of American troops? As a member of the UN Security Council, we have enough shame for inaction in Rwanda to last us a generation. This strategy would embolden the radicals to conduct their genocide -- and stain us for generations to come.