Will Iraq Matter in South Carolina?
26 January 2008 1:11 am by Taylor Marsh
 |
| by Paul Szep used by permission |
Iraq has receded from the minds of many. The frustration born of watching the
Democratic Congress not be able to move anything on redeployment forward. No
line in the sand able to be drawn, as everyone waits for the next president.
Violence may be down to 2004-2005 levels, but we're as far away from a political
solution as ever. Nothing has been more maddening for me to watch than the debate
on Iraq. Once we pick a nominee the debate will shift considerably. It's just
one reason I think Clinton was endorsed by the Times,
instead of Obama or Edwards.
It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush’s inept leadership,
but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to
be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using
her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues,
and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military.
She would be a strong commander in chief.
Wesley Clark, Joseph Wilson and Joe Sestak concur, others do not:
Hillary is a closet neocon or that she's so afraid of being cast as weak
on security that she'll give them whatever they want to keep them from calling
her a girly girl on AM radio and Fox News. The words “closet neocon”
are thrown around a lot about Clinton. But they don't come close to fitting.
Neocons want to invade and conquer, spreading democracy through a Pax Americana.
That is not Clinton. Is she unwilling to be categorized in the media world as
“soft.” Bet on it. But for the sake of argument, let's say voters
give her the nod. Winning the general election through political
strategy and a set of tactics is much different from governing and leading as
commander in chief. Iraq has been a hard lesson for Clinton she
won't soon forget. Amnesia will be left, once again, for the next generation.
The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country
faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t
foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that
will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government
work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.
The grueling, bruising, humiliating
moral defeat of Iraq by the Bush-Cheney administration, beginning with the waging
of the war in the first place, helped along by Democrats, followed by the incompetency of how it was managed,
began our international fall. But it was also the lack of humility and ethical character to not only refuse to admit our failings during the Abu Ghraib, but to
hold those people all the way up the chain of command, regardless of rank or
political position, accountable. The Iraq war is one of the greatest moral failings of leadership in American history. I do not believe Clinton will ever put loyalty to an appointee over their responsibility and accountability to the American people. That one act alone could have led down a path to our redemption.
We opposed President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and we disagree
with Mrs. Clinton’s vote for the resolution on the use of force. That’s
not the issue now; it is how the war will be ended. Mrs. Clinton seems
not only more aware than Mr. Obama of the consequences of withdrawal, but
is already thinking through the diplomatic and military steps that will be
required to contain Iraq’s chaos after American troops leave.
There is never a guarantee on these decisions. No matter the experience of
the campaign run we rarely get what we expect. But as the primary season starts to speed up in the next weeks, I wonder how
many people will be voting on Iraq? Not as many as will in the general.
