Hillary, Iraq and Iran
By Larry Johnson on May 1, 2008 at 9:00 PM in Current Affairs
During tonight’s (Thursday) interview with Bill O’Reilly, Hillary was challenged regarding her plan to withdraw US forces from Iraq with Bill insisting that this would “show weakness” to Iran. I disagree with Hillary on one minor point–she said “we cannot win a military victory” in Iraq. We can, but. . .and it is a gargantuan but. We can achieve a military victory if we deploy over 450,000 troops and institute a draft. Well, that ain’t going to happen. And Hillary understands this. I would have said, “Unless we institute a draft and deploy close to half a million of our troops to Iraq, we cannot achieve a military victory.” Having briefed Senator Clinton I know she understands this nuance.
Bill O’Reilly is wrong that a withdrawal of US forces will be seen as “weakness” by Iran. Iran actually welcomes the U.S. presence in Iraq and the actions of U.S. troops targeted against Sunni extremists and Al Qaeda. Why? Because Sunni extremists and Al Qaeda also represent a threat to Iran. Iran also is riding our coat tails in Afghanistan. Iran fears the Taliban as much as we do. The more Taliban we kill in Afghanistan the safer Iran feels.
Our current offensive against Moqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia also works in the long term interest of Tehran. Mookie Sadr is more of a Shia Arab and less susceptible to the temptations of Tehran. The Iranians are Persian. So far Iran favors helping strengthen and secure the government of Maliki. Guess who we are helping strengthen and secure? DING DING DING!! Winner, winner, chicken dinner. We’re actually helping Iran.
Truth be told, Iran tends to prefer we hang around long enough to kill the Sunni and Al Qaeda extremists. Once we go Iran will have its hands full. Their ability to control the situation on the ground in Iraq will be diminished, not enhanced.
Part of the current game in Iraq concerns upcoming elections. Here’s a critical observation form Pat Lang:
The intensive pushing and shoving among the Shia politico-military factions continues with the “Iraq Security Forces” (Dawa/Badr/Hakim/ISCI) seeking to leverage American support for enough power to neuter Moqtada al-Sadr and his band of merry Mahdists (or Mahdinistas if you prefer) before the putative provincial elections in the Autumn. (maybe there won’t be elections if the neutering does not go well)
The big difference between having U.S. forces in Iraq and U.S. forces in Afghanistan is that in Iraq we are still viewed as occupiers. We lack the political will to implement a draft in the United States to build up our military size. We lack the economic strength to fund such an effort. And, if we started tomorrow, we are at a minimum of two years away from being able to field trained divisions.
Hillary understands these realities and recognizes that in drawing down our forces we are securing some critical breathing space for rebuilding the military power squandered by the Bush/Cheney regime.
on sale for only $16.95.
also comes with a special spatula.)
(List Price: $27.95 - Your Price: $15.47)
“The story of poker is that of risk-loving America ... a crazy ride in unparalleled detail, driven by wit, wisdom, true love, and sizzling style. As analyst, historian, devotee, and no mean player, James McManus is poker’s most eloquent advocate.”
By Sarah Palin (Release date: November 17. 2009)
So glad you weighed in, Larry. Just a fast note to tell people that, if they missed the interview, the videos are now up here, just below this post.
Larry, I didn’t know that you briefed Senator Clinton. I imagine she’s more impressive in person than on television. I like that Hillary sees that the first job of the presidency is to defend the American people. Her command of foreign affairs never ceases to amaze me. No wonder all those flag officers endorsed her.
I’m impressed with Hillary’s knowledge of foreign affairs, but not just that, she really thinks things thru and looks at all aspects and the potential consequences. Not just the big consequences but the impact on people’s lives, like all the now widowed mothers and children in Iraq. Yes we need to exit immediately, but not so carelessly as to create a humanitarian nightmare to rival the one we have already caused.
Obama is all idealism and no wisdom. He never considers the consequences of his actions,instead he consults his political agenda.
I’m glad you brought this up; I was pretty ticked off that O’Reilly brought up the question only to swerve into Afghanistan when she started getting into it. I wanted to hear what she had to say just to get a handle on the issue; thanks for giving me a bit of data.
[...] 01 May 08 by semidi What Turkana said. And Larry, too. [...]
Very impressive commentary!
She was stellar in that interview. Obama can’t even come close.
Anderson Cooper gave the most horrible show I’ve ever seen this evening.
It was a full hour Clinton hit piece, with Obama in usual fuzzy focus.
Every guest was screaming that Clinton needs to get out, and that she is ruining the party by continuing to campaign. That Obama has all the delegates, the popular vote, and most people in the party want her out.
AOL Time Warner is pure evil IMHO.
Has there ever been a group of people more useless, with less intellectual acumen?
No.
At least most whores are smart, not that crew, though.
Again: thank you, Larry.
This should NOT be interpreted as being pro-Obama - I am not. However, the Boston Globe says it very well:
“there are some red lines that should [I would say MUST - Shirin] never be crossed. Clinton did so Tuesday morning, the day of the Pennsylvania primary, when she told ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’ that, if she were president, she would ‘totally obliterate’ Iran if Iran attacked Israel.
“This foolish and dangerous threat muted in domestic media coverage. But it reverberated in headlines around the world.
“…the foreign minister responsible for Asia, Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, said of Clinton’s implication of a mushroom cloud over Iran: ‘While it is reasonable to warn Iran of the consequences of it continuing to develop nuclear weapons [excuse me, Lord Mallock-Brown, sir, but there is not one shred of evidence that Iran is or ever has been developing nuclear weapons!] and what those real consequences bring to its security, it is probably not prudent in today’s world to threaten to obliterate any other country and in many cases civilians resident in such a country.” [pardon me, Lord Malloch-Brown, sir, but how do you obliterate a country without obliterating the civilians resident in that country?!!!!!]
“because they are most at risk from Iran’s regional ambitions, the Saudis want a carefully considered American approach to Iran…
“The Saudi paper called Clinton’s nuclear threat ‘the foreign politics of the madhouse,’ saying, “it demonstrates the same doltish ignorance that has distinguished Bush’s foreign relations.‘
I have to agree. Not that Obama is better overall than Hillary, but at least he has not - so far - threatened to obliterate anyone.
And by the way people should look more closely at Hillary’s AND Obama’s non-withdrawal “withdrawal” plans. They no doubt intend have the U.S. military and its empire in Iraq as long as McCain does, but are just hoping to reduce the presence to a level that will be less noticeable, and therefore more tolerable to the American people (but probably NOT to the Iraqis, who have a low tolerance for foreign domination, in case no one has noticed).
PS: Forgot to add the bottom line from the Boston Globe article:
“A presidential candidate who lightly commits to obliterating Iran - and, presumably, all the children, parents, and grandparents in Iran - should not be answering the White House phone at any time of day or night.”
Right on!
“Mookie”?! Way to sound like an ignorant American dolt, Larry! Cut it out, please.
“in Iraq we are still viewed as occupiers” Gee, do ya think maybe that is because you ARE occupiers?! (And by the way, as long as Hillary and Obama plan to keep troops in Iraq, and maintain that collosus they risibly call an “embassy” (aka regional imperial command and control center) in Baghdad you will continue to be occupiers.
Larry, that’s for this post. Very informative and thoughtful analysis indeed. Glad to read your thinking on this !
meant ” Larry, thanks for this post….. “
Out of curiosity, given modern guerrilla warfare technique, how would more troops allow a US victory in Iraq, as opposed to more of the same, what we see now?
And given how an enemy can “pick pick pick” at a set objective, ie the American standing army, wouldn’t we just see a continuance of what we now have, for instance, a psy ops of a central command not fully prepared to fight a guerilla war, for instance, (it is possible, it is a part of defense…)
Would a solution involve a political, military and economic tact, and would it have to take into account factors not usually considered, ie, Russia, the mafia, China, say, the greater asymmetric war, corruption, all factors in our current Iraq and Afghanistan losses?
Just food for thought, nice to see the discussion…
Her answerers showed that she understands the difference between Sunni’s Sunni’s and Iranians. There is factionalism inside Iraq and Iraqis won’t want to be occupied by Iranians any more than by Americans. She also showed she knows the difference between Arabs and Iranians. She knows how to get us out of Iraq, for sure. No occupation, not those contractors or private armies, all the way out, including those Iraqis who helped us at their own peril. She has the best advisors, expects, professionals and scholars. Without the right team it would be done badly. It’ll be bad enough when she does it the best way.
Ultimately, though, I think the common thread is greed, corruption, cowardice, and “terror.” They try to terrorize, because they are terrified. What they aren’t is intelligent. So they are no more than traumatized dogs, really.
So, that’s where I start, it’s the cancer undermining every single political system out there, trying to be a “player.”
It’s like dealing with the boys who surround women like Britney Spears, or Lindsay Lohan.
You know, Kevin Federline, or Rick Solomon.
But dumber.
Great post Larry (that goes for the one you posted after this one too), and a patiently anticipated and welcome return to form.
Couple thoughts about Hillary’s interview with O’Reilly. Yeah, he’s an asshole, God knows, but I’ll say this for him: he didn’t fart around with meaningless incidentals about whose flag pin is shinier, he actually grilled her about, so help me, issues a President might be expected to deal with when in office. Yikes!
That said, Hillary gave him measure for measure, and to my eyes at least, kicked his ass up one side of the street and down the other, despite his constant interruption of her responses. Damn, she’s good.
And so are you. Thanks again.