ARTICLE: "Clinton Says Some G.I.'s in Iraq Would Stay if She Took Office," by Michael Gordon and Patrick Healy, New York Times, 15 March 2007, p. A1.
Here's the bit:
... she would keep a reduced but significant force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.
Add the words "primarily through training and operational support by American air assets" to the end of that sentence and it's just about perfect.
Without offering as many good points, I make the same basic argument in my column this weekend.
Proof again to me: besides all the knee-jerking on Hillary from the right, she's an entirely sensible, solutions-based candidate.
| Permalink |
Comments (3)
Oh come on Tom. Just what does "reduced but significant force" actually mean anyway? And how small can it be, yet be big enough to "fight Al-Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military." This is nothing more than her ongoing effort to straddle as many fences as possible. With this statement, she can claim she's in favor of just about anything. This is not a solution she is offering. It's not courageous and it's not visionary. This is a politically expedient policy (non)stance.
Posted by John McNamara | March 21, 2007 3:51 PM
Here's a word I'd like to see excised from all discussions of international affairs: "solution." Whether it's Iraq, Israel/Palestine, North Korea, etc., rational discussions inevitably get bogged down in chimerical searches for a "solution." Why not just look to pragmatic decision-making that can improve the situation at any given time?
Posted by stuart abrams | March 22, 2007 11:21 AM
Sounds like USFK.
Posted by Eric Chen | April 18, 2007 2:30 PM