Hilary's Missing Link
"Mrs. Clinton has sought to cast her position on Iraq as part of a
broader and consistent approach to foreign policy and the use of
military force. She subscribes, in her words, to a doctrine of
“sensible internationalism, pragmatic internationalism” — a philosophy
that essentially calls for military intervention when it has broad
global support and is all but certain to succeed." NY Times, August 5, 2006, "Clinton Dodges Political Peril for War Vote"
While the NY Times article on the differences between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Lieberman's defense of their votes for the Iraq war details many reasons for why Hilary has not seen the force of the war's opposition, despite her support of it, the quote above baffles me. She defends her vote for war with a doctrine that demands "broad global support and is all but certain to succeed". This condition is only met by the Bush rhetoric and a complete blindness towards what the data showed. The war was unpopular worldwide and the U.S. went in largely on its own because the U.N. Security Council wanted to make sure that the existence of WMD in Iraq was true (the causus belli given initially by Bush). While Bush claimed many international coalition partners, most were small countries with token contributions and most of the troops were not involved until well after the initial invasion. Second, I do not understand how anyone could claim that the war in Iraq was "all but certain to succeed". The Middle Eastern region is one rife with divisions, between Israel and Arabs (and Persians), between Arabs and Persians, between Shia and Sunni Muslims, and between the many countries. The Middle East has become the powder keg of the world, just as the Balkans played that role in Europe in the 20th century (not to downplay the conflicts in the Middle East during the 20th century). For one to act based on the doctrine she says she acted upon, the best move would have been to oppose the use of force resolution unless the weapons inspectors found WMD or the U.N. Security Council authorized military force, which would have been accompanied almost certainly by broad global support. The latter pillar of the doctrine (the mission being "all but certain to succeed") fails in almost all cases of supporting war in the Middle East. The region is so complicated that only the gravest crises, not American whim, are almost certain to be unsuccessful without a clear plan and international mandate. Even with a mandate, the job is difficult. Without a mandate, the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq and should have been very, very hesitant to do so even with broad global support and an international mandate. Extricating U.S. troops as quickly as possible should be the highest priority for American national security and a timetable and a plan for internationalizing the mitigation of the damage caused by the U.S invasion should accompany this extrication.
broader and consistent approach to foreign policy and the use of
military force. She subscribes, in her words, to a doctrine of
“sensible internationalism, pragmatic internationalism” — a philosophy
that essentially calls for military intervention when it has broad
global support and is all but certain to succeed." NY Times, August 5, 2006, "Clinton Dodges Political Peril for War Vote"
While the NY Times article on the differences between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Lieberman's defense of their votes for the Iraq war details many reasons for why Hilary has not seen the force of the war's opposition, despite her support of it, the quote above baffles me. She defends her vote for war with a doctrine that demands "broad global support and is all but certain to succeed". This condition is only met by the Bush rhetoric and a complete blindness towards what the data showed. The war was unpopular worldwide and the U.S. went in largely on its own because the U.N. Security Council wanted to make sure that the existence of WMD in Iraq was true (the causus belli given initially by Bush). While Bush claimed many international coalition partners, most were small countries with token contributions and most of the troops were not involved until well after the initial invasion. Second, I do not understand how anyone could claim that the war in Iraq was "all but certain to succeed". The Middle Eastern region is one rife with divisions, between Israel and Arabs (and Persians), between Arabs and Persians, between Shia and Sunni Muslims, and between the many countries. The Middle East has become the powder keg of the world, just as the Balkans played that role in Europe in the 20th century (not to downplay the conflicts in the Middle East during the 20th century). For one to act based on the doctrine she says she acted upon, the best move would have been to oppose the use of force resolution unless the weapons inspectors found WMD or the U.N. Security Council authorized military force, which would have been accompanied almost certainly by broad global support. The latter pillar of the doctrine (the mission being "all but certain to succeed") fails in almost all cases of supporting war in the Middle East. The region is so complicated that only the gravest crises, not American whim, are almost certain to be unsuccessful without a clear plan and international mandate. Even with a mandate, the job is difficult. Without a mandate, the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq and should have been very, very hesitant to do so even with broad global support and an international mandate. Extricating U.S. troops as quickly as possible should be the highest priority for American national security and a timetable and a plan for internationalizing the mitigation of the damage caused by the U.S invasion should accompany this extrication.
posted by Biafra27 at 11:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home