The Fine Print in Hillary's Promise to 'End the War'
"If this president does not get us out of Iraq, when I am president, I will." --Hillary Clinton, Democratic debate, South Carolina, April 26, 2007
"I will immediately move to begin bringing our troops home when I am inaugurated...[But there] may be a continuing counter-terrorism mission, which, if it still exists, will be aimed al Qaeda in Iraq. It may require combat, Special Operations Forces or some other form of that, but the vast majority of our combat troops should be out." --Hillary Clinton, Democratic debate, Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, September 26, 2007.
So which is it? Getting out of Iraq altogether, or leaving troops in there, to wage war against Al-Qaeda and so forth?
The Facts
The Democratic front-runner has gone back and forth on this question for many months, leaving voters unclear about what she would do in Iraq if she became president. "If this president does not get us out of Iraq, I will" is a great applause line, invariably triggering cheers from her supporters. It shows that she is tough and very different from George Bush. It also distracts attention from her Senate vote authorizing military action against Iraq in October 2002.
Hillary has used several different versions of the "I will" line in different venues around the country, each with slightly different connotations. Sometimes, as in South Carolina, she promises simply to "get out of Iraq." At other times, she promises to "end the war." See the Iraq policy statement on her website here. And sometimes, she pledges to "end our involvement in Iraq." See the transcript of the Democratic debate hosted by Chris Matthews of MSNBC on June 16 here.
It is only when you examine the details--like the fine print in an insurance contract--that you discover that Clinton's pledge to "get out of Iraq" is far from iron-clad. There are numerous conditions attached. She enumerated some of them in the June 19 Democratic debate when pressed by Chris Matthews. Read the full transcript here. Clinton's list of "vital national security interests" in Iraq turns out to be quite lengthy:
"We cannot let Al Qaeda have a staging ground in Iraq." "We have made common cause with some of the Iraqis themselves in Anbar province." "We also have to look at the way the Kurds are being treated." "We also have to pay attention to Iranian influence." "We will have to protect our interests. We'll have an embassy there." "If the Iraqi government does get its act together, we may have a continuing training mission."
Here are a couple more reasons cited by Clinton for a continuing deployment of American troops to prevent Iraq degenerating into a failed state "that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda." They come from an interview she gave to the New York Times back in March.
Iraq "is right in the heart of the oil region." Leaving Iraq altogether would be "directly in opposition to our interests...to Israel's interests."
Somehow that doesn't sound like a firm promise "to get out of Iraq" or, even less, a guarantee to "end our involvement there."
In February, Clinton introduced her own bill in the Senate to place "limitations" on the U.S. military presence in Iraq. Known as the "Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007," the measure fell well short of a commitment to get out of Iraq, before or after the 2008 presidential election. It called for a "phased redeployment" of U.S. forces from Iraq, but listed a number of exceptions, including "training" and "providing logistical support" to Iraqi security forces, "protecting U.S. personnel and infrastructure," and participating in "counter-terrorism activities." Even the threat to cut funding for the war is carefully hedged, permitting certain types of combat operation for years to come. Clinton has voted to fund continuation of the war a dozen or so times since the March 2003 invasion, but voted against funding last spring.
Confused? The Clinton campaign is not doing much to clarify matters. During a September 23 Meet the Press interview with Clinton, moderator Tim Russert cited a new brochure that the campaign was distributing to New Hampshire voters which included the sentence: "Hillary will begin immediate phased withdrawal with a definite timetable to bring our troops home."
Russert pointed out that Clinton had gone on record opposing a timetable for bringing the troops home on the grounds that "we don't want to send a signal to the insurgents, to the terrorists that we're going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain." See, for example, this November 2005 letter to her constituents. Clinton was booed in June 2006 at a conference of liberal Democrats when she rejected such a timetable. See video here.
Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines noted that last spring the senator voted in favor of a resolution setting March 31, 2008 as a target date for ending the "combat phase" of the war. He said in an e-mail that Senator Clinton was "committed to finding any and all possible ways to get the President to reverse his failed policies in Iraq," and added:
"Counterterrorism missions would not require a large U.S. presence and she has said would mostly be done by Special Operations forces - we deploy Special Operations forces against Al Qaeda all over the world so it is inaccurate to call such actions a continuation of the war in Iraq."
The Pinocchio Test
It seems fairly clear what is going on here. Hillary wants to let her supporters know that she will end the Iraq war and bring the troops home. Bold statements about ending U.S. "involvement" in Iraq win points on the campaign trail and enthuse the Democratic base. At the same time, she also does not want to tie her own hands as president with promises made during the election. Thus the fine print.
To be fair to Clinton, other candidates have also been less than forthright about how they would end the Iraq war. Over the next few months, we will take a look at statements by leading candidates from both sides of the political divide on this vital issue. We should also note that Clinton usually acknowledges exceptions to her "get out of Iraq" rhetoric when asked a specific question by a reporter or an audience member.
On the other hand, her bold "I will end the war" promise is an obvious exaggeration. A truer description of her position would be, "I will do my best to end a war that I now believe to have been deeply mistaken, but the United States has many interests in the Middle East that must be protected."