Her "plan" to get out of Iraq is call a meeting of her military advisers to ask them how we should get out of Iraq.
Let's examine each of these persons.
Jack Keane was "Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army during Iraq war planning" and at one time an outspoken in supporter of Rumsfeld. In July 2003, Keane praised Tommy Franks' war plan for the Iraq campaign as "bold and brilliant."
There never was a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country. Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded our forces in Iraq, recently stated that our war plan was "catastrophically flawed [and] unrealistically optimistic."
In July 2004, Keane admitted in testimony that:
We did not see it (the insurgency) coming. And we were not properly prepared and organized to deal with it . . . . Many of us got seduced by the Iraqi exiles in terms of what the outcome would be.
If we had planned for an insurgency, we probably would have deployed the First Cavalry Division and it would have assisted greatly with the initial occupation. This was not just an intelligence community failure, but also our failure as senior military leaders.
Recently Bill Sammon, a Washington Examiner correspondent and author of a new book titled "The Evangelical President," reported that President Bush has been sending messages to Clinton to urge her to "maintain some political wiggle room in your campaign rhetoric about Iraq." One wonders if Keane is the person serving as Bush's liaison to Clinton on Iraq.
Claudia Kennedy, another supporter of the war, was "absolutely" certain Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. In April 2003, when asked why no WMD had been discovered, she responded:
If absolutely nothing was found after months of thorough searching, my question would be -- where was it shipped? If such weapons are not in the country, they must have been shipped out because we absolutely know they were there.
I don't oppose the war. I think it's being very badly led by the civilian leadership. I have not ever heard (Clinton) say, 'I oppose the war.'"
Andrew Krepinevich believes a sustained U.S. presence is crucial to the future of Iraq. The U.S. has no choice in Iraq because if we leave Iraq will descend into civil war.
In October 2005, Krepinevich published an essay criticizing the U.S. intervention in Iraq as lacking a coherent strategy which resulted in the failure of U.S. forces to defeat the insurgency or improve security.
Krepinevich believed a winning strategy for Iraq could still be developed, one that focused on providing security to Iraqis rather than hunting down insurgents. However, "victory" in Iraq will come at a steep price according to Krepinevich:
Even if successful, this strategy will require at least a decade of commitment and hundreds of billions of dollars and will result in longer U.S. casualty rolls. But this is the price that the United States must pay if it is to achieve its worthy goals in Iraq.
Michael O'Hanlon is another supporter of President Bush's surge. In an Op Ed entitled "A War We Just Might Win" published in the New York Times in July 2007, O'Hanlon argued, "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms."
After the latest Presidential debate in which Clinton, Edwards and Obama all refused to commit to withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq by 2013, O'Hanlon praised them for their "flexibility" on Iraq. "I think the Democratic position allows all three of the top people to move in the Republican direction if things move around in the next twelve months," O'Hanlon stated.
Finally, Mark Penn, Clinton's top political strategist, may play a role in shaping Clinton's policy on Iraq should she become President. As noted by Bill Boyarsky:
Penn, is worldwide president and CEO of Burson-Marsteller, which helped prepare the chief of Blackwater USA for his congressional testimony defending the way that the company employees killed 17 and wounded 24 while fulfilling its contract to provide security for the State Department. It's all very clubby.
Clinton refuses to commit to bring all of our troops home by the end of her first term in office. Clinton's military and diplomatic advisers believe our invasion of Iraq was justified and a military solution exits for resolving the war.
Clinton is not demonstrating the qualities of leadership we need in our next President to end the war in Iraq. If Clinton becomes President, the opportunity to end our open-ended military intervention in Iraq may very well be lost.
She has consistently stated that she would remove troops "as quickly and as prudently as possible" or "as quickly and as safely as possible." Which is 1 to 2 brigades a month. Anything quicker is not safe, will require the military to leave behind millions of dollars worth of equipment which can be used by others.
Are you suggesting we do not follow military advice in this issue?
In the time honored tradition of politicians that recognize an issue must be addressed but lack any understanding to how to do so, Clinton calls for a study. As explained on her campaign website:
As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration.
Clinton doesn't say the U.S. will begin withdrawing from Iraq in 60 days. Instead, Clinton simply asks the military and other advisers to give her a plan within two months.
Clinton has never called for a prompt and complete withdrawal of our forces from Iraq. When questioned on whether she will commit to specific date for the end of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, as noted by Helen Thomas, Clinton reverts to "her usual cautious equivocation." She leaves open the possibility our troops will remain until 2013. David Broder accurately commented that Clinton plays "dodgeball" on the question of leaving Iraq:
During the debate, she rarely came out of a defensive crouch, as if determined to protect her favored position. Answering the first question, she said her goal would be to withdraw all American troops from Iraq by 2013, but "it is very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting" from the Bush administration, so she cannot make any pledge -- as Richardson and others feel free to do. Troops might be needed for counterterrorism work for many years.
Again, Clinton has no exit strategy for the U.S. from Iraq. She voted for the war, refused to vote for a resolution requiring Bush to get authorization from Congress to invade Iraq if he did not receive support from the U.N., repeatedly voted for spending bills for the war and lack any specific plan to get the U.S out of Iraq.
