The trouble with Hillary Clinton

Before I begin this item, I’ve made a mental note to get myself a pair of flip-flops for our December holiday.

Where were we?

Oh, yes, Hillary “I voted for invading Iraq” Clinton. The trouble with Hillary is that she causes confusion in respect of two well-established political terms.

She doesn’t “flip-flop” as much as change position so often that it’s more of a spin than a flip-flop. Problem is that spin is normally the way in which news is flavoured, not the frantic and
neverending changing of positions that results in the type of blur you normally achieve by spinning a wheel.

Consider her attacks on General Petraeus in the House and Senate hearings on Iraq.

As we know, Clinton voted in favour of going to Iraq in the first place.

Last month, in light of the reports coming out of Iraq, she conceded that American forces had made certain security gains, particularly in the strategic Anbar province. That was until her rivals for the presidency and anti-war Democrats lambasted her.

Which means that candidates for the presidency currently read the situation as disengagement from Iraq if you want to win votes. We can see this not only in the presidential elections but also among the GOP (Republican) centrist senators whose vote may prove decisive in the decision on leaving Iraq.

Instead of whooping at the performance put on by General Petraeus, they appear strained, calling for greater and earlier troop reductions than those suggested by the military. They are keenly aware of the effect that Iraq had in the recent elections where Democrats made significant gains at their expense.

It’s obvious to all that Iraq must be handled with care and, when in doubt, pan everything emerging from there. To all except Hillary of course, who has the worst case of foot-and-mouth outside Great Britain right now. She only opens her mouth to change feet.

So no surprise at the hearing yesterday that she should be the most vehement critic of General Petreaus and his report, including an attack on his reference to the improvement in Anbar province, which she says began before the “surge”. She then hammered him on the failure of the Iraqi government to achieve a specific political agenda, which left the American public sceptical and exasperated at the lack of progress.

The above needs to be placed in context :

When she voted to invade Iraq, the popular view was that Iraq needed to be invaded.
When she conceded that “surge” had achieved progress, the New York Times military correspondents had just returned from Iraq with, unusually for them, a favourable report on progress made. She didn’t wait to see how this translated on the ground — that is, the voter in the street. She miscalculated the current sentiment.
When she attacked Petreaus, it was the popular political thing to do regardless of the fact that it contradicted her own views of a month ago.

It is also disturbing to find the presidential candidate, widely regarded as a potential winner, choosing political expedience over the requirements of a report presented by the military and no doubt endorsed by the analysts.

In geo-political terms it is irrelevant why the US invaded Iraq. They are there and the buffer to Iran, Saddam Hussein, is not. Walk away now and you are forcing Shi’te Iraq to align with Iran and the Sunnis to seek assistance from al-Qaeda or other concerned Sunni nations — either that or face total marginalisation and financial ruin.

Turkey may also view an American withdrawal as its opportunity to deal with the Kurds in the north once and for all.

The policy of throwing billions of dollars at “pro-American” countries such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia is not the way that rebalancing the region will be achieved.

It will be achieved through consulting the interested parties from Saudi Arabia to Iran and agreeing the way forward and out of Iraq. If that is done from a position of strength, then the potential for an uneasy peace is there.

If the Americans decide that political expedience outweighs these considerations, then it won’t take long to find out just how costly that strategy will be. What is vital is that there can be no mistake in the exit strategy.

Hillary Clinton has been in the White House and knows the strategic concerns involved. Yet repeatedly she has looked to polls rather than expertise to guide her. Repeatedly she has changed paths to bring her into line with what will make her electable rather than taking the road that must be travelled if this critical issue is to be resolved.

That’s the trouble with Hillary.