Confusion in Penn’s Woods
Halfway through last night’s Philadelphia debate, the 21st among Democrats in the course of the last year, the questioners from ABC-TV finally got to substance: Will you promise to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, they asked, regardless what advice your generals give you?
Here’s the essence of Hillary’s answer:
I will ask the secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and my security advisers to immediately put together for me a plan so that I can begin to withdraw within 60 days. I will make it very clear that we will do so in a responsible and careful manner, because obviously, withdrawing troops and equipment is dangerous…
I will begin to withdraw troops within 60 days. And we’ve had other instances in our history where some military commanders have been very publicly opposed to what a president was proposing to do.
But I think it’s important that this decision be made, and I intend to make it.
Obama’s statement this time omitted his usual reference to a 16-month timetable for withdrawal:
I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I’ve given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I’ve provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief.
In terms of substance, very little difference, but in terms of tone, Obama’s reply is less declarative and more deferential toward the military. By using a lexicon that the U.S. military recognizes — mission versus tactics — Obama frames his answer in a way that is likely to give him (and his commanders) more flexibility.
On the issue of Iran, a similar difference in tone was apparent. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, who was once a top aide to Bill Clinton, challenged Obama on what he would do about Iran — and how he would protect Israel. The latter topic is always ripe for a bidding war between candidates eager to gain the “Jewish vote,” and as I pointed out in a previous post (see “Four Letter Words” below), the question of support for Israel was bound to come up in relation to Iran. Earlier in the day, in fact, Obama had met with Jewish groups in Philadelphia — according to news reports, to “reassure” them about his views on Iran, Israel and his opposition to the deplorable anti-Semite Louis Farahkan.
In his debate response, Obama was careful to thread the needle, staking out a firm but necessarily vague position without backing down on his well-known promise to engage the Iranian leadership directly:
I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons. I believe that that includes direct talks with the Iranians where we are laying out very clearly for them, here are the issues that we find unacceptable, not only development of nuclear weapons but also funding terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as their anti-Israel rhetoric and threats towards Israel. I believe that we can offer them carrots and sticks, but we’ve got to directly engage and make absolutely clear to them what our posture is.
Now, my belief is that they should also know that I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons, and that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?
OBAMA: As I’ve said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we — one whose security we consider paramount, and that — that would be an act of aggression that we — that I would — that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.
By contrast, Hillary’s response to the same question is to up the ante with a more sweeping declaration of a “security umbrella:”
I think that this is an opportunity, with skillful diplomacy, for the United States to go to the region and enlist the region in a security agreement vis-a-vis Iran…
We’ve got to begin diplomatic engagement with Iran…at a low level. I certainly would not meet with Ahmadinejad, because even again today he made light of 9/11 and said he’s not even sure it happened and that people actually died. He’s not someone who would have an opportunity to meet with me in the White House. But I would have a diplomatic process that would engage him.
And secondly, we’ve got to deter other countries from feeling that they have to acquire nuclear weapons. You can’t go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say: Well, don’t acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you’re also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup and we will let the Iranians know that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation, but so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under this security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions.
And finally we cannot permit Iran to become a nuclear weapons power. And this administration has failed in our efforts to convince the rest of the world that that is a danger, not only to us and not just to Israel but to the region and beyond.
Therefore we have got to have this process that reaches out, beyond even who we would put under the security umbrella, to get the rest of the world on our side to try to impose the kind of sanctions and diplomatic efforts that might prevent this from occurring.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, would you?
CLINTON: Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.
Again, a difference in tone. By proposing a “security umbrella” for Saudi Arabia and Kuwait — states that don’t even recognize Israel and that have no nuclear ambitions — Clinton strives for a muscular stance. Phrases like “trigger massive retaliation” — usually meant to imply the use of nuclear weapons — should probably not be used in campaign debates at all. But to use them at the same time that one is promising — irrespective of military advice — to begin a withdrawal of military forces from Iraq within 60 days of taking office, sends a mixed signal to the region that we would do well to avoid.