Presumed Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton visited Iraq and returned with her expert foreign policy opinion on the situation there and the Administration's plan to deal with it. Her opinion is that
U.S. President George W. Bush's plan to add 21,500 new American soldiers to Iraq "cannot be successful" unless Iraqi leaders first demonstrate the will to crack down on sectarian militias in the country, Clinton said.
Clinton said she was not reassured following her meetings with Maliki and will introduce legislation to cut off funding to the Iraqi government unless it moves quickly to assume responsibility for security.
"They're very resistant to being told that we don't have an open-ended commitment, and that's exactly what I want them to know," she said.
"The reality is that people respond to pressure and to threats. We have not made any credible threats."
But events on the ground seem to undermine her observations
Facing intense pressure from the Bush administration to show progress in securing Iraq, senior Iraqi officials announced Wednesday that they had moved against the country’s most powerful Shiite militia, arresting several dozen senior members in the past few weeks.
It was the first time the Shiite government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki had claimed significant action against the militia, the Mahdi Army, one of the most intractable problems facing his administration. The militia’s leader, the cleric Moktada al-Sadr, helped put Mr. Maliki in power, but pressure to crack down on the group has mounted as its killings in the capital have driven a wedge into efforts to keep the country together.
More importantly
In perhaps the most surprising development, the Americans said, none of the members had been prematurely released, a chronic problem as this government has frequently shielded Shiite fighters.
“There was definitely a change in attitudes,” in the past three to four weeks, a senior American military officer said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
And in a further development
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said 400 fighters from a key backer of the Shiite-led government have been arrested, and a government spokesman said Thursday the U.S. is not giving Iraqi security forces enough money for training and equipment.
Al-Maliki's claim sought to address doubts about his willingness to take on the Shiite militiamen, especially the Mahdi Army loyal to his key supporter, the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Al-Sadr's militiamen are believed responsible for much of the sectarian violence in Baghdad in the past year.
Here's the problem for the early adopters for the 2008 elections: what if you're wrong? And I'm talking to not only Sen. Clinton, but Sen Obama and Sen Hagel as well. You know, Bush's plan just might work. And if it does, won't it be remembered that you didn't say things like "Well you know, we all want the President's plan to work, and while I am skeptical because it relies on Iraqi political support, let's wait and see how things play out."
And you know, it wouldn't kill people to say that in general.
Sen Clinton has put forward a "plan"
Senator Clinton said she supported a non-binding resolution opposing Mr Bush's plan, but said she would go further and introduce legislation to cap US forces in Iraq at their levels of January 1, while establishing benchmarks for the Iraqi Government that, if not met, would result in cuts in funding for Iraqi security forces.
More significantly, she said the legislation would establish benchmarks for the US too — from certifying that the Iraqi Government had disarmed militias and made constitutional changes to ensure rights for ethnic minorities to requiring participation in diplomatic activities with all of Iraq's neighbours.
Now here's the part the presumed Presidential candidate doesn't explain: So what happens if after we do this things deteriorate to not only sectarian violence in Iraq, but unrest that spills outside the borders of Iraq?
Does the Senator know, for instance, that the only thing preventing the Saudi's from supporting a Sunni insurgency to counter the Iranian supported insurgency is the US presence?
With a Sunni-Shiite cold war descending on the region, Saudi Arabia appears to be hardening its sectarian battle lines. That, experts say, could mean that it once again will regard its Shiite minority, mainly clustered in eastern oases like this one, solely as enemies of the state.
Recent rumblings from clerics and politicians alike recall the days when the kingdom braced against spreading influence from Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution. Today, Saudi Arabia is on edge from the deepening civil war in Iraq and a possibly nuclear Iran.
"The plunge back into the abyss of the 1980s has been accelerated," says Toby Jones, an assistant professor at Swarthmore College in Swarthmore, Pa., who has written extensively about the Shiites of Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province.
"You don't see [Saudi King Abdullah] quashing any of this very, very public anti-Shiite rhetoric," says Mr. Jones. "That's a sign that he either isn't interested in doing it or that he can't."
This is why you see Saudi Arabia openly supporting the US initiative
After a meeting with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice last week, Saudi leaders expressed their support of the new Bush agenda in Iraq. Saudi Arabia, which is largely Sunni, has long been concerned with the rising power of Shi'ite factions in the Iraqi government. (Iraq's population is largely Shi'ite, however Saddam's government was Sunni. During his reign, Shi'ites were persecuted.) Since the early balance of powers in the fledgling government, the power of al-Maliki's Shi'ite loyalists has increased, leaving Sunnis largely disenfranchised at this point. Iran is Shi'ite - and supports the rise of Shi'ite power in Iraq, putting it at direct opposition to Saudi Arabian goals.
Saudi Arabia hinted to Rice that it intends to militarily assist the Sunnis in Iraq if necessary.
And it is also why you see Saudi Arabia insisting it will not cut back on oil production to boost dropping oil prices. These new, low oil prices
...hurt those producers whose efficiency cannot match the Saudis, which primarily means Iran and Venezuela. It's doubtful that the Saudis care much about Hugo Chavez and his determination to nationalize the Venezuelan energy industry, but the Saudis care a great deal about Iran and its radical Shi'ite mullahcracy. The Iranians have a big economic problem at the moment, and their only hope is to keep oil prices high enough to cover their gaps. If oil prices continue to drop, it slices off most of the margin the Iranians can capture from oil sales, their only export of any significance. It also frees the Western nations sanctioning Iran to conduct an agressive pressure campaign.
I understand political expediency. But I also expect people who purport to be serious candidates for the office of the President to be serious about foreign affairs. And I expect them to know what's going on in the world what the implications are for both the US and our allies.
I would expect them not to undermine the Administrations foreign policy initiatives because, I would presume they would want the same consideration when and if they took the office.
And I would also expect them to refrain from jumping to conclusions
