Lowell, I'm a little surprised that you've edited (not provided the full text, i.e., the context) the words of Senator Clinton.  By just reading the diary and not the actual interview (which some may chose not to do), one is left with a completely different impression than what she actually said in the interview. 

I'd urge everyone to read the interview.  It demonstrates the incredibly complicated and horrific situation that Bush has gotten us into and Senator Clinton's understanding of this calamitous situation that we all have to contend with.

That's a copyright violation, and also not very good blogging.  What I did here was summarize a few of Hillary Clinton's main points to kick off a discussion, while urging people to read the full interview in the New York Times.  Anyway, getting back to the real subject of this post, what do you think of Sen. Clinton's views on Iraq as expressed in this interview? 

Lowell, I wasn't saying that you should have published the whole interview article.  I apologize if that was your impression.

I just thought by quoting part of a her statement  "I'm going to root for [troop surge] it if it has any chance of success...", and not the rest of the statement, "...but I think it's more likely that the anti-American violence and sectarian violence just moves from place to place to place like the old Whac a Mole" leaves quite a different impression of what she said. 

At least that's what caught my attention immediately....

I think her interview shows just what a complicated mess addressing what to do in Iraq is and I am impressed with her knowledge of the vast complexities that face us on all "fronts" of this "war".  Although I've been against this war from Bush's first utterances about Saddam Hussein, I think that we need thoughtful, extensive debate on what exactly to do now that we are in this "no win" situation.

It appears to me, from this interview, she understands what we are up against in trying to get out of Iraq and what needs to be done ... "So there's a lot of serious thinking and planning that has to go on. And I don't think we've done what needs to be done to be in position to make a lot of those decisions yet." 

She's intelligent and experienced and I trust her opinion that we haven't talked about nor planned for the decisions that we need to make on Iraq.  I'm for extensive hearings and debate on the subject, something that wasn't done before this ridiculous adventure into Iraq nor has been done to date.

Hillary has an understanding of this situation more than any other candidate has.  She knows that we can't just pull our troops out tomorrow and think everything is going to improve.

Obviously our "interests" in Iraq do NOT include:

1.Overthrowing Saddam.(done)
2.Finding WMDs.(none)
3.Promoting responsible government by hiring Iraqi companies instead of pouring money into corrupt American companies like Halliburton.(sole source contracts woth no oversight)
4. Treating the Iraqi citizens with the rights allowed to citizens of a true democracy.(torture now, ask questions later.)
5. Allowing the Iraqis to elect a government we don't like.(The current prime minister is afraid we will kick him out. Why?)
6. Allowing the Iraqi nation to own their oil.(The new oil "deal" will allow Iraqi oil to be captured by "international" companies.)
7. Obeying international law. (If so we should leave immediately since the invasion is and was illegal.)

It seems to me that we are there to keep control of the country (and their resources) and nothing more. Even if they have a democracy nevermore.

Let's say Shi'ites were engaging in mass ethnic cleansing, on the order of Bosnia or worse, and we could stop it, what would you do?

Or, what if Al Qaeda really got established in Al Anbar province, what would you do?

Just curious if you see ANY possible U.S. interests in Iraq that justify maintaining a troop presence, whether now that we've "broken it" we "own it," or what.

Al Quaeda is fat and happy in Afganistan (and apparently Pakistan). They are apparently making a big comeback. Their leaders have said they are happy that we have diverted our attention to Iraq. In fact one of their leaders recently said that we will bleed to death in Iraq. We can't stop the internicene violence there. I believe a lot of it is directed at those who are helping the US or serve in the puppet government.Then the "government" considers these resisters criminals and they are using torture and other horrific means to control them. -Just wonderful.

There was a reason Iraq had a dictator and now we see why that was necessary. Though not an ideal solution, it created a stable society. There were no car bombings in Iraq when Saddam was in charge. I truly think it is a fantasy to think this country can have a Western style stable democracy. I believe the fantasy of democracy is being held up as a proganda line to sell the occupation to the Amerian people. The purpose is to keep the troops there for the interests of corporations and imperialists who want to lock China and Russia out of the oil supply, if necessary.

The question we need to ask is whether or not this approach is really in the interest of the American people in general, as well as our allies in the region. I personally think the military solution sans diplomacy, and without valid alliances is the very worst appproach as it confirms the worst fears and prejudices of the Muslim world, creates more terrorists, and paints us as bullies. Jim Webb has the right idea of getting Iran and other countries involved. Instead Bush seems to want to create more Iraqs in the region.

I have always said that Bush checkmated himself when he invaded Iraq (at least he is good at playing chess with himself). This is the ultimate lose-lose situation. Bush can't even take good advice on what to do next.Its almost as if he thinks diplomacy and policy based on reality is sissy and would mess up his macho image.

Dictatorship is necessary?

I can't beleive an American would write that.  Tyrants are our enemies.

Saddam created a society of total fear and losing wars.
Saddam ruined Iraq. Saddam's idea of stability was running people through wood chippers.

Bush is a fool because he thought he could impose a globalist, pseudo-Libertarian, neo-conservative state on Iraq by holing up in the green zone and hiring Halliburton to engineer a new society.  He should have handed the keys over to the Shia elements of the Iraqi Army and brought the boys home.

Then why does our government support so many? I'm not justifying that of course. If we are interested in getting rid of tyrants we should first of all start at home. Then we should address situations like Darfur. I can't believe an American could think Iraq is worse than what is going on there. Oh, I forgot those folks are black and poor and if they are removed, well the "internaltional" oil companies might have a crack at the oil in Darfur.

This black and white view of things is a cover for a pick and choose attitude about who the US should illegally invade. What I am saying is that the US government supports tyrants when they are useful. How do you think Saddam came into existence? Our government (with a handshake from Rumsfeld) even gave him chemicals to use on his own people and Iranians. Perhaps the American people dislike tyrants, but our government has been very supportive of them. So don't tell me because I am an American I am the same as the US government. I am not making these decisions.I am not the same as Bush, Gonzales and the others.

All I am doing is making an objective observation and I will make it again. Iraq was more stable under Saddam. To imply that there are no torture or no brutal executions now that Saddam is gone is just plain false. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

The only way you can make the argument that "dictatorship is necessary" is if you completely reject values of liberty and human rights.  Personally, I strongly support the rights of human beings all over the world to live in freedom, security, and prosperity.  I do NOT support propping up corrupt, authoritarian, human-rights-abusing regimes like Saddam's; that was a stain on America's moral record.  The question is, what do we do about Iraq now that we've "broken" Saddam's system, however awful that system was?  Is the "Pottery Barn rule" in effect now - we broke it, we own it?  Or not?

I think the core of the issue is that our motivations in Iraq were morally bankrupt to begin with in spite of the sugar coating which was put on the top of it.

The noble thing to do would be for the administration to admit they were wrong and apologize. They don't have to say Saddam was a good man. In fact why not admit that we kept him in power and apologize for that too! They should declare that we don't intend to keep however many bases we have built in Iraq. We should deal with Iran in a sane manner, not cave to them, but just stop goading them. They will just respond with more venom if we continue that.

I think a change of attitude on our part would be a first step and nothing else of any worth can happen without that. I believe we will receive no meaningful help without that. I think once some humility is shown (which would be a show of strength in this case) that could open the door to next steps.We don't know what those could be, but a change of attitude could open the door to possibilities.

The only problem with this is that the idea of making an apology to either Iraq or the American people is completely outside the Bush administration's spectrum of possible behaviors. It would be "cut and run" to them. Since they really can't admit that their approach is a mistake they will continue to make the same mistakes over and over again until - well, I just can't imagine that things could be worse, but they could (picture the a-bomb).

Perhaps the Iraq problem really goes back to the bankrupt values which originally divided the Middle East to suit European interests. That could well be true in which case our invasion has just popped the lid off Pandora's Box. In fact, this has been given as the reason why Saddam was left in place after the first Gulf War.

Bush has done a foolish thing by stirring up a mess in the Middle East. Unless he truly finds God on the other end of the phone and not Karl Rove we have no hope while he is in office. The only other thing to do is wait until a Democrat can be elected president. The new president will need a big shovel to clean up all the elephant poop.

Rebecca:

Your comment about dictatorship being "necessary" is stunning.

Lowell, you raise some important points here.  I agree we (the US) must prevent a bloodbath.  But I think that, in the long term, a permanent US presence in Iraq would lead to endless strife, and less stability.

I believe strongly in human rights and the protection of them.  However, I do not think that the Bush administration knows the meaning of either the term liberty or freedom. And so, I could not make the case that their meddling there would ever lead to liberty or freedom.  With leaders such as this, it is better that we get out by '08.  They are doing more harm than good.

I also agree with the notion that we have some responsibility regarding the "if  its broke you own it."  Unfortunately, we cannot trust those we've funded to fix things broken by the conflict.  I do not presume to know how to solve that one.  But the responsibility is real and inescapable.

What if President Clinton/Obama/Edwards/Richardson/whoever DOES understand the meaning of liberty and freedom?  Does that alter your analysis?

I don't know.  I'm obviously no expert.  Because Bushco render everything they touch FUBAR, I think they should get our ASAP.  This should be done carefully with sufficient cover and protection for our troops to pull back (redeploy).  Then they should be out completely within a year.  No matter what.  Every day Bush meddles there, things get worse.  Although I believe the saying, "if we broke it we must fix it," I don't trust Bush or his administration to fix anything they've broken.  They'll only clean out our wallets.  Nothing will be "fixed."  There'll be FUBAR upon FUBAR.  Essentially, everything they touch turns to S---.

I wouldn't argue we should have permanent bases in Iraq, even with Dems.  Depending on which Dem you are talking about (I certainly wouldn't include Biden, probably wouldn't trust Hillary, and haven't considered Edwards out of the woods yet, but might), I might trust a Dem. with trying to repair the damage.  It would be nice to get back to real diplomacy as the line of effort.  We need some presence in the Middle East.  But where, how, etc. should be rethought.  And Dems should revisit it with fresh eyes in 2009.

But where Bush is concerned, to keep us all safe, he should STFU, stop trying to do anything, and turn into the isolationist he promised to be.  Otherwise he'll just create more chaos.

Also in 2009, the first order of business should be to author an Energy Independence bill that would free us from Middle East Oil. You know more about how to do that than I.  But if we all transition to more efficient cars, and improve the efficiency of heating and lighting our homes, we'd be free from risks inherent in depending on the Middle East for oil.  Then we'd be capable of more altruism.  We would likely be able to help create a safer region there.  And we'd help reduce the extent to which the Saudis own a piece of America.

diplomacy as the first line of effort