Hillary Clinton spoke this morning at George Washington University, where she spent most of her time trying to rebut "the claim that withdrawal is defeat." I can see a situation where Clinton might be right. Like when the Russians withdraw to Moscow--that's not defeat (it's also not particularly pretty). But just saying "withdrawal is not defeat" doesn't make it so. In fact, it's patently obvious that withdrawal is defeat, which is why most advocates for withdrawal premise their arguments on the (mistaken) notion that the war is already lost (see Reid, Harry). Here's how Clinton rationalizes:
Now, withdrawal is not risk-free, but the risks of staying in Iraq are certain. And a well-planned withdrawal is the one and only path to a political solution. The only way to spur the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future and to ensure that we don't bear that responsibility indefinitely. The only way to spur other countries to do their part to help secure stability in the region.... I will bring our troops home, work to bring stability in the region, and replace military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in helping to secure Iraq's future.
It's a ridiculous idea. "Other countries" won't assist in bringing stability to Iraq with 160,000 U.S. troops in the country to guarantee their security. Clinton can't possibly believe that the Germans are going to deploy to Iraq with no assistance from the United States. Maybe she thinks the Chinese will. And the only thing Iraqis are likely to take responsibility for absent a strong U.S. presence is killing each other in industrial fashion. Think Rwanda with AKs. Which is why the McCain camp is licking their chops for this fight. One adviser writes the WS Blog in response to Clinton's remarks this morning:
Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton's evolving Iraq policy -- against withdrawal not too long ago, opposition to the surge and now for retreat no matter the cost -- would plunge that nation into large-scale violence, convulse the region, energize al Qaeda and other terrorists, and gravely damage U.S. national security. We welcome that debate, and who is best prepared to answer that 3:00 am call.
By the way, Americans seem pretty certain who they want answering the phone at 3 am (hint: he may answer the call in the form of a Beach Boys song).