Hillary's War

"You know, I find myself, as I often do, in the somewhat lonely middle." --Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the January 27, 2007, New Yorker

New York senator Hillary Rodham Clinton remains the most hawkish prospective candidate in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. Among the major Democrats who have announced or are about to announce their candidacies, only Sen. Clinton has not clearly repudiated her October 10, 2002, vote authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein. And although Clinton opposes Bush's proposed increase of American combat troops deployed in Iraq, and has called for the "phased redeployment" of some troops from Iraq in order to foster a political settlement that might end sectarian killing there, such positions still leave her to the right of the antiwar left and most other Democrats.

Unlike Illinois senator Barack Obama and former vice president Al Gore, Sen. Clinton supported regime change in 2002. Unlike Delaware senator Joseph Biden, Clinton has not voiced support for partitioning Iraq along sectarian lines. Unlike former North Carolina senator and 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards, she has neither called for the "immediate" withdrawal of 40,000 troops from Iraq nor said that her initial vote to authorize the conflict was a "mistake." And unlike Massachusetts senator and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, Clinton rejects setting a date certain for U.S. withdrawal.

Nor are Sen. Clinton's moderately hawkish positions limited to Iraq. At a time when a majority of Democrats say global warming is the most important foreign policy issue facing America, she has said that "the number one problem remains the spread of weapons of mass destruction and those falling into the hands of either rogue nations or borderless terrorists." She has said that an Iranian regime with nuclear weapons would pose a "direct threat" to its neighbors and a "significant threat" to the United States--and while proposing direct talks with Iran "should the right opportunity present itself," she also says that "we have to keep all options on the table" because "U.S. policy must be unequivocal: Iran must not build or acquire nuclear weapons." Meanwhile, Sen. Clinton has called for more U.S. troops to be deployed to Afghanistan and for the Army to be expanded--a position that, until recently, put her to the right of the Bush administration.

It was Bush's decision to change strategy and commit more U.S. resources to the war that altered Washington's politics and Sen. Clinton's presidential calculations. Democrats had hoped to begin 2007 focused on domestic policy and their "100 Hour Agenda." But press accounts containing hints that the president had rejected the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and was planning to announce a new counterinsurgency strategy involving tens of thousands of additional troops forced the Democrats' hand. Their response came on January 5, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter to President Bush rejecting more troops and stating that it was "time to bring the war to a close."

In December, Reid (and Clinton) had kept open the possibility that he (and she) would support a force "surge" if it was accompanied by a shift in strategy. Now they have closed that door. At week's end the only declared Democratic advocate of Bush's new strategy is Connecticut senator Joseph Lieberman--and Lieberman, though he caucuses with the Democrats, is technically an "Independent Democrat." Leaders in both houses plan to hold votes this week on nonbinding resolutions condemning the new Bush policy. Both these resolutions are expected to pass easily.

And Sen. Clinton is expected to join her colleagues in voting for such a resolution. If she does, it will not only illustrate the degree to which congressional and public opinion on Iraq has shifted leftward; it will also be the first in what will most likely become, over the next two years, a series of votes in which Congress battles with the president to influence the course of the war in Iraq. For example, Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts has introduced legislation requiring congressional approval for any increase in troop levels. Democratic congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania plans to introduce similar legislation in the House. And there will be other attempts to limit and constrain the president's freedom of action. It is likely that these votes, combined with the changing situation on the ground in Iraq and in the broader Middle East, will be important in the 2008 presidential primaries.

What effect this will have on Sen. Clinton's chances is unclear. To this point, she and her advisers have run a savvy undeclared campaign based on locking up early support and raising money while preparing for a general election in which the candidate, a polarizing figure, can be cast in a moderate light. The biggest threat to that strategy would be a Democratic primary fought on the left over Iraq. After all, war has derailed presidential frontrunners before. In 1972, Maine senator Edmund Muskie was the clear favorite for the Democratic nomination and a conventional liberal with views considered palatable to a national audience. But antiwar furor over Vietnam spurred left-wing South Dakota senator George McGovern to strong second-place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire--and ultimately won him the nomination.

Similarly, in the beginning of 2003, John Kerry--who had voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein--seemed to be the Democratic frontrunner. Then the antiwar Howard Dean took off, dominating fundraising and the polls and threatening Kerry just as McGovern had threatened Muskie. Dean imploded, of course. But that was only after Kerry, in order to prove his dovish credentials, voted against the $87 billion emergency supplemental appropriations bill for reconstruction and combat in Iraq and Afghanistan in October 2003--a vote that helped him win the presidential nomination but surely hurt him in the general election.

Will Hillary Rodham Clinton end up like Muskie? Will she end up like Kerry? Or will she avoid both fates? If the Democrats move to cut off funds for the war in Iraq, where will she stand? Will her myriad tactical shifts on Iraq emerge as a liability? Or will her careful positioning be enough to secure her the nomination while insulating her from attack in a general election? Just where, exactly, has Clinton been on Iraq? And where is she going?

It was October 10, 2002, and Hillary Clinton had a decision to make on Iraq. She had carefully weighed the opinions of her many advisers and strategists and reached the conclusion that the president ought to receive authorization to deal with Saddam Hussein. In a recent interview with the New Yorker, Clinton suggested that her respect for the office her husband held for eight years was a main cause for her support. "I have respect for presidential decision-making and I saw what the Republican Congress had done to Bill on a range of issues, denying him the authority to deal with Bosnia and Kosovo and second-guessing him on every imaginable issue," she said. But that wasn't the whole story. In her speech on the Senate floor, Clinton gave a lengthy, detailed, and complex argument for ending the Hussein regime.

The facts, she said, "are not in doubt." Saddam was a "tyrant" who "tortured and killed his own people" and "used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians." Once a U.S. ally, Clinton continued, Hussein became an enemy with his 1990 invasion of Kuwait. An American-led coalition had ended the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, but had not ended Saddam's tyranny. Indeed, he went on to antagonize Sen. Clinton's husband, the 42nd president, and ejected U.N. weapons inspectors from Iraq in 1998. "In the four years since the inspectors left," Sen. Clinton said, "intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program." Moreover, he had "given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists," including "al Qaeda."

To vote to authorize force was "very difficult," Clinton said. In fact it was probably "the hardest decision I have ever had to make." But her vote was cast "with conviction." And a few caveats. Sen. Clinton rejected unilateralism and the doctrine of preemptive war. "If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us," she said. "The best course" would involve "the U.N." But the "authority to use force" was already present. It was "inherent in the original 1991 U.N. resolution," a fact that "President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998." The bottom line for Saddam was "disarm or be disarmed."

When Bush gave the order to commence the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Sen. Clinton continued to support the intervention. A few days into the war, at a press availability in Syracuse, she counseled patience. "I've never been one of those that thought this was going to be done in 24 [to] 48 hours as some people had suggested," she said. "This is a very difficult undertaking in very treacherous terrain." Americans "just have to stand united and make sure our men and women in uniform know that we're behind them."

By summer, the conflict in Iraq had undergone its first transformation. Saddam's government had been toppled, and Baathist remnants and al Qaeda affiliates had begun their guerrilla war against coalition troops. No weapons of mass destruction had been found. Sen. Clinton began criticizing the Bush administration's intelligence-gathering methods. In June 2003, she told NPR's Juan Williams:

I want to know, who were we relying on? Who were the people giving us this information? Because this administration has taken a very aggressive posture. You know, they talk about preemption. Therefore, I'm concerned that when I'm given information, it is scrubbed and as accurate as it possibly can be, especially when I see an administration that is willing to go a little further perhaps to pursue what they view as appropriate means to achieve ends that I may or may not agree with.

But the senator would only take this criticism so far. In September 2003, she told a group of reporters that "the intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent" on the question of Saddam's WMD capabilities. And more recently, in the New Yorker interview, she said that the Bush administration "believed, as I believed, that there was, at the very least, residual weapons of mass destruction, and whether the Iraqis ever intended to let the inspectors go forward was being answered year by year. There was a lot of evidence that this was not their intention."

Clinton also criticized aspects of Iraqi reconstruction spending and bidding on postwar contracts. She opposed withholding funds, however. In October 2003, Sens. Kerry and Edwards both voted against the $87 billion for reconstruction and combat in the war on terror. Clinton voted for the bill, saying her vote was "for our troops," and "for our mission," but not "for our failed national leadership."

Clinton visited Iraq for the first time that Thanksgiving. In a December 2003 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City, she continued to defend the war. She acknowledged that she had voted to grant Bush the authority to use force and that her decision was controversial. "I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used," she said, "but I stand by the vote to provide the authority." And "I also knew that our military forces would be successful." Clinton said she thought the administration ought to internationalize the occupation of Iraq, which was then governed by Ambassador L. Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority. She said she thought de-Baathification ought to be less harsh on those "who were Baathists in name only." But her overarching theme was clear: "We have no option but to stay involved and committed."

Sen. Clinton maintained a low profile, especially on Iraq, during the 2004 presidential election. Her website, clinton.senate.gov, posts only four "statements and releases" on the war for the entire year. Sen. Clinton's speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention--she introduced her husband, "the last great Democratic president"--included several mentions of the 9/11 attacks but not a word on Iraq. This is not to say that Clinton avoided all talk of the war. In April 2004, she said on CNN: "No, I don't regret giving the president authority" to topple the Iraqi government, "because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein has been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

As the war entered its third year, Clinton remained hawkish. She was thrilled at the turnout in the Iraqi elections. And she recognized the global nature of the war on terror. For example, after the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005, she and 10 other senators, including 5 Republicans, called on President Bush to tighten sanctions against the Assad regime in Syria, writing in a letter:

The Syrians have failed to secure the Iraq border, permitting the infiltration of foreign terrorists into Iraq. Syria continues to harbor leaders who order, plan, and finance terror attacks against Israeli citizens. Operatives of the Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades regularly receive training in Syrian camps. In addition to its sponsorship of terrorism, the government of Syria has ignored and violated multiple U.N. resolutions by refusing to remove its troops from Lebanon. As long as Syria continues to occupy Lebanon and train suicide bombers, the region is not safe.

But the politics of Iraq were slowly changing. The summer of 2005 was bloody. August, one of the war's worst months, witnessed the emergence of "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan, who became a locus of media attention and a surrogate for the antiwar left. Bush's public support, and thus support for the war, were in decline. On October 15, on Michael Moore's website, Sheehan described an encounter she had had with Sens. Clinton and Reid. Sheehan was unimpressed. "After Sen. Reid left, Mrs. Clinton stayed for a few more moments and she told us that she had met with the other Gold Star Mothers who had a different view from ours," Sheehan wrote. "I said it didn't really matter, because our view is right."

In November 2005, Rep. Murtha, who had supported the war, turned against it. A decorated former Marine, Murtha said that the American intervention in Iraq was lost and it was time to bring the troops home as quickly as possible. Clinton rejected Murtha's plan, calling it a "big mistake." But it was clear she felt compelled to address his concerns. She understood the drift of her party with regard to the war. In a "routine communication" to her constituents released on November 29, Clinton outlined her new policy:

I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end. Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately. I believe we are at a critical point with the December 15th elections that should, if successful, allow us to start bringing home our troops in the coming year, while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities.

This "routine communication" also marked the first time that Clinton backed away, however slowly, from her initial vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq. The logic of her disavowal was, dare one say, Clintonian. "Based on the information that we have today," she wrote, "Congress never would have been asked to give the president authority to use force against Iraq. And if Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have agreed." Notably, while Clinton wrote, "I take responsibility for my vote," she did not write that she regretted it. Nor has she ever written or said that.

In 2006, the war in Iraq underwent another transformation, with Shiites beginning to retaliate against the Sunni terrorists who had been killing them for years. Clinton continued to draw criticism for her stance on the war. When she addressed the liberal Campaign for America's Future in June and rejected an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, she was booed. But Clinton's policy was also about to undergo a transformation. Sometime between her letter to constituents in November 2005 and June 21, 2006, Clinton concluded that a military solution to the war in Iraq was not possible and that only American withdrawal--or "phased redeployment"--would spur the Iraqis to reach a political accommodation that would secure their country.

In June, Democratic senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking member on (and now chairman of) the Armed Services Committee, along with fellow Democrat Jack Reed of Rhode Island, introduced an amendment to an appropriations bill calling on President Bush to withdraw at least some troops from Iraq by the end of 2006. Sen. Clinton joined a majority of Democrats in voting for the amendment--while also voting against another measure, sponsored by Sens. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin and John Kerry, that would have required American departure from Iraq to be "substantially complete" by the end of 2007. Speaking in support of the Levin-Reed amendment on the Senate floor, Sen. Clinton called herself a "proud cosponsor," while reiterating her position on the war in general. "I simply do not believe it is a strategy or a solution for the president to continue declaring an open-ended and unconditional commitment," she said. "Nor do I believe it is a solution or a strategy to set a date certain for withdrawal without regard to the consequences."

Shortly before Election Day, on October 31, Clinton delivered another speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in which she called for a "bipartisan consensus" on foreign policy "executed with nonpartisan competence." Bush's Iraq policy, she said, had reached the point of "complete absurdity." A "fundamental change in course" was necessary for success. First, the Iraqi government should be forced to reach an accommodation between Shiites and Sunnis, including an oil law that would guarantee "every Iraqi a share of the oil revenues." Second, the United States should organize "a public international conference of the parties in the region," including Syria and Iran. And third, the Americans should begin leaving Iraq.

For many Democrats, the November elections only confirmed that the American public had turned against Bush and the war and, like them, wanted U.S. forces home as soon as possible. The lesson Sen. Clinton--reelected with 67 percent of the vote--drew from the election, however, was more nuanced. Last December, in an interview on NBC's Today show, host Meredith Vieira asked Clinton why she had not repudiated her vote on Iraq. "Well, you know, obviously, it was wrong to believe this president," Clinton said. "That's tragic to say because people's lives are at stake. He should have let the inspectors do their job."

Vieira jumped in. "But were you wrong to take that vote, to make that vote?"

"Well," Clinton said, "you know, you have to go and look at the situation as we knew it then, and I take responsibility for that vote. Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote and I certainly wouldn't have voted that way."

There have been no modifications to Sen. Clinton's announced policy of beginning a "phased redeployment" of troops without a specific timetable for withdrawal. She announced her opposition to Bush's new war strategy quietly, releasing a statement shortly after the president's address to the nation on Wednesday evening, January 10. Then, the next evening, she unexpectedly left on a four-day trip to Iraq and Afghanistan with Indiana senator Evan Bayh and New York congressman John McHugh. That was the very day administration officials were originally scheduled to appear before the Armed Services Committee, on which Sen. Clinton sits, to articulate the Bush policy in more detail. But the hearings were moved to Friday, January 12 at the request of the Pentagon, Clinton aides say--preventing the senator from attending and denying us a clearer sense of where she stands.

No one knows what lies ahead for Iraq. Nor does anyone know Sen. Clinton's next moves with regard to the war. In fact, it is difficult even to know who influences Clinton's foreign policy thinking. Democratic foreign policy wonks questioned last week didn't seem to have a clue. In her October speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton paid a compliment to Anatol Lieven and John Hulsman's book Ethical Realism. It's clear that the senator speaks with military brass, including retired Army vice chief of staff Gen. Jack Keane, one of the intellectual godfathers of the Bush troop "surge." It's clear she speaks with members of Bill Clinton's kitchen cabinet including former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke. And she relies heavily on the counsel of her husband, who told New Yorker editor David Remnick last year that "it would really be crazy if the antiwar element of our party thought that the most important thing to do was to beat up Democrats, and gave the Republicans a free ride."

What President Clinton had to say about Iraq to Remnick is notable. "I think first of all you've got to remind people that we didn't get into this mess overnight," he said. "And we're not going to get out of it overnight, that we might decide that it's a lost cause and we just have to withdraw in an expeditious fashion. But that whether you were for or against the original action, it would be better if it did not end in calamity and chaos, mass killing within Iraq, more terrorist bases there."

Clinton went on:

And I think you have to say that this is a national security issue--and I say that because I don't think we should have done it until after the U.N. inspections were over, until we had secured Afghanistan, and we had a consensus in the world community. I never thought Saddam presented any kind of a terrorist threat. But once you break these eggs you've got to kind of make an omelette. And we've just got to be straight about that.

And on:

And, if it is obvious that there is nothing positive that can come from our committed involvement there, then we have to say we'd be prepared to say we'll come home--but we're not there yet. Seventy percent of those people did vote. They voted to set up this government. And most of them, if left to their own devices without the people with the guns in the middle, would find some way to make some sort of decent go of it.

Simply put, then, the Clintons are "not there yet" on retreat from Iraq. Most of their party, however, is there. Which means a central drama of the next two years will be Hillary Clinton's position on Iraq. For four years she has resisted the pull of the antiwar left. If she continues down that path, it may help her in the general election. Or she could end up walking very much alone.

Matthew Continetti is associate editor at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.