- Daily Photo: Obama Jokes Around at G-20
- Blackwater gets replaced in Iraq
- Daily Photo: U.S. Marines Look Out for Taliban in Afghanistan
- Hillary Clinton the Tomboy and Her "Ah-Ha" Moment
- Obama Administration Sudan Envoy Headed to Region
- Daily Photo: Potential Flashpoint in Iraq
- Clinton Says New Afghanistan-Pakistan Plan Depends on Diplomacy
- Exclusive: Three Israeli Airstrikes Against Sudan
- Additional 4,000 Troops to Be Ordered to Afghanistan
- Daily Photo: Navy Submarine Trains in the Arctic
- Alarm Over North Korea Missile Prep
- Anti-Terror Stimulus? US Offers Rewards for Top Terrorists
- Daily Photo: Pakistani Women in Refugee Camp
- Condoleezza Rice Appears on "The Tonight Show"
- Diplomat and Aid Group Sound the Alarm on Darfur Camp Situation
- auto industry rescue
- Ballotwatch
- Biden, Joe
- Bush, George W.
- Clinton, Bill
- Clinton, Hillary
- Dodd, Chris
- Edwards, John
- Giuliani, Rudy
- Gravel, Mike
- Huckabee, Mike
- Hunter, Duncan
- Inauguration
- Iraq
- Kucinich, Dennis
- McCain, John
- Obama, Barack
- Palin, Sarah
- Paul, Ron
- Romney, Mitt
- Tancredo, Tom
- Thompson, Fred
- Veepstakes
- Vote 2008: Democrats
- Vote 2008: Republicans
- Washington
- White House
« Previous | Main | Next »
Clinton: Some Troops Should Stay In Iraq
Email
ShareMarch 15, 2007 3:30 AM
ABC's Jake Whitman Reports: Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, says she would keep a reduced but significant military force in Iraq if elected president.
In an interview with The New York Times, Clinton said there are "vital national security interests" that would require U.S. troops to stay.
“So I think it will be up to me to try to figure out how to protect those national security interests and continue to take our troops out of this urban warfare, which I think is a loser,” Clinton said in the interview.
Clinton told The Times the troops would be used to fight "al-Qaida, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds" and provide support to the Iraqi military.
Clinton declined to estimate how many troops would be needed to stay.
"We would not be doing patrols," she said. "We would not be kicking in doors. We would not be trying to insert ourselves in the middle between the various Shiite and Sunni factions. I do not think that's a smart or achievable mission for American forces."
March 15, 2007 in Tancredo, Tom | Permalink | User Comments (1)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I agree with Sen. Clinton's comments. I believe that U.S. forces in Iraq would be more effective in performing the kinds of duties she mentions. However, they need to have a clearly stated mission, well defined benchmarks, and adequate support. Under such conditions, and with the recognition that they can't be a "police force" to deal with all the problems associated with an "occupying force" in the middle of a civil war, perhaps U.S. troops could serve as agents for stability and peace...instead of the human targets they currently are. I expect return for investment in Iraq and I am certainly not getting it from the current administration - they apparently have a motto of "waste makes right" in Iraq with no discernable benefits for the U.S. in the region.
Posted by: Dirik Lolkus | Mar 15, 2007 12:08:41 PM
Post a comment
