Senator Clinton has taken offense — and many others in the blogosphere seem to have as well — at the response she received from Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman. (Note here and here, for two of many examples.) We encourage you to read the full text of Edelman’s response and determine for yourself whether Senator Clinton’s outrage is justified. The language that has angered the Senator all comes from just one of the five substantive paragraphs of the letter. And what is it that has angered Senator Clinton so? Here are the three offensive sentences:
Is Senator Clinton disputing the accuracy of any of these statements? Surely she agrees that the way we left Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia was a boon for enemy propaganda. There seems little disputing this. Indeed, they form the basis of Osama bin Laden’s admonition to Muslims worldwide that they should not follow the United States, but instead be loyal to the ‘strong horse’ of Al Qaeda. Indeed, the American people would be right to question the presidential qualifications of a candidate who held up these conflicts as models for the future. Presumably her beef with the sentence rests in the ‘premature and public’ admonition that leads off. She may disagree, but that doesn’t seem a reason for outrage. Or is the problem in the second sentence? Does she disagree that Iraqis who are working toward political reconciliation are unnerved at the prospect of a speedy US departure? If that’s the case, she either believes that the Iraqi government is not trying to achieve reconciliation, but instead is acting in bad faith. The failure to pass de-Baathification, oil sharing, and local elections may be discouraging, but it seems hard to argue that those risking their lives and dying are acting in bad faith. And it’s undoubtedly true that if we do not win in Iraq, they know that simply working with the Americans might well mean forfeiting their lives under whatever regime follows. So it’s unclear that Clinton is on strong ground disputing this. The last sentence — the notion that fear of a quick withdrawal leads Iraqis to prepare for conflict that follows, rather than working for success — seems similarly indisputable. For example, if you’re a Sunni trying to decide between working toward a stable Iraq or casting your lot with Al Qaeda, you’ll probably think twice if you believe that the US will leave before Iraq is stable. You’d be a fool not to at least think about it. Sunnis and Shias both know that ‘relations’ between the two sects are charged as it is; the ‘precipitate’ departure of the U.S. forces — however you define that term — would heighten those tensions. If Senator Clinton disputes these ideas, she can and should make the case why they are wrong. If she is confident that her proposal for a prompt withdrawal of American troops poses none of the dangers that Edelman lays out, it behooves her to explain why not. Indeed: if Edelman’s notions are so out-of-touch with reality, they should be easily disproved. We encourage her not to confuse the issue by invoking outrage and offense, but to regard this as a teaching opportunity. Indeed, if Edelman is wrong, we would welcome a lucid explanation of where he went astray.
