Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.
[T]he Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief.
Democrats are increasingly taking the position, in televised debates and in sessions with voters across the country, that ending a war can be as complicated as starting one.
United States’ security, [Mrs. Clinton] said, would be undermined if part of Iraq turned into a failed state "that serves as a Petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda.”
United States’ security, [Mrs. Clinton] said, would be undermined if part of Iraq turned into a failed state "that serves as a Petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda.”
[New York Times]
[Note from Bruce: I generally avoid posts that cover partisan concerns, however, trends such as these may be of intellectual interest to MidEast watchers]
1 comment:
The way the article begins: DES MOINES, Aug. 11 — Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years. COULD. That is a conclusion drawn by the journalists and borne of the complete mess that was made of Iraq. It remains to be seen what others can do with this, but no one has publicly stated years in any way, shape or form. Yes, they are accepting, as is everyone, that the disaster the Republican administration created will not go away overnight, but it is not clear just yet what it will take.
Post a Comment