Hillary Clinton - War then, War now

War then - 23 DEC 1997 via DefenseLink:

BRUSSELS, Dec. 23, 1997 – During a preholiday visit to Bosnia Dec. 22 President Clinton told American troops thanks to their efforts, the Balkan nation is no longer "the powder keg at the heart of Europe."

"We gave you a mission and you delivered," Clinton told members of the Army's 1st Armored Division and 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment. "What you are doing for your country is a good and noble thing," he said. "You are doing it well, and we are grateful."

"They made an agreement at Dayton that we are doing our dead level best to help them enforce," Clinton said. The United States is determined not only to do its part, but also expects the Bosnians to theirs, he said.

The president told American troops at Eagle Base the young Muslims, Serbs and Croats he met in Sarajevo all want peace. "It was like a chorus," Clinton said, "They said, 'Stay just a little longer. We don't understand why we're supposed to hate each other. We don't want that kind of future. Please stay.'"

Clinton's visit came four days after he announced U.S. forces will participate in a follow-on peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. "In spite of all you have done," he said in Tuzla, "I think it is imperative that we not stop until the peace here has a life of its own, until it can endure without us. We have worked too hard to let this go."

Grand outlook from a President, and how did we get there?

From Hillary’s Choice by Gail Sheehy, p.345 Dec 9, 1999 at On The Issues:

On March 21, 1999, Hillary expressed her views by phone to the President: “I urged him to bomb.” The Clintons argued the issue over the next few days. [The President expressed] what-ifs: What if bombing promoted more executions? What if it took apart the NATO alliance? Hillary responded, “You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?” The next day the President declared that force was necessary.

And what of this concept of running and causing a holocaust? Brave ideals, surely.

Remarks at The Sorbonne, Paris, France Jun 17, 1999 by Hillary Clinton from On The Issues:

I’ve met people who are determined to rebuild Kosovo with a sense of positive energy and not vindictiveness and retribution. This has been possible because our nations-our leaders and our citizens-stood up against evil. Now there are some who I know who would quibble with my use of that word, but I think it fully describes the conflict we have been waging these last few months. The many democracies that came together to wage this battle against Milosevic may have spoken different languages and even held different political views. But they have sent a unified message at the end of this century that says we will not turn away when human beings are cruelly expelled, or when they are denied basic rights and dignities because of how they look or how they worship. When crimes against humanity rear their ugly heads, we have to send such a message as an international community.

Yes, crimes against huminty by a foul dictator. Crimes against Nations and Peoples. Very much a terrorist regime. There are, however, prices to pay...

1997 report on a staff trip to the NTC and JRTC (National Training Center (NTC) and the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) conducted by Senate staff:

Army-wide Shortages in Key Personnel

Despite high operating tempos and work loads, both OPFORs at the NTC and JRTC were described as fully manned, enjoying high esprit de corps, and having retention rates at least as good as the rest of the Army, if not better. For the units rotating into the NTC and JRTC—i.e. the Army's combat units; that is to say, the heart and sole of the Army—there is a very different story. I was told the following:

Units coming to both training centers frequently do not come with many of their sub-unit commanders; these have frequently been assigned to peacekeeping missions or other deployments that separate them from their units. As a result, sub-units—from basic squads on up—do not train with the commanders that they would go to war with. When this happens, it violates a key dictum of readiness and one of the basic points of having the NTC and the JRTC: the Army should “train just as you go to war.”

At the NTC, units rotating in typically come with a 60% shortage in mechanics and a 50% shortage in “mounted” mechanized infantry (in their Bradley APCs). These were described as “Army-wide” shortages: they were demonstrated by virtually all the units coming to the NTC. These shortages were described as due to these personnel, especially the mechanics, being deployed abroad for missions such as Bosnia. On average, all Army personnel now spend from 180 to 220 days of each year away from their home base, and families, on deployments. This average used to be about 165 days per year. According to Army testimony to Congress, the increase in these deployments is for peacekeeping missions.

At the JRTC, units were described as typically missing 25% of their basic infantry: mostly junior enlisted personnel with combat military specialties and mid grade non-commissioned officer (NCO) personnel. This was described as a recruiting problem and specifically not because of deployments such as Bosnia.

In actuality, these problems may be worse than indicated here. I was told at the NTC that the NCO shortages are often temporarily addressed by pulling junior NCOs into the unfilled senior and mid level slots to make more complete units for training purposes. At the JRTC, because one third of each brigade's junior enlisted and NCO personnel do not deploy for a rotation, it is possible that gaps in the units that do deploy are filled with those that would otherwise stay home. I was told this is not occurring; however, I am skeptical that it never happens.

Warning from the Senate on the readiness of US forces as seen from the training centers, if the President would care to listen.

10 NOV 1999 briefing on Army Readinessfrom Defenselink:

The Army chief of staff reported to Congress on October 26th that the Army remains a trained and ready force, able to fight and win our nation's wars, if called upon.

Current concerns about readiness are the result of two of the Army's 10 combat divisions reporting a lower-than-normal readiness level for the month of October in the category of personnel availability. These Army divisions are presently providing forces to the Balkans, the 10th Mountain Division in Bosnia and the 1st Infantry Division in Kosovo.

These divisions have deployed fully ready forces to the Balkans. The issue is not resource inadequacies -- that is, training, manning, or equipment shortfalls. Instead, it reflects the fact that the Army's current readiness reporting system requires commanders to assess and report their unit's level of readiness based upon their ability to deploy ready forces to a major theater war within time lines established in the war plans. Further, commanders report the readiness of their divisions as a whole and do not report separately for their forces split between home station and the Balkans.

The commanders have lowered readiness assessments out of concern that they may be unable to disengage from the Balkans, retrain, and redeploy forces in time to meet their major theater war requirement deployment dates, as specified in the current war plans.

We have a force structure capable of winning two near-simultaneous major theater wars, not two wars plus a small-scale contingency. We've made that clear that in the event of a two major theater war scenario; all of our forces will be required.

Therefore, we will be required to withdraw these units from the Balkans in the event of such a scenario. To ensure their ability to redeploy quickly and meet this readiness concern, the Army, the European Command, the Joint Staff and the Office of Secretary of Defense have taken a series of steps:

First, we are building a detailed Redeployment Plan into our deliberate planning process. This, along with an Army-led training initiative, will speed up the time line required for retraining and redeployment so that units can get to the war fight more quickly.

Second, where necessary, other units will be substituted in our existing war plans for units deployed to the Balkans that would otherwise be required in the initial phases of a major conflict, so-called early-deployers.

Third, we are planning to use the Army National Guard units more frequently in the Balkans to free up active units to prepare for their principal wartime mission.

Fourth, the Army is modifying readiness reporting procedures to better reflect division readiness for units with dual missions, for small-scale contingencies and major theater war requirements.

Two Army Divisions overextended, overworked, under supplied by a President who didn't care.

23 MAR 2003 via YouTube posting of Code Pink meeting with Hillary Clinton:

"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.

For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.

The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.

I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people who's opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."

Yes, another tyrant to be confronted and terrorism, again, rears its ugly head as sponsored by a Nation often against its own People.

War now - Hillary Clinton 10 JUL 2007 speech at Speech at the Temple for the Performing Arts in Des Moines:

This will be my first and most important mission as President -- one I believe I have the strength and experience to complete. Today, I want to lay out my three point plan for how I would achieve this -- how, as President, I would bring our troops home, work to bring stability to the region, and replace a military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in securing Iraq's future and America's national security interests.

What of running and causing a 'holocaust', Sen. Clinton? You did vote for this conflict. Of course you voted for Bosnia and Kosovo, too, by speaking with your husband on them.

Really there does need to be some enlightenment from you, Sen. Clinton, on why running from Iraq while they are still trying to get things up and running would *not* cause a holocaust. Or are you looking to be the author of the first holocaust of the 21st century?

Even worse is that quote you gave earlier: "This has been possible because our nations-our leaders and our citizens-stood up against evil."

Bringing a war torn Nation together because our leaders stand TOGETHER to do so after a war. A war that your husband never had bothered to get declared anywhere, for any 'peacekeeping' missions in places that were none too peaceful. While in a conflict that you helped to authorize, Sen. Clinton, you are now willing to show divisiveness and run from people who are uniting to get their country together and look to us for help. What gives with this, Sen. Clinton? All grand and glorious when little hell-holes of 'peacekeeping' turn out to be multi-year and over a decade, but when a large war, to take down a tyrant who refused to abide by agreements he made, that defied the international community as you well know, and authorized by Congress just might take more than six or seven years to sort out... why backing of one and not the other? And just where was your husband in assuring that the troops had proper rotation cycles during his overextension of them during PEACE TIME?

Hillary Clinton's most perfect wars: Bosnia and Kosovo. And let the military deteriorate as those perfect little wars are fought and un-won. Just how well are the Balkans doing these days? All constitutional democracies now? Regular free and fair elections going on all the time?

Finally, there is the problem of this question you posed to Gen. Patraeus, Sen. Clinton (via FNC Hannity & Colmes):

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It is a policy that you have been ordered to implement by the president. And you have been made the de facto spokesman for what many of us believe to be a failed policy. Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.

As First Lady, and no doubt hearing some reports by Four Star Generals during your time in the White House, did you ever, once in your time there, need to have a 'willing suspension of disbelief' when they talked to your husband? What, in particular, makes you so sure that the entire Armed Forces has been so thoroughly corrupted over the last 6 or so years that you would EVER need to have a 'suspension of disbelief' when a Four Star General gives a report to Congress? And I am sure that a classified report is made available to Congress as background material. So what, in particular, do you doubt, Sen. Clinton?

Or are you pining for the day of that perfect little war of 'peacekeeping' in the Balkans that *still* hasn't come to any real sort of conclusion? Why can't we National Leadership that comes together on one of the foremost security questions of our times?

And why, Sen. Clinton, do you want to lead the charge to defeat and genocide? For that is what all of Congress will get tagged with if Iraq does not get together with our help. That is our responsibility after a war that Congress has put its stamp of approval on. You, talking to the Pinkies, said that the 'world community' is not to be trusted leading such things or running them. That includes the 'international community' as part of that.

Or are you just 'triangulating' with national security?

And leading us, as your husband did, to increasing terrorism that finally came to our shores?

You were part of that, remember?

How about living up to your own fine views on coming together as a National Leader, Sen. Clinton? Or is that beneath you, to just be a Senator of the United States living up to the commitments that you approved?

That 20% of victory smells like defeat to Sen. Reid

So lets say that you are Sen. Reid and needing to grasp at straws. In this Dana Bash interview, Sen. Reid tells us that he will not believe Gen. Petraeus when he tells him how things are going on in Iraq! Yes, he is such a lovely man, that Sen. Reid, probably set to do is great 'Karnak' bit, with putting an envelope to his head and foretelling doom and gloom. The Senator also boldly declares that Gen. Petraeus has said that the military is only '20%' of the solution in Iraq. Yes, indeedy, you do say that... but what is interesting is that it was Gen. Abizaid that said that. From Jim Hoagland, WaPo on 14 JAN 2007, who I got via the simple search of: petraeus "20 percent". And here is where it crops up:

The appointment of Petraeus is another indication of Bush's willingness to go on the offensive and his dissatisfaction with the cautious, bureaucratic approach taken to the Iraqi campaign by Gen. John Abizaid, who is departing as head of Central Command. Abizaid's repeated protestations to Bush and his national security team that military means could provide only 20 percent of what was needed to make Iraq secure wore thin in White House meetings, officials who were there have told me.

Now, I am looking around for the *real* Gen. Petraeus quote on that. Which comes from America Abroad Media, with an interview with the General on 17 SEPT 2006:

00:20:00
I: I wanted to get to the idea that counterinsurgency is 20-percent military, 80-percent political and sort of how that plays out.

00:20:09
R: Well that’s a--a common feature of counter-insurgency literature and--and Doctrine and has--has been for years. But it--well it’s--it’s from David Galula’s classic book, which in fact is read by all of the students at the Command and General Staff College, where I might add we had gone from having about five-percent of the curriculum of the average Command and General Staff College student covering counter-insurgency to over 40-percent and even higher depending on the electives. But Galula’s book--a number of others all certainly and you can certainly debate whether the percentage is 20/80 or 30/70 or who knows what but--but clearly there has to be a primacy of the political aspects. At the end of the day that’s what this is about--it is about helping another nation in this case forge a sense of political community, of unity, of moving forward together and then improving in the economic realm, improving in the realm of basic services, improving in terms of--of security, of justice, and all of the other aspects that any society aspires to enjoy.

Now, considering that Gen. Petreaus re-wrote the book on Counter-Insurgency, this is obviously interesting. So that 20-30% is first and foremost standard COIN training from classical literature on the subject, and, secondly, the other aspects are in the Nation being helped by the COIN work. The rest of that work is helping that Nation: stand up a viable and healthy political system, help the communities of that Nation coalesce into a National whole, improving the economic capability of that Nation so it can meet basic needs and provide good jobs, and ensuring that security is provided for safety and yet does not trample on justice.

Perhaps Sen. Reid was thinking of something else?

Suddenly that 20% is an *integrated* 20% which cannot be removed without the other 80% falling down. They are NOT separate pieces but an interlocking whole to make things work in tandem.

And then from Gen. Petraeus some insight as to what is necessary to facilitate that work:

00:24:36
I: In very clear terms – for listeners who at this point may see it as being very amorphous – who are the insurgents? Who are we fighting in Iraq and--and Afghanistan as well?

00:24:51
R: Well I’ll--I’ll leave Afghanistan to those who have served there and although I’ve visited there I would again defer to those who have been on the ground for extended periods. But certainly in Iraq the challenges right now are on the one hand the insurgents with whom we’ve been grappling and with whom the Iraqi Security Forces have been grappling since certainly mid-2003 but now also sectarian militias that have very much become active particularly in the wake again of the Gold Dome Mosque bombing on Samara when the third holiest shrine in Shia Islam was--was devastated by an explosion by--by insurgents we believe. And it was a time when as a result Shia militia in particular became much, much more active than they had been before and that has complicated things enormously. The insurgents certainly are a mix of some that are just literally religious extremists who will never reconcile with the kind of government that--that and society that Iraqis are--are striving to forge. There are certainly some former Saddam(ists), former regime members who again also will never have a place in--in the new Iraq. And there are--no there’s also a--a violent criminal element that has taken--taken advantage of the absence of the rule of law in certain parts of the country. Those are the kinds of challenges again that our Soldiers are--are contending with and that the Iraqi Security Forces and the Iraqi government as a whole are having to come to grips with and certainly Prime Minister Maliki’s initiative to reconcile with those Sunni Arabs in particular who felt that they did not have a place in the new Iraq is a very significant step forward and then the--the government will certainly have to come to grips with the militias who have caused such bloodshed, again particularly in the last six months or so.

It appears that in Iraq getting the *political* part of the mix along with the *security* part is necessary. In point of fact if you abandon the latter you do not get the former. Without fighting the Ba'athists, sectarian militias, and general plain thugs and killers-for-hire sorts, you don't GET the political part as there is no feeling of safety to take action, politically. And then the good General is asked if there is anything that people should know about what is going on:

00:38:48
I: Great; I feel like we’ve hit upon a lot of things. Is there anything in particular that you feel like people should know about? That often is overlooked?

00:38:59
R: Yeah; the Army’s response has been absolutely comprehensive and--and I think it’s very, very important to recognize that; this is not just the publication of--of a Manual; it’s not just changing the training at the National Training Center; it’s not just tweaking courses in the Command and General Staff College. It is across our Army. Our Chief of Staff charged those of us who are--are in this business in the institutional side of the Army to take an absolutely holistic approach and we have; so it’s all of our Doctrinal Manuals that are getting the--the re-look, the refinement--perhaps in some cases completely new Manuals. It’s all of our Commissioned, Non-Commissioned and Warrant Officer courses; it’s the training at each of our Combat Training Centers and even the Virtual Combat Training Center which uses simulations which used to be very, very exclusively kinetic. They were exclusively attrition models but now there’s even a non-kinetics effects model that has been developed and is being used on--on a larger basis. It is the capturing of observations, insights and lessons from what’s going on down range and providing those back and exploiting knowledge management tools to do that now as well, so that you can send them back with the touch of a send-key, so that you can share them in virtual communities and--and cyberspace and secure military networks. It’s revamping the organizational structures of our Army and it is adding certain Units that we need more of and then in some cases reducing numbers of others. So this is a very, very again comprehensive approach; it has been ongoing now for--for certainly for several years. We have a while to go but there has been very substantial progress that has been made in this effort.

Just some things that he sees as important to understand about how things are going. Which is a total overhaul of Doctrine, Training, feedback, organizations, networks, unit types and deployment, and turning that into a continual feedback environment. You know, not 'staying the course'? The thing that is harped on by so many critics. Guess things have not been staying the course for awhile now, but they just can't seem to pick up on that.

So what is it that Sen. Reid is thinking of? Surely not pure domestic politics? Because that has NO PLACE in outlook for the Foreign Affairs of the Nation. That was determined by the Supreme Court some time ago in the ruling on US v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.! This lovely ruling was handed down on 21 DEC 1936 and puts down the Law of the Land when addressing who can and cannot do Foreign Policy for the United States:

[..]

(2) The powers of the Federal Government over foreign or external affairs differ in nature and origin from those over domestic or internal affairs. P. 315.

(3) The broad statement that the Federal Government can exercise no powers except those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and such implied powers as are necessary and proper to carry into effect the enumerated powers, is categorically true only in respect of our internal affairs. In that field, the primary purpose of the Constitution was to carve from the general mass of legislative powers then possessed by the States such portions as it was thought desirable to vest in the Federal Government, leaving those not included in the enumeration still in the States. Id.

(4) The States severally never possessed international powers. P. 316.

(5) As a result of the separation from Great Britain by the Colonies, acting as a unit, the powers of external sovereignty passed from the Crown not to the Colonies severally, but to the Colonies in their collective and corporate capacity as the United States of America. Id.

(6) The Constitution was ordained and established, among other things, to form "a more perfect Union." Prior to that event, the Union, declared by the Articles of Confederation to be "perpetual," was the sole possessor of external sovereignty, and in the Union it remained without change save insofar as the Constitution, in express terms, qualified its exercise. Though the States were several, their people, in respect of foreign affairs, were one. P. 317.

(7) The investment of the Federal Government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution. P. 318.

(8) In the international field, the sovereignty of the United States is complete. Id.

(9) In international relations, the President is the sole organ of the Federal Government. P. 319.

(10) In view of the delicacy of foreign relations and of the power peculiar to the President in this regard, Congressional legislation which is to be made effective in the international field must [p306] often accord to him a degree of discretion and freedom which would not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved. P. 319.

(11) The marked difference between foreign and domestic affairs in this respect is recognized in the dealings of the houses of Congress with executive departments. P. 321.

[..]

Yes, quite some time ago... that the sole organ of the Federal Government for international relations is the President. Not Congress in any way, shape or form. Now perhaps Sen. Reid can actually take that copy of the Constitution out of his pocket and READ THE DAMNED THING. The legislative is a check and balance as part of government and NOT co-equal as it has separated duties and responsibilities that are checks and balances to the executive and judicial. Perhaps that has escaped him, and he has forgotten the job description in the poor thing that hasn't seen the light of day, save when the jacket goes to the cleaners. Assuming he takes it out, of course.

To help out a bit here is the job description for this area. The following is from Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, in part:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Now, perhaps Sen. Reid can actually start DOING HIS JOB?

And if you cannot find it in your heart of hearts to actually do your job, Sen. Reid, then it is time to resign. I suggest you do so quickly after insulting the General commanding the forces of the Union in Iraq to help their people stand up for themselves after being ground under the heel of a tyrant for decades.