You can call this diary what you will. I’ve had it. Been there, believed that.

It’s also a diary rescue of fairleft’s diary, “Hillary, I’ll still occupy Iraq in 2017”.

There was a time when I largely accepted our Democratic party leaders without critically examining their views. That time is gone.

When I forwarded fairleft’s diary link to a friend of mine, rather than critically examining the links and information provided, he accused me of “trying to undermine the Democratic party’s strongest leaders”, who, he said, “are our best hope for a return to constitutional democracy and the rule of law”.

I beg to disagree. We the people are our best hope for a return to constitutional democracy and the rule of law, not, as he would push, party loyalty. Pressures to impeach are largely coming from below, from we the people.

Further, our failure to critically examine the democratic candidates on foreign policy, including the Iraq war, will further endanger this fragile democracy, in my view
The truth of the matter is, Hillary is becoming the darling of certain right media pundits, because she speaks their language.

Fairleft linked to this Ted Koppel report on NPR, not exactly a bastion of the farleft (Koppel or NPR). In his report, he states that Hillary, behind the scenes and to a “senior military advisor”, says that we will have troops in Iraq through the next two terms of presidental office (maybe her’s).

Now here is what her website says:

Hillary opposes permanent bases in Iraq. She believes we may need a vastly reduced residual force to train Iraqi troops, provide logistical support, and conduct counterterrorism operations. But that is not a permanent force, and she has been clear that she does not plan a permanent occupation.

And in in this interview with the New York Times, Hillary says:

I think we have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq, and I’ve spoken about that on many different occasions.

I think it really does matter whether you have a failed province or a region that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda. It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.

So I think we have a remaining military as well as political mission, trying to contain the extremists.

I think we have a vital national security interest and obligation to try to help the Kurds manage their various problems in the north so that one of our allies, Turkey, is not inflamed, and they are able to continue with their autonomy. I think we have a vital national security interest — if the Iraqis ever get their act together — to continue to provide logistical support, air support, training support. I don’t know that that is going to be feasible, but I would certainly entertain it. And I think we have a continuing vital national security interest in trying to prevent Iran from crossing the border and having too much influence inside of Iraq.

I think it is these two quotes from above that stand out for me:

I think we have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq, and I’ve spoken about that on many different occasions.

I think it really does matter whether you have a failed province or a region that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda. It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests…
…So I think we have a remaining military as well as political mission, trying to contain the extremists.

So there you have it folks. Hillary believes we have remaining “vital national security interests in Iraq”, which she has apparently spoken about before, although maybe we aren’t listening.

She doesn’t exactly identify those “vital national security interests”, although strong clues in the next sentence, when she mentions Iraq is “in the heart of the oil region”, in “opposition to our interests” (again, what are our “interests”), in opposition to “Israel’s interests”.

As citizens of a democracy, it is our duty to question whatever comes out of the mouths of those who would be elected to office and lead us. Anything short of this is blind adherence to dogma, and a kind of complacency and complicity that has nothing whatsover to do with democracy.

Fairleft also linked to the very excellent article by Ira Chernus on Antiwar.com, in which Chernus looks at the statements by Hillary, Obama and Edwards on foreign policy.

Their statements give me cause for concern, and I hope they do you as well, for as Chernus points out, now is the time to examine a failed foreign policy strategy that is behind a failed war:

The other debate about Iraq – the one that may matter more in the long run – is the one going on in the private chambers of the policymakers about what messages they should send, not so much to enemies as to allies. Bush, Cheney, and their supporters say the most important message is a reassuring one: “When the U.S. starts a fight, it stays in until it wins. You can count on us.” For key Democrats, including congressional leaders and major candidates for the imperial presidency, the primary message is a warning: “U.S. support for friendly governments and factions is not an open-ended blank check. If you are not producing, we’ll find someone else who can.”

The two sides are hashing this one out in a sometimes strident, sometimes relatively chummy manner. The outcome will undoubtedly make a real difference, especially to the people of Iraq, but it’s still only a dispute about tactics, never about goals, which have been agreed upon in advance.

Yet it’s those long-range goals of the bipartisan consensus that add up to the seven-decade-old drive for imperial hegemony, which got us into Vietnam, Iraq, and wherever we fight the next large, disastrous war. It’s those goals that should be addressed. Someone has to question that drive. And what better moment to do it than now, in the midst of another failed war? Unfortunately, the leading Democratic candidates aren’t about to take up the task. I guess it must be up to us.

It must be up to us to examine the prevailing foreign policy of both parties, critically, to change the course of our future.

Otherwise, war without end, interference in the governments of other countries without end, is our future. Unless, of course, if you agree with that sort of thing.

I for one believe we have to put our money, our resources, our time into solving our problems here at home. I live in New Orleans, so I can tell you, we haven’t begun here at home to ending the crisis in an eroding standard of living for our own citizens, nowhere more evident than in our failure to rebuild public services in New Orleans, where people are suffering and dying for the lack thereof.

As Chernus points out, Hillary, Obama and Edwards support increasing the strength of the military, and they make no bones about why.

As Edwards says in this speech entitled “A Strong Military for a New Century”,

A second mission is to ensure that the problems of weak and failing states do not create dangers for the United States. We face substantial security threats from states that fall apart. These situations are not only dangerous for these countries’ civilian populations; they create regional instability and can strengthen terrorist groups that, in turn, directly threaten the United States.

A third mission is maintaining our strategic advantage against major competitor states that could do us harm and otherwise threaten our interests.

I for one do not believe that it is in our interests to prop up failing states, particularly when it has often been our very actions that have led to “failing states”, whether through military intervention, WTO policies, or the secret undermining of regimes.

And is it really in our “interests” to use the military to “maintain our strategic advantage against major competitor states that could do us harm and otherwise threaten our interests”?

Again, just how are our “interests” defined?

We the people determine our fate. And if we continue to fail to critically examine the views of our leaders who would be presidents, then we have no one but ourselves to blame if this great democratic experiment fails.