Hillary and the Coming Pooper Scooper Era

Last night, Hillary Clinton came out with a fairly nuanced position on Iraq, arguing that she would keep some troops in the country to guard against al-Qaeda, protect the Kurds, and prevent invasions from neighboring countries.

Matthew Iglesias expressed a rather respectful position of general disagreement.

I'm going to have to think about it though. Maybe I'll do some of that thinking here

The overriding reality for the next president if he or she is a Democrat is that they're going to have to devote most of their energies to cleaning up the Bush mess. The day Bush leaves office, the pooper scooper era is going to begin.

In that sense, Hillary Clinton is to be commended for outlining a coherent position on Iraq even though that position is hard to swallow for anti-war types like myself. Her idea is that American troops would serve as a kind of ballast to prevent the Iraq situation from getting horribly worse while the Shiites and the Sunnis negotiate or fight their way out of their problems.

It's not a bad idea especially because Hillary acknowledges (unlike neo-con delusionals) that the U. S. is not going to be able to dictate a winner in Iraq's sectarian conflicts.

But I agree more with the Pelosi/Murtha position that the American troop presence in Iraq should be limited to training Iraqis while the bulk of American forces would be withdrawn to Kuwait and other Middle Eastern spots and put into a wait and see mode concerning any possible al-Qaeda take-over in Anbar. Having American forces close by would deter Turkish or Saudi invasion while it might turn out that a large-scale withdrawal of American troops actually would diminish support for al-Qaeda in Anbar.

The Pelosi/Murtha position is hardly risk free, but I believe that minimizing the American mission in Iraq is the better way to go.