What is wrong with Hillary Clinton?

Question

In discussion of her desire to withdraw from Iraq, Hillary said, "If we're not planning for it, it will be difficult to execute it in a safe and efficacious way." What I want to know is WHY? If the U.S. wins the war, there should not need to be any kind of additional pull out plans aside from what is normal in such situations. The only reason I can think of that would require a strategic plan of evacuation that took months to put together would be a quick or immediate pull out during the middle of a heated war. But why would we want to pull out before winning the war unless we were losing? Why would we be losing if we have more advanced weapons and technology plus a better trained military?

Hillary has said that she would end the war if elected as president. Has she offered any information as to how she thinks she would be able to win the war? Has she even presented the idea that ending the war would be winning it? It seems like her idea of ending the war is to quit (accept defeat).

News source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070719/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_iraq

Elana, I think you are straying from the terms win and lose because you are unclear on the goals and objectives of the U.S. in this war. I want you to use a little common sense here and ask yourself something. If someone attacks you and you counterattack, will this cause other people to like you? Of course not. We're not in this war to get people to like us. We are letting the world know that if we are attacked, who ever attacks us should expect us to hunt them down and capture them. And anyone who aids the attackers in any way will also be considered enemy. As far as being better off? I believe we are better off having some people dislike us yet affraid to attack us. This would be much better than having some people dislike us and then attack us knowing we won't do anything about it because we're too concerned about whether or not people will like us if we defend ourselves.

Elana, just because I want to know what is wrong with Hillary does not necessarily mean that I am wrong or I am losing an argument. It certainly does not mean that she is right. Why not take it at face value? It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact if you can apply rational thought. Hillary wants the U.S. to lose the war by default due to quitting before it is over. It's not a personal attack; it is her words, and I even provided the news article in reference. How many soldiers have risked their lives for this war? How many soldiers have had to lose their lives for this war? Voluntarily losing the war is pretty much saying to our military that they fought for nothing and died for nothing. They were brave enough to not give up when in combat. I want to know what is wrong with her that she would disrespect these brave men and women as well as the rest of the American people by voluntarily losing the war.

Univee, you fail to realize that I am not the one pushing for a single solution. I am open to an infinite number of plans that do not involve failure. If failure must happen, it should be justified. Taking too long in some people's opinions is not justifiable grounds to declare failure.This is not a matter of taking "potshots" at a politician I dislike. It is a matter of questioning the actions and motives of a politcian I do not like. The reason I do not like this politician is because of these and other similar actions. There is no logic in your attempt at reversal. You are right that I am unqualified to make the best strategic military plans. However, due to Hillary's spoken intentions, I would say I am far ahead of her as far as strategic and critical thinking goes.

To those who answered that HIllary is a liar and a socialist, I agree. However, both liars and socialists are very capable of engaging in war without persistance to run in defeat. The most I can extract from these claims is that she is lying about wanting to pull out of Iraq in order to increase her popularity among the multitude of American voters who are against the war. If that is not the case, we are back at ground zero. What is her problem?

Answer 1

She is not thinking strategic for that region. She sees it as a means to her election, then when the troops are pulled out and an even more sinister Sadam reappears, who cares, she has her job, she can't be impeached for it.....lol

She is after the sympathetic votes that don't like troops being over there, period....

She doesn't see that region as a hot spot and needing some sort of support for peace, since we were killing ourselves since century one.....

Answer 2

Are you dense? In what way, if any -- militarily, politically, or socially -- are we winning the war in Iraq? How many more years of beating our heads against a brick wall do you think it will take before the situation magically changes in our favor? It's Vietnam all over again, our traditional military with all its power and technology cannot defeat an untraditional enemy. It's not a new concept. Just ask the British. Or the French. Or the Ottomans. Or the Romans. Ever hear "Never get involved in a land war in Asia?" Whether or not General MacArthur actually said that is debatable, but history shows time and again that it's excellent advice. Of course, George Bush's genius stopped with learning to spell "W" and how to count to 4, so the concept obviously went right over his head.

Answer 3

Point One
There is NO definable "win point" to this conflict !!
We went in with only one objective -- remove Sadaam
it has since been through a thousand changes-- We have been told dozens of "things" about WHEN we would be "leaving" Iraq -- each time this "thing" was accomplished-- there would be another "thing" that had to be done !!!

Point Two
There will NEVER be a "leaving" in Iraq --- even while all this garbage is being discussed over and over and over again --
Haliburton and the military are hard at work installing Perminent facilities in Iraq for military and diplomatic personnel --- AND -- WE NEVER LEAVE --- EVER !! Look around at the places we've gone in to "liberate" people --- we're still there !!!! We never leave !!!!

Point Three
It is not in the military-industrial complex's best interest to EVER end a conflict !! They benefit by untold measure for a hostile action to continue into forever !!! This means MAJOR funding -- major contracts for supplies -- major bennies for the "scrambled egg hats" and big promotions for ALL !! It also gives them untold, actual battlefield testing of all sorts of tech gear and methods !!

Point Four
If you are fighting a traditional type war in an untraditional situation --- where is the place that you "capture" or "bring down" to bring your enemy to defeat ?? Where are the leaders of this "enemy" that you bring to the treaty table for "the ending of conflicts" ?? And, if you are simply fighting an imported enemy and the enemy is being imported from all over the world -- how can you defeat this by continuing to simply fight the imported personnel without, at some point -- ending the IMPORT of this enemy ??

Ending summation --- for all the talk out of Hilary and all the others -- there will be NO leaving Iraq --- it is being used as a "staging area" for the next phase in the Republican (ie Wolfowitz Doctrine) manefesto that states that the USA has the "God given right" to rule the world !! And, we are headlong into making our situation perminent there in order to take on Iran next !!! That is the gospel truth and I am positive of every single statement that I have made here !!!!

Answer 4

I read in a magazine a article that Hillary had aa toumer an she only has 6 months
to live is thT TRUE

Answer 5

In other words, you are saying that we should only plan for winning? Hey, I'd love to see Iraq become a free country (that would be my definition of winning, though I bet it's not actually yours)... but isn't it prudent to make different sets of plans, so you can have a functioning strategy?

When I was studying tactical deployment (six years of military history and planning experience) we learned that if you were going over a hill into god knew what, you didn't go thinking there could only be one thing on the other side of that hill.

If you were wrong, all your troops would be trapped. So instead, you developed multiple scenarios, in order to stay flexible in battle. This assured the best success for your strategy, and protected your troops best.

It's really simple military logic. But something about you one-way-only dunderheads makes me worry. I'm glad you really aren't a military strategist... just someone taking potshots at a politician you don't like.

I'd leave the real thinking to people with experience... and trust me, there are a lot of people in our military who wonder about your sort of obstinate short sighted thinking.

Answer 6

"If the U.S. wins the war..." - are you dreaming?

This is not a goal of our government.
This is also not an attainable goal.

Not being a Hillary fan, I don't usually follow her political rhetoric.
However, she has a point.
And part of that point is to show that our current administration has not properly planned the Iraq invasion, since day one.

We do need an exit strategy.
We are losing in Iraq, based on the Sunni/Shia/Kurd clans killing each other.

We are not global police and this invasion has deteriorated into a civil war, not a military war.
Advanced weapons mean nothing when the fighting is door-to-door.

Answer 7

"winning" and "losing" are overly simplistic terms, but if you have to break it down to that .. well, we ARE losing the war.

We may be killing faster than we are getting killed, but we are creating more terrorists than we are killing. That is, more people hate us and will want to do us damage than if we had done nothing.

We could *WIN* the war by blowing the entire country and its neighbors off the map with a few well placed atomic bombs, but we would have lost a lot more than we gained, even if by all definitions we would have been considered the winners, right?

Get the words "win" and "lose" out of your mind. The issue is better described with "better off" or "worse off". Right now, the longer we're there, the worse off EVERYBODY (with the exception of the oil companies) is.

Ultimately, I don't think totally removing all American forces is the answer either. However, we need to change how we are perceived - and having Americans occupying the country (and yes, that is how we are viewed) isn't helping.

There are things that military superiority, even if it is VAST military superiority ... will not fix. You cannot unkill somebody and you cannot make bombing look peaceful.

Americans seem to forget this, but nobody else has: The country that has killed the most people with "weapons of mass destruction" is the United States. We may consider it justified ... we may even consider it to have saved lives in the long run (I believe it did) ... but *WE* are the ones with the track record.

Why should anyone in the Middle East perceive us as anything other than imperialist occupiers? They think we're there for the oil - and so far, Bush et. al haven't given us any reason to believe otherwise.

In any case, "wrong with Hillary Clinton" belittles the issue. You are turning this into a personal attack when the problem is military and political logic. She may not agree with you, but by the statement of your question, you are making it seem like a sickness that she has an opinion that differs from yours.

Isn't the ability to express dissent ultimately the freedom that we're trying to tout?

I think she's right. By your own logic, I should be asking YOU "What's wrong with you"?

You know how I know when somebody is losing an argument? I know when they start personally attacking people who disagree with them.

The issue is the issue - not the people who voice opinions.

Answer 8

1. We're not winning.
2. We're losing.
3.The Iraqis want us out.
4. Let the Iraqis vote on whether they want us to remain. When they vote us out, we say Democracy won, and leave.
5. Win-win situation.

Answer 9

Quit the war is all the democrats know. They can't improve anything. They can't change anything for the better. They won't help the average American citizen. Hillary is too bitter to even be a Senator much less a President. Pelosi has her feathers ruffled too. These women act confused most of the time. Mad women are vindictive. Our dependence on foreign oil is a noose around our necks and it is time for America to use other alternatives. We need to return to being a profitable nation. Even our information is getting too old to sale. Return to our roots, rethink who we are and rebuilt a nation so we can RETURN TO GREATNESS. In this country, it can be done overnight. Everything has changed, except God. God doesn't change.

Answer 10

Its not a matter of winning or losing.... What are we fighting for is my question.... Its not a weapons and technology war now its about iraq resisting their new parliment. You will be over there 30 more years if you try to come into a country and change its government. The US should not have its nose where it dosent belong....

Answer 11

All candidates have the war as the platform for their election. But Mrs. Clinton has no resolution besides cutting the funding and pulling the troops out. The polititians took the war out of the hands of the military, thus putting our troops in more danger. Put the war back in the control of the military, it will end soon.