Britain and America

Quickly retreating from Iraq could destroy the presidencies of Clinton or Obama

A must-read column from David Brooks in today's New York Times:

"Both Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have seductively hinted that they would withdraw almost all U.S. troops within 12 to 16 months. But if either of them actually did that, he or she would instantly make Iraq the consuming partisan fight of their presidency.

There would be private but powerful opposition from Arab leaders, who would fear a return to 2006 chaos. There would be irate opposition from important sections of the military, who would feel that the U.S. was squandering the gains of the previous year. A Democratic president with few military credentials would confront outraged and highly photogenic colonels screaming betrayal.

There would be important criticism from nonpartisan military experts. In his latest report, the much-cited Anthony Cordesman describes an improving Iraqi security situation that still requires “strategic patience” and another five years to become self-sustaining.

There would be furious opposition from Republicans and many independents. They would argue that you can’t evacuate troops just as Iraqis are about to hold national elections and tensions are at their highest. They would point out that it’s insanity to end local reconstruction and Iraqi training efforts just when they are producing results. They would accuse the new administration of reverse-Rumsfeldism, of ignoring postsurge realities and of imposing an ideological solution on a complex situation.

All dreams of changing the tone in Washington would be gone. All of Obama’s unity hopes would evaporate. And if the situation did deteriorate after a quick withdrawal, as the National Intelligence Estimate warns, the bloodshed would be on the new president’s head.

Therefore, when a new Democratic administration considered all these possibilities, its members would part ways. A certain number of centrists would conclude that rapid withdrawal is a mistake. They would say that the situation had changed and would call for a strategic review. They’d recommend a long, slow conditions-based withdrawal — constant, small troop reductions, and a lot of regional diplomacy, while maintaining tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for the remainder of the term.

The left wing of the party would go into immediate uproar. They’d scream: This was a central issue of the campaign! All the troops must get out now!

The president would have to make a terrible decision."

Brooks goes on to discuss the nightmare tensions that might erupt between Democrats on federal spending.  Read it all here.

Clinton and Obama throw the china at each other

"With all this broken china on the floor, it’s hard to know where to start picking up the pieces." - New York Times

In last night's Democratic debate in South Carolina things got uglier between the leading candidates (graphic from The Page):

• Obama on Clinton: "This is one of the things that has happened in the course of this campaign. There are a set of assertions made by Sen. Clinton as well as her husband that are not factually accurate."
• "Obama said to Clinton that “while I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart”. Shortly afterwards, she shot back that she was fighting against Reagan’s ideas “when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezco, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago”."  (Toby Harnden).
• Hillary Clinton: "Senator Obama, it is very difficult having a straight up debate with you because you never take responsibility for any vote."

Watch the key clashes below:

PS A poll for the LA Times says that Americans may be more ready for a black man as President than a woman: "72% of whites and 61% of blacks believe the country is ready for a black president. That's up from 65% and 54%, respectively, two years ago... But asked if the country is ready for a female president, blacks and whites both are in agreement; they're less sure -- only 63% of both whites and blacks answer yes."

Hillary Clinton's worldview

This is the third in a series of reviews of the worldviews of leading candidates for the White House as set out in the journal Foreign Affairs.  John McCain and Barack Obama have already been featured.  Tomorrow our attention turns to Mitt Romney.  Today we look at Hillary Clinton's foreign policy priorities: Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century.

America must end the unilateralism of the Bush years: "We had a historic opportunity to build a broad global coalition to combat terror, increase the impact of our diplomacy, and create a world with more partners and fewer adversaries.  But we lost that opportunity by refusing to let the UN inspectors finish their work in Iraq and rushing to war instead. Moreover, we diverted vital military and financial resources from the struggle against al Qaeda and the daunting task of building a Muslim democracy in Afghanistan. At the same time, we embarked on an unprecedented course of unilateralism: refusing to pursue ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, abandoning our commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, and turning our backs on the search for peace in the Middle East. Our withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol and refusal to participate in any international effort to deal with the tremendous challenges of climate change further damaged our international standing... U.S. foreign policy must be guided by a preference for multilateralism, with unilateralism as an option when absolutely necessary to protect our security or avert an avoidable tragedy."

>> Bill Clinton emphasises George W Bush's alleged unilateralism in a soft BBC interview

Democracy promotion should still be a policy goal: "Gnawing hunger, poverty, and the absence of economic prospects are a recipe for despair. Globalization is widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots within societies and between them. Today, there are more than two billion people living on less than $2 a day. These people risk becoming a vast permanent underclass. Calls for expanding civil and political rights in countries plagued by mass poverty and ruled by tiny wealthy elites will fall on deaf ears unless democracy actually delivers enough material benefits to improve people's lives. The Bush administration's policy in Iraq has temporarily given democracy a bad name, but over the long term the value of democracy will continue to inspire the world."

The heat goes out of the Hillary campaign

Photo from Tiger Hawk blog.

BritainAndAmerica still believes that "the machine" - her advisors, ground organisation and money - will see Hillary Clinton become the Democrat nominee but recent events have started to raise serious doubts about her "inevitability".  Obama - although way behind in national polls - is edging ahead in the first two primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire.  He's competitive in South Carolina.

Here are some of the factors that are causing people begin to think that Barack Obama may yet triumph:

Last week's Oprah-Obama show; with one of America's most popular TV presenters endorsing the young Illinois Senator at electric rallies.

Mis-messaging.  Obama has emphasised a message of change.  Clinton has emphasised her experience.  Dick Morris thinks Obama has chosen the better message because the Democrat grassroots "intensely dislikes things as they are".

Continuing concerns that there is something too cold, too calculating about Hillary Clinton.  Her mechanical laugh - on show again this week - is one of the causes of this suspicion.  Bill Clinton's appearances on the campaign trail only reinforce this sense.  Toby Harnden wrote this for today's Telegraph:

"Bill's easy rapport with voters provides a ready contrast with Hillary's awkwardness, reminding Americans that if he has an heir in his ability to connect to crowds on campaign trail, it is not his wife, but her would-be nemesis.  While Mr Obama has journeyed to remote rural areas and answered hundreds of questions, Mrs Clinton has sought refuge in canned speeches and stage-managed "meet and greets" in diners. Her aides were caught planting easy questions in Iowa - an act of sacrilege in a state that cherishes its role as a laboratory for retail politics."

As Peggy Noonan has noted Bill also tends to talk a lot about himself: "He is showing up all over in Iowa and New Hampshire, speaking, shaking hands, drawing crowds. But when he speaks, he has a tendency to speak about himself. It's all, always, me-me-me in his gigantic bullying neediness."

Her persistently high negative ratings.

The dislike factor has been reinforced by mean-spirited attacks on Obama.  A national co-chairman of her campaign resigned after speculating about Obama's drug use in his youth.  The Clinton campaign also issued a press release accusing Obama of wanting to be President all of his life.  Pot, kettle and black come to mind.

Boris and Hillary: A match made in crazytown

Written by Liz Mair.  Liz is a Republican-Conservative and dual US-UK national. Previously based in London, she now works as a political columnist, commentator and consultant in Arlington, Virginia, and writes daily at www.lizmair.com.

In Thursday's Telegraph, beloved bike-riding Conservative MP Boris Johnson made a startling announcement.  He wants Hillary Clinton to be President. 

Readers in America, familiar with Boris’ unique brand of humor and Britons’ reputation for sarcasm, wondered whether his endorsement was an effort to meld Blackadder with real life-- or whether, just maybe, he’d gone a tiny bit mad.  Whatever the case, Boris’ backing of Hillary is likely to raise a few eyebrows—and turn a few stomachs, as well—not least because of his rather odd reasoning.

Boris says he prefers Hillary first because she’s a better candidate than the likes of Barack Obama or Fred Thompson.  Second, unlike Republican Rudy Giuliani, her single marriage has endured.  Third (and most importantly) she’s married to Bill Clinton—and having him back in the White House would be great.

Boris earns a pass with regard to the first point.  Hillary is indeed a better candidate in the purely professional sense than other presidential contenders.  Nary a week passes in which her staff is not praised by pundits for the tightness of its operation.  She is consistently crowned the winner of Democratic debates, courtesy of her perfectly vague, yet smart sounding sound bites.  And, the quality of her candidacy is obvious when one considers that, according to a recent LA Times/Bloomberg poll, nearly 50 percent of Democratic primary voters now back her.

Half of Americans would never vote for Clinton

A new poll by Zogby shows Hillary Clinton topping the league of candidates that Americans would not consider supporting.

50% of nearly 10,000 voters said they would never vote for the New York Senator.  Only 37% said the same of Barack Obama, her principal rival.  There has been something of an 'inevitability' about Mrs Clinton winning the Democrat nomination recently but this poll underlines the danger of her candidacy for her party.  It will be ammunition for Obama as he starts to take the gloves off in a bid to erode her huge advantage of 25.8% in the RCP average of polls.

The leading GOP candidates - Giuliani (43%), McCain (45%) and Romney (42%) are all quite close to each other in terms of the 'I'll never vote for him'.  Huckabee - profiled earlier today on BritainAndAmerica - has the best 'untouchable rating' of the Republican hopefuls; 35%.

BBC grants softest of interviews to Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton is in London to promote his new book on Giving. He has given interviews to the BBC and The Guardian newspaper.

He tells the BBC that he’d be the happiest person on Earth if his wife won the Presidency next year.

Asked why anti-Americanism is so strong at the moment, Bill Clinton said the Bush administration “squandered” the goodwill that America received after 9/11. He highlighted…

…the “failure” to allow the UN inspectors to finish their job in Iraq

...the withdrawal from Kyoto,

…the withdrawal from the anti-ballistic missile treaty,

…walking away from the non-proliferation movement,

…getting out of the International Criminal Court,

…stopping military aid to Latin America.

We went on a go-it-alone, ‘our way or the highway’ course, the former President continued, that has alienated much of the world. Much of President Bush’s own party, he said, do not agree with this approach. Grassroots citizens across America have never been more interested in foreign affairs, he said, and restoring America’s standing in the world. There is a great awareness that no country can solve any major problem on its own.

Bill Clinton’s BBC interviewer John Humphrys was recently described as a “superior Brit” and “extreme Leftist” by former UN Ambassador John Bolton. Humphrys has a reputation for being a tough interrogator but, incredibly unusually, he did not interrupt Bill Clinton or pose any hard questions. A good interviewer would have asked Bill Clinton about the failure of the multilateral institutions he so admires to do anything about Rwanda, Darfur or Burma. A fair interviewer would have questioned whether the Democrats’ deepening protectionism would do anything to restore American standing or its support for quitting Iraq with the work unfinished. A robust interviewer would have quizzed Bill Clinton about the unchecked growth of al-Qaeda whilst he was sat in the Oval Office.

Bill Clinton tells The Guardian that Hillary Clinton, favourite to become America’s next President has given him the job of helping to restore America's standing in the world. He’ll be charged with telling the world that:

“America was open for business and cooperation again after eight years marked by unilateralist policies that have "enrage[d] the world".

Reasons why American Democrats may struggle to tackle anti-Americanism are listed here.

Clinton praised Gordon Brown for his “exemplary” handling of the economy. He described him as an "intelligent, disciplined, profoundly concerned person". He said that David Cameron is an “interesting fellow” who he’d like to meet:

"He is very well-spoken and that is about all I know, because I haven't had the chance to meet him or study the back-and-forth of where they are on the issues. He is a good presence for the Conservative Party, but that's about all I know."

Listen to the full BBC interview here and read The Guardian interview here

Related link: Biased BBC invading America video.

Conservatives shouldn’t welcome President Hillary Rodham Clinton

Peter Cuthbertson responds to Simon Burns MP's recent suggestion that UK Conservatives should support Hillary Clinton.

For reasons good and bad, many conservatives are unhappy with the record of the Bush administration. Chaos in Iraq, increasing government spending and – following victories in 2000, 2002 and 2004 – a major electoral defeat in 2006 all contribute to a sense of disappointment as the current administration approaches its final year. However, it would be entirely mistaken for British Conservatives to do as Simon Burns suggests and welcome the resurgence of a party that has produced the viciousness of Howard Dean, the hypocrisy of Al Gore and the economic policies of John Edwards.

The Democratic Party has also produced substantial historical figures - among them the great cold warrior Harry Truman and the supply-side tax cutter John F. Kennedy. But their field of candidates for the presidency in 2008 lacks the principles and judgement that distinguished such predecessors. All propose policies that would harm British interests.

First, economic. For the second successive election, Democrats running for president do so attacking the free trade that brings America, Britain and all other trading partners greater prosperity. In 2004, John Kerry grotesquely compared employers who outsource labour to the traitor Benedict Arnold. In the run-up to 2008, the three frontrunners for the Democratic nomination again compete to reject free trade most fiercely.

John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have all indicated their scepticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement negotiated by the latter’s husband. For Edwards, “agreements like NAFTA … have cost jobs and devastated towns and communities”. On his campaign web site, Barack Obama boasts that he “voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement and has said that NAFTA should be renegotiated”. Hillary Clinton wants “a little timeout” – a moratorium on any expansion of free trade. This is not mere campaign rhetoric. Obama and Clinton were both in the Senate in 2005 when the Central American Free Trade Agreement narrowly passed, and like the vast majority of Democrats in both Houses of Congress they each voted against. While the top-tier Republican candidates – Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and John McCain - express no such sentiments and stand by promising records on free trade, the Democratic Party is equally united in embracing a move in the opposite direction. Much to the chagrin of many Europhiles, the United States remains Britain’s largest export market and the top destination for overseas investment. When protectionism rears its ugly head in her number one trading partner, Britain cannot afford idly to support the protectionist side.

Is Hillary a moderate hawk?

Joe Lieberman was the last Iraq war hawk in the Democratic Party until he was ousted by the anti-war netroots last year.  Re-elected as an independent Senator he explains what's at stake in Iraq in an article for today's Washington Post:

"Al-Qaeda, after all, isn't carrying out mass murder against civilians in the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenue. Its aim in Iraq isn't to get a seat at the political table; it wants to blow up the table -- along with everyone seated at it... The challenge before us, then, is whether we respond to al-Qaeda's barbarism by running away, as it hopes we do -- abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East and ultimately our own security to the very people responsible for last week's atrocities -- or whether we stand and fight.  To me, there is only one choice that protects America's security -- and that is to stand, and fight, and win."

Of the Democrat presidential candidates nearly all are avowedly anti-war.  Part of the reason for Barack Obama's improving ratings is the fact that he opposed the Iraq war from day one.  John Edwards has said that he regrets his Iraq war vote whilst Senator for North Carolina.  Hillary Clinton has refused to retract - much to the consternation of the anti-war netroots.  Some believe Mrs Clinton's loyalty to her 2002 vote comes from a fear of looking like a flip-flopper.  In an article for the April 2nd edition of the relaunched New Republic, Michael Crowley speculates at the real reason why she won't apologise.  Mrs Clinton might be a moderate hawk.  Here are some of Crowley's main points:

• During her late twenties Hillary Clinton briefly attempted to enlist in the Marines.
• She was a supporter of the bombing of Serbia in the late nineties, subsequently explaining: "I urged [Bill Clinton] to bomb.  You cannot let [ethnic cleansing] 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?"
• In 1999 she said: "I am very pleased that this president and administration have made democracy one of the centrepieces of our foreign policy."
• A 2000 speech in which Mrs Clinton said: "There is a refrain... that we should intervene with force only when we face splendid little wars that we surely can win, preferably by overwhelming force in a relatively short period of time. To those who believe we should become involved only if it is easy to do, I think we have to say that America has never and should not shy away from the hard task if it is the right one."
• A number of her unofficial foreign policy advisers are "generally hawkish."  Although not a supporter herself of the President's increased troop deployments she regular confers with Jack Keane, an architect of 'the Baghdad surge'.
• Explaining her vote for the Iraq war she has consistently said that she does not regret deferring to Bush's authority - only the way he used that authority.

None of this will be enough to convince many that Mrs Clinton is a hawk but she certainly stands apart from the militancy of the anti-war factions within her party.

Meanwhile - back in Britain - our leading leftish hawk, Tony Blair, defends his "liberal interventionism" in an interview with The Guardian.  This is an extract from Timothy Garton Ash's account of his meeting with Britain's soon-to-quit Prime Minister:

"So what is the distinctive feature of Blair's own approach? What is the essence of Blairism? His answer could not be clearer: "It is liberal interventionism." Blairism is, he elaborates, about a progressive view of the world, starting from the reality of interdependence in an age of globalisation, and acting according to certain values. "I'm a proud interventionist." He would not withdraw anything he said in his 1999 Chicago speech, with its liberal interventionist "doctrine of international community". Even if it is true, as I suggest, that the Bush administration is rowing backwards from its advocacy of democratisation as a central plank of its foreign policy, he is not: "Whether they do or not, I don't."

Next in this series of reflections from BritainAndAmerica's week in Washington will be a post on 'The unhappiness of America's conservatives.'