In May 2007, Senator Hillary Clinton sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. She wrote, “Given the express will of the Congress to implement a phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq and the importance of proper contingency planning to achieve that goal, I write to request that you provide the appropriate oversight committees in Congress – including the Senate Armed Services Committee – with briefings on what current contingency plans exist for the future withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Alternatively, if no such plans exist, please provide an explanation for the decision not to engage in such planning.”
Republican Eric Edelman, Undersecretary in the Department of Defense, responded to the letter by saying that the Department of Defense would refuse to allow the Senate to conduct its constitutionally-established oversight responsibilities, writing to Senator Clinton that “Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda”.
Consider what Edelman’s claim really means. He is claiming that, just by discussing the issue of whether the military occupation if Iraq should end, Americans like Hillary Clinton are aiding the enemy. He suggests that Senator Clinton just stop talking about the issue.
Edelman and his right wing supporters just don’t seem to understand the way that democracy works. In a democracy, government policies are supposed to be arrived at through a process of lengthy and comprehensive discussion of possible alternatives. In the United States, Congress is given the power of oversight of the Executive Branch, including the military, in order to ensure that such discussions take place.
Besides, Edelman’s credibility is broken when he describes Senator Clinton’s request for contingency planning for Iraq as “premature”. The American military has been bogged down in Iraq, making no progress on stabilizing the country, for four years. The American public has been engaged in a debate about whether a withdrawal is appropriate for all of that time.
Edelman further complains to Senator Clinton that “Such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks in order to achieve compromises on national reconciliation, amending the Iraqi constitution, and other contentious issues.”
If Iraqi government officials are unnerved at the processes of American democracy, ought we to squelch our democracy to make them feel better? Edelman seems to think so.
However, the premises of this suggestion are flawed. First of all, the Iraqi government is making very little progress to achieve the compromises that Edelman refers to. Secondly, as Senator Clinton suggested herself in the letter she sent to Secretary Robert Gates, the Iraqi equivalent of the Department of Defense is making contingency plans of its own for working with an American military withdrawal. Clinton explained, “Defense Minister Abdul-Qader al-Obeidi is preparing plans in the event that the United States and its forces departed Iraq quickly, reviewing worst-case scenarios, and conducting meetings with Iraq’s political leadership on this issue.”
Is the United States of America to be less prepared for developments in Iraq than the Iraqis themselves? That seems like a sure recipe for failure, but it is the course that Eric Edelman and his right wing supporters suggest.
Senator Clinton is right. We deserve better.
(Sources: Office of Senator Hillary Clinton, Letter of May 22, 2007 and Response of June 16, 2007)
