The Concord Monitor newspaper is published in Concord, N.H:
By CONCORD MONITOR
For the second weekend in a row, Sen. Hillary Clinton brought her presidential campaign to New Hampshire. So, for the second weekend in a row, Clinton was asked whether she regrets her 2002 vote to authorize President Bush to use military force in Iraq. Someone else should ask her about Iraq right now.
As in: Sen. Clinton, you've made clear you believe the president's decision to send more troops to Iraq is a bad one. They are going nonetheless. Do you wish them success?
This is not a rhetorical question. Critics of the president routinely declare their "support" for the men and women serving in Iraq: It's the mission they mean to denigrate, not the men and women charged with carrying it out. This is true on the presidential campaign trail, in congressional speechmaking and in scores of letters to this newspaper.
It would be refreshing if a candidate who doesn't believe progress can be made in Iraq would add that she or he hopes to be proven wrong.
For better or worse, roughly 140,000 Americans are very much in harm's way in Iraq. The ones in Baghdad, the focus of the president's revised strategy, are especially at risk. It may be the longest of long shots that these troops will be able to bring a measure of peace and stability to the Iraqi capital. But they are there. Shouldn't every American hope they beat the odds?
Of course we should.
Another question someone should ask Sen. Clinton: You said in New Hampshire last weekend, "If this president doesn't extricate us from Iraq, as president, I will." That's 2009 you were talking about. How can you already know what will be the wisest course in two years?
It's one thing to be critical of President Bush's past handling of the war in Iraq. The intelligence failures before the invasion, the negligence of the planning for life after Saddam, the unwillingness to recognize and adjust to the dangerous direction of events on the ground — for all these Bush deserves condemnation.
The present policy is also fair game, and members of Congress who believe it's irresponsible not to begin withdrawing U.S. forces should stand up for the course they believe is right.
But 2009? What if the current operation yields success? What if it fails miserably and many troops do withdraw, but new crises in December 2008 compel a reoccupation?
These days it's bad form for a Democratic presidential candidate to acknowledge that future American military intervention will be required. But whoever becomes president in 2009 is all but destined to oversee combat operations somewhere. Instead of announcing which wars she won't fight two years from now, Clinton should articulate more clearly what she wants to happen in the current war.
