Hillary Clinton and Iraq

by
Jaime O. Perez



The Presidency - Diversity

Hillary Clinton, Partisans & Inclusiveness

There has been a great deal of rhetoric regarding how inclusive the candidates running for President are going to be. Some Presidential candidates are touting they have diverse staffs (meaning black, Hispanic, gay et al.) and insisting they are sensitive to border issues, for example.

But, serious minded people want more than lip-service to diversity, they want inclusiveness. In his State of the Union address, President George W. Bush asked to be allowed an opportunity to demonstrate increased troop levels will improve the situation in Iraq. Hillary Clinton seemed to say that she understands the importance and the dire consequences of failure and seemed to agree with President Bush’s notion that, “Failure is not an option.” Meanwhile, the partisan media loves to proclaim no one is stepping up to the plate to offer solutions to the quagmire in Iraq nor offering alternatives to the Bush strategy. We beg to differ.

This writer has on multiple occasions written about alternatives to address the bloody morass the neocons created. Those recommendations have been ignored by the Bush White House. But, is Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, John Edwards, John McCain listening to anyone except the Washington establishment and partisan “consultants?”

Put another way, is inclusiveness by partisan Presidential candidates limited to hiring more people of color to drive their car, stuff envelopes at the campaign office and serve them coffee at fundraisers, or are they serious about listening to their views on American affairs. The question is a legitimate and, certainly, a fair one. Many people have been historically left out of the political decision processes.

In short, we want the Presidential candidates to get off the phone with pollsters and listen to what we have to say. Anything less, is a disservice to America and to the ideals of the founders. Iraq

The most urgent recommendation to creating a political solution to the war in Iraq is to undertake the formation of a new governmental regime that would, structurally, include the three primary sectarian/ethnic groups Sunni, Shi’a and Kurd. A government should be constructed that includes five regions led by Sunni, Shi’a, Kurd, Shi’a/Kurd, Sunni/Kurd leaders. This five district leader government could then legitimate its regime through democratic elections.

The imposition of the American model of democracy on Iraq is never going to work. Majority rule in a context of sectarian hatreds will never work. This is patently obvious to anyone that has seen the conflict up close. The surge proposed by President Bush can be key and instrumental in achieving this political solution regime.

To simply send troops in without a alternative political solution to redesign the power sharing structure of the Iraqi federal government is to simply sacrifice humans on the altar of neocon hubris. The new regime design must come with a credible and forceful regional military presence. It must include an unequivocal American political will to hit militarily, mightily and hard. There must be swift retribution for any movement not in the Iraqi and hence, not in the American national interest. Sunnis, Shi'as and Kurds all want the same thing: freedom and security. The U.S. should guarantee it to them in exchange for a united Iraq with a strong central government.

Majority rule as a political method will not work in Iraq at the national level but they can work at the village and district levels. This is a good thing. But Iraq needs a national structure that shares power and resources and that may mean a strategic short term military use of force. In this regard, President Bush is correct. But unfortunately the political solution he is endeavouring to forge is dead wrong and will not work.

A Political Solution

Washington must change course:



The Iraq Study Group interviewed hundreds of think tanks, Iraqis, experts and academics but seemingly absent was the opinion of Americans of color. America speaks to the world about the virtue of Democracy and inclusiveness but the omission of large segments of our population from the debate regarding Iraq creates doubt about our sincerity.

Preaching is a lot more credible when we practice what we preach. The blood being shed in Iraq is American: equally Anglo, Black, Asian and Hispanic, male and female. We, as Americans, must all be at the table when making these momentous decisions.

Return to top.

This perspective first appeared in Border Observer, Jaime O. Perez, Editor