Senator Clinton appears to have gotten a cool reception from soldiers in Baghdad. Or so at least one soldier who was there reports.
Weblogger Howard Owens is upset by this, and the Instapundit says he has a point. For the record, I think they're both wrong, for one simple reason: the report isn't that the troops booed her, razzed her, or treated her disrespectfully. Apparently, the worst you can say is that they were unenthusiastic, often stood silently, and sometimes didn't stick around to hear her speak.
That's not "wrong." No one has a right to expect enthusiasm. Basic courtesy, yes, but that's about it. Even for Senators, or Presidents, you cannot demand that people to put on a show of feelings they don't have.
The real question: why would they be unenthused? My suggestion is that the Senator's problem is twofold. First, her husband's administration was never very popular among people in the military. Yes, some did like the Clintons, but talk to anyone who served in the 1990s, and they'll verify that mistrust of the executive branch was quite widespread when the Clintons were in charge. Fairly or unfairly, that attitude was quite common.
More serious, however, would be the general level of frustration many people feel toward the Democratic Party right now--a frustration which I believe will be most profoundly felt by those on the ground in Iraq these days.
To be clear, many Democrats have been quite reasonable when it comes to the Iraq conflict. But many have behaved simply abominably, and I think that some of that's going to inevitably rub off on a figure like Hillary, a lot moreso than most other Democrats.
It's been transparently obvious that the press coverage of Iraq this past year has been irresponsibly negative, focusing obsessively on every failure, setback, and casualty, and saying very little else. This despite the fact that, by historical measures, the occupation has had some truly astounding successes, and despite the overwhelmingly apparent gratitude and friendliness of so many Iraqis toward our people on the ground. The people over there know this, because they see it every day, and have an incredible amount to feel proud of that routinely goes unacknowledged in the press.
Worse, however, has been the sadly obvious partisan use of that badly slanted news coverage. Some Bush-hating Democrats have leapt on all that bad press, in an almost gleeful fashion, to bash the (quite well-liked) Commander In Chief and his administration. While they may claim they "support the troops" or even "support the war effort," there's no way you can (1) insult well-liked leaders, (2) call people "liars," (3) suggest that the mission should never have been undertaken, (4) harp on press coverage as proof of failure, (5) stand on friendly terms with people who angrily say that our troops shouldn't even be there, and (6) not be resented by many of those on the ground in Iraq.
To be clear, it is not really fair to tar Senator Clinton with that entire brush. She has, in fact, been quite reasonable on the Iraq war. If she were just another Senator, I'd even say she's behaved in an exemplary fashion. Her tone and her rhetoric should be emulated by more Democrats, most especially those running for President. If most of them were as reasonable as she has been when it comes to the war effort, I doubt that resentment of the Democratic Party would be as high as it is these days. I know I certainly wouldn't be as disgusted with them as I am right now, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that.
Unfortunately, I think your average person sees Hillary Clinton as the backroom leader of the Democratic Party. They also see her doing absolutely nothing to upbraid Democratic Presidential candidates who, for the most part, have been using the inevitable casualties and setbacks in the war effort for their own partisan ends. Every casualty proof of failure and incompetence, every success ignored or portrayed as insufficient. That's how the most partisan Democrats have been behaving for most of this last year, and most of the Democratic Presidential candidates have either done this directly, or tacitly given it approval by not objecting to it. With no one (except obscure figures like Zell Miller) within Democratic ranks calling people out for this attrocious behavior, it makes Democrats look terrible. Your average moderate Democrat might be able to escape being lumped in with the worst elements like that, but Senator Clinton is largely seen as one of her party's main ringleaders. This makes her powerful, but it also makes her look more guilty by association than your average Senator or Congressman.
Rightly or wrongly, it just does.
There's one way Senator Clinton could make herself more popular among moderates, and (I think) among those who are working now within the Sandbox: She could blast idiots like Howard Dean with both barrels for their vile behavior. She could strongly emphasize her wholehearted support for the Iraq effort, and disassociate herself the irresponsible elements in her own party who call people liars and so transparently try to use every setback in Iraq proof of incompetence and failure.
Not that she's obligated to do that. I'm just saying it would be a great act of statesmanship that would gain her the respect of a lot of people, including, I suspect, a lot of people in uniform who are serving over in Iraq. It would be a breathtakingly brave and, frankly, beautiful move. I can't think of anything that would make her look more Presidential, either.
I don't think it'll happen. But I can dream, can't I?
* Update * The Discount Blogger doesn't believe registered Democrats will support such moderate centrism. I have to disagree. I remember well how Democrats not long ago nominated a moderate Governor who was aggressively in favor of expanding free trade, advocated reforming welfare to reduce dependency, backed a Constitutional amendment to return prayer to the public schools, pledged moderate tax cuts and reduction in the size of government, pledged a balanced budget, and who praised some Republican Presidents for their leadership in the Cold War. He also backed a ban on partial-birth abortions.In fact, not only did Bill Clinton win the nomination, but he also went on to win the Presidency. He didn't keep all of those promises, but did keep a surprising number of them. He also went on to defy the United Nations on several occasions in order to engage in unilateral combat operations. Too bad his most irrational critics (and, oddly enough, his most irrational defenders) can't admit the truth about all that.
Anyway, the presumption that moderate centrists cannot win the Democratic nomination is a mistake. I'd hate to write the party off. There's too much at stake for our nation to let that happen.
There's an old GI saying (usurped briefly by Chrysler, if I remember correctly) "Lead, follow or get out of the way"
Military folks will respect to some degree anyone who does one of the three.
Hillary's problem (and it's shared by most current Dem party overlords) insofar as relations with the military go is that she's incapable of the first two options, and refuses to completely embrace the third.
Dean, I think you missed something as to why Hillary might have received such a "cool" response from the troops. She loathes the military, she has said as much during an interview (granted it was a fairly old interview, but her behavior as First Lady shows me her views never changed). Indeed, she used Marines (in full dress blues no-less) to serve people at a White House party. Her staff, and her, by and large, during her tenure as First Lady, went out of their way to look down on service personnel that were stationed at the White House. Also, her husband basically decimated the United States Armed Forces, while deploying them on more missions than even Ronald Reagan, then pulling them out before the mission was completed (Somalia). The US Armed Forces have a very long institutional memory, and I think those things that I outlined above had more to do with her "cool" reception in Baghdad than the current partisian sniping of the Democratic Presidential candidates.
My problem with Hillary is the same problem I have with all of my former party's operatives: I simply don't trust her.
You can indulge in all the moist-eyed dreaming you want to about a hypothetical Hillary who utters all the right words; but to me it wouldn't matter one damned bit if she did, because I wouldn't interpret anything she says- ever, on any subject, under any circumstances- as anything more than cynical posturing in the service of ulterior motives.
I've no idea whether this is the central problem between her and our troops; but it's probably a factor.
As someone who has served in the military under both Clinton and Bush (II), I have to say that the portrayal of the military as ardently anti-Clinton has been a bit overstated. Most of the virulent hatred of Clinton was from the officer corps -- I would say a clear majority of enlisted folks didn't care much for him, but more than a few did.
I actually got to meet Bill and Hillary on the deck of Independence in 1996, and have to say that the reception was a lot warmer than I expected. Also, I can attest to the fact that Hillary's "loathing" for the military is nothing more than a figment of Kevin's imagination. Hillary was the one, IIRC, that prompted the establishment of a commission to investigate Gulf War syndrome, and the Clinton administration did quite a bit to improve living conditions for the troops.
Kevin's also a bit hysterical about Clinton "decimating" the armed forces. I think the drawdown of the 90's went a bit too far, but was very necessary. But the idea that he left the military vulnerable is just nonsense.
It should also be noted that the Bush administration has demonstrated no inclination whatsoever to increase our force structure above what Clinton had funded. The number of ships in the Navy continues to drop, and it's no secret that Rumsfeld wants a much smaller Army -- despite having to deploy them in a far more promiscuous manner than Clinton ever dreamed. Moreover, procurement has only been marginally higher than under Clinton -- about what you'd expect during wartime.
That's another point to consider. By and large, I think the troops love their current commander in chief, but more than a small percentage feel a bit dissed by the current administration. Especially among officers, there's a feeling that the administration doesn't value their input, and quite a few view the man appointed to lead the department as a wicked stepmother.
It's such a cheap shot to characterized dems as being unsupportive of the military. However, I can understand disdain towards the military, if you are talking about the pentagon talking heads. I'm in the military, and honestly, I don't always have the utmost faith in their decisions. When republicans talk about a strong defense and increased military spending, they are talking about weapons' contracts almost exclusively. Sure, they throw in a payraise or two, but they balance that by reducing reelistment bonuses, trying to scale back on benefits and promotions to save a buck or two for an imaginary missile defense shield. Who is getting rich on that puppy? On the other hand, dems have almost always had the soldiers and their families foremost in their minds. Improving military housing, spouse and family benefits etc. (whiff of class warfare issues)
I will never forget when Toad Gingrich and his henchmen stood up in 1993-94 and tried to lump the GI bill, veterans pensions, and student loans into the whole "welfare" umbrella.
Don't even get me started on what the pentagon just pulled out its ass this month to save money by slowing down promotions for NCOs in the coming years. Of course, their plan will save millions of dollars, which of course is completely deductible from the checking and savings accounts of those soldiers' families.
Dean,
I agree, it would be an act of great statesmanship for Hillary to take some of her fellow Democrats to task for their idiotic stances and statements. However, she is less a statesman than a politicl strategist.
Hillary has her sights set on 2008. For this reason, I think she is happy to let the Democratic candidates implode this time around. The last thing she wants is to have to run against an incumbent Democrat for the nomination in 2008.
I think she is playing it cool for the time being. She is just critical enough to avoid being seen as a sell-out to Bush by the far left but not so critical as to turn off moderates the way her Democratic comrades are.
Dean, good post. I've added an update with a link and further comments in my original post. And thanks for the link.
I thought she did absolutely the right thing and good on her... then I saw her comments. Raising doubts about the "administration's policy" is grotesque in a war zone in front of the troops.
I think that a lot of people in the military feel the same way I do.. they trust her about as far as they can kick her.. and they wish they would get the chance to find out exactly how far that is
remember the story that Hillary was throwing around during her senate run that went something (unverifiable) like "I tried to join the marines, but they said I was too old/fat/short/blind/obnoxious".. I forget the actual quote, but the statement was easily debunked, and she was seen as using the military angle to pander to voters.. I doubt people in the military easily forget the obvious manipulation they were associated with
Let us not forget, Tim (by the way who is a soldier), that it was Bill Clinton who wanted to freeze military pay for five years, until he was told by SecDef Perry that would be suicide.
Let us not forget that it was Bill Clinton who failed to do anything when it was clear in 1993-4 that our refueling fleet would need replacement within 15 years and needed a new refueling tanker started RIGHT THEN (he dropped the ball). Then he increased deployments which aged the fleet even more quickly.
...and now Hillary criticizes the 767 lease deal?
It was her husband's fault.
As far as support from the military goes, the divide in attitude is most certainly not between officer and enlisted, but between senior officer level and everyone else. Promotions at the flag officer level is political to the extreme, and the recently retired and current top generals grew stars during the Clinton administration, which makes their loyalties to him somewhat understandable.
But Bill Clinton did have his supporters in the military...something less than 10% went for Democrats in the last three elections, Gore's being seen as an indictment toward Bill, as well.
And he earned the derision by failing to live up to the standards of the force he commanded in his sexual life: you can be court-martialed for what he did, and most people in the military never forgot or forgave that.
By the way, Tim, you've never really said. What unit did/do you serve with? What rank?
Why do military personel have such trouble with Senator Clinton and her Party? Might it just be they remember who tried to suppress votes from military personel in Florida in 2002. The Democrats can claim to support the troops 'til Hell freezes over, but the men and women doing the fighting know hypocracy when they see it. The Clintons despise the military and the feeling is mutual.
Tim,
Before you go all googoo about weapons contracts, let me ask you... what wins wars, weapons or pay raises? Let me also remind you that our military is entirely voluntary - those who enter are expected to understand on their own exactly what they're getting into.
Being poor is one matter; being unprepared, and consequently dead, on the battlefield is another, more serious thing entirely.