Clinton: Some Troops Should Stay In Iraq
EmailABC’s Jake Whitman Reports: Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, says she would keep a reduced but significant military force in Iraq if elected president.
In an interview with The New York Times, Clinton said there are "vital national security interests" that would require U.S. troops to stay.
“So I think it will be up to me to try to figure out how to protect those national security interests and continue to take our troops out of this urban warfare, which I think is a loser,” Clinton said in the interview.
Clinton told The Times the troops would be used to fight "al-Qaida, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds" and provide support to the Iraqi military.
Clinton declined to estimate how many troops would be needed to stay.
"We would not be doing patrols," she said. "We would not be kicking in doors. We would not be trying to insert ourselves in the middle between the various Shiite and Sunni factions. I do not think that’s a smart or achievable mission for American forces."
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will 
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
I agree with Sen. Clinton’s comments. I believe that U.S. forces in Iraq would be more effective in performing the kinds of duties she mentions. However, they need to have a clearly stated mission, well defined benchmarks, and adequate support. Under such conditions, and with the recognition that they can’t be a “police force” to deal with all the problems associated with an “occupying force” in the middle of a civil war, perhaps U.S. troops could serve as agents for stability and peace…instead of the human targets they currently are. I expect return for investment in Iraq and I am certainly not getting it from the current administration – they apparently have a motto of “waste makes right” in Iraq with no discernable benefits for the U.S. in the region.
Posted by: Dirik Lolkus | March 15, 2007, 12:08 pm 12:08 pm