column this morning, "Clinton, Obama and Iraq" (my emphasis):
In her interview with Goldberg, Clinton likens the current moment to the
Cold War. The U.S. confronts a diverse global movement, motivated by a
hostile ideology: jihadism.
“Jihadist groups are governing territory. They will never stay there,
though. They are driven to expand.” This jihadism shows up in many
contexts, but whether in Gaza or Syria or Iraq, she says, “it is all one
Obama and Clinton represent different Democratic tendencies. In their
descriptions of the current situation in Iraq, Clinton emphasizes that
there cannot be inclusive politics unless the caliphate is seriously
pushed back, while Obama argues that we will be unable to push back the
caliphate unless the Iraqis themselves create inclusive politics. The
Clinton language points toward some sort of intervention. Obama’s points
away from it, though he may be forced by events into being more
Let's rewrite that last highlighted sentence. What if instead we said:
[Blank] emphasizes that
there cannot be inclusive politics unless the Viet Cong are seriously
pushed back, while [Blank] argues that we will be unable to push back the Viet Cong unless the South Vietnamese themselves create inclusive politics.
Who do you think learned the lessons of Vietnam better, Ms. Clinton or President Obama? Three American presidents tried it Ms. Clinton's way and all three failed miserably. Obama, who was only fourteen years old when Saigon fell in 1975, seems to have learned the lessons better than the woman who lived through it.