Where Do Clinton and Obama Stand on Vital War Issues?

Assuming that either Clinton or Obama takes the oath of office on January 20, 2009 -- immediately he or she would become a war president. What exactly would Clinton or Obama do then?
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

Starting in 2007, Democrats seeking the presidency have had 20 debates covering a wide range of issues. With only two candidates still standing, it would appear that everything that could be asked has already been covered.

What else would explain the entrance of Louis Farrakhan and Saturday Night Live into the last debate? Moreover, as pundits have repeatedly stated Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agree on most issues -- health care being perhaps an exception.

But I may have stumbled on a few items that have yet to be probed.

Assuming (and this is only as assumption for the purposes of this column) that either Clinton or Obama takes the oath of office on January 20, 2009 -- immediately he or she would become a war president.

At that point, the Bush administration's mishandling of the war in Iraq and the president's low approval ratings are things of the past. What would Clinton or Obama do then?

According to Obama's Web site, he would immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq, one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.

Obama also states that he would not build any permanent bases. He would keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats.

Clinton also says that she will begin troop withdrawal immediately. Her plan would include convening the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of defense, and the National Security Council. She would direct them to begin the process of bringing troops home within the first 60 days of taking office.

There is a degree of similarity in both plans. Clinton and Obama recognize that troop withdrawal is more complicated than the initial invasion. Trends on the ground can obviously change. But can someone define the word "troops" for me?

Does Clinton and Obama's definition of troop withdrawal include private contractors such as Blackwater? If not, why? What is the role going forward for the largest security contractor -- some classify them as mercenaries -- who to date generate two-thirds of their revenue from government no-bid contracts?

What are Clinton and Obama's stances on the use of private security firms in Afghanistan, Iraq and the ongoing war on terror?

Isn't the answer to these questions of more interest to voters than what a candidate wore while appearing on The Daily Show?

I would also like to know from these potential war presidents if either plans to continue the current administration's funding the bulk of the war through emergency supplemental requests. Since it's unlikely the war will end by January 21, will the next administration use specific line items to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

This cowardly way of funding war, the same manner in which Congress votes on emergency funding for Hurricane Katrina, is not only fiscally irresponsible, but it also leaves the actual expenditures for both wars somewhat ambiguous.

Emergency supplemental requests bypass many legislative checks and balances. The request goes directly to appropriations committees, where lawmakers are pressured by a need to prevent the politically suicidal move of appearing to withhold adequate resources from troops in the field. The result is a spending bill passed by Congress with very little scrutiny, leading to cost overruns, mismanagement and in some cases failure to meet the needs of the soldiers.

Since Sept. 11 the Bush administration has sent 22 supplemental bills to Capitol Hill for a vote. Again, where do Clinton and Obama stand on this dubious practice?

If this is indeed to be an election of change, what changes must be more than superficial.
The change must represent a different way of doing business that transcends the traditional political rhetoric and criticism.

The aforementioned questions may not be as entertaining as appearing on David Letterman or busting a move on Ellen, but they will have a lot to say about the moral direction of the country.

Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist. He is the author of "Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War." E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot