A position that's not influenced by the fact that it is a primary election year?
As with most issues, she never gives a clear and consistent answer on this issue. According to Counterpunch less than one year into the Iraq War:
On her return from a Thanksgiving trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, Senator Hillary Clinton responded to the "how long" question on ABC's This Week with a reminder that the U.S. still has bases in Korea and elsewhere, long after wars have ended.
Thanks for the reminder, Hillary.
She triangulated earlier this Primary Season in an interview with Salon, that I will post later where she said that she does not support permanent bases but she would have to make "those decisions" once she becomes President, but first...
...I don't get the sense that she is "ideologically" opposed to the idea of permanent military bases in Iraq. I think she is in Primary Election mode right now, so she has to be. I'll just let you know that, upfront. I want someone who is uncompromising in their opposition to the very idea of permanent bases.
From Antiwar.com:
...Yet her position is nonetheless clear. Instead of getting out, she wants to use Iraq as a base from which to threaten Iran:
"I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end, nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately. If last December's elections lead to a successful Iraqi government, that should allow us to start drawing down our troops during this year while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safe areas with greater intelligence and quick-strike capabilities. This will help us stabilize that new Iraqi government. It will send a message to Iran that they do not have a free hand in Iraq despite their considerable influence and personal and religious connections there. It will also send a message to Israel and our other allies, like Jordan, that we will continue to do what we can to provide the stability necessary to prevent the terrorists from getting any further foothold than they currently have."
A "quick strike" – against whom? And what could these "safe areas" be other than permanent military bases? Clinton is the first American politician to come out squarely in favor of building what amounts to launching pads for further aggression in the region. This is something even the Bush administration has been canny about, never acknowledging their clear plans to lay the groundwork for such bases. Not Hillary, however: she isn't the least bit shy about her vision of consolidating and projecting American power all the way to Tehran – and beyond.
She's intent on out-neoconning the neocons – a risky proposition, given the proclivities of her Democratic base, but one that she embraces, it seems, as a matter of high principle. If she's running for the Democratic presidential nomination, she should logically – in the name of opportunism – tilt left, i.e., toward the antiwar camp. Yet she is tilting rightward, or, at least, in a distinctly neoconnish direction: an indication that, in her own mind, she's already the nominee.
Surely such arrogance deserves punishment.
Now, here is what she said in the interview with Salon:
Six months into a Hillary Clinton administration, about how many U.S. military personnel do you envision being in Iraq to handle what you've referred to in the past as "vital national security interests" -- from helping the Kurds to preventing Iran from crossing the border?
I cannot give you a figure because I will not become president until January 2009 and there is no way to predict what will occur between now and then. I have said repeatedly that I am committed to taking our combat troops out of the midst of this sectarian civil war. And there may well be vital national security interests that require a continuing presence, although I do not support permanent bases or a permanent occupation. When I'm elected -- and between the time that I am elected and the time I become president -- I will focus to a great extent (and nearly to the exclusion of a lot of other important matters) on being ready to make those decisions once I become president.
But it is just impossible to make any kind of credible predictions at this point. I am still hoping that the president will decide to follow the Iraq Study Group's recommendations and begin to alter the makeup and mission of our force before he leaves office. I think it is his responsibility to do that. So that's my principal emphasis during this time -- to try to persuade or require him to take the steps that I would have to do initially if he has not.
So, from 2004 to 2006, she sounded more open to the possibility, but every reference that I have found where she says that she does not support permanent bases is dated "2007." That answer with Salon was less than convincing: "...may well be...that require a continuing presence...although...I do not support."
That's like saying, "Although I do not like shopping at Wal-mart, it's the only store within 50 miles that has my medicine...". That statement leads me to believe that you are open to the idea of shopping at Walmart, just like the other leaves me feeling like you are open to the idea of permanent bases.
It feels like just another example of Hillary Clinton trying her best not to let anyone know exactly how she feels, and laying the foundation for her to later justify doing something that she knows she's leading you to believe that she doesn't support, even though there's a possibility that she could, later on if the idea becomes popular, for whatever reason.
So, I repeat my original question. Does she have a consistent position on permanent military bases in Iraq?