Gosh, this is the third diary on this 'gaffe'. The first one generated zero comment, the second one generated about 10 including mine. We'll see how this one goes.

How about the counter insurgency warfare , how about the assymetrical warfare insurgents are waging. I surely think the military has to be prepared for that.

There is no need to be hysterical and think She is preparing to go to war.

What's wrong with that statement? Prepare to fight Al-Qaeda

I haven't heard word one about it?   I suspect we will see her numbers drop a bunch over the next week or two if she indeed made some gaffe.

...Or maybe she didn't ... And we won't.

She is going to make Kucinich her Secretary of Peace and they in turn will wage war against war.

...Just kidding.

I think it is a throw away line in front of a military crowd who trains everyday to fight wars -- real or simulated.

I guess Kucinich will get the nod to be the defense secreary under an Obama/Edwards administration.

She said today that the Iraque parliament  should replace Malaki. I thought it was up to the Iraqui people to choose their own government.

I think statements like her's makes us look like
Colonial occupier's. No wonder the Arab world hates us.

pure speculation

maybe she's talking about war inside Pakistan like Obama mentioned?

"... .. We can't be fighting the last war; we have to be preparing to fight the new war."

Could it be that Hillary meant to say the "right" war (Afganistan)? However, I agree Hillary should probably clarify this statement.

Where's the experience?

She is talking about military preparedness in the 21st century. The "new war" is a national security strategy for dealing with global terrorism that includes diplomacy and restoring the positive view of the United States around the world through our actions. The relevant portion of her speech for those interested in issues rather than soundbytes:

These are just some of the challenges we face in this increasingly complex world. One area that I am particularly concerned about is the spread of global terrorism. As a senator from New York, I am too familiar with the horrors of the attack on our city and our country on 9/11.

I was there the day after with a small group of office holders, and I saw those firefighters coming out of that black curtain of smoke and debris. We couldn't even see them until they broke clear, having worked around the clock, dragging their fire axes.

And at that moment, I certainly made a commitment I have tried to follow through on, and that is not only to do everything I could for our first responders who, like our Gulf War veterans, suffered because of the work they did at Ground Zero, many of them not only getting sick, but now dying of the exposures that they breathed starting after the attack, but I also made a full commitment to martial American power, resources and values in the global fight against these terrorists.

That begins with ensuring that America does have the world's strongest and smartest military force. We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it's working.

We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war. We have to be preparing to fight the new war.

And this new war requires different tactics and strategies. We've got to be prepared to maintain the best fighting force in the world.

I propose increasing the size of our Army by 80,000 soldiers, balancing the legacy systems with newer programs to help us keep our technological edge, re-evaluating the training and education programs that service members need in the 21st century.

And let's be sure that the American military does not fight terrorism alone. It is time that we demanded that our alliances, including NATO, are united with us in this fight, and that their intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security systems are working together with ours.

And let's not forget that the war on terror, like the Cold War, is fundamentally a battle over ideas and values. I'm fighting for a Cold War medal for everyone who served our country during the Cold War, because you were on the front lines of battling communism.

Well, now we're on the front lines of battling terrorism, extremism, and we have to win. Our commitment to freedom, to tolerance, to economic opportunity has inspired people around the world. They're not just what we fight for. They can be our most powerful weapons in this fight.

I want to get back to a point where people respect and admire the United States again, not just because that would be a good thing, but because that's critical in our fight against terrorism.

People have to root for America. They have to want to be on our side. Somebody knowing that another member of their community is perhaps putting together suicide bomb kits has to think twice about whether to say nothing or maybe to tell somebody.

Law enforcement in countries that could become havens for terrorists have to believe that American values are not just about America, but they speak to the human dignity, the God-given spark that resides in each and every person across the world.

I want to end with this story, because it sums up for me what I hope to do as your president. It was told to me by my friend and our former secretary of state, Madeleine Albright. As some of you may know, she was born in the former Czechoslovakia. Her family had to deal with the Nazis. They had to deal with the communists. They came as refugees to America.

And in 1995 Madeline was asked if she would represent our country at the 50th anniversary commemoration of the end of World War II, and she immediately said yes. And she went to Europe, particularly to countries behind what we used to call the Iron Curtain.

And everywhere she traveled she saw American flags. But when she looked more closely, she realized that a lot of those flags had only 48 stars. And she started asking people, "Where did this flag come from?" And everyone told her the same story that when the American G.I.s liberated Europe, they passed out these flags.

And remember, back then Hawaii and Alaska weren't states yet. That's why there were only 48 stars.
And people had saved these flags like family treasures, passing them down from grandparent to parent to child, often at great risk, because if the Soviet occupiers had found them with an American flag, they could have gotten into serious trouble.

So Madeleine asked them, "Why did you save these flags all these years, knowing you could have gotten in trouble?" And everyone said the same thing: "Because we love America, and we love America's values. And we always hoped someday we'd be able to live in freedom like Americans."

They never gave up on America's ideals, and neither should we. These are the ideals that will light our way forward, just as they have illuminated our past. They are the ideals that inspired you to leave your homes and families and everything you knew and loved to fight for our freedom around the world.

Standing here with you, I feel that same sense of hope and optimism that has always marked our country. And I want to be the president who restores those feelings about America around the world.

We are a good and great nation. We can renew the promise of America here at home, and we can stand tall for freedom and democracy around the world again.

I believe that with the right leadership and with a country committed to a future that reflects the best of who we are, the 21st century will be America's century, and we will continue our history in an unbroken line from those first soldiers who fought for our revolutionary ideals that all men are created equal, to those young men and women who are fighting for us and our ideals right now.

With your help and God's help, we can once again be the country that all of us love, admire and know is worth fighting for. Thank you all very much, and God bless you.

Full video of Clinton's, Obama's, McCain's, and Grandpa Fred's VFW speeches here:

http://www.campaignnetwork.org/VideoArch ive.aspx?section=section1

it's impossible to know what war she is talking about because talking about the details would be naive and irresponsible.   The american voters are left in the dark and left wondering ... when hillary is elected as president then we will find out..

but maybe not.. because she has to run for a 2nd term, so she may not say out loud what she is thinking because that would be naive and irresponsible..  she wouldn't want to telegraph her thoughts to the enemy...

so maybe in 2013 we'll find something out .. maybe, if she thinks that we, the voters, are ready to handle a tiny bit of truth.

otherwise, fuck you voters.

Hillary has always been a hawk and i just cant imagine why anti-war liberal democrats would even consider someone who not only voted for the Iraq war , but refuses to apology for it....This shows you shes a hawk.

I will say for the record that I am deeply disturbed with Hillary's statement about a new war. I will await something to soothe my apprehension. Obama talked about a new war in Pakistan, now Hillary is hinting at something else. I am not interested in supporting a belligerent nation that uses the engines of warfare to subject the rest of the world to it's will. We need to rethink support of any candidate that uses talk of war to rally the nation. No more wars. New or otherwise. Peace.

Wow, this is so hard for people.

Every war must be a war of consequence, undertaken with seriousness and sobriety to the lack of other options. We shouldn't be destroying our military pursuing an unachievable victory (the old war); instead we should be rebuilding and restrengthening for the new war: the war that in good conscience can't be avoided. The war of consequence.

effective criticism of Clinton's statement:

"I am pleased that Senator Clinton, today, recognizes that the surge has produced no progress of any long term significance to the Iraq debacle. That is different from what she said yesterday to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. But, it is that audience, who has sacrificed more than any of us, who deserves to hear a clear statement that our sons and daughters and mothers and fathers are not going to be sacrificed because of an irrational commitment to a failed strategy.

The President is asking the country to wait for next month's progress report from General Petraeus. The chances are that report will be just another White House spin job and attempt to justify this war. This has been the bloodiest summer yet -- our troops have done an admirable job at trying to make a bad idea work, but the surge has failed, the war has failed, Bush has failed. It is time to end this war and bring all of our troops home as soon as possible. I'm glad Hillary Clinton has retracted her comments yesterday and has declared the surge a failure today -- but I still haven't gotten an answer to my question -- a peace in Iraq will fail as long as we leave troops behind -- how many would you leave behind? Every other major candidate would leave thousands of US troops in Iraq for an indefinite. I will leave no U.S. forces there. Zero.

The only way out of the Iraq mess is to remove all U.S. troops, and to use that leverage to get the warring parties to resolve their differences, and surrounding Muslim nations to help stabilize the country. Any residual U.S. force reduces the chances for success, and exposes our troops as targets. Our brave troops, and the American people, deserve better."

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/ne wsroom/pressreleases?id=0234

Baghdad is Iraq's largest city with 7 million residents.  Iraq has 15 other major cities, hundreds of smaller cities and towns and thousands of villages with another 20 million people in a nation the size of California.

We don't have enough troops now in Iraq to bring peace and stability to the country - and never will absent re-instating the draft and sending over 600,000+ soldiers, which of course should not and will not occur.  

How then will withdrawing the bulk of our forces but keeping residual troops in Iraq - as several Democratic candidates for President have advocated - achieve anything other than continued American deaths?  Which Democratic Presidential candidate has the best plan for getting the U.S. out of Iraq?  In my opinion it's Bill Richardson.

Read more at http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7 /4/15640/18882

The "new war" thing didn't bother me. I took it to mean that we need to be prepared for future wars, whether they happen or not, and I think that's very prudent.

That "surge is working" thing annoyed me, though, because it handed ammo over to the Repubs. I had the depressing feeling it was 2004 again, and I was listening to Senator Kerry put his foot.

The fact that she later qualified her comment only made me feel like she was trying to pull a fast one--appease the VFW types, but leave some wiggle room so she could deny she was praising Bush's surge.

All in all, I thought it was a pretty poor performance and, if it's true that she will be the nominee, it could be a very worrisome sign of how she'd handle herself in a general election.

One more point. If you read between the lines, Petraeus wants out of Iraq. He and Warner and Levin worked out a storyline while they were meeting in Iraq. Warner and Levin are playing out the script on their return. Military successes in Al Anbar. No political progress. Time to come home.

Levin must have briefed Clinton this morning since she joined Levin (and Sistani) in calling for Malaki's removal. If the Iraqi government collapses (which it is in the process of doing) or if Malaki invites the US to leave, the Democrats win. We start reducing troop levels.

Apparently. But she's wrong.

Her spin that she didn't mention the word "surge" is equivalent to Ann Coulter claiming she did not say Edwards was a homosexual because she used the word "f**" instead.
Choice of words are a technicality.

New military strategy=the surge.

Anybody here argue that there is no idealogical war against the US?

the new war is not against NATIONS but against the terroists.

Yes, they do exist; denial is like saying 9/11 never happened.

And this is the NEW WAR...needs new vision, new tools, new non-military solutions instead of just ground troops....

Not a gaffe...but a smart move saying that is is the preparation we need to be smart about so we are ready to fight it.