Well, you knew Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton wouldn’t waste much time in this climate of unease and anger over the war in Iraq (amid a presidential campaign) to dash off a reply to the Pentagon.

The Democratic presidential candidate, who has over time modulated her position on the war from supporting the use of military force in 2002 to now calling for a withdrawal of most American troops and de-authorization of the use of force, sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates today. In it, she complained about statements made in a letter to her this week from Undersecretary Eric Edelman, in which he warned that public discussion of any such plans for a phased withdrawal would play into enemy propaganda. (See our post from last night, with credit to The Associated Press for breaking the story.)

Saying that other members of the Bush administration had not resorted to political attacks when asked about contingency plans or the possibility of a phased withdrawal, Senator Clinton, a member of the Armed Services Committee wrote:

Rather than offer to brief the congressional oversight committees on this critical issue, Under Secretary Edelman – writing on your behalf – instead claims that congressional oversight emboldens our enemies. Under Secretary Edelman has his priorities backward. Open and honest debate and congressional oversight strengthens our nation and supports our military. His suggestion to the contrary is outrageous and dangerous. Indeed, you acknowledged the importance of Congress in our Iraq policy at a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee in March, when you stated, “I believe that the debate here on the Hill and the issues that have been raised have been helpful in bringing pressure to bear on the Maliki government and on the Iraqis in knowing that there is a very real limit to American patience in this entire enterprise.”

As an update today, Senator Clinton and Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, plan to introduce legislation to “require a report and briefing from the Pentagon to Congress on contingency planning for withdrawal from Iraq,” according to her Senate spokesman, Philippe Reines.

To recap, Mr. Edelman’s letter outlined what the Pentagon and the administration consider successes and progress from its current strategy in Iraq. In the process, he contended that discussions of withdrawing troops carried the risk of emboldening the enemy, a phrase used often by the administration. And, in fairness, he closed the letter by saying that policy forbade the release of contingency plans, as well as operational plans, outside of the Defense Department.

Now some have pointed out that the military always has contingency plans afoot; others have highlighted the lack of planning for the post-invasion violence. For the longest time, Senator John McCain has criticized the military operations from that post-invasion time that he believes allowed the conditions we see today to fester and explode.

Whether Senator Clinton’s back-and-forth with the Pentagon offers a salve to the portion of the anti-war movement that still finds her initial support for the war troublesome – if not a reason not to vote for her – remains an open question. But she certainly has been staking out a battleground within the battlefield, alongside some of her Democratic rivals who are pushing even further for a full withdrawal of troops. (Her plan would leave residual troops there, ostensibly for stabilization and counterterrorism efforts.)

If comments from Caucus readers to our overnight post are any indication (and they’re definitely not a random sample of the voting public), this war-at-home segment provides a glimpse of presidential politics at work, as well as an effort to harness some of the energy and passion of the majority of Americans who are deeply upset about the war.