Clinton, Obama and Edwards all adopt Bush's plan for Iraq

Posted September 29, 2007 - 8:44am by Expat Teacher

so says Jay Leno:

If you watched, the three Democratic frontrunners said last night -- this is what they said. Hillary and Barack and John Edwards, they said setting a timetable for a complete withdrawal is irresponsible, because you can't project what the future situation will be in Iraq. And pulling out troops basically depends on the situation on the ground. Otherwise known as 'the Bush plan.' Hello?"

Just so you know what I'm talking about, the Washington Post does a nice summary:

In their debate Wednesday night in Hanover, N.H., none of the three top Democratic presidential candidates would promise to have the U.S. military out of Iraq by January 2013 -- more than five years from now.

"I think it would be irresponsible" to state that, said Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.).

"I cannot make that commitment," added former senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

And Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) put it simply when she outlined the dilemma that Democratic presidential aspirants face on Iraq. "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," the party's front-runner said.

What are they thinking? If you get into the nuance of the argument, all 3 say they would withdraw some, but not all, of the troops (the general number is about 50,000 of our 120,000 there). Where is the logic in that? 120,000 can't keep Iraq safe and secure. Roughly half that number will be able to do so? The troops do a magnificent job, but they aren't superhuman. Iraq either needs 150,000 more troops for a full-fledged occupation or we need to get out completely to put political pressure on the Iraqi leadership to bridge their political divide. I'm tired of hearing about US citizens dying so that Iraqis can continue their squabbles.

If you are too, maybe you should look at the only candidate advocating a complete and total withdrawal from Iraq, while simultaneously working with Iraqi politicians and leaders in the Middle East to forge a lasting peace.

For those against the Iraq War, but supporting Edwards, Obama, or Clinton, I'd love to hear why in the comments.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.goodwillhinton.com/trackback/591

Comments

The Only One?

by r.johnson - 10/01/2007 - 4:03pm

Expat,

I think you are overstating Richardson as being the "only" one advocating a complete withdrawal. Kucinich was falling over himself advocating a complete withdrawal, and Gravel has also taken the same position. Dodd says 'out of Iraq and into Kurdistan', so he does not count. And on the right, Ron Paul also advocates complete withdrawal.

Richardson may be the 'biggest name' to take the stand, but he is by no means the only one.

r.johnson

Ok, only one with a serious plan

by Expat Teacher - 10/01/2007 - 10:22pm

Ok,

I'll grant you that both Gravel and Kucinich have said they are for a full and complete withdrawal, but that is as far as they go. None have fleshed out their plans or have put forth how exactly this would work. Governor Richardson has been very specific on the details.

And I don't know about Ron Paul, I'm watching my own team right now. Anyone care to help me on this? Platitudes or real plans with Ron Paul and Iraq?

Reality Bites

by Encyclopedia Brown - 10/03/2007 - 12:15pm

Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Jim Gravel and Ron Paul can afford to take such a radical position: they have no chance of winning. The reason Clinton, Obama and Edwards are striking a note of caution is that they believe they might actually have to deal with this mess. Consider that almost any military official will tell you that the radical withrawal plans of the fringe candidates are completely against concerns of security and protocol. Consider the instability of the region and the possibility of genocide. The candidates with a chance do not want to be boxed in by false and unrealistic promises.

Mind you, this has nothing to do with what one thinks of the war itself. Obviously, it's been a disaster in many ways. But the bottom line is that we are now there and have to extract ourselves and/or proceed with caution.

P.S. Don't you think political pressure has already been applied? It's not like Richardson's suggestion here is novel. To me, "working with Iraqi politicians and leaders in the Middle East to forge a lasting peace" sounds like an obvious platitude rather than an innovative, specific strategy.

Encyclopedia Brown

What?

by r.johnson - 10/04/2007 - 2:08pm

EB,

No free pass. You don't get to make a statement like "almost any military official will tell you that the radical withdrawal plans of the fringe candidates" are against concerns of security and protocol, without some criticism. First, the military operates under an escalation of force mentality, as if all obstacles can be subdued with superior force (meaning military might). They see 'security' and 'protocol' being based upon subduing adversaries. Their judgment on whether a withdrawal plan is reasonable should not be the deciding factor, especially when they would describe withdrawal as a failure. Second, I am not sure whether 'radical' and 'fringe' are perjorative terms you inserted or terms that you attribute to unnamed military officials, but perhaps you can explain the criteria you would use for deciding whether a plan is 'radical' or reasonable? Reality does bite, and if we have to figure out how to extract ourselves as you suggest, given the circumstances on the ground, what would a reasonable withdrawal plan look like to you? I am not talking about 'after we win' or 'when peace comes to Iraq', but now, given the circumstances on the ground. What would a 'reasonable' withdrawal plan look like?

I also have a hard time with the fringe label. We have not even had a single primary, yet some people have effectively narrowed the field to two or three. Plus it is ambiguous. Just because a candidate is deemed unelectable (by those who demand frontrunner status and war chest to keep it going) does not mean that the candidate is "fringe", as in outside the mainstream. At best, it reflects a sentiment that the candidate is not viewed as a frontrunner, but that does not make the views espoused by the candidate "fringe" views, or outside the mainstream. Iraq is the perfect example, where a majority of people favor a withdrawal, yet the 'leading' politicians do not. I would argue that the refusal to address a withdrawal plan is outside the mainstream, and addressing a plan for withdrawal IS the mainstream. Why is suggesting a withdrawal plan deemed 'fringe'?

Lastly, fears of genocide may be real, but can you really look into the future and tell me that the future will be worse than the present? Over what period of time will you make the comparison? When we decided to invade Iraq, we killed countless Iraqis. When we decided to remake their government and occupy their country, we created a scenario where there will be bloodshed if we stay and bloodshed if we leave. Whether based on good intentions or not, we set up a government and political rule that makes the genocide that you fear all the more likely, whether we stay or leave. We can't turn back time, but we also can't pretend that staying is much better than withdrawing.

r.johnson

Short quick response....

by Expat Teacher - 10/03/2007 - 2:36pm

I'm just leaving the classroom for the volleyball game, but quickly...

"Don't you think political pressure has already been applied?"

No. I certainly haven't seen President Bush do anything besides Maliki that he's doing a great job and that American troops will be there as long as possible. Where is the political pressure?

Iraqi politicians took off August entirely. If they are under pressure to get something done, they have a funny way of showing it.

Political Pressure

by r.johnson - 10/04/2007 - 2:40pm

Even if 'properly applied', just how effective do you think it can be? Many of the issues we are currently demanding the Iraqi government 'come to terms with' flow from our prior actions. Take the CPA's 'de-baathification' order, or the privatization of oil wealth. (So that I do not sound like I am crazy, US policy relies heavily upon Peruvian economist Hernando De Soto, who posits that capitalism has succeeded as an economic model, and everything else has failed, because of property rights and an orderly administration/market for their transfer. To put it in an 'innocent light' Iraq's laws, which did not allow for private ownership of natural resources, were changed to 'promote capitalism and democracy.' Now that oil can be privately owned, no one wants to give up the revenue that can be generated from oil that they see as 'mine, not yours.') Yeah we can say 'Iraqis need to reach an oil revenue sharing plan', and we can put political pressure on them to do so, but we are asking them to retreat from principles that we enshrined in the constitution we drafted for them and urged them to adopt. The cynic in me says that Iraqis are smart enough to see how two faced this is, especially when these changes in law allow US businesses to reap substantial economic benefit from Iraqi oil.

Saying we need to bring political pressure to get them to reach an agreement on sharing oil revenue is like treating the symptoms, and not the root cause of the problem. Even if they reach agreement now or shortly in the future, it will be temporary. Then what? Greed and envy are two of the seven deadly sins.

(BTW, Biden's plan to partition Iraq, supported by some dems, is a recipe for further disaster.)

r.johnson

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.