Small Differences?

John Edwards is saying in the debate that the differences between the Democrats on Iraq are small. That's certainly something I'd like to believe, since the people who have positions on Iraq I agree with -- Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich -- aren't people I particularly want to see as president and aren't people with a good chance of winning. But I don't really think Edwards is right. It's true that the Democrats all, in some sense, want to end the war in Iraq, but these plans to leave tens of thousands of residual forces won't in fact end the war.

Richardson and Kucinich seem to clearly be saying they'll end the war. Clinton and Biden are clearly saying the war will continue. I think Edwards is essentially in agreement with Clinton, but that's not totally clear to me. Obama, meanwhile, seems to consistently succeed in ducking this debate in favor of returning to his other foreign policy points.

Comments

The war isn't ending in your lifetime, Matt. Look for Atlantis or a Democrat with the courage, charisma and political heft to end the war. You'll die before finding either.

Posted by steve duncan | August 19, 2007 9:48 AM

"John Edwards is saying in the debate that the differences between the Democrats on Iraq are small. That's certainly something I'd like to believe ... But I don't really think Edwards is right ... Obama, meanwhile, seems to consistently succeed in ducking this debate"

Dude. It's really too early in the morning to be smoking crack.

Obama said, "I agree with John Edwards," on that precise point.

Obama also said that he agreed with Biden on his criticism of Richardson's position.

Posted by Petey | August 19, 2007 10:33 AM

I won't believe any of them until they describe an actual plan for getting out. Richardson leaves as much wiggle room as any of them, by introducing the need for a security arrangement in the region.

This is, in fact, essential, because there is no Iraqi national defense force. Without the US, or an agreement to not invade among Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, Iraq is naked. Reaching such an agreement is a nontrivial and time-consuming process.

The plan is for a permanent occupation. Nobody, absolutely nobody, suggests providing Iraq with air, armor and logistical capability. There is no command and control structure in place, and there is no sovereign government operating.

There is no chance that the US is leaving such a situation, under any candidate who has a chance to win. And, I think, just by the way, that Kucinich would also discover that he can't just withdraw the forces.

And this is unacceptable to the majority of voters and to a very large majority of primary voters, so all the Dems can do is lie. The truth is unacceptable, they dance around it.

We're doomed until someone, anyone, will engage in an honest discussion of what to do. Right now, nobody is doing so, because it is so completely FUBAR that any honest and forthright discussion will be very, very unhappy.

Posted by jayackroyd | August 19, 2007 10:52 AM

Jay, your version of a 'discussion' seems to be the elite telling the American people what is acceptable and what is not. I'm sorry, but no. If the Democrats continue to ignore the most vital issue of the day, then they can go fuck themselves. At this point, there won't be a Democratic party in 30 years. Ask the Whigs how ignoring the prevalent issue of the day works our electorally.

As to your argument, We. Just. Don't. Care. I don't care how many people die when we leave. Neither do the American people. We just want to leave.

This is why the Democrats can go fuck themselves. I no longer care who they nominate, they are not a real party anymore. They are nothing but an adjunct of the Republican party. At some point, the rest of you will likely be right next to me no matter how hard you object. 6 years ago (hell, 6 months ago) I would have sworn that the Green's were nuts too. But at this point, it's pretty clear they were right and we were wrong.

Posted by Soullite | August 19, 2007 11:15 AM

I won't believe any of them until they describe an actual plan for getting out.

A specific plan based on the conditions today, or on the conditions in Iraq in January of 2009?

Several of the Senators running for president have submitted specific legislation on withdrawal from Iraq.

Here's Obama's:

De-escalates the War with Phased Redeployment:

Commences a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq not later than May 1, 2007, with the goal that all combat brigades redeploy from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group.

This redeployment will be both substantial and gradual, and will be planned and implemented by military commanders.

Makes clear that Congress believes troops should be redeployed to the United States; to Afghanistan; and to other points in the region.

A residual U.S. presence may remain in Iraq for force protection, training of Iraqi security forces, and pursuit of international terrorists.

Posted by Jinchi | August 19, 2007 11:31 AM

As to your argument, We. Just. Don't. Care. I don't care how many people die when we leave. Neither do the American people. We just want to leave.

Yes soullite, that is precisely the problem. The American people just want to leave. In fact, they wish the whole thing had never happened.

And there is nobody planning to leave. Nobody.

The received wisdom of those elites you're talking about is that they cannot leave Iraq naked to the forces surrounding them. That's why the Democrats talk about "redeployment" and not "withdrawal." That's why, quoted by Jinchi, Obama leaves ample room for leaving those 50,000 soldiers there.

That's what is going to happen. There is no way that the people who will be running the government will withdraw forces from Iraq when Iraq has no means to defend itself from its neighbors, has no functioning government and no way of establishing a functioning government other than an extended civil war conducted with small arms and not much else.

You can wish as hard as you want, but these people will not withdraw these troops and create a Somalia in one of most oil-rich states in the world.

And, frankly, I see their point. But I really wish they would say so, out loud, and not cmover up their plans with talk of "redeployment" and "force protection" and, worst of all "pursuit of international terrorists."

Also, please note that Obama's formulation, like all the formulations we hear, denies Iraqi sovereignty. The US is to decide the force levels. The US is to decide when to pursue international terrorists. The US will commit troops to protects themselves from whom? Iraqis.

Now I think the best thing to do is nonetheless to start pulling people out now. Or, rather, to not send replacements in as the troops rotate out, because if the US doesn't start leaving, it will never leave. But there is no way that the next administration will completely withdraw anytime soon after inauguration.

My only hope is that Edwards will decide he needs to throw a hail mary and tells the truth about this. But I don't expect it.

And the idea that you should not vote is even crazier than voting for a democrat. The republicans in this race are batshit crazy. You don't want them anywhere near the White House.

Posted by jayackroyd | August 19, 2007 12:03 PM

1) We don't know whether the differences between the Democrats on Iraq are small or large, because they're unwilling to get specific.

Some time ago, I proposed that every candidate be asked to give a ballpark number of how many U.S. troops would be in Iraq in the summer of 2010 if s/he was elected, and things in Iraq neither got much better nor much worse in the interim.

If candidates were willing to actually answer this question, we'd know how big or small the differences are. (OpenLeft tried to nail the candidates down on this question, fwiw, but didn't get very far.)

2) Jay, I can't see that it matters whether a U.S. force protecting Iraq from foreign invasion is in Iraq proper, or is 'over the horizon' in Kuwait or elsewhere. Movements of conventional military are sitting ducks from the air; that's one of the few things air power is still good for.

3) Soullite, it all depends on how you view things. If you were expecting the Dems to ride to the rescue, then of course you're telling them to go fuck themselves: they've let you down.

But it was clear well before last November (can you say "Bankruptcy Reform"? How about "Alito"? Or "Military Commissions Act"?) that the Dems couldn't be relied on to save us. The question is, what are we, the people who would be Democrats if the Democrats would only get a backbone, going to do about it?

There's really only three choices: reform the Dems, reform the GOP, or start a new party.

Reforming the GOP is so beyond possibility that there's no point in thinking about it. And the structure of our system is such that it's unlikely that a third party can displace one of the two major parties in a timescale less than decades long. So that leaves reforming the Democrats.

That's no picnic either, but at least there's a limited possibility of success in a reasonable timescale.

The point is that we're not expecting the Democrats to save us. We're trying to work through the Democratic Party to save the country.

How to do that is a matter of debate, of course. My approach is to give no money to the DCCC, the DSCC, and even the DNC, but only to give money to Dem candidates that have a clue. And to fund primary challengers to LieberDems, especially those who are hogging safe Democratic districts. (E.g. Al Wynn in Maryland.) You may have other ideas.

And one more thing: sure, the Dems will continue to be too easily rolled by the GOP for some time. But the fewer Pubbies there are in power, the fewer opportunities the GOP will have to roll them. And the Dems' capacity for coming up with malfeasance on their own is way less than that of the GOP.

Even President Hillary and a Dem Congress where the Blue Dogs have too much power will be less dangerous to our liberties than President Giuliani and a GOP Congress. But that's just one step. Even then, we're still just getting started. But is it a step in the right direction? Hell, yeah. So we do it, then keep pushing for better Dems.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | August 19, 2007 2:42 PM

Without the US, or an agreement to not invade among Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, Iraq is naked.

Although it's pretty apparent US air power isn't particularly useful against guerrilla forces, it's pretty fucking awesome against, you know, conventional military units in set piece battles. A lot of Iraqi blood will continue to be shed if the US pulls out (and for a time, that blood shedding may increase), but I don't see why US air assets in Kuwait or on carriers can't save Iraq from a successful invasion by the likes of the Saudi or Syrian armies.

Posted by Jasper | August 19, 2007 2:44 PM

You think we can get out by December at this point? Really?

Posted by cms | August 19, 2007 2:46 PM

Can anyone explain why any country around Iraq would be stupid/insane enough to invade Iraq after we left, after what we went through? Then why do we need to stay to "protect" it?? I think invasion from a neighbor is the least of the Iraqi's problems/fears right now

Posted by Tumak | August 19, 2007 5:45 PM

I think the point to be made is not that any of the countries around Iraq will invade Iraq, or that any of those countries could succeed in conquering Iraq if they did, or whether US troops need to be in Iraq or outside of Iraq to prevent this.

The point to be made is that the Democrats and the Republicans are BOTH LYING about their reasons for staying.

That and the Democratic candidates clearly don't have a clue about the military effects of "leaving a residual force in Iraq to pursue terrorists". All that does is reduce the number of targets the Iraqis have. Exactly how does this "residual force" manage to capture any terrorists when it will be fighting for its existence 24x7x365, just like the British troops in Basra are now.

The British commanders have finally said, "Get us out now." They can see the handwriting on the wall, and they don't want to have to explain to the British people how they LOST 5,000 troops in Iraq when they've only had less than 200 killed so far.

They KNOW from their high-level connections that Bush is going to attack Iran, and they damn sure don't want a handful of British troops caught between scores of thousands of Iranian agents in Iraq, the Shia militias that are already attacking them, and possibly full-scale engagement with Iran's military and the US response.

That situation will be no different if we leave a "residual force."

But the intent of Bush all along with this "surge" was to put enough troops into Iraq so that they will be able to "surge" into Iran once the bombing starts and Iran retaliates. Despite the fact that the Pentagon has undoubtedly told Bush and Cheney that this is going to be a military disaster, since Bush and Cheney do not care, it will go ahead anyway.

The Democratic candidates KNOW that the whole point of the Iraq exercise was just a prelude to an attack on Iran. They are on board with an attack on Iran - including Obama, Clinton and as far as I know, everybody but Kucinich.

So why should we believe any of them - especially Obama - when they say they want to draw down US troops there? Or is someone thinking Obama wants to bring them back to the States, refresh them, THEN attack Iran? And this is a difference we should encourage?

Read my lips: The upcoming war on Iran is a done deal, for both Republicans and Democrats. It will be THE greatest military disaster in US history - not to mention one of the greatest economic and geopolitical disasters in US history. It will make Vietnam and Iraq look like a walk in the park.

You'd better start preparing for this. I'm amazed at how virtually every political blogger is ignoring it STILL after a year or more of being told this is THE biggest issue for this country.

And the complacent assumption that "we don't have enough troops, so it won't happen" is just ridiculous. We don't have enough troops for IRAQ and it IS happening. What makes you think Bush and Cheney see any difference with Iran? Not to mention that the Israelis damn sure don't care that the US doesn't have enough troops, and they could be the ones to start this.

You better start paying attention, or some Sunday morning the news is going to be all bad on the talk shows about how overnight the US or Israel conducted air attacks on Iran.

Trust me, it will go down hill from there.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 19, 2007 6:15 PM

Our military is not fighting a war, so it's not a question of ending the war. We are policing Iraq, and we are going to continue to police Iraq. A Dem president may adjust the number of "policemen" we have in Iraq but that's the best we can hope for.

The reason the U.S. invaded Iraq was to never leave there. The Dems who voted for the Resolution knew this, and if they didn't, what good are they anyway?

Say what you will...and I hate to admit it...the neo-cons won this one and we still haven't reached the 9th inning.

Posted by The Reverend | August 19, 2007 6:44 PM

The only problem with the notion of the US remaining in Iraq is that the Iraqis will have the final say.

And probably soon, if Bush starts bombing Iran.

Within ninety days after an attack on Iran, US forces in Iraq will be out of food, water, fuel and ammo due to Iraqi Shia and Iranian agencies cutting US supply lines from Kuwait. There's no way US forces can prevent this from happening.

The timing MIGHT be adjusted if the US can airlift enough supplies into US air bases in Iraq, but the problem then is getting the supplies from the bases to the forces in the field - subject to the same convoy disruptions. And it's unlikely the US can supply the force we have there from the air for any significant length of time.

Regardless of any person's intentions, the US IS going to leave Iraq - or die there, one of the two. Which one depends on whether US forces can admit defeat in time to make a hasty but effective evacuation, or whether they are ordered to do a "Bastogne" defense by Bush - and die there or be forced to surrender.

Or worse, the US expands the war to actual genocide of the Iraqi Shia and Sunni population to protect the US forces retreat. This action would blacken the US history for generations to come.

Since there is apparently no way in which the US citizenry can influence the US government at this time, it doesn't look good. Once the US casualties reach 10,000 or 20,000, the disruption in the US should be interesting to watch, however.

Maybe THEN an EFFECTIVE anti-war movement will arise. It took years to get one in Vietnam - and it's taken five years to NOT get one in Iraq. Maybe massive casualties will stir the US population finally to mobilize.

Even then, without impeachment, what are they gonna do? Even with impeachment, it will be too late. The war will be on, and only a complete precipitate retreat will salvage anything.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 20, 2007 3:29 AM

I hope you can share this important document with your friends, colleagues, and readers. It is a very important international policy breakthrough by New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, which appeared in the Harvard International Review. It deserves to be read and considered by every single American, the entire diplomatic community from every nation, as well as your insightful readers!

I am not officially connected to his campaign, but as a private citizen, I do recognize the importance of this statement enough to send it to you with the hope that you will send it on widely.
Thank you,

Stephen Fox

____________________________________

“New Realism: Crafting a US Foreign Policy for a New Century”
Governor Bill Richardson
Redacted from the Harvard International Review

US foreign policymakers face novel challenges in the 21st century. Jihadists and environmental crises have replaced armies and missiles as the greatest threats, and globalization has eroded the significance of national borders. Many problems that were once national are now global, and dangers that once came only from states now come also from societies—not from hostile governments, but from hostile individuals or from impersonal social trends, such as the consumption of fossil fuels.
The piece does a credible job of laying out the problems before us and arguing that the Bush Administration has not taken the appropriate measures to deal with them.

The highlights of Richardson’s plans:

First and foremost, the United States must repair its alliances. US leaders also must restore commitment to international law and multilateral
cooperation.

Promoting expansion of the UN Security Council’s permanent membership to include Japan, India, Germany, and one country each from Africa and Latin America.

Ethical reform at the United Nations so that this vital institution can help its many underdeveloped and destitute member states meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Expanding the G8 to include India and China.

The US government must join the International Criminal Court and respect all international treaties, including the Geneva Conventions.”

On environmental issues, the United States must be the leader, not the laggard, in global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by embracing the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, Lead the world with a man-on-the-moon effort to improve energy efficiency and to commercialize clean, alternative technologies.

Stop considering diplomatic engagement with others as a reward for good behavior.

Various efforts including ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

The United States needs to start showing, both through its words and through its actions, that this is not, as the Jihadists claim, a clash of civilizations. Rather, it is a clash between civilization and barbarity.

Closing Guantanamo

The United States also needs to pressure Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other friends in the Arab world to reform their education systems, which are incubators of anti-US sentiment.

Spend more to develop first responders and to drastically improve public health facilities, which, five years after 9/11, are not ready for a biological attack.

The United States needs to lead the global fight against poverty, which is the basis of so much violence.

Encourage rich countries to honor UN Millennium goal commitments.

Lead donors on debt relief, shifting aid from loans to grants, and focus on primary health care and affordable vaccines.

Promote trade agreements, which create more jobs in all countries and which seriously address wage disparities, worker rights, and the environment.

Pressure pharmaceutical companies to allow expanded use of generic drugs, and encourage public-private partnerships to reduce costs and enhance access to anti-malarial drugs and bed nets.

Promote a multilateral Marshall Plan for the Middle East and North Africa.

Posted by Stephen Fox | August 20, 2007 11:15 AM

Kucinich has a plan for geting out of Iraq before the House right now--HR 1234. It provides for an international peacekeeping force from surrounding nations with a vested interest in Iraq's stability to be introduced as ALL American troops and mercenaries leave. Americans are fueling the violence, not protecting Iraqis. As for Richardson's plan of "protecting" Iraq from Kuwait, it's just a ruse to continue bombing Iraqi towns by means of Reapers--drone bombers that can be controlled from 5,000 miles away. No more Americans dying but plenty more Iraqi civilians killed and plenty more animosity against the U.S. Instead of accepting everlasting conflict, support a true peace candidate--and it's not Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, or Richardson. Kucinich was smart enough to vote against the Iraq War resolution and brave enough not to vote for funding. Intelligence and integrity is a combination we haven't seen in the
White House in ages.

Posted by Kathleen Kain | August 20, 2007 11:29 AM

Well, anyone who thinks that introducing Sunni Arab armies into Iraq as peacekeepers is on crack. The Shiites and Kurds, you know, the majority of Iraqis, will consider them invaders.

Iranian peacekeepers, as much as we would hate to admit it, would make more sense, and even that's pushing it, since they'd end up with a Sunni insurgency to deal with as well.

The only thing that really makes sense as far as peacekeepers go is a mixed UN force. The effectiveness of that, however, has been proven to be limited, to put it charitably.

Also, I agree with Biden. We have to leave responsibly. Sure, in a short time we could get all the troops out, if we left the equipment, contractors, and Iraqis who supported us behind. That's called a retreat, not a withdrawal.

I don't know who is right about how long it would take, but we absolutely must make sure we aren't leaving the contractors and Iraqi supporters behind.

Posted by Adam herman | August 20, 2007 11:39 AM

It's too bad Matt doesn't think the guy who wanted the Bush administration to show their proof of WMD in Iraq before they went to war is good enough to be his president. He'd rather have one of the people who were gullible enough to swallow the idea that Iraq wouldn't be a quagmire hook, line, and sinker.

Posted by darrelplant | August 20, 2007 3:28 PM

I would prefer to see the leading candidates talk about a full withdrawal, but I think the limited one is okay because once you start withdrawing, it's going to be hard to stop. Once you take three-quarters out, you can probably do less than a quarter of the job, given the number of supply troops and so forth required. So, it will seem obvious the rest need to go since nothing's getting done.

Think of the half-assed withdrawal as a gateway drug to the full thing.

Posted by American Citizen | August 20, 2007 4:47 PM