Edwards and the Region

Several people responding to my complaints about John Edwards' Iraq policy have directed me to this email Chris Bowers got from the Edwards campaign some time ago:

And just the same, if American civilians are providing humanitarian relief to the Iraqi people, we're going to protect them. How in good conscience could we refuse to protect them and then allow humanitarian workers to be at risk for their lives or the work not to happen at all? Finally, it's also Senator Edwards' position that we will have troops in the region to prevent the sectarian violence in Iraq from spilling over into other countries, for counter-terrorism, or to prevent a genocide. But in the region means in the region - for example, existing bases like Kuwait , naval presence in the Persian Gulf , and so forth. I hope this helps explain Senator Edwards' position. Thanks for standing up for what we all believe in.

I still don't know what this means. I understand how soldiers based elsewhere in the region could support a counter-terrorism mission in Iraq (this is the common position of Edwards, Obama, Murtha, and myself) by, basically, jetting into Iraq to blow some shit up if necessary, but otherwise sitting tight in Kuwait or Turkey or Qatar or some such. But you can't try to prevent a genocide in Iraq with Kuwait-based hit-and-run missions. And, again, if you want troops in Iraq to guard humanitarian workers that might mean a ton a troops. Then again, it might not. It's just very hard to say what this means, and I get the sense that the campaign's being deliberately ambiguous about what they mean to do, in part simply because Edwards doesn't want to foreclose more options than he needs to.

So, on Iraq I think Edwards and Obama are now better than Clinton (because of the difference over training) but it's not totally clear to me what either of them are proposing.

Comments

"But you can't try to prevent a genocide in Iraq with Kuwait-based hit-and-run missions."

One word response to this statement:

Kosovo

Posted by yep | September 14, 2007 1:41 PM

So, on Iraq I think Edwards and Obama are now better than Clinton (because of the difference over training) but it's not totally clear to me what either of them are proposing.

I really couldn't care less about what these three are talking about at this point; it's clear to me that, while E & O may be better than C, the only candidate that might be worse than them all is Biden. Dodd, Richardson, Congresself Kucinich and Crazy Uncle Mike are all better on Iraq. So why do we keep trying to nominate someone who's not even in the better half on the dominant issue of the campaign?

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | September 14, 2007 1:45 PM

Obama supports keeping troops in Iraq to train the Iraqi security forces. He also is planning to keep forces in Iraq for counter-terrorism. Obama does have an ill defined caveat about political progress and "non-sectarian" nature of the security forces, so he may be marginally better than Clinton on this.

Posted by AJ | September 14, 2007 1:54 PM

I completely can't follow Matt here, at all. Is the point that saying troops will only be stationed (say) in the Kurdish north, or that they will only constitute an over-the-horizon naval presence, or that their sole mission will be to monitor and strike al Qaeda targets---that any of these are nevertheless hopelessly ambiguous because they don't provide a hard numerical cap on the number of troops to be left in the region? Because unless that's the sole standard one is going to adopt, it seems to me really, really clear what these proposals entail.

There are many ways you can limit the scope of American military force available in Iraq---a few that come to mind are (A) limiting the level of engagement, such as leaving only a regional force or an over-the-horizon force, (B) limiting the available mission of the force left, such as to counter-terrorism, or (C) limiting the absolute number of troops to be left in the region.

Now it's pretty obvious that squeezing down on any of A, B or C will not have a perfectly correlative limiting effect on the others. You can have an over-the-horizon force with many different available missions, or a huge in-country force with only one mission. But it's also pretty clear that limiting any of A, B or C will have the tendency at least to limit the rest, and it's especially true that providing limits in either of A or B (or any other way of describing American engagement in the region) is going to tend strongly to reduce the political rationale for large numbers of U.S. troops to be in the region.

So not only do I think the critique above presupposes an artificially narrow scope of the acceptable criteria for drawdown plans, I think it ignores pretty significant dynamics in the proposals that are likely to result in lesser troop numbers. Again, color me confused by the whole to-do.

Posted by Jack Roy | September 14, 2007 2:03 PM

Matt,
Do you know that your link to Lindsay Beyerstein is not correct

Posted by mxa | September 14, 2007 2:13 PM

"you can't try to prevent a genocide in Iraq with Kuwait-based hit-and-run missions"

Sure you can. What was the No-Fly zone that was imposed for a decade other than an attempt to protect the Shia south and Kurdish north from retribution from Saddam Hussein? The U.S. can't stop block level cleansing but they can stop any massing of troops and impose movement bans with airpower.

To use Rwanda as an example, the U.S. could have simply jammed the radio station calling for genocide and it would have mitigated the violence. Limited capabilities can still have great effect when deployed properly. Having a response force outside of Iraq may not have every capability but it has the power to mitigate some of the worst forms of retribution - that's not ideal but it's still useful.

Posted by joejoejoe | September 14, 2007 2:20 PM

I support Edwards, but I have never expected that Edwards' foreign policy would be as consistently moral and sensible as, say, a Kucinich, etc., or my own ideas. (Not that I'm brilliant, just that I don't have to kowtow to any other power group or institution.)

My lifetime experience with U.S. foreign policy drastically tempers my expectations of the ranges of policies considered by major political leaders. Even if we had a fairly progressive agenda under a president such as Edwards, it would (I assume) still require the standard massive amount of popular organizing to avoid taking the variously pushed stupid routes.

Yet it's still fairly impressive to me when major candidates take risks to oppose not only bad policies, but to put forth an agenda which challenges harmful policies or attitudes which have been taken for granted for a long time.

Here lately there seems to have been a positive competition for bold progressive agenda moves by Democratic candidates, which differs from what I've mainly been accustomed to in my life.

Posted by El Cid | September 14, 2007 2:30 PM

Well this is ridiculous - I mean, it's not like the situation in Iraq is complex and ever-changing. In that case, it might be wise to have some flexibility. But since that obviously isn't the case, it's pretty crazy that Edwards won't detail every facet of his plan 14 months before he would take over the situation.

/snark

Posted by Steve W. | September 14, 2007 2:35 PM

A counter-terrorism force that relies near exclusively on "sigint" has substantially diminished effectiveness compared to one that cultivates networks of humint. To do the latter, you have to be in the mix.

Just, you know, saying. If we retreat to over-the-horizon, our counter-terrorism potential decreases by at least one order of magnitude. That may be a cost worth bearing, but it's a real cost, nonetheless, and we should not pretend otherwise.

As for a rapid response force to preclude genocide, that would work in theory. The constraints on that are political, as in "how difficult will it be to convince the American people to go back into Iraq, in force, once we leave?" Turning off genocide is not like turning off a switch. We would have to cordon the beleaguered party, quarantine and/or attrit the aggressor. That would take a logistics surge, and we would be almost back where we are now, replete with dead bodies from US ordinance all over the Tele.

Posted by JA | September 14, 2007 2:41 PM

So why do we keep trying to nominate someone who's not even in the better half on the dominant issue of the campaign?

Off the top of my head?

- Because 90% of the people who oppose this particular war have no problem at all with what John Edwards calls "American leadership" (and what most of the rest of the world calls "American hegemony").

- Because "Get the fuck out before we do any more damage," while having the advantages of logic, common sense, and basic human decency in its favor, has been deemed an unserious position by the arbiters of seriosity.

- Because "We can't unshit this bed" is a fundamentally un-American statement. As Americans, we can do anything we put our minds to.

More available upon request.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | September 14, 2007 2:48 PM

AJ--

Obama supports keeping troops in Iraq to train the Iraqi security forces.

Not really.

He also is planning to keep forces in Iraq for counter-terrorism.

Actually, Samantha Powers has said those forces don't have to be in Iraq. This is, incidentally, exactly Edwards' position.

Obama does have an ill defined caveat about political progress and "non-sectarian" nature of the security forces, so he may be marginally better than Clinton on this.

What's ill-defined about it? If there is political reconciliation (i.e. no civil war) and the military is non-sectarian (Sunnis incorporated, not being used for death squads), then we'll support the military with training. Otherwise, we won't. Basically, if Iraq turns into a bed of roses, we'll continue to remain engaged with the government-controlled military. Otherwise, we won't.

Why is this difficult to understand? It seems like some are trying to create issues to be upset about so as to justify their support of another candidate.

Posted by mop | September 14, 2007 3:20 PM

In any discussion of withdrawal of the troops, the most important fact is that the US is building very large permanent bases throughout the country. In order to avoid admitting that the US intends to be in Iraq forever, they are officially termed "enduring bases," and the word "permanent"is never used.

In 2004 it was reported that there would be fourteen such "enduring bases," http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm

In 2006, the number apparently was reduced to six, but the reporting is sparse. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12606.htm

In any event, Newsweek reported in August that there is every sign that the bases are intended to be permanent.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/checkpointbaghdad/archive/2007/08/03/digging-in.aspx

These are enormous bases, for up to 20,000 soldiers and airmen, with huge airfields. Not to mention the 100-acre "embassy" in Baghdad, the largest embassy in the world - clearly not necessary if what is intended is the staff of an ambassador to a foreign country, but not a bad site for a military and administrative capital.

It's also been reported that a permanent communications and transportation infrastructure is being built to serve and connect these bases.

What you're getting from the Democratic front-runners is an unwillingness to state clearly that if they become president, the US will abandon this imperial venture.

What Edwards, Clinton and Obama all seem to be saying is that they will withdraw troops from combat to allow the Iraqis to fight their civil war among themselves, but keep tens of thousands of troops at the bases, for use in extending power as desired: to control oil, to threaten Iran and Syria, to prop up allied governments in Saudi, Kuwait, and Jordan, to intervene in whatever polity emerges from Iraq civil war.

It would be nice if someone were to ask the candidates their position on the bases. But that would require reporters who actually know something about what they're asking about.

Posted by Bloix | September 14, 2007 3:44 PM

Let me also point out the beginning of Edwards' email:

When we say complete withdrawal we mean it. No more war. No combat troops in the country. Period.

What part of that is unclear? You can't fight a war without combat troops. What do we suspect Edwards is going to do, fight the insurgents by ramming them with supply trucks?

Of course he wants to leave himself some wiggle room for the unexpected. I'm not worried about his pledge to protect American civilians on humanitarian missions in Iraq - it'll be a good while before we see any of that. And while I think there will be little reason for America to launch attacks into Iraq in the name of anti-terrorism, Edwards has to leave himself the option.

And yes, I think you can prevent foreign invasion and large-scale genocide via over-the-horizon forces. If the Shi'ite security forces decide to attack Ramadi or Fallujah, we ought to be able to see that happening by satellite, and drop bombs on the security forces from the air. If Iran or Syria or Turkey invades, ditto.

So I see Edwards' position as being about as unequivocal as a bullshit-free position on Iraq can be.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | September 14, 2007 4:19 PM

There is a bit more to this from Chris Bowers, especially see Edwards recent interview with Josh Marshall. Here's a link:
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1317

No hard numbers, but still seems like he is talking about something fundamentally different than Clinton or Obama:

MARSHALL: Now, you've talked about potentially a small residual force. Can you give people a sense of what that means?

EDWARDS: I would get all of our combat troops out. Assuming that we are going to maintain our embassy in Baghdad, we'll have to have some force to protect our embassy. We always have to have that. And if, if, there are American humanitarian workers there, it might be necessary, although I wouldn't commit to this at this point, it might be necessary to provide some protection for them. But that's it.

MARSHALL: But really just a matter of protecting the embassy, possibly protecting other US civilian personnel--

EDWARDS: who are doing humanitarian work.

Posted by Josh Medeiros | September 14, 2007 6:49 PM

"What was the No-Fly zone that was imposed for a decade other than an attempt to protect the Shia south and Kurdish north from retribution from Saddam Hussein? The U.S. can't stop block level cleansing but they can stop any massing of troops and impose movement bans with airpower."

And what airpower would that be in Iraq? Saddam had planes he could use to bomb the Kurds and the Shia. What does Iraq have now?

Second, what "massing of troops" does Iraq have now? The Shia own the military, right? We armed them. What are the odds that the SUNNI are going to be doing "genocide"? With what army are the Sunni going to do this?

So you're saying that if the Shia start massacring Sunni in wholesale lots - and ONLY if they do so by "massing troops" since you explicitly have ignored the "block cleansing" - then you intend the US to go in and bomb, say, 50,000 Shia military in order to stop it.

Whereupon the Shia go back to block cleansing five minutes later...

Yeah, right, really gonna "stop the genocide."

The bombing of Yugoslavia did not "stop the genocide" in any event, it merely diverted it. US air power degraded the Yugoslavian military by a tiny amount, as US military studies admitted later.

The "no fly" zone was intended to keep Saddam's air power at bay. It had nothing to do with protecting the Shia. Bush Senior had a chance to do that and did nothing when the Shia rose up against Saddam.

It's a bullshit argument.

There is no way a US military presence outside Iraq - whether near by or in longer range bases - is going to definitely control events inside Iraq without re-introducing troops INTO Iraq - exactly as had to be done in Kosovo.

And unlike Kosovo, that will result in a re-introduction of what we have now.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 14, 2007 11:21 PM

"Assuming that we are going to maintain our embassy in Baghdad, we'll have to have some force to protect our embassy. We always have to have that."

Yeah, real smart, Edwards.

How do you protect an embassy with, say, 4,000 US personnel in it?

The Iraqi insurgency has, what, estimated numbers are 20,000-80,000. The Shia militia have probably greater numbers, and they have the support of the police and the military.

If someone wants to off an American in the Embassy, how many US troops are going to hold and protect that Embassy from: individual attacks, attacks from groups up to company size, long-range rocket attacks, mortar attacks, etc., ad nauseum.

Plus nobody walks out the gate without getting hit by an IED five steps later.

You'd need at least X thousand troops to protect the Embassy. Make up a number! Five thousand? Ten thousand? Twenty thousand? ONE thousand? Fifty REALLY TOUGH MARINES?

Now...how do you protect THEM? They are now the target - NOT the Embassy!

Oh, sure, you can call on the Iraqi forces. Right. Just like now...

The Embassy will be rocketed, mortared, etc. daily. You have to LEAVE the confines of the Embassy to deal with that fact.

Now you have to confront the enemy on THEIR turf - just like NOW.

Protect humanitarian personnel? HOW? They have to go EVERYWHERE in Iraq to WORK! Are you gonna escort every single one with a company of US troops and a helicopter gunship or an A-10 overhead? Because that is what you'd need!

It's fucking stupid! This guy is an idiot blowing smoke up your ass! He has no clue about military matters!

There is only ONE option here! Total removal of ALL US personnel - combat, support, non-military, diplomatic, humanitarian - from Iraq until Iraq is stabilized.

Period.

later, you can talk about re-insertion to some limited degree for some specific humanitarian, diplomatic or hit-and-run anti-terrorist missions.

Say, in about twenty years, which is how long it will take for the hate in Iraq for the US to even BEGIN to dissipate...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 14, 2007 11:33 PM

The "humanitarian workers" thing is silly. The US doesn't deploy troops to protect humanitarian or development workers anywhere in the world, except where we have a major military mission for other reasons. Everywhere else in the world, when it gets too dangerous for the humanitarian NGOs, the humanitarians have to leave. See Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, et al.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 15, 2007 12:18 AM

I find Welch slightly incoherent. He says the view that we need to fight to victory remains "widely held", and that's what ensures the next President won't withdraw, even though the public has "long since given up hope". Which is it? Does the public want to fight to victory, or has it given up hope? Or is it that a substantial minority wants to fight to victory even though the majority has given up hope, somehow paralyzing any action to withdraw? How? There needs to be a more sophisticated and coherent explanation of this contention.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 15, 2007 3:06 AM

brooksfoe got there first. If humanitarian missions always required soldiers to protect them there'd be a lot less humanitarian missions. Aid workers depend for protection on their smarts, their relationships, and their judgment of when to get out, not on being surrounded by troops.

Posted by william | September 15, 2007 3:59 AM