Edwards on Iraq

It bears mentioning that this week has seen a bunch of very strong John Edwards statements on the developing Iraq showdown, starting with this on the GAO report, then this on civilian casualties, and this on Bush's stunt trip to Iraq, all building up to the call for a congressional agenda of "no timetable, no funding -- no excuses".

That, in turn, was followed up with a good ditty on the insane (but seemingly popular with the Democratic leadership) notion that what Democrats need to do is come up with meaningless compromise language on Iraq that will simultaneously doom us to thousands of additional American deaths at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars while also providing political cover to vulnerable Republicans.

Comments

Edwards Statement On Report That Congress May Cave On Iraq Withdrawal Date

Sep 6, 2007 11:03 AM

"In 2006, the American people elected a Democratic Congress to change course and end this war. It's the whole reason the American people voted for change. Yet, 10 months after the election, we still have the status quo and Congress has still failed to do the people's will. That might be the way they do it inside the Beltway, but it's not the American way. It's time to stand up for the American people and against President Bush's failed, stubborn policy. Without a firm deadline, a small withdrawal of only some of the surge troops won't cut it—that's not a solution, it's an excuse. Congress must not send President Bush any funding bill without a timeline to end this war. No timeline, no funding. No excuses."

Apparently, John Edwards has not considered the fearful possibility that Joe Lieberman will look at him with enraged, glowing red eyes, or that Sean Hannity will yell to his sycophant viewers about this traitor with pretty hair and a big house...

...Or perhaps he has forgotten the rich vein of sweet titillation Democratic leaders might enjoy when their cavings prompt outraged paroxysms by their most active and liberal supporters. I'm told it tastes like the chilled tears of children on a hot day.

Posted by El Cid | September 7, 2007 10:47 AM

Matt, the fix is in, dude: the Dems would rather give Bush the extra 6-7 months until the Pentagon machine's wheels come off and we HAVE to start pulling battalions out of Iraq than fight to start that process now and forever be stabbed in the back as the stab-in-the-back, they-lost-Iraq party (shades of Vietnam). Further, I don't think anyone really believes that we will actually pull all but a consular guard out of Iraq within the next 2-3 years, so getting out before Bush hands the mess over to the next sucker is not going to happen. So the logic for letting Pentagon force rotation limits dictate our force levels in Iraq becomes unstoppable.

The question is (as you have asked in the past): What happens when it turns out that reduced (but not wholly withdrawn) troop levels place our forces in an impotent, vulnerable, and strategically untenable position? That's when the chickens will come home to roost on the shattered myth of the hegemon's almighty shock-and-awe invulnerability. And that's when we are really screwed strategically, propagandistically, and every other way. The prestige of jihad will skyrocket. Dems who see that are happy to hand the keys over to Bush and the Pentagon--it just ain't worth the fight, cynical as it is to say to all those who will pay the ultimate pirce over the next 6-7 months. That's the ugly pass we have arrived at.

Posted by elle loco | September 7, 2007 10:54 AM

Matt, the fix is in, dude: the Dems would rather give Bush the extra 6-7 months until the Pentagon machine's wheels come off and we HAVE to start pulling battalions out of Iraq than fight to start that process now and forever be stabbed in the back as the stab-in-the-back, they-lost-Iraq party (shades of Vietnam). Further, I don't think anyone really believes that we will actually pull all but a consular guard out of Iraq within the next 2-3 years, so getting out before Bush hands the mess over to the next sucker is not going to happen. So the logic for letting Pentagon force rotation limits dictate our force levels in Iraq becomes unstoppable.

The question is (as you have asked in the past): What happens when it turns out that reduced (but not wholly withdrawn) troop levels place our forces in an impotent, vulnerable, and strategically untenable position? That's when the chickens will come home to roost on the shattered myth of the hegemon's almighty shock-and-awe invulnerability. And that's when we are really screwed strategically, propagandistically, and every other way. The prestige of jihad will skyrocket. Dems who see that are happy to hand the keys over to Bush and the Pentagon--it just ain't worth the fight, cynical as it is to say to all those who will pay the ultimate price over the next 6-7 months. That's the ugly pass we have arrived at.

Posted by elle loco | September 7, 2007 10:55 AM

Oops--sorry! Didn't know you could hit stop to correct a typo and end up posting twice....

Posted by elle loco | September 7, 2007 10:57 AM

As Barack and Hillary gab about "change" (when they're not hiding behind Jim Webb's broad shoulders). Apparently B & H believe they have more to fear from the Republican meanies than from the Democatic Party base. I think they might be in for an unwecome surprise.

Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock...

Posted by david mizner | September 7, 2007 11:00 AM

Yeah, but who really trusts Edwards?

When it really mattered, he failed and voted for the war. Now he doesn't have to cast votes and can sound good without having to back up his words.

Posted by Mike | September 7, 2007 11:06 AM

From the Washington Post:

Edwards to Offer Anti-Terror Plan Criticizing Bush and Democratic Rivals

With the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks looming, John Edwards will present a stark assessment of the country's struggle against terrorism Friday, saying the nation is less safe than it was six years ago and calling for a new worldwide organization to combat the threat.

In a speech at Pace University in Lower Manhattan, and with an introduction from a Sept. 11 widow and activist Kristen Breitweiser, the former North Carolina senator and Democratic presidential candidate is planning to propose creating a "Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization." This would serve as a kind of modern-day NATO, giving member countries a way to better track terrorists' communications, recruiting and financing, on the theory that breaking up plots requires cross-border cooperation, as shown in Germany's foiling of an alleged plot this week.

"There is now only one key question we must ask ourselves: Are we any closer to getting rid of terrorism than we were six years ago? And the terrible answer is no, we're further away," Edwards is expected to say.

Edwards's speech will further stir debate in an area that has featured some of the sharpest exchanges on the Democratic side so far, as candidates seek to criticize President Bush's approach against terrorism while at the same time also trying to avoid sounding like as though they will adopt a less forceful tack. In a July speech, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said he would be willing to invade Pakistan to pursue Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders even without Pakistan's approval, a statement that some of his rivals criticized as rash.

In today's speech, Edwards is expected to sound a less-explicit warning, saying, "if the Pakistani government fails to take care of the problem of al-Qaeda, we will." He is also expected to sharply criticize those that say, as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) did in one debate, that the country is safer than it was prior to before 2001. And he will once again call into question Bush's framing of the struggle against terrorism as a "war," saying that this overly emphasizes military rather than investigative tactics and plays into terrorists' hands -- an argument that has already won him ridicule from Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani.

"Islamic extremists wanted to frame the conflict with the U.S. as a war of civilizations, and the Bush administration, stuck in a Cold War mentality, happily complied," Edwards plans to say.

The new structure is needed, say those advising Edwards, given that NATO does not include many countries in which Islamic terrorists operate, and given that other international bodies, such as the UN and Interpol, include countries that have contributed to the world terror threat. To belong to the new international body, countries would have to pledge to tough criteria for pursuing extremists or terrorism financing within their own borders, and nations that declined to take part would be singled out, which could encourage more assistance from nations such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, Edwards's advisers say.

"There has been a reluctance about really cracking down on countries," said Gordon Adams, an international relations professor at American University advising Edwards. "This is a way of saying, 'Are you prepared to step up to this question and really make your policy stick or are you not?'."

Other measures in Edwards' strategy will include providing 1,000 scholarships to promote better language skills in the diplomatic and intelligence corps, greater emphasis on "human intelligence" generally, and more focus on staving off radicalism in Muslim communities within America.

--Alec MacGillis

The event is scheduled to begin at 11:30 am today, so one presumes these are the remarks as prepared.

Posted by El Cid | September 7, 2007 11:07 AM

Sorry, guess I screwed up the link somehow. In any case the story is now making it around the AP, etc.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/06/edwards_to_offer_antiterror_pl.html

Posted by El Cid | September 7, 2007 11:10 AM

Edwards has been really out front on this. He's providing real leadership, (as is Dodd on this issue). Clinton and Obama, meanwhile, seem to be trapped in an insider meta-argument about what the meaning of the word "change" is.

Posted by AJ | September 7, 2007 11:18 AM

it sure looks like Dems will play political angles rather than principle and seek a "compromise" that they think will make them look "bipartisan." Political ownership of the war will then be held by both parties and the whole bloody mess will be dumped on the lap of the next presiden ... hopefully a Dem.

Whereupon calls for bipartisanship will be stilled and "Dem Prez Loses Iraq" will become the conventioal wisdom.

And all the nice republicans the Dems compromised with will shit all over them and use it as a bludgeon in electoral politics.

It's depressingly familiar refrain. And I mean depressing in the clinical sense--it's suicidal.

Posted by blatherskite | September 7, 2007 11:20 AM

So is this a compliment toward Edwards on Matt's part?

If so it seems awfully watered-down. Which isn't especially odd since it seems many people have this inability to compliment Edwards' ideas without tempering their words somehow.

Posted by bubba | September 7, 2007 11:24 AM

By the way, the more I think about Edwards Counter-terrorism Intelligence Treaty Org (CITO), the more I wonder, why didn't anyone else propose this?

Posted by AJ | September 7, 2007 11:26 AM

By the way, the more I think about Edwards Counter-terrorism Intelligence Treaty Org (CITO), the more I wonder, why didn't anyone else propose this?

Posted by AJ | September 7, 2007 11:26 AM

My feeling is that prominent people (politicians, pundits, etc.) basically gave up on discussing any sane approach to terrorism (or security issues in general) which didn't reduce down to a complete dismissal of ideas which weren't freakish war-hawk mania or which seemed to suggest that there could possibly be international activity which wasn't 100% a simple puppet of the US presidency.

That's not surprising to me, because anyone who suggested that actual intelligent police and investigation worked against existing and forming terror cells was derided as some sort of cowardly surrender monkey; and also because given actual space to do something, the international community might come to decisions other than that preferred by U.S. elites, and no matter how helpful that might be in real terms, that can never, ever be allowed.

Posted by El Cid | September 7, 2007 11:33 AM

Edwards' policy on the war is either insane or timid or both. His website says "we should completely withdraw all combat troops in Iraq within about a year and prohibit permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. After withdrawal, we should retain sufficient forces in the region to contain the conflict and ensure that instability in Iraq does not spill over into other countries, creating a regional war, a terrorist haven, or a genocide."

When attacked by Iraqi opposition forces, what exactly are these non-combat troops supposed to do? And what exactly are these non-combat troops supposed to do to "contain the conflict"?

Even W's absurd war policy isn't that crazy.

Posted by ostap | September 7, 2007 11:59 AM

Just like he did before the war in 2002, Edwards is pandering. The only difference is that back then the prospect of war with Iraq was popular, so he was a pandering hawk, and now the war is unpopular, so he is a pandering dove.

If Edwards can get smart Dems like Yglesias to believe that he is sincere about anything, I can see why he was such a successful trial lawyer. Imagine what his hourly rate will be when he goes back to that.

Posted by Fred | September 7, 2007 12:04 PM

Let me help you, Ostap.

Remove combat troops from Iraq, but maintain combat troops "in the region" (i.e., Middle East)

Posted by Kman | September 7, 2007 12:05 PM

"Just like he did before the war in 2002, Edwards is pandering. The only difference is that back then the prospect of war with Iraq was popular, so he was a pandering hawk, and now the war is unpopular, so he is a pandering dove."

I agree. It seems so obvious to me that this is the case. Didn't he make a strong point of standing up to the war during the 2004 primary season? And now the war is unpopular, so he's portraying himself as the strong anti-war candidate. I'm tired of him lecturing Obama/Clinton about their Senate votes. He was once in the Senate and he failed on the Iraq War then, the only time it mattered for him. I wish Obama/Clinton would come out against the war but Edwards is really unaccountable here so I find it hard to trust him.

Posted by Mike | September 7, 2007 12:28 PM

Allow me to clarify... "I wish Obama/Clinton would come out against the war" ... I meant, I wish they would come out stronger, and advocate a full and quick withdrawal.

Posted by Mike | September 7, 2007 12:49 PM

Ouch. Notice this rhetorical flourish, from the website's listing of the speech.

From http://johnedwards.com/news/speeches/a-new-strategy-against-terrorism/

In August of 2001, while George Bush was in Crawford ignoring memos about the threat from Al Qaeda, I authored an op-ed in which I named terrorism as the most vital national security challenge our country would face in the coming years. I still believe that today.

...as everyone here knows, Osama bin Laden is still at large. Six years ago, President Bush declared that he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive." This is his starkest failure. Apparently, bin Laden plans to address America on the anniversary of 9/11. But I don't need to wait and hear what this murderer has to say. My position is clear. I can make you this solemn promise: as president, I will never rest until we have hunted bin Laden down and served him justice.

George Bush's approach to terrorism has not only failed to make the world safer. It has demolished the foundation of America's foreign policy: our relationships with other countries. In the first Gulf War, our allies shared the cost of troops, casualties, and funding. But in the current Iraq War, the Bush approach left us largely on our own, bearing almost all of the burden.

Tragically for America and the world, George Bush's "war on terror" approach walked directly into the trap the terrorists set for us. Islamic extremists wanted to frame the conflict with the U.S. as a war of civilizations, and the Bush Administration, stuck in a Cold War mentality, happily complied...

...Most of all, instead of a reckless, solo pursuit of an ideological agenda that abandons our moral authority and disregards our allies, we need to reengage with the world and reassert our moral leadership...

http://johnedwards.com/news/speeches/a-new-strategy-against-terrorism/

You know what? If it's pandering to boldly trumpet sensible policies which in and of themselves help shift the US political debate further toward sanity, then, g** d***it, gimme some more pandering.

Read the speech. It is without a doubt the most sensible explication of what U.S. foreign policy should be which I have heard in my entire life. (Now, that's admittedly a fairly low standard, but it's what I've got to work with.)

The pandering I didn't see was the typical pandering to the right wing and liberal hawk fools who have dominated US policy for decades.

Posted by El Cid | September 7, 2007 1:52 PM

Crap, I completely posted too fast. I meant "explication of what U.S. foreign policy should be" from a leading presidential candidate.

I've continually read far better and far bolder analysis & explications, and often from political leaders, just not the major candidates.

Sorry, I support Edwards, but even I don't want to sound like I think he's some magical super-ultra-visionary, more that it's politically bold enough just to reject a large portion of the giant nonsense which we've been taught to accept as 'normal' in US foreign policy.

Posted by El Cid | September 7, 2007 1:57 PM

"You know what? If it's pandering to boldly trumpet sensible policies which in and of themselves help shift the US political debate further toward sanity, then, g** d***it, gimme some more pandering."

Wrong, the problem is, if the political winds shape, Edwards will bend accordingly. We don't need pandering just because it suits our interests now. We need leadership. A

nd frankly, I'd much prefer if someone other than Dodd or Kucinich made the case.

Posted by Mike | September 7, 2007 2:09 PM

Well, Kman, he says "withdraw all combat troops in (sic) Iraq ." Presumably, the modifier "combat" means something -- it means leave non-combat troops in Iraq. That's nutty.

And where "in the region" should we leave combat troops? Iran? Funny. Turkey? Maybe, but do they want many thousands of troops there? Syria? See Iran. Jordan? See Turkey. Saudi Arabia? They can protect themselves, and see Turkey. Kuwait? See Turkey.

Posted by ostap | September 7, 2007 2:12 PM

the problem is, if the political winds shape, Edwards will bend accordingly. We don't need pandering just because it suits our interests now. We need leadership.

It's true, that is a serious worry. But I'm also troubled when the messages I receive from a campaign themselves worry me by being bad ideas and sounding like bad judgment, and when candidates shy away from controversial, debate-changing approaches during the campaign and stick to more vague and leader-y style rhetoric precisely when we're trying to figure out what their administration goals are.

I wish I could mash up various candidates' characteristics into one super-candidate, but I can't. If Barack Obama had a lot more of Dennis Kucinich's views, and stated them repeatedly, boldly, and publicly, well, that would certainly be impressive.

For my part, I make the gamble that Edwards' move from an overall progressive politician with a huge liberal hawk lapse on Iraq to being a strong progressive politician is genuine, which I attribute more to the public effectiveness with which the Bush Jr. administration has demonstrated that the modern Republican policy is a truly evil and harmful band of anti-Constitutional thugs than I attribute it solely to Edwards' own philosopho-moral development.

But I'll take it.

Posted by El Cid | September 7, 2007 2:23 PM

ostap, presumably Kuwait and the non-Saudi gulf states, where we have lots of troops and stage operations now.

Posted by bob | September 7, 2007 2:25 PM

Didn't Edwards disagree with Obama in one of the earlier debates about Obama's approach to Pakistan?

And now he agrees?

Posted by bob | September 7, 2007 2:26 PM

Giving cover to the moderate GOP Senators like Susan Collins in Maine, Norm Coleman in NH, possibly Sununu in NH, and Gordon in OR, is completely MF insane!

NO, NO, NO.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Whatever you do, please don't do that. Just don't bring anything to a vote if it comes down to that.

Posted by bob | September 7, 2007 2:28 PM

Fred: Are you Mike?

Posted by Phoenix Woman | September 7, 2007 4:24 PM

I like edwards.
1. The Washington consensus hate him and given their track record of failure that's a good sign.
2. Low information voters love him and he crushes republicans in poll match ups.
3. He is a genuine liberal as opposed to a triangulator.
4. He is getting better every week while others seem stalled.

PS- the subprime fiasco and uncoming recession make running a genuine liberal the smart thing to do. Watch republicans try and run to the dems left if edwards is not nominated. You heard it here first. Huckabee is the unlimate fake "progressive" republican and a sign of the strategy. Remember Bush 2000 compassionate conservative BS, it's coming back. Dems can't go too far right or they will trip. I wish Hill and Obama would clue in but alas, their advisors are fighting with the past.

Posted by Northern Observer | September 7, 2007 4:30 PM

I like edwards.
1. The Washington consensus hate him and given their track record of failure that's a good sign.
2. Low information voters love him and he crushes republicans in poll match ups.
3. He is a genuine liberal as opposed to a triangulator.
4. He is getting better every week while others seem stalled.

PS- the subprime fiasco and uncoming recession make running a genuine liberal the smart thing to do. Watch republicans try and run to the dems left if edwards is not nominated. You heard it here first. Huckabee is the unlimate fake "progressive" republican and a sign of the strategy. Remember Bush 2000 compassionate conservative BS, it's coming back. Dems can't go too far right or they will trip. I wish Hill and Obama would clue in but alas, their advisors are fighting with the past.

Posted by Northern Observer | September 7, 2007 4:31 PM

"In today's speech, Edwards is expected to sound a less-explicit warning, saying, 'if the Pakistani government fails to take care of the problem of al-Qaeda, we will.'"

In this, he's an idiot. No, we will not. Not by military means, and not by conducting military operations in Pakistan without Pakistan's consent. This simply will not work.

Go read this article and tell me again how Pakistan - even under Bhutto - is going to do anything significant about Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan:

Jihadis strike back at Pakistan
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/II06Df02.html

Not happening. Sorry, Edwards, no way.

"He is also expected to sharply criticize those that say, as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) did in one debate, that the country is safer than it was prior to before 2001. And he will once again call into question Bush's framing of the struggle against terrorism as a "war," saying that this overly emphasizes military rather than investigative tactics and plays into terrorists' hands -- an argument that has already won him ridicule from Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani."

Yet, he implicitly calls for MILITARY action in Pakistan when he says that if Pakistan cannot control Al Qaeda, the US will.

This makes him an idiot and a hypocrite.

Even trying to get Pakistan into his "CITO" organization is not going to help. Unless you change Pakistan's internal political and social structure - and its military and intelligence organizations completely - you are NOT going to change Pakistan's situation vis-a-vis Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

Just dumping Musharaff for Bhutto, let alone a Musharaff-Bhutto alliance, is not going to work.

Face facts. NONE of the Democratic candidates (don't even think of the Republican ones, except Ron Paul) except possibly Kucinich (I don't know where he stands on this) have any clue about this terrorism business. Certainly Clinton, Obama and now Edwards do not.

Edwards suggestion for a "CITO" is not a BAD idea, but it's not going to work in places like Pakistan.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 7, 2007 8:41 PM