If you look at the websites of the three leading Democratic Presidential candidates, you’ll see plenty about ending the war in Iraq. But nestled in those policy statements about ending the war are statements about continuing the war on terror in Iraq.
Hillary Clinton
She believes we may need a vastly reduced residual force to train Iraqi troops, provide logistical support, and conduct counterterrorism operations.
John Edwards
"After withdrawal, the U.S. should retain sufficient forces in the region to prevent a genocide, deter a regional spillover of the civil war, and prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven."
Barack Obama
The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.
Every day it seems that we hear about more Al Qaeda deaths in Iraq at the hands of American soldiers. Further, the recent UK bombing incidents had al Qaeda in Iraq ties, demonstrating that they are spreading their efforts beyond Iraq. In this post, I don’t care to debatre the issue as to why they are there and what policy decisions increased their presence. Let’s instead look to the future. Just how many American troops will we need in Iraq to implement the Clinton/Obama/Edwards mission? I have yet to find anything from these candidates telling us just how many troops they intend to leave in Iraq. Isn’t it about time that they let the American people know?
No person outside the "need to know" circle could have any idea what it takes to win the war (define win in your own terms). The intel, the troop placements, knowledge of real battle plans and strategies, etc. This is why I cringe when I hear people make all these grand pronouncements about the war, our position, the results, and so on. You think little old you or me in Champaign IL really has a clue as to what's going on in Iraq?? If it's the NPR (or Fox for that matter) version that you take as fact, then I've got some real estate in FL to talk to you about.
I would imagine however, that these candidates have a slightly more informed position. But yet they still don't really know what's what. War strategy is an incredibly complex thing, relying on a myriad of factors, intel, experience and sound judgement. Something Hilary, John, and Barack all lack.
The statements are a case of pure politics. The Democratic candidates failingly attempt to play to their base by calling for withdrawal of US troops out of Iraq and at the same time saying we need some there to deal with terrorism and security to make themselves look politically strong on national security issues. They realize the truth of the situation even if the base is intentionally blinding themselves to it.
As far as how many troops we will need depends a lot on what will our objectives be. This will be very speculative and as the previous poster indicated it will be dependant on a number of factors. The bottomline is the nature of the objectives established and their scope will eventually determine the size of the force necessary to implement them. While the candidates have outlined some areas troops should be involved with they haven't stated the scope and as such leave it incomplete. Speculative assessment, but on the face of it Edwards' plan would still leave tens of thousands of troops there. Obama's would leave less and Clinton's even less. Actual numbers would be very hard to come by.
The real question of the 2008 election is will Republican senators force Bush's hand and make him begin withdrawing troops, and moving troops still left in Iraq to secure bases, in time to save GOP chances at the polls. It's beginning to look like it, with Sen. Domenici and Sen. Lugar calling for a troop drawdown.
The "stay the course" alternative will result in a disastrous election for Republicans in 2008: loss of presidency, solid Democratic control of Senate.
Randall, the American public will decide whether this war continues through the electoral process, just like happened with the Korean and Vietnam wars. And I trust the American public's judgment a hell of a lot more than I do the judgment of the "military experts."
The candidates are keeping it vague because they can, and because it's in their best interests. If they say that by "over the horizon" they mean Kuwait, then they have suddenly opened a diplomatic issue with basing troops in a country that they haven't actually asked, nor in which they, as candidates, are in a position to negotiate with (not to mention that the fact that we are eroding the good will of the Kuwaitis, which isn't limitless). If they say that troops will go back to Saudi, no one will be happy with that. If they say that they will put them out in the desert of Iraq, then the anti-war folks that form the core of their support won't be happy, because that won't be pulling out of Iraq or ending the war, just moving troops around in-country. I think that the candidates all view spelling out actual details as a campaign misstep, and I would be shocked if any of them gave any more information without really being cornered on the issue.
All the candidates are keeping it vague. How many of ANY of the candidates have actually given an exact or even a ballpark figure of how many troops need to be in Iraq for the future?
All these politicians are dancing around the issue of Iraq; no matter what your affiliation. I think Mr. Randall makes a valid point in saying that none of these candidates have a clue, just like Bush doesn't have a clue right now. They will all rely on some "military expert" when it comes to exact numbers and figures.
If you go to Republican candidate websites you'll get similar vagueness on the future of Iraq. They say they either want to maintain the current status or further increase troops. It is clearly obvious why none of these presidential hopefuls are being specific; this issue will decide the election. If you're Republican why would you say, "I'm going to increase troop deployment by 100,000 troops"? You might as well hand over all that fundraising money and wait four more years.
The Democrats are also playing this smart by simply saying they want to reduce troops without being specific. Why say, "I want to reduce troops by 75% in the next year"? You'd only give the Republicans some well needed ammunition to say things like "you don't want to protect the Iraqi people", "you're putting our troops at risk", etc.
I think Mr. Shelden is asking a question that has an obvious answer, and I'm sure he probably knew that too.
For those of you interested, the Republican candidates stand like this (according to their campaign sites):
McCain - "A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq....Accomplishing each of these goals will require more troops and is a crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development in the country."
Rudy - "Like all Americans, Rudy Giuliani prays for the success of our troops in Iraq and their safe return home. But he believes setting an artificial timetable for withdrawal from Iraq now would be a terrible mistake, because it would only embolden our enemies. Iraq is only one front in the larger war on terror, and failure there would lead to a broader and bloodier regional conflict in the near future. Building an accountable Iraq will assist in reducing the threat of terrorism."
Fred Thompson - Doesn't really have an actual campaign site yet, but from The Fred Factor by Steve Gill, "I would do essentially what the president's doing [on Iraq]. I know it's not popular right now, but we're the leader of the free world whether we like it or not. People are looking to us to test our resolve and see what we're willing to do in resolving the situation that we have there. If Saddam Hussein was still around today with his sons looking at Iran developing a nuclear capability, he undoubtedly would have reconstituted his nuclear capability. Things would be worse than what they are today."
Romney - Who doesn't even have Iraq listed as one of his "issues", I found this news release from January, "Governor Mitt Romney, in direct consideration of the proposed increase in troop deployments in Iraq, issued the following statement today putting an emphasis on the need for clear and measurable strategic objectives. "I agree with the President: Our strategy in Iraq must change. Our military mission, for the first time, must include securing the civilian population from violence and terror. It is impossible to defeat the insurgency without first providing security for the Iraqi people. Civilian security is the precondition for any political and economic reconstruction. "In consultation with Generals, military experts and troops who have served on the ground in Iraq, I believe securing Iraqi civilians requires additional troops. I support adding five brigades in Baghdad and two regiments in Al-Anbar province. Success will require rapid deployment."
The differene j-dub is that the Dems are saying on hand that they are going to "end the war" and remove all combat troops, but then they make these particular caveats. If you keep troops in iraq to fight al qaeda you aren't ending the war.
I understand your difference, but you also stated "let's look to the future". Doesn't the future possibly encompass all candidates? At this point it sure does. Or have you already given up hope for the Rs, or maybe this is just a chance to try and take a shot at the Dems?
My point was, whether you make a claim to "stay the course", or to "end the war"; nobody is making any definitive statements about Iraq with regards to troop deployment or removal. Hence, the reason to include both sides of the argument when discussing the subject.
Does it really ONLY matter your position on the troops if you're looking to bring them home? Another reason to look at both sides, or consider all candidates approach to the issue. Personally, I'd be more concerned about the people looking to continue adding troops or to maintain the current force. How many more troops will they need to have success in Iraq? How long before we can remove ourselves, etc?
I'm sure you could poll the country and they too would consider those bigger concerns. If we were talking troop reductions instead of more deployments right now; Iraq wouldn't be such a polarizing issue.
The dems are talking out of both sides of their mouths on this issue.
So was that really your point? To point out the fact that they're talking out of both sides of their mouth. Well, that was disappointing. I thought there was more to the discussion than that. Pointing fingers only further demonstrates the lack of leadership that is prevalent throughout all of politics. We can discuss and become more educated/informed or just result to partisan bickering; the choice is yours. I'll continue my analysis of your question just for kicks.
As for the Ds, talking out of both sides or not, bringing troops home is bringing troops home. If they stick to their word, I'm all for it. Problem is GW has left any candidate quite a mess to clean up and I'm not big on quitting anything; especially a mess of our own making. But, I can't support a long term stay in Iraq either. I don't think either party has the right answer at this point. More creativity is obviously needed.
As far as the Rs are concerned, here is my anaylsis:
McCain, probably the most military qualified of the bunch, scares the hell out of me at times. I don't think he'd hesistate to double our forces in the ME. Scary, but at this point; he might be right. Overwhelm them with troops and hope to evaporate all resistance. Nice idea, but this Vietnam-like style of warfare has already been tougher than GW expected. A risky move, but I think he'd do it.
Rudy - I like his leadership and his resolve, and of all the candidates, he probably gets it the best. If he can tame the City of NY, he might have the best luck managing the jungle of the ME.
Thompson - Not enough info to really talk about him at this point. In general, great speaker, been in politics for longer than I knew about.
Romney - He is really good at pointing out the flaws in others, but has yet to impress me with any substance of his own. Lots of rhetoric, but not much else. The fact that he doesn't list Iraq as an "issue" is by itself disturbing. Yet, "Defeating the Jihadists" made the cut of "issues" along with statements like this: "Romney wants the public to know that Jihadists are not an 'armed group of crazed maniacs in the hills of Afghanistan.' Rather, Romney says the United States is facing a 'far more sinister and broad-based extremist faction' with a 'very 8th century view of the world.'" Is this guy for real? An 8th century view of the world? Yikes. And people wonder why they hate us. Also, wouldn't that be akin to saying "all those Christians have a very 1st century view of the world..."
Anyways, I suggest the rest of you reading this thread to research all potential candidates and see for yourself who best fits your ideals. Don't let the ANY of the partisan media, bloggers, and/or local elected officials to determine your vote for our next president. Research, research, research.
Yes, the Dems are talking out of both sides of their mouths - should we really be shocked that politicians are trying to have it both ways? They know that if they win, they will probably have to stay in Iraq until it's either a little more orderly, or get right down to it and pull out all of our soldiers, consequences be damned. There will doubtless be some buyer's remorse on the part of the anti-war core of support should a Democrat be elected and attempt to follow the first course.
I wouldn't expect the GOPers to remain fixed in their positions, however. Several top GOP senators switched last week to a more anti-war stance, and to hear the talking heads go on, one would think that the party is ready for a revolt in September. If significant numbers of Republicans cross over in a couple of months, I would be surprised if they didn't take a few presidential candidates along with them. I'm not sure who that would be - I'm betting Romney - although his statements leave little wiggle room, he's clearly the best, um, wiggler.
Romney says the United States is facing a 'far more sinister and broad-based extremist faction' with a 'very 8th century view of the world.'" Is this guy for real? An 8th century view of the world? Yikes. And people wonder why they hate us. Also, wouldn't that be akin to saying "all those Christians have a very 1st century view of the world..."
Not at all. The Taliban, al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood and others like them are pretty frank in their assessment that the problem with Islam is that they have turned their back on the pure, 8th century theology of early Islam. When they talk of reinstituting Sharia law, they are really talking about turning back the legal clock to the middle ages - and all of these groups have that as a central goal, among other things. No Christians talk about turning back the clock to the first century - why would anyone want to turn back the clock to a time when they were persecuted and fed to lions? But Islamic history, on the other hand, started with a few centuries of conquest, when Christian Europe was nearly overrun. Back then, the Muslims were the ones on a roll, and the west were the ones that were on the defensive - considering that the roles have reversed so much today, one can see the attractiveness of the case, however odd or impossible it may seem that returning to those values would bring about a new golden age. Still, that's their program - check out organizations like MEMRI to see what Islamists say in Arabic and other local languages.