What are the candidates' plans for Iraq ?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

The most important issue relating to Iraq is what the candidates plan to do about the war if elected. There seems to be relatively little discussion of this, though. There are significant differences between the candidates on Iraq, chiefly regarding their timetable, if any, for Iraq; their position, if they have stated it, on leaving permanent bases; whether they want to a complete withdrawal of troops to end the war or keep a "residual" or "limited" force in Iraq (which is essentially de-escalation).

http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/iraq/

==Edwards has issued a comprehensive proposal to end the war in Iraq—starting today: It calls on Congress to use its funding power to block President Bush's escalation, immediately begin withdrawing troops by capping funding and requiring complete withdrawal of all combat troops in 12 to 18 months.

Edwards believes that the only solution to the situation in Iraq is a political solution, which requires all the parties in Iraq to take responsibility for the future of their country. Only when American combat troops leave Iraq will the Iraqi people, regional powers, and the entire international community be forced to find an inclusive political solution to end the sectarian violence and stabilize the nation.

Edwards' plan for Iraq calls for Congress to:

* Cap Funds: Cap funding for the troops in Iraq at 100,000 troops to stop the surge and implement an immediate drawdown of 40-50,000 combat troops. Any troops beyond that level should be redeployed immediately.
* Support the Troops: Prohibit funding to deploy any new troops to Iraq that do not meet real readiness standards and that have not been properly trained and equipped, so American tax dollars are used to train and equip our troops, instead of escalating the war.
* Require Authorization: Make it clear that President Bush is conducting this war without authorization. The 2002 authorization did not give President Bush the power to use U.S. troops to police a civil war. President Bush exceeded his authority long ago, and now needs to end the war and ask Congress for new authority to manage the withdrawal of the U.S. military presence and to help Iraq achieve stability.
* End the War: Require a complete withdrawal of combat troops in Iraq in 12 to 18 months without leaving behind any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

In addition, Edwards believes stabilizing Iraq requires a major diplomatic effort to:

* Engage in direct talks with all the nations in the region, including Iran and Syria
* Support a political solution to the sectarian violence inside Iraq, including through convening a multi-party peace conference.

Edwards also believes the United States must intensify its efforts to train the Iraqi security forces.

Edwards believes that sufficient forces should remain in the region, working in concert with the international community, to ensure that instability in Iraq does not spillover and create a regional war, a terrorist haven, or spark a genocide.==

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/

==Hillary opposes President Bush's plan to escalate the war and proposed, along with Senator Robert Byrd, legislation to end authority for the war in Iraq. The legislation will propose October 11, 2007 -- the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq -- as the expiration date for that resolution.

The President would be required to come to Congress to seek new authority. Following deauthorization, Senator Clinton would not support any new legislation that did not start to remove our troops from the middle of this sectarian civil war.

She has also proposed a cap on troop levels to January 1, 2007 levels and put forth a comprehensive roadmap for ending the war. If it is followed, Hillary's bill, the Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007, will end the war before the next president takes the oath of office. But she has also been clear: if George Bush refuses to end the war, when she is president, she will.

Hillary opposes permanent bases in Iraq. She believes we may need a vastly reduced residual force to train Iraqi troops, provide logistical support, and conduct counterterrorism operations. But that is not a permanent force, and she has been clear that she does not plan a permanent occupation.

Ready to Lead

In addition to capping troop levels, Hillary's Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007 would:

* Require President Bush to begin removing the troops from Iraq within 90 days of passage, or Congress will revoke authorization for the war.
* Put an end to the blank check to the Iraqi government and give them real benchmarks with real consequences if they fail to meet them.
* Require the Secretary of Defense to certify that all troops sent to Iraq have the training and equipment they need.==

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

==At the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations in November 2005, Senator Obama called for: (1) a reduction in the number of U.S. troops; (2) a time frame for a phased withdrawal; (3) the Iraqi government to make progress on forming a political solution; (4) improved reconstruction efforts to restore basic services in Iraq; and (5) engaging the international community, particularly key neighboring states and Arab nations, to become more involved in Iraq. In January 2006 he traveled to Iraq and met with senior U.S. military commanders, Iraqi officials and U.S. troops in Baghdad and Fallujah.

Senator Obama introduced legislation in January 2007 to offer a responsible alternative to President Bush's failed escalation policy. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's expectations. 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. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the 13 benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met.==

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/iraq

Troops Out in 2007

We should get our troops out of Iraq this year. Our continued presence there only enables the Iraqi factions to delay making the hard political choices they need to make to end the civil war.
No Residual Forces Left Behind

We must remove ALL of our troops. There should be no residual US forces left in Iraq. Most Iraqis, and most others in the region, believe that we are there for their oil, and this perception is exploited by Al Qaeda, other insurgents, and anti-American Shia groups. By announcing that we intend to remove all troops, we would deprive them of this propaganda tool.
Congressional De-Authorization of War

President Bush has demonstrated neither competence nor honesty nor a sense of reality in his conduct of this war.

Congress must continue to use the power of the purse without cutting funds for troops on the ground, but we should also go one step further. Congress should assert its constitutional authority and pass a resolution de-authorizing the war under the War Powers Act. Congress can then set a military pull-out date and appropriate funds accordingly for the re-deployment of troops.
Promote Iraqi Reconciliation

We should promote an Iraqi Reconciliation Conference to bring the factions together to seek compromises and to begin confidence-building measures, including the end of militia violence. Our redeployment will give us more leverage than we have now, caught in the crossfire, to get the Iraqis to reconcile.
Work With All Neighbors and Allies

We should convene a regional conference to secure the cooperation of all of Iraq's neighbors -- including Syria and Iran -- in promoting peace and stability. Among the key objectives of such a conference should be guarantees of non-interference, as well as the creation of a multilateral force of UN peacekeepers, should the Iraqis request one. The US should support such a force, but it should be composed of non-US, primarily Muslim troops.
Global Cooperation in Reconstruction

We should convene a donor conference to fund Iraq's reconstruction. The United States needs to show the world that we intend to return to our tradition of being a trusted leader, not a unilateralist loner. The process of disengagement is an opportunity for us to show that we have turned the corner, and that we intend to rebuild our alliances, respect international law, and work with the international community.
Redeploy to Address Real Threats

We must redeploy some of our troops to stop the resurgence of the Taliban and to fight the real terrorists who attacked this country on 9-11. While all American troops in Iraq must be removed, we need to maintain a military presence in the region, including in Kuwait and in the Persian Gulf. We must have the regional capacity to use air power, special forces and other means to strike Al Qaeda anywhere. We do not need American troops in Iraq to perform this essential task.

We also must bring our National Guard home where they are needed for homeland security, and we must focus our energy and resources on real threats, such as nuclear proliferation, Al Qaeda, public health, and global warming.

http://www.joebiden.com/issues/?id=0009

A Five Point Plan for Iraq

1. Establish One Iraq, with Three Regions

* Federalize Iraq in accordance with its constitution by establishing three largely autonomous regions - Shiite, Sunni and Kurd -- with a strong but limited central government in Baghdad
* Put the central government in charge of truly common interests: border defense, foreign policy, oil production and revenues
* Form regional governments -- Kurd, Sunni and Shiite -- responsible for administering their own regions

2. Share Oil Revenues

* Gain agreement for the federal solution from the Sunni Arabs by guaranteeing them 20 percent of all present and future oil revenues -- an amount roughly proportional to their size -- which would make their region economically viable
* Empower the central government to set national oil policy and distribute the revenues, which would attract needed foreign investment and reinforce each community's interest in keeping Iraq intact and protecting the oil infrastructure


3. Convene International Conference, Enforce Regional Non-Aggression Pact

* Convene with the U.N. a regional security conference where Iraq's neighbors, including Iran, pledge to support Iraq's power sharing agreement and respect Iraq's borders
* Engage Iraq's neighbors directly to overcome their suspicions and focus their efforts on stabilizing Iraq, not undermining it
* Create a standing Contact Group, to include the major powers, that would engage Iraq's neighbors and enforce their commitments


4. Responsibly Drawdown US Troops

* Direct U.S. military commanders to develop a plan to withdraw and re-deploy almost all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2007
* Maintain in or near Iraq a small residual force -- perhaps 20,000 troops -- to strike any concentration of terrorists, help keep Iraq's neighbors honest and train its security forces


5. Increase Reconstruction Assistance and Create a Jobs Program

* Provide more reconstruction assistance, conditioned on the protection of minority and women's rights and the establishment of a jobs program to give Iraqi youth an alternative to the militia and criminal gangs
* Insist that other countries take the lead in funding reconstruction by making good on old commitments and providing new ones -- especially the oil-rich Arab Gulf countries

http://kucinich.us/node/1803

These are the elements of the Kucinich Plan:

1. The US announces it will end the occupation, close military bases and withdraw. The insurgency has been fueled by the occupation and the prospect of a long-term presence as indicated by the building of permanent bases. A US declaration of an intention to withdraw troops and close bases will help dampen the insurgency which has been inspired to resist colonization and fight invaders and those who have supported US policy. Furthermore this will provide an opening where parties within Iraq and in the region can set the stage for negotiations towards peaceful settlement.

2. .US announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops and necessary equipment home. Congress appropriated $70 billion in bridge funds on October 1 st for the war. Money from this and other DOD accounts can be used to fund the troops in the field over the next few months, and to pay for the cost of the return of the troops, (which has been estimated at between $5 and $7 billion dollars) while a political settlement is being negotiated and preparations are made for a transition to an international security and peacekeeping force.

3. Order a simultaneous return of all US contractors to the United States and turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi government. The contracting process has been rife with world-class corruption, with contractors stealing from the US Government and cheating the Iraqi people, taking large contracts and giving 5% or so to Iraqi subcontractors.

Reconstruction activities must be reorganized and closely monitored in Iraq by the Iraqi government, with the assistance of the international community. The massive corruption as it relates to US contractors, should be investigated by congressional committees and federal grand juries. The lack of tangible benefits, the lack of accountability for billions of dollars, while millions of Iraqis do not have a means of financial support, nor substantive employment, cries out for justice.

It is noteworthy that after the first Gulf War, Iraqis reestablished electricity within three months, despite sanctions. Four years into the US occupation there is no water, nor reliable electricity in Bagdhad, despite massive funding from the US and from the Madrid conference. The greatest mystery involves the activities of private security companies who function as mercenaries. Reports of false flag operations must be investigated by an international tribunal.

4. Convene a regional conference for the purpose of developing a security and stabilization force for Iraq. The focus should be on a process which solves the problems of Iraq. The US has told the international community, "This is our policy and we want you to come and help us implement it." The international community may have an interest in helping Iraq, but has no interest in participating in the implementation of failed US policy.

A shift in US policy away from unilateralism and toward cooperation will provide new opportunities for exploring common concerns about the plight of Iraq. The UN is the appropriate place to convene, through the office of the Secretary General, all countries that have interests, concerns and influence, including the five permanent members of the Security Council and the European community, and all Arab nations.

The end of the US occupation and the closing of military bases are necessary preconditions for such a conference. When the US creates a shift of policy and announces it will focus on the concerns of the people of Iraq, it will provide a powerful incentive for nations to participate.

It is well known that while some nations may see the instability in Iraq as an opportunity, there is also an even-present danger that the civil war in Iraq threatens the stability of nations throughout the region. The impending end of the occupation will provide a breakthrough for the cooperation between the US and the UN and the UN and countries of the region. The regional conference must include Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

5. Prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to move in, replacing US troops who then return home. The UN has an indispensable role to play here, but cannot do it as long as the US is committed to an occupation. The UN is the only international organization with the ability to mobilize and the legitimacy to authorize troops.

The UN is the place to develop the process, to build the political consensus, to craft a political agreement, to prepare the ground for the peacekeeping mission, to implement the basis of an agreement that will end the occupation and begin the transition to international peacekeepers. This process will take at least three months from the time the US announces the intention to end the occupation.

The US will necessarily have to fund a peacekeeping mission, which, by definition will not require as many troops. Fifty percent of the peacekeeping troops must come from nations with large Muslim populations. The international security force, under UN direction, will remain in place until the Iraqi government is capable of handling its own security. The UN can field an international security and peace keeping mission, but such an initiative will not take shape unless there is a peace to keep, and that will be dependent upon a political process which reaches agreement between all the Iraqi parties.

Such an agreement means fewer troops will be needed.

According to UN sources, the UN the peacekeeping mission in the Congo, which is four times larger in area than Iraq, required about twenty thousand troops. Finally the UN does not mobilize quickly because they depend upon governments to supply the troops, and governments are slow. The ambition of the UN is to deploy in less than ninety days. However, without an agreement of parties the UN is not likely to approve a mission to Iraq, because countries will not give them troops.

6. Develop and fund a process of national reconciliation. The process of reconciliation must begin with a national conference, organized with the assistance of the UN and with the participation of parties who can create, participate in and affect the process of reconciliation, defined as an airing of all grievances and the creation of pathways toward open, transparent talks producing truth and resolution of grievances. The Iraqi government has indicated a desire for the process of reconciliation to take place around it, and that those who were opposed to the government should give up and join the government. Reconciliation must not be confused with capitulation, nor with realignments for the purposes of protecting power relationships.

For example, Kurds need to be assured that their own autonomy will be regarded and therefore obviate the need for the Kurds to align with religious Shia for the purposes of self-protection. The problem in Iraq is that every community is living in fear. The Shia, who are the majority fear they will not be allowed to government even though they are a majority. The Kurds are afraid they will lose the autonomy they have gained. The Sunnis think they will continue to be made to pay for the sins of Saddam.

A reconciliation process which brings people together is the only way to overcome their fears and reconcile their differences. It is essential to create a minimum of understanding and mutual confidence between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

But how can a reconciliation process be constructed in Iraq when there is such mistrust: Ethnic cleansing is rampant. The police get their money from the US and their ideas from Tehran. They function as religious militia, fighting for supremacy, while the Interior Ministry collaborates. Two or three million people have been displaced. When someone loses a family member, a loved one, a friend, the first response is likely to be that there is no reconciliation.

It is also difficult to move toward reconciliation when one or several parties engaged in the conflict think they can win outright. The Shia, some of whom are out for revenge, think they can win because they have the defacto support of the US. The end of the US occupation will enhance the opportunity for the Shia to come to an accommodation with the Sunnis. They have the oil, the weapons, and support from Iran. They have little interest in reconciling with those who are seen as Baathists.

The Sunnis think they have experience, as the former army of Saddam, boasting half a million people insurgents. The Sunnis have so much more experience and motivation that as soon as the Americans leave they believe they can defeat the Shia government. Any Sunni revenge impulses can be held in check by international peacekeepers. The only sure path toward reconciliation is through the political process. All factions and all insurgents not with al Queda must be brought together in a relentless process which involves Saudis, Turks and Iranians.

7. Reconstruction and Jobs. Restart the failed reconstruction program in Iraq. Rebuild roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, and other public facilities, houses, and factories with jobs and job training going to local Iraqis.

8. Reparations. The US and Great Britain have a high moral obligation to enable a peace process by beginning a program of significant reparations to the people of Iraq for the loss of lives, physical and emotional injuries, and damage to property. There should be special programs to rescue the tens of thousands of Iraqi orphans from lives of destitution. This is essential to enable reconciliation.

9. Political Sovereignty. Put an end to suspicions that the US invasion and occupation was influenced by a desire to gain control of Iraq's oil assets by A) setting aside initiatives to privatize Iraqi oil interests or other national assets, and B) by abandoning efforts to change Iraqi national law to facilitate privatization.

Any attempt to sell Iraqi oil assets during the US occupation will be a significant stumbling block to peaceful resolution. The current Iraqi constitution gives oil proceeds to the regions and the central government gets nothing. There must be fairness in the distribution of oil resources in Iraq. An Iraqi National Oil Trust should be established to guarantee the oil assets will be used to create a fully functioning infrastructure with financial mechanisms established protect the oil wealth for the use of the people of Iraq.

10. Iraq Economy. Set forth a plan to stabilize Iraq's cost for food and energy, on par to what the prices were before the US invasion and occupation. This would block efforts underway to raise the price of food and energy at a time when most Iraqis do not have the means to meet their own needs.

11.Economic Sovereignty. Work with the world community to restore Iraq's fiscal integrity without structural readjustment measures of the IMF or the World Bank. \n\n\n

12 .International Truth and Reconciliation. Establish a policy of truth and reconciliation between the people of the United States and the people of Iraq.

http://www.chrisdodd.com/issues/foreign_affairs

# Diplomacy, Not More Troops in Iraq. Chris Dodd is strongly opposed to the Bush-Cheney troop surge strategy. As President, he will advance a surge of diplomacy in the region, not a surge of more troops.
# End the War in Iraq Decisively. Chris Dodd understands that ending the war in Iraq makes America safer. He strongly supports the Feingold-Reid proposal – the only responsible measure in Congress that sets a timetable to end the war in Iraq by March 31, 2008 – and he has urged all the candidates in the presidential race to join him. It is time to stand up to the President’s misguided Iraq policy.

http://www.gravel2008.us/issues

IRAQ WAR

Senator Gravel's position on Iraq remains clear and consistent: to commence an immediate and orderly withdrawal of all U.S. troops that will have them home within 60 days. The sooner U.S. troops are withdrawn, the sooner we can pursue aggressive diplomacy to bring an end to the civil war that currently consumes Iraq. Senator Gravel seeks to work with neighboring countries to lead a collective effort to bring peace to Iraq.

One of the leading opponents of the Vietnam War, Senator Gravel was one of the first current or former elected officials to publicly oppose the planned invasion of Iraq in 2002. He appeared on MSNBC prior to the invasion insisting that intelligence showed that there were indeed no weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq posed no threat to the United States and that invading Iraq was against America’s national interests and would result in a disaster of epic proportions for both the United States and the Iraqi people.

Today, more than four years into the invasion, the death toll of U.S. troops has climbed over 3,300 with over 50,000 more permanently maimed, some having lost limbs, others their sight. Tens of thousands more are afflicted with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and urgently need psychological care. The Iraqi civilian death toll nears three-quarters of a million, and still there remains no end in sight to the bloodshed.

As President, Senator Gravel will call for a U.S. corporate withdrawal from Iraq and hand over reconstruction contacts to Iraqi businesses which will empower Iraqi nationals to reconstruct their own country.

[calteacherguy]

1. It's hard to plan for something when you don't know what you are planning for.

No one has any idea what the situation in Iraq will be in January, 2009.

[PresidentObama]

2. Unfortunately you're right. It's good the candidates have plans in place.

But you never know what the hell is going to happen in war. War is unpredictable. Which is the sad and tragic truth. I just hope we get out of this war as fast as possible. I hope our candidates keep talking and acting, and the American people start listening and acting as well. Quite simply put it scares me to think we might be in war still when the next President takes office. Scary.

[calteacherguy]

4. The logical thing is to look for a candidate best equipped

to deal with unforseen circumstances.

[Sparkly]

3. Most of what's here doesn't address what they'd do as president...

Just what they want the current preznit and/or Congress to do...

It still raises a lot of questions to me. For example, "Edwards believes that sufficient forces should remain in the region, working in concert with the international community, to ensure that instability in Iraq does not spillover and create a regional war, a terrorist haven, or spark a genocide." Yet there's a thread here right now linking to his saying he thinks it's time to withdraw. How many withdraw and how many stay, and when, how, what then?

Clinton, too, plans for "a vastly reduced residual force" -- how many, where are the others, for how long, and what's the rest of the plan?

And there's a lot of talk of "ending the war" which I find disingenuous.

I hope we'll see a REAL debate -- as in a discussion -- on Iraq policy, especially going beyond discussion of troop strength and right to the heart of the various motivations for the violence and a plan for PEACE there.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

5. I believe the Edwards campaign clarified its position

There was a thread on Daily Kos I believe that included the Edwards campaign responding to questions about him calling from a complete withdrawal of combat troops. The response was that Edwards advocates a total withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, except for a small number that will be needed to protect the embassy--which is common for American embassies. This is starkly different from HRC and Obama's positions on this. Regarding the troops remaining in the region, he would keep troops in the region--outside of Iraq--to deal with a terrorist threat or genocide of either emerged after US troops left.

HRC, and as far as I know, Obama have not clarified what they mean by a "residual" or "limited" force remaining in Iraq. That could be up to 75,000 troops. What is clear, though, is that they will keep troops in Iraq to prosecute anti-terror actions and train troops. In other words, what they are advocating a de-escalation of the war dressed up as "ending the war." If we accept the notion that our presence in Iraq is making things work, why would we keep troops in Iraq indefinitely?

You are right, though, these plans are more about what they believe should be done now than what they will do as president. However, they provide great insight into what they believe needs to be done in Iraq and as such are great indicators as to what they would do if elected. We know HRC would keep troops in Iraq to prosecute a de-escalated war for an indefinite period as a result of her current proposal. This should be an issue in the campaign, instead of a perverse and myopic obsession with worshiping at the altar of the 5 year old IWR.