Do you believe we should take all the troops out or keep a "residual" or "limited" force in Iraq?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

This seems to be a major area of disagreement between our presidential candidates. Some favor a complete withdrawal and ending the war, while others advocate keeping a "residual" or "limited" (they conveniently fail to tell we the people any number. "Residual" could mean 30,000-50,000, according to a recent Pentagon proposal). Where do you stand? Would you vote for a candidate who advocates what is, in essence, a de-escalated Iraq war for as far as the eye can see (they don't tell us when their "residual" forces will leave Iraq either)?

[trashcanistanista]

1. all out n/t

[jtrockville]

2. I wouldn't advocate abandoning the Iraqis

We should be close enough to conduct strikes as needed. But we should not occupy the country, we should remove our bases, and we should give Iraqi oil rights to the Iraqis.

That's my 2 cents.

[Lost-in-FL]

3. What's the point of leaving 30,000 to 50,000 troops??

To me it is the same. That still would be a foreign occupying force.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

4. Good question

You are right. It would still be a foreign presence that the Iraqis would despise. Our troops would continue to be magnets for attacks.

There is a reason the de-escalated war candidates have not told us how many troops they intend to keep in Iraq. The number could be 3,000 for all we know. Their silence, though, suggests they have a January surprise waiting for us. They clearly recognize that if they told us what they intended to do it would hurt them politically so they are remaining silent, hoping no one calls them on it, and then will do whatever they decide to do when they become the new "decider." It would be tragic if we won and then had a president who kept tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for as far as the eye can see.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. All US troops should come home except for those serving in a UN peacekeeping role there?

[jwirr]

6. I do not think that Iraq will settle for anything but total withdrawal. If

we leave a small contingent there they will still be the targets. They will not stop fighting until we are gone. Even then they will be fighting between themselves. *ss started something that will not end easily.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

8. Exactly nt

[NOLALady]

7. Nothing less than complete withdrawal!

[LibertyorDeath]

9. Democrats and Rethugs agree on one thing

We should keep this ministry protected at all costs

and some permanent bases to go along with the worlds largest American embassy would be pretty cool.

It's all about the Democracy..... and they're spreading it thick.

[welshTerrier2]

10. residual force = guard the O-I-L

get 'em all out of there ... we should never allow our military to be used as a corporate security force for private commercial ventures ...

we have more than 730 permanent bases all over the world ... they are expensive ... they are imperialistic ... we could be spending that money on critical domestic priorities ...

[patrice]

11. The usual justification for a Residual Force is "Iraqis will slaughter one another."

It doesn't look like our presence is preventing them from doing so now. Can't Iraqis get ready for us to leave by either leaving too if they're in danger, or making whatever deals are necessary with one another to be more of a benefit to one another, after we leave, alive?

What does Bill Richardson say about the hypothesis of Iraqis engaging in wholesale slaughter when we leave? Richardson says ALL troops home yesterday and NO residual forces, so apparently he doesn't accept the common wisdom that we'll trigger slaughter by leaving. IS it necessarily so? Could they just be slaughtering one another now BECAUSE we are there? I think it is possible that our 100% abscense might end it.

I HATE the thought that we can't really leave for absolutely NO reason other than the fact that it was a mistake to begin with, thousands of people died for something that is at minimum questionable, ergo thousands more have to die to "proove" something about the ones that are already dead, to proove something that's actually un-proovable, or at least to make somekind of PR statement to future military recruits to the effect that "Soldiers are not 'wasted'. They die for 'the Greater Good'" - when, in fact the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq prooves that that is not necessarily true and, hence, our military could become extinct, because of what Iraq shows about how our military is used and wasted for PRIVATE gain, and if the American military DOES become extinct there won't be anyone to take the heat for Blackwater et al on our next great adventure for the "Greater Good". Anyway, I think this is one of the real reasons HC and Obama and others say there must be Redeployment and Residual Forces, not for any real concrete benefits, but essentially to insure future recruits to our military, to prevent our military from becoming a completely un-attractive option to future recruits. They need to keep the motivating illusions alive, whether the additional deaths accomplish anything or not.

I will work for local candidates, but my conscience may prevent me from voting for a president when the choices are 6 or one half-a-dozen of the other.

Redployment and Residual Forces are deal breakers for me.