Will the GOP become the anti-war party?

[LBJDemocrat]

OK, before my thread gets inundated with nasty replies, let me explain.

We know that Obama supports keeping a residual force in Iraq indefinitely. I believe Clinton does as well. Frankly, I would be extremely surprised to see a total withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of who is president.

Now, we also can be pretty sure that the violence isn't going to stop simply because we have a force of a few thousand there.

If the violence reaches a certain point, the president may increase troop levels again. Or he/she might bring in a UN peacekeeping coalition (and the GOP hates those). To put it in simple terms: The war will continue and so will American involvement.

We should also consider that Republicans, who might be pro-war when a Republican is waging it, tend to be anti-war when a Democrat's sitting in the White House (e.g. the Kosovo conflict). The Republicans will say that either:

1. The Democratic president is mismanaging the war, and if this is the case, we should pull out. I've already seen FReepers claim, absurdly, that the war is being lost because troops face too many restrictions on whom they can kill (i.e. that the war is conducted in a "PC" manner). The only thing that's keeping them from acknowledging their own weariness is their hatred of Democrats.
2. The Iraq war is a nation-building exercise. Of course it's already one and has always been, but they'll only notice it when a Democrat is in charge.

In addition to this, Iran should be considered; and it only strengthens my argument.

My point is this: Let's keep our heads cool. Iraq will not be like Vietnam where we were eventually pushed out because if any radical group gets too close to doing so, you can be quite sure that there will be a re-escalation of troops. Do you really think Iraq would be allowed to fall outside of our sphere of influence given the oil resources, the proximity of Iran, and the presence of al Qaeda-friendly terrorist groups? I don't.

What should we do, then? We should look deeply at the implications of what our candidates say when they discuss foreign policy, not just their immediate effects. Also, we should at other issues, like trade and labor policy, because we might be unsatisfied on Iraq no matter who we elect.

[TwilightGardener]

1. You make a good point. Once the Dems take charge of however many

troops are still left in Iraq, it will be like Clinton's military involvements all over again--constant blame and harrassment. However, we're not going to pull a "Bill Richardson" and totally let Iraq go, with no presence there at all. I don't think we can, realistically--I have read about some very real concerns about the entire region (due to neighboring Iran, Syria, and Turkey) breaking out into a regional/sectarian war. This would be awful, and then throw AQ into the mix--yikes. There's definitely a big risk we take in adopting Chimpy's war after he's gone, which is why I'm supporting a candidate based primarily on a very pragmatic/assertive foreign policy and a realistic war plan that may not totally satisfy either the R's or the D's, but is clear-headed and forward-thinking. I think either Obama or Hillary can rise to the challenge.

[LBJDemocrat]

2. Bill Richardson?

Are you saying he supports total withdrawal? I didn't know that. It seems inconsistent with his centrist politics. Do any other candidates (besides Gravel and Kucinich) say the same?

[TwilightGardener]

4. Yes, I am not an expert on him, but I do believe he advocates COMPLETE

withdrawal from Iraq. Surprising, I know, given all his foreign policy experience and his moderate ways, but I'm pretty sure I have it right. I think he's the only one (besides the cuckoo twins). I'm not exactly sure where Edwards stands.

[patrice]

9. Richardson's plan is:

Sequester the leaders of the various Iraqi factions and have them start all over on what their government an their oil laws are going to be.
Create a regional diplomatic conference, with ALL of the countries of the Mid East, to address their security issues with one another and, as a by product of that work, our problems with al Qaeda in the region and to make plans to address Israel and Palestine.
Withdraw ALL of the troops.
No redeployment.
No residual forces.

I think the withdrawl is reasonable within the context of the two diplomatic efforts.

[whistle]

3. Now that would take an act of God or a mass lobotomy of the reptilian

... brain functions of all republicans. Anti-war? These people are hard wired to go to war when it is in their self-interest and they don't stand to loose loved ones or even to pay their share of the cost. ReThuglicans love war and the opportunities it brings them. Sorry, but that appears to have been their pattern for much of the last half of the 20th century and now the BushCo years as well. PNAC is their new bible of the GOP including Ron Paul who says he is against foreign entanglements but pushes for a strong defense.

GOP anti-war :wtf: expect a major war for every generation

[Bullet1987]

5. Obama hasn't said he'd keep a residual force indefinently...just for the time being

once the majority of troops evacuate.

[LBJDemocrat]

7. Under what conditions would he withdraw the residual force?

Would he be waiting for things to quiet down in Iraq? Is that realistic?

I view the residual force as a base of sorts in case troop levels need to be escalated again, and they will likely need to be.

[whistle]

8. That's political stump talk, as president if our troops are fired upon

...he must order them to fire back and besides Iraq is now a quagmire which means we can't pull out even if we try. We are embedded and there is where the troops will stay. The surge and $100 billion has pretty much changed the picture for U.S. troops in Iraq now. Besides the republicans have their own military embedded in Iraq also and Cheney can keep things hot with the support of Blackwater forces.

[LBJDemocrat]

6. They won't be ideologically anti-war

Remember when John McCain said that Bush should either increase troop levels or pull out? They'll say something like that. I've seen the sentiment expressed by them.

And I remind you that Eisenhower ended the Korean War. And of course, many Republicans opposed the Kosovo involvement.

Democrats, the base at least, are ideologically committed against hastily going to war; but Republicans don't like it when a Democrat has the great (in their view) title of "war president."

[LBJDemocrat]

10. kick nt

[leftofthedial]

11. the "democrats" can't position themselves as anti-war anymore

from IWR to the PATRIOT Act to all the funding supplementals, especially the latest one, they are in the illegal-but lucrative occupation of Iraq up to their eyeballs.