Democrats say leaving Iraq may take years.

[calteacherguy]

DES MOINES, Aug. 11 — Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.

<snip>

Most of the Democratic candidates mention the significant military and logistical difficulties in bringing out American troops, which even optimistic experts say would take at least a year. The candidates are not only trying to retain flexibility for themselves in the event they become president, aides said, but are also hoping to tamp down any expectation that the war would abruptly end if they were elected. Most have not proposed specific troop levels or particular rules of engagement for a continued presence in Iraq, saying the conditions more than a year from now remain too uncertain.

In political terms, their strategies are a balancing act. In her public appearances, Mrs. Clinton often says, “If this president does not end this war before he leaves office, when I am president, I will.” But she has affirmed in recent months remarks she made to The New York Times in March, when she said that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops. The United States’ security, she said then, would be undermined if part of Iraq turned into a failed state” that serves as a Petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda.”

Among the challenges the next president could face in Iraq, three seem to be resonating the most: What to do if there is a genocide? What to do if chaos in Iraq threatens to engulf the region in a wider war? And what to do if Iraq descends into further lawlessness and becomes the staging ground for terrorist attacks elsewhere, including in the United States.

<snip>

“While the overwhelming majority of Americans want to bring the troops home, the question is what is the plan beyond that?” said Gov. Chet Culver of Iowa, a Democrat. “The first candidate running for president, I think on either side, who can best articulate that will win.”

http://nytimes.com/

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. It's already a failed state, so how is staying there going to help?

What to do if there is a genocide? What do you call a steady 100+/day slaughter?



What to do if chaos in Iraq threatens to engulf the region in a wider war? It aleady does.


And what to do if Iraq descends into further lawlessness and becomes the staging ground for terrorist attacks elsewhere, including in the United States. What's the difference, they could stage attacks from anyplace in the world, last time it was Hamburg.

[lyonn]

2. It is obvious that a military force of 160,000 plus civilian contractors, etc.

will take more than a couple of months to leave the country. While we are moving people and equipment out our New President should be scampering all around the ME talking the talk, telling them they are at risk when we leave if there isn't a plan to help keep the chaos down. Major serious talks with the Iraqis that are in control (?) at that time and the local leaders in the different areas. Sounds doable to me. Of course no one knows what will happen when we start leaving, who knows, they may throw flowers at us for leaving. OK, joke..