Democrats increasingly taking position, ending a war as complicated as starting one

[dajoki]

Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years
By JEFF ZELENY and MARC SANTORA
Published: August 12, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/us/politics/12dems.html?ex=1344571200&en=c925ab884c78bfa3&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

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.

Candidate Topic PagesMore Politics NewsJohn Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.

These positions and those of some rivals suggest that the Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief. Antiwar advocates have raised little challenge to such positions by Democrats.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico stands apart, having suggested that he would even leave some military equipment behind to expedite the troop withdrawal. In a forum at a gathering of bloggers last week, he declared: “I have a one-point plan to get out of Iraq: Get out! Get out!”

<<snip>>

Still, many Democrats are increasingly taking the position, in televised debates and in sessions with voters across the country, that ending a war can be as complicated as starting one.

[babylonsister]

1. Yes, it's tough cleaning up such huge messes as this admin has made.

It does need doing though.

[EVDebs]

2. "...Keeping troops in the region (Iraq)..." is stupid. Keep them in the old staging areas

Kuwait, Qatar, etc. but let Iraq sort itself out in its civil war. Edward's gut knows better !

[hijinx87]

3. I never thought "immediate withdrawal" was really possible

it's important to think this through. if every US soldier in
iraq suddenly disappeared because of the policies of a democratic
white house, and the whole country descended (further) into chaos
and mayhem -- and believe it, the MSM would play it to the hilt --
it would be our chaos and mayhem.

as unfair as it seems, we inherit a little bit more of this obscene
war with every passing day of democratic congressional leadership.
the effect will be even more pronounced with a democratic white house.

[valerief]

4. They're either benefitting financially from that stance or being threatened.

Or both.

[sandnsea]

5. Has everyone forgotten 'over the horizon'

This is an intentional manipulation of the Dem withdrawal strategy, at least the one that people like Murtha, Kerry and Feingold supported. You have to leave troops at the embassy, we always do. We're not going to stop fighting terrorism in the region, nobody ever said we would. Somebody is distorting the Iraq withdrawal issue.

DThe only Democrat I know of who has traditionally distorted Iraq policy is Hillary Clinton.

[hijinx87]

7. oh my, something else that "only hillary does". n/t

[sandnsea]

10. She does, are you denying it?

She's the one that said we had to 'stay the course' in 2003, which the media repeated as if it were the position of the entire Dem Party. She's the one who opposed a deadline, and now pretends to be the candidate to end the war. She's the one who can get anything into the media, any time she wants to. Of course she is trying to muddle the Iraq war issue because the DLCers believe in it and always have.

[hijinx87]

11. I would be better able to confirm it or deny it

if I knew what the heck a "traditional distortion" was.

[sandnsea]

12. I just explained it

Her Iraq policy is the one the media reported as the Dem Party Iraq policy. She only represented a handful of DLCers, but that's the policy that got spouted anyway. That's where people got the idea that the Dem Party had the same Iraq strategy as Bush. Now it's happening again. Who benefits?

[stillcool]

6. and then there's this...

Benchmark Boogie: A Guide to the Struggle Over Iraq's Oil

By Antonia Juhasz, AlterNet. Posted July 14, 2007.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/56672 /

The Bush administration has spent four years trying to force successive Iraqi governments to pass the law, referred to as either the "hydrocarbons" or "oil" law. While it has gone through several permutations, the basics have remained the same and have followed the original prescriptions set out by the State Department.

The law would change Iraq's oil system from a nationalized model -- all but closed to U.S. oil companies -- to a privatized model open to foreign corporate control. At least two-thirds of Iraq's oil would be open to foreign oil companies under terms that they usually only dream about, including 30-year-long contracts. (For details of the law, see my March 2007 New York Times Op-Ed, "Whose Oil Is It, Anyway?")

In January, after four years of trying to get the law passed in Iraq, President Bush went public with this demand when he made his "speech to the nation" announcing the "surge" of 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq.

The president explained that the surge would be successful where other U.S. efforts had failed in Iraq because the Iraqi government would be held to a set of specific "benchmarks." Those benchmarks were laid out in a White House Fact Sheet released the same day that explained that the Iraq government had committed to several economic and political measures, including to "enact hydrocarbons law to promote investment, national unity, and reconciliation."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress adopts the president's benchmark

By the time the Congress took up the issue of funding the war in May, public awareness of and opposition to the oil law both in Iraq and the United States had grown substantially. Congress passed and the president signed the Iraq Supplemental War Spending Bill (PDF) to fund the Iraq war through the end of September.

In the Supplemental, Congress deliberately adopted the president's benchmarks, specifically and continually referencing his January 10, 2007, speech. Congress made clear its desire to hold both Bush and the Iraqi government to the commitment to meet the benchmarks. But, the words "hydrocarbon law" were never used. Instead, Congress referenced the president's benchmarks but described only the revenue-sharing component.

The Supplemental finds that "it is essential that the sovereign government of Iraq set out measurable and achievable benchmarks and President Bush said, on January 10, 2007, that 'America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks.'" And, "The president's January 10, 2007, address had three components: political, military, and economic … The United States strategy in Iraq, hereafter, shall be conditioned on the Iraqi government meeting benchmarks … including: (iii) Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources of the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner."

Congress stipulated that if the benchmarks were not met by September, it would cut off funds being made available to Iraq under the "Economic Support Fund." These are funds used for, among other things, U.S. reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/56672

[sutz12]

8. Actually, it's always HARDER to end a war than start one...

It's always been that way. After all, it only takes one country to start a war, but two or more countries have to agree to end it.

[lligrd]

9. Prolonging A Quagmire Is Always The Best Answer

:sarcasm:

[democratsin08]

13. they arent listening to us

we want out of iraq!!

[moondust]

14. But it's easy to start a war.

If you're surrounded by legions of incompetent, plutocratic lap dogs who know they will have to sacrifice nothing to get their hands on the spoils.