Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years

[unhappycamper]

At a June appearance in Washington by Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rae Abileah protested American involvement in Iraq.


Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years
By JEFF ZELENY and MARC SANTORA
Published: August 12, 2007


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.

John 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!”

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.

~snip~

Americans Against Escalation in Iraq has created its “Iraq Summer” campaign to persuade members of Congress to support legislation changing course in Iraq. While the group is focusing on Republicans across the country, including deploying a blimp to fly above the Iowa straw poll on Saturday, it has not weighed in on the Democratic side of the presidential race and the fact that several Democratic candidates call for an extended but limited military commitment in Iraq. “We are in a good position when leaders are debating the best way to bring our troops home,” said Moira Mack, a group spokeswoman, “rather than whether or not to bring them home.”


more


uhc comment: :wtf:

Get. The. Fuck. Out. NOW!

[radfringe]

1. yep

Don't miss a toon - sign up for a FREE SUBSCRIPTION Radical Fringe on Comics Sherpa

[TomClash]

2. You can't buck the Empire . . .

. . . if you want to be Emperor.

1,000 bases around the world are not enough to rule the Empire and the gluttonous quantities of oil and other commodities it sucks up to feed that obese and obsequious beast - the American people.

[MH1]

3. It will take several months to a year, at least, to withdraw all troops

We will lose control over Basra and our main supply route when the Brits leave, which is happening soon (I forget the exact date), and according to NPR story I heard yesterday (maybe Friday?) the US doesn't have the resources to backfill the Brits and aren't even thinking about it much. It is one more mind-boggling military failure of our incompetent leadership. (Whatever you think about the war, how can the Brit departure without replacement coverage be seen as anything BUT a major failure? Maybe that is why you don't hear about it anywhere but on NPR?)

Richardson is right about leaving equipment - but it won't be a choice, by the time that time comes. Exiting Iraq is going to be VERY ugly, and it will be politically disastrous for whichever party is in charge at the time. Of course it should be politically disastrous to stay (or to even have gotten there in the first place), but the GOP owns most of the media and is doing a good job of varnishing their performance - the Dems won't be able to.

Think Somalia (Black Hawk Down) times 1000.


In case there's any confusion, of course I think we should pull out - we are incapable of fixing what we broke (especially under BushCorp) - but the political damage will be huge for the Democrats whatever they do. Which you might not care about, except the Democratic Party, flawed as it is, is the only brake we have on this country's slide toward authoritarian theocratic corporatocracy.

[KharmaTrain]

4. It's Always Harder Getting Out Than In...

Damn if that doesn't sound sexual. :rofl:

It took Nixon 4 years from his first troop de-escalation until he got most the troops out.

The sad fact is that our military is ass deep in this mess now and you just don't tell these guys to hop on a plane and come home. Good chance they're gonna have to shoot their way out and then where do they go? Back to Kuwaiit? Moving 150,000 troops, along with their equipment will take months...and that's under a good scenario. Without a central government or other force to fill the vacuum and ensure a safe, organized pull-out is all but impossible and expressing a "drop dead" date is one that's political dynamite with any candidate...especially if they can't meet that date.

And this doesn't even count the 100,000 plus contractors and mercenaries that are also in that country...any withdrawl will be complicated as long as these hired guns are still on the ground...or that they try to bug out ahead of our regular military forces.

[rjones2818]

5. The funny thing is that the Times reporters

only look at the pro-war candidates. Where in the story are Dennis and Mike?

Go Dennis: Get us out of Iraq NOW!
http://dennis4president.com

[B Calm]

6. Dennis Kucinich disagrees!

[mmonk]

7. That's why Richardson and Kucinich are my only two

possibilities in voting for president. The rest of my votes will go to elected democratic judges and state legislators. Not much to choose from in the coming 08 elections.

[Major Hogwash]

8. This is the NUMBER ONE ISSUE of the 2008 election - read this article!!

At this thread -
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3417059

[lonestarnot]

10. Vietnam history. Read it.

[Major Hogwash]

17. The link in that article has all of the facts and figures about the Iraq War in it.

And more people need to read that article to see that pulling out of Iraq won't take but 6 months, tops.

Baghdad is only 300 miles from Kuwait, for crying out loud.
That's only a day's drive, man.
That's easy.

[lonestarnot]

9. Some of the dems may be war profiteers.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. I disagree

MOST, not "some" are war profiteers.

[lonestarnot]

12. I wouldn't go that far. Dennis is not a war profiteer.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. Okay there's one

And how many are running?

[kenny blankenship]

13. ...while leaving the Democratic Party can be done overnight.

The choice is theirs.

[LittleClarkie]

15. We're still a presence in Germany and WWII ended how long ago?

Even Murtha suggested a withdrawal to the periphery, which isn't exactly leaving Iraq completely alone.

I think our candidates are thinking about peace keeping duties as opposed to waging a war. I'm not so sure that's such a terrible thing.

[WillyT]

16. Get. The. Fuck. Out. NOW! - K & R !!!

:kick: