Top Democratic Candidates Stop Short of Withdrawal

[MiaCulpa]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/09/26/top-democratic-candidates-stop-short-of-withdrawal/

Top Democratic Candidates Stop Short of Withdrawal

Susan Davis reports on the Democratic presidential debate.

The three leading candidates for the Democratic nomination said they would begin immediate reductions in U.S. troops in Iraq upon taking office, but declined to pledge that all forces would be out of Iraq by 2013. "I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama (D., Ill.) "If there still troops in Iraq when I take office...then I will drastically reduce our presence there." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D., Ill.) echoed the comments stating that "It is very difficult to know what we will be inheriting." Former Sen. John Edwards (D., N.C.) pledged an immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops but would similarly not commit to complete withdrawal.

The three frontrunners also declined to say if they were prepared to wage war on Iran if they continue to pursue nuclear weapons. "I would do everything I can to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power," Clinton said, citing diplomacy and the use of economic sanctions as the first methods of offense. Obama advocated direct talks with Iran. "We've got to talk to our enemies and not just our friends," he said. While Edwards said economic sanctions should be used as "carrots and sticks" to get Iran to abandon its program.

Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani has taken a the toughest stance on Iran, pledging to do whatever it takes to get Iran to end its nuclear pursuit. Sen. Joe Biden (D., Del.) took the harshest shot at the former mayor's foreign policy prowess. "He's the most uninformed person running for president," Biden said.

[Mythsaje]

1. They're in a bad, bad position here...

There's no doubt about it. We can't afford the place to turn into a bloodbath if we leave because it'll strengthen the Republicans... What we need is a strong coalition in place to help maintain the peace...and the U.N. doesn't seem to want to help us out there.

The fact is it should be an international coalition with the full and open intent to ensure Iraqi sovereignty and full possession of their own resources. The U.S. has to step back from ownership of everything except economic responsibility for the rebuilding.

[MiaCulpa]

2. It's not our decision to make

It never was.

[Mythsaje]

4. What's not our decision?

And who do you mean by "our?"

[cynatnite]

5. Didn't Kerry want to do that when he was running? n/t

[Mythsaje]

6. It's the only option at this point...

I mean, other than simply bailing and hoping for the best.

[MiaCulpa]

9. What happens to Iraq is not our decision.

The mindset that the world will fall apart if 'we' aren't guiding them along down the barrel of an Ak-47 is just wrong. Sure they will have a continued civil war. Only as opposed to a controlled demolition.

Oh, and I mean the US as in we and our.

[Mythsaje]

10. Not our decision, perhaps, but "our" responsibility...

Thanks to the neo-cons, PNAC, and BushCo.

[Johonny]

3. I will not vote

for anyone that will not end the Iraq war swiftly.

[emilyg]

7. I don't think they can.

[mike_c]

8. this triangulating about ending the WORST foreign policy error in the last century...

...is shameful.

U.S. out of Iraq NOW! Not in 4-8 years. Anyone running for president who cannot pledge to do the right thing is complicit, IMO. Stop triangulating and hedging. End the war as soon as possible, not when some nebulous "goals" have been achieved. If dem candidates have goals to achieve in Iraq, they're carrying water for the neocons.

[Mythsaje]

11. I don't know...

I think avoiding genocide might be a worthwhile goal.

Gawd, did they screw us all...

I'd love for the war to end tomorrow. But at what price? If it degenerated even worse than it already has, what then? Do we stand back and watch, or go in with a U.N. force and try to stop it all over again?

I'm not sure ANY option at this point is a good one. They're all bad ones. No matter what we do, it's going to be a pile of flaming shit.

[cynatnite]

13. Totally agree...

That's what's bothered me so much about this subject. bush and his cronies have screwed everything up there so badly that there is no good way of leaving Iraq.

[Mythsaje]

14. We're screaming at our leaders "get us out now!"

and they're standing there thinking "oh, fuck. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't."

This is WORSE than Vietnam.

We can't just pull out SOME of the troops. That'll make the rest of them sitting targets. If we pull them all out, Gawd only knows what'll happen. More death? Genocide? Shit, maybe the best thing would be for Iran to step in and take control. The best for the Iraqis, that is.

I just don't know anymore.

[mike_c]

15. there isn't any good way out possible, so we MUST simply...

...accept the magnitude of the catastrophe and leave. Yes, there will be terrible consequences-- that's the price of starting unnecessary wars. I hope Americans are deeply ashamed by what they have allowed to happen in their names in Iraq. But there is no way to make it right, and the longer we prolong the conflict, the worse the INEVITABLE outcome will be. The sooner we walk away, the better, no matter how ugly that is.

Frankly, I think the dem front runners have ALL bought into the PNAC vision of U.S. hegemony in the middle east to some degree. All of them accept as axiomatic that we have legitimate national interests in maintaining a force projection into the region and an imperialistic foreign policy. All of them accept, in principle, the foreign policy of exploitation, manipulation, and gunboat diplomacy that was the shark Bush jumped by invading Iraq. All of them accept that American exceptionalism must be protected at any cost.

What I'm really concerned about is whether more liberals will abandon the cause of demanding that the U.S. end this madness because the top democratic candidates are acknowledging that they don't really plan to. Will we now circle the wagons around a pro-war policy, or at least a policy that embraces the "inevitability" of U.S. forces fighting in the middle east for years to come?

[KharmaTrain]

12. Withdrawl Vs. Retreat

Moving 150,000 plus troops, thousands of diplomats and their Iraqi allies won't happen overnight. We saw the "overnight" in Saigon in 1975...and it wasn't pretty. I think all of us who want a withdrawl want it done safely and this will take months. At least then we have a timetable...right now we don't even have that.

Any candidate who says definitively what they would do is a fool. Whomever walks into that oval office on 1-20-09 is gonna find messes all over the place....and many still to be uncovered. How can a person say in September '07 how things will be on the ground in January '09...events could dictate far different. Sadly, this regime has got us in a real quagmire that needs some competent management...and that's not going to happen quickly.

Right now the brakes have to be applied to this runaway war for profit...then we can figure out a way to safely get our troops out...any talk of just "cutting and running" will be a gift on a platter to both the Repugnicans and the corporate media.