By Kenneth J. Theisen, 8/21/07
Are you one of those millions of people just waiting for the
2008 elections so that the Democratic winner can extricate U.S. troops from Iraq shortly after his or her
inauguration in January 2009? If you
are, you had better cast away your illusions and listen to what the leading
Democratic presidential contenders are actually saying. Hillary, Obama, John, and Joe are not
promising to pull troops out of the Middle East.
In fact, all have stated political
positions which will keep U.S.
troops engaged in the region for their terms and beyond if they are elected.
Let us examine what they are saying as opposed to what they
want you to believe they are saying. Hillary Rodham Clinton wants troops out,
right? “If this president does not end
this war before he leaves office, when I am president, I will,” is part of her
routine rhetoric on the campaign trail. But there are caveats. She also says
that the U.S. has “remaining
vital national security interests in Iraq” that have to be protected by
American troops. U.S.
security cannot afford a failed state in Iraq “that serves as a Petri dish
for insurgents and al Queda.”
Hillary brags on the campaign trail that she introduced the
“Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act” earlier this year. This bill states her caveats about troop
withdrawal from Iraq. She would allow troops to remain in Iraq for training Iraqi security forces; for
providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces; for protecting United States
personnel and infrastructure; and participating in targeted counter-terrorism
activities. In effect, this would take
tens of thousands of U.S.
troops. In her words, “The bill would
fight the President’s escalation by capping the number of troops in Iraq, it would
also prohibit sending more troops to escalate a failed strategy. She said this on April 10, 2007 and notice she
is talking about a cap, not withdrawal. She went on to say, “we do not plan a
permanent occupation or permanent bases, but there may be a continuing mission
to protect America’s vital interests, and to support an Iraqi government that
we hope to be an ally going forward, assuming they are acting responsibly. So, the bottom line for me is that we will
begin re-deploying our troops as soon as I am President, and we will do so in
as expeditious a manner as possible, [leaving] as few troops as necessary with
no permanent occupation, and no permanent bases.”
Well if Hillary won’t get troops out we can count on John
Edwards, right? Well let us look at what
John says in his speeches, debates, etc. What would he do as President? At an August debate he stated, “We”ve got to
be prepared to control a civil war if it starts to spill outside the borders of
Iraq. And we have to be prepared for the worst
possibility that you never hear anyone talking about, which is the possibility
that genocide breaks out and the Shi”a try to systematically eliminate the
Sunni. As president of the United States,
I would plan and prepare for all those possibilities.”
In a February 14th press release from his campaign, Edwards
called on Congress to “Cap funding for the troops in Iraq at 100,000 to stop the surge.”
While a reduction, this is not exactly a
withdrawal. But later in the release,
his campaign stated he would, “Require a complete withdrawal of combat troops
in Iraq in the next 12-18
months without leaving behind any permanent U.S.
military bases in Iraq.” Notice however the words, “combat
troops.” This is Edward’s caveat. He would allow troops to stay for other than
combat purposes. The press release goes
on to say, “After withdrawal, Edwards believes that sufficient forces should
remain in the region to contain the conflict and ensure that instability in Iraq does not
spillover and create a regional war, a terrorist haven, or spark a genocide.” This is an expansion of his statement at the
August debate. Edwards carefully avoids
saying how many troops would be needed to cover all the caveats.
Where does Senator Barack Obama stand and what are his
caveats? On the campaign trail he sounds
like Hillary and John when he states, “It is time to bring our troops home
because it has made us less safe.” But
then he has caveats just like Hillary and John too. In a press release from his Senate office, it is
stated Obama has a plan that “allows for a limited number of U.S.United States.”
So Obama even leaves in the chance of
suspending the troop withdrawal on a “temporary” basis. troops to
remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to
continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in
meeting the thirteen benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush
Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the
redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met and
that the suspension is in the national security interest of the
Obama says he is concerned about national security. “Now, us
having gone in there, we have a deep national security interest in making
certain that Iraq
is stable. If not, not only are we going
to have a humanitarian crisis, we are also going to have a huge national
security problem on our hands-because, ironically, it has become a hotbed of
terrorists as a consequence, in part, of our incursion there. In terms of timetable, I’m not somebody who
can say with certainty that a year from now or six months from now we’re going
to be able to pull down troops.” He said
this in 2004, but has said nothing to contradict it since then. On June 22, 2006 he voted “no” on redeploying
troops out of Iraq
by July 2007. Then after the
Congressional elections in November 2006 he stated that there should be a
phrased withdrawal of U.S.
“combat troops” beginning this year. Obama
said the withdrawal could be coupled with a stepped-up effort to train Iraqi
troops, with more special-operations units working as advisers with Iraqi
forces. On January 31, 2007 he
introduced the “Iraq War De-Escalation Act” which would “place a cap on the
number of troops in Iraq and stop the escalation, more importantly, it would
begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces with the goal of removing of all
U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31, 2008.” Notice how Obama, like Edwards, is limiting
his withdrawal to “combat troops.” This
would still allow tens of thousands to remain for the other purposes mentioned
above.
Hillary, Obama and Edwards are the leading presidential
contenders for the Democrats, but what about the others? Senator Joseph Biden, at the August 19th
debate stated that a troop pullout would take a year and would also require
troops to be left behind to protect U.S.
civilians working in Iraq.
The alleged necessity of protecting
these civilians was also supported by Obama, Edwards, and Hillary. Biden is pushing a plan to set up three
separate regions for the Sunnis, Shi”a and the Kurds in Iraq until a
stable central government is established before removing most American troops. That should take no more than a few
presidential terms.
Well there you have some of what the leading
Democratic contenders are saying about Iraq. At the August 19th debate, Mike Gravel
accurately summed up what the other candidates were saying about Iraq. He rhetorically asked, “Why do we think
that we can rule that country? This is
American imperialism you’re hearing up here, and that hasn’t worked and it will
never work.”