In response to the occasional, though still persistent, calls for the blogosphere to line up behind either Barack Obama or John Edwards in an attempt to defeat Hillary Clinton for the nomination, last week Matt wrote something with which I absolutely agree (emphasis in original):
I know lots of people want the grand netroots to make our grand endorsement of the one true Presidential candidate and thereby rock the foundations of the universe, but, um, speaking only for every person who has ever blogged, ever, anywhere, I'll point out that by and large I don't want to endorse someone who wants to keep troops in Iraq.
The issue of residual forces in Iraq looms extremely large for many of the bloggers I know, which I think is entirely understandable. Especially in a Democratic primary. why on earth would I line up behind a candidate as the "progressive" choice if he or she wants to keep American troops in Iraq? There is no way to end the Iraq war as long as there are American troops on Iraqi soil. No matter whether our troops in Iraq are combat or non-combat, they will be targets, and the war will continue. It really is as simple as that. Ending the Iraq war is, and has been for a number of years, my top "issue" in politics. So why on earth would I, in a primary election, when the whole point is to fight for what you believe instead of choosing the lesser of two evils, line up behind a candidate espousing a policy that is contrary to my most important issue? I mean, I became a full-time political activist largely because of the Iraq war, and I am not going to choose a path in a primary election that runs counter to my beliefs on this matter. I think a lot of other bloggers feel exactly the same way.
Here is the relevant section, from a question that it appears only bloggers are able to ask:
MARSHALL: Now, you've talked about potentially a small residual force. Can you give people a sense of what that means?
EDWARDS: I would get all of our combat troops out. Assuming that we are going to maintain our embassy in Baghdad, we'll have to have some force to protect our embassy. We always have to have that. And if, if, there are American humanitarian workers there, it might be necessary, although I wouldn't commit to this at this point, it might be necessary to provide some protection for them. But that's it.
MARSHALL: But really just a matter of protecting the embassy, possibly protecting other US civilian personnel--
EDWARDS: who are doing humanitarian work.
Is this different from Obama and Clinton? As I show once again in the extended entry, absolutely.
(1) That a phased redeployment of United States military forces from Iraq has begun, in a manner consistent with any limitations on aid for Iraq for security purposes in effect under section 4, including the transition of United States forces in Iraq to the limited presence and mission of-
(A) training Iraqi security forces;
(B) providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces;
(C) protecting United States personnel and infrastructure; and
(D) participating in targeted counter-terrorism activities.
Senator Obama introduced legislation in January 2007 to offer a responsible alternative to President Bush's failed escalation policy. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's expectations. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.
This is a clear difference between Edwards and both Obama and Clinton on residual forces. Does Edwards go as far as Richardson? No. Who knows how many troops will be required to protect American civilians conducting humanitarian aide? However, there is no mention of training Iraqi security forces, and no mention of continuing to conduct counter-terrorism missions. Those are the tasks for American troops that will almost certainly require 40,000 American troops or more, and Edwards clearly does not favor them.
Now, I certainly wish Edwards would make more of an issue out of this point. While he has called out Obama and Clinton on Iraq leadership, at other times he has also suggested there is little, substantive policy differences between the three o f them on withdrawal. The latter is particularly self-defeating, since it appears to be a large policy difference that he should be trying to push, rather than hide.
Some might object, and claim that Edwards and Richardson were both wrong about the war when it started. That is true, and I certainly wish there was a candidate in double digits who was right on both ends. However, when forced to choose between someone who was wrong about the war when it started but who wants to pull all troops out now, versus someone who was right about the war when it started but wants to leave substantial amounts of "non-combat" troop in Iraq in the future, I will unequivocally go with the former. The war started long ago, and the goal now is to end it. On that front, Richardson clearly falls into the "end the war" camp, and Edwards seems to be much closer to that camp than I had appreciated for a long time. From, everything I have read, Obama and Clinton just do not meet that test. In Obama's case, that is extremely disappointing, since he had a chance to be doubly right on Iraq.
There really isn't any other issue, character trait, candidate background, or connection to the establishment and / or grassroots that can overcome the question of residual forces to me. Call me single-issue primary activist if you must, but as I see it this is the difference between ending the war and not ending the war. Iraq just seems so much larger than a "single issue" to me, considering the number of violent deaths it has caused, the degree to which it is sucking our national resources dry, and even has the potential, if not halted, to basically end our status as the globally dominant power. Just as I feared before it started, the war is literally destroying our country, not just Iraq, and it is doing so much faster than even global warming or rising economic inequality. Even though some may find this analogy unfair, to ask me to support a candidate who wants to continue our military involvement in such an utterly disastrous public policy in a primary election feels a lot like asking me to put a Bush Dog on the Blue Majority page. I just can't do that, and I can't imagine many other prominent progressive bloggers could either.
