( - promoted by Matt Stoller)
Here are the first four paragraphs of Nedra Pickler's AP dispatch from tonight's Democratic debate:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton insisted Sunday night it's time to start pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq as she and her Democratic presidential rivals debated the war on the eve of a much-awaited assessment by U.S. commanding Gen. David Petraeus.
In the first presidential debate ever broadcast in Spanish, the protracted war in Iraq competed for attention with the swirling argument over immigration. On Iraq, Gov. Bill Richardson retorted that Clinton and others who want to leave residual forces there would leave soldiers at risk.
"I'd bring them all home within six to eight months," the New Mexico governor said in the debate, which was broadcast on Univision, the nation's largest Spanish-language network. "There is a basic difference between all of us here ... This is a fundamental issue," he said.
Clinton said that a report being presented in Washington by Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker this week won't change the basic problem that there is no military solution in Iraq. "I believe we should start bringing our troops home," she said. "We need to quit refereeing their civil war and bring our troops home as soon as possible.
I tell ya' sometimes I just want to quit. While I am somewhat heartened that the difference Richardson is trying to emphasize is mentioned so early in the story, the article does not bother to explain what that difference is. Instead of providing context, Pickler stenographs Clinton and Richardson. In fact, Clinton sandwiches Richardson on Iraq, as she is credited for "wanting to bring our troops home" both immediately before and immediately after Richardson's unexplained argument on Iraq. This is made all the more infuriating since Richardson's argument is that other Democratic candidates are not going to bring all troops home from Iraq.
There is a debate taking place right now in the progressive ecosystem over Iraq. While pretty much everyone says they want to start bringing troops home, some want to leave no residual forces in Iraq, while others want to leave a varying amount of residual forces in Iraq for varying periods of time. However, it is extremely difficult for those of us who want no residual American military presence in Iraq to make our disagreements on this matter clear when major Democratic presidential campaigns refuse to answer questions on how many troops they will leave in Iraq, and when established media outlets dutifully stenograph those campaigns as "wanting to bring troops home." As far as the former is concerned, I am done asking questions as to how many troops they will leave. Given mounting evidence, it seems entirely reasonable to simply start tagging the most common residual force plans at 40K-60K. As far as the latter is concerned, it is time for established media outlets to start providing context on Democratic stances on Iraq. Most don't want to withdrawal all troops, and it time to start telling the country just that.
As a final note, given my post from last night, I want to point out a more recent redeployment plan put forth by the Center for American Progress. Here it is:
Notice how similar this plan looks to "no residual forces," and how it once again provide troops estimates to go along with specific, proposed missions for American troops? I know that some people think proposing a plan for no residual forces is simply pandering to the base, or something. However, I would like to know what elected office for which the Center for American Progress is running. I know that some people think making troop estimates in Iraq is too hypothetical an exercise. However, it seems like every think thank is willing to do it, and only elected officials / campaigns are wary. Finally, I know that some people think withdrawing all troops from Iraq is naïve. Well, go ahead and tell that to Bill Richardson, or the foreign policy team at the Center for American Progress. Both have tons of foreign policy experience (Richardson has the most of the entire Democratic field, easily), and neither Richardson nor CAP are known as particularly far-left entities. Richardson is a well known libertarian type Democrat, and CAP is often thought of as a Clintonista institution. None of the usual criticisms hold up here.
Basically, at this point, I am done asking campaigns questions about their proposed residual forces in Iraq. If they will not do so on their own, then it is time to start applying numbers to their residual force plans for them. For the standard counter-terrorism, Iraqi security force training, and border / infrastructure / force protection missions, that number should be considered 40K-60K until someone steps up to prove otherwise (and that does not even count American contractors in Iraq). Time is up. I'm done banging my head against a wall on this matter. The campaigns had their chances to answer these questions, and failed in almost every case. I am going to do whatever I can to make sure the Democratic base knows about these residual force plans, and we will see what happens to the primary season as a result. |
