More On Edwards, Residual Forces And The Debate

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 11:30

1. First, I am very happy that this is finally receiving significant attention in the campaign. It feels good to make a difference, and validates the idea that consistent, focused blogging on a given subject can really make a difference, even if you lack the large audience of other blogs. It may have taken six months, but this is finally hitting the mainstream. It is a debate that the party absolutely needs to have before selecting its next presidential nominee.

2. Second, I am very happy that John Edwards has now put a number to his residual force plan: 3,500 to 5,000. Estimates of this sort have been long sought both by bloggers such as Siun, myself, and by the Bill Richardson campaign. I have placed queries with the Edwards campaign to clarify whether the 3,500 to 5,000 numbers refers to the total residual forces in Iraq, or to the total residual combat forces in Iraq in the Edwards plan.
   
   
3. Placing a number on troops is key to preventing a Republican blurring strategy on Iraq. It is extremely unlikely that the Republican nominee would ever go as low as, for example, an estimate of 3,500 to 5,000 troops, much less none. This is why providing thee estimates is so essential to Democratic chances in 2008. It makes it impossible for Republicans to blur, because they will never even go as low as 40,000, much less 20,000, 12,000, 5,000 or zero.

4. The failure of either Clinton or Obama to provide such estimates is dangerous for the Democratic Party, and for themselves in a general election. If they do not provide estimates, it will be much more difficult to distinguish themselves on Iraq from the Republican nominee, who will probably talk withdrawal in some form. The lack of estimates  is also becoming more glaring all the time, considering that Richardson, Edwards, Kucinich and Biden have all now provided estimates, as have several think tanks, including The Center for American Progress and the Center for a New American Security. Continued refusal to put out an estimate seems like little more than obfuscation at this point.
   
   
5. Despite the benefits of naming a number in preventing a Republican blurring strategy in 2008, in the context of the primary, Edwards still missed a big opportunity last night. While it is useful that he is drawing a distinction between his residual force plan than that of Clinton, it simply is not as effective a distinction as it could have been had he said "no residual troops," ala Richardson. Liberal Oasis sums this up nicely (emphasis in original):

   Further, Edwards sought to emphasize that his residual force would be relatively small, between 3,500 and 5,000 troops, in order to protect the US Embassy in Iraq and protect humanitarian workers.
   
   Without taking a pledge to get all troops by Jan. 2013, Edwards' is drawing a very fine distinction, which may limit the political impact.
   
   While some news reports highlighted criticism of Clinton, the AP noted that all three leading Dem candidates wouldn't take that pledge.
   
   Meanwhile, Gov. Bill Richardson and Rep. Dennis Kucinich sought to take advantage of the opening created by the three leading candidates to tout their plans to withdraw all troops from Iraq as soon as possible.
   
   And Sen. Chris Dodd, when asked if he'd take the 2013 pledge to get all troops home, said, "I will get that done."

     This was the lead story on the debate pretty much everywhere. Had Edwards taken the opportunity to pledge no residual forces, or at least that he would get all troops out by friggin' 2013, it could have been a huge moment of differentiation. Instead, he limited the potential impact of his differentiation with Clinton. And for what? From what I understand, most humanitarian workers, don't want American troop protection. That is the sort of thing that can get them killed. The troops won't be guarding them every second of the day, and even when they are guarding them, they will be attacked.

Overall, I am excited by all of this. The more residual forces are discussed, the more informed the electorate becomes. I don't expect everyone to agree with my, and Bill Richardson's, position on no residual forces, but I at least want them to know what they are supporting before choosing our next nominee. I also want our nominee to make his or her Iraq plan clear enough that there is simply no way for Republicans to blur on the issue. As long as we have an informed electorate, and Democrats offering clarity on their withdrawal plans, I can see a bright future ahead for our party.

Oh, and two final notes: 3,500 to 5,000 to low, but it still isn't zero (or, 1,000 if you count the embassy, which you shouldn't). And 2013? Man, oh man, oh man. Not being able to promise having all American troops in five years just sounds, really, really bad coming out of any Democrats mouth. I can't imagine this is playing well with the national electorate.