Just what does it mean to end combat missions in Iraq? Democrats John Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton both say that's what they want, but their campaigns disagree on what it adds up to.
Edwards has been criticizing Clinton for her plan to continue combat missions against al-Qaida in Iraq. His campaign says that would be a continuation of what it calls the "U.S. occupation" that he will end if elected president.
Edwards says that doesn't mean he'll stop fighting against terrorists in Iraq. The difference, he told The Boston Globe in an article published Thursday, is that his counterterrorism missions would be based in Kuwait and elsewhere in the Middle East and conduct quick "expeditions" into Iraq.
Clinton's campaign says either way, sending troops to fight would be a combat mission in Iraq.(…)
Edwards' campaign said whether the combat troops are in the country or not is an important distinction. Troops on bases in Iraq would become targets for insurgents, symbolize continuing U.S. occupation, inevitably get drawn into other missions and prevent Iraqis from moving toward sovereignty, the campaign said.(…)
Advisers to Barack Obama, another Democratic presidential candidate, said he would also have quick reaction forces to fight terrorism in Iraq, but he hasn't determined whether they would be based inside or outside the country. Obama has said outside might be preferable, but it's a decision he would make with military commanders.
The scope of the continuing missions in Iraq, where the troops will be based, even how many of them will stay in Iraq: it is excellent that this is all getting out in the open. Although never mentioned in the article, it should be noted that this discussion would never even be taking place if it were not for Bill Richardson. Today, his no residual force position rightfully earned him the endorsement of a key peace activism group in Iowa. No matter how much blog pressure might be applied, it is impossible to have a continued debate on any subject at this high of a level unless a more public Democratic takes a leadership role over it. Bill Richardson has done that, and deserves tremendous credit for it.
I also appreciate that Edwards is starting to take a higher profile role attacking on these grounds, and I think he is correct to assert that there is a big difference as to where the troops are based. Personally, I think it is a bad idea to continue to conduct these missions in Iraq at all, since they serve as a key terrorist recruiting tool. It doesn't seem to me that it will be fighting terrorism at all--it seems as though it might end up fueling it. Of course, it will fuel it less to be based outside the country than to be based inside. And it is kind of irritating that Obama remains so enigmatic on this subject.
It would be much easier for both Edwards and Obama to successfully attack Clinton on this subject if they held Bill Richardson's position on Iraq. However, progress is still being made. The next step will be when the campaigns try to start one-upping each other by proposing fewer and fewer residual force missions, as they have already done when it comes to proposing faster and faster withdrawals from Iraq. It certainly looks like the only way to end American military involvement in the Iraq war will be for the next President to end it, and the only way for the President to do so will be to have no residual forces. That has been the goal of this campaign all along, and I am glad it has gotten this far.
