| Although I did not see the debate this morning, if Edwards did in fact say that the differences between the candidates on Iraq are small, I generally agree with Matthew Yglesias on this point:
John Edwards is saying in the debate that the differences between the Democrats on Iraq are small. That's certainly something I'd like to believe, since the people who have positions on Iraq I agree with -- Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich -- aren't people I particularly want to see as president and aren't people with a good chance of winning. But I don't really think Edwards is right. It's true that the Democrats all, in some sense, want to end the war in Iraq, but these plans to leave tens of thousands of residual forces won't in fact end the war.
I don't this is a small difference, either. In fact, I think it might be the most salient differences between the campaigns right now. Leaving tens of thousands of troops in Iraq-as many as 60,000, according to one projection from the Biden campaign-and withdrawing all forces except those around the embassy is a gaping difference, if you ask me. This differences becomes all the more important, given that the Bush adminisatrion is apparently going to try and sell a forced end to the escalation (there simply are not anymore fresh troops) as an example of its willingness to engage in troop withdrawal, while allowing the war to continue:
The White House plans to use September's report on Iraq progress to outline gradual troop reductions that would fall far short of the reduction demanded by congressional war opponents.
An administration official said that the goal of the planned announcement is to counter public pressure for a more rapid reduction and to try to win support for a plan that could keep U.S. involvement in Iraq on "a sustainable footing" at least through the end of the Bush presidency.
Officials said the White House will portray its approach as a new strategy for Iraq, a message aimed primarily at the growing numbers of congressional Republicans who have criticized President Bush's handling of the war.
So, now Republicans are going to be able to portray themselves as pro-withdrawal, as well, even though the only reason they are drawing back troops is because they have run out of fresh ones:
About 28,000 American combat troops would be withdrawn from Iraq during a five-month period beginning in April under a plan to be submitted to President Bush next month by Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq.
Petraeus' deputy, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, said Friday that the five combat brigades ordered by Bush to "surge" to Iraq last winter would be withdrawn at a rate of one brigade per month. The withdrawal, to be completed in August 2008, would leave about 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.(…)
But the withdrawal of the five combat brigades that composed the surge is based less on conditions in Iraq than on the simple unavailability of fresh troops. In April, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates reluctantly extended troop deployments in Iraq to 15 months from 12 to maintain troop levels at about 162,000. At the time, Gates said the extension of tours "upholds our commitment to decide when to begin any drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq solely based on conditions on the ground."
This is how Republicans are going to try and mute the Democratic advantage on Iraq in the 2008 campaign. First, they make sure that the war continues, and Democrats were unable to stop it. Second, they argue that they are also pro-withdrawal, as they are withdrawing some troops, and that the Democratic nominee doesn't want to withdraw all of the troops, either. It might just work, too. After all, if the difference between zero troops, and 60,000 troops, is small, then how large really is the difference between 60,000 troops and 130,000?
I tried back in July to have more Democratic campaigns state how many troops their redeployment plans would leave in Iraq (see here and here). Although I was generally unsuccessful in those efforts, just as the national media has also been unsuccessful, I was left with the distinct, though admittedly non-expert, impression that the Clinton / Obama / Biden plans would leave the most (probably around 40,000), the Edwards / Dodd plans would leave less (probably around 20,000), and that the Richardson / Kucinich plans would leave the fewest (probably 5,000 troops to protect the embassy), simply based on the tasks that each campaign stated they would have residual forces would undertaken in Iraq. Maybe in that sense the difference between Edwards and other candidates is not huge, but this is still very dangerous territory for Democrats. There is a clear opening for Republicans to use these residual force commitments, combined with the Bush administration's end to the surge and a Lieberman-esque "no one wants tot end the war more than I do" talking point to thoroughly blur the differences on Iraq in the general election next year. If that happens, the largest driving force behind the current Democratic advantage in the national political environment is over, and we can kiss our chances for a second wave election, or for more and better Democrats, goodbye.
Now, as large a problem as this is, it can be solved by one of the following:
- Actually having the Democratic controlled Congress force at least a partial withdrawal of troops;
- Having the Democratic nominee make a commitment to no residual forces in Iraq under his or her administration;
- Having the Democratic nominee provide a specific estimate for the number of troops s/he will leave in Iraq that is much, much lower than 130,000.
However, since we have not accomplished the #1, since our frontrunners are not promising #2, and since pretty much everyone refuses to provide an answer to #3, mark me down as still very worried about squandering both Democratic and progressive electoral potential in 2008.
|
