Here is a thought experiment that has been running through my head for the past three days, and which effectively serves as my final decision making process on which candidate to support in the Democratic primaries: which candidate is best at ending the causes of the war? In this context, "war" is flexibly defined as not only the war in Iraq, but also the "war on terror," the war on American democracy, etc. As I see it, there are seven main issue areas at stake:
Media Reform: An improved, open, non-corporate consolidated media that no longer has a vested interest in military contracts, internal and world conflict, or in holding back open, citizen produced media is key. Matt says that Obama is very good on this front, with Edwards close behind.
Sustainable Energy Development: Achieving sustainable energy independence and reducing the negative effects of global warming is another key to preventing wars that are, at least in part, apart increasing the American sphere of influence on foreign oil. As far as I can tell, many energy experts in the blogosphere, including A Siegel and Dave Roberts, think that the three top Democrats all have pretty good energy plans.
Ending Military Privatization: The privatization of the military continues unabated, and at its current levels it threatens not only to break the military, but to make it much easier for future Presidents to engage in wars like Iraq. Rep. Jan Schakowsky has a bill to end military privatization, but this isn't something that I have seen many, or really any, presidential candidates discuss. Please, enlighten me in the comments if I am wrong.
No residual forces: This is one I have harped on for a long time. As long as we have residual forces in Iraq, we can't end the war in Iraq. No residual forces means no troops, no bases, and no equipment. Obviously, I think Richardson is the best among all Dems on this front, but among the top three I think Edwards is better than Obama and Clinton.
Election reform: Stolen elections, especially the 2000 election, obviously played a major role in starting both the war in Iraq and the war on terror. Maintaining election integrity and preventing future meltdowns are thus key to ending the causes of war. I don't know which candidate is best on this front, but I've heard some good things from Obama.
Think Tank and Advisor Reform: Clearing out the community of professional foreign policy advisors that have led to things like pre-emptive war, the Iraq war, and the war on terror is also key. I think the candidates have all rejected neo-conservatism and pre-emptive war as a philosophy, but the differences between Clinton and Obama's advisors should be noticed. Also, Edwards has rejected the war on terror frame while Obama rejected the war from the start on the grounds that pre-emtpive war was a bad idea. Not sure who has the edge here.
Constitutional Restoration: Ending executive over-reach and restoring checks and balances are also key. This touches on a wide range of civil liberties issues, as well as investigations of Bush administration wrongdoing and laying making sure an executive as powerful as bush never happens again. Dodd has led the fight on several civil liberties issues, Clinton has promised to continue investigating Bush and to set aside the executive powers created under the Bush administration. Kucinich has called for impeachment. Overall, again I'm not sure who is best.
The more I think about it, I come to the conclusion that the candidate who is best on this set of issues will almost certainly get my vote. Collectively, they not only end the Iraq war, but are the issues most closely connected to preventing such a disaster from ever happening again. I'm going to keep investigating how the candidates matchup in each of these areas, and probably come to a conclusion in about two weeks or so. Your help is greatly appreciated.
Ever since TPMmuckraker first broke the story on "Iraq forever" declaration released by the Bush and al-Maliki administrations, some people have asked me to comment on the matter given my long-time focus on having no residual American military forces in Iraq. The Clinton, Dodd, Edwards and Obama campaigns all responded to the story, stating that they opposed permanent military bases in Iraq and, thus, also opposed the declaration set forth by the two administrations. I didn't say much, because I see the permanent bases issue as a subset of the no residual forces issue. If one doesn't have any residual American military forces in Iraq, then having permanent, American, military bases becomes impossible. The issues are intertwined, but the residual forces issue supercedes the permanent bases issue. In fact, I actually think that allowing candidates to state they will not have permanent bases elides the larger question of how many American troops they will keep in Iraq.
Rather than how the Democratic candidates responded to it, what concerns me far more about the declaration is how its residual force plan is strikingly similar to those laid out by Democratic candidates. From the relevant section of the declaration:
Security: To support the Iraqi government in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi Security Forces so they can provide security and stability to all Iraqis; support the Iraqi government in contributing to the international fight against terrorism by confronting terrorists such as Al-Qaeda, its affiliates, other terrorist groups, as well as all other outlaw groups, such as criminal remnants of the former regime; and to provide security assurances to the Iraqi Government to deter any external aggression and to ensure the integrity of Iraq's territory.
The final clause describing border integrity basically means propping up the Iraqi government against a coup or rebellion. It also accomplishes one of the main Project for a New American Century goals for invading Iraq described in a September 2000 Bush campaign document: repositioning American forces in the Middle East to develop a forward position against Iran. From said document (PDF):
The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. (p. 29)
From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region. (p. 26)
Neo-cons have been publicly planning this before Bush even took office. Permanent bases in southern Iraq function to prop up a friendly Iraqi government, to reposition American forces in the Middle East outside of Saudi Arabia, to create a forward position against Iran, and widen the American sphere of influence over the oil fields both in southern Iraq and in Kuwait. That is really why we went to war, and it is clearly laid out in Bush campaign documents from 2000.
Other than that clause, however, what really worries me is that the other residual force goals expressed in the declaration are virtually the same as the residual force goals presented by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Note that I did not say they would require the same amount of troops, just simply that the goals of training Iraqi security forces and pursuing "terrorists" in the country are the same. While Samantha Power has indicated that Obama's residual force plan would "do counter-terrorism, as distinct from counter-insurgency," it has never been clear to me how "terrorists" will be defined as separate from militants who simply oppose the Iraqi government or who are engaging in further sectarian conflict. The long stated Iraqi troop training and counter-terrorism goals from the Obama and Clinton campaigns are simply not clearly distinct from those goals as expressed in the join Bush - al-Maliki declaration.
This worries me on two levels. First, it worries me that American troops will stay in Iraq indefinitely, under both a Republican and Democratic administration. Second, it worries me that the residual force plans expressed by Clinton and Obama will not be clearly distinct from those presented by the Republican nominee in 2008. If they are both talking about training Iraqi forces and conducting counter-terrorism, whatever actual differences there might be become extremely academic and blurred from public view. It would constitute Strategic Drift on both grounds, allowing both the galactic error that is American military involvement in Iraq to continue, and would also deny Democrats their current electoral edge.
So yes, it is nice that Clinton, Dodd, Edwards and Obama all came out against permanent bases, but doing so does not resolve the over-arching residual force issue. Even without permanent bases, we could still face significant American military involvement in Iraq, and we still face the Iraq blurring strategy. While it is a step in the right direction, declaring opposition to permanent American military bases in Iraq does not resolve either of those extremely important issues.
I heard a statement from Barack Obama in his Meet the Press Interview on Sunday that is very important to me. He said "there will be no permanent bases." Personally, I think that this is the most important commitment on Iraq that a candidate for our Presidency can make before taking the oath of office. I think that it is the that our bases are permanent most clearly takes us across that line between liberator or peace keeper and occupier. It arrogantly assumes that there will be no sovereign Iraq which might not want our troops in their country for the foreseeable future creates a mentally among both Iraqi nationals and our troops that we are in this for the long haul.
This morning UNH released the cross-tabs for its New Hampshire Poll. The poll shows Hillary leading Obama 35-21. I am writing a diary here, though, because it is the first poll to directly ask the question about residual forces.
Voters where given three options (and this is the text used in the question):
1. Withdraw all troops immediately
2. Keep Troops only for US Diplomatic Protection
3. Keeps Troops as long as necessary
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.
Edwards is already attacking Clinton on residual forces, as we have seen on multiple occasions over the last month, and now Obama is wading into the water, too:
Mr. Obama has also talked about keeping a limited force in Iraq after withdrawing American combat units at the rate of one or two per month. But Mr. Obama insisted in the interview that the mission of his residual force would be more limited than that posited by Mrs. Clinton.
Mr. Obama said, for example, that the part of the residual force assigned to counterterrorism might be based outside Iraq. He also emphasized that the residual force would not have the mission of deterring Iranian involvement in Iraq. He said he would commit to training Iraqi security forces only if the Iraqi government engaged in political reconciliation and did not employ the Iraqi Army and police for sectarian purposes. In any event, he said, American trainers would not be attached with Iraqi units that go in harm's way.
"The trainers are going to have to be provided with missions that don't put them in vulnerable situations," he said. "Part of what my goal is is that the trainers are not constantly embedded in combat operations."(…)
Mr. Obama acknowledged in the interview that there were "legitimate questions" as to how his concept of a residual force might work, and said he would adjust it if necessary after discussions with senior military leaders.
"As commander in chief, I'm not going to leave trainers unprotected. In our counterterrorism efforts, I'm not going to have a situation where our efforts can't be successful," he said. "If the commanders tell me that they need X, Y and Z, in order to accomplish the very narrow mission that I've laid out, then I will take that into consideration."
While this is far from perfect, the issue of residual forces is starting to really hit the bloodstream of this campaign. If both Obama and Edwards are now willing to try and differentiate themselves from Clinton on this front, it shows real promise for future discussion and debate in the campaign.
Now, do I wish this had come much earlier in the campaign? Oh yes. Is Obama's differentiation still overly academic and wonkish for it to have a significant impact on the campaign? Probably. Does Obama not go far enough into the specific problems associated with residual force missions, including that training Iraqi forces has often amounted to arming sectarian violence, and that the "counter-terrorism" operation in Iraq not only fuel terrorist recruitment? Yes and yes. It is too late to change the past now, but I still think it is possible for a clear message on residual forces, coming from multiple candidates, on what residual force missions they won't conduct and why they won't conduct them, can potentially change the debate over Iraq in this campaign. Only when it comes from multiple sources will the argument over what residual forces are and why they shouldn't be there, can this discussion be changed and "strategic drift" on Iraq be stopped. A combined front of Richardson, Edwards, Obama, Dodd and Kucinich might be forming on this issue, despite their differences on the matter.
A step in the right direction for Obama. More will be needed to change the nature of the campaign, of course.
The Center for American Progress has released a must-read new memo, entitled Strategic Drift in Iraq, about the dangerous shift in the Iraq debate that has occurred over the past several months. In short, it presents the dangers of the Iraq blurring strategy in terms of American and Iraqi security, rather than in electoral terms. Here are some choice passages, rebutting the need for the oft-repeated residual forces mission of "training Iraqi troops":
Suspend training and arming forces in a deadly civil war. To guard against the threat of an even larger civil war, the United States should suspend efforts to train, arm, and support Iraqi forces-the tribal forces and citizens groups, as well as the Iraqi police and army units that do not demonstrate allegiance to Iraq's national government. Continuing these efforts in the absence of some degree of national accommodation risks an even deadlier conflict.(…)
Pledging to continue training Iraq's security forces without questioning whether our actions amount to essentially arming up different sides in Iraq's internal conflicts risks further inflaming an already unstable Middle East.
American training of Iraqi troops has helped fuel violence in Iraq, not quell it. We all know this. It is front page news:
The Pentagon has lost track of about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to a new government report, raising fears that some of those weapons have fallen into the hands of insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.
And yet continuing to train Iraqi troops is exactly what both Clinton and Obama think America should do in Iraq until, say, 2013. I wonder how many more guns will go missing in that time period. This seems to make about as much sense as the "fighting terrorists" residual force mission. Because, you know, the presence of American troops in Iraq has really been effective at stamping out terrorism. We knew this in 2003:
War in Iraq has swollen the ranks of al Qaeda and galvanized the Islamic militant group's will, the International Institute for Strategic Studies said on Wednesday in its annual report.
Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.(…)
President Bush has frequently described the Iraq war as an integral part of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. But the council's report suggests the conflict has also helped terrorists by creating a haven for them in the chaos of war.
Several leading foreign policy thinkers and security institutes-some of the same ones who were wrong about going to war in Iraq in the first place and wrong about how to deal with the war's first four years-have helped build the case that aided the country's slide into strategic drift. Instead of offering plans that clarify the current drift, they have perpetuated it by triangulating against supposedly "irresponsible" withdrawal plans. Just as conservatives in Congress have done, they have failed to question the flawed premises at the heart of the administration's Iraq strategy.
Some progressive candidates have defaulted to policies of strategic drift because of legitimate fears about what might happen in Iraq, focused on three main concerns: terrorist sanctuaries, regional war, and humanitarian catastrophe. Yet ironically, strategic drift forestalls the actual hard work needed to avoid these potential dangers and does little or nothing to prevent them. Keeping tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq until the end of the next presidential term not only serves to prolong these problems but also creates new ones.
We are not going to quell violence or reduce terrorism in Iraq until we leave, and that includes residual forces. We are helping fuel sectarian violence when we train Iraqi troops and tens of thousands of weapons go missing. We are helping to increase terrorism in Iraq by serving as a recruiting tool. And we are going to have a very difficult time stopping any of this as long as the two leading Democratic candidates for president are advocating continuing these practices.
Update 3: Apparently, the big applause and laughter stuff for Biden was when he was making fun of Giuliani. It served him well, too, as he shot up to fourth in the Drexel Dems poll with 12% after the debate (up from 2%). Edwards was a little ahead of that, at 13% (up from 6%), and Clinton was a little further ahead, at 18%. Obama had a large lead at 47%. These numbers come from a press release I received in the audience from Open-Vote.com.
What did I learn from this experience? I learned that, without question, the number one issue for college students is education. When that subject came up later in the debate, it was a never ending series of applause lines from the audience. If you want to reach young people, talk education.
I also learned that Biden consistently does well in debates. I don't think anyone would have expected him to do so well, but yet again he surprises in post-debate polls. He has a very good presence in these debates.
Finally, it also seems that most applause lines were given for things other than the candidates themselves. Calling on Democrats to win in 2008 no matter who the nominee is, saying the Democratic Congress was doing enough (that got applause even before Kucinich even said what they weren't doing enough about), attacking Rudy Giuliani, decrying the level of attacks against Clinton--it always came from something outside the candidates themselves. I think that is a good sign--no creeping Dear Leader syndrome to be found.
Update 2: There are no outlets in the auditorium, and my computer lost battery early in the debate. So, here is a breakdown of the crowd reaction to the debate so far.
First, the clear winner among the crowd is Drexel. Chants of "Let's go Drexel" went on for two mintues before the debate. Philadelphia came in a close second. Thej students are clerly very excited and proud.
Second, here are the aplause lines for every candidate so far:
--Kucinich: "The Democratic Congress must stand up."
--Obama gets applause and laughter for his statements on Iran that followed Clinton's "pledge" exchange with Russert.
--Biden really knocked the crowd out with his whoole speel that ended with "I'm not running against Hillary Clinton, but to lead the country." Several laughts and applaiuse line. Biden also earlier ahd an applause line on comparing the Pakistani and to Iranian threats.
--Clinton socred a small appaluse line on "I oppose the war but support the troops fighting it." She has scored laugh lines on several occassions though, starting with the "pledge" exchange with Russert.
--Edwards scored applause, laughter, and "oooooo"s when he attacked Clinton for leaving troops in Iraq. Although mixed, it washhte second biggest response of the night, ahead of Kucinich exhorting the Democratic Congress and behind Biden's mid-debate monolouge.
--Richardson scored applause when he asked why the other candidates were attacking Clinton so hard.
--Dodd scored applause when he said we need a Democrat in the White House next year.
Interesting stuff to see the crowd reaction. Kind of like a primary focus group, except we all live in a state where our primary votes don't matter. More updates later--I have to actually leave the hall in order to write them.
Update: I'm sitting in the "second" rooom--that is, I am in an auditorium next to the debate where we will watch the debate on a large movie screen. I think I had imagined being able to set up my laptop at a table, and mill around a bit while eating appetizers or something. Silly me...
I probably won't be able to update much during the actual debate, because my computer charge is low. Governor Rendell just spoke, and now we are being entertained by a dance group. A few minutes ago the crowd was asked to applaud for who they thought would win the debate. Every candidate got a small amount of applause, except Obama, who got about twice as much as everyone else. It is a college crowd...
****
Fortunately for me, tonight's Democratic debate is in my neighborhood, taking place only 15 blocks from where I live in University City. I am about to head off to the debate site, for what I imagine should be a fun evening. The last major political even I attended at Drexel was the Rick Santorum Social Security forum when, through a group effort, Tim Tagaris, Anne Dicker and myself caught local college Republicans on tape chanting "hey-hey, ho-ho, Social Security has got to go." (Anne told me about it, Tim got the tape, and I posted about it online.) Ah, memories!
"If you win the Presidency and you aren't tossed out of office in the 2012 elections for failing to get us out of Iraq by the end of your first term, could you give us any reason to hope that maybe maybe maybe all the troops will be out by the time your successor takes over in 2017?"
Maybe promising to end the war in a decade is a reasonable request for Democratic candidates. Speaking of which, here is a plan from a Lt. Colonel who now specializes in logistics analysis demonstrating that it is entirely reasonable to pull all troops out in six to eight months:
Total Iraq Redeployment Plan (link removed--update coming tomorrow)
The American Prospect hits the nail on the head in Spencer Ackerman's discussion of continued American-military presence beyond the so-called war on terror.
The story on Iraq keeps changing precisely none of the stories hold up: WMDs, Humanitarian Motives, Stabilization of the Middle East, Iran etc.
Even if Hillary, Obama, and everyone else were to take the hardline approach like Richardson and call for zero residual troops... there is the still the issue of what they would do with all the bases being built there.
The top three Democratic White House hopefuls have faced withering criticism for refusing to commit to withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq by 2013, the end of the next presidential term. But at least one prominent war proponent is commending Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards for their newfound "flexibility."
Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution and ubiquitous voice on Iraq war policy, spoke favorably of the Democratic frontrunners' recent statements on Iraq. In an interview with the Huffington Post, he touted the top-tier candidates for waiting to see the complete fallout of the President Bush's troop surge and for not committing to a war policy more than a year in advance.
"There is still fifteen months before [Clinton, Obama or Edwards] will be President. It's just factual that they cannot predict exactly what they are going to do in Iraq," O'Hanlon said. "I think the Democratic position allows all three of the top people to move in the Republican direction if things move around in the next twelve months... Clearly they aren't likely to do that unless things get dramatically better."
The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.
"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state.
"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
"I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
Clearly, Michael O'Hanlon's position is widespread among Democratic foreign policy circles. Clinton and Obama sound exactly like him, in particular. It is also reminiscent of another one of Clinton's senior foreign policy advisors prominent but informal supporters, Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, who stated that she didn't think Clinton was against the war. Advisors like O'Hanlon and Kennedy have more say over Democratic foreign policy than do tens of millions of Americans combined. They also have more say than the entire Democratic primary electorate, since it appears that Democratic primary voters don't care about details like these when it comes to Iraq (yes, that statement was as bitter as it seemed).
This rather overt, elite fueled non-opposition to the war from leading Democratic contenders is of course extremely disturbing. However, there is another aspect of it that is almost as disturbing. Once again, every single centrist or right-wing idea put out by someone in the DLC-nexus is framed not as the right thing to do, but instead as something that can help Democrats be elected (emphasis mine):
O'Hanlon -- whose New York Times op-ed with colleague Ken Pollack, entitled "A War We Might Just Win," was promoted enthusiastically by supporters of Bush's strategy -- acknowledged that his own views on Iraq fall well to the "right" of the Democratic field. But he praised the presidential frontrunners for resisting a firm pledge on Iraq withdraw, something consistently favored by the majority of Americans in public opinion polls.
"The only thing that would have concerned me would have been a repeat of 2003, where the populist's message of 'get out now' would overtake the Democratic Party... And low and behold we get to the election and Iraq is looking better and low and behold the Democrats lose the election," said O'Hanlon, who has given modestly in the 2008 cycle - two $200 contributions earlier this year to Senator Hillary Clinton.
Winning the election is the only thing that concerns him on Iraq? This is a consistent pattern whenever DLC-nexus types are discussing policy of any sort. First and foremost, the policy is couched in terms of how it will help Democrats win elections. I have been documenting this for a long time. It is demonstrative of just how ideological bankrupt that wing of the party actually is: winning is all that matters.
And they suck at winning, too. It is actually hysterical to see O'Hanlon talk about his only concern being to win the election and, in the same paragraph, talk about the need to resist a "populist's message" in order to do so. Mind-blowing. Someone please explain to me how someone wins an election by shunning popular messages, while simultaneously stating, in public, that their policy positions are created in order to win elections. People love it when you intentionally avoid popular positions, and then tell them that you hold your positions in order to win elections. If someone can think of a dumber and more self-defeating electoral strategy, I'd like to hear it.
Oh wait-I guess it would be dumber to say that you oppose withdrawing troops from Iraq altogether. Even the crappy message I outlined above can beat that one. And thus, many Democrats continue to win despite themselves.
Update: Post updated since O'Hanlon is not on the Clinton campaign's paid staff. However, I still say the relationship between many of these policy types and campaigns is murky, to say the least.
A retired U.S. Army general visiting the state to campaign for Hillary Clinton said yesterday she does not oppose the Iraq war -- and she said she's never heard Clinton oppose it, either.
Retired Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, the Army's first woman to reach the three-star rank, said she supports Clinton's promise to withdraw the majority of U.S. troops from Iraq if she is elected President. But Kennedy said she does not consider her position to be opposing the war as it is currently being conducted.
Kennedy, 60, retired in 2000 after serving in the Army since 1969.
Asked if she opposes the war as it is currently being conducted, Kennedy said in a telephone interview: "As of the last couple of years, I do think that we should be on a different track. I wouldn't put it that way because, as retired military, it might come across as being -- you know what I mean -- I wouldn't say it in a completely stark way.
"I'm very proud of the army," Kennedy said. "I'm proud of the Army leadership. They've done the very best they can given the circumstances. They get a shifting sense of mission and it comes from their civilian leadership. They haven't gotten the support they needed."
Kennedy said she agreed with Clinton's position to withdraw, as Clinton has said, "the vast majority" of U.S. troops from Iraq while leaving behind a relatively small counter-terrorism force.
"Senator Clinton has it exactly right," said Kennedy. "If she is elected, her plan is to bring together the chairman of the joint chiefs, the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Council and get them to create a plan that will have the withdrawal begin within 60 days."
Kennedy said she does not consider such a position opposition to the war.
Hillary Clinton voted for the war, has refused to apologize for that vote, has praised "progress" in some areas of Iraq, and has made it clear that she will keep a residual American military presence of indeterminate size in Iraq through at least 2013. At the same time, she claims that she would not have started the war in Iraq had she been President, and that she will withdraw "the vast majority" of American troops from Iraq if she becomes President. She also voted for Feingold-Reid twice, and against the capitulation, blank check supplemental (albeit at the last minute). Given all of this, is Hillary Clinton "opposed" to the war in Iraq, or not?
I think the answer is that she has pretty much always been in favor of the war, but in the last couple of years has also been in favor of reducing the size of our military involvement. That seems to be pretty much the only position that is consistent with her actions over the past five years. She isn't opposed to it, but she thinks it can be done smaller, and better. That is also a position that is generally consistent with liberal hawk foreign policy thought: the war wasn't wrong, it was just conducted poorly, and now can only be "successful" in a more narrowly targeted way. Perhaps a good analogy is that her views on Iraq are more JFK than LBJ: both are hawkish, but one is narrow and targeted while the other is expansive and prone to quagmires.
It also functions as a centrist position on an issue rarely understood to have a middle ground. Of course, like so many other centrist positions like mandated health care, cap and trade without a carbon tax, and the recently attempted immigration reform in the Senate, it also will neither make anyone happy nor do much to fix the main problems we face (expensive for profit health care, expanding carbon emissions, the development of a near permanent underclass in America, etc). Iraq isn't going to get any better, either for us or the Iraqis, if we leave tens of thousands of troops in the country. The war won't end, either. But it will make elites happy, and appear to be doing something to solve one of the major problems we face. And that is, in a nutshell, how our political system has learned to function.
WHEN PUSH CAME to shove on Wednesday night at the Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire, none of the major candidates would guarantee that combat troops would be out of Iraq by the end of their first term. Oh, by the way, that would be in the year 2013.(…)
It's tough to tell by the candidates' comments whether they suddenly had a moment when they decided to match rhetoric to reality, or whether it was a politically fueled move to seem more "centrist," with an eye toward the general election. Whichever it was, voters need to take note.
The only other marginally viable candidates to guarantee a complete troop withdrawal were Sen. Chris Dodd, of Connecticut, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.
Leaving aside whether complete withdrawal by 2013 is realistic (we think it is, by the way), those voters who believe that it is a reasonable deadline to have all of our troops out of the middle of the quagmire in Iraq do not have as much of a champion in Clinton, Obama or Edwards as they may have thought.
The bottom line is that, even in the Democratic primary, in which the promises seemed to be running solidly for ending combat involvement in Iraq on a reasonable timetable, the attitudes are a lot softer than they had seemed.(…)
The (small d) democratic process would be much better served if candidates in both parties were much more honest on the stump about how they really see the situation, instead of running toward the fringes.
That very last part is nonsensical, considering that they editorialized in favor of a complete withdrawal by 2013 earlier in the piece, and then implied that such a position was "fringe" at the end. Did they just call themselves "fringe?" Still, this actually gets at the heart of the issue even more than what Leno said last night. The issue of residual forces is not simply a matter of whether or not leaving residual forces in Iraq is a good idea. Additionally, this is also a matter of honesty. For the leading Democratic candidates to repeatedly say that they will end the war, and not bother to inform people that they will keep troops in Iraq until 2013--and an indefinite number in the case of Clinton and Obama--is simply not being honest about what they will do in Iraq. That is not acceptable, no matter which political party you are from.
Discussion of residual forces is starting to reach way beyond the blogosphere. Here is Jay Leno last night:
If you watched, the three Democratic frontrunners said last night -- this is what they said. Hillary and Barack and John Edwards, they said setting a timetable for a complete withdrawal is irresponsible, because you can't project what the future situation will be in Iraq. And pulling out troops basically depends on the situation on the ground. Otherwise known as 'the Bush plan.' Hello?"
Back in April when Matt and I were arguing against residual force on MyDD, it might have just seemed like a couple of cranks with a blog and a pet issue. Now this is on Jay Leno, who lays out the Iraq blurring strategy that can partially result from residual force plans. It is absolutely mainstream.
This should be a big concern for all Democrats. Americans do not support a significant, long term troop response in Iraq. From a recent CBS poll:
CBS News Poll. Sept. 14-16, 2007. N=706 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4 (for all adults).
"From what you know about the U.S. involvement in Iraq, how much longer would you be willing to have large numbers of U.S. troops remain in Iraq: less than a year, one to two years, two to five years or longer than five years?"
Less than a year: 49%
One to two years: 23%
Two to five years: 12%
More than five years: 5%
Other / Unsure: 11%
If Democrats want ot avoid the blurring strategy, they better start making it clear what size of residual force they intend to leave in Iraq. This is especially true of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Until they do, they will rightfully be skewered by the likes of Jay Leno and others, and their anti-war veneer will be severely damaged. I mean, if you can't promise Americans that you will pull all American troops out by 2013, and you also can't tell them how many troops you will leave in Iraq, then Leno is right: exactly how is this different from the Bush plan? It won't be long before quite a few voters start asking that question, and offering up a few more specifics will help provide a sufficient answer before it becomes a problem.
Let's assume for a moment that protecting the embassy actually means leaving American troops in Iraq, which it doesn't. But let's assume it does. Then, let's consider the following, hypothetical scenario:
Candidate A wants to leave between 40,000 and 60,000 troops in Iraq to protect the embassy, train Iraqi forces, conduct "count-terrorism" operations, guard American civilians conducting humanitarian work, and conduct troop / infrastructure protection.
Candidate B wants to leave 3,500 and 5,000 troops in Iraq to guard the embassy and protect American civilians conducting humanitarian work.
Candidate C wants to leave 1,000 troops in Iraq to guard the embassy, and says he will will have no residual forces.
Now, it I correctly understand the several dozens of commenters who have brought up the embassy line for the past several months, this actually means that Candidates A, B and C have identical Iraq plans. In fact, it actually means that Candidate C is the worst, since he hypocritically says that he will leave no troops in Iraq. He is lying! Lying I say! And there is nothing worse than that, including leaving several thousand more troop in Iraq.
Do I understand this correctly? Please, correct me if I am wrong.
I have to say, one of the reasons I am most glad that I haven't endorsed a candidate, is that I don't have to support obviously wrong arguments simply to defend the guy I am backing.
I am currently in Durham, New Hampshire, at the MySpace / MTV dialogue with John Edwards. I have been told that I must legally disclose that MySpace is paying for my travel expenses to be here. So, well, MySpace is paying for my travel expenses to be here.
Before that starts at noon, I wanted to give a run down of my many thoughts on the residual forces question that led off the debate last night:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I actually turned ont he debate quite literally just as Edwards was finishing his answer to this question, and I was unable to find a transcript online. As such, I think it is important to note what Edwards actually said in response to the question:
RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, will you commit that at the end of
your first term, in 2013, all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq?
EDWARDS: I cannot make that commitment. But I -- well, I can tell you what i would do as president. When I'm sworn into office, come January of 2009, if there are, in fact, as General Petraeus suggests, 100,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, I will immediately draw down 40,000 to 50,000 troops; and over the course of the next several months, continue to bring our combat out of Iraq until all of our combat are, in fact, out of Iraq.
I think the problem is -- and it's what you just heard discussed -- is we will maintain an embassy in Baghdad. That embassy has to be protected. We will probably have humanitarian workers in Iraq. Those humanitarian workers have to be protected.
I think somewhere in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops will be necessary to accomplish that, 3,500 to 5,000 troops.
Kind of sickening,but not really surprising, that the media report on the debate quoted int he post directly below this one only mentioned the first line from Edwards. What it missed was the rather momentous even where Edwards put a number on his residual force plan. Again, unsurprisngly, they did report that Edwards then proceeded to attack Clinton for having too many troops conducting too many missions in her residual force plan.
This is progress. This is a very small residual force plan not only made clear, but couple with an direct contast with Clinton. I take back what I said below--this is a big step forward for Edwards. The rest of the exchange can be found in the extended entry.
Well, I certainly can't say it is being ignored anymore. Even Tim Russert is asking Democrats about residual forces now, in the first question of tonight's debate no less. And the answers are even worse than I feared:
The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.
"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state.
"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
"I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
Sensing an opening, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson provided the assurances the others would not.
"I'll get the job done," said Dodd, while Richardson said he would make sure the troops were home by the end of his first year in office.
2013? 2013?! This is so utterly disappointing. Clinton, Edwards and Obama all can't pledge to pull even all combat troops out of Iraq after four year in office? And yet Edwards still attacked Clinton over this:
With the Democratic left-wing demanding a hasty U.S. timetable out of Iraq, Edwards criticized the New York senator for not ruling out that U.S. troops might engage in some combat missions in Iraq if she were to win the 2008 election.
"To me that's a continuation of the war," Edwards said. "Combat missions mean that the war is continuing. I believe the war needs to be brought to an end."
Edwards' broadside put Clinton on the defensive at a time when she is enjoying a comfortable lead in opinion polls and trying to appear above the fray. But there was no sign that the debate would prompt a major shake-up in the Democratic field.
I am glad that Edwards made this attack, but if he can't commit to having American troops out in 2013, then the final quoted sentence actually makes sense. This is passing up on a major point of differentiation. Edwards is showing potential here, but not being able to promise to have all troops out by the end of his first term severely undermines his position. Very, very disappointing. I honestly don't understand it.
It is a broadly held position in the blogosphere that the Democratic Congress is not doing enough to try and end the war in Iraq. However, after tonight's debate, I wonder if the blogopsphere needs to look in the mirror. If the top three candidates in the blogosphere, who currently receiving a combined 71% in the Dailykos straw poll, not to mention receiving by far the most online buzz, small donors, and volunteers too, all just said on national television that they can't promise to bring all American troops out of Iraq over five years from now, then what exactly are we doing to end the war by supporting those three candidates in the Democratic primary? Seriously. How can we complain about others not doing enough to end the war, when the majority of our community is openly offering support to candidates who just said they won't end the war? There are other candidates who just said will end the war--basically, every other candidate Biden and one of the top three. Maybe we should support one of them, or at least not take any sides in the primary at all, before we talk about the failure of others to end the war.
I am inclined to support Richardson's plan to have no residual troops, but it's not the driving issue for me that it is for many other folks like Chris and Matt (although I'm really glad they have been raising the issue because it's an important debate to have). I've been thinking about why. I'm not as moved by that issue, and I think it's because the more I think about Iraq in January 2009, the more questions I have about what we'll find there. It seems pretty clear given the much-discussed dynamics of the war politics that we'll still be there as long as Bush is in office, and absent a miracle, we'll still be trying to officiate a civil war. But beyond those two realities, what else will be going on?
Before I get into the heart of this post, let me start with two points of information. The first is that I am no policy expert when it comes to foreign policy, military policy, the Middle East and Iraq specifically. The thing I like about the OpenLeft.com community is that many of you do have expertise in these policy areas, and can contribute to my understanding of the situation, so please share your thoughts and expertise on the situation.
The second thing to note is that I have never been in the middle on the war debate itself, but I am a peace person. I've been against this war from the opening of the debate in the fall of 2002. I am for setting a date certain for withdrawal, and always have been. I am for defunding this war, and am for the Democrats standing up to Bush on his bullying. The sooner we clearly signal our intention to leave, the sooner the Iraqi people can figure out what needs to happen to rebuild their country.
All of that is why I am inclined toward a policy of no residual troops except to guard the embassy. It just makes sense that if 165,000 troops aren't enough to keep the peace, that 60,000 or 40,000 or something less won't keep the peace any better. But I have to admit that questions and complications still make my head hurt. Here's what I don't know and have questions about:
1. What happens to the Kurds? Does Turkey just attack as soon as we're gone? Does the central Iraqi government send troops up to secure the oil fields, and start slaughtering people? We've already screwed the Kurds once, back in daddy Bush's day. And we've made a gazillion promises to them in the last few years. Do we just leave them out to dry?
2. If the U.N. and other countries really get engaged in 2009, and a peace deal is forged, do we refuse to send troops in as peace keepers? If the Iraqis don't want us there, as is currently the case, we should get the hell out. But how does the whole peacekeeper possibility fit into a promise to evacuate all the troops?
3. What about humanitarian workers? Edwards says he wants to keep some troops in Iraq to guard humanitarian workers. This seems like a reasonable idea, although I don't know for sure what it means. Maybe one of the members of the OpenLeft.com community can help us figure out how many soldiers that means, how much danger would there be in doing that kind of work, how long it might make sense to keep them there in that role.
4. What about reconstruction? I'll admit it, I have some liberal guilt going on here. We have thoroughly destroyed this country's infrastructure, done little or nothing to help them rebuild it, and allowed crooked contractors to steal tens of billions of dollars in the process. Although I hate the idea of leaving troops there to guard infrastructure, is there anything we can do once we have a president who isn't owned by Halliburton to actually help in some way?
5. What conditions will be different in January 2009? Very likely, things will be even worse than they are today. But knowing how much is likely to be different, I am frankly leery of any politician, no matter how well intentioned as I know Richardson is, making promises about a situation with as many questions, as much uncertainty, as there is today about Iraq.
Some things about Iraq are really simple. We never should have invaded. We've messed things up, repeatedly and overwhelmingly, ever since we've been there. We should announce today that we're getting the hell out. Democrats should stop folding to Bush on the issue every time he threatens to say mean things to us.
But I have to admit that I am troubled by the complications and uncertainties that exist in the act of leaving, and I am frankly not unsympathetic to some Democratic politicians who are more nuanced in their promises on issues like residual troops, because I have so many questions myself on how this is all going to play out. I have seen too many politicians over too many years overpromise on big issues, and that's why- even though it sounds like it could be the best option- the Richardson residual troop pledge is something I'm taking with a grain of salt.
In the wake of the Iran madness going around in full force today, and Bill Richardson going out with an ad on residual forces featuring me, Chris, and Christina, it's worth spending some time to understand why the residual forces argument and a sane discussion of Iran are having trouble gaining traction in political discussion among activists or elites. As it happens, I asked Clark about residual forces, Iran, and his endorsement of Clinton last Thursday. Perhaps there are clues here. Part three, on military spending and post-Bush investigations, will come out next week.
