In a sign of how seriously the Obama campaign is taking Pennsylvania, last night at my ward endorsement meeting, the Obama campaign actually sent three surrogates to speak to, and take questions from, the committee people. One of those surrogates was iMark Alexander, the national policy director! And this is just one of 66 wards in Philadelphia, which itself only represents 23-25% of the statewide primary electorate in the state. Despite my large platform, I could not pass up the chance to ask a question about residual forces in Iraq to the national policy director.
The answer was pretty much as expected. There will be residual troops, carrying out a variety of possible missions: protecting the embassy, participating in an international peacekeeping force, conducting counter-terrorism, and training Iraqi troops. All of those missions, except embassy protection, were listed as possible missions, not definite ones. No estimate on troop levels were provided. Basically, it was all of the same answers I kept receiving from campaigns back in 2007, and which eventually led to the following television commercial:
Unfortunately, it appears that nothing has changed over the past six months:
A key adviser to Senator Obama’s campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.
The paper, obtained by The New York Sun, was written by Colin Kahl for the center-left Center for a New American Security. In “Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement,” Mr. Kahl writes that through negotiations with the Iraqi government “the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground).”
This is not surprising at all, given that Kahl wrote the paper for the Center for a New American Security (which is not “center-left”). That was the think tank that finally allowed us to put a solid figure on the size of residual forces back in September. Second, it has been clear for literally a year now that both Obama and Clinton (and Biden and Dodd) were proposing residual forces in Iraq of this size. This is publicly available information, and it has been around for some time. While both Kahl and the Obama campaign deny that the plan represents the position of the Obama campaign, the fact is that the answer I received last night on residual forces, just like the answers I had been receiving on residual forces during 2007, is exactly the same as the Center for a New American Security plan. It is exactly the same list of troop missions, only without the estimate on the number of troops.
This isn’t something that the Clinton campaign should crow about, because the 60,000-troop plan is also exactly the same as their residual force plan. If anything, unless their proposals have changed, the Clinton campaign’s plan is worse, since their residual force missions are listed as definite rather than as possible, and also listed as happening in Iraq, instead of some possibly happening in a neighboring country. The simple fact is that once Edwards dropped out, there was no longer any meaningful difference between the remaining Democratic candidates on residual forces. As such, residual did not play a role in determining who I would support in the primary.
It is increasingly clear that, even in a Democratic administration, in order to reduce the size of, or do away with entirely, residual forces in Iraq, several things will have to happen. First, it will be important for a no residual force supporter, such as Bill Richardson, to hold either Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense. Second, it will require congressional leadership, such as that found in the Responsible Plan for Iraq, to pass legislation requiring even a Democratic President to reduce the size of, or do away with entirely, residual forces in Iraq. Third, it will require continuing pressure of Democrats, progressives and anti-war activists who will support the nominee this year to influence and hold the new President accountable on completing withdrawal from Iraq. The simple, and depressing, fact is that we will not end our military participation in the war in Iraq just by winning a big trifecta in the 2008 elections. In order to build a truly progressive governing majority in this and other areas, we will have to keep fighting long afterwards. To put it one way, progressives will need our own residual troops in a Democratic administration.
The reason Hillary Clinton has never apologized for her Iraq war vote is because she clearly believes in the American “mission” in Iraq. Here is a statement from her campaign today on the deaths of 4,000 American soldiers in Iraq:
“In the last five years, our soldiers have done everything we asked of them and more. They were asked to remove Saddam Hussein from power and bring him to justice and they did. They were asked to give the Iraqi people the opportunity for free and fair elections and they did. They were asked to give the Iraqi government the space and time for political reconciliation, and they did. So for every American soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice for this mission, we should imagine carved in stone: ‘They gave their life for the greatest gift one can give to a fellow human being, the gift of freedom.’
Clinton presents Iraq as a resounding success where a tyrannical regime was removed from power, and freedom was brought to the Iraqi people. From this perspective, withdrawal is justified because the major missions have been accomplished, not because the war itself was a mistake. Also, as has been repeatedly made clear over the past twelve months, a sizable residual force will be left behind to continue some of the secondary missions of the war.
Compare this to Obama’s statement on 4,000:
Each death is a tragedy, and we honor every fallen American and send our thoughts and prayers to their families. It is past time to end this war that should never have been waged by bringing our troops home, and finally pushing Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future. As we do, we must serve the memory of all who have died as well as they served our country, by providing support for their families, caring for our troops and veterans, and upholding the American values which our fallen heroes exemplified through their service.”
For all the supposed lack of policy differences between Obama and Clinton, even on their Iraq withdrawal plans, this remains a fundamental, deeply ideological discrepancy. As I wrote earlier today, the Iraq war has ended America’s brief tenure as the world’s only superpower, and effectively instigated a genocide in Iraq. If you still think this was a good idea that was worth the costs, even if it was badly managed, then you simply have a fundamentally different view of the world and America’s role in the world than someone who thinks the war was a mistake and not worth the costs. Even though I know it is something no presidential candidate can ever directly say and still hope to remain viable, the fact is that our soldiers in Iraq did not die for a good cause. Quite the opposite has occurred: they died as part of an effort that has eroded America’s power faster than any other event since the Civil War, and which has created one of the worst humanitarian crises in the past fifty years. It was a mistake of colossal proportions, not “the greatest gift one can give to a fellow human being.” A candidate’s ability or inability to recognize that mistake remains the best possible way to measure how effective a Commander in Chief he or she would be.
John McCain is now pushing the Iraq Blurring Strategy from both sides. Check out his latest attacks (emphasis mine):
“So yesterday, Senator Obama said, ‘Well we shouldn’t have gone in in the first place, and if we hadn’t gone in in the first place we wouldn’t be facing this problem,'” the Arizona senator said. “Well, that’s history. That’s the past. That’s talking about what happened before. What we should be talking about is what we’re going to do now.
“And what we’re going to do now is continue this strategy, which is succeeding in Iraq and we are carrying out the goals of the surge. The Iraqi military are taking over more and more responsibilities, the casualties are down, and we will be able to withdraw and come home. But we will come home with honor.”
This goes beyond even Joe Lieberman’s “no one wants to end the war more than I do,” spiel, and enters Nixonian territory of “peace with honor.” And now McCain is pushing both sides of the blurring strategy, using surrogate James Baker to argue that even those in favor of withdrawal plan to leave troops in Iraq for a long time:
Baker, also well-known for heading up the Iraq Study Group, voiced his agreement with McCain’s view of the situation in Iraq.
“I think what Senator McCain’s position is today is quite consistent with what we said in the Iraq Study Group Report,” Baker said. “We negated the idea of setting a timetable, a withdrawal date…we also said and pointed out that we’re going to have American forces in Iraq for a long time to come.”
So, McCain wants to end the war, but to do so with “honor.” Also, he is in favor of a timetable, but like everyone calling for Iraq withdrawal, including Barack Obama, he knows that American troops will stay in Iraq for “a long time to come.”
And so, we arrive at the full-blown Iraq Blurring Strategy from John McCain. No one wants to end the war more than he does. In fact, he is in favor of withdrawal. However, everyone who favors withdrawal, like Barack Obama, also wants to leave large numbers of residual forces in Iraq.
In some ways, it is a relief that after many congressional Democrats decided to take Iraq off the table in the 2008 elections, that John McCain became the Republican nominee and decided to make it the central issue. However, I would be lying if I didn’t say I was worried about this strategy. I have long believed that Democratic support of residual forces provided the opening for such a strategy, and that Joe Lieberman’s campaign provided the blueprint. Obama needs to make his differences with McCain on future plans for Iraq crystal clear, to the point where he starts talking about the different troops estimates for Iraq under an Obama administration and under a McCain administration. The argument can still be won as long as it is clear, and as long as the Obama campaign calls bullshit on McCain’s phony desire to withdrawal from Iraq. Starting with an attack on McCain surrogate Joe Lieberman, who said the same thing in 2006 and then voted with Bush on Iraq, is probably a good place to start.
There is more than one way to engage the Iraq Blurring Strategy. While McCain has declined the take the Joe Lieberman approach of “no one wants to end the war more than me, but…” he has instead adopted the approach of “I don’t want to end the war, but neither does Obama, and we agree on the reasons why.” Here is McCain:
“I’m not embarrassed to tell you that I did not watch the Democrat debate last night,” McCain said, “but I am told that Senator Obama made the statement that if Al Qaeda came back to Iraq after he withdraws — after the American troops are withdrawn — then he would send military troops back, if Al Qaeda established a military base in Iraq. I have some news: Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Al Qaeda, it’s called Al Qaeda in Iraq, and my friends if we left they wouldn’t be establishing a base, they wouldn’t be establishing a base, they’d be taking a country. And I’m not going to allow that to happen my friends. I will not surrender. I will not surrender to Al Qaeda.
“It’s pretty remarkable when Al Qaeda is in Iraq, and want to withdraw from Iraq and then say you will go back to Iraq if they have a base there. That’s — when you examine that statement it’s pretty remarkable.”
One of the main problems with the leading Democratic candidates promising to keep residual American military forces in Iraq is that such plans provide continuing justification for keeping American troops in Iraq, and comparatively little justification for withdrawal. Both Obama and Clinton have promised to keep residual troops in Iraq in order to attack Al Qaeda, although in fairness Obama has said that in his plan these troops might not actually be based in Iraq but instead just over the border. This position causes a serious credibility problem for withdrawal of any sort. As McCain points out, if you think American troops should be in Iraq to fight terrorists, then why withdraw the troops at all?
As long leading Democrats are arguing that we need troops in Iraq to carry out missions like “fighting terrorists,” it severely weakens the public argument to engage in any sort of withdrawal. Democratic promises to keep residual forces in Iraq in general, and now Obama’s promises to keep residual forces in Iraq in particular, have a net result of pre-blurring the Iraq issue even for Republicans like McCain who refuse to even say they want to end the war. Not only do residual forces give McCain further amminition on why we should stay in Iraq, but it also gives more credence to the argument that Democrats don’t really want to end the war. It might be too late for Obama to promise no residual troops at this point, but as the campaign moves forward he is going to have to do a much better job of differentiating his position on Iraq, and his rational behind that position, from McCain’s.
Update: Obama hits back:
“I have some news for John McCain,” Obama said, according to The Politico. “There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain” started their war.
That will likely become a stock message for Obama. He also uncorked this:
“John McCain may like to say he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of Hell, but so far all he’s done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq.”
That is a decent comeback from Obama, but it mainly talks about the decision to go to war rather than the decision on what to do in the future. He needs clearer differentiation on both in order to really bury McCain, and the Iraq war, once and for all.
I realize that I need to provide a lot more context to the pessimism of my previous post. So, in the extended entry, I provide a quick timeline of recent major political events since the Democratic takeover of Congress, and explain how the progressive movement is in serious jeopardy in 2008 unless we can reverse the current trends of the debate on the Iraq war:
There’s More…
:: (50
Comments, 1264 words in story)
digg it
Clinton and Obama’s divergent views on the troop surge in Iraq, however, were plainly visible.
When Bush proclaimed, “Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among terrorists there is no doubt,” Clinton sprang to her feet in applause but Obama remained firmly seated. The president’s line divided most of the Democratic audience, with nearly half standing to applaud and the other half sitting in stony silence.
The most consistent criticism of Obama online has focused upon his rhetorical posture in relation to Republicans and conservatives: conciliatory language of unity, the use of right wing talking points on health care and social security, positing left-wing DFH strawmen (70’s style, anti-military love-in was my favorite), triangulation that blames ideologues and partisans on both sides for polarization, etc. However, here is an instance where the roles are starkly reversed, as Hillary Clinton literally stands up and applauds George W. Bush for his troop surge, while Obama remains seated.
There are not many ways to interpret Clinton’s remarks except as applause for the escalation she ostensibly opposed. Even if she was applauding “the troops,” that would imply that the Democrats who did not stand up were somehow against the troops, which is the most vicious right-wing talking point of all. This is should also be a stark reminder of the difference between Clinton and Obama on supporting and not regretting / opposing the war in the first place, on Clinton’s general hawkishness, on ending the causes of wars like Iraq, and even on the continued presence of a residual American military presence in Iraq. If Clinton applauds the escalation, then why should I have any confidence that she will keep only a small residual presence in Iraq? This is a terrible move by Clinton, one that makes me feel as though more than five years have passed since the AUMF and nothing has changed, and that she is portraying her foreign policy views dishonestly during the campaign.
I think there are very clear differences between Obama and Clinton on this nexus of policy, rhetorical, and administrative issues. In the final analysis, it is why I definitely prefer Obama to Clinton in this campaign.
Ending Military Privatization: Obama has introduced legislation targeting military contractors. Also, in a conversation I had with Rep. Jan Schakowsky, the House leader on this issue, she praised Obama’s leadership on the issue without even being asked about the Presidential campaigns. Schakowsky is from Illinois and an Obama supporter, so take that with a grain of salt, I guess. Again, I think Obama has a clear edge in this category.
The well-publicized contrast between Hillary Clinton’s early backing of the Bush administration’s war effort and Barack Obama’s early opposition, has to a degree been replicated in the less visible network of foreign policy advisers that each candidate has cultivated — the early war opponents by Obama, and the one-time hawks by Clinton.
Combine this with the real threat of Harold Ford Jr. as DNC chair, and once again, there is a clear advantage to Obama.
Global Warming and Energy Policy: Pretty much everything I have seen praises both Obama and Clinton’s plans, so this appears to be a draw.
Restoring civil liberties and constitutional checks and balances. This is the one area where I see an edge for Clinton. There are indications, including a Wesley Clark interview for Open Left, that Clinton would continue the investigations into Bush administration wrongdoing. I seriously doubt we will see anything from Obama on this front, giving at least his desire for unity, post-partisanship and leaving the past behind. Obama also wasn’t very good on Habeas Corpus, to say the least. Pretty clear edge to Clinton in this area.
So, that makes four clear advantages to Obama, one to Clinton, and two areas that are about even. Overall, that is a very strong advantage for Obama. While I have issues with Obama’s rhetoric and health care proposals, on balance this list outweighs those negatives. Further, that Obama opposed the war from the beginning, while Clinton has not only refused to admit a mistake and her advisers boast of her hawkishness, matters quite a bit, too. Also, I admit that I simply have a cultural preference for Obama, probably because I fall into the most of the demographic groups where he performs well. So, if at any point this becomes a two person campaign, I will support Obama over Clinton.
Right now, I still prefer John Edwards, and I have explained why on several occasions (see here, here and here for starters). However, if he finishes third in Nevada, I will probably begin rethinking my preferences.
Iraqi defense minister says that U.S. troops should stay in Iraq for another ten years:
The Iraqi defense minister said Monday that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012, nor be able on its own to defend Iraq’s borders from external threat until at least 2018.
Which is, of course, exactly what we are going to do. This one quote is all of the justification that another Republican administration will need to keep American troops in Iraq, at their present levels, for as long as the administration holds power. Then again, a Democratic administration will keep not as many, but still a lot, of troops in Iraq, too. And the Democratic Congress won’t ever do anything about it, because they are afraid of seeming like they were “against the troops.” Doing that, or really anything that might even a little aggressive on Iraq, will, of course, hurt election chances..
The whole thing feels like we have entered a military dictatorship through means of manners and peer pressure. We are required to keep troops in Iraq for as long and in whatever quantities conservative generals tell us to keep them in Iraq, because otherwise we would be offending the troops. We can never order them to leave Iraq, because otherwise we would be offending the troops. We also can’t cut back on military spending, because to do so would offend the troops. In order to avoid offending the troops, we collectively agree to let the military do whatever its most conservative commanding officers say we should do.
The whole thing smacks of the Algiers Crisis coup that caused the end of the fourth French Republic. In 1958, the French government abolished its constitution and willing handed over power to De Gaulle, including the power to write a new constitution greatly expanding the President’s powers, because the military asked the government to do so. Of all the historical comparisons I have seen, the end of the French Fourth Republic really strikes me as the best analogy for what has happened to our democracy. It was, in effect, a modern, relatively bloodless coup perpetuated in a liberal democracy as the result of a national crisis, and with the willing support of a large percentage of the population. This isn’t without precedent in America, considering the Business Plot to overthrow FDR back in the 1930’s. Really, the only difference strikes me as being the comparatively crude military tactics proposed by the Business Plot, and the even the more sophisticated tactics utilized by De Gaulle were crude in comparison to the more gradual, more sophisticated techniques of the Powell memo. n both situations, military supremacy over the government was assured through popular will of the people, and enforced through our most pervasive institutions: government, mass media, and our sense of national supremacy.
It is funny how much conservatives hate France, since we seem to emulating them quite nicely.
This is the most depressing passage I have read in some time:
President Bush’s speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make — any vote that may lead to war should be hard — but I cast it with conviction.
That passage is from Hillary Clinton’s floor speech in favor of S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. It is remarkable that a congressional resolution entitled “A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq,” is justified on the grounds that it will improve diplomatic efforts. What part of “Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq,” wasn’t clear in the title? The text of the legislation, which isn’t very long, also states “[t]he President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate.” To argue that this legislation serves to further diplomacy, rather than to authorize the use of force no matter the outcome of diplomatic efforts and no matter the seriousness with which such efforts were engaged, is to cling to an incontrovertibly false argument. Arguing that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq authorized the use of military force against Iraq is as straightforward as an argument can be.
More in the extended entry.
There’s More…
:: (53
Comments, 429 words in story)
digg it
Gov. Bill Richardson’s campaign is expected to direct their supporters to caucus for Sen. Barack Obama in the second round of voting at Thursday’s caucuses in precincts where he is not viable. Two sources familiar with the plan told Iowa Independent that the New Mexico Governor’s organizers have been instructed to direct supporters to Obama in the places where they fail to reach the 15% threshold for viability.
It should be noted that, late last night, Joaquin Guerra of the Richardson campaign killed these rumors right here on Open Left. Still, even if it is true, it isn’t a deal like the Edwards-Kucinich mutual agreement four years ago. It is, instead, more like the strategic choice the Gephardt campaign made four years ago to instruct his precinct captains to back Edwards in the event he isn’t viable. Still, since precinct captains are more likely to take campaign orders than other caucus goers, and since precinct captains actually make up a decent percentage of every candidate’s caucus goers, it should still be significant.
I had hoped Richardson would back Edwards, since I consider Edwards superior on residual forces. When I wrote the original drafts of the ad we put together with the Richardson campaign, it was noticeably less harsh on Edwards than on Obama and Clinton. I always thought Edwards was a bit better on residual forces than the other two, and I think since that time he has proven me correct.
Dang. I’m still proud of the ad, though. I am also grateful to the Richardson campaign for working with us on residual forces.
Have progressives and progressivism made more of an impact on the 2008 Democratic primary than in 2004? This is a very large question that I think we need to spend a lot of time analyzing, but given that Iowa is tomorrow the question probably isn’t answerable yet. I want to believe that progressive Democrats have advanced on our performance in 2004, and I think preliminary reviews show that to indeed be the case. In the extended entry, I provide the outline of this case.
There’s More…
:: (3
Comments, 712 words in story)
digg it
In the extended entry, I attempt to fully explain my decision to cheer for John Edwards in Iowa, a decision about which I feel pretty certain now. This is, of course, my decision alone, and is not meant to reflect on anyone else on Open Left.
There’s More…
:: (52
Comments, 1138 words in story)
digg it
I just got a phone call – unprompted – from Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a Democratic candidate for president, blasting Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for saying she would withdraw nearly all American troops from Iraq within a year of beginning redeployment.
“Senator Clinton’s comments are a stunning flip-flop – she’s been saying she would keep troops in Iraq for five years, until 2013, and now she comes up with an inconsistent, incredible turnaround,” Mr. Richardson said.
Mrs. Clinton has maintained that she would leave a residual force behind in Iraq to pursue narrow missions, a position that her spokesman said she still holds. As her aides have done before, the spokesman declined to say how many troops Mrs. Clinton would leave.
Mr. Richardson’s poke begs the question: Is he, in fact, uninterested in being Mrs. Clinton’s running mate should she win the nomination? Some Democrats have suspected that he was angling for the job, given the fact that he has heretofore stuck up for her in some of the recent presidential debates.
There is another possibility that Healy doesn’t seem to consider: Bill Richardson is honestly and openly angry about Democratic plans to leave a residual American military presence in Iraq. While I know that everyone in American politics is supposed to have some ulterior motive behind everything they do in public, everything in my experience has indicated to me that Richardson’s position on Iraq is genuine.
Richardson isn’t alone, either. The latest CNN poll on Iraq showed public sentiment for total withdrawal sharply rising to 39%, a clear plurality nationwide. Further, residual forces wouldn’t even be an issue in the campaign were it not for Richardson. No matter what happens when the voting starts, and no matter what you may think of Richardson otherwise, that is an important contribution to the campaign. And yes, it is one reason not to be cynical about American politics.
Update: The Clinton campaign is accurately pointing out that Clinton said she would bring “nearly all troops home,” not “all troops home.” She was misquoted by the reporter. I guess this means she didn’t change her position, but really I kind of wish she had.
The Chris Dodd campaign has done a great job with its debate talk clock meter. I would like to introduce a new debate meter, one that measures how many times Iraq was mentioned in each of the last five debates. The pattern is illuminating:
December 13th, Des Moines Register Debate: 13 mentions
October 30th, Drexel University Debate: 45 mentions
September 26th, New Hampshire Debate: 59 mentions
Iraq peaked as an issue in the Democratic primary in late September, when the residual forces issue hit the mainstream. Since then, it has been a straight, downward decline, with mentions of Iraq cut 80% over the last five debates. Iraq is clearly being “taken off the table,” not only by Democrats but also by the media outlets that sponsor their debates. Bill Richardson seems to be just about the only candidate discussing Iraq these days.
Avoiding Iraq is a path to doom for Democratic candidates. In the two most hotly contested special elections this year, MA-05 and OH-05, Republican candidates over-performed first by blurring on Iraq themselves, and then by benefiting from the Democratic candidate taking Iraq off the table. It unfortunately seems to be the path we are walking down. I think we need a series of primaries that will match the impact of Lieberman-Lamont last year in order to, once again, make this point clear to the Democratic establishment.
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.
There’s More…
:: (3
Comments, 493 words in story)
digg it
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
There’s More…
:: (3
Comments, 301 words in story)
digg it
This issue really isn’t going away. In fact, it seems to have turned into a full-blown, public policy discussion now. Edwards continues to attack Clinton over residual forces:
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.
But, I guess, things will be different by 2013. Both the “train Iraqi troops” and “fight al-Qaeda” residual force missions are bogus and dangerous. Further, they help Bush and conservatives blur the way forward on Iraq, and the muddy the debate:
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.
Go check out the whole memo. It is essential reading in the ongoing debate on Iraq.
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!
Speaking of Social Security, even leaving aside the problems associated with using “fixing” Social Security as a line of attack in a Democratic primary, isn’t it generally a bad idea to tell someone you are going to hit them in the face before you actually do so? Not only does it make future attacks from the Obama campaign appear like attacks for the sake of attacks, but it also means your opponent can see it coming from a mile away. Clinton will be prepared for any Obama attacks tonight and, well, so will everyone else. Just seems like a bad strategy.
“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)
It is nice to know that there are some good wonks out there. Bill Richardson and The Center for American progress does not stand alone on this issue.
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.
Below the jump is a quote from TAP
There’s More…
:: (2
Comments, 381 words in story)
digg it
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.
Given this comment from a three-star general who is backing Clinton, it seems worthwhile to ask what opposing the war in Iraq actually means:
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.
I’m sensing a snowball effect. Today’s editorial from the Philadelphia Daily News (emphasis mine):
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.
There’s More…
:: (22
Comments, 554 words in story)
digg it
