Posted by: McQ on Monday, August 13, 2007 Apparently the "elect me and I'll get us out of Iraq as my first act as President" might not be quite as solid as some on the left would like it among Presidential candidates. The NY Times is reporting: Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.You don't say? John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.This will certainly comes as a bit of a surprise to the virulently anti-war, "get out of Iraq now" crowd to whom these candidates have been playing and pandering. Only Bill Richardson is for complete and immediate withdrawal: Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico stands apart, having suggested that he would even leave some military equipment behind to expedite the troop withdrawal. In a forum at a gathering of bloggers last week, he declared: “I have a one-point plan to get out of Iraq: Get out! Get out!”While Richardson's position was wildly popular at YearlyKos, it is truly an unthinking "bumper sticker" policy which simply ignores the reality of Iraq and the importance of stability there. And even Hillary Clinton's “If this president does not end this war before he leaves office, when I am president, I will” has caveats. Why? Because of these questions: Among the challenges the next president could face in Iraq, three seem to be resonating the most: What to do if there is a genocide? What to do if chaos in Iraq threatens to engulf the region in a wider war? And what to do if Iraq descends into further lawlessness and becomes the staging ground for terrorist attacks elsewhere, including in the United States?Critical questions which the one-point plan of Bill Richardson simply ignore. And they're questions and consequences a competent president ignores only at severe risk to the best interests of the national security of the US - whether the anti-war left likes it or not. But watch them give the impression that they support getting out of Iraq immediately while campaigning for the primaries while quietly positioning themselves to take a more realistic and sophisticated approach about the region if they end up being the party's nominee. |
|||||||||||||||||||
| TrackBacks | |||||||||||||||||||
| Return to Main Blog Page | |||||||||||||||||||
| Comments For This Post | |||||||||||||||||||
Previous Comments to this Post |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| Add Your Comment | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| Vicious Capitalism |
Buy Dale's Book!
|
