Agreed. I would like Edwards to clarify his position on maintaining troops in Iraq. I think you can plausibly read his position to be "maintain a US presence in Kuwait and Bahrain - accelerate Iraq training while we are withdrawing", but I can see how someone else would read it another way.

I have to (again) take exception to your belief that John Edwards made "lunatic statements" and is "in thrall to a national security state", but we'll leave that argument for another thread.

Have we considered that a complete liquidation of the U.S. presence in Iraq could create new problems? Most specifically, if the U.S. withdraws from Iraqi Kurdistan, there is the strong possibility of a Turkish-Kurdish War. Treaty obligations would demand the U.S. support its NATO ally Turkey against the Kurds.

Perhaps Hillary, Obama, etc. are taking these possibilities seriously, rather than just being pro-war sell-outs, as you imply.

Matt, I'm impressed with your post.  I think you right that we need to hold our candidates accountable.  We are rushing to be "free staff" for the guy of our choice than to push all the candidates to grow into the best possible Presidential nomminee.    

Matt, you have an assumption here.  I am going to repost my last comment on Bowers, to get this concern of mine out of the way:

I wrote a comment on this a bit ago, about how Kos's guy Schweitzer was saying the same thing - and he lived in Saudi Arabia for over 7 years.

Namely, that the "foreign policy establishment", progressive or not, except for the neocon hawks, are pretty united in saying that we need to stay in the region, maybe 10K to 30K troops in Iraq, or just right outside.

But, a good point, Richardson,the most accomplished foreign policy POLITICIAN, thinks we can take ALL troops out.

The real questions is, of course, WHAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO??

If we are a reality-based community, do we simply ASSERT taking all the troops out is the best thing to do?  Do we defer to the experts, who in this case, are the foreign policy progressive elites?

We defer to our SCIENCE elites, right?  Those who tell us global warming is real?  Why not the same on this??

I, for one, am not comfortable asserting a "faith-based" policy of 100% withdrawal, if the experts say "no"??

I mean, that's what I want, is a full 100% withdrawal.  

But what if that is not really what is RIGHT?

None of these candidates are willing to try to figure out how the United States might conduct itself in a world where it couldn't assume it was omnipotent. But the Bush adventures have proved conclusively that the US in not all-powerful. Economic trends, climate change, China -- all of these are going to show us this very painfully over the next few years. Candidates who let themselves be trapped by short term political calculation into ratifying this horrible frame are going to be completely ill-equipped to deal with reality.

I actually listened to the MoveOn thing in one of the houseparties. Folks in attendence were simply not ready to think about the realities of loss of U.S. plenipotentiary power. (Nor did they give any of the candidates very high marks -- but I bet, like me, they are still thinking about the replies.) Our dreadful media are actually leading us away from being able to think about the actual challenges the next few Presidents are going to face -- but even in the liberal political blogs we are still too caught up in momentary minutia to evaluate candidates very smartly.

But we mustn't let these candidates get away with basically thinking that the neo-con trajectory of attempted world domination excused by terrorism can go even when we are driven out of Iraq. It can't.

only Edwards is close to articulating a real policy on Iraq

Well it looks pretty complete and real to me:

Edwards' plan for Iraq calls for Congress to:

   * Cap Funds: Cap funding for the troops in Iraq at 100,000 troops to stop the surge and implement an immediate drawdown of 40-50,000 combat troops. Any troops beyond that level should be redeployed immediately.

   * Support the Troops: Prohibit funding to deploy any new troops to Iraq that do not meet real readiness standards and that have not been properly trained and equipped, so American tax dollars are used to train and equip our troops, instead of escalating the war.

   * Require Authorization: Make it clear that President Bush is conducting this war without authorization. The 2002 authorization did not give President Bush the power to use U.S. troops to police a civil war. President Bush exceeded his authority long ago, and now needs to end the war and ask Congress for new authority to manage the withdrawal of the U.S. military presence and to help Iraq achieve stability.

   * End the War: Require a complete withdrawal of combat troops in Iraq in 12 to 18 months without leaving behind any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

Edwards' initial speech on Iran sounded lunatic but he later acknowledged that attacking Iran would have very bad consequences.

There should be a way to edit - anyway, since I like to toot my own horn, from a comment of mine on 4/5:

"And Iraq - a couple of weeks ago, I saw Brian Schweitzer - Kos's guy - on the Charlie Rose show.  He said himself, there would be probably 100K troops in the greater Middle East area, for the foreseeable future, because he need to keep the energy flowing, as long as we can.  He said something like 20k to 30K troops would most likely be in Iraq, although he did offer that perhaps these troops would be on the periphery.

(There's a whole post to be written there, about what, exactly, is the space between the progressive netroots troop strategy for the ME region, and the foreign policy experts troop strategy for the ME region, but the subject of another post.)"

And now, we have that discussion.

And to the Democratic base that is letting Clinton dominate the polls, I can't help but shake my head and wonder if we really deserve to keep our republic.

The voting doesn't begin for 9 months!  Most people have better things to do with their lives than follow politics like us political junkies.  Her poll numbers will drop as we get closer to the primaries and people start paying attention.  In 2004, primary polls proved entirely meaningless until about two weeks before Iowa.

"I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph, and there is purpose and worth to each and every life."  

I've made no statements in public in support of any candidate.  I'm hanging back, waiting to see whom I may like most.  I certainly know who's been pissing me off, but I've been keeping that mostly out of my blogging, except when our candidates enable GOP talking points or policies.  I've donated no money to any of them.

Matt is exactly right.  Those of you who are taking public sides for one candidate or another need to start holding your chosen one accountable.  The elites condescend to you, and if you allow yourself to be used, then let's just admit we don't care about the things we have been saying we care about.

I don't believe our candidate supporters actually don't care, but I do believe it's time to wake up and push the party through these candidates.  Smoke 'em out:  what do they believe?  What will they do?

Ben Smith at Politico asked the Edwards campaign to elaborate on Edwards' view of Reid-Feingold. Smith reports:

"EDWARDS: Spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield emails, "I wouldn't say he supports Reid-Feingold. He supports defunding as a policy and applauds Reid and Feingold for putting it on the table, but the plan he supports is his own -- which would force a drawdown of 40-50,000 immediately and have all combat troops out in 12-18 months."  UPDATE: That is to say, says Bedingfield, his only quarrel with the bill is it doesn't go far enough, but he has no problem with the methods."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 407/FeingoldReid_Watch.html

Pardon me for repeating here what I posted below but it is still relevant to this thread.

Reading the comments here I have a feeling that many do not have a clear picture for how hopeless our position is in Iraq.  Right now we have only one of two choices: complete withdrawal (including our embassy) or a continuing US presence that will mean continuing war.  The passions our so high that any US target remaining in Iraq will attract insurgents.

It is not realistic in the slightest to think that we could retreat back into our fortified bases and take up defensive positions.  What self-respecting military commander would accept such an assignment.  Think about it. Passive defense without taking the action to your attackers.  Giving up the highways so that these bases would have to be resupplied by air.  Each base would just have to sit there and take incoming mortar and rocket fire.  What is the point?

I have no idea what will happen when we pullout completely.  There are many possible scenarios and I think that the worst case ones are quite possible.  This is just a measure for how hopeless our position is: we no longer have any control over what will happen when we leave.  The only decision we control is when we withdraw.

And as a postscript: yes there are deluded policy experts who believe other wise, but their opinions have proven worthless over the past 4 years.

Matt, the story went beyond just the first day:

Ezra's interview:

First, America should be negotiating directly with Iran, which Bush won't do. Second, we need to get our European friends, not just the banking system, but the governments themselves, to help us do two things -- put a group, a system of carrots and sticks on the table. The carrots are, we'll make nuclear fuel available to you, we'll control the cycle, but you can use it for any civilian purpose. Second, an economic package, which I don't think has been seriously proposed up until now. Because there economy is already struggling, and it would be very attractive to them. And then on the flip side, the stick side, to say if you don't do that, there are going to be more serious economic sanctions than you've seen up until now. Now of course we need the Europeans for this, cause they're the ones with the economic relationship with Iran, but the whole purpose of this is number one to get an agreement. Number two, to isolate this radical leader so that the moderates and those within the country who want to see Iran succeed economically, can take advantage of it.

Now that's on the one hand, the flip side of this is what happens if America were to militarily strike Iran? Well you take this unstable, radical leader, and you make him a hero -- that's the first thing that'll happen. The Iranian people will rally around him. The second thing that will happen is they will retaliate. And they have certainly some potential for retaliating here in the United States through some of these terrorist organizations they're close to, but we've got over a hundred thousand people right next door. And most people believe that they have an infrastructure for retaliation inside Iraq. So, that's the second thing that'll happen. And the third thing is there are a lot of analysts who believe that an air strike or a missile strike is not enough to be successful. To be successful we'd actually have to have troops on the ground, and where in the world would they come from?

So, Matt, you might want to rethink that issue.  Plus, I remember at the time people finding Clark, Hillary and Obama using the same "not off the table" language.

I think we need to differentiate between what we as Democrats want our Congress to do, and what we expect/demand of our Presidential candidates right now.

The first job of our candidates is to get elected to the Presidency.  There is a reason why someone like Kucinich isn't taken seriously as a candidate despite having just about the most progressive record of any of the candidates --- and it isn't because he's short.

Demanding ideological purity on the question of Iraq at this point in the campaign --- when we don't even know what the Iraq situation will look like in the Fall of 2008, is just not very bright.

What we need to be demanding is that all of our candidates get behind the Democratic congress, and our efforts to get OUT OF IRAQ before the 2008 Election -- and certainly not make statements that undercut those efforts (yeah, I'm looking at you, Obama).  

Earlier today Matt did a post called "How Obama, Edwards, or Clinton Could Lead on Iraq".  That is what we should be focussing on -- how our presidential candidates can provide leadership NOW, not what they will be doing 20 months in the future because they failed to provide leadership today.  

I'm disturbed by comments about how the US needs to continue to control Iraq ("so things don't get out of hand"). The US military cannot control Iraq and even if we could, we should not.

We, as progressives, should promote a progressive foreign policy that is based on freedom and democracy (self-determination). As long as the US puts its economic interests (oil, etc.) above democracy, the US will be fighting almost everyone in the world. But if we support democracy, human rights, and what is good for the world, then most people will support us. And we will be able to look in the mirror and say we are actually progressives.

Quoting myself:

The American revolution and US support for the United Nations and human rights have demonstrated US progressive leadership in the world. But our militarist adventures to secure an American empire are not progressive and should not be supported. People who consider themselves progressive activists need to act like it and fight for freedom, liberty, and democracy, not "realistically" argue for empire.

I want to hear the candidates talk clearly about foreign policy and put forward a progressive perspective. So far, I've mostly heard blather designed not to offend anyone. It is our job as progressives to insist that the candidates are more transparent so we'll have some idea how they will actually behave if they are elected and have control of the US foreign policy levers.

Do they support the United Nations and other international bodies and treaties? Do they think the US should continue trying to control the world's oil? Will they support dictators in countries with resources desired by US corporations? Will they stand up to militarists or will they slink away? Will they cut the gigantic military budget or will they kowtow to military contractors?

There are no good option for reversing any of the poor decisions made during the Bush Administration, especially the war. Those of us on the left who insist on a rigourous extraction seem to refuse to see that we broke and we must fix it.

We have a moral obliqation to thw world to "... be as as cautious getting out as we were reckless going in."

Senator Obama has always been as right as he has politically couragous since the begining of this whole fiasco.

I Trust him to lead this country back to its rightful place on the world stage.

Matt, Phil and others have pointed out some factual and interpretation errors in your original post.  Would you consider editing them to reflect Edwards' robust stance on Iran, his plan on Iraq, his backing of Feingold-Reid, and his general take on foreign affairs that American influence on the world is built through moral leadership, not military might?

Matt,

Nobody, except you and some Obama supporters, thinks Edwards is going to nuke Iran.  His comments were not crazy in any way.  He is only sounding like a commander-in-chief should.  

Nothing should be off the table, that weakens your bargaining position.  But as President it would be up to him to choose a sensible option-- what our current President is unable to do.

Democrats need to look for a sensible commander-in-chief, not a pacifist-in-chief.

Getting out of Iraq is the sensible thing to do because we are not helping the situation and people are dying needlessly.  But we can't nominate someone who is unable to use force nor is unable to credibly threaten the use of force.

For the love of God!  Reagan DID talk to the Soviets and I assume we all agree that was the right thing to do.  Praising that historical example is hardly the same thing as "venerating Reagan's approach to diplomacy."  Matt, that's an absolutely ridiculous attack.

It's entirely fair game to point out that the loonies who don't want us to talk to anybody are the same crackpots who thought Reagan, of all people, was soft on Communism because he had the audacity to talk to the Soviets.  It's a historical example that makes the wingnuts look idiotic and it's completely relevant to bring up.

God forbid someone should say that Reagan did the right thing by engaging in diplomacy with the USSR, or that Nixon did the right thing by going to China.  Oh, the horror of it.

for some reason you chose to just about ruin a damn good post Matt.

Still hacking away I see.

We're still at war with Germany, aren't we Matt?

Jesus, this is getting moronic.  And I know.... no.... i SUSPECT matt and chris are much smarter than this.

you can keep repeating it 100 times a day.

some troops left in iraq does not mean we are still at war in iraq.

can i repeat it 100 times in one post??

some troops left in iraq does not mean we are still at war in iraq.

some troops left in iraq does not mean we are still at war in iraq.

some troops left in iraq does not mean we are still at war in iraq.

some troops left in iraq does not mean we are still at war in iraq.

some troops left in iraq does not mean we are still at war in iraq.

no.  i'll stop.

it's obvious.  it doesn't need to be repeated.

Bush can't admit a mistake, but it looks like we can't either.

Indeed. The first step might be to admit the mistake of ill-conceived derision towards the only progressive candidate (Kucinich).

The elites think what they think and disdain activists, and from our end, we love the horse race so much that we let them lie to us and get mad at each other about trivialities like who is being 'sincere' or 'authentic' when they are openly wrong on matters of policy.

Who is being sincere or authentic is not a triviality. Policy positions should be a natural outcome of valid principles and they will be so only if the person is sincere. The horse race mentality is the problem, as correctly identified.

More shortly...