To make a plural, as you appear to want to do in the headline, one does NOT use an apostrophe.  

One Matt, two Matts.

This is a creeping evil which must be fought against--the making of plurals by apostrophe.

BC

I agree with Stoller.  It's time for some honesty.  Clinton, Obama, and, to a lesser extent, Edwards are proposing ambitious military missions in Iraq, ambitious given the multi-noded civil war with well-armed factions there, all of whom think it's good to kill Americans.  

If Clinton and Obama are "serious" about successfully completing the missions they propose, they aren't going to bring home any troops!  For instance, it would take a LOT of boots and rifles on the ground and gunships in the air to effectively oversee and administer some sort of India/Pakistan/Bangladesh-type split of Iraq.  Now that could be the right thing to do (I doubt it) but it is not "ending the war."  It is a different sort of occupation.

Let the conversation begin, indeed.

I don't have a problem with a residual force, but we do really need our leaders to be honest about these things.

Matt Y is dealing with the politics, and Matt S is dealing with the policy. And I don't think either one is wrong or mutually exclusive. I think Stoller is right to want specifics and for candidates to match their policies with their words.

Matt, you talked a little bit about Samantha Power in your post here.  Obviously, you referenced her because she is working for Obama on foreign policy.     I'd like to read what she has to say on an Iraqi genocide, so if you or anyone else could provide a link to an article or piece where she mentions that, I'd really appreciate it.  

First, this is a good example of the boundary of fair use. Clearly you're using this quote to establish meaning, the fact that the entireity of the quote was the sum of the three paragraphs of the work - thats still fair use. the way I see it, its not like you are taking the lines from an epic poem.

Now, onto the issue. It seems to me that what I could add to this substantial - flamebait is that Obama really does come out of all of this as fairly presidential, playing a key role in the fox news shutdown in nevada, the only candidate to actually have a consistent voting record on the war, only candidate to release statement about imus (which is really a constitutional problem is it not)

I want to offer that our society is very playful. we offer models out to our candidates, and we are very, very strong when we have a strong leader.

Why is it, that, when the internal polls for the edwards campaign were conducted in Iowa in 2004, where they clearly learned that money couldn't buy the caucus vote - why is it that Edwards was consistently the number 2 choice? And not number one?

Obama may be associated with other remarks here but his record is clean and position sound.  All of the obama/edwards discussion is relevant -

But the game that American society is playing is not that - the american people have tricked both candidates into being senators.

While Bill Richardson told them, as their executive, precisely what they needed to do, to create a decent path for the country.

So the winner is.... Bill !!
Obama may of course release some kind of surprise this next week when he releases his platform for referendum and review and we will all likely cheer it because he's clever and knows how to build momentum - and he's a natural leader.

The question is - since the post and the followups are all flamebait, do we want Americas principal and leading diplomat, and Commander in Chief - in charge of draining the Bush republican swamp - to be in the position to leave this as kitchen talk?

Bill's words ring as clearly as in 2004, when Dean asked a simple question : "What I want to know is, why are so many democrats supporting George W. Bush's war in Iraq"

I'd question the continuing talk of an Iraq War. To my mind, that ended soon after the fall of Baghdad. America and its allies won that.

What we have now is an occupation, which (insofar as one can talk in these terms) we've lost. If there is a war going on in Iraq (which really depends on whether you consider guerillera warfare counts as a civil war rather than just an insurgency), it's one that American troops are largely peripheral to and its being fought between Sunni and Shiite. And being peripheral to a civil war just tends to mean that everybody's shooting at you.

Continuing talk about 'war' is not just inaccurate, it's also bad framing, as wars are things that can be won and lost, and the American public appears to still take the ancient view that the winner of the battle is the one not to flee the field. If it's talked of as an occupation, it's much harder for the wingnuts to glorify it (try saying 'glorious occupation' - it just doesn't work) so it means its easier to keep public opinion in favour of withdrawal.

Some iraquis most definitely want us to remain, namely the Kurds in the North, and I suspect that's where most of our in-country troops will be in a couple of years.

To me, if a candidate says they'll 'end the war,' they're lying. They're gonna end an Iraqi civil war? No; at most they'll end one phase of US involvement in the war. No American president can promise more than that. The fallout from this invasion and occupation, however, will not so obligingly and immediately end upon the word of an American president. We're gonna be involved in this war for a long time.

If they say they'll 'bring the troops home,' to me that sounds like shorthand for 'redeploy almost all US troops out of Iraq.'

Nobody plans to redeploy every last member of the US military from Iraq to the US, but I don't think that means 'bring the troops home' is really a lie. And I don't think they're lying if they say they're gonna 'bring the troops home' and also that they're in favor of an 'over-the-horizon' force in the region. Even though, yes, it's true that if Richardson--or any of them--says he's gonna bring the troops home when he's just gonna redeploy them to Kuwait, that's not literally true. They're not coming home.

I think this bit of shorthand is a pity, because it's misleading. But we're in danger of splitting hairs, here: as far as I know, not a single candidate who says he'll 'bring the troops home' literally means that every member of the military currently serving in Iraq will return to the US.

Still, I'm not sure it's fair to say they're being dishonest. (Though, yes, I do think there's some level of intentional muddying going on, which may be what some of us find infuriating, for the purposes of, as Matt Y says, 'wiggle room.' But this seems more of a nod to politcal realities--nuance is deadly--than craven dishonesty.)

On policy grounds, I entirely agree ... at the moment. But I can also envision a humanitarian disaster (or genocidal disaster) so overwhelming and pressing that the Iraqi public (at least the part suffering) actually wants US involvement. At that point, do we refuse to act because at this moment we need to totally (with a few caveats, of course) withdraw? That's a judgement call, and passing judgement now, in advance of the reality, is just another sort of political dishonesty or wiggle room, depending.

I think some of the MyDDers have done tremendous work trying to pin down what our primary candidates mean when they say 'end the war' or 'bring the troops home'. And that's super valuable, so we can judge the different approaches which they all, at this moment, publicly prefer--but beyond the willingness (eagerness?) to speak in soundbites, I'm not really sure if issues of political honesty enter into much of this.

Interesting debate between the two Matts.  The key point for me that Matt Y makes is

The issue, to me, is that flexibility is a double-edged sword. In the hands of a good president, it's a good thing. In the hands of a bad president, it's a bad thing. This is why one needs a good president.

And the pertinent idea that Matt S makes is

Our political discourse is pretty broken, and words choice and meaning can only return if we demand our leaders be straight with us.

I think it is clear that people want the troops out of Iraq.  I think both Obama and Edwards are trying to be honest without setting off a storm.  Yet they need some flexibility in what happens if they are president.  The US will be in the region and there may even be a justified need to be in Iraq.  The question is it the kind of war mongering that Bush led?  

Also there is the question of what to do now?  Bush needs to be contained and we cannot wait two years for the occupation to end.  I disagree with Yglesias about Edwards.  I believe he will be extraordinarily alert to manipulation because of his past experience.  However it will depend on the team.  Currently all Edwards can do is push the Overton window to help congress.  No one expects that Reid will suddenly pick up Edwards plan.  

Unease I have with Obama's plan is the idea of extending time in Iraq if benchmarks are met.  It leaves room for an ongoing occupation.  I have less trouble with residual forces in the region for possible difficulties.

Ultimately judgment is the issue to determine who would be the better president.  In my view judgment should be considered over time in a variety of situations.  One vote is not representative of judgment overall.  

I believe Edwards did make the wrong vote in 2002.  However he began to reverse his direction in 2003 when it was still not popular to vote against the president and the Democrats had lost the senate.  That does tell me he was voting his conscience.  And I could go on.

Obama made a better public statement in 2002 on the war which shows good perspective.  However I don't agree with his vote against Kerry's amendment in 2006.  Further I didn't like his endorsement of Lieberman, not because I can't stand Lieberman, but my thought is, having worked with him, he should have known the character of Lieberman.  To me his support of Lieberman and lack of support for the Democratic nominee in CT was political calculation not leadership.  He could have laid low on both.  It makes me question his judgment of character and willingness to put up with sleaze.  Nonetheless I think he would use the flexibility more wisely than any Republican.

Interestingly, I think Hillary has been honest, but I don't like her policy.  I still could support her.

I guess we will all use different information to judge the worthiness of giving trust to the candidates.

Five bucks says Matt wins.

I honestly believe like Matt Y., that what is important is wiggle room.  People can make all the noise they want for whatever idea they hold to, but, in reality, you got to have the ability to adapt to whatever the situation is.  
Like MY, I have said we do not know the situation down the road and therefore cannot be absolute.  Only my way.  We have to be flexible.  we also owe the innocents something in the way of helping them somehow.  It's our fault we ruined their lives.

Let's say I live somewhere in Iraq (I don't, but let's pretend).  I'm told that the new US president wants to withdraw all the troops from Iraq, that s/he wants to "bring the troops home."  The troops leave, except for a small number guarding the US embassy.  Then I find out that yes, the troops have left, but they haven't all come home, some of them have come home and some have been "repositioned" to adjoining areas (i.e., other bases in the Middle East).  What's the perception of that from someone living in Iraq?  That the occupation is over, or that the US is sitting and waiting for some excuse to come back in? I suspect the latter.

I need to understand what risidual force means.  

Does it mean being part of a multi-national force ala Bosnia/Kosovo?  

Does it mean small numbers of advisors/trainers for the Iraqi govt who are largely out of harms way?

Does it mean a force in Kuwait and Saudi Arabi to serve as a deterent?

I might be able to live with any of these depending on how it is structured.  What I can't live with is the current situation where the American military is basically serving as the armed forces of Iraq and is a target b/c of that role.

someone needs to give yeaglis a clue: "good" is in the eye of the beholder. Many 'Murkans still think bush is a "good" POTUS, some 30% of the population. That that is a preposterous position no more occurs to them then that Obama could exercise "good" judgement. Democrats triangulating and being mushy is one of the key components that opened the way for bush: mr. decider, even though its all bull.

At this juncture, with all the lies, deceptions, and obfuscation fomented by the bushliar-criminal America is in need of a POTUS with a definitive position.
.

Matt Y is dealing with the politics, and Matt S is dealing with the policy. And I don't think either one is wrong or mutually exclusive. I think Stoller is right to want specifics and for candidates to match their policies with their words.

Commenter is right on point, as far as I'm concerned, with Matt's take.

But...

Matt gets it wrong when he says 'I'm more concerned with politics that policy.

Dems are on the verge of having enough power in this nation to create new policy. Indeed, this is what the citizenry is asking for. The famous 'new direction' and if we progressives don't start making the candidates articulate new policy we are making a huge mistake. My post The Overton Window is framed in the wrong wall! is about this.

We need to educate the citizenry on what will be coming next in Iraq. And quite simply that has nothing to do with any 'War in Iraq'. The United States is occupying Iraq. this is a very different situation than  a war and calls for a different methodology to end it. To do so we need to use tools that have worked in the past. Joe Biden gets this, no I'm not a Biden backer, as he put it so well in the greatest speech I ever saw him give when he asked Bush: Then What, Mr. President...Then What! The biggest single problem we have is WE ARE STILL PLAYING BUSH'S GAME when we talk about war instead of occupation.

More troops, less troops, residual troops none of these changes will stop the civil strife in Iraq and allow us to leave without compounding this nation's  status as a rogue state guilty of war crimes in the course of President Bush's failure in Iraq. None of these approaches will allow us to leave Iraq at all.

We need a total rejection of Bush's policy of brute military force which, on the face of it, could start by using diplomacy with the neighboring states to find a solution to the sectarian violence Bush has unleashed within Iraq and which threatens to spread.

The neighbor states have been signaling their willingness to do just that for months. To no avail as Cheney believes that he is other than a vicious idiot. Rice is usless as the neighbor states consider her a liar. Bush...he can't even go to the ballpark. What's he gonna do. Nothing is what.

The main thing is to move the Overton Window so that solutions can be seen and I do believe that if done properly it would benefit the candidate  who choses to do to become the party nominee.  A progressive nominee as the rejection of Bush's policies will separate him/her from the military industrial pimps who are very satisfied with the war's progress and who, as we know, hold sway within the beltway through their use of bribery and corruption.

So Matt, I say that policy is what we must have. Progressive policy solutions must be the next step in our remaking of America and we must start pressuring those who would lead us to articulate their policies so that we can make the correct political choice.

Blather about troop levels or withdrawals ain't gonna cut it.

Move the window!

and see who wins.

but we're not getting out of iraq.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid= -5308196622692748202

stoller's absolutism:  You can't say you're bringing the troops home unless you're bringing every single last troop home, I still think it's politically immature.  I think most people in america have told themselves if you bring home 70-80% of the troops, redeploy them to other parts of the world and take those that stay in iraq off the streets, then that qualifies as "bringing them home", and "ending the war."

It doesn't qualify as far as Mr. Stoller is concerned and that bugs me less than it did a week ago.  

mr. yglesias seems to think you can catch a terrorist hiding in iraq with troops stationed in qatar.

I don't agree.

If you agree that there is a counter-terrorism mission left to be fulfilled in iraq (and i understand not everyone does, but matt y. seems to, and so does obama), then i don't see how you can complete that mission without having troops stationed in iraq.  on bases.  out of harm's way.

lastly.  matt y. writes:

The issue, to me, is that flexibility is a double-edged sword. In the hands of a good president, it's a good thing. In the hands of a bad president, it's a bad thing. This is why one needs a good president.

this is great wisdom.  and it can apply to troops remaining in iraq as well as anywhere else.

while not greeted as liberators, our troops were not greeted as enemies at first either.  so how did it come to pass that they became the enemy?  the policies of a bad president.  while there may be a lot of water under the bridge, it's fair to say that the policies of a good president would create a mission for soldiers remaining in iraq that would change their standing in iraq.

the idea that any residual force would per force have to remain defined as an OCCUPYING force is still, i'm sorry, an ideologically driven assessment.  or rather it has something to do with that overton window or something, who knows?

anyway.  we're not getting out of iraq.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid= -5308196622692748202

 I am peeved about all the money to support corrupt Iraqi politicians, while our troops do their dirty work.

 There is something to be said for leaving some troops there, a very small force go guard the airport (commerce).

 I think we should definitely not have permanent US bases.

The best option is an offshore balance of a naval force always at the ready just as a warning. Offshore means no boots on the ground for targeting or for inflammation of hate passions.

We should by all means be focusing on al_Queda patiently draining the US of our treasure and troops. That is what we should be thinking about.

 Instead of a military force can't we create a strong Civilian Rebuilding Corps..... non-military for reconstruction purposes, to assist in areas where the military makes things worse.

 Bin Laden is patiently and quietly waiting for the US to become more and more isolated, and weaker by the day. Is it Sprintime in Afganistan yet?

As I've stated before, I completely agree that politicians are obliged to say what they mean and mean what they say, and we have to hold them to it and beat up on them when they don't. They're tough people and can take it.

And if they can't, they're in the wrong business and better to weed them out before they've been elevated to positions of power for which they're simply not suited.

So, whatever their positions on Iraq, we need to demand that they come fully clean on it, and not say one thing but mean another, or hide behind deliberate vagueness and clumsy equivocation that leaves room for doing whatever they end up doing.

While, I should add, at the same time realizing that they are, after all, human, and can and will make mistakes and/or change their minds as things evolve, and cannot possibly account for every contingency and come up with an exhaustive plan to deal with every possibility. We don't expect them to always be RIGHT, but we do want them to be HONEST.

As for the actual policy questions, as I've also stated previously I'm not religious on how many troops are maintained in Iraq, for which missions they are kept there, or for how long. I'm content to leave that to responsible politicians and military and security experts--with, of course, constant monitoring by us and others.

Nor, now that Matt and others bring it up, am I fixed on the need to keep any such troops in Iraq itself. If they can be based in and operate effectively out of bases in surrounding countries, that's fine with me--in fact, preferable, considering how unwelcome we are in Iraq. The issue for me wasn't whether troops are kept in Iraq or elsewhere, but the need to not let the failure (and pointlessness) of the occupation make us forget that there are threats in the region (not just Iraq) that might in some instances require at least a partial military response (even if only in the form of a threat of the use of justifiable force in order to help advance diplomatic and political solutions).

However, I also cannot see how, on at least a short-term basis, we can avoid occasionally keeping troops temporarily in Iraq. E.g. a counterterrorism mission would likely require that troops set up temporary forward camps for what are likely to be extended engagements. But that would be temporary, and I imagine that Matt was referring to a more permanent presence.

My fundamental point was always that, whatever the specifics, if there is a LEGITIMATE US national security and/or humanitarian need to keep troops in or around Iraq, then we should not immediately reject this as untenable and unacceptable because the war and occupation were illegitimate. We should never have started this mess, but since we did, it has created problems that I believe we cannot simply walk away from any time soon, militarily. Even Feingold and Sanders appear to agree with that.

It's that whole Pottery Barn thing.