Obama: Leave troops in Iraq for YEARS

The proof is in the policy.

We can yap and flap our gums and talk about ending the war and withdrawl and we can also talk about the reality.

The New York Times provides a heavy dose of reality.  Guess what?  There isn't a dimes worth of difference between the 3 Democratic front runners (or the one front runners and the top two trailers).   All would leave significant troops in Iraq for sometime to come.

The poop:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/us/pol itics/12dems.html?_r=1&hp&oref=s login

The fact is that it would be very very hard ot just leave.  If we chose to keep our embassy that alone would talke 10s of thousands of troops to secure.  Not to mention the continued training of Iraqis.

The good news is that all of our Democrats would get our military out of the role of police and the cop on the beat.  This would significantly reduce casualties and take the bullseye of our troops.  

The big question for all of us is who could best manage the critical transition in Iraq from a war footing to a advisory position.

Tags: Barack Obama. John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Iraq War (all tags)



Re: Obama: Leave troops in Iraq for YEARS

The voters are choosing Hillary for that role . She is leading with a wide margin even among anti war folks .

by lori 2007-08-11 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Leave troops in Iraq for YEARS

If the election turns on that question she will win handily.

by lori 2007-08-11 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Leave troops in Iraq for YEARS

more shitty national polls from the Hillary cult.

It's really all they have.

by Michael 4 Edwards 2007-08-11 09:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Leave troops in Iraq for YEARS

Maybe you should take a minute and read the diary. There aren't any polls mentioned. Get a grip.

by DoIT 2007-08-12 02:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Leave troops in Iraq for YEARS

What?  Hillary has the same policy?  Pretty sure.  Nice that you didn't mention it.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-08-11 09:00PM | 0 recs
Leave troops in Iraq for YEARS

Here's why the Democrats are advocating a rapid beginning of a cautious, methodical troop reduction.

From the most recent polling in 70 key battleground districts conducted by Stan Greenberg:

http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/an alyses/Democracy_Corps_August_3_2007_Mem o.pdf

As long as Republican incumbents continue to support an unpopular President and an even less popular war, it will be virtually impossible for them to reverse their electoral vulnerability.

Democrats should not fear confronting the President again in September after the surge report is completed. Messages supporting Democrats' arguments for setting a timeline for withdrawal resonate with great intensity in both Democratic and Republican-held districts. Indeed, a majority of voters in Democratic-held districts are more likely to support their member when hearing a message emphasizing the rising cost of this endless war that is shifting resources abroad and preventing us from addressing problems at home. This message also helps raise
doubts about Republican incumbents as four-in ten-voters in Republican-held districts report serious doubts about their member after hearing this critique.

As Democrats highlight this issue and have a broad mandate from the public for change, they should be aware that the public still wants to proceed responsibly to avoid instability in the aftermath. While more voters worry that Republicans will take too long to withdraw troops (50 percent), a significant number (46 percent) worry the Democrats will move too fast.

by hwc 2007-08-11 09:07PM | 0 recs

To be honest, I believe these democratic presidential candidates may have to reposition and reframe this issue in coming months.

It appears the situation on the ground, especially in Baghdad area is getting less violent, MSM is already drumming up 'surge is working'. Opinion polls have already shown signs that anti-war sentiment is softening...

Watch out for these guys to sublety reposition and reframe this issue.

The truth is Obama will look pretty bad if he continues that 'I am smarter than all of you since I opposed to the war from the beginning' rhetoric. Just imagine this scenario, if he happens to win the nominee and if Iraq does become a bit stable next year, what is he going to run on?

Not just him, it's a problem for all candidates. That's why you can't put all eggs in one nest.

by areyouready 2007-08-11 09:15PM | 0 recs
Re: repositioning

I don't think this is a problem for Hillary.  She has said all along that we have to end the war, but also act responsibly in drawing down troops.  The "surge" I believe was only went to bring some stability so that a draw down of combat forces was possible.

by bookgrl 2007-08-11 09:19PM | 0 recs
Re: repositioning

Yeah the surge seems to be having some positive effect on the violence in some places but unless bush starts drawing down the troops or find a bi partisan strategy that at least the country can agree to in terms of the next presidency , it will still be an albatross on the GOP.

by lori 2007-08-11 09:31PM | 0 recs
Re: repositioning

It's true. But people were and have already been ambivalent about this Iraq. Overwhelming majority of voters supported the war from the beginning, and when they see signs of some faint 'hope', lots of them will abandon those strong 'anti-war' sentiment.

I don't think the majority except people on the far left, will appreciate Obama's constant scolding 'all of you were wrong and I am the only one who was right from the beginning'. This will become even more problematic if people believe they see some silver line in Iraq.

For everybody who's questioning Obama's foreign policy credentials, Obama's only answer is 'How dare you question me since you were so wrong on Iraq!'.

by areyouready 2007-08-11 09:36PM | 0 recs
Re: repositioning

Most people think the election will be easy for the dems , It's going to be a lot harder than most people think . I still think Guiliani will be their nominee and he is going to be tough to beat . I might be wrong.

by lori 2007-08-11 09:46PM | 0 recs
Re: repositioning

I agree with you that this will not be an easy election. We are going to win but it will be fought hard right up to the end.

I think that Romney will be their nominee.

by DoIT 2007-08-12 02:14AM | 0 recs
Re: repositioning

I've thought that for awhile- who knows what the situation will be in a year.  It's a mistake to make the war your whole campaign.

That's why I did think it was smart of Edwards to focus on something else- unfortunately for him, what he chose, "poverty" is not something Americans have much of a reaction to or care that much about so it is really not doing him any good. If he thought there would be a big response to it, he miscalculated- it's a strategy he committed to years ago and it hasn't panned out.

by reasonwarrior 2007-08-12 01:10AM | 0 recs
Re: repositioning

Perhaps his motivation for focusing on poverty is only partially related to winning?  Maybe he thinks poverty is a problem that merits attention and action?  

I'm not claiming his motives do not include finding a signature issue that could help to define him and hopefully help raise his profile and electoral chances.

But among the many things he might have chosen to focus on, why this one, despite the fact too many voters don't care (seemingly) about the poor?  I think the reason is not merely strategic but deeply personal.  And I admire that.  He is also not a one-note candidate; he's got solid positions on many issues.

by Trond Jacobsen 2007-08-12 05:18AM | 0 recs
Re: repositioning

The surge is NOT working. There may be a few places where it is safer to be but overall the situation on the ground is complete chaos.

by DoIT 2007-08-12 02:12AM | 0 recs
Re: repositioning


by bookgrl 2007-08-12 05:32AM | 0 recs
Richardson has the best plan for Iraq

It's clear and to the point - all U.S. troops out.  No forces left to fight and die for years to come:

From http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/us/pol itics/12dems.html?_r=1&hp&oref=s login:

"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!""

I posted a diary on this last month:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/7/4/31637 /77453#readmore

If anyone think the "Surge is Working" mantra of the Republicans is going to catch on with Democrats and the Independents, forget about it.  Eventually inconvenient facts like

*  we would have to re-instate the draft if we wish to bring stability to Iraq;


by Stephen Cassidy 2007-08-11 09:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson has the best plan for Iraq

Personally I think his approach is reckless , but thats just my opinion . He won't get my vote.

by lori 2007-08-11 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson has the best plan for Iraq

I think it is reckless to ask soldiers to stay and die when a withdrawal is inevitable.

"Overwhelming majorities of Iraqis, both Shia and Sunni, oppose the presence of US troops in Iraq and believe that US troops are more a cause of violence than a solution to it. Our presence in Iraq fuels the insurgency, strengthens Al Qaeda, and distracts us from the urgent task of defeating the real terrorists who attacked this country on 9-11. It's time for a phased and coordinated, but rapid, withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq, and Governor Richardson has a realistic plan to do it."

- Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard, Jr.

If you are interested, you can read more on Richardson's plan for Iraq at http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/is sues/iraq

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-08-11 10:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson has the best plan for Iraq

I am right with you on getting out of Iraq and pronto. But I disagree with Richardson's plan. We do not want to leave behind equipment, that would be dumb. And an orderly and safe withdraw will take longer than Richardson's 6 months.

by DoIT 2007-08-12 02:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson has the best plan for Iraq

The democrats won in 2006, because the american people wanted out of Iraq.

If the democrats say that they will end the war, but keep a residual force of 70-100,000 troops in Iraq, then they will be hurt in the election of 2008. The american people will believe they were deceived. tHAT NUMBER OF TROOPS WILL RESULT IN COMBAT AND AMERICAN CASUALITIES, MAYBE NOT AS MUCH AS NOW AND THE COST WILL BE 6 BILLION DOLLARS PER MONTH MINIMUM.


The argument will be between the amount of residual force's to be left in Iraq between the democratic and republican candidate.

Nader will run and this time he will poll 6-8% OF THE VOTE. This is double what he pulled in 2000.

by BDM 2007-08-12 05:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson has the best plan for Iraq

Ralph Nader is going to get his ass kicked. For sure!

I am all for getting out of Iraq. I would prefer that we were already withdrawing. But whenever we do start withdrawing it must be orderly and safe. If the commanders and people like Wes Clark say it will take 15 to 18 months then I trust their judgment. The main thing is to start getting out and not stop.

I don't see why we would need 50-70 thousand troops as a residual. And I don't really support that. I think we should start withdrawal and train the frickin Iraqis as if they haven't been trained enough by now. And get the hell out.

by DoIT 2007-08-12 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Richardson has the best plan for Iraq

His plan is correct, but the time for withdrawl of all troops is probably 18 months to a year.

Nixon withdrew over 100,000 troops from Vietnam within a year.

by BDM 2007-08-12 05:30AM | 0 recs
Absurd headline

It was Obama who, in October 2002, warned that it would be much harder to get out than it would be to get in.

by horizonr 2007-08-11 09:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Absurd headline

Guess your girl Clinton didn't think about that one.

by horizonr 2007-08-11 09:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Absurd headline

Rather naive of her, wouldn't you say?

by horizonr 2007-08-11 09:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Absurd headline

You know you're talking to yourself.  But, no, sorry, Hillary has been saying for years that it was going to be difficult to get out.

by bookgrl 2007-08-11 09:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Absurd headline

How many years? Two?

by horizonr 2007-08-11 10:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Absurd headline

I think there will be a complete draw down of combat forces, but with the footprint we have in that country, and the tensions between turkey and kurdistan, I don't see how we will be able to leave with out facing a major humanitarian crisis and possibly a kurdish/turkish war, which would be very significant.  I can't say how long, but I don't think any responsible Democrat(this of course includes Edwards and Obama) is going to get us completely out of Iraq any faster than the other.  If you really pay attention to what they are talking about, it is mostly impletementing the Baker Hamilton recommendations.  That's the starting point, beyond that any promise to have every troop out by such and such date is just primary pandering  How could anyone possibly know 17 months out from even becoming president?  

by bookgrl 2007-08-11 10:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Absurd headline

Exactly , you are on point here . It will be foolish to say for certain I will get troops out by this date , anyone that says that is just pandering because when you eventually win and see the responsibility you have , you might not be able to fulfill it.

by lori 2007-08-11 11:01PM | 0 recs
george bush says the same thing...

by bored now 2007-08-12 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Absurd headline

You said: "Hillary has been saying for years that it was going to be difficult to get out."

My question was: For how many years has she been saying that?

I don't recall her saying it in October 2002, as Obama did.

by horizonr 2007-08-11 11:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Absurd headline

Yeah, she did. She actually wanred Bush about going to war, and about planning for an exit.

by bookgrl 2007-08-11 11:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Absurd headline

Then why did she vote for the AUF except for political reasons.

by BDM 2007-08-12 05:32AM | 0 recs
she had "seen the intelligence"...

she knew what the white house knew, and she trusted the president.  also, do not underestimate new yorker's need for revenge in her decision.  all in all, she showed very bad judgment on another big decision.  just like bush...

by bored now 2007-08-12 06:24AM | 0 recs
hillary has a secret plan...

by bored now 2007-08-12 06:10AM | 0 recs
i'd call it stupid...

by bored now 2007-08-12 06:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Absurd headline

Didn't Obama say the election is about the future , I am afraid I am looking towards the future and who can solve the problem in Iraq effectively . Sorry for me thats not Obama , Its Hillary .

by lori 2007-08-11 09:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Absurd headline

whatever, you guys must stalk the board for anything about Obama to bash.  when it was hillary who voted to get us there.  and we all know she is not pulling these troops out anytime soon, once in office.

by iamready 2007-08-11 09:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Absurd headline

Why would you have confidence in some one who voted for the AUF and was against a time line for withdrawl and for stay the course up till mid 2006.

All of the democrats are talking about a time line for withdrawing troops from Iraq. Thus, the american people think the democrats will be getting us out of Iraq. What the people don't know is the significant number of residual forces that they will leave in Iraq.

If this gets flushed out, Ibelieve it will, then the candidates will be in a defensive posture defending it before the american people.

I waNT TO SEE hILLARY DEFEND A 70-80,000 RESIDUAL FORCE to be left in Iraq to carry out missions which will involve combat operations. We only have less than 30,000 troops in Korea.

by BDM 2007-08-12 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Absurd headline

Oh, he is a prophet!

by DoIT 2007-08-12 02:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Leave troops in Iraq for YEARS

Which explanation, I mean revision, is this one?

The President can't veto a plan he doesn't receive. What is Obama going to do about that?

by DoIT 2007-08-12 02:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Leave troops in Iraq for YEARS

Hard to know how long it takes that many troops to leave a country unless you've personally done it before. We don't have the ability to pull out overnight even if we wanted to. Once again, Obama tells the truth, and someone distorts it for political gain.

by mihan 2007-08-12 04:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama: Leave troops in Iraq for YEARS

Obama supports a withdrawal over 15 month, and if positive change happens the troops stay longer.  Clinton is the only Nixon in the crowd.

by CardBoard 2007-08-12 05:01AM | 0 recs
there's a BIG difference...

between obama's approach and the mainstream establishment approach of hillary's.  btw, since you're trying to shock people into thinking that obama's and hillary's approaches are the same, you should have said that obama will leave u.s. troops (marines) in iraq permanently.  we have embassy protection units -- generally considered light duty -- as permanent forces in many countries, and barack has always said he'd leave in the marines to protect our monstrosity of an embassy in iraq.

this is very different than the faux withdrawal advocated by hillary.  remember, she was for the war before she was against it...

by bored now 2007-08-12 05:39AM | 0 recs
good news in iraq seems to help hillary...

at least her poll numbers...

by bored now 2007-08-12 06:26AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads