Update: Democratic Plans For American Troops In Iraq

[babylonsister]

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=116

Update: Democratic Plans For American Troops In Iraq
by: Chris Bowers
Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 12:03:26 PM EDT

On Monday, I posted on the difficulty of determining how many American troops would remain in Iraq under the myriad Democratic redeployment plans. The confusion was underscored by Senator Reid, who early on Monday indicated that when it comes to the Feingold-Reid redeployment plan, “there are estimates that that would still leave tens of thousands of troops to stay in Iraq.” However, later in the day Senator Feingold issued a statement indicating that he “does not envision that the exceptions outlined in Feingold-Reid will require tens of thousands of troops.”

In an attempt to help clear up this confusion, last week I contacted all eight Democratic presidential campaigns, and asked them two questions:

1--Assuming the current level of violence in Iraq does not decrease, what missions would President XXXX have American troops carrying out in Iraq after his / her first year in office?

2--In your best estimation, how many American troops will be required in order to carry out these missions, if any?

As of this writing, I have received responses from the Richardson, Dodd, Biden and Obama campaigns. In the extended entry, I have reproduced their responses, in full and unedited. Any new responses from the other campaigns will also be placed on the front-page. I do not want to close off the possibility of further responses by posting now, but I also do not want to hold back the information I have already received indefinitely. Besides, the three responses I have already received combine to be quite lengthy, and as such it might be best to break up the responses anyway.

Like Mike Caufield at Blue Hampshire, who recently posted something quite similar, I have found this process to be “more work than I thought” it would be. Having all eight campaigns jointly comment on any request from an independent writer such as myself, much less on a question as fraught with political and policy difficulty as #2, is not easy, to say the least. However, I will continue to try, because I feel these two questions strike at the heart of differences in Iraq policy between the candidates. I know that no campaign will be able to provide an exact number, but listing the missions a given candidate would still have American troops carrying out, coupled with a general range (20,000 –40,000? 5,000-15,000?) seems feasible. I look forward to receiving further responses.

more...

[Mass]

1. From the beginning, when Feingold in 2005 , then Feingold and Kerry in 2006, proposed this idea

the amount of troops remaining in Iraq has been the weak point of the legislation.

What amount of troops would remain in Iraq if the plan was adopted. It seems clear that different people would put different numbers on it. I have heard some people talk about 60,000 troops, some about as few as 10,000.

The other question that is never asked is about private security contractors. Is there a possibility that the administration could imagine continuing this war with mostly private contractors and a small amount of troops (the number of contractors at this point may be close to the number of official troops), and therefore please at the same time those who want troop withdrawal and the neocons.

This is why being clear is very important, and why I feel sometimes a little bit bothered by the vagueness of the statement of some Democratic leaders, who try to get the votes of some more "moderate" Democrats or even Republicans.

A deadline is important, but a deadline for what.