Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Many Troops Would Stay In Iraq if a Democrat Wins

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-29-08 08:43 PM
Original message
Many Troops Would Stay In Iraq if a Democrat Wins
WSJ: Many Troops Would Stay In Iraq if a Democrat Wins
By YOCHI J. DREAZEN
February 29, 2008; Page A4

WASHINGTON -- Despite the rhetoric of the Democratic presidential candidates, significant numbers of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq regardless who wins in November.

In their final push to win the nomination, Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York are repeating their vow to start withdrawing U.S. forces shortly after taking office. But both candidates draw a distinction between "combat" troops, whom they want to withdraw, and "noncombat" troops, who will stay to battle terrorists, protect the U.S. civilian presence and possibly train and mentor Iraqi security forces. Conducting such missions would likely require the sustained deployment of tens of thousands of American military personnel, foreign-policy advisers from both campaigns acknowledge. "No one is talking about getting to zero," said a foreign-policy adviser to Sen. Obama.

The upshot: When voters go to the polls in November, they will face a stark choice about the future direction of the Iraq war, but they won't be able bring American involvement to a quick end.

Republican front-runner Sen. John McCain was an early and vocal advocate of the Bush administration's troop "surge," which deployed an additional 30,000 combat troops to Iraq as part of a broader shift to a counterinsurgency strategy. If elected, Sen. McCain has said that he would maintain the current approach, which focuses on protecting Iraq's population by having small units of American troops live in neighborhoods and towns. That would mean keeping U.S. troop levels at or near 130,000, roughly the number deployed there since the start of the war in 2003.

The two Democratic candidates, by contrast, want to abandon the counterinsurgency approach. Both say they will begin withdrawing combat troops shortly after taking office and will shift the remaining U.S. forces to a more limited mission that won't include explicitly trying to deter Iranian activity within Iraq or moving against Shiite militias responsible for much of the country's carnage.

Sen. Obama, on his Web site, says that the drawdowns would begin "immediately" and continue at a pace of one to two brigades -- which each normally number between 3,500 and 4,500 troops -- per month. He hopes to have all combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office, or by the middle of 2010. Obama foreign-policy adviser Dennis McDonough says the Democratic front-runner wants the residual U.S. forces to focus on counterterrorism -- largely directed against al Qaeda in Iraq, the homegrown extremist organization responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians -- and protecting the enormous U.S. embassy in Baghdad....

Sen. Clinton takes a similar approach and promises to begin withdrawing combat troops within 60 days of assuming the presidency. Lee Feinstein, the Clinton campaign's national security director, says "the principal focus" of the remaining U.S. forces will be fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq. U.S. forces would no longer patrol Iraqi streets and towns or seek to prevent sectarian strife between Shiites and Sunnis, or between Arabs and Kurds, he said. "Our troops will not be there to patrol a civil war," Mr. Feinstein said....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120424840649401731.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-29-08 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. anyone who hasn't figured this out is a f****ing idiot
I am amazed by how many DUers are believing in these campaign promises
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Journeyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-29-08 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Oh, yes. . . we'll be in Iraq until it tears this country apart . . .
I've believed that since the start. Nothing I've heard in this campaign has changed my opinion in the least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thunder rising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-29-08 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. If you had voted Dean in 04 we would be having THE SAME dilemma NOW.
It might not be the beginning of the end, but it is certainly the end of the beginning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-29-08 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. Many troops would come home, too. That title could go both ways. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laconicsax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-29-08 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. One could also point out that most troops would stay if McCain wins
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2Design Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
6. hillary has been for war for a long time and both have voted for funding
so they are for war - without the war and with no jobs here but war jobs - I guess they will keep up the pretense o f an economy - the only thing that has been running the economy else wise is ATM housing - HELOC - and other scams in the housing industry is the only way people have gotten any money - it isn't from jobs - they have all been sent out of the country or hib visa the people in to then send it out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EndElectoral Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 12:44 AM
Response to Original message
7. Democrat or Republican, this psychology of war in Iraq is just insane
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
8. Looks like from the responses to his thread many "Dems" trust the WSJ
No wonder the country's on life support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. oh please
I do no such thing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC