How many troops will Clobama keep in Iraq for an unspecified length of time?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

Both say, albeit quietly and rarely, they will keep an unspecified number of troops in Iraq for an unspecified length of time. Obama was directly asked about it by the moderator in today's debate and dodged the question. Clinton also danced around it. Does anyone know where Clobama stand on this? I think voters deserve to know what Clobama actually intend to do in Iraq. As Richardson said, does a "residual force" (Obama prefers to say "limited number") mean keeping 25,0000 troops in Iraq? 50,000? 75,000? How about a ballpark number from Clobama? Of course, if they gave a number it would be difficult for them to claim they will end the war before Democratic audiences when their position is to keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely...

[acmavm]

1. Clobaman. That's great!

How many? Enough to protect Blackhawk and thier corporate benefactor's interests I imagine. Can't take too many out. Look how bad it is with the number we have in there now.

[AZBlue]

16. I had quite the opposite reaction. I'm not fond of the phrase at all.

Seems very disrespectful of our candidates. And, it implies that they are one and the same, which any one past a 3rd grade education can see is far from true.

[acmavm]

17. Don't be disrespectful of the candidates but be as obnoxious and

snarfy as you want to people here on this board?

We only have one candidate running right now that sounds like a democrat and it isn't Clinton or Obama.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. Can you name any differences between their platforms?

Aside from "merit pay" in education, which right-wingers and Obama support and HRC and 99% of Democrats oppose. Thanks in advance...

[billyoc]

2. If we leave even one embassy employee there, we'll need an army division to guard them. n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

5. We have embassy employees everywhere and don't have 50,000 troops in each country nt

[billyoc]

8. Yes, but most of those are countries we haven't recently incinerated.

I don't see the U.S. embassy in Ottawa being mortared weekly. :eyes:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

9. There are many embassies that need significant protection

Do you think our embassy in Saudi Arabia does not require a lot of protection? We don't have 10 to 20,000 troops protecting our embassies in Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Tanzania, etc.

[Uben]

3. Excuse me!

That's Hillak Clobama to you!

[still_one]

4. better be careful if you say anything negative about the leading Democratic candidates

you might have people telling you to go start your own party, or join the green underground

is it any wonder why the Democrats haven't distinguished themselves very well the past 7 years?

[Rydz777]

11. Good advice, and I do try to be careful, because I know how

important it is for a Democrat to win in 2008. I have praised some of the candidates but I have never said anything negative about any of them.

However, maybe I am wrong. I do think that the question of whether we keep "an undefined" military presence in Iraq is a watershed issue. I want us OUT NOW. It is an illusion that we can keep a presence there without continuing on and on with the whole insane mess that Bush has created.

I could continue to rail about this, but I need to shut up. It just burns me up that we have so many unmet needs at home, are getting deeper and deeper into debt, are rocking on the edge of an economic crisis - and yet we prance around the rest of the world and talk about how many troops we need to send where they are not wanted.

[still_one]

12. I was actually being scarcastic. Yes, it is important for a Democrat to win in 2008

if for nothing else than the Supreme Court, but not to critisize the leading candidates, ESPECIALLY because they have no intention of leaving Iraq for some time now, is not only wrong but immoral

[madrchsod]

6. no matter who is in it`s going to be

at least 5 to 10 thousand in at least three bases. we ain`t leaving unless the iraqi army throws us out...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

7. Richardson, Edwards, and Kucinich would end this war and take all the troops out

The only troops Richardson and Edwards would keep in Iraq are a few to protect the embassy, which is what we do for every embassy we have. Kucinich presumably has the same position since I doubt he will leave the U.S. embassy in Iraq as the only undefended embassy we have in the world.

I say "end the war" because you cannot seriously claim to be for ending the war if you intend to keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely. After all, they are not going to be there to bake cookies.

[jmp]

10. It will be more than 5000 - 10000

For as long we are there there will have to be at least 20,000 ... and possibly more than twice that much.

[bvar22]

13. Clinton and Obama are PRO-Iraq War!

"Redeploying" some troops at some future date when conditions permit is a Pro-War position.

Hillary has reassured AIPAC/MIC that she plans to continue the violent occupation for years.
She will "keep only enough troops to:
*Fight Al-Qaeda
*Train the Iraqis
*Protect American <Corporate> interests."

So how many troops is that?
We now have over 160,000 American troops, plus over 100,000 Mercenaries.

*Fighting AlQaeda in Iraq:
Is Clobama using the generic Bush* "AlQaeda" (The Iraqi National Resistance)? Or does he/she mean the specific group that attacked on 9-11?
It doesn't matter because the USA is losing the fight with both Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi National Resistance. According to a recent Pentagon report, Al-Qaeda is stronger than it was after 9-11. The Iraqi National Resistance does not need to ever win a tactical engagement. They only need to survive, and they will. It is THEIR home, not ours. (See French Occupation of Algeria, US Occupation of VietNam)
If Clobama wants to WIN the Occupation, Clobama will need MORE TROOPS, NOT LESS. Those of you who support Clobama, get ready for TROOP INCREASES after the election.

*Training Iraqis:
The USA is failing in its effort to train Iraqis. The results of the Training Programs are abysmal, and often supplies training and armaments to Iraqis who use their weapons and training to attack US forces.

*Protecting American Interests:
There has been some success here. There are indications that the OIL is flowing, though there is NO oversight, metering, or accountability. The MSM speculates that the OIL proceeds are going to insurgents. That is laughable. The unknown quantity of OIL being stolen from Iraq is undoubtedly processed by American Oil Interests who are keeping 100% profits. (Do you really believe that anyone else could be stealing the oil from the US Occupied Iraq?)

The REAL problem for Clobama is their support for the Oil Law, the Democratic Party endorsed "Benchmark" that requires the Iraqis to sign away the rights to 80% of their oil. The USA is determined to force this LAW down the throats of the Iraqis. So far, Maliki and the Iraqi Parliament have been dragging their feet to the frustration of Corporate...excuse me...American Interests. Iraq will EXPLODE and the US will earn World condemnation if Corporate...excuse me...American interests ever force the Iraqi Parliament to pass this law.
So when Clobama say "Protect American Interests", think Oil Law (PSAs). It will take MORE TROOPS to pacify Iraq if this abomination is ever forced upon the Iraqis.

So, in review, Hillary Clinton says she will keep enough forces in Iraq to:
*Fight "AlQaeda" (whoever that is)
*Train Iraqi Forces
*Protect American Interests
This is a PRO-War/Occupation position.
If Obama agrees with Hillary, then they are both Pro-War.

There is no reasonable way to achieve the goals Hillary listed AND reduce American combat forces.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. Exactly. I wish they stopped posing as anti-war when they merely will de-escalate, not end, the war

[IndianaGreen]

15. They will keep our imperialist jackboot in Iraq for as long as we need to steal their OIL

Some Democratic candidates are complicit in the plan to keep troops in Iraq beyond 2009. Today on CNN, General Odom warned about keeping troops in Iraq, in the middle of a civil war in which we keep switching sides all the time.

I ask all you, why is it that people like Hillary only criticize the management of the war, rather than the war itself.

Why did none of our Senators running for President take Bush to task when he ordered the UN inspectors out of Iraq? Why did they all congratulate Bush & Co. for a swift victory in Iraq?

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda. It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.

-- Hillary Clinton

Published on Thursday, March 15, 2007 by the New York Times

If Elected... Clinton Says Some G.I.’s in Iraq Would Remain

by Michael R. Gordon and Patrick Healy

WASHINGTON — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of “bringing the troops home.”

She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0315-02.htm