Clinton, Obama Warn in Debate Iraq Withdrawal Will Take Time

[ProSense]

Clinton, Obama Warn in Debate Iraq Withdrawal Will Take Time

Heidi Przybyla 1 hour, 13 minutes ago

Aug. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Senator Hillary Clinton warned Democrats not to ``oversell'' plans to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, setting a cautious tone on the war that was echoed by the party's two other leading presidential candidates.

Clinton and her main competitors for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards, agreed in a debate this morning that pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq can't be accomplished in just a few months and that any withdrawal must be balanced by security concerns.

``It is so important that we not oversell this,'' Clinton said at the ABC News-sponsored forum in Des Moines, Iowa. Edwards concurred, saying it ``would be hard'' to move troops out within six months, as suggested by New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, while Obama said U.S. options are limited.

<...>

On the war, Richardson was alone in saying U.S. troops should withdraw from Iraq in six to eight months, leaving no residual forces behind to protect civilian personnel.

Biden led the other Democrats in disagreeing. ``It's time to start to level with the American people,'' Biden said. ``If we leave Iraq and we leave it in chaos, there'll be regional war. The regional war will engulf us for a generation.''

more

Now Biden is echoing the neocon? WTF?

Ten troops killed in last two days; "How Fast Can the Troops Leave?"

[sandnsea]

1. It's on CSpan at 3:30 pacific

I'm just going to watch then and decide what they all actually said.

Although that has been Biden's stance on Iraq. I understand his concern, but I don't think staying will prevent the escalation of chaos.

[themaguffin]

2. WTF. It WILL take time. It's not a neo-con thing, it's reality

First, Biden has been saying for a while now that it will take time, the other Dems are just now ADMITTING THAT FACT

Second, how the HELL is that a neo-con thing. The neo-cons DON'T WANT TO LEAVE AND THINK THAT IT IS GOING WELL.

People if we can't grasp the facts - fundamental facts and REALITY, then we are just as clueless as the GOP idiots.

[sandnsea]

4. Two different things

Biden still believes we can have some sort of peaceful solution. How long is he willing to stay to attempt that? Would Biden be the second half of the Iraq war, another six years?

There's a difference between a deadline and methodical withdrawal - and Biden's insistence that the situation can be salvaged.

[ProSense]

5. The neocons have long maintained that if the U.S. withdraws, it will lead to a regional war.

They made the same claim about Vietnam.

[themaguffin]

8. Biden is NOT saying no to withdraw; he is admitting the realistic timeframe

and the geo=political realities that the neo-cons can't grasp and sadly that some apparently on the left can't grasp either.

[ProSense]

9. "If we leave Iraq and we leave it in chaos, there'll be regional war. "

Does he expect to stay until the civil war is over?

[themaguffin]

10. You're assuming the situation is the same as under W's "leadership"

You're leaving out a critical aspect of this, the separate regions that Biden is proposing.

And also civil war or not, Biden is saying we need to leave BUT that doesn't mean it is logistically possible to happen in a short amount of time or a year. This is a massive undertaking and yes the situation has to be done carefully.

[ProSense]

11. No I'm not. There are some who believe that

partitioning Iraq is a terrible idea and the Iraqis have express no interest in being divided up by the U.S.

[themaguffin]

12. of course some disagree, among them neo-cons

so tell me how this makes Biden a neo-con for wanting to end this mess?

By the way, modern Iraq is a product of the UK's creation after WW1

[ProSense]

15. I didn't say Biden was a neocon, I said

this comment...

``If we leave Iraq and we leave it in chaos, there'll be regional war. The regional war will engulf us for a generation.''

is the same one the neocons have been using since Vietnam.

Frankly, it's BS!

[themaguffin]

17. it can further destabilize & create other problems BUT

the neo-cons are using that as a ridiculous catch all to stay. Biden is saying that we have to leave carefully and is simply stating regardless of that fact, it still takes time to leave.

He isn't saying years. He is simply saying that months or one year is not logistical.

[ProSense]

20. And many other experts say six months to ten months is all that is needed.

Biden can have his opinion, but I disagree and still maintain that claiming a regional war will ensue if the U.S. withdraws in months rather than a couple of years is nonsense!

[jillan]

36. Maybe you should spend more time reading about Turkey and the Kurds and less time about

trashing Biden.


You would then see it has already begun.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-kurds_sly_finalaug19,1,2161994.story?track=rss
Here's a place to start.
:boring:

[beachmom]

25. General Wesley Clark disagrees. He said: "If the CIC orders troops

out in THREE MONTHS, the military will make plans to get them out in three months." Now under more ideal circumstances, we would take more time; otherwise we might have to leave some equipment behind. But Biden is not being entirely truthful here. Um, they could get out very quickly if there was the will to get them out quickly. I for one am for a one year time frame from beginning withdrawal to ending withdrawal. This gives the Iraqis more time to digest that we are definitely leaving, and gives us more logistical time to get all the equipment out.

[ProSense]

3. Will Not Forget and Neither Will Iraq.

We Will Not Forget and Neither Will Iraq.

Images show pleading Iraq prisoners

The War, As They Saw It

Withdraw the troops!

[hedgehog]

6. This is an interesting point. When some candidates say it will take time,

I believe that they will move the troops out ASAP, but that it will take time. When other candidates say it will take time, I can't help but feel that they will succumb to the temptation to try just one or two more strategies to "win" in Iraq before withdrawing troops.

[karynnj]

19. I agree - and in part it is a very American reaction

One characteristic, that is often very positive, in the American culture is the belief that we can fix things. I do worry with many candidates that they could be swayed to have "one more college try" to get it right. We are the "can do" country.

Both parties ran on getting out of Vietnam in 1968. I recently saw the TV highlights of the David Frost interview with Nixon that were made in 1977. He still argued that the anti-war movement extended the war and he still spoke in a scary way of having wanted them destroyed. He knew at that point that what he negotiated in 1973 was what was offered in 1968 - and we know now that half the men who died in Vietnam died after 1968. We also know, what the public didn't know when the 1977 tapes were made, that Kissinger in early 1969 had actually corresponded whith the Chinese to say that they would leave, but wanted a "decent" period of 2 years before Saigon fell. They wanted to save face.

[hedgehog]

7. This is an interesting point. When some candidates say it will take time,

I believe that they will move the troops out ASAP, but that it will take time. When other candidates say it will take time, I can't help but feel that they will succumb to the temptation to try just one or two more strategies to "win" in Iraq before withdrawing troops.

[karynnj]

13. Biden has never been a leader on Iraq withdrawal

Though Biden is the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and is very knowledgeable on Iraq, he has sometimes been somewhat attracted to the neo con idea of remaking the area. In 2005, in a Council of Foreign Relations speech (broadcast on CSPAN), he praised Bush's second inaugural address as sounding like JFK with a Texas twang. He also in that speech attacked the neo-cons and the "lefties, who wanted to get out" equally. That Bush speech was when Bush transitioned to overtly speaking of the fact that the Iraq war was a war to spread democracy - ie PNAC. Throughout 2004, this was NOT something Bush admitted and as Kerry said - "was not what he told the American people or the Congress" when he took the country to war. In this one speech, Biden was for and against the neo-con plan. I came away muddled as to what his foreign policy viewpoint was - and from comments of others on boards, I wasn't the only one.

In 2006, he spoke against Kerry/Feingold as sharply as most of the Republicans. He also went on Bill Mahr's show and said that there was no diplomatic component to Kerry/Feingold - which was a complete lie. The Kerry/Feingold language that called for the diplomatic summit was accepted into the Defense bill by Senator Warner via a voice vote in September 2001.

In 2006, Biden had his own Biden/Gelb plan that he still supports. He claims it is the only serious diplomatic plan. That seems to follow only because he deems all plans except his as not serious. It makes more sense to defend your own plan as better - not as the only one.

[themaguffin]

14. take your pick

Do want the British Iraq that is a mess now, or want the version that Biden recommends which allows each group to do its own thing.

I suppose Yugoslavia should be back together too?

[ProSense]

16. "A surge of phony spin on Iraq"

Shiite militia expands grip in Baghdad

By SALLY BUZBEE, Associated Press Writer Sat Aug 18, 9:58 PM ET

BAGHDAD - The street market bustles in the early mornings and late afternoons as shoppers come out to buy fruit, bread, clothes and toys. Late into the hot summer nights, whole families gather to eat grilled kebabs at tiny stalls, their small children shrieking as they play tag.

The Hurriyah neighborhood of northwest Baghdad, gripped by a spasm of deadly ethnic violence a year ago, has grown markedly calmer over the past eight months. It is now the kind of area that both U.S. and Iraqi officials point to when they cite progress at stabilizing Baghdad.

But only Shiites are welcome — or safe — in Hurriyah these days. And neither Iraq's government nor U.S. or Iraqi security forces are truly in control.

Instead, the Mahdi Army militia runs this area as it does others across Baghdad — manning checkpoints, collecting rental fees for apartments, licensing bus drivers, mediating family fights and even handing out gas for cooking.

The U.S. Army still runs regular patrols, sometimes on foot, sometimes by Humvee. And Iraqi police, on the streets, are nominally in charge.

But underneath the calm, an armed group hostile to the United States holds a firm grip on power. Some fear the Mahdi Army is simply biding its time — eager to grab outward control and run things its way whenever U.S. forces pull back.

"They control people's lives," said one resident of Hurriyah, a Shiite government employee who would give his name only as Abu Mahdi, 36, because he feared Mahdi militia reprisals. Scornfully calling them uneducated, bullying teenagers, he said: "They are worse than the Baathists" — the party that held total authority under the rule of Saddam Hussein.

A similarly illogical argument for staying in Iraq is that chaos would follow any near-term U.S. withdrawal. The flaw lies not in the concept that chaos will happen, but rather in thinking that chaos would only happen if we withdraw in the near-term. Chaos will almost certainly follow any U.S. withdrawal, whether in 2008 or 2012.

more

"A surge of phony spin on Iraq" and "As British Leave, Basra Deteriorates"

[themaguffin]

18. yeah

which is why President Fredo, Dick Strangelove and the neo-cons are wrong and Biden is right.
We LEAVE. However we leave in a well planned way (remember plans?) and we let the major areas return to their own status instead of the British created one.

[ProSense]

21. Will the

civil war be over by the time we leave? That is the question.

When people claim that we can't leave Iraq in chaos (defined as what? Civil wars are pretty violent and chaotic.), are they prepared to say that the U.S. military will stay as long as it takes to get Iraq's civil war under control?

Are they saying that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is needed to end the civil war?

[beachmom]

26. Yugoslavia is different. Most importantly, because there was already

a war before any American planes or troops went in. In Iraq, the shooting started WHEN we went in. I know it's hard to imagine, but not every country in the world is exactly the same. What works in one country doesn't work in another. Historically speaking, every time Greater Mesopotamia was split up, it simply disintegrated further and further into smaller units until you were down to tribe vs. tribe. Then total chaos would ensue for hundreds of years.

As the soldiers in the NYT op-ed said today, it is the Iraqis who will come up with their own solution. And, yes, that solution may well come out of the military situation in Iraq WITHOUT US THERE.

[karynnj]

32. Those are not the only possibilities.

I agree with people, like John Kerry, who agree that some form of the Biden/Gelb plan might be the ultimate solution - but they think the Iraqis have to choose it, we can't impose it on them.

Here's a link to Kerry speaking about Iraq late last year as the Baker/Hamilton report was soon to be released. His comments on the Biden plan are about 4 and a half minutes in.
http://media.johnkerry.com/video/flash/120306_cnn.html

[jillan]

38. Has Prosense seen this?

[ProSense]

42. Yes, I have!

The U.S. can't impose it. If the Iraqis decide that is what they want fine, but the Iraqis have never expressed interest in being divided, for the reasons Senator Kerry stated.

[karynnj]

45. This is closer to Obama's position - that you made fun of

Several people have made the same point in this thread - and Kerry's argument is the root of those comments. The Senate accepted with a voice vote a sense of the Senate resolution to the Sept 2006 defense bill calling for the type of summit Kerry argues for here. Note, Kerry did NOT endorse Biden/Gelb, as he explained many times the Iraqis need to feel they control their destiny. To this point, the Iraqis showed no interest in Biden/Gelb.

This is where Kerry is extremely different that many American politicians - he strives to see things from the point of view of people from other cultures. Here the Iraqis have a colonial history. In October 2005, in the Path Forward and its many interviews, Kerry spoke of how we needed to say that we wanted no permanent bases and we needed to say so loudly to make the Iraqis see we did not want to stay as occupiers. He spoke them of how all the Iraqis had to be given a reason to see that they had a stake in Iraq working.

There is a real difference between the US creating what we think is the best way to have Iraq function and setting the place and the support to enable them to do it themselves.

(Also note how Senator Kerry treats a rival's proposal. Biden, in 2006 on Bill Mahr and elsewhere, said that Kerry had no diplomatic component in Kerry/Feingold which is just not true. He now is constantly saying that he has the only plan. Biden may have a lot of senority on Kerry, but he could learn a lot from Kerry.)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. Clobama: We won't tell you how many troops we will keep in Iraq indefinitely until we win

Clobama need to be straight with voters as to their real plans for Iraq.

[demommom]

23. prosense:

No he is not. He is saying that if we do not leave responsibly, we will leave Iraq in chaos resulting in a regional war which will mean sending troops back to Iraq.
The fourth point of Biden's 5 point plan:

RESPONSIBLY DRAW DOWN US TROOPS
< Direct US military commanders to develop a plan to withdraw and
redeploy almost all U S Forces by the summer of 2008.
< Maintain in or near Iraq a small residual force--perhaps 20,000
troops to strike any concentration of terrorists,and to help keep
Iraq's neighbors honest, and to train it's security forces.

Biden wants to bring the troops home,but he knows it is complicated and cannot instantly be done. Also He says it is important how we do it and
what we leave behind so that we do not have to go back. Please go to joebiden.com and read the entire plan, before passing judgement or mis-quoting it.

[ProSense]

24. There is no plan on the table to bring the troops home instantly.

I've read Biden's plan. Summer 2008 is less than a year from now. So who is spinning?

My contention is with his claim that if we leave, there will be a regional war. Did I misquote him on that?

[demommom]

28. prosense

I am not spinning anything, I am simply stating my understanding of
what the Senator said. I should have said immediate and not instant.

He said "The fact of the matter is,much more is at stake, with our security depending on how we leave. If we leave and leave it in choas--
there will be a regional war."

Did you mis-quote? What you did was quote only the part that would back up your argument. Who is spinning?

[ProSense]

29. The spinning comment was not directed at you, but this

comment by Biden is BS:

``It's time to start to level with the American people,'' Biden said. ``If we leave Iraq and we leave it in chaos, there'll be regional war. The regional war will engulf us for a generation.''

[demommom]

30. prosense:

Yes,he said that too. But no matter what he says you will consider it to be BS unless it agrees with your opinion,so we'll agree to disagree,
because you won't change my mind either.

[ProSense]

31. No, the OP was about that statement,

which is BS. The OP wasn't posted to try to change your mind. Where Biden's plan states withdrawal by Summer 2008, I have no problem. In fact, the faster it can be done the better.

I do not agree with his plan to partition Iraq.

[jillan]

33. Since you are not a foreign relations expert,,,

then it doesn't really matter what you think, does it?

[Forkboy]

34. Are you a foreign policy expert?

Not asking wisely,just curious.

[jillan]

35. No. Are you?

But when many foreign relations experts and scholars......and Presidential candidates agree the Biden/Gelb plan (which was written after studying the Iraqi constitution)
say it just may work, and some lady at DU says it doesn't, why should her opinion matter

[Forkboy]

37. Nope..I'm not either.

But if the criteria for commenting on things is to have to actually be an expert on them means DU will have to shut down.Not a lot of experts on anything here.

[ProSense]

41. Was that really necessary?

Imagine, I don't think your opinion about my opinion matters either.

If you agree that a regional war will break out if the troop withdraw, fine. I think it's a stupid comment. There will be a civil war in Iraq for years to come.

[jillan]

39. The Plan is NOT a partition

Have you thought about actually reading it before making your comments?

1. The Plan is not partition.

The central government would be responsible for common interests, like border security and the distribution of oil revenues. The plan would bind the Sunnis - who have no oil -- by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of oil revenues. It would convene an international conference to secure support for the power sharing arrangement and produce a regional nonaggression pact, enforced by an Oversight Group of the U.N. and major powers. It would call on the U.S. military to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by the summer of 2008, with a residual force to take on terrorists and train Iraqis. It would increase economic aid but tie it to the protection of minority rights and the creation of a jobs program and seek funding from the oil-rich Gulf Arab states.

There is no purely military solution to the sectarian civil war. The only way to break the vicious cycle of violence - and to create the conditions for our armed forces to responsibly withdraw -- is to give Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds incentives to pursue their interests peacefully. That requires an equitable and viable power sharing arrangement. That's where my plan comes in. This plan is not partition - in fact, it may be the only way to prevent violent partition and preserve a unified Iraq. This plan is consistent with Iraq's constitution, which provides for Iraq's 18 provinces to join together in regions, with their own security forces, and control over most day-to-day issues. This plan is the only idea on the table for dealing with the militia, which are likely to retreat to their respective regions. This plan is consistent with a strong central government, with clearly defined responsibilities. Indeed, it provides an agenda for that government, whose mere existence will not end sectarian violence.

http://planforiraq.com/download

[seasat]

27. Only a complete withdrawal will get the Iraqi and regional players to the table.

I agree with your point that a quick withdrawal is both possible and necessary.

Everyone agrees that you need a diplomatic solution. However, you're not going to get one as long as we are an occupying force. The reason is that we allow the different groups to keep jockeying for power without a threat of one group being completely dominant. In diplomacy, you need carrots and sticks to negotiate. A partial or slow withdrawal does not count as a stick. If one group feels that it is getting the short end of the deal, all they have to do is launch a major attack on one of the remaining US forces and we're drawn back into it to defend them.

However, if we're immediately getting out Iraq, all the groups will have to come to the table to head off an escalation in the conflict. We'll get support from the Saudis, Syrians, Iranians, and Turks. The various factions in Iraq will be forced to form coalitions and cooperate to come up with an oil policy and plan for regional stability. It will probably result in more bloodshed in the short run but less over the long term of us staying in there and slowly weaning the Iraqis off dependence on us.

The point is that you can't fake a withdrawal to force the groups to negotiate. It has to be immediate and complete. Otherwise we're going to be there for decades.

[MadHound]

40. Once again, Kucinich is the only candidate out there who is saying and doing the right thing

And that is get us the hell out of Iraq ASAP. He doesn't equivocate, he doesn't lie, he doesn't switch position on this. He simply wants to do the right thing, get us out of Iraq ASAP.

[murbley40]

43. uh

Then What?

[MadHound]

44. Here, go find out for yourself

It is quite the plan for Iraq<http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/strength-through-peace/>

[dugggy]

46. I don't give a rat's ass if the Iraqi's kill themselves in a civil war..

Let them fight it out, and let the winner sell us the oil.
Why should we care if we buy it from the Shia or the Sunni
or the Kurds. It's their problem, not ours. I am sick of
seeing our young soldier's lives snuffed out and ruined
because Bush wants Big Oil to control Iraqi Oil.