Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Edwards Calls for Quick Pullout of Troops

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 » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-01-08 11:44 PM
Original message
Edwards Calls for Quick Pullout of Troops

Presidential hopeful John Edwards attended a New Year's Eve Party in Mason City, Iowa with his wife, Elizabeth.
----
Edwards Calls for Quick Pullout of Troops Training Iraqi Forces
By Michael R. Gordon--New York Times
Wednesday, January 2, 2008

----
SIOUX CITY, Iowa — John Edwards says that if elected president he would withdraw the American troops who are training the Iraqi army and police as part of a broader plan to remove virtually all American forces within 10 months.

Mr. Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina who is waging a populist campaign for the Democratic nomination, said that extending the American training effort in Iraq into the next presidency would require the deployment of tens of thousands of troops to provide logistical support and protect the advisers.

“To me, that is a continuation of the occupation of Iraq,” he said in a 40-minute interview on Sunday aboard his campaign bus as it rumbled through western Iowa.

In one of his most detailed discussions to date about how he would handle Iraq as president, Mr. Edwards staked out a position that would lead to a more rapid and complete troop withdrawal than his principal rivals, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who have indicated they are open to keeping American trainers and counterterrorism units in Iraq.
(...)
Mr. Edwards’s plan calls for immediately withdrawing 40,000 to 50,000 troops. Nearly all of the remaining American troops would be removed within 9 or 10 months. The only force that would remain would be a 3,500-to-5,000-strong contingent that would protect the American Embassy and possibly humanitarian workers.
(...)
In the interview on Sunday, Mr. Edwards said that he decided on his current plan for a rapid and near-total withdrawal of American troops because of the failure of Iraqi leaders to achieve a political accommodation over the past four years. Eight to 10 brigades, which is likely to be the bulk of the American combat force by the time the next president takes office, would immediately be withdrawn.

“I absolutely believe this to my soul: we are there propping up their bad behavior,” he said. “I mean really, how many American lives and how much American taxpayer money are we going to continue to expend waiting for these political leaders to do something? Because that is precisely what we are doing.”

Such a troop withdrawal, he said, might jolt Iraqi leaders into taking action to overcome their sectarian differences. During the 10 months or so while American troops were being withdrawn, Mr. Edwards added, he would also mount an intensive effort to encourage Iraq’s leaders to engage in political reconciliation and solicit the cooperation of Iran and Syria, who he argued might be more willing to help once they understood that American troops were on their way out.
(...)
At his campaign stops on Sunday, Mr. Edwards sought to highlight his knowledge of foreign policy by recounting his recent telephone call with Pakistan’s president, Pervez Musharraf, a conversation Mr. Edwards initiated as soon as he learned of the death of Benazir Bhutto. Iraq was not part of his prepared remarks, save for a denunciation of greedy military contractors. But Mr. Edwards outlined his plan to remove American troops from Iraq during a question-and-answer session with voters.

In the interview, Mr. Edwards spoke comfortably about the subject and without notes or help from policy advisers. Some elements of his plan, however, run counter to assessments by intelligence agencies, military officers and a Congressionally mandated study.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/us/politics/02edwards.html?hp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-01-08 11:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. neat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nutmegger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-01-08 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. R&K!!!
Thank you JohnLocke!!!

Edwards 2008!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogmarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-01-08 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
3. I'm with Edwards on this. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maximusveritas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-01-08 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
4. So he's changing his position right before the election?
Really?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-01-08 11:56 PM
Original message
It's the same position he's held the entire campaign.
Nice try.

I welcome you to produce evidence to the contrary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 01:48 AM
Response to Original message
7. Feb 2007
Require a complete withdrawal of combat troops in Iraq in the next 12-18 months without leaving behind any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

After withdrawal, Edwards believes that sufficient forces should remain in the region to contain the conflict and ensure that instability in Iraq does not spillover and create a regional war, a terrorist haven, or spark a genocide.

He also believes the U.S. must intensify its efforts to train the Iraqi security forces.

http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/iraq/20070214-iraq-plan/

He has changed his position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 02:13 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. How?
Point out, specifically, any inconsistency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. You're kidding, right? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 03:12 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. No, I'm not.
Please point out the specific inconsistency between his February comments and his comments at present.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. quick vs 18 mos
Changing in the region to specifically state out of Iraq. He changed his position to try to pick up more of the left. Maybe this is why Kucinich turned on him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 03:28 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. You're wrong.
Edited on Wed Jan-02-08 03:34 AM by JohnLocke
Mr. Edwards’s plan calls for immediately withdrawing 40,000 to 50,000 troops. Nearly all of the remaining American troops would be removed within 9 or 10 months. The only force that would remain would be a 3,500-to-5,000-strong contingent that would protect the American Embassy and possibly humanitarian workers. (NY Times)

"Cap funding for the troops in Iraq at 100,000 troops to stop the surge and implement an immediate drawdown of 40-50,000 combat troops. Any troops beyond that level should be redeployed immediately." (Campaign site)

Those plans are essentially the same. I read over both the article and the February 2007 statement and they are quite obviously seem the same.

As to the assertion that Edwards changed "in the region to specifically state out of Iraq" ...

Under Mr. Edwards’s plan, the United States would keep a quick reaction force in Kuwait and perhaps Jordan to respond to terrorist threats and possible “genocide.” (NY Times)

After withdrawal, Edwards believes that sufficient forces should remain in the region to contain the conflict and ensure that instability in Iraq does not spillover and create a regional war, a terrorist haven, or spark a genocide. (Campaign site)

Again, they are essentially the same plan. Did you actually read the entire NYTimes article? It's two pages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 03:40 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. 9 mos vs 18 mos is not the same
He is further pretending he is only going to leave troops in to protect the Embassy - and then turns right around and says he's going to keep troops in to fight terrorists, which he had earlier said he'd keep in the region which includes IN Iraq. He's pretending to support a quicker end to the war in order to appeal to the left, when he really has the same plan as Obama and others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elizm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #8
22. Here are the inconsistencies...from the exact same article in the OP
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/us/politics/02edwards...

Over the past five years, Mr. Edwards’s position on Iraq has undergone a substantial evolution. In 2002, as a senator, Mr. Edwards was among the Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Mr. Edwards has said he was convinced by the intelligence that Saddam Hussein controlled stocks of unconventional weapons, but in the Senate speech explaining his vote he also endorsed the Bush administration’s argument that a new democratic Iraq “could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.”

In November 2005, Mr. Edwards wrote an op-ed article for The Washington Post entitled “The Right Way in Iraq,” in which he argued that his earlier vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq was a mistake, while making the point that it was still important to provide American troops with “a way to end their mission honorably.”

Toward this end, Mr. Edwards called at the time for establishing a more effective program to train Iraqi troops and channeling reconstruction work to Iraqis instead of American contractors. While he called for removing a significant number of American forces, he also emphasized that the withdrawals should be “a gradual process.”

“That will still leave us with enough military capability, combined with better-trained Iraqis, to fight terrorists and continue to help the Iraqis develop a stable country,” he wrote.

In the interview on Sunday, Mr. Edwards said that he decided on his current plan for a rapid and near-total withdrawal of American troops because of the failure of Iraqi leaders to achieve a political accommodation over the past four years. Eight to 10 brigades, which is likely to be the bulk of the American combat force by the time the next president takes office, would immediately be withdrawn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zalinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 04:52 AM
Response to Reply #7
18. If you bothered to read the OP
you will read that he wanted to step up the withdrawal because the Iraqis have failed to step up in the past year. Duh! You change policy if things change in the country you are talking about. Do you want a President or a George Bush?

Really, now, what would you have him do. Stick stubbornly to what he said in February or change as the situation changes in Iraq.

zalinda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 05:09 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. So it's not the same position he's held the entire campaign
Oh, okay. That's the statement I was rebutting.

You're welcome to believe what you want about why he changed his policy, just like I can believe what I want. But he did change his policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elizm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
21. It wasn't his position in August in the debate in Des Moines...
None of the candidates, other than Richardson, would say they would have all troops out by the end of their first term. Here specifically was Edwards' response:

John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/us/politics/12dems.html

Not exactly the same position he switched to on Sunday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-01-08 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
5. Let's bring them home. The assessments by intelligence agencies,
military officers and Congressionally mandated study say what about when to bring the troops home?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cowpunk Donating Member (572 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 01:40 AM
Response to Original message
6. Let's See...
Troops out ten months after his inauguration. By that time, our troops will have been in Iraq for six years and 7 months.

How precipitous.

How irresponsible.

How unserious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antiimperialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 02:15 AM
Response to Original message
9. Edwards is being consistent. 10 months is what he had said before n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. I agree.
Kuchinich and Edwards are the only candidates who have spoken courageously about this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 02:15 AM
Response to Original message
10. Awesome.
K/R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlyingSquirrel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 02:36 AM
Response to Original message
11. I would have to say that a quick pullout...
can often prevent difficulties further down the road.

:beer:

Sorry, that one was just wide open.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
20. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
23. That's just about the "winningest" "strategy" one could come up with.
K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
24. Bring the troops home. John. Thank you!
His time is now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Yep bring em home. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynthia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
26. can't lose with this one
Only about 3/4 of the county wants our troops home. With the official number over 3,900 (I personally believe it is much higher and the * admin has been lying to us about this - surprise, surprise!), I am glad John mentioned the war again in these last days in Iowa. It needs to stay in the front page as long as our soldiers are getting slaughtered over there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bellasgrams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
27. He can not possibly do all the things he says he will..
He's not even trying to be reasonable. He will say anything to get non-thinkers to vote for him. A typical politician.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YankmeCrankme Donating Member (576 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
28. But he'll keep 3500 to 5000 soldiers to guard the embassy!
That's like a brigade...to guard an embassy? First off, we need to ditch this how many billions of dollars boondoggle of an embassy, not guard it with a brigade of soldiers. Secondly, he buys into the meme that the problem with Iraq is Iraqis, like they were the ones that destroyed their country's infrastructure and brought it to this level of anarchy and chaos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. It may not be a bad idea to maintain ties with Iraq. No?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blackspade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
30. What is going on around here?
I swear what is up with folks around here these days?!
Some of you guys are talking straight past each other and not looking back.
The fact that Edwards has a position on this is a great thing. It seems pretty clear to me that his ideas for Iraq and the greater Middle East have evolved from earlier this year.
However the evolution of his policy statements are also clear in that he is adapting to a changing situation.
Some of you see this, cynically, as a cunning political animal exploiting the rabble. Fine.
Hang on to your skepticism. That is not a bad thing. Explaining why you feel this way would be awesome.
I happen to like it when ANY of the candidates express liberal and progressive ideas no matter what the source.
I would like to see the candidates and their supporters concentrate on the issues and exchange of ideas that will guide the democratic party into the next election.
If Edwards is bringing positive policy ideas to the table then great! Discuss them. If the other candidates want to propose their own policy that resonates with the voters, then they should by all means, do so. I personally am pretty sick and tired of the political pie fights within the party.
Ideas and differences should be discussed not argued.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-02-08 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
31. Kick! nt
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 26th 2024, 06:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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