I am currently listening to
the entire MoveOn.org forum on Iraq. Right now, I am about halfway through Clinton's segment. So far, in the entire forum, no line struck me more than Bill Richardson's "I would have no residual force whatsoever" in
his opening statement (which he repeated in
his response to question #1). With perfect clarity, that is
exactly the line I have been looking for from Democratic candidates for President. It is a profound, substantive difference than what we have heard from, for example, Hillary Clinton,
when she states that if she is President there will be a "remaining military as well as political mission" in Iraq. This is, in the final analysis, a difference between ending the war in Iraq, and simply decreasing the size of the war Iraq.
What really makes me happy about this statement is that it came from Bill Richardson. This is a man who, earlier today,
brokered a deal with North Korea to allow weapons inspectors back into the country, and who, three months ago,
brokered cease-fire deal in Darfur. To use the favorite term of neoliberal hawks, no one alive today is more "serious' about foreign policy than Bill Richardson. And yet, here he is, running for President of the Unites States, and stating that the United States should have no residual force in Iraq whatsoever. Doesn't he know that "serious" people aren't supposed to say things like this?
This changes the debate on Iraq. For months, progressives have tried to make a big deal out of Clinton's refusal to apologize for her Iraq war vote. At the same time, many candidates, not just Clinton, have claimed they are in favor of ending the war in Iraq, while simultaneously maintaining an American military presence in the country. This has been extremely problematic, since as long as the Iraq debate in the Democratic primary is still framed about the AUMF in 2002, and as long as "ending the war" in the Democratic primary means continuing it, there is ultimately no way to articulate a meaningful difference between the Democratic candidates on the future of American involvement in Iraq. Now, however, there is a clear difference, and it is one we must press.
There are Democratic candidates who will entirely end American military involvement in the war in Iraq, like Bill Richardson, and there are Democratic candidates who simply want to reduce, but not end, American military involvement in the war in Iraq, like Hillary Clinton. That is the direction the debate over Iraq should and must take during the Democratic primary season if the party is going to make an informed choice about its next leader. There are candidates who will end the war, and there are candidates who will decrease its size but not end it. During the primary season, the only candidates who I will end up supporting when we start closing in on the primaries fall into the former camp. While I am sure that this makes me a naive, dirty fucking hippie, I guess it makes Bill Richardson one too. In fact,
I am going to give $25 to his campaign for making this statement, and be on the lookout for Richardson 2008 drum circles in my neighborhood. Mind you, I'll keep voting for Edwards in straw polls for now, but this makes me take a long look a Bill Richardson.
It is essential that this become the new way Iraq is framed in the Democratic primaries, and that we determine which camp each candidate fits into. Bickering over how people voted five years ago, or even how they feel about their votes five years ago, is pretty pathetic when compared to the difference between ending the war and simply reducing it in size. I will take a one-time war supporter who wants to end it, over a long-term war opponent who simply wants to reduce it in size. Ideally, I'd like to have both, (cough, Feingold, cough), but I will take what I can get.
This is a potentially game-changing statement, as long as it means what I think it means. I hope Richardson's line is repeated ad naseum online for the foreseeable future. Which camp, the enders or the reducers, is each candidate in?
