When I put up the Richardson post last night, I knew it would eventually spiral into some sort of huge fight online. I usually know what posts will start fights, but even when those fight happen, I am usually surprised at their severity.
Thee fights need to happen sometimes, but they also need resolution. My intention in this post is to tie everything back together. In the interests of clarity, here is my position:
- I don't want any American troops in Iraq, except a few hundred to protect the embassy. That is it, and that is what I consider "total withdrawal."
- I don't want candidates who support a continued American military mission in Iraq, beyond simply protecting the embassy, to claim they are advocating for the withdrawal of all troops, or even all combat troops. That strikes me as a dishonest contradiction. Just say you are going to withdraw almost all troops, while detailing how many you want to leave in Iraq, and what you want those remaining troops to do.
Bill Richardson appears to be the first major candidate to articulate my personal stance on Iraq. It was sweet for a candidate to not only state that he was for full withdrawal, but to also, you know, actually propose total withdrawal in policy terms. I was excited about this, because I have regularly seen my position dismissed as naïve, not serious, and a bunch of other patronizing terms. However, with Bill Richardson making the argument, this position can't be brushed off as "not serious" or "naïve" anymore without belying obvious intellectual dishonesty on the part of the person making the dismissal.
The simple fact is, that beyond embassy protection, all of the other tasks that every other candidate has suggested our "non-combat" troops will be conducting in Iraq post-withdrawal require a significant military presence in the country. Protecting American civilians engaged in humanitarian work, training Iraqi troops, conducting counter-terrorism operations, and preventing genocide could require 10,000, 30,000 or even 75,000 American troops to remain in Iraq itself, not just in neighboring countries. These other tasks go far beyond a few hundred requisite troops residing on American soil in an embassy compound. Further, these other tasks will all inevitably require continued "combat," no matter how that term is defined. The simple fact is that the civil war will continue in Iraq even after we leave, and having American soldiers in the midst of a civil war will inevitably result in combat for those soldiers.
I believe that those who wish to lead the Democratic Party are obligated to be truthful with our activists about how large they expect the continued American military presence in Iraq to be if they were to become President. Will their residual forces require 10,000, 30,000 or 75,000 troops? What will those troops be doing, and how long will they be doing it? It is equally an obligation of progressive activists to find out the details of these plans, and be truthful with each other when discussing what each candidate actually means by withdrawal and ending the war in Iraq. At this point, it seems indisputable to me that all claims of ending the war and all plans of total withdrawal are not the same. It would be to our own detriment if we continued to take them as such.
For example, at least from the perspective of my stated goals, it now seems to me that Edwards has a better plan than Clinton, but not as good a plan as Richardson, when it comes to withdrawal. And yes, there is a lot of daylight between those three plans. From what I can tell, Richardson only wants embassy troops (maybe not even that), Edwards wants that plus humanitarian protection, and Clinton wants all that plus more in-country training and counter-terrorism. The differences in American troops required for those plans will number in at least the thousands, and probably in the tens of thousands. Considering that we just fought tooth and nail over a 30,000-40,000 troop escalation, how can we possibly consider these small differences? I don't see any way we can do so.
Fortunately, if what I have already said isn't enough, there are ways we can agree to disagree.
As I wrote earlier today:
If candidates want to say they will almost entirely pull out of Iraq, and leave a residual force behind, that would be fine, because it isn't a contradiction. If you think leaving a residual force behind is a good idea, that is at least something concrete, even though I disagree with you. If you would like to see all troops removed, and the candidate you support comes close enough to sharing that opinion for you, that is also a separate issue.
That would all be acceptable, and we could move on with our lives and our activism. What is not acceptable is for a candidate to claim s/he will end the war and completely withdraw from Iraq--something which so many Americans and progressive activists desire--while at the same time stating that s/he will keep either thousands or tens of thousands of American military personnel in Iraq. That is just bullshit spin. With every single Democratic candidate, save Gravel, making ending the war the centerpiece of his or her campaign, it is not overly parsing or demanding to ask for details, coherency and honesty on Iraq. When it comes to an issue of such geopolitical, electoral, humanitarian, and emotional importance, that is never too much to ask. Further, Democratic candidates and activists need to be honest, coherent, and detailed with each other about everything, because if we act otherwise, we will all begin to fail.
Update: I just want to add that MoveOn.org did us all a great service by hosting this forum last night. They should be applauded, because they were the ones who got us talking about the differences and similarities in our future plans for Iraq than we have as Democrats for a long time. This is even better than the House debate over the Iraq Accountability Act.
