As noted by on MyDD Biden repeatedly criticizes the other Democrats for wanting to leave Iraq too quickly:

Joe Biden's campaign for President could almost be boiled down to one idea: Iraq is the most important issue facing America and I am the only one who can solve it, nobody else has a plan.  Biden seems to see a herd mentality affecting Democratic Presidential candidates in supporting total withdrawal from Iraq as soon as possible; he sees this as irresponsible and argues that we will need to continue to have some troop presence in Iraq so that a regional war does not break out and/or "so we don't have to send our grandkids back to Iraq."

Biden would keep at least 20,000 troops in Iraq "to strike any concentration of terrorists, help keep Iraq's neighbors honest and train its security forces."  

That's a fantasy. Are the extremists going to gather together for a convention so the U.S. can then strike?  We have close to 170,000 troops in Iraq now and can not adequately train Iraqi forces.

Clinton wants "a cap on troop levels to January 1, 2007 levels" in Iraq.  She says she has put "forth a comprehensive roadmap for ending the war," but where is it?  She speaks of benchmarks on the Iraqi government and certification requirements for the Secretary of Defense.  

Does that in a concrete way bring home American troops and end our intervention in Iraq?  No.  It's not much different that what Bush is presently willing to accept from Congress.

Obama's plan:

Senator Obama introduced legislation in January 2007 to offer a responsible alternative to President Bush's failed escalation policy. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's expectations. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the 13 benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met.

This legislation will never be signed into law.  Plus, Obama wants to take out combat troops but what's the definition of combat troops?  Apparently it is not U.S. troops remaining for "basic force protection," training and fighting terrorists.  And if the benchmarks are met our occupation of Iraq can continue indefinitely.

What does Edwards want to do on Iraq?  His website says the "first step is by immediately withdrawing 40,000-50,000 troops from Iraq, with the complete withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq within 12-18 months -- allowing the Iraqis to assume greater responsibility for rebuilding their own country."

What is Edwards' definition of combat troops?  Is it the same as Obama's definition?  Why should the combat troops remain for 18 months?  Are military advisors and a continued American military presence in Iraq acceptable to Edwards?  

Should we remain in Iraq out of fear of greater conflict as Biden and others have argued?  

My answer is no. Our troops did what they are assigned to do.  Saddam was removed from power, no weapons of mass destruction were found, and free and fair elections were conducted under a new Iraqi constitution.

But now they are faced with an impossible task.  They have become the targets of all sides in a civil war.  It is a war of attrition.  The battlefield is 360 degrees.  There is no front or rear.  As each day passes, more U.S. soldiers die from snipers' bullets, roadside bombs and mortar attacks. Spouses become widows and children are left without a parent.

Almost 3,600 U.S. soldiers have been killed and 27,000 have been wounded, many suffering from traumatic brain injuries that have left them permanently disabled and in need of medical care for the remainder of their lives.

Biden, Edwards and Clinton were wrong to vote for the war. And Biden, Obama and Clinton are wrong today to advocate for an extended (even if reduced) deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq.  The scars of this war of choice by President Bush and the members of Congress that supported it will last for generations. The longer we delay the inevitable, the deeper the wounds are inflicted.

The only candidate in my opinion that has a solid, crystal clear plan for Iraq is Richardson, for two reasons:

1.  He'll get the U.S. out completely and promptly - a total withdrawal.  

2.  Richardson has the foreign policy experience and expertise to wage the diplomatic offensive that will be necessary to see the region not descend into further conflict.  

This is what Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard, Jr. (USA, Ret.) has said about Richardson's plan:

Overwhelming majorities of Iraqis, both Shia and Sunni, oppose the presence of US troops in Iraq and believe that US troops are more a cause of violence than a solution to it. Our presence in Iraq fuels the insurgency, strengthens Al Qaeda, and distracts us from the urgent task of defeating the real terrorists who attacked this country on 9-11. It's time for a phased and coordinated, but rapid, withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq, and Governor Richardson has a realistic plan to do it.

Richardson is listening to the right former general on Iraq.  If you want to learn more about Gard's views read http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005 /11/00_gard-johns_there-are-risks-if-the -us-withdraws.htm

Whom with military expertise are Obama, Clinton, Edwards and Biden listening to?

Finally, here in greater detail is Richardson's plan from when
he spoke in D.C. at the Take Back America Conference:

But there is a fundamental difference in this campaign -- and that's how many troops each of us would leave behind. Other than the customary marine contingent at the embassy, I would leave zero troops. Not a single one. And if the embassy and our embassy personnel aren't safe, then they're all coming home too.

No airbases. No troops in the Green Zone. No embedded soldiers training Iraqi forces, because we all know what that means. It means our troops would still be out on patrol with targets on their backs.

A regional crisis is worthy of military intervention. A true threat to our country's security is worthy of war. But a struggle between a country's warring factions, where both sides hate the United States, is not worthy of one more lost American life.

. . .

The way we help heal Iraq is to bring all of our troops home within six months. Only then can the hard diplomatic work really begin. That's how we avoid a regional war.

I would leave troops in neighboring countries that want us, like Kuwait, to help keep the peace. But we need to hand over security of Iraq to an all Muslim peacekeeping force.

We would then have a moral responsibility to do everything we can to bring the different factions together in a national reconciliation conference.

We also have a strategic interest in organizing a regional conference with all of Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran, to help stabilize Iraq. No one in the region, including Iran, wants an Iraqi civil war ... and no one in the region, especially Iran, wants Iraqi refugees.

Some will tell you that once we leave Iraq, the country will become a hotbed of Al Qaeda activity. That's just not the case. There is an old Arab proverb -- "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Up until now, Al Qaeda was tolerated in Iraq because they were killing Americans.

Once we're gone, the Iraqis will have no further use for Al Qaeda and they will drive them out. We're seeing the beginnings of this already in Sunni attacks on Al Qaeda, but the process will accelerate once we're gone. Too many Iraqis have died at the hands of Al Qaeda and retaliation will be at hand.

Two months ago in North Korea, I was proud to help show how talking to your enemies can produce results, like reducing the North Korean nuclear threat and bringing home the remains of six American servicemen. The situation is similar in the Middle East. This president broke Iraq. The next president has to know how to use diplomacy to fix it.

I will tell you this -- my world view is different from my colleagues. In my career, I've been able to get results, not with harsh words, but hard work. You talk to your adversaries. You listen. You get to know them well if you want them to hear what you're saying. And with understanding comes resolve. And with clarity comes cooperation.

It's how I've approached foreign affairs. It's how I've approached governing. And it's how I'll serve as president of this great country.

More than anything else, we have a moral obligation to those American soldiers and citizens who've laid down their lives overseas.

Some say we cannot let their sacrifice be in vain. But you will never convince me that those slain patriots would have wanted a single additional life to be lost ... just to validate their own sacrifice.

Instead, the moral obligation is to honor their service by bringing their mission to a close. By ending the bloodshed ... and finally letting the Iraqi people and the American people to set a new course.