We need to be as responsible getting out as we were irresponsible getting in. Richardson policies will result in even more chaos and instability. It's not for nothing that other candidates that have earned their anti-war credentials far earlier are more careful.

From what I can see Richardson is trying to outflank everybody's on left on Iraq in order to gain traction. Removing a power block as large as our presence there while the country is as unstable as it is will result in a complete collapse.

I've been against this war from the start and want it to end as quickly as possible. But creating another Balkan-like war when retreating is as morally reprehensible as invading was in the first place.

Why was Kucinich excluded?

but, I told you so: No Democratic President will leave Iraq.

The Democrats are fuzzy about Iraq, because Iraq's their war too. They could've prevented the war when Bush first wanted it; they could've filibustered war money when they were in the minority, and could defund it now that they are in control.  This is their war as much as it is Cheney's.

richardson when pressed said he supports getting all troops out by the end of specifically "December".  (as Stephanopolous asked him)

He was asked specifically so this is 4 months and 11 days from the time he was asked at the iowa debate.

you might want to update the chart.

so people can decide whether he's pandering or actually believes it's realistic

The reason some candidates are excluded, and Bill looks so good, is the source for the chart is authorized and paid for by Bill's campaign.

Unfortunately I don't see any sign that Bush will pull out. He is determined to remain in Iraq at all costs, so the GOP can then claim Democrats lost the war and "stabbed America in the back".

The other unfortunate thing, I don't see this Congress forcing Bush out of Iraq. I hate to say it. Many of the Democrats are great on some issues, but too many are spineless on Iraq and the so called WOT. I can count on the fingers of 1 hand, the current crop of Senators who history will treat with some respect.

I don't see us getting out of Iraq until the end of 2009. Logistically it cannot be done overnight. It isn't going to start until the 2nd week of January 2009, after the oath of office is taken at the earliest. I am resigned to this.

What should happen and what is going to happen are two different things.  

This is not an argument against keeping the pressure on. Because we won't even leave in 2009, if we don't keep the pressure on.

all out in 9-10 months except for the Embassy.

Unless Richardson is going to abandon the embassy every embasssy in the world has a few marines in it..

I take comlete issue with this as the descriptions are borderline idiocy.

This is pure ignorant Bowerism on Iraq.

It is a symptom of the stupidity that has surrounded the Iraq discussion in the Netroots.

From the suport of the first Iraq Suplemental to the ignortant portrtayal of Reid-Feingold.

This post should be taken taken down as it is - wrong in every essential respect.

In fairness, I think the candidates agreed with Biden on how long it would take to get the troops out of Iraq and not necessarily his partition proposal.  Obama said he could support a partition that the Iraqis buy into.  IMO, Richardson has the most dishonest approach of all the candidates.  Hillary for example pointed out that his plans to get the troops out through Turkey is great, except they didn't let us come in through Turkey, so they are unlikely to let us leave that way.  He always forgets to mention his over the horizon force that will remain the region.  How many and to do what?  This all muslim force he's planning on getting to do peace keeping in Iraq will suddenly happen because he says so?

Richardson gave a speech ("the New Realism") at the CSIS (PDF) wherein he said several things that I think contradict the image he is trying to put forth here.

in the introductory remarks he explicitly calls for increase in the size of the military:

if America is to lead again, we need to remember this history and to rebuild
our overextended military, increase the size of our Army, revive our alliances, and restore
our reputation as a nation which respects international law, human rights, and civil
liberties.

But over the course of the rest of the speech, he doesn't quite spell out exactly where troops are needed (though he has quite a laundry list of foreign policy issues that need our attention).

later in response to a direct question, what woud he do in Iraq, he answers in part,

I would get out this calendar year, but I would couple that with three
other steps: one, diplomacy, American leadership; bring together a reconciliation
conference among the ethnic groups - the Shi'a, the Sunni; find a way that that
reconciliation conference, using the leverage of a withdrawal, brings forth a coalition
government, a sharing of oil revenues, a sharing of Cabinet ministries, and a Dayton-type
accord similar to Dayton - not a division, a splitting up of the country, that would bring
territorial integrity and respect to the religious groups in Iraq.

The problem is that this is largely meaningless. First, "get out this calendar year" ? Which year? 2008? Is it even possible to withdraw from Iraq in one year?

The other things like a "reconciliation coference" and "leverage the threat of withdrawal" seem absurdly naive for someone with such supposedly seasoned foreign policy chops as he has. Contrast this with the much grittier analysis by Cordesman that notes that the US "cannot dictate Iraq's future, only influence it." The idea that a reconciliation conference akin to South Africa would suffice to meaningfully ameliorate the ethnic division there, utterly ignores the complex interplay of foreign interests and the domestic political landscape that make Iraq such a Gordian knot (and there's no better summary/overview of that knot than the Cordesman report linked above. ESSENTIAL reading for anyone daring to opine on Iraq strategy or policy, including Presidential candidates).

Richardson acknowledges that such conferences would provide no guarantee:

Now, is that going to guarantee success? Is that going to guarantee the stoppage of a civil war and sectarian conflict? It won't guarantee it, but I believe it will be an important step to make things
better.

emphasis mine; what kind of drivel is this? an "important step" ? Is he serious? This is hand-waving of the most transparent kind. A policy needs to be evaluated according to some measure or metric, and all he has to offer is platitude.

I donm't think Richardson is a fool. In fact I think he knows that he needs to distinguish himself from the other candidates and is using withdrawal as his wedge. He's too intelligent to be ignorant of the emptiness of his words at the CSIS as pertain to Iraq, which lead me to suspect that this is really a pander operation. It's far more plausible that Richardson sees a need for increased troops in Iraq for the long haul. That isn't a position I personally would not neccessarily disagree with him, but that is a position at odds with how he is trying to portray himself to the Democratic electorate and the netroots. I think Biden has a more honest approach: stand on principle and make your case.

Governor Richardson needs to think about what he is proposing.  It isn't safe, reasonable or possible.  He also promises health coverage for all IN THE FIRST YEAR OF HIS PRESIDENCY.

How can anyone take him seriously?

What a contentious lot! Cany anyone get past fronting for their own candidate! The fact here is that Richardson looks good and has made clear statements here and has not eqivocated on Iraq. He still can be a strong candidate if he polishes his act a little bit. Jerome's argument about a clear an unequivocal position on Iraq is vital to win the next election. Let's not forget the Kerry debacle.

I don't think that Richardson's plan is feasible. But there is one way to find out whether or not it will work and that is to put it to the test. I don't want us to have to wait till 2009 to get out of, or begin getting out of Iraq. When Congress reconvenes next month and the long awaited report comes out they need to put some serious plans on the table to get out. And if it requires keeping the Senate in session non-stop 24/7 until the Republicans break ranks then so be it. It is time the Democratic leaders came forward and revitalized our party. This isn't a time to let Mitch the Bitch McConnell get his way again. We need to stand solid as a party and if it means going after every single republican that is standing in the way of a real withdrawal then let's go after them. Relentlessly!

Everyone is ignoring the basic point of Jerome's message:

Clinton, Biden, Obama and Edwards aren't confident enough in their judgment to stand up to the military and political establishment on Iraq or lack the foreign policy expertise to order a complete withdrawal should they get elected.  We saw this at the debate in Iowa.  They'll keep forces in Iraq for years to come.  

The path out of Iraq for the Senators will be a long march spread over years.  That will be true as well with any Republican Presidential nominee.

What difference then will there be on the most important issue of the campaign between the Democratic and Republican Presidential nominees?  

We could lose in Nov. '08.

Jerome's not the only one thinking this:
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jse ssionid=882F771B8661B5F51EF795BFEEF3A8CC ?diaryId=874

Clinton at the VFW:

"We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it's working. We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war; we have to be preparing to fight the new war."

Is this the voice of someone that is going to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq?

With Richardson, our forces will be out - completely - by the end of 2009, which is one of the reasons I'm supporting him.  William M. Arkin who writes on National and Homeland Security for the Washington Post recently commented:

Clinton made it clear once again that she is a realist and a Washington fixture, demurring on the question of a "world free of nuclear weapons," a notable departure from the other candidates. Clinton supports a "global effort to reduce the terrible dangers of nuclear weapons," but she stops short of rhetorically committing herself to disarmament, preferring "sensible near-term steps."

Obama also stays in character -- he really separates himself from the pack by appearing more hawkish than the others. Obama surrounds himself with a set of liberal advisors who are notable for their support of the military in humanitarian interventions and of more robust and focused counterterrorism efforts.

Obama did not say he's against building a new nuclear warhead; he almost seems to want to prove that he "supports" military and nuclear weapons programs to allay the deadly "dove" label. Intellectually, though, I can't see how one can support a new generation of American nuclear warheads and also be in favor of nuclear disarmament. One has to start the long and difficult process somewhere.

Now read how Bill Richardson handled the question of new nuclear warheads: "We do not need a new generation of nuclear weapons," he says, speaking as a former Energy secretary. "Under my administration, we will lead the world toward the reduction of nuclear arsenals, not their augmentation," he writes.

. . .

It is on Iraq though, that Richardson really shines. "I believe that we need to withdraw all of our troops within six months," he writes. "Other than the customary Marine contingent at the embassy, I would not leave anyone behind. And if the embassy isn't safe, they're coming home too. No airbases. No troops in the Green Zone. No embedded soldiers training Iraqi forces, because we know what that means. It means our troops would still be out on patrol -- with targets on their backs."

We are spending $10 billion a month on Iraq, Richardson says. "Of the many ways in which Mr. Bush's ill-conceived war has distracted us from our real national security needs, this is the most dangerous," he concludes. "There is not a single sign that Iraq is improving. To the contrary, every indication is that it's getting worse, and a smaller force will do nothing to change that."

And so Bill Richardson says something that the other candidates evidently can't or won't: "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."

Source:  http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarn ing/2007/08/bill_richardson_the_man_who_ wo.html?nav=rss_blog

Richardson is right.  The sooner we get out, the fewer American troops will die, and the less money we will pour into a never-ending occupation that accomplishes nothing.

Kucinich and Gravel are right, too, and should be on the chart.  Kucinich is more popular than Biden and Dodd -- why is he left out?  Isn't this a progressive site?

And I didn't think Clinton was for leaving an indeterminate number of troops for an indeterminate length of time.  I thought she wanted to leave a 50,000-person occupying army forever.

Here is Bill Richardson's speech from the Take Back America conference, where he spoke of the Marines guarding the U.S. embassy in Iraq.

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.

Is she not ready for prime time, or are we seeing more equivocation? The wires are reporting that Hillary says the surge is working, especially in Anbar province???? (Anbar province isn't even part of the surge.) Is this amateur hour or what?

Heres the thing, we hear from the administration that Al Qaeda is infiltrating Iraq. Despite the fact that this claim is bogus and maybe a couple percent of the violence is at the hands of foreign fighters, with our withdrawal they will go away because the Shi'a will not want them there and there are no American troops to kill.

As for the bigger conflict, the struggle between Sunni, Shi'a, and Kurd, Joe Biden is correct that we should look for some type of federalism. A Unitary government, which the Bush administration set up, will never work there. If there ever was a place for a federal government (as in shared power between national and local), other than the U.S., it is Iraq. We screwed up the first time as well. Remember the AOC. The Iraqis need to scrap their "constitution" and start over. All the leaders of the multiple sects should be there, not just the ones we like, give them a seat at the table and they will be less bitter.

From there Iraq should be split into multiple states or provinces or whatever, that are almost completely sovereign. Then set up a national goverment with three branches like we have. Ensure that all trials will be conducted by the national government so that the everybody gets a fair shake as well as sharing the oil revenue. Create a parliamentary type of house with proportional representation, then a council with equal numbers of each group. Will it work. I do not know, but with the help of Iran. Yes, I said Iran. I do not understand why we are not using and abusing Iran right now. The best thing to happen for them would be a stable Iraq with Shi'a dominance. We can use them to maintain the peace and also we would see if Saudi Arabia is really our friend. Would they choose stability over a sunni controlled Iraq. Again, I do not know, but it is worth a try, and if it is done correctly it might just work. With the right person in charge, a good diplomat of some sort would get the job done.

First off, Jerome should have disclosed that his cribbed chart was put together by the Richardson campaign...a fact which helps to explain why Kucinich was mysteriously left off the chart...and why it is skewed toward Richardson.

IMHO, Iraq has become one of the toughest foreign policy challenges in US History.  

I think there are three separate issues swirling around the conversation on this:

1)  What should the US (particularly the military, president and Congress) do right now, and continue to do, into the next few months?

2)  What will each one of the candidates tell us today, about what they will do when they are elected in November 2008, and assume the presidency in January of 2009?

3)  What are the politics (and smart politics) of this over the next few months, and years?

Jerome, I think, focuses on the third issue and is essentially correct in his political analysis.  

The second question seems like a really important question, something that, as Obama recently suggested with regard to foreign policy matters, the voters deserve answers to.  

The mainstream media has done a terrible job of getting the candidates to clearly answer the second question.  And a number of the candidates are showing an increasing reluctance to clearly answer the question with other than vagueries and empty slogans (eg: I will end the war!)

Partly, this can be explained because who truly knows what the conditions in Iraq will be in January of 2009?  Further, as a political matter, some of the candidates might not want to box themselves into a November 2008 position, on an ever changing foreign policy matter, in August of 2008.

Nevertheless, on the second question, us political types can dig out the information.  Gravel and Kucinich would simply pull all the remaining troops out.  Kucinich would replace them with (willing?) UN troops.  

Hillary Clinton has probably given the most extensive disclosure on this question of the top three candidates.  Hillary Clinton has made it clear that she intends to keep tens of thousands of US forces in Iraq during her presidency. In particular, in the recent New York Times interview, she described her plan to continue occupying Iraq to accomplish six different missions:  

(1) Protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure.
(2) Training and equipping Iraqi forces.
(3) Conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations.  
(4) Preventing the Kurds from gaining full independence. (Something that 90% of their people want.)
(5) Having a military force in Iraq large enough to "respond" to Iran.  (That will be a lot of troops!)
(6) Coming to the assistance of the Iraqi government if it needs help (Which...uh...is what we are doing now?)

In essence, Hillary Clinton has told Democratic voters that she will stay in Iraq indefinitely, with a sizable force, and use our bases in Iraq to intimidate Iran, control the Kurds, and battle Al Qaeda.  (I would say the estimated 75,000 troop number is probably a low number for her expressed mission.)  

One of the curious skills that Hillary Clinton brings to politics is the ability to advocate opposite positions, to be on both sides of an issue, simultaneously.  She tells us that she will both end the war AND continue the war.  

Her supporters will no doubt whisper in response...as they try to square the contradiction...she will end our prevention of the "civil war" war but continue the other parts of the war.  Okay, if that is the truth, can you please tell the primary voters that truth?  Something tells me Hillary's poll numbers would drop like a rock among Democrats if this fact (contradiction) were widely advertised.

Richardson, I think, has a seven point plan of some sort...that he is just awful at advocating for and defending (see the recent Iowa debate).  One thing you can say about Richardson's plan:  it COMPLETELY diverges from Hillary Clinton's stated plans.  Richardson is the anti-Hillary on Iraq.  And, Edwards and Obama have not exactly been falling over themselves to discuss their specific plans.

Lastly, the first question is probably the most interesting because it is not hypothetical, but instead about RIGHT NOW. Of course, several of the candidates are in the US Senate right now which makes the question even more interesting.

Biden has his plan for partitioning, but what is he doing to promote it and really push it in the Senate?  Is he lobbying for it daily?  On the campaign trail?  I have even heard him back away from his plan in recent interviews:  eg maybe it's too late for my plan.  What?

Obama has his legislation.  Does it have any loopholes for Bush to drive a truck through?  Is he lobbying for it daily? On the campaign trail?  Clinton has her Iraq legislation.  Does it have loopholes for Bush to drive a truck through?  Is she lobbying for it daily?  On the campaign trail?

Bottom line:  if they aren't really working on this issue, aren't these Senators simply posturing?  

There isn't a dimes worth of difference between them on the policy.

The only difference is Hillary Clinton has the strength and exprience that Obama lacks.  She can get it done.

older ones do not.  but the older ones aren't going to vote for hillary anyway.  btw, democrats would love -- die for -- getting 60% of the cuban american vote.  hell, we'd be happy with 30% (hillary's proxy got 29%)...