The Presidential Candidates and their Iraq Exit Strategy
by bruh21, Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 11:30:17 AM EDT
Over at Open Left, Bowers has put up a helpful breakdown of where each candidate stands on exiting Iraq.
"No residual forces outside of embassy protection: Richardson, Kucinich. This would require 5,000 to 10,000 troops, though possibly less, depending on the size of the embassy each would decide to maintain in Iraq.
Residual forces for embassy and personnel protection: Edwards. This would require between 5,000 and 10,000 troops for the embassy, and probably a similar number outside of the embassy. So, 10,000 to 20,000 seems likely.
Residual forces for counter-terrorism, Iraqi troop training, personnel protection and embassy protection: Clinton, Dodd and Obama, plus Biden conditionally. This will require roughly 40,000 troops, plus the number of advisors for the Iraqi military, plus an indeterminate amount of mercenaries private contractors. The Biden plan might require as few as 20,000, depending on the circumstances."
I haven't seen quite so succint a breakdown, and, I hope that it's okay that I include his breakdown here.
I will be honest. I don't know which strategy is best. I am posting this here to start a discussion rather than tell you what I think. I tend to agree with the most agressive strategy for living as possible. It's on that level that the Obama/Clinton approach bothers me, but I can be convinced if someone can explain the rationale in a way that will suggest a better outcome for both the U.S. and Iraq.
Can anyone add their thoughts?