KurdistanObserver.com
Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years
The New York Times
By JEFF ZELENY and MARC SANTORA
DES MOINES, Aug. 12 — Even as they call for an end to the war
and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are
setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for
years.
John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region
to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if
violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York
would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish
region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military
presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American
personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.
These positions and those of some rivals suggest that the Democratic
bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals
to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the
next commander in chief. Antiwar advocates have raised little challenge to such
positions by Democrats.
Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico stands apart, having suggested that he would
even leave some military equipment behind to expedite the troop withdrawal. In a
forum at a gathering of bloggers last week, he declared: “I have a one-point
plan to get out of Iraq: Get out! Get out!”
On the other side of the spectrum is Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware,
who has proposed setting up separate regions for the three major ethnic and
religious groups in Iraq until a stable central government is established before
removing most American troops.
Still, many Democrats are increasingly taking the position, in televised debates
and in sessions with voters across the country, that ending a war can be as
complicated as starting one.
“We’ve got to be prepared to control a civil war if it starts to spill outside
the borders of Iraq,” Mr. Edwards, who has run hard against the war, said at a
Democratic debate in Chicago this week. “And we have to be prepared for the
worst possibility that you never hear anyone talking about, which is the
possibility that genocide breaks out and the Shi’a try to systematically
eliminate the Sunni. As president of the United States, I would plan and prepare
for all those possibilities.”
Most of the Democratic candidates mention the significant military and
logistical difficulties in bringing out American troops, which even optimistic
experts say would take at least a year. The candidates are not only trying to
retain flexibility for themselves in the event they become president, aides
said, but are also hoping to tamp down any expectation that the war would
abruptly end if they were elected. Most have not proposed specific troop levels
or particular rules of engagement for a continued presence in Iraq, saying the
conditions more than a year from now remain too uncertain.
In political terms, their strategies are a balancing act. In her public
appearances, Mrs. Clinton often says, “If this president does not end this war
before he leaves office, when I am president, I will.” But she has affirmed in
recent months remarks she made to The New York Times in March, when she said
that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would
require a continuing deployment of American troops. The United States’ security,
she said then, would be undermined if part of Iraq turned into a failed state”
that serves as a Petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda.”
So while the senators’ views expressed on the campaign trail do not conflict
with their votes in Congress, particularly to set a deadline for withdrawal,
they are grappling as candidates with the possibility of a sustained military
presence in Iraq, addressing questions about America’s responsibility to Iraqi
civilians as well as guarding against the terrorism threat in the region.
Among the challenges the next president could face in Iraq, three seem to be
resonating the most: What to do if there is a genocide? What to do if chaos in
Iraq threatens to engulf the region in a wider war? And what to do if Iraq
descends into further lawlessness and becomes the staging ground for terrorist
attacks elsewhere, including in the United States?
“While the overwhelming majority of Americans want to bring the troops home, the
question is what is the plan beyond that?” said Gov. Chet Culver of Iowa, a
Democrat. “The first candidate running for president, I think on either side,
who can best articulate that will win.”
Four years after the last presidential race featured early signs of war protest,
particularly in the candidacy of Howard Dean, a new phase of the debate seems to
be unfolding, with antiwar groups giving the Democrats latitude to take
positions short of a full and immediate withdrawal. Neither MoveOn.org nor its
affiliated group, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, have sought to press
Democrats here in Iowa to suggest anything short of ending the war immediately.
“Of course we would like to get them out right now. That sounds wonderful,” said
Sue Dinsdale, who leads the Iowa chapter of Americans Against Escalation in Iraq
and has seen nearly all of the Democratic candidates. “I don’t think that people
realize what their specific plans are and what they are saying about it, but
just that they are working to end the war.”
The leading Republican candidates have largely chosen not to wrestle publicly
with Iraq policy questions, instead deferring to President Bush and waiting
until Gen. David H. Petraeus delivers a progress report next month on the troop
buildup this year.
While the Democrats talk exhaustively about Iraq, a review of the remarks they
have made during campaign stops over the last six months leaves little ambiguity
in their message: If the president refuses to end the war, they will.
To accomplish that goal, they all discuss a mix of vigorous diplomacy in the
region, intensified pressure on the Iraqi government and a phased withdrawal of
troops to begin as soon as possible. But their statements in campaign settings
are often silent on the problems of how to disengage and what tradeoffs might be
necessary.
“It is time to bring our troops home because it has made us less safe,” Mr.
Obama said to a throng of supporters, cheering wildly despite the pouring rain,
at a campaign stop in New Hampshire last month.
Mrs. Clinton has been equally vocal in making “bringing the troops home” a
central theme. In February, she said her message to the Iraqi government would
be simple: “I would say ‘I’m sorry, it’s over. We are not going to baby-sit a
civil war.’ ”
Both candidates, in interviews or debates, have said that they would not support
intervening in a genocidal war should the majority Shiites slaughter Sunnis —
and Sunnis retaliate — on a much greater scale than now takes place.
Mr. Edwards, who has suggested that he would intervene in a genocide, has tried
to position himself as the more forceful antiwar candidate by criticizing both
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama for not pushing hard enough in the Senate to bring
the troops home.
“There are differences between us,” Mr. Edwards said in a June debate. “I think
there is a difference between making very clear when the crucial moment comes,
on Congress ending this war, what your position is and standing quiet.”
Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut has called for the United States
military to “begin redeploying immediately.” In a debate this week in Chicago,
he said: “We can do so with two and a half divisions coming out each month, done
safely and reasonably well.”
Americans Against Escalation in Iraq has created its “Iraq Summer” campaign to
persuade members of Congress to support legislation changing course in Iraq.
While the group is focusing on Republicans across the country, including
deploying a blimp to fly above the Iowa straw poll on Saturday, it has not
weighed in on the Democratic side of the presidential race and the fact that
several Democratic candidates call for an extended but limited military
commitment in Iraq. “We are in a good position when leaders are debating the
best way to bring our troops home,” said Moira Mack, a group spokeswoman,
“rather than whether or not to bring them home.”
