Bill Richardson: Leave Iraq Now

Thanks to staking out this clear position against the Iraq occupation, and in favor of full withdrawal of U.S. forces (no colonial footprints!), Richardson's got my vote for the Democratic nomination.

Why We Should Exit Iraq Now
By Bill Richardson
September 8, 2007 | The Washington Post

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have suggested that there is little difference among us on Iraq. This is not true: I am the only leading Democratic candidate committed to getting all our troops out and doing so quickly.

In the most recent debate, I asked the other candidates how many troops they would leave in Iraq and for what purposes. I got no answers. The American people need answers. If we elect a president who thinks that troops should stay in Iraq for years, they will stay for years -- a tragic mistake.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards reflect the inside-the-Beltway thinking that a complete withdrawal of all American forces somehow would be "irresponsible." On the contrary, the facts suggest that a rapid, complete withdrawal -- not a drawn-out, Vietnam-like process -- would be the most responsible and effective course of action.

Those who think we need to keep troops in Iraq misunderstand the Middle East. I have met and negotiated successfully with many regional leaders, including Saddam Hussein. I am convinced that only a complete withdrawal can sufficiently shift the politics of Iraq and its neighbors to break the deadlock that has been killing so many people for so long.

Our troops have done everything they were asked to do with courage and professionalism, but they cannot win someone else's civil war. So long as American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the necessary steps to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.

The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al-Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq's oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country. Our departure would also enable us to focus on defeating the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11, those headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border -- not in Iraq.

Logistically, it would be possible to withdraw in six to eight months. We moved as many as 240,000 troops into and out of Iraq through Kuwait in as little as a three-month period during major troop rotations. After the Persian Gulf War, we redeployed nearly a half-million troops in a few months. We could redeploy even faster if we negotiated with the Turks to open a route out through Turkey.

As our withdrawal begins, we will gain diplomatic leverage. Iraqis will start seeing us as brokers, not occupiers. Iraq's neighbors will face the reality that if they don't help with stabilization, they will face the consequences of Iraq's collapse -- including even greater refugee flows over their borders and possible war.

The United States can facilitate Iraqi reconciliation and regional cooperation by holding a conference similar to that which brought peace to Bosnia. We will need regional security negotiations among all of Iraq's neighbors and discussions of donations from wealthy nations -- including oil-rich Muslim countries -- to help rebuild Iraq. None of this can happen until we remove the biggest obstacle to diplomacy: the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq.

My plan is realistic because:

> It is less risky. Leaving forces behind leaves them vulnerable. Would we need another surge to protect them?

> It gets our troops out of the quagmire and strengthens us for our real challenges. It is foolish to think that 20,000 to 75,000 troops could bring peace to Iraq when 160,000 have not. We need to get our troops out of the crossfire in Iraq so that we can defeat the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11.

> By hastening the peace process, the likelihood of prolonged bloodshed is reduced. President Richard Nixon withdrew U.S. forces slowly from Vietnam -- with disastrous consequences. Over the seven years it took to get our troops out, 21,000 more Americans and perhaps a million Vietnamese, most of them civilians, died. All this death and destruction accomplished nothing -- the communists took over as soon as we left.

My position has been clear since I entered this race: Remove all the troops and launch energetic diplomatic efforts in Iraq and internationally to bring stability. If Congress fails to end this war, I will remove all troops without delay, and without hesitation, beginning on my first day in office.

Let's stop pretending that all Democratic plans are similar. The American people deserve precise answers from anyone who would be commander in chief. How many troops would you leave in Iraq? For how long? To do what, exactly? And the media should be asking these questions of the candidates, rather than allowing them to continue saying, "We are against the war . . . but please don't read the small print."

The writer is governor of New Mexico and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Dem candidates waffling on Iraq withdrawal

Most of the Democratic presidential candidates are failing on the most important issue of the day: withdrawal from Iraq.  

My dear comrades, (can I call you comrades?), only Gov. Bill Richardson is saying the right things: withdraw now; withdraw completely; withdraw forever.  We are not Great Britain or some colonial power.  America doesn't do occupation.

Richardson is making the distinction between himself and the other "top-tier" candidates pretty stark.  (Sorry, Obama, I want to vote for you, but you're screwing it up trying to be all things to all people.  America's "pro-defense" conservatives will never trust you, no matter what you say.)  

If you're anti-war and pro-withdrawal, you've got a clear separation among the Democratic candidates: vote your conscience (Richardson, Dodd, or Kucinich); or vote for the biggest name with the most campaign bucks (Hillary or Obama).

Iraq pullout could take years, top Democrats say
By Jeff Zeleny and Marc Santora
August 11, 2007 | International Herald Tribune

Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential aspirants 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 country 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 activists have raised little challenge to such positions by Democrats.

Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico stands apart, having suggested that he would even leave some military equipment behind to expedite the troop withdrawal. At a recent gathering of bloggers, 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 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 U.S. troops.

Still, many Democrats are increasingly taking the position, in televised debates and in sessions with voters, 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," Edwards, who has run hard against the war, said at a Democratic debate in Chicago last 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 Shia 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 U.S. 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 suppress any expectation that the war would abruptly end if they are 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, 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 in an interview in March, when she said that there were "remaining vital national security interests in Iraq" that would require a continuing deployment of U.S. 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." 

[In other words, Hillary promises to kind of withdraw within 8 years.  Wow, what a gal.  – J]

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 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?

[I don't stand by the belief that the disaster we know is better than the one we don't.  Iraq will engulf the region into a wider war only if America fails to exert pressure on its allies Saudi Arabia and Jordan, and on its nemeses, Iran and Syria.  We have carrots and sticks to use; and none of those countries wants a war either, so there is reason for optimism that any conflict within Iraq can be contained in Iraq – as long as we plan ahead, and pursues vigorous diplomacy with all of Iraq's neighbors starting today.  – J]

"While the overwhelming majority of Americans want to bring the troops home, the question is what is the plan beyond that?" said Governor Chet Culver of Iowa, a Democrat. "The first candidate running for president, I think on either side, who can best articulate that will win."

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," Obama said to a throng of supporters, cheering wildly despite the pouring rain, at a campaign stop in New Hampshire last month.

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.

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 Clinton and Obama for not pushing hard enough in the Senate to bring the troops home.

"There are differences between us," 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 Dodd of Connecticut has called for the U.S. military to "begin redeploying immediately." In a debate last week in Chicago, he said: "We can do so with two and a half divisions coming out each month, done safely and reasonably well."