In Foreign Affairs, Bill Richardson writes:
The next president needs to send a clear signal to the world that America has turned the corner and will once again be a leader rather than a unilateralist loner. To do this, the new president must first end the Iraq war. We need to withdraw all our troops and embrace a decisive new political strategy that engages all the nations of the region, as well as the international donor community. Only when we have done this can we begin the hard work of rebuilding our military and our alliances and restoring our tarnished reputation -- so that we can move forward and lead the world in addressing urgent global problems.
What has Richardson received for his repeated calls during the campaign to bring home all troops from Iraq?
The media tries to marginalize Richardson, calling him a candidate for Vice President and his plan for Iraq irresponsible. Candidates such as Hillary Clinton that decline to pledge to bring our troops home even by 2013 are praised and endorsed in editorials.
Earlier this month, the Des Moines Register called on the Presidential candidates to set forth a realistic timeline for leaving Iraq. The editors noted:
Setting a general timetable for withdrawal and beginning the pullout would show the Iraqis they must figure out how to run their own government and provide their own security. The next president also should make clear that the United States will not establish permanent military bases in Iraq. Anger over U.S. military bases in the Middle East has been one of the greatest catalysts behind the rise of al-Qaida.
All these points can be found within Richardson's plan for leaving Iraq. However, the Des Moines Register favors "a general timetable for withdrawal." The editor's timetable for withdrawal evidently extends beyond one year, as Richardson advocates, since the editors sharply criticized Richardson's plan as "irresponsible" and Richardson as "pandering to voters seeking easy answers."
When did bucking the military and political establishment that got the U.S. into the war originally and refuses to admit our invasion was a grave error constitute pandering? The U.S. has moved 240,000 troops and their equipment into and out of Iraq through Kuwait in three months during the height of troop movements in the current conflict. We can withdraw the 160,000 troops in Iraq today within a year.
It makes no sense, as the Des Moines Register apparently believes, to remove combat troops from Iraq and leave non-combat forces. As long as any of our forces are in Iraq, Richardson maintains they will remain targets, creating further violence.
History offers us an important lesson. The phased withdrawal from Vietnam over a period years resulted in far more destruction than if we had left earlier. There were 21,000 additional American casualties, millions of civilian deaths and a humanitarian catastrophe throughout the region. See http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/...
Clinton has never offered a firm timeline on our withdrawal. Insteadn Clinton plays "dodgeball" on Iraq. Clinton has repeatedly advocated keeping U.S. troops in Iraq to undertake various missions, including counter terrorism operations (which sounds like a continuation of the current U.S. mission in Iraq.)
All Clinton has committed to is calling a meeting to decide how to proceed on Iraq after she moves back into the White House. For advice on Iraq, she relies on persons like retired Gen. Jack Keane, one of the architects of the surge. Other advisers to Clinton see our troops occupying Iraq for another decade. After the Presidential debate at Dartmouth College in which Clinton, Edwards and Obama all refused to commit to withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq by 2013, Michael O'Hanlon, another supporter of President Bush's surge and adviser to Clinton, praised Clinton, Obama and Edwards for their "flexibility" on Iraq. For links to prove each of these points see http://www.dailykos.com/...
However, yesterday in Iowa, Clinton reversed course. She asserted, as is the case, the U.S. could "bring nearly everybody home, you know, certainly within a year if we keep at it and do it very steadily."
Richardson rightly called Clinton on her flip flop:
Senator Clinton's statement that we could 'certainly get all the troops out within a year' is a stunning flip-flop from what she has been saying all along. She consistently has called for leaving troops in Iraq to fight al-Qaida, train Iraqis, and protect U.S. assets. Has that suddenly been abandoned? If so, why has she changed her mind?
In a September debate, she said that she could not commit to getting our troops out in five years, let alone in one year. Has anything changed about the logistics besides her position in the polls? It is clear that she is responding directly to my latest ad and my statements that she repeatedly has called for leaving thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely. Rather than defending her position, apparently she simply has changed it.
Why has Clinton flip flopped? As Chris Bowers points out, the latest CNN poll on Iraq shows public support for total withdrawal sharply rising to 39%, and undoubtedly a total withdrawal is favored by an even higher percentage among Democratic voters. Plus Richardson is now running a commercial in Iowa emphasizing the sharp difference among the top candidates on Iraq:
Clinton is seeking to blur the clear distinction Richardson has has created with her on Iraq throughout the campaign and weaken support for Richardson in Iowa by all of a sudden telling the anti-war voters want they want to hear.
Interested in learning more about Richardson? Check out the profile of Richardson in today's New York Times or one earlier in the month in the Christian Science Monitor.
If you want a sense of what the war is all about and what will occur if we elect a President that refuses to make an ironclad promise to take all U.S. troops out of Iraq check out this link: http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archive
s/interviews/000710.php#more