Clinton obfuscates, Edwards is naive. Troops stay in Iraq for decades

...at least according to a particular well known "senior news analyst" for NPR.

On Tuesday, June 11th, on NPR's "All Things Considered", Ted Koppel offered up another  commentary in which he suggested that after listening to Senator (and Presidential Candidate) Hillary Clinton during the last Democratic Primary Debate, it was clear to him that she was very carefully avoiding making any statements that indicated  that she would bring ALL the troops home assuming she is elected, and in actuality, she believes that U.S. troops will be in Iraq for years to come.  

More Koppel comments below the fold.  

This is the second time in recent weeks that I've heard Mr. Koppel make a statement to the effect that there is little chance that we will completely withdraw all of our troops from Iraq any time soon and that the U.S. will likely be committed to keeping an active force in the region for decades.  He claims that keeping troops in Iraq will likely be viewed by any future President as being in the strategic best interests of the United States.  He specifically targets Hillary Clinton in his most recent commentary:

Democrats are telling voters that if they are elected, all U.S. troops will be pulled out of Iraq. But as Sen. Hillary Clinton privately told a senor military adviser, she knows there will be some troops there for decades. It's an example of how in some cases, politics can force dishonesty.

He has insisted that anyone saying otherwise is being disingenuous.  I suspect this is a dig against John Edwards.  

So, is Mr. Koppel and those who agree with him, wrong?  Aside from Senator Clinton, do you think other candidates feel this way but are avoiding saying so publicly?  What about Edwards?   Of all the major candidates, when I listen to him, I just don't get the impression that he's trying to talk around the issue.  If his conviction to withdraw troops is genuine (and I think it is genuine), do you, like Ted Koppel, consider him to be naive?

I would very much like to dismiss Mr. Koppel's comments as misguided, uninformed, and even intentionally controversial, but then there is that nagging part of me that fears that all the major candidates striving to reach the Oval Office may actually agree in their heart of hearts with him, and we won't find out until after the election.  I really want to see the war ended and our troops brought home.  

The one statement that Koppel makes in his commentary with which I do agree is that a hard and honest debate amongst the candidates is needed.  Regardless of who is elected, if we assume that there is an unstoppable groundswell of public support for withdrawal, will that even be possible?  What would a total withdrawal look like?  How do we mitigate the  aftermath?  If our future leaders insist on keeping a military presence in the country, what will we do?

All these are questions from a sleep-deprived parent of a teething toddler who is now sleeping while Dad sits awake with Koppel's words rattling around in his brain.