Understanding Edwards' position on Iraq

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday April 02, 2007 · 2:01 AM PDT

2007/04/02 · 02:01

Edwards' official position on Iraq is to "Require a complete withdrawal of combat troops in Iraq in the next 12-18 months without leaving behind any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq" and that, after withdrawal,sufficient forces should remain in the region to contain the conflict and ensure that instability in Iraq does not spillover and create a regional war, a terrorist haven, or spark a genocide."

I'm trying to understand this position and it seems to me that there are three possible interpretations. Follow me beneath the fold.

The first interpretation is that troops left behind "in the region" could also include troops left behind in Iraq itself, but they just wouldn't be called combat troops (but instead be called counter-terrorism troops, training troops, etc.) In which case the position seems to me pretty much the same as that of Clinton, Obama, Feingold, Kucinich, and all other Democrats (i.e., we should remove ourselves from active combat in the sectarian war, but leave troops behind for counter-terrorism, training, etc.)

The second interpretation is that there will indeed be zero troops left behind in Iraq and they will not enter Iraq again. That begs the question of how troops outside Iraq can prevent Iraq from becoming a terrorist haven or prevent genocide inside Iraq. It almost goes without saying that the troops would need to be enabled to enter Iraq if they are going to be a credible threat against terrorism or genocide inside the country.

The third possible interpretation is that there will indeed be zero troops left behind in Iraq but they will be able to enter Iraq again to achieve the objectives mentioned (combatting terrorism, preventing genocide.) That raises the following question: What is a more effective way to achieve those objectives--to remove all troops from Iraq but then have to re-enter, or just keep some there to achieve those objectives?

Can supporters (or critics) of John Edwards tell me which of these interpretations they think is the correct one, or if perhaps there is another interpretation that I'm not considering?

This content was created by a Daily Kos Community member.

Make YOUR voice heard!

Comments are closed on this story.