The Choice on Iraq (Ad by Gov Richardson and bloggers from Open Left and Firedoglake)

[seasat]

Run time: 04:29 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hM-e1ywxJs   Posted on YouTube: September 24, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: September 24, 2007 By DU Member: seasat Views on DU: 853

 
Gov Richardson teams up with Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller from Open Left and Siun from Firedoglake to call out the other candidates on the residual troops left in Iraq under their plans. A 30 second version of this ad will start airing in New Hampshire.

[gateley]

1. Initially I was in agreement with Richardson -- why the hell should we be

in Iraq at ALL? But the more I've researched this the more I've come to believe that approach may be the most detrimental to us and to the Iraqis, not to mention Iraq's safety in the middle east.

Richardson's spot doesn't address WHY the other candidates feel it would be wisest to continue to have some troops in Iraq. I fear if we just 'pulled out' that would open the floodgates for increased tribal violence, allow Iran to overwhelm the country and exponentially result in chaos reaching beyond the borders.

The candidates who propose residual forces are telling it like it is -- not telling us what we want to hear. We should be grateful for that after all the lies we've been told over the past few years.

Biden's plan, for example (and this is coming up for a vote tomorrow) would give back power and autonomy to the three warring factions -- as per Iraq's own constitution. The central government, representing all three areas, would be responsible for overseeing common interests -- oil revenue, border security, issuing currency, etc.

I can see a place for our troops working WITH the Iraqi central government as well as the governing bodies of each area, to assist in achieving these goals.

I think it's our moral responsibility to help clean up the mess we've created and help this country get back on it's feet. i would be ashamed if we were to just yank everybody out, say 'see ya' -- we were wrong, we're sorry, but you're on your own now.

[seasat]

3. The majority of Iraqis want us out now.

Here's a recent poll done for BBC of Iraqis. 47% want us to leave now. The number was 35% in February. It also shows that 93% of the Sunnis and 50% of the Shiites think it is okay to attack coalition forces. Except for the Kurds who want an independent state, a majority of Sunnis and Shiites want a unified Iraq instead of a federation or complete Balkanization.

The main reason to get out is force the groups both inside and outside Iraq to come to the table. We'll have to bend over backwards and still provide a huge amount of financial and material support but Richardson's ultimate goal is to replace our troops with a UN force consisting of Muslims. The poll shows little support for attacks on Iraqi troops and while it'll probably be a little higher, they'll probably feel the same way about attacks on Muslim troops. The various groups have little reason to come to the table while we're in Iraq. The Kurds don't have to cooperate since they are already cutting out their own state. Saudi Arabia and Iran don't have to work with the Sunni and Shia Groups they back since we're in there. However, if we put it all on the table and say we're getting out, they'll be forced to come to some sort of agreement. Otherwise, I fear, the alternative is decades of our presence there.

[gateley]

4. The majority of Sunnis and Shiites want a unified Iraq, but where does that

leave the Kurds? A target for more genocide? And do the Sunnis consider unified Iraq with one of theirs at the helm? Do the Shiites feel the same? With the thousands of years of tribal wars, I'm not sure how that would work out. I understand it's their country and we're the invaders, but we've caused incalculable harm and I feel we need to help during the transition, at least. Richardson's suggestion for a UN Muslim force sounds ideal, but is it fair to ask a Muslim to be un-biased in protecting the rights of Muslims whose approach and beliefs might differ from theirs?

I understand that the people don't want us there I would feel the same way if I were an Iraqi citizen. But I still feel strongly that at this time the emotions are too high to just say -- here you go, guys -- good luck.

And I'm sincerely trying to understand all the approaches to this situation. I'm trying to understand why most of the candidates feel it's worthwhile to leave residual troops in Iraq even though that can't be popular with the American citizens, because as I said, initially I was simpatico with Richarson's approach, but now it makes me feel uneasy.

[seasat]

5. I was originally for keeping forces in Iraq but realized it causes more problems than it solves.

Who's attacking the Kurds? Well, other than Turkey which has launched a few excursions into their territory and feels threatened by a more independent Kurdish region and the possibility of them providing support for guerrilla separatist groups for the Turkish Kurds.

Turkey like Iran has also seen hard liners become more dominant since we invaded Iraq. In addition to elevating the tensions in Iraq, we've elevated them in the surrounding regions. That is another reason to withdraw our troops.

It makes absolutely no sense to me how keeping 20,000 to 60,000 troops in Iraq for a year or two is going to keep the peace longer or better than the current 160,000 combat troops. According to the Iraqis and the non-Shrub cooked Pentagon stats, the surge isn't working. You'll have the presence of the US troops inflaming the Iraqis, as the poll indicates they do, but you'll have an even lower number of troops than already there during the surge to protect themselves and non-coms. Our troops would become more of a target.

It seems to me for any other plan to work, we'd actually have to hold a draft and bring in 300k to 500k as were originally proposed by the semi-sane generals. However that plan has absolutely no chance of passing at this time. It would make more sense to pull out all the troops instead of a slow burn like we did in Vietnam that was so costly in terms of lives.

The reason that other candidates support residual troops is that it is the popular position. From one of the latest Gallop polls:

"From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do now? Should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?"


.
Increase 6%, Same Number 21%, Decrease 39%, Remove All 29%, and Unsure 5%

If after the Petreaus media blitz dies down and if the poll numbers change, you can expect the candidate's positions to change.

[gateley]

6. Unfortunately, those who are advocating a troop presence aren't talking about

one or two years. I heard Clinton say that there would be a US presence in Iraq throughout "her two terms as President"(!) and I've also heard mention of a presence of 20 years.

Ron Paul (who supports an immediate, total withdrawal) cites Viet Nam to support his position. There was debate at that time, too, about when, how, to what extent we should withdraw. Those favoring residual troops felt that if we totally abandoned the country, all hell would break loose. Well we all left and all hell didn't break loose.

But I think a major difference between Nam and Iraq is the centuries-old ethnic warring in Iraq. Here's a link to a short article from Kurd Media.com explaining one viewpoint:

http://www.kurdmedia.com/article.aspx?id=14377

You know, we've created such a mess that regardless of WHICH way we exit, it'll be a nightmare. If we do it "my" way and it doesn't work, then we could always go in and pull out the remaining troops. (I don't think the powers that be would have the nerve to try the "surge" option again.) If we do it "your" way and realize in retrospect that maybe residual troops would have been preferable for all concerned, then getting the troops back in would seem like another invasion.

What I would IDEALLY like to see happen and what I think is best are at odds.

It's a tough one, isn't it?

[Think82]

7. the 20,000...

...is not a combat force to secure the country... under biden's plan, the local militias become the security force (which they pretty much are now). The 20,000 is to a)fight al quaeda which has come into iraq during the course of the insurgency, but still only 5% of all violence b)train the national army c) protect our civilians in our embassy and peacekeepers to help with the decentralization/ federalism process.

A central government will not work. If we leave there will be absolute chaos. Either way, Biden's decentralization idea is the big idea and it's the right idea. Richardson is trying to make a big deal that he will pull all troops out more quickly but he's just trying to not discount Biden's idea which he knows to be right without REALLY 'supporting' Biden's idea, if you know what I mean. Richardson is splitting hairs with the troop thing.

[bpeale]

9. this reminds me of my life

my mother spent all my life dividing her children from each other (there are 6 of us)...driving a wedge here & there, telling a tale here & there, making it so we didn't trust each other & wouldn't talk to each other...all the while saying she wished she could get her children together. what bullshit. the government is starting to feel this way to me & i hate it.

[neoteric lefty]

2. ncie ad, but

they really need to proofread their own ad before publishing it... when discussing Joe Biden, the announcer states "leave twenty-thousand troops..." and written on the screen says 20,0000 troops. what?!? Something like this really undercuts the credibility of the ad itself.

[jillan]

8. Dodd gets further clarification on Richardson's plan:

Dodd’s campaign released a statement critiquing what it saw as bad math by the New Mexico governor, reports CBSNews.com's Joy Lin. Seizing upon today’s launch of “NoTroopsBehind.com,” an official website endorsed by the Richardson campaign, the Dodd camp pointed out that just last week Richardson suggested that he would keep some troops in Iraq to protect the American embassy.

The statement also noted that Richardson said he would support leaving up to 5,000 troops in Iraq in July.

“When does ‘zero’ = up to 5000?” asked the Dodd campaign.

“There’s nothing new here,” Richardson spokesperson Tom Reynolds told CBS News. “We have consistently said we would leave a Marine contingent to protect the embassy. That is different from residual combat troops.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/09/24/politics/horserace/entry3292597.shtml

So Richardson is really saying what the other candidates are saying?:shrug: