The Residual Force Question
13 July 2007 8:00 am by Taylor Marsh
 |
| Double standard or sexism vs. free ride, but definitely held to different standards. |
The question I
asked John Edwards about residual force numbers and mission went unanswered
yesterday. Chris Bowers
is trying to get answers to the same questions from all the candidates, with
each campaign encouraged to respond at length. As I also noted yesterday, it’s
impossible to put an exact number on the residual forces that might be needed
come January 2009, but a ballpark figure is important to get, especially as
the primary proceeds. As I’ve also pointed out before, Clinton has not offered
exact numbers, but has finally stated the role of the military in Iraq in the
future (see below). Gravel and Kucinich haven’t responded to Bowers as of this post, but see Richardson’s response for what they could say. After reading and digesting the responses (so far), something very telling and
irritating rises up.
First, Richardson’s response is wholly unbelievable, though I have no doubt it’s what
many want to hear.
In a nutshell, his plan calls for getting all US troops out of Iraq as soon
as possible with no residual forces. None. Then diplomacy can have a chance.
… .. – Bill Richardson
Chris Dodd is practical.
That’s why I would include three narrowly targeted exceptions for redeployment
– the protection of U.S. personnel and infrastructure, specific counterterrorism
operations, and assistance with the training and equipping of Iraqi forces.
… .. – Chris Dodd
Joe Biden is the most specific, realistic and impassioned in his answer. I
encourage you to read the whole thing.
If violence goes down and the prospects for a political settlement go up,
and we decide to keep a smaller residual force in Iraq to perform the limited
missions I described above, the force size could be anywhere from about 20,000
to 60,000. Remember, we need between 5,000 and 10,000 troops just to protect
the Green Zone. But the exact number would be up to the military. – Joe Biden
Whether you like him or not, Joe Biden is the most forthright and honest about
residual force strength. No one else is willing to go on the record with numbers.
I know, Richardson is saying zero, but that’s not a serious answer.
The next response (and last one as of this post) is from Barack Obama. As he’s
stated many times, he was against the war from the beginning. He’s also fighting
for a phased redeployment of all “combat brigades” by March 2008.
Again, as with John Edwards, note the use of the word “combat” troops
(or brigades). It’s semantics that leaves open a lot of wiggle room. But get
a load of this:
2. Barack Obama wants the size of the American force left in Iraq
to be as small as possible, and does not support having permanent
bases in Iraq. However, it is impossible to say at this time how big a residual
force would have to be. As president, Obama will do what President Bush has
not done on a consistent basis, listen to the advice of his military commanders
and make a decision on troop levels based on the realities on the ground in
Iraq. – Barack Obama (emphasis added)
Excuse me?
“As small as possible”? Backing that up with a question of not knowing just “how big” to make the residual force isn’t exactly comforting.
Does Mr. Obama and his campaign gurus really think this is going to pass for
a serious answer? I know he’s running a specifics-free personality campaign,
but come on.
Now close your eyes…
Then repeat Obama’s statement as if it came out of Candidate Clinton’s
mouth.
If Clinton tried to throw an Iraqi air ball like that at the blogosphere
she wouldn’t have any color left on her jpeg.
Here’s what
Clinton has said about residual forces in a New York Times interview in March 2007.
While Mrs. Clinton declined to estimate the size of a residual American troop
presence, she indicated that they might be based north of Baghdad and in the
western Anbar Province.“It would be fewer troops,” she said. “But what we can
do is to almost take a line north of — between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and
basically put our troops into that region the ones that are going to remain
for our antiterrorism mission; for our northern support mission; for our ability
to respond to the Iranians; and to continue to provide support, if called
for, for the Iraqis.”Mrs. Clinton described a mission with serious constraints. “We would
not be doing patrols,” she added. “We would not be kicking in
doors. We would not be trying to insert ourselves in the middle between the
various Shiite and Sunni factions. I do not think that’s a smart or
achievable mission for American forces.” … ..
Why does Barack Obama continue to get away with paper thin substance statements,
while Biden gets creamed for everything and ignored on Iraq, with the reality
even worse for Candidate Clinton. If she said anything close to what Obama uttered
on residual forces she’d be photoshopped into a Bushie.
Is this a double standard or is it out and out political sexism, with Clinton
being held to a completely different standard? I can’t answer that, but I will
say this. Barack Obama must think we’re all idiots. But he gets away with it
every time, so why not continue to throw substance-free air balls on Iraq?
Blind faith breeds trouble.
