Taylor Marsh – TaylorMarsh.com – News, Opinion and Weblog on Progressive Politics

Let’s start with the premise that all Democrats want out of Iraq. From there
things get murky, especially when you ask who’s willing to actually get us out
of Iraq. The top three candidates all meld together as one. It’s why Chris Dodd
and Bill Richardson are hitting this issue hard. Because if you’re looking for
someone to take on Clinton, Obama and Edwards are basically the same on Iraq. It’s why David Yepsen and Chase Martyn and many others are saying
there’s another side to the primary tale that could play out in Iowa. It was illustrated
in full view during the Russert Dartmouth debate, and with Richardson’s latest
speech, as well as the above pitch from Dodd, it’s clear that these two candidates
are convinced they’re a better anti Hillary candidate, so to speak, than either Obama or Edwards. On
the facts, they’re absolutely correct.

I don’t fault any of the top tier for not promising to get out of Iraq in months,
which I’ve been saying is now our reality, especially once the primary season was upon
us. I do fault them for not being willing to commit to getting our troops out
by 2013, as long as the caveat Bush made things worse so we can’t is
included, which seems fair and obvious to anyone following this long, sad war
tale. Biden’s plan for Iraq actually offers hope to make this happen and even got bipartisan support, proving that creativity is an asset even if it may not lead the author to the presidential promise land. So I find the deification propaganda being put forth by supporters of Obama and Edwards overwrought, no matter how heartfelt and righteous; as supporters postulate their candidate is more intent on redeployment from Iraq than the other. With all three unable to commit to getting out by 2013, though Obama did recently flip flop to say he’d get us out in 16 months (which is it?), they simply blur together as one choice. Beyond that it starts centering on the intangibles and emotional attachments people have for or against a candidate.

With Edwards and Obama failing to prove real differences with Clinton on Iraq, it’s hard not to take this oppportunity and turn to AIPAC, because Middle East policy and getting back to being an “honest broker” would be the one thing that would really set the candidates apart, if someone had the courage to state that’s what’s needed. But suffice it to say that Edwards and Obama are just as strong a supporter of that lobbying group as Clinton, and none of them could be running for president if they hadn’t done what every other politician does and that is to send signals to AIPAC and their pro Israel PAC partners (AIPAC isn’t a political action committee and doesn’t give money directly to candidates or endorse them) that Israel comes first. The Isreali
lobby, in all its varietal forms, is the true third rail of American politics, not just
Democratic. It’s also what would really point to “real differences,” because on Iraq, Edwards, Clinton and Obama are pretty much on the same page.

Here’s Edwards on Iraq during the
Dartmouth debate:

RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, will you commit that at the end of your first term, in 2013, all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq? EDWARDS: I cannot make that commitment. But I — well, I can tell you what i would do as president. When I’m sworn into office, come January of 2009, if there are, in fact, as General Petraeus suggests, 100,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, I will immediately draw down 40,000 to 50,000 troops; and over the course of the next several months, continue to bring our combat out of Iraq until all of our combat are, in fact, out of Iraq. I think the problem is — and it’s what you just heard discussed — is we will maintain an embassy in Baghdad. That embassy has to be protected. We will probably have humanitarian workers in Iraq. Those humanitarian workers have to be protected. I think somewhere in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops will be necessary to accomplish that, 3,500 to 5,000 troops. But I do say, I want to add to things you just heard. I think it is true that everyone up here wants to take a responsible course to end the war in Iraq. There are, however, differences between us, and those differences need to be made aware. Good people have differences about this issue. For example, I heard Senator Clinton say on Sunday that she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq. To me, that’s a continuation of the war. I do not think we should continue combat missions in Iraq. And when I’m on a stage with the Republican nominee, come the fall of 2008, I’m going to make it clear that I’m for ending the war. And the debate will be between a Democrat who wants to bring the war to an end, get all American combat troops out of Iraq, and a Republican who wants to continue the war.

Next comes Obama, who for all his bluster on celebrating his 2004 speech, going
retro on no nukes while parroting the Democratic party line from the J.F.K.
years on which we all agree, just doesn’t deliver either.

RUSSERT: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq? OBAMA: I think it’s hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don’t know what contingency will be out there.What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office — which it appears there may be, unless we can get some of our Republican colleagues to change their mind and cut off funding without a timetable — if there’s no timetable — then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians, and making sure that we’re carrying out counterterrorism activities there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don’t want to make promises, not knowing what the situation’s going to be three or four years out.

At least Obama did it in fewer words and didn’t try to split hairs on “combat
forces,” which even Bill Richardson acknowledges may be needed for counterinsurgency missions.

Next comes Senator Clinton, who has always been cautious on Iraq, an understatement,
taking a long time to move to where she is today. Her position isn’t a shock,
though any Democratic candidate should absolutely be able to commit to 2013, with caveats
on Bush’s incompetence included in the pledge. It’s hard to forget that Clinton has
never portrayed herself as being the anti-war candidate for ‘08, another understatement. But with Obama and Edwards now having the same position as Clinton on Iraq, with Obama having the same Senate votes as well, they’re the ones who have blurred the distinctions through their own actions, which is playing right into Clinton’s hand, at least as things stand today. One could almost think she and her team planned it playing out this way.

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, Democrats all across the country believed in 2006 when the Democrats were elected to the majority in the House and Senate that that was a signal to end the war, and the war would end. You have said that you will not pledge to have all troops out by the end of your first term, 2013. Why not? CLINTON: Well, Tim, it is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term. But I agree with Barack; it is very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting. Now, we do not know, walking into the White House in January of 2009 what we are going to find. What is the state of planning for withdrawal? That’s why last spring I began pressing the Pentagon to be very clear about whether or not they were planning to bring our troops out. What I found was that they weren’t doing the kind of planning that is necessary, and we’ve been pushing them very hard to do so. You know, with respect to the question, though, about the Democrats taking control of the Congress, I think the Democrats have pushed extremely hard to change this president’s course in Iraq.Today, I joined with many of my colleagues in voting for Senator Biden’s plan — slightly different that he’d been presenting it, but still the basic structure was to move toward what is a de facto partition if the Iraqi people and government so choose.The Democrats keep voting for what we believe would be a better course. Unfortunately, as you know so well, the Democrats don’t have the majority in the Senate to be able to get past that 60-vote blockade that the Republicans can still put up.But I think every one of us who is still in the Senate — Senator Biden, Senator Dodd, Senator Obama and myself — we are trying every single day; and, of course, Congressman Kucinich is in the House. But I think it is fair to say that the president has made it clear: He intends to have about 100,000 or so troops when he leaves office.The height of irresponsibility, that he would leave this war to his successor. I will immediately move to begin bringing our troops home when I am inaugurated.

This back and forth between Clinton and Edwards is also instructive.

CLINTON: Well, Tim, could I just clarify that, you know, I said there may be a continuing counterterrorism mission, which, if it still exists, will be aimed at Al Qaida in Iraq. It may require combat, special operations forces or some other form of that. But the vast majority of our combat troops should be out. EDWARDS: But, can I just say that my only point is — I don’t have any doubt that Senator Clinton wants to take a responsible course. There is a difference, however, in how we would go about this. And I think Democratic primary voters are entitled to know that difference. And the difference is really very simple. I would have our combat troops out of Iraq over a period of several months, and I would not continue combat missions in Iraq. Combat missions mean that the war is continuing. I believe this war needs to be brought to an end.

But as Edwards also states above, the embassy and other U.S. personnel must
be protected. A brigade will do it? Sorry, but I’m seeing Saigon all over again.
But if you’re not buying that picture, he’ll still have combat troops in to
protect U.S. personnel, with Obama agreeing as well.

I understand everyone’s passion for their particular candidate. But the arguments
are specious when trumpeting policy on Iraq. Obama and Edwards have chosen to align themselves with policies that blur into being basically the same as Clinton’s. Splitting hairs over brigades and combat forces isn’t something that reaches voters. Shifting positions after the Dartmouth debate, Obama obviously realizes the mistake made. However, someone saying “I commit to having all troops
out of Iraq by 2013″ — insert Bush made things worse so we can’t caveat
here — is much stronger and likely will resonate with Democratic primary voters. Dodd or Richardson may not get enough votes to win the nomination, but the case they’re each making is likely to hit home in Iowa, especially since 80% of voters could change their candidate preference before the primary. There’s plenty of time left for that to happen.