The Surge Has Failed; No Residual Troops

On Wednesday, in a desperate attempt to shore up support for his failed "surge" strategy, President Bush compared a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq to America's withdrawal at the end of the Vietnam War. The president is wrong. We don't need anymore troop surges, we need a diplomatic surge.

We must get all our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible.

In 1968, Richard Nixon ran on a platform of ending the war with honor. It took 7 years to get the last American soldier out of Vietnam. In the meantime, tens of thousands more Americans died. Countless civilians died in Vietnam, in Cambodia and the killing fields, and millions more ultimately had to flee their homes.

Dragging out the process of withdrawal will be tragically worse in terms of U.S. lives lost and in terms of the instability we will create by staying longer.

We have now been in Iraq longer than it took to win World War II. My plan for Iraq ends the war with the fewest possible U.S. casualties and it moves the Iraqis' reconciliation process forward. My position has been consistent and unwavering.

We have to get all of our troops out as quickly and safely as possible and leave no residual troops behind.

Some say that all of the Democratic presidential candidates have the same position on Iraq. I strongly disagree.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have all proposed leaving residual troops in Iraq indefinitely, which will only drag out the process to the detriment of all involved.

I would pull ALL of our troops out -- they have become targets, and only a complete withdrawal makes sense.

That means no airbases, no embedded soldiers training Iraqi forces, no troops in the Green Zone. Zero troops. I would leave the customary marine contingent at our Embassy, but if that became unsafe, then I'd bring them home too. Only then can the diplomatic process of reconciliation and reconstruction truly begin, and the US must lead the way in making it happen.

On Sunday, at the ABC debate in Iowa, I asked the other candidates directly: how many troops would you leave behind? 25,000? 50,000? 75,000? For how long?

I am still waiting for an answer.

Comments

[US55588144]

Governor Richardson knows about enough about Iraq to stick in your left ear. Has he ever been there? Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been there 7 times and is scheduled to go again soon. He has a real plan for Iraq that would leave behind peace rather than chaos. He believes in separating the warring parties. The Kurds have already separated themselves. The Shiites and Sunnis must be separated. But read his plan for yourselves.

[AngerAndDetermination]

I am for Richardson, but I think that he is still too cautious and Hillary-esque in his policy statements. The "Ask Bill" feature of his web site is a joke. Gov. Richardson's responses are only to the softball questions, the ones that allow him to stroke the issues that will make him popular with his base. He absolutely would have -- and in fact, already has -- issued these "responses" in public speeches he has already given. (Is he copying Hillary Clinton?) What does he intend to do about Israel? About Saudi? About Lebanon? Richardson's pusillanimous refusal to confront the elephants in the room in America cast grave doubt upon his claim to be the honest, courageous, plain-dealing candidate.

He would pull out of Iraq and not try to turn it into a U.S. puppet, as the neoconservatives want. Good. Then what? What about the 4,000,000 Arab, Muslim Palestinians under Israeli military occupation -- deprived of the vote, deprived of civil liberties, jailed, tortured, humiliated -- for 40 years? Republicans, and American Zionists, claim that this situation has nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorists, they say, are crazy people who drop from the sky for no reason at all. I ask all candidates, what is your theory about the causes of terrorism, and will you continue to subsidize Israel? I have yet to hear a response from any candidate.

[US55588144]

Governor Richardson knows about enough about Iraq to stick in your left ear. Has he ever been there? Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been there 7 times and is scheduled to go again soon. He has a real plan for Iraq that would leave behind peace rather than chaos. He believes in separating the warring parties. The Kurds have already separated themselves. The Shiites and Sunnis must be separated. But read his plan for yourselves.

http://www.planforiraq.com/

[Drill]

Gov. Bill Richardson may be calling on the U.S. to surrender, but I don't believe this is the view of the majority of Americans. No surrender!

[yurbud]

I'll be impressed when some of the Democrats besides Kucinich and Gravel start talking honestly about the oil motive for going into and staying in Iraq instead repeating the patronizing, infantile, and insulting lies of the Bush administration about staying to spread democracy, enhance stability, or fight the terrorist boogie man.

IRAQ OIL THEFT MOTIVE:
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2006/09/iraq-oil-war-resources.html

If these guys were serious about fighting terror, our news would be all about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, not Iraq and Iran.

Terror is the excuse, not the reason.

[PaulAbrams]

George Will on 'This Week' said that by Gen Petraeus's OWN STANDARDS the surge has failed according to the NIE. Petraeus's standards are to provide security for reconciliation. This was the bloodiest summer of the war, civilian deaths are 62/day compared to 33/day last year. Reconciliation has gone backwards not forwards.

[speakingtruth2power]

Thank you Bill!

Thanks for yet another honest statement that separates you from the front runners who are incapable of taking this clear stand. Those who think we should be in Iraq are the same who will let the MIC lead US into a conflict with Iran.

[Waitaminute]

Just dump most of the equipment, get on the freaking planes and humbies and leave. Takes one to two months. Anyone saying it will take more then 2 months is full of it.

[Waitaminute]

So we invade their country, Kill their women and children. Raping, torturing, humiliating,piling them up on top of each other naked, sicking dogs on them, making fathers have sex with their sons, raping wive and daughters in front of their families, Raping children,Using chemical weapons on them, etc. Now we the invaders, pretend we are concern about what will happen to them if we leave. Stop the bullshit!

[US55588144]

Let's not talk about Abu Graib. Lets talk about all your other charges. Can you prove that those things happened? No bull, just facts.

[dotmafia]

You want to end this war?

Start by consistently and continually showing the American public the daily effects of it on the Iraqi population.

Without censure.

Show the blown-up bodies.

Show the dead and wounded children.

Show the grieving families of the dead and wounded.

Anyone who criticizes this as blatantly indecent, should question the decency of what America has forced upon the Iraqi civilians.

I recently went to the Dominican Republic on vacation and was shocked to see 2-3 minutes of news footage of up-close dead bodies from a car accident. This is routine there. It is done to try and make people drive better by showing them the consequences of bad driving.

If the American public was truly exposed to the realities of what their government and politicians subject the peoples of other nations to, they would not be so quick to send their sons and daughters off to war, and they would think twice about the decency of their own morals and "Christian values".

The American mass media is party to this illegal, cruel and unjust war. Shame, shame, shame on them.
_

[mamacat]

We won the Bush's Iraq war in just three weeks. We should have brought our troops home reasonably soon after winning the war.

What we have lost is the peace.

[Boadicea]

This has been a most engaging thread of commentary. Thank you my friends, on both sides of the aisle.

[RogueCowboy]

Next time a Pro-War Hack is interviewed someone needs to ask what the IMPACT is if we stay for another decade. Our top GENERAL ON THE GROUND has stated that it will take AT LEAST a decade to "WIN".

How many more US Troops killed? 10,000?
How many more US Troops wounded? 50,000?
How many more ISF killed? 30,0000?
How any more ISF Wounded? 150,000?
How many more Iraqi Civilians killed? 250,000?
How many more Iraqi Civilians wounded? 1.5 Million?
How many more Iraqi's will be displayed from their homes? 50,000/month? 6 Million?
Will there be any Iraqi's left to GOVERN or be GOVERNED when we "WIN" and establish a DEMOCRATIC IRAQ?

Oh ya, then ask what the impact will be if we withdraw 100,000 troops by the end of 2008?

[dartagnan]

If you define "winning" as establishing a stable, democratic nation in Iraq, we will not win in 10 years, or 100, or 500.

There is no "nation of Iraq." There is a collection of disparate ethnic and religious groups that have been hating and killing each other for a thousand years. You cannot make a nation out of people who do not want to be a nation.

[TheFoundingFathers]

Well to all believe the surge has failed, the following should put a dent in that argument. The title and first paragraph are followed by the link to copy and paste to the full story. Read it if you dare. You won't see it in the MSM.
Iraqi Killed Saving U.S. Troops
An Iraqi man saved the lives of four U.S. Soldiers and eight civilians when he intercepted a suicide bomber during a Concerned Citizens meeting in the town of al-Arafia Aug. 18.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,146880,00.html

[dartagnan]

And this proves the surge is working ... how?

[kirotahoe]

the nevada caucases are right around the same time as iowa, yet the pundits in washington act as if it doesn't exist. anybody notice?

[belikejeanvaljean]

Yeah, I've wondered about that myself. I also wonder why there is dramatically unequal converage of the candidates by the mainstream media. Hillary gets headlines for the clothes she wears, Obama gets a headline every time he releases a new campaign ad, but little or nothing on the others. Even the "debates" are skewed that way - basically they are the Hillary/Obama show.

I resent the fact that media has chosen a couple of candidates and is telling us to pick one. And like you said, why isn't Nevada being covered?