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.
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 for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
i too think we have to get all our troops safely out of the way. but, where do you put them? we must provide some kind of buffer between turkey and the kurds. it would be terrible to let one good and one decent ally clash. particularly as we aren't well represented in persia and some of the stans. bill needs to elaborate. to pull out is not enough. we can't simply turn our backs on the few true allies in the area. this is the problem i find with richardson, he is sometimes too vague and simplistic. though i do like him. richardson for ambassador to the u.n.!
I seriously hope you are not thinking that a military operation might stop a conflict between Turkey and the Kurds.
Come on people. All we are saying is give peace a chance. We can do much more through negotiation and diplomacy. Lets keep the missiles and the guns for more desperate calls.
Gov. Bill, your statements on Iraq are straightforward and clear, unequivocal compared especially to Hillary about getting out of Iraq. We have business to take care of in this country, to repair infrastructure and make this country really safe. Your statement following her public remarks implying that Repubicans are better in fighting terrorism are also right on the mark. I hope you will find an aggressive voice in asserting your desire to be a strong president in taking care of America first.
The majority of Rethugs & Dems support the US Occupation of Iraq for an indefinite time frame ; that includes Sen. Clinton. . There are various reasons for this. You can speculate as to those reasons. The US Occupation will continue & the Dems will keep funding it. There will be a draw down but at least 60K US Troops & 140K Mercs will remain in Iraq. US presence in Iraq will continue for decades.
Why have Obama, Clinton and Edwards embraced leaving residual troops in Iraq?
Could it have something to do with the lure and the power of having some fifteen or more military bases, that will be like little American cities, and the spectacular new American embassy that will be a city in it's own rights?
Pumping for resideual troops is a sign of approval for this invasion. The three of them must be salivating over the prospect of hegemony and control--and they are wrong. We steal a country by invading it on lies, taking away their sovereinty, destroying the antiquities that have been preserved as going back further in time to the beginnings of civilization.
Wow, Hillary, John boy and barrack---you got it and you want to hold on to it--no doubt you believe in the same idiology of the idiot who has caused so much death and destruction that American style democracy is what every little, defenseless country in the middle east NEEDS!!!
Feh--the three of you stink when it comes to addressing this slaughter in Iraq. The three of you seem to have NO regard for human life, the lives of children who we destroyed at an early age, not having a ghost of a chance for life simply because they were born where they were born. Feh --Clinton--stop the panic mode by using our troops to drum up fear in Americans by asserting YOU are the only one who can handle another terrorist attack. How arrogant, how disgusting.
Feh--we are in Iraq and no matter who is elected president, we will still be in Iraq for many many years as the great imposter emancipator. Your voice and mine is Not HEARD. We are the 1984 prolls. The stupid plod alongs, trying desperately to survive, buty our food, pay the bills,avoid as much as we can a disasterous illness. Feh.
Sir,
The surge was just a big smokescrean - the looting and lies could continue while idots debated a few more troops.
Big joke.
Dead Troops = Halliburton Profits = Money in Dick Cheney's bloody pockets.
It is that simple.
The War has gone VERY WELL for some Americans - Profit, profit, profit.
The troops will die without end so long as the Arms and Oil industry are making a buck.
"The Surge Has Failed; No Residual Troops"
I agree with everything you said, but your headline says The Surge Has Failed, and nothing in your blog is said to support that. How do you know the surge has failed? I think you should say something about it, or change the title to just "No Residual Troops".
Gov, Getting out very quickly is a good idea. The fecaloid statements that the US must remain in Iraq for years in order to leave in an orderly manner makes me think that we'll have leave an army to pick up every chewing gum wrapper that the US dropped in Iraq before the US leaves.
As the infantry says, "Let's haul ass.". Destroy the working equipment; don't bring it back to the states where it will sit unused for 20 years before we give it to an American Legion Post so it can be on the post's lawn.
Bring the troops home alive now.
I have to ask again. How many casualties during the invasion? How many now per month?
How much money per month do we spend on Iraq?
How much have we spent so far on Iraq?
How much would single-payer Universal Health Care cost per year for every American?
Running tally of the cost of King Blinky's Folly: http://www
I agree that we need to get out of Iraq as fast as possible because the majority of Iraqis want us to leave. I'm not sure that majority includes a majority of Kurds in northern Iraq. They not only face an Arabic majority in the south of their country but Turkey to the north and Iran to the east. Turkey at least has suggested punitive military incursions into Kurdish territory to combat PKK factions. The point being that we abandoned the Kurds in 1990 and for the most part they have been more supportive of a US presence now. We shouldn't abandon the again unless they want us to leave.
Except for the above, I think Richardson is correct. His arguments for leaving however aren't the most valid. How many times has this administration told us that Iraq is a sovereign country? At least in a nominal sense Iraq is sovereign. That being the case, they should have the right to determine if our occupation of their country is desirable. Every poll taken to date indicates that a majority of Iraqis want us out. We should leave because our military is deemed part of the problem by the majority of the Iraqi people not part of the solution. Put plainly: our troops are no longer wanted. This is the only justification that matters for troop removal if Iraq is indeed sovereign and if the Iraqi government represents its people rather than US interests.
The elephants in the room are Oil and Genocide. Al Qaeda is a convenient foil. Osama & Company are Happy Campers in Pakistan, all snug and secure. Do they prefer Kettle or Caramel Corn when they watch the chaos in Iraq on CNN every night?
Oil interests compel the retention of residual troops. Genocide is fine (like in Darfur) as long as the victims aren't of value.
Who would we get to drill oil for us if the balance of Iraqis still alive flee or are killed in a gusher Civil War instead of the current I V Drip Civil War? Mexicans? They will be too busy building a wall to keep themselves out of the United States.
Some right wing pundits may call Richardson's policy "cut and run." They should be reminded how this administration "cut and ran" in Afghanistan. Or how Bush and Cheney "cut and ran" from the Viet Nam war. Everytime I hear a wingnut call withdrawel from Iraq "cutting and running," I see a coward who fears his or her manlihood will be questioned. And when such statement is made by one young enough to serve, I see a chicken hawk. America will remain the one great super power in the world even after we leave Iraq.
THank goodness another Democrat is willing to break stride with the war machine. How is it more dangerous to leave the country than to stay in place and get shot at like sitting ducks?
I understand that it is difficult to dismantle and move 150,000 people and the accoutremont, but it it certainly safer for them to be home where the people do not want to kill them.
I propose that we do NOT remove ALL of the equipment we have there. We do have an obligation to the Iraqi people in that we have destroyed thier country - schools, mosques, housing, businesses, hospitals, etc. How about we leave the buildings housing our troops and diplomats for the Iraqi citizens to do with as they please? Maybe they can use them for temporary hospitals? Housing for their own troops? Governmental agencies? Schools? Universities?
Ridirect the finances we are sinking into this occupation (and awarding to Halliburton et al) to give to Iraqi businesses to rebuild and restore utilities. To equip hospitals and schools. To rebuild housing. To allow them to take charge of their own future as they see fit.
If they are rebuilding Iraq, they will have more invested in securing it.
You've got guts, Governor. I think you would make a fine President or VP.
Gov Richarson is right! Get out now!
It was a bogus war effort based on lies that was shoved down our throats, Bush and his Corp butt buddies have treated us to scandals, rip offs, deterioration of our constitutional rights on a daily basis, a complete disregard for the average working person in any trouble at all, (see Katrina) and a continuous assault on our democracy. Why should we have any faith in any surge or other bs the Bush facists tell us.
Hey wake up! these criminals lie, scam, cheat, and steal, and if we survive another 18 months of this "administration" (that's if there's no emergency based coup) we'll be lucky.
Gov. Richardson's right, get out now and as quickly as possible, if we have to leave behind ordinance then tough, no more dead or mutilated soldiers for a lost "cause".
Richarson for President!
As I listen to all the prognosticators telling us what will happen in Iraq I wonder how many dominoes they heard falling after we left Vietnam.
Loading comments…
Posted August 24, 2007 | 03:37 PM (EST)