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

[Give Peace A Chance]

I agree 100% with Richardson. Remove all troops within 6 months.

[Think82]

No military man will tell you we can get out in 6 months. Logistically, it will take at least 10 mo. to a year at minimum. Richardson is catering to the far left wing of the party by telling you he can "get out the fastest."

[Nyland8]

Bullshit

8

.

[zizyphus]

Richardson has the nerve to tell it like it should be.

Of course we should get out, and get out now. We are going to leave a mess, but the longer we stay, the worse the mess becomes.

We need to concentrate on bringing freedom and democracy back to the United States of America before we inflict it on others.

On that note, I wish to commend Governor Richardson for supporting medical marijuana. What a sad, sad country we live in now, when we allow our Federal Government to drag cancer patients, multiple sclerosis patients, glaucoma patients and others off to jail for using the medicine their doctors have prescribed.

What I see is this: our Federal Government's various agencies have become so corrupt that they have become like Mafias. Corrupt gangs of thugs that break into people's homes, kill or jail them and and steal what ever they can with the government's blessing. CIA, FBI, IRS, DEA, ATF, and the rest.

[m.e.f.]

"We need to concentrate on bringing freedom and democracy back to the United States of America before we inflict it on others."
Well put.

And, we need to reap the peace dividend.

As the bumper sticker says, "One evil empire down, one to go."

[boddhisatva66]

this has been going on for a long time withese federal agencies. crack, cocaine, meth, heroin in the hood. now in suburbia, and they could give a crap. war on drugs my a**. they have been making billions for ever on the backs of the drug addicted, and funding more terrorists with it. SOB'S

[Think82]

it is better to get out responsibly than it is to get out quickly. Both is better, but the first should trump the latter

[Nyland8]

Staying in Iraq for one more day is irresponsible

8

.

[bdl0715]

Even though I live in Illinois and like Obama very much, I think Richardson would be my first choice for President. With his experience as a Congressman, Ambassador, Department Secretary and Governor, I think he has the most well rounded experience of anyone. Of course, Bush went with experience in picking Cheney, Rumsfield and the rest and look how that turned out.

If Richardson is still in the running in Feb, I will probably vote for him.

[researcher]

we need fresh blood not old blood. no one will solve our problems the problems are in the system.

unchecked capitalism will lead to imperialism.

look around that is exactly what we have.

change the economic system.

america is a bully and people hate bullys.

[LizM]

Of course, experience is necessary but not, by any means, sufficient. Experience AND a proven track record of providing wise and intelligent leadership, not to mention impeccable and unimpeachable foreign policy and national security credentials, is what we need in the White House.

I would respectfully submit that Senator Biden stands alone, among ALL the presidential candidates - announced and otherwise - in meeting and, indeed, exceeding these criteria.

[Think82]

Look at Biden, too. 34 years in the senate. Chairman of foreign relations committee. Voted "most knowledgeable" in every one of the debates so far. Also, he has the most detailed and substantive plan for Iraq, which many people are coming around to embrace. He was also instrumental in our successful campaign in the Balkans under Clinton. My two cents. read about his plan at planforiraq.com

[jwielhouwer]

living in new mexico I am blessed daily by bill skills as an executive, with the benefit of his moral awareness. He is the real exit out of the bush swamp.

[Boadicea]

Bill Skill.

Love that. Hope it sticks.

[dogman44]

I also am a denizen of New Mexico. I like the Gov., and recently changed my registration from ind. to dem. so I can back him in the primaries.
Everytime he leaves the state to campaign he is trashed by the reich for,well, leaving the state to campaign.
Govner Bill is not the darling of the reich aligned media. I spoze this is why we don't hear more about him.

[Dirkh]

I'm delighted to see a candidate make the hard call--that less people will die if we leave than if we stay.

[Boadicea]

I agree with complete withdrawal, though I'm no military analyst and I can't pretend to understand the economic implications of such a pullout.

And I don't need any meat on Richardson's plan. The meat is for the military to work out. Meat is a waste of time for candidates. Just ask Hillary.

What I need is for Governor Richardson's camapaign staff to spend some money on improving their candidate's image. And I need Richardson to delegate more at home, and then take some time to prepare more for his debates and other public appearances. I realize that Richardson is a "hands-on" governor, but the country needs him to mount a more credible campaign.

Richardson, on his record and resume, would be a terrific president. But it seems that he and his campaign have done everything possible to hide that from the public.

[cynara]

Agreed. Gov. Richardson, I already think that you would make the best, most qualified, president. Please work on being the best campaigner. A debate coach could do you a world of good. (though your last debate was better than the previous)

[Think82]

Actually, his campaign never shuts up about his resume. I think Richardson is a good guy, but Biden is really right on Iraq if you actually look into what's REALLY going on there. Please take a look at his plan (theres has plenty of "meat", I'm not sure why you don't need to see "the meat", are you content to be ignorant? Are you afraid of learning something you don't want to hear?)at planforiraq.com. It really does make a lot of sense and Richardson has tentatively endorsed the main concept of this plan. He's making a big deal that he can get out "the quickest" but that isn't the main point, whether it's or 12 months or whatever. Things will really only get better when you have specifics for the POLITICAL solution there, and Biden has been on top of this from the beginning and is the only candidate willing to go into specifics about what needs to be done there.

[Nyland8]

It is not for us to make things better for Iraq. That time has come and gone. It is time for us to leave Iraq. It is exactly that kind of hubris, the idea that WE can do for the Iraqis what they cannot do for themselves, that got us into this mess to begin with.

Iraq should be left to fend for itself. Every day we remain is another day of failure. Every dollar we spend is another dollar wasted. Every soldier's life we sacrifice is another sacrifice with zero return on investment.

It's time to go ... in fact, it is long past time to go.

It was time to go three years ago

8

.

[FlowerGirl]

This plan leaves American troops in Iraq indefinitely, as required by that PNAC plan. Now where on earth do you think that plan originated?

[Ben Dixon]

With all due respect Governer Richardson (and as a Republican I respect you more than some in my party) if the Iraqi's have not made any serious strides towards reconciliation and reconstruction by now, then whether or not we still have troops there won't change that.

[thedirtman]

Richardson is also the fiscal conservative Democrat who would not raise taxes. You would think that Republicans, with the shape they are in, would be registering Democrat to get Richardson elected.

[PerryWhite]

What about Germany, Japan and Italy?

[ute]

What about Sugar-Pops, anthills and hangnails?

(wtf?)

You clearly don't understand the difference between WWII and the Bush/Cheney Invasion and Occupation of Iraq.

[PerryWhite]

One difference is that WWII is over, so why are we still in Germany, Japan and Italy?

[rhutcheson]

Mr. Richardson,

Are there any areas of the world which you would define as beyond U.S. national interests?

Can you define the U.S. national interests to which you would commit U.S. military action?

Do you believe that the U.S. should strive to maintain it's status as sole superpower?

[timbyrnes]

Military action is not in the best interests of the citizens of this country.
The US ought to be interested in joining the great family of nations and no longer feel it is special as the sole superpower.

A little humility and less arrogance would be refreshing.

[slb1182]

"A little humility and less arrogance would be refreshing­."

Wouldn't it be nice if someone actually took this to heart?

[Boadicea]

These are excellent questions, and they raise an issue we should all think about.

Since WWII, our main efforts to further our interests have been military - unlike other countries, which focus on diplomacy and economic win-win efforts, the US has consistently used military action to address broad US national interests.

Is this something we want to continue to do? People in other countries successfully take a different approach. Do we really need to bomb so many people?

[USMCDem]

The reason so many other countries (particularly European ones) focus on diplomatic and economic overtures is because they are militarily toothless. Europe doesn't see the need to substantially re-arm, and feels the security to preach about non-military approaches, precisely because the United States wastes billions of dollars in basing our troops in and around the continent.

[plutorage]

rhutcheson -

How can the USA be the world's "superpower" if it has no effective power over one defenseless country with 26 million people after increasing the USA defence budget from $200 billion a year (1999) to $600 billion (2008)?

Why would somebody define an area as beyond US national interest? What is the meaning of the question? What interest are we talking about?

You do not commit US military action to "national interests". It doesn't make any sense.

It is time to stop repeating nonsense and start thinking about all the crap that has gone into the head of the American public for the purpose of relieving them of their peace dividend.

Richardson just got my vote. Whatever they put in the water in New Mexico, it beats whatever they put in the air in Washington DC.

[ute]

Amen, plutorage!

Clear, level-headed, reality-based reasoning gets my attention after 6+ years of rightwing spin, flip-flopping and faith-based "logic."

Thank you.

[rhutcheson]

Plutorage:

Current U.S. 'defense' policy under has us committed to maintaining military superiority not just over any ACTUAL rival but over any POSSIBLE rival, so as to discourage any attempt to match us militarily. That means continued spending on development and implementation on a deep-water Coast Guard, and shallow-water Navy, 100,000 more Army troops, SDI, and whatever NSA projects they can think of. That's the practical consequence of the decision to remain the ONLY super-power, and it means continued decimation of domestic spending projects.

National interest used to be the criterion for national action - some things could happen somewhere in the world that would not merit U.S. intervention. Right now, we seem to have no definition of national interest in this sense, and therefore have no self-imposed restraint on military or other aggressive action. I don't like action on narrow national self-interest, but a least it sets a limit on the reasons for aggressive action.

I think I like Mr. Richardson, but I'd like to hear his thoughts on these issues before committing to his support.

[MilwaukeeDan]

You're not asking for much, are you hutch. Shouldn't you be asking if he's pro gay marriage?

[rhutcheson]

MilwaukeeDan: I don't think it's too much to ask what the candidate's position is.

I also realize that some possible answers might involve abandoning a lot of support, but I'd like to find someone like Richardson who would disavow the intention of ruling the known world.

[pelosiforpresident]

I'll give you my answers:
1. Anywhere outside our borders
2. Self-defense only
3. No

[USMCDem]

I would appreciate it if the governor actually added some meat to his rather bare-boned seven points. An explanation of how he envisions a "6 month pull-out" without abandonment of equipment and undue risk to troops would be welcome.

[MilwaukeeDan]

I'm not a logistics expert, but how do 80,000+ fans leave the Rose Bowl, get in your gas guzzling SUV and drive. We only have 160,000? troops there. Airlift some equipment/personel from Baghdad then move the rest north toward NATO Turkey and south to Kuwait, with air support. The bigger risk to the troops is if they stay there. I don't think you need 6 months to do that, maybe 6 days. I think most Iraqis would be thrilled to let us leave peacefully.

[USMCDem]

A tactical withdrawal in a country where we don't have secure lines of communication along MSRs that every jihadist and Shia militia member would flock to ... yes, that sounds like a delightfully easy proposition.
I don't object to withdrawal, but I do think Gov. Richardson and others do a disservice to the public when they paint such a trouble-free picture. Better that they explain up-front that we will experience a fair deal of casualties and materiel losses if we withdraw in a precipitous manner, more perhaps than if we took longer and did it right

[lentinelia]

I agree.
Clinton, Edwards and Obama all buy into the scenario of the Bush administration. They represent the most conservative elements of the democratic party with respect to the war.
This is part of the reason we can't get anywhere. No one but Richardson and Kucinich are calling for getting out.
The other three are saying the war is bad - let's get out - but let's stay there.
Bravo Richardson.
Maybe you can generate some positive energy.

[Dap]

Exactly... Remember how Rumsfeld hyped the rapid reaction forces, well Rumsfeld was correct they crossed Iraq lke a swarm of locus, three weeks.

[UNCLEJOE]

The leaders of the Patriotic Iraqi Insurgents Offered to allow US troops to leave under a cease fire; their only condition was to leave our military equipment.
The Pentagon a few weeks ago reported that our military equipment was worn-out and needed replacement; so let them have the junk and leave under their conditions of a cease fire.
What is one American soldiers life worth to all that worn out military equipment ?
Six days for an evacuation of American troops out of Iraq is about the time it took for us to leave Vietnam under aggressive attacks.
Where is the logic for taking six months to withdraw all our troops? Is that six month's time needed to divest our congressmen's investments in Halliburton and Union-Mobile oil and just enough time to squeeze out a few more billion green backs from the USA treasury for deposit in Cheney's Swiss bank account?
Indubitably !

[SensibleAmerican]

"80,000 fans in the Rose Bowl" do NOT have to pack up equipment, living quarters, humvees, tanks, civilian personnel and their equipment and livign quarters/tents etc.. They are also not shot at nor have IEDs exploding as they leave on ground and they are never airlifted! Lastly it is each man to himself as they walk out their "SUVs"! They don't have to escort those driving hybrids!

Now for some less frivolous considerations and with a reality check:

A brigade a month for a clean/safe withdrawal is a conservative armed services figure. It can be accelerated to 1.5 brigades/month as recently and correctly proposed by Sentaor Biden

[Dap]

You, USMCTROLL don't have a clue, all the equipment and troops could be brought out in less time if push came to shove. You and those like you that use such sophism are not to be trusted.

We fought are way in against a real army in a month, surely we could fight our way out in three months, besides those Shites down in Basara could use a bit of arse kickin on our exit. So please give it a break, will ya! You claim to be a soldier, Jeeeesh!

I could walk out of Iraq in three months, carrying you.

[USMCDem]

I don't claim to be a soldier, Dap, I am a Marine. Pay attention.
I wonder if you would be so gung-ho about fighting the whole way out if you were over there. And as to the invasion, I took part in it, and I can assure you that the "real army" we fought mostly disintegrated as soon as we made contact. The problem now becomes pulling out with a guerrilla force (or forces) attacking us all along the way. That is where the bloodshed would come from, and when others like you try to portray it as otherwise you're doing nothing but setting people up for disillusionment.

[Ladyrantsalot]

USMCDem is raising important issues that can't be ignored. They shouldn't be used as an excuse to stay-the-c­ourse-to-l­oserdom, but a disastrous withdrawal will be, well, a disaster. Anyway, s/he's not a troll.

[rhutcheson]

There's really no reason to personally attack USMCDem. After all, probably 30% of all American agree with him.

Better to point out that Richardson is not calling for a precipitous withdrawal - 6 months seems like a pretty long time to me.

[FearlessFreep]

Read Xenophon's ANABASIS.

Is it so terrible to leave equipment behind?

[USMCDem]

There's a difference between a hoplite's arms and armor and billions worth of sensitive equipment.
Still, bravo for working a reference of the Ten Thousand into the debate.

[rustyaustin]

Give me two weeks and I'll get everyone and everything outta there that isn't nailed down, the nailed down stuff we destroy or leave behind. It's not that hard. I once moved 25,000 people across the county in less than a day.

[laocoon]

We do not want an army that is any more degraded than necessary. Leaving the equipment behind would do that and affect morale and our credibility. There would be sellers remorse among the american people. Like Vietnam we will realize there were some costs and negatives to leaving. (Lets minimize them) Like the post invasion Iraq when we realized there were some costs and negatives to the invasion/o­ccupation. We react like spoiled children and not adults who must realize we chose between courses of action none of which will turn out to be Disneyland.

[Think82]

yes, because then insurgents will find a way to obtain old weapons and use it in more terrorist attacks.

[LizM]

Don't hold your breath! The Governor has nothing to add to his "bare-boned seven points". In fact, to call his seven points "bare-boned" is being far too generous.

Did you notice how he didn't mention his most vocal critic on this issue - Joe Biden. He probably didn't want to invite debate with an opponent he knows he can't hold a candle to.

I'm still waiting for Governor Richardson to explain how he would begin a diplomatic surge after all US troops are withdrawn and the country has descended into complete chaos. Gimme a break!

[Dap]

Give us a *Break* Senator Biden, is wrong, Wrong, WRONG!

Oh... and BTW He's *NOT* going to be President, there are many candidates better than Biden.

[researcher]

leave like we did in vietnam get the hell out of there fast. if we tell them we are leaving they will be so overjoyed they will help us get out. except the government must send them to america for safe keeping.

it is civil war time folks. the karma for this imperialism i fear will be much worst than nam.

only gravel called it like it is imperialism.