British Show Bill Richardson to be Right on Iraq

Living in the UK these past several weeks, there is a feeling of 'home-field advantage' in seeing, perhaps darkly, into the future. While we in the United States rely on what passes for dueling experts (mostly, those who have been consistently wrong about all the other aspects of the Iraq War, but c'mon, what's 3800 dead, 25,000 wounded and $1.2Trillion among friends?), concerning the wisdom and consequences of taking certain actions, the British have provided us a real-life experiment, as they have actually withdrawn about 90% of their troops.

A few weeks ago British troops left Basra, the second largest city in Iraq, to take up residence at the airport. Hardly a model of comity despite their Shia commonality, Basra boasts 100 or so militia groups vying for control. It might be worth noting that that area contains about 80% of Iraq's oil reserves, whereas the other 20% are in the north, controlled by the Kurds. The remaining troops were left for training, and for some other ill-defined missions should they be needed.

There is a chance that Shia militias sympathetic to Iran may take over the region with its huge oil reserves. Yet, not a peep from the British public, not an intonation of concern from Bush who nonetheless allows our soldiers to continue to lose their lives and limbs for a result that no one seems able to articulate or envision.

Major Republican Presidential candidates are falling over one another to beat the drums for more and continued war, at least so long as none of Mitt Romney's 5 sons have to serve in it. All the major Democratic candidates, with one exception, have hedged their bets, talking about removing all "combat troops", but leaving other troops behind, and were unable to tell Russert in the debate that all US troops would be out of Iraq by 2013.

What happened when the British withdrew? Convulsive bloodletting on a scale that would make Rwanda appear like an isolated murder as our "experts" predicted---it was the one thing the Dems and Repubs agreed upon? Well, no. More like a dramatic ~90% reduction in violence. That, little Bushiphiles, beats the surge by a long shot.

Today, there was another interesting revelation in the British press. An 'all-party' defence parliamentary committee inquiry concluded that there is virtually no rationale for leaving the remaining troops, i.e., those that were left there for training and to fight the insurgency. None. Zero. Zilch. Zorch.

Bill Richardson is the only major candidate that answered that debate question definitively: 'remove all troops' , meaning zero US troops left by 2013, and indeed withdrawing them as rapidly as logistically and safely possible. He made it clear that he meant ALL US troops, the combat troops everyone talks about and the so-called non-combat troops that would number 50 or 60 or 75,000.

A quick perusal of Richardson's website shows he has been taking this position throughout the campaign. He came under blistering attack, even ridicule, and that position has cost him some votes, but he has stuck with it. Once-upon-a-time, that was called that leadership.

The British experience is about as close to a controlled experiment as there will ever be in foreign policy, and the evidence suggests that Richardson has been correct all along. Yes, the situation in the south is different from al-Anbar province, and yes, the situation in the south could deteriorate instantaneously, and the militias go after one another. But, isn't that the point: no matter how long we stay, when we leave there will be a snapshot in time of how it is working, and then the Iraqis will resolve their differences themselves.

Barack was the only major candidate in either party who was right early-on. Richardson is the only one who has it right now.

Comments

[research]

Paul, Kucinich was very clear about leaving no troops in Iraq. Brain Fart?

Kucinich/Richarson good ticket.

Strength through Peace!

[Lazslo]

Bill Richardson will be on MSNBC's Harball with Chris Matthews today, December 5, 2007. Please give this interview a listen today, if you can.

[Think82]

You say "no matter how long we stay, when we leave there will be a snapshot in time of how it is working, and then the Iraqis will resolve their differences themselves."

Actually, there is a candidate willing to go the extra mile and put forward a political solution for Iraq so we can withdraw our troops and not leave chaos behind. That is JOE BIDEN.

Don't go by soundbites. Read his plan at www.planforiraq.com

HE is the only candidate addressing the question "then what" which no one else, even Richardson, will address. The plan got 75 votes in Congress, yet the media chose mostly to ignore this.

Richardson has been making impractical promises, saying we can completely get out within 6 months, when most military leaders will say it takes at least 12. Now Richardson says 12 months after Biden corrected him.

[Pyrum]

I won't be supporting Bill Richardson. He wants a National I.D. as part of his immigration plan, and that's a deal breaker for me.

[thedirtman]

Everyone seems to be throwing mud at Richardson these days. Lou Dobbs was at it yesterday with his set of scare tactics. A lot of the comments on his image is just racism. Scrolling down the page and reading there isn't anything but petty excuses and smear.

I used to think that it was Bush's fault that America's troops are stuck in Iraq and we can't find our way to peace and prosperity. I see the problem differently now. The problem is us. We simply cannot do the right thing.

This is pathetic.

[altohone]

First, buying into that 2013 trick question as an indicator of policy is silly.

Guarenteeing withdrawal without having a crystal ball is foolish.

- Bush screws up Iraq even more before leaving office.
- Saudi Arabia openly supports Iraq's Sunni's with money and arms.
- Iran invades.

There, three potential future scenarios that would make a guarentee impossible to keep. I can think of many others.

You should note that being unable to guarentee withdrawal isn't the same as giving a guarentee we will stay (hence it was a trick question designed to trip up Obama and Edwards).
I'd add that Hillary has promised to keep 60,000 troops in Iraq (see interview in New Yorker)... essentially guarenteeing she would stay.

Richardson is a Clinton insider who initially supported the war. I believe he is running to the left in order to help Hillary get elected and secure his job as VP or Sec. State or something.

Obama showed integrity when it counted.
Richardson's newfound niche on the left comes across as pandering, designed to help his former boss's wife.

[digitboy]

WHY WAIT UNTIL 2013?

Bring them home NOW!

Impeach the war criminals NOW!

KUCINICH for President.

[Ravenlea]

Not really. Kucinich also favors removing all the troops. He just gets even less air time than Richardson, Biden and Dobbs.

[Thurber]

Too bad he still believes that sexuality ... straight or gay, needs a scientists to figure out. Otherwise, this guy would be the clear and obvious choice.

[StephenCassidy]

Thanks Paul. Why would anyone support a candidate for President that can't commit to the withdrawal of our forces from Iraq by 2013? Clinton, Obama and Edwards just don't get it. We want all of our troops out, not "maybe" and you have to wait until I become President before I'll make a firm decision one way or the other.

[jdm58]

Last night I had the good fortune to watch "No End In Sight" on DVD, chronicling our involvement in Iraq, which I highly recommend to anyone who wishes to gain a greater understanding of the complexities of this war, and the blunders we have made fighting it. We have miscalculated our actions and misjudged the Iraqis for so long, that it is apparent that nothing short of full departure from the region will offer any hope of stability or normalcy to those who are left, even though that sense of stability may not exactly mirror what we had originally envisioned. It is too late to try and right the wrongs done. Any attempts now to further force our agenda will only result in the creation of an alliance of several factions of self-interested religious and facist dictators, to be supported endlessly by our military. Even then, peace would not be real, only superficial. The only hope that the Iraqis have is that we will leave this mess sooner than later, and let them sort it out. Iraqi troops are ready, and available to defend their national interests (even though we "fired" them at the outset of our occupation), and they have the weapons (from the dumps which we were unable to maintain control over, again due to the initial lack of ground forces). The rest of the region will eventually find it necessary to offer support, but we will have to leave first in order for them to do so.
If we do leave, I can only hope that the NGO and Iraqis who worked with us from the beginning of this debacle will be allowed an exit strategy as well, to avoid the inevitable reprisals that will occur when we depart. "Victory", as defined and redefined by the Bush regime, is no longer possible.

[emsique]

Instead of covering the candidates' positions on the issues, the media covers the money raised, and positions in the polls. Bill Richardson is mostly ignored by the media, which is too lazy to give us anything but horse race coverage. I am a long time Richardson supporter, and I find myself explaining who he is to many of my informed friends and relatives, because they have been relying on the MSM to educate themselves rather than digging a little deeper. Maybe he can pull a Huckabee and get noticed in spite of the lame election coverage.

[ProgressivePartisan]

Can we come to SOME agreement that Governor Richardson - the Democratic candidate for President who offers THE BEST resume/program for that office {IMO} - lacks the imprimatur of the "all knowing" MSM?

[Stoyver]

The bloodbath-if-we-leave argument was promulgated by "geniuses" in the Bush Administration. The very same "Israel first" neocon embeciles that were wrong about nearly everything else they said. I am not surprised at the British experience in Basra. I hope we soon see the same in the rest of Iraq.

Unfortunately, the PNAC-defined reality of the Iraq situation is that we will stay in Iraq in the permanent bases we have constructed permanently. The intent is to rule Iraq from the $20B embassy/fortress that American taxpayers financed. But it gets worse, we will then "project power" in the region. Who knows where that will lead us. More war most likely. Voters need to either get used to war or clean house in our government before its too late.

[lisakaz]

Good for him. I'm glad and I wish he and the press played this up versus the "surge is working" claptrap. Frankly, I'd like to see Richardson as Sec. of State under anyone other than Clinton.