Rating the Presidential Candidates on Iraq; Another Agonizing Year Ahead

While most peace activists are evaluating the Democrats, I would rank Rudolph Giuliani as the most dangerous of all the presidential candidates in a long while, because his Iraq and Iran policies are the work of the most hawkish neo-conservatives who promoted the Iraq quagmire and now want to bomb Iran as soon as possible. Though far better than Giuliani, Sen. Joseph Biden is the worst Democratic candidate because of his demand that partition be imposed on Iraq. The front-running Democrat, Sen. Hillary Clinton, is so ambiguous on Iraq that she risks losing the general election by driving enough of the progressive vote to inevitable third party candidates.

Giuliani is advised by a network of neo-con hawks led by Norman Podhoretz who call for a Cold War-type struggle against "Islamofascism," the immediate bombing of Iran [Commentary, June 2007], the right to assassinate the leaders of Iran and North Korea, and the assumption that all American Muslims are suspect. [New York Times]. They are a well-organized machine with millions of dollars available to attack MoveOn and bankroll campus campaigns against the new foreign enemy of Islamofascism, which they believe can and must be militarily defeated.

Principled Democrats with single-digit support at present should be considered as strong voices against the war, and possible contributors to a long-term progressive movement, but not as likely nominees. Among them, Biden, who could become secretary of state under a Democratic president, takes the most dangerous position, favoring a de-facto breakup or partitioning of Iraq, with each religious group policing its own areas. That would mean forced migration for millions of Iraqis from their homes in Shi'a-dominated Basra, for example, to Sunni-dominated Anbar province. Sen. Chris Dodd, while taking a strong position against the confirmation of Bush's nominee for attorney general, has been murky in his anti-war views during the campaign. While supporting a 12-18 month pullout, he also wants American troops redeployed away from major Iraqi cities to the border regions and to Kurdistan, Kuwait, Qatar, and Afghanistan. [speech Oct. 12, 2006]

Bill Richardson, another candidate for a future cabinet position, takes the cleanest position of all on Iraq, promising to remove all American troops within one year while launching diplomatic efforts towards regional stability. And, of course, Dennis Kucinich is an anchor for the anti-war community.

Among the current front-runners, John Edwards takes the strongest anti-war position, calling for an immediate troop withdrawal of 40-50,000 U.S. troops, a withdrawal of remaining troops in 12-18 months, and diplomatic peace initiatives. Edwards' position includes a significant loophole, however, for "sufficient" U.S. troops to remain in the region to prevent a terrorist haven or ethnic genocide. Edwards also is on record favoring the intensifying of training for Iraqi security forces. [New York Times, Feb. 26, 2007]

Sen. Barack Obama's position has somewhat improved with its latest nuances. He favors a steady withdrawal taking 16 months. [New York Times, Nov. 2]. Backing away from open-ended support of American trainers in the midst of a dirty sectarian war, Obama says he would support trainers only if the Baghdad regime commits to political reconciliation and reforms its sectarian police, an almost impossible scenario to imagine. Further, Obama would not allow American trainers to be placed "in harm's way." But he also favors an unspecified number of American troops in the region able to conduct "counter-terrorism" or return in the "short term" to Iraq in the event of genocide against civilians. Obama seems trapped between his tendency to build a "new center" and the need to sharpen his differences over Iraq with Hillary Clinton.

Obama correctly links a withdrawal plan with motivating other countries to engage in regional stabilization: "Once it's clear that we're not intending to stay there for 10 years or 20 years, all these parties have an interest in figuring out how do we adjust in a way that stabilizes the situation." And Obama has toughened his stand against escalating the conflict to Iran. Instead he would engage in "aggressive personal diplomacy" including a promise to end bush's policy of regime change in exchange for Iranian cooperation in regional stability.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee at this point, remains the most indecipherable of the candidates on Iraq. On the one hand, she pledges "to end the war" and has voted against the Bush surge and in favor of a March 2008 withdrawal deadline for combat troops. She has suggested, but not insisted on, cutting off funding for Iraqi security forces and private contractors unless reforms by the Iraqi government are guaranteed. [New York Times, Feb. 26, 2007] On the other hand, she most clearly favors leaving a large number of Americans, a "scaled down force," in Iraq indefinitely to fight al-Qaeda, train the Iraqi army, and resist Iranian encroachment. [New York Times, Nov. 2, 2007]. She cast an unsettling hawkish vote to define the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group, which may have reflected her positioning for the November election, and has telegraphed a message that Iraq is "right in the heart of the oil region...[and] directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of the region, to Israel's interests." [New York Times, Mar. 15, 2007]

Clearly, anti-war opinion in the early primary states will be a major factor determining the candidates' positioning. Edwards has put pressure on Obama and Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire, and Obama puts pressure on Clinton across the board. But Clinton already is trending towards her general election platform against another "vast right-wing conspiracy." In the short-term, she wants to be positioned as sufficiently anti-war and leave Edwards and Obama appearing more "extreme", which may be a misreading of public opinion. The other Democratic candidates will seek to appear more anti-war than Clinton because the issue is their only way to gain traction with the multitudes of anti-war voters in the primaries. Clinton depends on rallying Democrats and independents to her side by contrasting herself with Giuliani, Mitt Romney or John McCain. Whether that approach can prevail, or seem too frustratingly evasive, remains to be seen in the long campaign ahead.

If Clinton gains the nomination on an Iraq platform that disappoints enough independents and Obama or Edwards supporters, a two-percent space will open for Ralph Nader and/or Cynthia McKinney to possibly make the difference in the November election. Recent polls show Clinton in a virtual dead heat with Giuliani among independent voters who otherwise lean Democratic. If she refuses to take a more forthright stand on Iraq, she may try returning to her domestic strength by arguing that unlimited and wasteful Republican spending on Iraq will prevent her from achieving national health care, a priority issue for a majority of Americans where Giuliani is clearly on the wrong side. As president, she could describe her slow troop withdrawals as a peace dividend, a transfer of resources from war to health care for veterans and all Americans.

Or worst case, her appearance of wobbling on Iraq/Iran could reinforce a voter perception of such principled and unpredictable opportunism that the Democrats could lose a close election once again.

TOM HAYDEN is the author of Ending the War in Iraq [Akashic, 2007]. He has not endorsed any candidate for president. He is a national board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and the editorial board of the Nation magazine.

Comments

[godsbreath64]

The election takes 15-17 hours and is a year away. The agony is the Madame Media shuckin up the billions until then.

Got coverage?

[LeeFromVA]

Obama is the obvious choice to win the General election. If he can beat Hillary there's no stopping him. If Hillary is the nominee, then I agree with you, there's a real chance that Rudy could be our next president. Now that's scary. But isn't he the Neocon choice? Somehow they always get what they want. Coincidence? So our bleak choices will be continued Neocon rule, or Neocon-lite with Hillary. Barack Obama is our only hope. No way he loses in a general election.

[Countess]

Biden and Clinton are both promoters of the American Empire and both are completely oblivious to the pain and suffering of the people of Iraq. The only thing that matters to them is to better manage the region for Israel.

[DSPinPW]

Rudolph Giuliani's true colors were revealed when he wanted to extend his service as Mayor of New York beyond the legal term limits using the 9/11 attacks as an excuse. GWB has used the same rationale to take away Habeus Corpus, right to privacy, the taboo of torture and illegal wiretapping just to name a few of the biggies.

The question that I can't answer for myself, is whether any candidate who wants to do better can get elected without compromising their values, hiding their true opinions and taking money from opposing interests.

[smheart78]

Again Huff, you're missing this and its right in front of your eyes, 'forced migration'? When did this enter into the Biden plan? This was certainly not in the resolution. It seems like the Huff post is being forced to migrate to the front-runners mentality. Let's get to it Huff. I guess this is why this blog wasn't front and center.

[cuthbertallgood]

Dennis Kucinich.

[thedirtman]

U.S. troops do not have to be committed to Iraq. Iraq has no authority over our troops. They are a capable people - quite capable of deciding the kind of government they want for themselves and defending that government.

U.S. troops can be committed to defending the interests of the U.S. In order to begin this new century with a new vision we need to reclaim our troops. We can reduce our need for oil. We can restore our compassionate image world-wide. We can restore diplomacy as an element to our international relations.

Only through hard work and education in seeking alternative energy sources can we begin to free the United States from its burden as global oil referee. We need to get out of Iraq and let the diplomatic process begin.

[LizM]

Well, you sure got the part about another agonizing year ahead right.

[DanielB]

Joe Biden has 32 years experience as a politician and he has 30 years behind him on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and 14 on the Judiciary. He is the most respected of all the candidates on both sides of the aisle, especially on foreign policy, which is traditionally under the purview of the President. He is an independent thinker, a pragmatic idealist and brings valuable nuanced insight to politics and public discourse and knows how to navigate the intricacies of the system to get more things done efficiently than any of the other candidates.

He is not only strong on matters of foreign relations and the judiciary (he also teaches law at a college and has degrees in law, history & political science), but he is also strong on domestic issues. He authored such bills as the Biden Crime Bill (aka the COPS program) that put 10,000 cops on the street to a bill that set up shelters and hotlines for women being victimized by their abusive husbands. If you would like, I can elaborate a little more on his domestic issues.

Biden is the only Democratic candidate I know of who has the most bipartisan appeal. A relatively recent poll shows that Biden is the
most trusted Dem on foreign policy, which is traditionally the province of the president. Biden is the only politician who has a
comprehensive plan for ending the war in Iraq, which scores him a lot of points among upwards of 3 million voters. He beat out Hillary Clinton on a recent debate on Iraq (and Iraq is likely going to be the most important issue in 2008). Plus, he's the only viable candidate who has a chance among the far-left, at least compared to Hillary, who votes more than 40% of the time with Bush while Biden votes less than 20% of the time with Bush. Yet, he commands tremendously more bipartisan respect. I think this is because Hillary is seen as pandering too much to the right while alienating BOTH sides while Biden builds strong, unbreakable bipartisan bridges.

[jdm58]

I am a former resident of California, and a long time admirer of your steadfast resolve against the neo-con agenda this nation has embedded itself in. So I am surprised that you have overlooked the one candidate that has spoken out, and acted on, many of the same issues you have championed in the past- namely, Dennis Kucinich. Have you mellowed? Or just fallen victim to the same agenda the rest of the MSM has- namely, don't rock the status quo if it bites too deeply into your retirement package. In either case, I am a bit surprised and disappointed, and would have hoped for more from you. Then again, you're not Kucinich, so what do I want from you, the truth?

[Pdubya]

true, it was a confederat­ion....fou­ght internally, amongst ourselves, for and against at that point in time.

i don't recall britain doing that for us.


and we should not for the iraqi's.

help, yes, do, no.

[Plowboy]

As for face changing Clinton, whose position shifts every five minutes when she's in a crowded room, if she gets the nomination about half of us won't vote for her. We won't vote for Giuliani, McCain, or Romney either, but if one of them gets in, what will it matter? They are no more Neocon than Hillary. Nor more enslaved to the warmongers.
My position on Biden is the same. The other Democrats would qualify at present for my vote, some not too enthusiastically, but if the Republicans repudiated the current candidates and drafted Hagel, then I could vote Republican!
The Two Party Swindle doesn't fool as many as it once did!

[SoonerThought]

Have you read Biden's plan? Doubt it. Joe Biden is the one candidate who has a realistic plan for Iraq. He has my vote.

[LizM]

It's really not at all surprising that most people misunderstand even the basics of Senator Biden’s Iraq strategy because most of the reporting on this issue by the media, and throughout the blogosphere, has reflected a profound and collective ignorance of what this strategy is all about. Actually, to really know the Biden strategy is to support it - and demand that it be implemented!

Senator Biden’s strategy for ending the war in Iraq is NOT about imposition, or dictating, or even an effort to conduct an imperial foreign policy! It is about presidential LEADERSHIP, plain and simple. It is also NOT about creating borders. On the contrary, it is about keeping Iraq UNITED through a devolution of power from the central government to the regions, based on principles of federalism, and is completely consistent with the new Iraqi Constitution.

Implicit in the Biden strategy is the acknowledgment that the US has a moral and leadership role to play in facilitating a process that brings together all warring Iraqi factions for intense negotiations to reach a political accommodation, and that includes the regional and international powers to support and secure any political power-sharing arrangement that is achieved by the Iraqis...all under the auspices of the United Nations.

Absent a process like this or upon the failure of Iraqis to reach a sustainable political settlement, the only option will be a complete withdrawal of US forces and civilians from Iraq - and must include ALL of those Iraqi civilians who have assisted coalition forces - and a new strategy for containment of the sectarian and tribal violence to within Iraq’s borders in an effort to avoid an unpredictable regional conflagration.

While the Biden strategy is not a guarantee for success, it does offer the best and only hope for ending the war in Iraq in a responsible fashion that is worthy of a great nation, allowing for the withdrawal of US troops without leaving a failed state behind and the need to return at a later date

[tsegat01]

I would say that Senator Biden's plan for Iraq is the "best" plan (besides more of the same), but actually it is the "only" plan that anyone has come up with.

Clearly, Tom, you are not familiar with the plan. If you were, you would not call it a "partition". It is federalism, similar to the government of the U.S. when we first became independent of England. Biden's plan is patterned after the one used in the Balkans which was highly successful.

Very disappoint­ing.......­..