Neither the media nor the Democratic candidates are providing an accurate understanding of where the contenders actually stand on Iraq. There is a frustrating failure to make these simple distinctions, as demonstrated by Chris Matthews' on MSNBC last night:
The appearance is that Clinton, Obama and Edwards all want to "bring the troops home." The effect is to numb and demobilize anti-war opinion and, if one of these candidates becomes president, will cause a cycle of anger and disappointment.
The reality is that withdrawing all combat troops still would leave as as many as 100,000 American soldiers in Iraq indefinitely. Worst case, it will become like Central America in the 1970s. There will be a string of low-visibility battlefronts from Iraq to Pakistan to Afghanistan involving large numbers of US troops by 2009. This is "the long war" described by counterinsurgency theorists.
For some reason the candidates themselves blur the differences, accounting for the media default. But the differences seem to be these:
The failure of the media lies in not asking whether these withdrawal plans will leave a counterinsurgency plan in place, with thousands of US troops and billions in tax dollars, defending a repressive sectarian regime in Baghdad.
The media's moral failure is its collective decision not to report that under Petraeus' plan the number of Iraqis imprisoned without charges has doubled in the past year, and the number of US airstrikes has increased seven-fold. The future role of US advisers already is clear: to fight "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" which is automatically described in every account as "foreign-controlled." That in addition to funding, training and arming both sides of the Shia-Sunni conflict [not to mention the Kurds]. The US role has been to stir up a witch's brew of violent factions, which justifies the permanent occupation. Worse, over 900 American troops were killed in Iraq last year while the Pentagon and media proclaimed military success.
For whatever reason, neither the candidates nor the media describe these distinctions clearly. The appearance is created that the US will withdraw from Iraq under a Democratic president, which is at best a half-truth.
Good post! The rhetoric from the candidates makes it difficult to understand. They are all attorneys so I find it bordering on the absurd to discover that their positions are incomprehensible.
It is clear that John Edwards is the closest thing to a "peace candidate." He is in favor of nuclear disarmament, for one thing. That clearly places Edwards in the "Peace and Freedom" camp.
Mr. Edwards is also the most pro-labor of the candidates.
Hillary would pull all the combat troops out just as soon as we have secured all of Iraq's oil by passage of the so-called oil-revenue-sharing legislation.
Without doubt, Obama would do it 15 days ahead of Hillary.
But John Edwards says ALL troops out now - which really means, again, as soon as practicable.
The fact of his redeployment strategy is a little worrisome because its not bringing them home. But his position is miles and years ahead of the two MSM sweethearts.
Out of ALL of the candidates who could POSSIBLY get elected, he is the only one that I have any confidence will get to work on ending the war the day he takes the oath.
Go, Johnny, go.
Gravel presented legislation to the Congress that would make it a FELONY if any troops remained in Iraq after 120 days. No privatization of Iraqi oil. No residual nothing.
Any candidate elected minus Gravel, Kucinich, or Ron Paul, will do nothing to curtail the military-industrial-complex.
And there will always be more wars if that is the case.
BULLETS ARE US.
SHOOT UM OFF, WE'LL MAKE MORE!!!
Oh, wait...Senator Biden has provided them with exactly that and so much more. So, what...they can’t read? They don’t recognize a good thing when it’s staring them straight in the face? Or, are they too afraid to appear to be co-opting another of Senator Biden’s practical solutions?...please...why stop now?
Perhaps the lack of an accurate understanding emanating from the media and remaining candidates stems from the simple fact that, on the most critical issue of this election campaign - the issue that will affect all others - they lack the necessary foreign policy competence, judgement and prowess to address the subject even in its most fundamental terms?
The phased withdrawal of all combat troops, the retention of counter-terrorism units, advisors and force protection are merely tactics that are as ill-conceived as they are dangerous in the absence of a strategy to promote a sustainable political settlement between the warring factions of Iraq’s civil war.
And the media default, as you put it, find its origins in so much more than the candidates’ failure to make clear distinctions on this issue. Oh, how I wish the problems with the media were that simple to fix! The moral failures of the media (and blogosphere) are too numerous to mention here but their failure to properly and adequately inform themselves and the electorate about the critical issues of our day would be enough to condemn them for an eternity.
And, I wouldn’t worry about appearances being exposed as half-truths...this election campaign is currently being waged in an atmosphere completely devoid of anything that remotely resembles the truth.
Since this war is illegal, they are supporting an illegal war.