<p>"a) a peacekeeping buffer along the northern Kurdish border as the Kurds have established a reasonably stable region that is a tempting flash point for external forces (Turkey to the north, Iran to the East, Sunnis to the South). A deterrent force could deter fighting from breaking out.</p>
<p>b) Protection of US workers at the embassy and elsewhere.</p>
<p>c) Special ops forces against Al Qaeda in Iraq.</p>
<p>d) Perhaps a Iraqi military training role. She has said that this really depends on whether there is an Iraqi goverment to support when she takes office."</p>
<p>MOWC, actually, Hillary’s poll numbers show her doing very well with women. She runs something close to even (within 2-3 points one way or the other) with married white women and carries single women by 20 points.</p>
<p>Weenie, it will be interesting–and this a factor in <em>all</em> of Hillary’s poll numbers right now–whether your intention in a vacuum to not vote for her remains unchanged when matched against a specific Republican candidate. None of the polls can give a true apples-to-apples comparison right now because <em>everyone</em> knows Hillary and has an opinion about her. </p>
<p>As the picture is filled on Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, or whomever the GOP nominee is, there will be a significant fraction of those who don’t like Hillary who will say, “I’m voting for her but holding my nose.” And if it’s at all close, the memories of the consequences of voting for Nader in 2000 will become stronger. (The Nader notion that there was no difference between Gore and Bush was one of the most irrational bits of political tantrum I’ve seen…and in this case damaged our country incalculably.)</p>
<p>It would be interesting to hear how many troops will be needed for the four possible roles that you outlined after the first year. Are we still talking about 50,000 or more?</p>
<p>I would love to hear that question asked. Alas, the media is so sorry these days that they are more interested in cute “gotcha” questions during the debates rather than the obvious serious questions.</p>
<p>We currently have in the neighborhood of 250,000 troops in Iraq, counting both official military and private-sector mercenary forces.</p>
<p>I think somwhere in the neighborhood of 40,000 to 50,000 is probably in line with what all the major Democrats are thinking at the end of year one. It’s not logistically possible to get below that unless we abandon all of our equipment for use by the factions in the Iraqi civil war. Clinton has expressed concern about the planning for an orderly safe exodus so that we don’t end up getting our troops killed as they move south to Kuwait. The entire southern half of Iraq is embroiled in a civil war between three Shia factions, none of which are happy with the United States.</p>
<p>I think all of the major Democratic candidates would, in short order, do what the British have now done in Basra – pull all of the troops back to bases outside of the cities.</p>
<p>Personally, I think that the preoccupation with the absolute number of troops in Iraq misses the point. The bigger question should be whether or not we should be there at all – if one believes that Iraq is not part of the GWOT, then he/she should insist on bringing home ALL of the troops. If one believes, as I do, that Iraq is a key front in fighting terrorism, then the goal should be to win, period. If HC is still saying 50K troops, then she is admitting that Iraq is an important battlefield. If it is important enough to risk 50K servicemen and women, then why handicap or micromanage the effort in any way?</p>
<p>The question asked was troop levels at the end of the first year of a Democratic administration. You can’t go from 250,000 to 0 in a year.</p>
<p>BTW, the reason we are currently fighting in Iraq has little to do with the war on terror. The Bush administration is responding to pressure from Saudis and the Israelis to prevent the Shia from gaining additional power. We are currently working to train and equip Sunni militias in Anbar so that they are better posititioned to fight the Shia in the Iraqi civil war. To really understand Iraq, you have to think in terms of a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.</p>
<p>That’s what Bush was talking about last night when he said that we have to demonstrate to our allies in the region that we won’t cut 'n run.</p>
<p>Matthews later asked Democratic Sen. and presidential candidate Joseph Biden about “the strange world we had described to us tonight… We’re given a picture in 20 minutes of a country over there, an ally, you know, like Chiang Kai-shek used to be against the Japanese or Hungary against the Soviets, an ally, a country we care about and it’s fighting for its life against our enemy, which is al Qaeda. No real references except once to the fact there’s a civil war going on in that country. The notion that we’re one of 37 countries fighting over there against the bad guys. There’s so much of this that’s truly – and I don’t mean this in a cartoon sense – fantastic. When you’re with the president, does he live in this world or does he just sell it?”</p>
<p>Biden’s reply: “I don’t know, Chris.”</p>
<p>Well, clearly he sells it. I mean, the right wing-leaning media is awash with headlines that “Bush backs troop withdrawal.” But the facts are becoming clear that we’ll still end that “drawdown” with more troops than we had there than when the surge began – or at least just as many. And anyway, it’s not that Bush had any choice.</p>
<p>So, again, I wonder how any responsible leader (Hillary anyone?) can advocate tying the hands of the military in Iraq. It’s one of two things – either Petraeus is lying, in which case all members of Congress should immediately demand his court martial. Or he is a truthful, courageous leader who is leading the battle against Al Qaeda. If that’s the case, then every member of Congress should just quit undermining him and ask him what else he needs to succeed. There can be no middle ground. But if any candidate should choose the first option – accuse him of lying, or cooking the books – then he or SHE is going to have a hard time convincing the American people that she is fit to be Commander in Chief. Americans don’t like to lose wars.</p>
<p>“This may be your opinion, but I agree with General Petraeus – Iraq is the central front on the war on terror.”</p>
<p>If it is, it’s because we’ve MADE it the central front in the war on terror. I don’t think it was anything of the sort when we invaded Iraq back in 2003. Was it for oil? Avenging daddy? Who knows? … And why did we allow ourselves to be distracted from finding the real object of our rage–Osama bin Laden?</p>
<p>I don’t think it is useful at this point to debate the reasons why we are in Iraq. We are there now. I don’t think Sadam had a place at the table for AQ, but they have made it their home base after the war in Afghanistan. What we really must not do is give them any chance at victory. If the war in Iraq is lost, then who won? Al Qaeda?</p>
<p>What is exasperating is that all of the media just asks questions about whether we should be there or pull out and when. They never talk about the consequences of pulling out. This is what the most recent person who was sent by Congress to Iraq (General James L. Jones) had to say on Meet the Press this week:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a refrain repeated by the NIE, Frank Burns from the NYT, and many others and the Dems never respond. They are a slave to the views of Move-on and Kos. I wonder how the polls would change if, when asking people whether we should get out of Iraq, the question included the ramifications of us doing so.</p>
<p>sjmom and fundingfather–I understand your feelings and frustrations. As for my own, I still can’t get over the fact that we never needed to be in Iraq in the first place. Why? What for? We never finished the job in Afghanistan, so why go ■■■■■■■■ for more and different trouble? … Now that we’re there, yes, we have have a problem.</p>
<p>That’s a laugh…you don’t understand that there are some people that can determine completely independent of any political advocacy group that: you don’t go into a country next to one of your sworn enemies on one side and sworn allies on the other; destabilize that country through a poorly conceived and poorly executed Don Quixote attempt to install democracy that tears apart the country and leaves 4 million of its people as refugees and many others dead; thereby kill nearly 4,000 of your own people and counting; and then turn around and ask people to think that you should be believed or trusted to project what will happen when you pull your troops out.</p>
<p>And you yourself – like the President – never answer the question of what do you foresee for Iraq? Do you believe it can be stabilized and become a sound ally in that part of the world? What gives you this confidence? Yes, it could go very bad when we pull out – whether it’s now or 5 years from now. </p>
<p>All you are saying is: we can’t let this country fail. Well, news flash, it already has. You and your hero George Bush should have thought of that before getting this country into this debacle.</p>
<p>But don’t sit there and say that people who lend no credence to this total lack of vision, based on the foundation of incompetence and mendacity (did you hear the President say there were 36 countries with us on this?) are merely parroting MO or KOS. That’s just palaver.</p>
<p>“and then turn around and ask people to think that you should be believed or trusted to project what will happen when you pull your troops out.”</p>
<p>What you are not hearing through your rage is that it is NOT just the administration making those assertions. It is virtually everyone who has spent time in country and is knowledgeable of the situation. Recall that Gen. Jones was sent as an emissary of Congress.</p>
<p>"Do you believe it can be stabilized and become a sound ally in that part of the world? What gives you this confidence? "</p>
<p>Once again, I will defer to someone with some expertise, General Jones:</p>