Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Iraqis as Political Fodder
So after all the "surge" was just about Bush treading water until the end of his term. According to Petraus, reported by the BBC:
*he envisioned the withdrawal of some 30,000 US troops by the middle of 2008, beginning with 2,000 marines in September
*he expected a decision on further troop cuts next March
*the situation in Iraq remained "difficult".
In other words the "surge" killed thousands of Iraqis and we will be back to the exact same amount of troops, maybe, in the middle of next year. A phony withdrawal then just in time for the election.
But no need to fret intrepid anti-warriors the Democrats are anti-war this season, or are they?
Clinton's "bottom line," re-deployment:
So, the bottom line for me is that we will begin re-deploying our troops as soon as I am President, and we will do so in as expeditious a manner as possible. We will survey the situation to determine whether there are any remaining vital security interests by 2009, and if there are among the ones I’ve mentioned, and among the ones that appear in the legislation passed in both the House and the Senate...
The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.
Finally, it's also Senator Edwards' position that we will have troops in the region to prevent the sectarian violence in Iraq from spilling over into other countries, for counter-terrorism, or to prevent a genocide. But in the region means in the region - for example, existing bases like Kuwait, naval presence in the Persian Gulf, and so forth.
Democrats positions to leave troops in Iraq for years..