Edwards Call for Pullout of Troops Training Iraqis
New York Times
January 2, 2008
Edwards Calls for Pullout of Troops Training Iraqis
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
SIOUX CITY, Iowa - John Edwards says that if elected president he would withdraw the American troops who are training the Iraqi army and police as part of a broader plan to remove virtually all American forces within 10 months.
Mr. Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina who is waging a populist campaign for the Democratic nomination, said that extending the American training effort in Iraq into the next presidency would require the deployment of tens of thousands of troops to provide logistical support and protect the advisers.
"To me, that is a continuation of the occupation of Iraq," he said in a 40-minute interview on Sunday aboard his campaign bus as it rumbled through western Iowa.
In one of his most detailed discussions to date about how he would handle Iraq as president, Mr. Edwards staked out a position that would lead to a more rapid and complete troop withdrawal than his principal rivals, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who have indicated they are open to keeping American trainers and counterterrorism units in Iraq.
Elizabeth Edwards, his wife and political partner, who listened in on the interview from a seat across the aisle, intervened at the end of the session to underscore that Mr. Edwards did not intend to stop all training and was prepared to train Iraqi forces outside of the country. Mr. Edwards continued the theme while acknowledging that the benefits of such training would be limited.
Mr. Edwards's plan, like that of many of his Democratic opponents, is at odds with the strategy developed by American military commanders, who have said the situation is still too fragile to set a timetable for such extensive troop withdrawals and a curtailment of the training effort in Iraq.
Mr. Edwards's plan calls for immediately withdrawing 40,000 to 50,000 troops. Nearly all of the remaining American troops would be removed within 9 or 10 months. The only force that would remain would be a 3,500-to-5,000-strong contingent that would protect the American Embassy and possibly humanitarian workers.
Over the past five years, Mr. Edwards's position on Iraq has undergone a substantial evolution. In 2002, as a senator, Mr. Edwards was among the Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Mr. Edwards has said he was convinced by the intelligence that Saddam Hussein controlled stocks of unconventional weapons, but in the Senate speech explaining his vote he also endorsed the Bush administration's argument that a new democratic Iraq "could serve as a model for the entire Arab world."
In November 2005, Mr. Edwards wrote an op-ed article for The Washington Post entitled "The Right Way in Iraq," in which he argued that his earlier vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq was a mistake, while making the point that it was still important to provide American troops with "a way to end their mission honorably."
Toward this end, Mr. Edwards called at the time for establishing a more effective program to train Iraqi troops and channeling reconstruction work to Iraqis instead of American contractors. While he called for removing a significant number of American forces, he also emphasized that the withdrawals should be "a gradual process."
"That will still leave us with enough military capability, combined with better-trained Iraqis, to fight terrorists and continue to help the Iraqis develop a stable country," he wrote.
In the interview on Sunday, Mr. Edwards said that he decided on his current plan for a rapid and near-total withdrawal of American troops because of the failure of Iraqi leaders to achieve a political accommodation over the past four years. Eight to 10 brigades, which is likely to be the bulk of the American combat force by the time the next president takes office, would immediately be withdrawn.
"I absolutely believe this to my soul: we are there propping up their bad behavior," he said. "I mean really, how many American lives and how much American taxpayer money are we going to continue to expend waiting for these political leaders to do something? Because that is precisely what we are doing."
Such a troop withdrawal, he said, might jolt Iraqi leaders into taking action to overcome their sectarian differences. During the 10 months or so while American troops were being withdrawn, Mr. Edwards added, he would also mount an intensive effort to encourage Iraq's leaders to engage in political reconciliation and solicit the cooperation of Iran and Syria, who he argued might be more willing to help once they understood that American troops were on their way out.
Mr. Edwards, who has never visited Iraq, said he asked the Pentagon last year to help arrange a visit but was turned down. (Mr. Obama visited Iraq once two years ago, while Mrs. Clinton has made three trips.) Geoff Morrell, the senior Defense Department spokesman, said the Pentagon had turned down all requests to visit Iraq from politicians who are not currently serving in Congress or as governors, including Rudolph W. Giuliani, a candidate for the Republican nomination.
At his campaign stops on Sunday, Mr. Edwards sought to highlight his knowledge of foreign policy by recounting his recent telephone call with Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, a conversation Mr. Edwards initiated as soon as he learned of the death of Benazir Bhutto. Iraq was not part of his prepared remarks, save for a denunciation of greedy military contractors. But Mr. Edwards outlined his plan to remove American troops from Iraq during a question-and-answer session with voters.
In the interview, Mr. Edwards spoke comfortably about the subject and without notes or help from policy advisers. Some elements of his plan, however, run counter to assessments by intelligence agencies, military officers and a Congressionally mandated study.
American military commanders have publicly cautioned that a rapid withdrawal of troops risks a new escalation of sectarian violence, which has been substantially reduced in recent months. A National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq that was issued in January 2007 by the United States intelligence agencies also warned that the withdrawal of American troops over the ensuing 12 to 18 months would probably lead to "massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement."
Mr. Edwards acknowledged that there was a risk that a speedy troop drawdown might lead to substantially increased sectarian violence. Under Mr. Edwards's plan, the United States would keep a quick reaction force in Kuwait and perhaps Jordan to respond to terrorist threats and possible "genocide."
Mr. Edwards has said that he would also seek to involve other allied nations in the effort. But he declined to say whether the United States would be prepared to send troops back into Iraq to stop attacks on civilians if other nations did not participate, stating the question was hypothetical.
Regarding training, an independent commission that was established by Congress to assess Iraq's security forces cautioned in a September report that Iraq's security force would not be able to operate independently within the next 12 to 18 months. The commission, whose chairman was the retired Gen. James L. Jones, the former Marine Corps commandant and NATO commander, noted that the Iraqi army was making strides but added that "for the foreseeable future" Iraqi troops would continue to rely on American help with logistics, equipment, training and support from air and artillery units.
That raises the question of whether Mr. Edwards's plan to withdraw American trainers and logistical support would undermine the effort to transfer more responsibility to Iraqis, which is the main goal of his policy. Asked about the commission's study, Mr. Edwards said that the key problem in shifting responsibility to the Iraqis was not military, but political.
As the interview drew to a close, Mrs. Edwards politely chided this reporter for failing to ask about Mr. Edwards's plan to train some Iraqi forces outside Iraq, which she emphasized was an important feature of the plan. "It's the one thing you forgot," she said.
Mr. Edwards continued the thought. "Of course, it is limited," he said, referring to the training. "You can do some. You can do some."
Throughout his campaign Mr. Edwards has spoken about the need to restore the United States' moral standing in the world. He was asked if he believes the United States has a duty to help protect Iraqi civilians, particularly since he had voted to authorize an invasion that had unleashed a sectarian struggle for power.
"That is a very important question for the president of the United States because it is very much a judgment call," Mr. Edwards said. "Do I believe that we have had a moral responsibility? I do. The question is, How long does that moral responsibility continue and at what juncture is it the right decision to end what we have been doing and shift that responsibility to them?"
"Let's assume for a minute that come January 2009 we still have a significant troop presence in Iraq, which I think is likely," Mr. Edwards added. "If that is the case, then I think another 9 to 10 months of American troop involvement and expenditure of taxpayer money with an intense effort to resolve the political conflict and intense diplomacy, then at that point America has done what it can do."
January 2, 2008
Edwards Calls for Pullout of Troops Training Iraqis
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
SIOUX CITY, Iowa - John Edwards says that if elected president he would withdraw the American troops who are training the Iraqi army and police as part of a broader plan to remove virtually all American forces within 10 months.
Mr. Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina who is waging a populist campaign for the Democratic nomination, said that extending the American training effort in Iraq into the next presidency would require the deployment of tens of thousands of troops to provide logistical support and protect the advisers.
"To me, that is a continuation of the occupation of Iraq," he said in a 40-minute interview on Sunday aboard his campaign bus as it rumbled through western Iowa.
In one of his most detailed discussions to date about how he would handle Iraq as president, Mr. Edwards staked out a position that would lead to a more rapid and complete troop withdrawal than his principal rivals, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who have indicated they are open to keeping American trainers and counterterrorism units in Iraq.
Elizabeth Edwards, his wife and political partner, who listened in on the interview from a seat across the aisle, intervened at the end of the session to underscore that Mr. Edwards did not intend to stop all training and was prepared to train Iraqi forces outside of the country. Mr. Edwards continued the theme while acknowledging that the benefits of such training would be limited.
Mr. Edwards's plan, like that of many of his Democratic opponents, is at odds with the strategy developed by American military commanders, who have said the situation is still too fragile to set a timetable for such extensive troop withdrawals and a curtailment of the training effort in Iraq.
Mr. Edwards's plan calls for immediately withdrawing 40,000 to 50,000 troops. Nearly all of the remaining American troops would be removed within 9 or 10 months. The only force that would remain would be a 3,500-to-5,000-strong contingent that would protect the American Embassy and possibly humanitarian workers.
Over the past five years, Mr. Edwards's position on Iraq has undergone a substantial evolution. In 2002, as a senator, Mr. Edwards was among the Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Mr. Edwards has said he was convinced by the intelligence that Saddam Hussein controlled stocks of unconventional weapons, but in the Senate speech explaining his vote he also endorsed the Bush administration's argument that a new democratic Iraq "could serve as a model for the entire Arab world."
In November 2005, Mr. Edwards wrote an op-ed article for The Washington Post entitled "The Right Way in Iraq," in which he argued that his earlier vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq was a mistake, while making the point that it was still important to provide American troops with "a way to end their mission honorably."
Toward this end, Mr. Edwards called at the time for establishing a more effective program to train Iraqi troops and channeling reconstruction work to Iraqis instead of American contractors. While he called for removing a significant number of American forces, he also emphasized that the withdrawals should be "a gradual process."
"That will still leave us with enough military capability, combined with better-trained Iraqis, to fight terrorists and continue to help the Iraqis develop a stable country," he wrote.
In the interview on Sunday, Mr. Edwards said that he decided on his current plan for a rapid and near-total withdrawal of American troops because of the failure of Iraqi leaders to achieve a political accommodation over the past four years. Eight to 10 brigades, which is likely to be the bulk of the American combat force by the time the next president takes office, would immediately be withdrawn.
"I absolutely believe this to my soul: we are there propping up their bad behavior," he said. "I mean really, how many American lives and how much American taxpayer money are we going to continue to expend waiting for these political leaders to do something? Because that is precisely what we are doing."
Such a troop withdrawal, he said, might jolt Iraqi leaders into taking action to overcome their sectarian differences. During the 10 months or so while American troops were being withdrawn, Mr. Edwards added, he would also mount an intensive effort to encourage Iraq's leaders to engage in political reconciliation and solicit the cooperation of Iran and Syria, who he argued might be more willing to help once they understood that American troops were on their way out.
Mr. Edwards, who has never visited Iraq, said he asked the Pentagon last year to help arrange a visit but was turned down. (Mr. Obama visited Iraq once two years ago, while Mrs. Clinton has made three trips.) Geoff Morrell, the senior Defense Department spokesman, said the Pentagon had turned down all requests to visit Iraq from politicians who are not currently serving in Congress or as governors, including Rudolph W. Giuliani, a candidate for the Republican nomination.
At his campaign stops on Sunday, Mr. Edwards sought to highlight his knowledge of foreign policy by recounting his recent telephone call with Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, a conversation Mr. Edwards initiated as soon as he learned of the death of Benazir Bhutto. Iraq was not part of his prepared remarks, save for a denunciation of greedy military contractors. But Mr. Edwards outlined his plan to remove American troops from Iraq during a question-and-answer session with voters.
In the interview, Mr. Edwards spoke comfortably about the subject and without notes or help from policy advisers. Some elements of his plan, however, run counter to assessments by intelligence agencies, military officers and a Congressionally mandated study.
American military commanders have publicly cautioned that a rapid withdrawal of troops risks a new escalation of sectarian violence, which has been substantially reduced in recent months. A National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq that was issued in January 2007 by the United States intelligence agencies also warned that the withdrawal of American troops over the ensuing 12 to 18 months would probably lead to "massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement."
Mr. Edwards acknowledged that there was a risk that a speedy troop drawdown might lead to substantially increased sectarian violence. Under Mr. Edwards's plan, the United States would keep a quick reaction force in Kuwait and perhaps Jordan to respond to terrorist threats and possible "genocide."
Mr. Edwards has said that he would also seek to involve other allied nations in the effort. But he declined to say whether the United States would be prepared to send troops back into Iraq to stop attacks on civilians if other nations did not participate, stating the question was hypothetical.
Regarding training, an independent commission that was established by Congress to assess Iraq's security forces cautioned in a September report that Iraq's security force would not be able to operate independently within the next 12 to 18 months. The commission, whose chairman was the retired Gen. James L. Jones, the former Marine Corps commandant and NATO commander, noted that the Iraqi army was making strides but added that "for the foreseeable future" Iraqi troops would continue to rely on American help with logistics, equipment, training and support from air and artillery units.
That raises the question of whether Mr. Edwards's plan to withdraw American trainers and logistical support would undermine the effort to transfer more responsibility to Iraqis, which is the main goal of his policy. Asked about the commission's study, Mr. Edwards said that the key problem in shifting responsibility to the Iraqis was not military, but political.
As the interview drew to a close, Mrs. Edwards politely chided this reporter for failing to ask about Mr. Edwards's plan to train some Iraqi forces outside Iraq, which she emphasized was an important feature of the plan. "It's the one thing you forgot," she said.
Mr. Edwards continued the thought. "Of course, it is limited," he said, referring to the training. "You can do some. You can do some."
Throughout his campaign Mr. Edwards has spoken about the need to restore the United States' moral standing in the world. He was asked if he believes the United States has a duty to help protect Iraqi civilians, particularly since he had voted to authorize an invasion that had unleashed a sectarian struggle for power.
"That is a very important question for the president of the United States because it is very much a judgment call," Mr. Edwards said. "Do I believe that we have had a moral responsibility? I do. The question is, How long does that moral responsibility continue and at what juncture is it the right decision to end what we have been doing and shift that responsibility to them?"
"Let's assume for a minute that come January 2009 we still have a significant troop presence in Iraq, which I think is likely," Mr. Edwards added. "If that is the case, then I think another 9 to 10 months of American troop involvement and expenditure of taxpayer money with an intense effort to resolve the political conflict and intense diplomacy, then at that point America has done what it can do."
0
-
I always loved the comments from idiot politicians who don't know @#$% about Iraq when they talk about withdrawing troops--except for the ones training Iraqis.
First of all, where do these politicians think the PTT and MTT missions are being conducted--on some FOB somewhere? Sure, pull out all the "maneuver elements" and leave the PTT and MTT teams to be slaughtered while they take Iraqis on patrol.0 -
"I support the troops, just not their mission" blah!
Democrats...preserving the lower class is our mission0 -
"Mr. Edwards's plan calls for immediately withdrawing 40,000 to 50,000 troops. Nearly all of the remaining American troops would be removed within 9 or 10 months. The only force that would remain would be a 3,500-to-5,000-strong contingent that would protect the American Embassy and possibly humanitarian workers."
Sounds good to me.
Iraq is not worth one more American life.0 -
WOW. He's not even disguising his desire for us to fail in Iraq. The Training Teams are what will allow us to complete our job over there. Take a look at Anbar. Why has it quieted down so much? because of the Iraqi Army and Police. The Army and Police were trained by whom? That's right, the Military Training Teams and Police Training Teams. Think Fallujah, Rawah, Al Qaim, and Ramadi. We can patrol and do all we want to do, but until we have Iraqis trained to take over (as we have done in those places) the violence will continue. 0 -
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - JOHN STUART MILL 0 -
The problem with the military is that they have no better idea of what the situation is than Edwards does.
- They have no idea how long the mission will take to accomplish.
- They have no idea how much it will cost.
- They have no idea how many men and women it will require.
As dangerously ill-informed as Edwards' position might seem, does the military really have a better idea of what's going on? Because if so, they seem to be keeping said information very close to their collective vest.
The only thing they seem to be saying is, "We need more time, we need more money, we need more men."
Well, that's sort of a catch-all solution to any given situation, isn't it? But rather than asking to get a dam built or a length of railroad track laid down, there is no tangible way to determine when "Mission Accomplished" has occurred.
Remember not too long ago and all of those e-mails asking oh-so pointedly, "Did you know...?" and went on to list, in painful detail, all of the things that were going right in Iraq, but the media wouldn't report? Well, all of that good news aside, we still seem to be knee-deep in that particular sand lot with no end in sight.
Maybe what he says doesn't make sense and to be honest, I don't agree with a complete and total pull out. But to attack Edwards for not being on the same page as military planners assumes that said military planners do indeed know what in the heck they're talking about.
And if that were the case, do you really think we'd be in the spot we're in today?0 -
Well I do know the Battalions we are assigned to right now are doing pretty well. Just have some supply issues to rectify. I don't know about pulling us out though. If and when our battalions get up to where they're supposed to be, we'll just be assigned to assist another battalion.
I, for one, agree with the MTT and NPTT missions. Once these guys get on their feet, they'll be able to handle whatever comes their way.
Heck, our Police Battalions are driving around in new ASVs (with the HMMWV turrets) so they are pretty well protected in their missions.
I do know that I have only had one day off since we've been here (Christmas.) We've been humping pretty hard.0 -
Rob,
And if it were up to me, y'all would be doing that good work in a place where the locals appreciate it. Kurdistan is where we should be concentrating our efforts, not wasting it on a bunch of Arabs who would cut us off at the ankles if there were two bits in it for them.0 -
Ya know, EMM, your complete ignorance of the military, it's abilities and it's competence is truly profound in it's depth and scope.
Perhaps you should STFU.
D.0 -
Well then why have we been at war with Korea for over 50 years?
The President of South Korea asked our President to end the Korean War and didn't get the answer he wanted.
Iraq will just be another Korea. American's will waste 1 year of their lives there for nothing.
Unless Kia's and Hyundai's are acceptable benefits.0 -
Edwards is a idiot just like Hillary and Obama 0 -
Things are getting really nasty now. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM0 -
I'm not in the military and have never been to Iraq. Nor do I have all the intelligence in front of me that the President, CIA, and Generals are privy to. So much like John Edwards, I don't have enough info to really stand up and boldly proclaim that somehow I know all the answers.
Just my 2 cents on it.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
The problem with the military is that they have no better idea of what the situation is than Edwards does.EMM,
I think GEN Petreaus would disagree with that statement. He has a plan, but does the American populace and our elected officials have the heart/resolve to see it through?
IMHO, there are MANY smart folks roaming the halls of the DoD who have multiple ideas on how to bring a quick and splendid end to the war in Iraq.
The problem is that far too many civilians with their quivering lips and uneasy belly's refuse to allow us to get down to business and sort these fellas out. In fact, the thought of such horrible acts (by men who are trained to both think and act in such manners) is not welcome conversation in the company of such "proper" men as those who wax long and philisophical from the lofty comfort and safety of their over-stuffed leather chairs while sifting a cognac and drawing repeatedly on their 50 gauge Cohiba Cigar.
NS0 -
quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
"Mr. Edwards's plan calls for immediately withdrawing 40,000 to 50,000 troops. Nearly all of the remaining American troops would be removed within 9 or 10 months. The only force that would remain would be a 3,500-to-5,000-strong contingent that would protect the American Embassy and possibly humanitarian workers."
Sounds good to me.
Iraq is not worth one more American life.
And those remaining will make the current body count look like a joke because there's no one there to have their back. Sorry, we don't put our pack up against a wall and say "we'll just hold this ground here" while we sit back and watch people get slaughtered. This is a joke.0 -
That idea is nearly as crazy as the one which claimed we should have taken back the weapons we gave to our good Muslim friends in Afganistan in the 1980's. 0 -
if i am correct we are building the largest Taj Mahal embassy in the world & if the troops are drawn done to a guard level they will cover the politicos inside who will have nothing to do but play tiddlewinks as their universe will end at the perimeter walls...i do not know answers but am sick of Americans dying there........ 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Night Stalker
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
The problem with the military is that they have no better idea of what the situation is than Edwards does.EMM,
I think GEN Petreaus would disagree with that statement. He has a plan, but does the American populace and our elected officials have the heart/resolve to see it through?
IMHO, there are MANY smart folks roaming the halls of the DoD who have multiple ideas on how to bring a quick and splendid end to the war in Iraq.
The problem is that far too many civilians with their quivering lips and uneasy belly's refuse to allow us to get down to business and sort these fellas out. In fact, the thought of such horrible acts (by men who are trained to both think and act in such manners) is not welcome conversation in the company of such "proper" men as those who wax long and philisophical from the lofty comfort and safety of their over-stuffed leather chairs while sifting a cognac and drawing repeatedly on their 50 gauge Cohiba Cigar.
NS
Note that you "think" and offer your "humble opinion", but very little in the way of facts.
The problem with Iraq is that the conditions for victory have been defined in such vague terms as to be absolutely worthless. And while it's easy to blame gutless civvies, I'd like to remind those lofty military types that you are employed to defend said civilians and their interests, not lord over them like some sort of latter day nobility. If we quivering-lipped civilians don't have the nerve, guts, spine, patience, or checkbook enough to give the military everything on their wish list, then tough noogies. Life isn't about getting what you want 100% of the time.
The problem with the war in Iraq is that it has become first and foremost an exercise in hubris, nothing more. Bush and the military suffer from such an extreme case of tunnel vision it's not even funny. For the reward of treading water in Iraq, the military and Administration have seen fit to sacrifice our border security, the dollar's value, and the moral high ground we have enjoyed ever since the establishment of our nation.
Take a look at what we're supposedly striving for: a stable, democratic, and peaceful Iraq. Not a bad goal.
Now ask any politico-military neocon how we are to achieve said goal and they say by making Iraq stable, democratic, and peaceful.
The goal has become the strategy, which, in case you couldn't figure it out, is no way to run anything, much less a war.
So please, cast all the aspersions you want about civilians losing the war in Iraq, but let's not forget that the military has gotten everything it has asked for and then some where this war is concerned. If that's not good enough, maybe it's because they're not good enough. Pointing fingers is the first refuge of the incompetent, so think long and hard before you do something like that again.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
18 comments