More from the article:
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.
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.
Edwards offers a clear commitment: Embassy protection only and 10 months. The alternative; we’ll try to be out by 2013 and only use troops to fight terrorists is not. The world already knows we define terrorists as “everyone who stands in our way”.
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 During the 10 months or so while American troops were being withdrawn, Mr.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 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.”
A quick reaction force has been an element of Jack Murtha’s plans for a long time. It keeps us out of the crossfire of a civil war while allowing us support and intervene when needed.
The full article is worth reading and goes into his plan in more detail, the evolution of his position (not unlike most Americans), and some counter-arguments.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01…
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01…
<
p>Reporter Michael Gordon asks substantive questions and waits for the answers…
<
p>I find it strange that Kucinich has semi-endorsed Obama, when Edwards’ current position on the war is actually better from the get-out perspective. Swing The Vote, an anti-war group working in southwest NH, didn’t actually endorse a candidate but gave a group endorsement to Edwards, Kucinich, and Richardson, clearly finding them better than Obama or Clinton. Oh well…
Now, if Edwards steals adopts any more of Richardson’s policies, I could become very interested in him.
That was a LOL for me. Bill Richardson and John Edwards have had my attention. Edwards comes out ahead with his emphasis on corporate America killing what I hold dear. In my world there are Two Americas and John Edwards was stumping HOPE before anyone heard of Deval Patrick or Barak Obama.
<
p>
circa 2004, Democratic National Convention , Boston, Massachusetts.
<
p>oh, and this –
<
p>
<
p>and this –
<
p>
<
p>A paradigm shift or a revolution…those are the choices.
What a refreshing change to see that somebody is calling for a speedy exit of the United States from Iraq!! Bravo, John Edwards!! Way to go!!
Its really foolish for him to make this promise, there is always the chance something crazy happens like a Turkish or Iranian invasion if we leave, or even if we stay, forcing us to stay and forcing Edwards to break a crucial campaign promise. I think its better to have a serious timetable like Finegold based on goals and benchmarks that will allow for a gradual rational withdrawl based on actual military and political outcomes rather than on domestic political pressure.
<
p>That combined with a Biden diplomatic solution and the ISG recommendations would make for a much better strategy than any of the candidates are proposing. Richardsons is the worst since it literally leaves our troops backs to the insurgents and abandons expensive equipment so the Iraqis can kill each other more efficiently when we leave. It is immoral to be that expedient just to satsify domestic voters.
Oh, come on. Benchmarks for withdrawal? We haven’t met any in 4 years.
<
p>We need to keep troops there in case Turkey invades? What do you think our troops would do in that event? We can find other ways to keep Turkey out of Iraq, like pressuring the Kurds to drive out the PKK on their own.
<
p>We need troops there in case Iran invades? The majority government in Iraq is Shiite, which suits Iran just fine. The more likely case is that Saudi Arabia gets involved to protect Sunnis, and that boils over into a proxy fight. The sooner we can broker a settlement between the factions in Iraq, the better.
<
p>We can’t broker peace while we’re the occupiers.
<
p>While we’re there, we’re training and arming all sides. The sooner that ends the less bloody the civil war will be.
<
p>I’d rather have a plan to withdraw, and make adjustments on the way, than not have a real plan and see how it plays out.
Its really foolish for him to make this promise, there is always the chance something crazy happens like a Turkish or Iranian invasion .
<
p>The Turks have already invaded to try to put down attacks on their territory from the Kurdish PKK in Iraq. As far as I can tell, the Turks have no interest in annexing that region. And in the last election only a few months ago, the Kurds in Turkey voted overwhelming for the ruling party.
<
p>Regarding Iran, they already have their surrogates in Iraq (al-Maliki’s party, primarily, and to a lesser extent al-Sadr) so they would have no need for them to invade.
But at this point I don’t think Turkey will be a problem. Much of the reason for Erdogan’s victory was due to the economy and their aspirations to join the EU. Turkey does want to watch the PKK and they have crossed the border into Iraq, but a full scale invasion is not what they are looking to do. Kurds are now back in the Parliament have being evicted in the 90’s. They are making progress and I think they know what’s at stake in they go with a full invasion.
…I suspect, but cannot prove, that the ruling elite in Turkey has decided, of the Kurds in Turkey, that is a waste of time and money to try to defeat them, so let us allow them to join us. And in the last election, that is precisely what happened.
<
p>From what I can tell from articls from Der Spiegel, the Kurds in Turkey want nothing to do with the PKK in Iraq.
The United States waged a war on Iraq that never, ever should’ve been waged in the first place, and it’s turned into a fullscale occupation of that country by our troops. This is totally immoral, wrong, illegal and unnecessary. It’s time the United States pulled our troops out of there once and for all and let the Iraqis deal with their own affairs.
For quite a while, I wasn’t sure if your post was sincere or sarcastic.
<
p>It shouldn’t be a refreshing change to see a Democrat call for a rapid withdrawal from Iraq. Every Democratic candidate should be calling to reverse every Bush policy, as quickly as possible.
<
p>How did we get here?
This was a reply to MPLO’s first post, way above. It looks a little strange to see my reply way down here. Sorry, I’m just getting a feel for posting here.
I totally agree that every Democrat should be calling to reverse G. W. Bush’s policies as fast as possible, and so far, Edwards has been the only Democratic Presidential Candidate to really and truly do that.