John Edwards & Foreign Policy
By Leslie on January 2, 2008 at 8:32 PM in Current Affairs
The NY Times’s Michael Gordon conducted a lengthy interview with John Edwards in Iowa, during a campaign stop. Here’s an excerpt of the transcript:
Q. How did you go from a plan that emphasized the gradual reduction of forces and training of Iraqi forces to a plan that calls for removing all of the forces within ten months?
A. Because it is now two years later. At that point, what I was suggesting was, again let me go back to the bigger picture. The question from my perspective is that I have never believed that there was a military solution in Iraq, don’t believe it today. I think the issue is how do you maximize the chances of achieving a political reconciliation between Sunni and Shia because I think that political reconciliation is the foundation for any long-term stability in Iraq. They have now, at this moment, had well over four and a half years to make some serious progress toward a political solution. They have not done it, and so what we have been doing has not worked. It clearly has not worked. And my view is that we need to shift the responsibility to them, make it clear that we are leaving. That is where the eight to ten brigades come from. Then, as aggressively as can reasonably be achieved, to continue a steady redeployment until all combat troops are out in roughly nine to ten months. Now I am not married to that specific timetable. If my military leadership came to me and said we need another month or some additional time, I would certainly take that into consideration what they are saying. But it is my job as commander in chief to set the policy parameters, which is exactly what I was doing.
Q. Under your concept you also withdraw the American trainers and advisers who have been working to build the new Iraqi army and police.
A. That’s correct.
Q. Why did you decide on that? There are some people who have been critical of the Bush administration’s approach like the Iraq Study group, which was co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, that called for withdrawing combat brigades but simultaneously expanding the training effort. What effect do you think your plan would have on Iraqi forces?
A. I’d say a couple of things about it. Number one, there have certainly been studies indicating that when an American embedded trainer is in an Iraqi unit that they become so dependent on that trainer that they do not develop their own self-sufficiency. Secondly, if we were going to actually going to do what was necessary to continue this training operation we would have to have somewhere between 40,000 and 60,000 troops to support them–to protect them, support them logistically, all of the above. And to me that is a continuation of the occupation of Iraq. And now we go back to what I said at the very outset. The continued occupation of Iraq undermines everything America has to do to reestablish ourselves as a country that should be followed, that should be a leader.
There’s a lot more, and it’s worth reading. Because this interview clarifies Edwards position on Iraq and more.
One thing I agree with Edwards on regards withdrawing American troops training the Iraqi army and maintaining a police force. Atrios says it best:
You know, I’ll admit that despite the fact that I think “getting out” is the right approach I don’t personally have some comprehensive foolproof plan to do so. On the other hand, I have no idea why almost 5 years later the most important mission in Iraq appears to involve remedial education.
UPDATE: Whoops, I forgot to add the NYT interview link. It’s there now, see above.
[...] John Edwards & Foreign Policy [...]
Leslie, that is fascinating. I hope to have more time tomorrow to read the full interview.
I don’t know if what he’s saying is the smartest strategy, because I’m no expert on it. But I admire his clarity and his obvious hard study of the problems and issues involved. Those two things — his clarity and his work on the issues — really stand out. What a smart man. Boy, if he doesn’t get the nomination, I surely hope that the Democratic administration brings him on board with a cabinet or some type of position. He’d work hard, and be a good strategist.
As a former US Army, Hawaii National Guard and US Army Reserver office with branch qualification in Military Police and Military Intelligence career areas, and assignment to Field Artillery, Civil Affairs, and training units, I find myself in certain agreement with the strategic approach envisioned by Senator Edwards.
Unlike him, I was always opposed to this foolhardy adventure, and remain ever so firmly opposed to it. I am glad that he long ago saw the error of his ways, apologized sincerely for his vote in support of the Iraqi invasion, and has worked to formulate a sensible and realistic strategy.
Disengagement will not likely be easy accomplished. The fluid tactical situation will doubtless require that ground commanders adapt their immediate actions and may, at times, have to digress from the strategy of withdrawal. But, the overall approach is sound. One does not win an occupation: one disengages and leaves. We must make it clear to all Iraqis that we have no intention of occupying their country or placing permanent bases or forces on their soil. And, we must get the hell out!
The Iraqis largely stood aside as British troops withdrew from the Basra region in the last several months, and I would expect that they will do so as we withdraw from their sovereign territory. I would expect that there will be no specific out-of-scale violence directed at us as we do so, but we must be prepared to fade away under fire if need be. In an orderly manner, taking and inflicting the smallest number of casualties possible.
It’s a pity for many thousands of US service personnel—and, many tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis—that we ever became engaged in this foolish mission at all, and have not subsequently started to disengage a long, long ago.
“Disengagement will not likely be easy accomplished….
“The Iraqis largely stood aside as British troops withdrew from the Basra region in the last several months, and I would expect that they will do so as we withdraw from their sovereign territory. I would expect that there will be no specific out-of-scale violence directed at us as we do so, but we must be prepared to fade away under fire if need be. In an orderly manner, taking and inflicting the smallest number of casualties possible.”
I am a self-proclaimed - and proud! - military ignoramus. However, you appear to be contradicting yourself. If you expect the Iraqis to do as they did in Basra, and for the most part stand aside and let you leave - and I promise you that is what they will do - then disengagement should not be so terribly difficult to accomplish, should it?
And by the way, as I have been predicting all along, once the British left Basra, the overall level of violence decreased dramatically and very quickly. The same thing will happen when you leave, and the sooner you leave, the more quickly the situation will begin to improve. At the VERY least the violence will be dramatically decreased by the removal of the massive violence that your troops inflict on a daily basis, plus the attacks on the part of the resistance fighters who are attacking the U.S. occupation forces and its Iraqi proxies.
“It’s a pity for many thousands of US service personnel—and, many tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis—that we ever became engaged in this foolish mission at all, and have not subsequently started to disengage a long, long ago.”
Indeed. But let’s put that in proportion. We are talking here about every Iraqi man, woman, and child - an estimated 25 million human beings - whose lives have been horribly and irrevocably affected by your violently forced presence. Even the majority in Kurdistan have been adversely affected, and by the way, the majority of Kurds have been quite fed up and ready for you to leave for some time, and now thanks to your support of the Turkish attacks, you may find you have made real, active enemies among the Kurds. It is difficult to feel a lot of sympathy for your troops who, in reality, have had choices (yes, they have choices, and thousands of them have made the courageous choice of saying no), when I think about an entire population - millions of human beings - who have had no choice whatsoever, and are suffering from collective and individual PTSD for which they will never get treatment, compensation, or relief.
I don’t believe that the original statement is contradictory. I am actually in complete agreement with you, and reiterate that I do not believe that Iraqis—individually, or in organized groups—would seriously attempt to impede the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Particularly so, if it was obvious, public and coordinated to some degree with those like Muqtata al Sadr, who are perceived by some to be our ‘enemy.’
Though he likely never should have been effectively pushed into a corner and ‘made’ the enemy, key opponents like al Sadr need to the opportunity to effectively ‘push’ US forces out of Iraq. That he would choose to do so by keeping his followers from harassing withdrawing forces is a given, from my point of view, but a field commander cannot simply make such presumptions and withdraw.
Instead, I would counsel a public declaration of intent (after all, it’s about time the Iraqis actually heard an honest expression of our intent) coupled with private coordination by both parties to insure minimum friction or engagement as the withdrawal took place, and—as you so correctly point out—we must actually, and as immediately as possible, withdraw. Statements and assurances mean nothing without quantifiable, verifiable results.
There is really nothing you have stated in your several posts that I find issue with: nothing, at all. And, you have the benefit few Americans do - your experience on the ground in a forcibly, and illegally, occupied nation. Nothing I have experienced from my time as a military member can quite compare with that.
I think you would find that if we actually met and engaged in conversation, that we would find far more in common than not. A lasting tragedy of this foolhardy adventure is that as a nation, we failed to look for common ground to a sufficient degree and recklessly attacked another nation to resolve what we perceived to be a problem. Another, is that current actions undertaken by this administration clearly indicate that we have learned virtually nothing from this experience.
I wonder why it took Edwards soooo long to call for complete withdrawal, and why Clinton and Obama have yet to. When it’s what a majority of Americans want, not to mention Iraqis. As Kerry would say, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”
Thank you, Leslie, for seeing and acknowledging that Clinton and Obama have NOT called for a complete withdrawal. In fact, Hillary, at least, has not only made no commitment whatsoever to a complete withdrawal, she has made it explicitly clear that she has no intention of making a complete withdrawal, even of combat troops, in the foreseeable future.
I don’t know why it took Edwards so long, but at least he has done so. I don’t know for sure why Obama has not done so, but I have a hunch that it is the same reason Hillary has not done so, and that is simply because she intends to keep a permanent military presence in Iraq, and she intends to keep that command and control center that Bush built well staffed and fully operational. There is only one thing that will make me believe otherwise, and that is for her to make an unconditional commitment to a full withdrawal and and abandonment of “Little America on the Tigris” along with the creation of a proper embassy, and for her to attach a date certain to all of it. And the same goes, of course, for Obama.
It’s remarkable that most Americans don’t even know we have built 14 bases in Iraq. Not to mention the 1/2 mile wide
palace“embassy”.Indeed, Shoephone, and even many Americans who know something about the bases have no idea of the nature of those bases. I have had people admit to the existence of the bases, and then tell me with a straight face that they were being built to be turned over to the Iraqi military. Soooooooo, theennn, they really believe that the U.S government has built miniature golf courses and bowling allies for Iraqi troops? And if these bases were being built for the Iraqi military, then why build Burger Kings and Pizza Huts and Taco Bells there? Why not put in stands selling Iraqi foods like falafel and guss (the Iraqi form of shawerma), and lahm b`ageen (an Iraqi pizza-like food item)? And why do Iraqi troops need an American-style car dealership on their military bases?
As for the so-called embassy, let’s be very clear about what that really is. It certainly has little to do with diplomatic activities. It is, in fact, a command and control center, not just for Iraq, but no doubt for the entire region.
I may have written about this here before, but it bears repeating. For a couple of years our next door neighbors on the right were a U.S. embassy employee and his young family. When they first rented the house they were three - mother, father, and toddler daughter. They used the exact same electrical, phone, and water supply we did, and their sewage went down the same pipes and into the same processing plant ours did. They had an Iraqi maid, an Iraqi cook, an Iraqi driver, and an Iraqi gardener (and they were so proud of their garden, too, and rightfully so). Their cook bought meat and vegetables in the same markets ours did, though they also were able to buy American food items at the commissary, of course. The wife later gave birth to a son, and where did the birth take place? Why, in the very same private maternity hospital used by our family. And who attended the birth? Why, one of the very same midwives who attended the births of the Iraqi babies who were born there. And who took care of the new mother and baby? Why, the very same Iraqi nurses who took care of the Iraqi mothers and babies. And who was on call in case of complications? Why, an Iraqi obstetrician, of course. And when the embassy was suddenly closed in 1967, we gave them all the disposable diapers we could collect to make it easier with the baby on their difficult bus trip out of the country. After all, they were neighbors, and were decent, respectable and respectful people, and it was not their fault that their government supported an enemy state.
“We must make it clear to all Iraqis that we have no intention of occupying their country or placing permanent bases or forces on their soil. And, we must get the hell out!”
Not quite. You must make it clear to all Iraqis that you have no intention of occupying their country or placing permanent bases of forces on their soil BY getting the hell out. Getting the hell out is the only way you CAN make it clear.
Look, what the hell do you expect Iraqis to believe about your intentions? What do you expect ANYONE with two eyes, to ears and a brain to believe? You have built gigantic permanent military bases all over the country with all the amenities of American towns - miniature golf courses, for heaven’s sake! One of them even has as car dealership! You have built what you call an embassy - a huge, completely self-contained walled off highly fortified, completely isolated city within a fortified city within a destroyed city with its own water and electrical supplies, communication system, sewage system, and its own missile defense system for god’s sake. Do you expect ANYONE to believe that is an embassy and not what it really is - an imperial command and control center?
And then there is that little agreement that Bush and Maliki made between themselves a few weeks ago - you know, the one about the long-term relationship? THAT is what this has been about from the beginning, and some of us have seen that from the beginning, despite all the protestations to the contrary, despite all the bullshit about how “when the Iraqis stand up we will stand down”, and “if the Iraqi government asks us to leave, we will leave”. So, how are you going to “make it clear to all Iraqis that we have no intention of occupying their country or placing permanent bases or forces on their soil” when every action on your part has belied your words? There is only one way, and that is simply to pack your bags, get in your tanks and your humvees, and head for the border. All of you. And not five years from now, not ten years from now, but starting now. And not some “phased, over-the-horizon” thing that takes five years and leaves tens of thousands of troops for years and years to “train” whomever, or “support” whatever, or fight whatever make-believe “enemy” you can create, but a complete, rapid withdrawal of all personnel and equipment. Only when you are completely gone - only then - will it be clear to Iraqis.
The redeploy plan doesn’t seem to have much support now eiher.
Not from supposed allies in the MidEast or our military.
Turkey has almost capitulated at times, Pakistan is on the verge of doing so as well, and we’ve yet to address Afghanistanin a way that could keep NATO solvent.
And now we go back to what I said at the very outset. The continued occupation of Iraq undermines everything America has to do to reestablish ourselves as a country that should be followed, that should be a leader.
Bingo, John Edwards! Despite we should never have gone into Iraq, we have accomplished our goals in Iraq…there are no WMD, Saddam is gone, and a new government is formed. Our only obligation at this point is to provide support to rebuilding the infrastructure and support to the new government. Occupation is not necessary for that to happen. If any politician thinks we can unite the Sunni and Shi’ite sects in Iraq, they live in a bubble. That has to come from the Iraqi people themselves.
Melissa, thank you for your sentiments. I appreciate your thoughts. Allow me, though, to present some counter-thoughts based on a different perspective and understanding of the situation and the issues.
- Your first and most important obligation is to make an unconditional immediate, rapid, and complete withdrawal.
- Your second obligation is to pay unconditional reparations for the blood you have shed, the lives you have destroyed, and the destruction you have caused.
- Your third obligation is to keep your hands and your nose completely out of every aspect of Iraq’s business, ESPECIALLY rebuilding and anything to do with Iraq’s government, economy, or political structure.
As for “united the Sunni and Shi`a”, no you cannot do that, but not for the reasons you have all been told. You see, Melissa, Iraq’s has always been a very diverse society with prior to the 2003 “liberation” and for as many centuries as you care to go back, the people living in Iraq lived together as well and as peacefully as they do in any historically religiously and ethnically diverse society, and better than in some. They worked together, did business together, cooperated together, and frequently intermarried. They have also easily absorbed and integrated other religious/ethnic/linguistic groups into society. A good example of this is the Armenian community in Iraq, which is almost entirely descended from refugees who fled the genocide in Turkey.
It is a fact that Iraq has no history of serious, widespread, or protracted sectarian conflict prior to 2003. And the bottom line is that Iraqis do not have to “learn to live together” as so many people have stated. Iraqis have always known how to live together, and have traditionally done so very well. The reason you cannot “unite Sunnis and Shi`as” is because you are directly responsible for creating and perpetuating the conflict.
today is a happy day and vote for hillary clinton because shes a girl and if we vote for a guy then theyll probably make sure that girls cant vote
so:
VOTE FOR HILARY CLINTON!!
ur coollll iff u doo
today is a happy day and vote for hillary clinton because shes a girl and if we vote for a guy then theyll probably make sure that girls cant vote
so:
VOTE FOR HILARY CLINTON!!