Democrats are grudgingly admitting what most Republicans have been saying all along -- Iraq isn't a situation thats going to fix itself, and Saigon-style abandonment really isn't an option:
Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.Er...isn't that precisely what we're doing now?
John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.
“We’ve got to be prepared to control a civil war if it starts to spill outside the borders of Iraq,” Mr. Edwards, who has run hard against the war, said at a Democratic debate in Chicago this week. “And we have to be prepared for the worst possibility that you never hear anyone talking about, which is the possibility that genocide breaks out and the Shi’a try to systematically eliminate the Sunni. As president of the United States, I would plan and prepare for all those possibilities.”I love how suddenly the buzzword for Iraq (or anywhere that may involve military intervention) is "genocide". Darfur, Iraq, Bosnia; if there's genocide, the Democrats are there! Huzzah for America! Huzzah for the Left!
... Mrs. Clinton often says, “If this president does not end this war before he leaves office, when I am president, I will.” But she has affirmed in recent months remarks she made to The New York Times in March, when she said that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops. The United States’ security, she said then, would be undermined if part of Iraq turned into a failed state” that serves as a Petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda.”I thought we weren't fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq? Note to Sen. Clinton: the official Party Line is that its a civil war, not Al Qaeda, that we're currently fighting.
All the anti-war candidates are talking out of both sides of their mouth. This will come back to bite them. The Sheehans and Kossacks of the world are literally crazy about the war issue and no amount of rational discussion over the relative worth of troops in the region or terrorist breeding grounds will pacify them.
Do these sound familiar to you?
“It is time to bring our troops home because it has made us less safe,” Mr. Obama said to a throng of supporters, cheering wildly despite the pouring rain, at a campaign stop in New Hampshire last month.Oops. I guess yKos is over now, so the candidates can come back to reality.
Mrs. Clinton has been equally vocal in making “bringing the troops home” a central theme. In February, she said her message to the Iraqi government would be simple: “I would say ‘I’m sorry, it’s over. We are not going to baby-sit a civil war.’ ”
Both candidates, in interviews or debates, have said that they would not support intervening in a genocidal war should the majority Shiites slaughter Sunnis — and Sunnis retaliate — on a much greater scale than now takes place.