At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Both Hillary and Obama make clear they're going to pull out of Iraq when elected...or are they? George Friedman of Stratfor.com says differently:
Quote:
There is no candidate arguing for the permanent stationing of more than 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. There are those who believe that political ends can and should be achieved in Iraq, and that the drawdown of forces should be keyed to achieving those ends. That is essentially the Bush policy. Then there are those who believe that the United States not only has failed to achieve its political goals but also, in fact, is not going to achieve them. Under this reasoning, the United States ought to be prepared to withdraw from Iraq on a timetable that is indifferent to the situation on the ground.
This has been Obama's position to this point, and it distinguishes him from other candidates-including Clinton, who has been much less clear on what her policy going forward would be. But even Obama's emphasis, if not his outright position, has shifted as a political resolution in Iraq has appeared more achievable. He remains committed to a withdrawal from Iraq, but he is not clear on the timeline. He calls for having all U.S. combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months, but qualifies his statement by saying that if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes against the group. Since al Qaeda is in fact building a base within Iraq, Obama's commitment to having troops in Iraq is open-ended.
The shift in Obama's emphasis-and this is the important point-means his position on Iraq is not really different from that of McCain, the most pro-Bush candidate. Events have bypassed the stance that the situation on the ground is hopeless, so even Obama's position has tacked toward a phased withdrawal based on political evolutions.
They say one thing on the campaign trail, but their position papers say another. And in the case of Hillary, she seems to say whatever will get her elected. Otherwise, all of the front runners have basically the same position on Iraq as Bush according this guy. I've said all along that none of them will pull out of Iraq, do you honestly think they will just yank the troops out? Will the anti-war left feed on their own when they don't?
I believe they are saying what they believe will get them the votes. It was only a few months ago someone asked Hillary what her date of troop withdraw would be and she clearly (in her confusing double speak) stated that that would be hard to say because all kinds of things could happen between now and then. I remember as soon as I heard her say that how odd it is that they can't see that when they demand a date from Bush. I also heard she was hoping that Bush would have them all out before she became president because she didn't want it to become her problem. Most likely because she knows she wouldn't do any better.
I LOOOOVE how she always says "When I AM President...."
I am trying to decide-- South America or Jamaica if she does become Pres. !
Steve you know my take on this . When push came to shove and all the Dems were pinned down to commit to leaving within their 1st term ,none would do so. The moonbats went ballistic ;so now Obama and Evita are playing their own version of "Name that tune". ....I will withdraw in 2 months ....I will withdraw in 1 month Etc.
They don't mean it. They know damn well that the only responsible position to take is to leave Iraq victorious. They won't have to wait long to begin withdrawals of some kind. President Bush and General Petraus is going to leave them with good options to exercise.
They should be thankful to the President that his surge plan has been an unqualified success.
I don't think re-deployment can be immediate for practical reasons, regardless of political campaigning or suggested ear tickling. I'll go on record as supporting phased re-deployment out of Iraq. I do believe this happens sooner, not later, if either Clinton or Obama (my favorite of the two) are elected to presidency. I do think that even Huckabee would see fit for re-deployment within four years of his term, if he could be elected (very unlikely). My point is that Huckabee appears more willing to see fault for his own mistakes than seek partisan perfection. And we already know that Paul would remove troops, asap upon being elected. However I can't reconcile my differences with McCain on this issue. The man is archaic in his thinking and I'm afraid of any strategies he might have dreamt. To be perfectly straight with everyone at this point if this becomes a Clinton vs. McCain general election, I'll probably just sit this one out.
Writing last month in the Nation magazine, foreign affairs analyst Ari Berman said there was a widely shared "suspicion that despite all his talk about providing 'change,' the Obama campaign's differences with Hillary Clinton on foreign policy may be more stylistic than substantive."
On Iraq, they seem to be joined at the hip on getting out as soon as possible and that bothers Mr. O'Hanlon, a Clinton supporter, who has been a leading Democratic supporter of the military surge there.
"I'm troubled about what they both say about Iraq. He's the one who wants to get out very fast, unconditionally, and to some extent, he has pulled her along," Mr. O'Hanlon said. But both candidates have little-noticed caveats on their withdrawal plans that they rarely if ever talk about on the campaign stump, but that bear more notice by their antiwar supporters.
The end of Mrs. Clinton's position paper on "Ending The War In Iraq" says: "She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region," including Iraq. At the end of Mr. Obama's position paper, in which he promises "I will end the war in Iraq," he says: "If al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."
This begs the question: How long do you think it will take al Qaeda to re-establish bases throughout the country once we're out?" You get one guess.
"If you add up all of their differences, they both fail on Iraq. They both are advocating a policy that unless significantly modified would lead to a reversal of all our military progress in 2007," Mr. O'Hanlon said.
No, I don't believe for one nano-second that either Hilary or Barack would change a thing in Iraq. It is all rhetoric and saying just what they think will get them elected.
I am looking for a deserted island. Pitch a tent, build a hut.
No, I don't believe for one nano-second that either Hilary or Barack would change a thing in Iraq. It is all rhetoric and saying just what they think will get them elected.
I am looking for a deserted island. Pitch a tent, build a hut.
If such a place exists, and you find it, post it here. You'll probably have several neighbors!
Linear Mode
