Christina Siun O’Connell of Firedoglake and Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller of Open Left did a commercial for Gov. Bill Richardson.
The message is clear. Bill Richardson is the only major candidate (Kucinich and Gravel are not major) who has a plan that leaves no residual troops in Iraq. If you leave residual troops in Iraq, Christina says, you are not ending the war.
I’ve talked to Bowers about this before. For Bowers, this talk about no residual troops is terribly important. And I understand why. If a candidate plans to leave 30,000-60,000 troops in country they have no business saying that they are going to end the war. Bowers has been trying to get the candidates to be more specific about their plans, and how many troops it will take over how many years for them to implement their plans. I applaud his efforts. And I applaud their decision to reward Richardson for being specific and boldly saying that he will end the war.
Yet, I’m not sure that the standard of no residual troops is the right standard. Maybe that is not the most important question that we should be asking. Iraq is a mess. It’s very complicated. It not only impacts on the ability of the world economy to fuel itself, it also brings extremely delicate questions about our relationships with Turkey (and the Kurds), Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Emirates.
Our allies, all of whom are Sunni, are appalled at the humanitarian crisis and ethnic cleansing of their brethren in Iraq. They are suffering from a refugee crisis. The U.S. and our European allies are struggling to influence the Iranian government. There are even powerful Israeli interests involved.
I remember when I took my first class on the Middle East. It was my junior year in high school. And I found it to be a dizzying experience trying to keep all the different parties straight in my head. After a while, I just wanted to throw up my hands and say, ‘I’ll never be able to learn all this stuff.’ But I stuck it out and I learned it. And I feel like insisting on no residual forces is somewhat akin to throwing up our hands and saying it is too complicated…we quit.
In this case, it may well be that the problems are too complicated, our resources too tapped, our credibility too shot, and our leadership too delusional…and that the best answer is for us to throw up our hands and quit. I believe that is probably the case. I certainly believe that we should end the occupation and all efforts at reconstruction, and take our troops home.
And I don’t trust any politician that is saying one thing out of one side of their mouth and another thing out of the other side of their mouth.
But I don’t need a promise of no residual troops. If we need troops to keep the peace between Turkey and the Kurds, I’m willing to consider that. If we have some Iraqi government approved missions…especially related to refugees…I’m willing to listen.
Above all, I want a president that understands two things. I want them to understand who all the factions are and what motivates them. And I want them to acknowledge that the war is lost and begin thinking about the big issues that brought us this war: dependence on oil and gas from the region, blind support for a deteriorating status quo on the Israeli/Palestine question, a determination to have a forward basing strategy in the Arab world, and a double standard on human rights in the Arab world. If they do not understand these issues, I am not going to be all the impressed by calls for no residual forces.
I think Al Gore understands. I think Barack Obama understands. I think, perhaps, John Edwards understands. Bill Richardson? I am not so sure.
Add to this that Bill Richardson has some serious shortcomings on domestic policy, and I would prefer it if people didn’t automatically leap to give him their support.
I applaud his strong position. I applaud Matt, Chris, and Christina’s support for his position. But it just doesn’t mean all that much to me. I don’t necessarily think making such a promise is an indicator of competence.
