John Edwards pulls a stunt on the eve of the Iowa caucuses that he should have pulled a year ago.
John Edwards says that if elected president he would withdraw the American troops who are training the Iraqi army and police as part of a broader plan to remove virtually all American forces within 10 months.
Mr. Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina who is waging a populist campaign for the Democratic nomination, said that extending the American training effort in Iraq into the next presidency would require the deployment of tens of thousands of troops to provide logistical support and protect the advisers.
“To me, that is a continuation of the occupation of Iraq,” he said in a 40-minute interview on Sunday aboard his campaign bus as it rumbled through western Iowa.
His wife clarified:
Elizabeth Edwards, his wife and political partner, who listened in on the interview from a seat across the aisle, intervened at the end of the session to underscore that Mr. Edwards did not intend to stop all training and was prepared to train Iraqi forces outside of the country. Mr. Edwards continued the theme while acknowledging that the benefits of such training would be limited.
Do you think the media will give Edwards credit for telling difficult truths to the American people? Perhaps he doesn’t really deserve it, since he waited until the day before the caucuses to make his case explicit. But, he’s right. We shouldn’t abandon all training but we should do it out of country and we shouldn’t expect much benefit from it.
It’s a good political move by Edwards. But it comes with risks because the media will think it is just more evidence that he isn’t ‘serious’.
We shouldn’t abandon all training but we should do it out of country and we shouldn’t expect much benefit from it.
train them to do what?
we need to get out before we are chased out.
to be police officers, soldiers, and intelligence officers. If they want the training and are willing to travel, I have no problem providing that training.
School of the Americas redux?
something to think about, for sure.
Okay, it is a bit of a stunt. It may also be smart. If he had been saying these things for months, the right wing spin maching would have had a long time to drive home their point that he is a weak pretty boy. They still will, but if Edwards does okay in Iowa it may innoculate him a little bit.
We have got to end the occupation. And if it takes a smart pretty boy do it, so be it.
Agreed. Iraq is now a failed state, and the history of such failed states tells us that while outsiders can assist in the process of building new institutions, they cannot do it with an occupying army and, in fact, the presence of an occupying army invariably prolongs the chaos. We need a complete and total withdrawal from Iraq. Iraq needs it as much or more than we do.
The neocons who tend to see everything in terms of WW2 fail to note the vital difference between the allied occupations of Japan and Germany with the occupation of Iraq. In WW2, the legitimate (no matter how distasteful) governments of Japan and Germany surrendered unconditionally to the allies, ensuring the relatively orderly transfer of legitimate and universally-recognized political power to the occupying governments. The allies effectively took total reponsibility for the postwar reconstruction of the former Axis countries, and then they backed it up with an unprecedented commitment of manpower and money.
In Iraq, the legitimate government never capitulated, and the illegitimacy of the occupation was further undermined by the kangaroo courts that put the primary leadership to death in a thoroughly disgraceful fashion. We never committed the resources necessary to rebuild the country, and made it clear even before the invasion that we intended to finance the reconstruction through plunder.
Another vital difference, which we have spent the better part of the last four years banging our heads against, is that while Germany and Japan were thoroughly unified nation states, Iraq was always an ad hoc collection of former Ottoman satrapies held together by the iron grip of the Baath party, which in time became a mere extension of Saddam Hussein. “Iraq” as such, never existed as a modern nation state; there was only Saddam — L’État, c’est moi” — and when Saddam was toppled, the pseudostate of Iraq collapsed into the squabbling, irreconcilable factions that would have been at each other’s throats already were it not for fear of Saddam.
Sometimes, you screw up and can fix it. This is not one of those occasions. We have only two choices: walk away and accept the price of failure, or continue to screw it up worse and accept an even greater price of failure later.
If Edwards understands the reality of the situation and plans to act on it, he has instantly become unique among the presidential candidates of both parties.
I think Edwards has been unique for a more long-term reason: his rejection of the “war on terrorism” meme. To me, this shows someone who has actually thought, and thought well, about the whole response to a changed strategic environment. It took both intellect and courage to challenge the “war on terror” as the permanent excuse for American imperialism, attacks on civil liberties, and the “unitary executive” theory, among other opportunistic neo-fascist thrusts.
If Americans really want change, the “war on terrorism” con job has to change before anything else can. Edwards, as far as I know, is the only candidate willing to take that on.
now that Kucinich is “backing” Obama. Is this Kucinich’s way of pushing Edwards to the left? I don’t think he’s that much of a magician. But in effect, that’s what he’s done.
This bothers me. I agree that it is a good position to have, but announcing new Iraq policy the day before the Iowa caucus strikes me as not genuine. I already worry about Edwards on that front given his ideological shifts since leaving the senate. The question I find myself asking about Edwards is what happened to inspire him to change his mind on that issue.
The way he did this, he didn’t drive the debate or give us room to think about it. It doesn’t give his opponents time to respond. This is a political stunt and rather than make me hopeful that he will get our troops out of Iraq it reinforces my worry that he will say what he thinks he needs to say to win this election. I like Edwards but….
“I like Edwards but…”
We know, you love Obama. 🙂
This is not directed at you, Luam, as I’m sure you feel the same way. But damn I can’t wait for the day that we can start talking about the merits of the positions themselves as opposed to their timing. I am so f’ing sick of this extended primary season that I’m ready to puke.
like you, I cannot stand the never ending campaign! Like many in Michigan, I am PO’d about the “choices” I have in the upcoming Dem primary. The timing of his announcement notwithstanding, Edwards is right on this and right on many issues. I think he is the best choice out there for a progressive Dem to support. He is electable, he isn’t beholdin to the big $$ folks and he is capable. Wow, wouldn’t that be a change?
In MI you can vote uncommitted. That way the delegate you vote for can vote their conscience. Chances are they will have decided to be an Obama or Edwards delegate. It will also be a protest vote over the way the primary was handled.