Just yesterday I complained there was no substantive difference among the three Democratic frontrunners (Clinton, Edwards, Obama) on ending the U.S. occupation Iraq, since they all promised to keep significant forces in Iraq by the end of their first term in 2013.
But today John Edwards set a deadline of December 2009 for the withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops.
Edwards Calls for Quick End to Iraq Training Effort
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
SIOUX CITY, Iowa — 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.
In one of his most detailed discussions to date about how he would handle Iraq as president, Mr. Edwards staked out a position that would lead to a more rapid and complete troop withdrawal than his principal rivals, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who have indicated they are open to keeping American trainers and counterterrorism units in Iraq.
Hallelujah!
Of course the devil is always in the details, and we need to make sure there's no "wriggle room" for significant numbers of "residual forces." According to the Times,
Mr. Edwards’s plan calls for immediately withdrawing 40,000 to 50,000 troops. Nearly all of the remaining American troops would be removed within 9 or 10 months. The only force that would remain would be a 3,500-to-5,000-strong contingent that would protect the American Embassy and possibly humanitarian workers.
I don't have a big problem with protecting the Embassy, although I'd like to see our Embassy shrunk down to the size of our other embassies, rather than being larger than Vatican City.
Edwards' web site is more vague, referring only to "combat troops" without addressing other categories of troops.
Withdraw Combat Troops within Nine to Ten Months
Edwards believes we should completely withdraw all combat troops from Iraq within nine to ten months and prohibit permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. After withdrawal, we should retain sufficient forces in Quick Reaction Forces located outside Iraq, in friendly countries like Kuwait, to prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven, a genocide, or regional spillover of a civil war.
I don't know when Edwards decided to set a 12/09 deadline, but he should have publicized it months ago when Chris Bowers was blogging about residual forces. On 9/30/07, Bowers and other bloggers concluded Edwards planned to keep "One brigade OR up to 90,000 support troops," citing the 9/26/07 Dartmouth/MSNBC Presidential Debate:
Edwards mentions leaving a single brigade of combat troops for an unknown period of time as well as removing combat troops, leaving possibly tens of thousands of troops behind.
Of course Edwards' position is less definitive than Kucinich or Richardson, but if the early primaries narrow the field to Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, then I will support Edwards.
What about you?
Update 1: InsiderAdvantage predicts Edwards will win big in Iowa when the longer-shot candidates fail to reach the 15% threshhold and their supporters switch their votes to their second-favorite candidates:
Using the reallocation methodology InsiderAdvantage used in 2004 – which correctly indicated a fairly comfortable win for John Kerry – our new poll reveals that, if the caucuses were held today, the reallocated final outcome would be:
Edwards: 41%
Clinton: 34%
Obama: 25%
If that proves accurate, Edwards would definitely shock the political establishment - and the counterattack from the Corporate Media would be fast and fierce. Stay tuned...
