Crucial Differences on the Iraq Occupation between Edwards and the Two Frontrunners

What to do about the Iraq war is one of the most crucial issues facing the American government and people today. It is bankrupting our country, causing the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, creating millions of Iraqi refugees, and fueling anti-American hatred throughout the world, thereby contributing substantially to the growth of anti-American terrorist groups. Furthermore, it is patently immoral and illegal to occupy a sovereign nation against its will, especially when great damage is done to the people of that nation.

The positions on this question held by the three leading Democratic candidates for President appear superficially similar, and therefore many Democratic voters do not appreciate what seems to me are significant differences between them. In order to fully appreciate those differences it is important first to recognize two very different versions of the reasons for our current occupation of Iraq: There is the Bush administration version, and there is the reality version.

The difficulty in distinguishing differences in the positions and plans of the Democratic candidates is largely the result of the fact that few are willing to explicitly and fully recognize and discuss the different versions of the reasons for our occupation (Kucinich and perhaps Gravel are exceptions to that). None of the Democratic candidates recognize the Bush administration version as reality because…. well, that would be patently absurd. Yet none of the three leading candidates has explicitly stated the reality of the situation either, because…. well, that could be politically more risky than either candidate is willing to risk at this time. Nevertheless, those three Democratic candidates do give important clues as to how they view the occupation by the words they use to describe it. More important, their implicitly stated views of the occupation are likely to strongly predict how they handle it as President.

So let’s consider the diametrically different versions of the reasons for our Iraq occupation, especially with respect to the three leading Democratic candidates:


Two diametrically different versions of the reasons for the current U.S. occupation of Iraq

The Bush administration version of the reasons for our continued occupation of Iraq
The Bush administration has stated two major reasons for our continuing occupation of Iraq. In a nutshell: to bring freedom to the Iraqi people, and to pursue our “War on Terror”. Both of these excuses are patently absurd.

With regard to Bush’s claim that we are bringing freedom to the Iraqi people: In a country with a population of perhaps 25 million, their infrastructure has been devastated, more than a million have died as a result of the war, and more than 4 million have become refugees. That’s at least one fifth of the original Iraqi population. Of the remainder, according to a World Opinion poll of Iraqis, 91% want us to leave, and 61% actually approve of violence directed against U.S. troops. Freedom does not consist of being dead or having to flee one’s home. And if our occupation contributed in any way to freedom or well being of the Iraqi people, polls would not show an overwhelming majority of them wanting us to leave and a solid majority desiring to see violence perpetrated against us.

What about the idea that the purpose of our continuing occupation is to pursue George Bush’s “War on Terror”? Hmmm. That rationale sounds very similar to the long discredited rationale for the original invasion. Of course, after we invaded, al Qaeda actually did come to Iraq. But they account for a very small proportion of the violence in Iraq, even according to the Baker/Hamilton Iraq Study Group report. Our continued presence in Iraq fuels al Qaeda recruitment, as it creates the (accurate) perception that, at least under the Bush administration, we behave like an arrogant imperialistic nation that thinks we have the right to invade and occupy any country we want for our own selfish interests.

To invade and occupy a country that posed no risk to us and then to define those who violently resist our occupation as “terrorists” is the height of arrogance.

The reality version
In a nutshell, the real reason for George Bush’s continued occupation of Iraq is the same as the real reason for our initial invasion: It provides a great opportunity for many of George Bush’s wealthy supporters to make millions, billions, or tens of billions of dollars from contracts with the U.S. government to assist in the war effort and the reconstruction of Iraq and through access to Iraq’s oil and other resources. The evidence for this is provided in great detail by Antonia Juhasz in “http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3D%2522the%2Bbush%2Bagenda%2522%2Bjuhasz%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title">The Bush Agenda – Invading the World One Economy at a Time”, which I discuss in this post. To briefly summarize:

Soon following the Iraq invasion, L. Paul Bremer III, Bush’s appointee as the administrator of Iraq, quickly put into effect 100 orders which facilitated the recommendations of Cheney’s Energy Task Force and plans for the economic transformation of Iraq: All members of the Ba’ath Party and of the Iraqi Army were fired from their jobs without pay, thus putting hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (many who were highly skilled) out of work and paving the way for U.S. corporations to receive billions of dollars in reconstruction contracts; the “Trade Liberalization Policy” provided many benefits to U.S. corporations, devastating Iraq’s businesses and industries in the process; an order for “Prohibited media activity” essentially outlawed any news media criticisms of the Bush administration’s role in Iraq; The Foreign Investment Order provided the legal framework for the invasion of U.S. corporations into Iraq; Americans were placed in numerous key positions; and many other repressive orders were decreed by Bremer, including the granting of criminal and civil immunity for all Americans from Iraq’s pre-existing laws.

Billions of dollars worth of no-bid contracts were provided by the U.S. government for reconstruction and security purposes. But while almost all of this money was awarded to Bush and Cheney cronies, the Iraqis were almost totally excluded from the process. Furthermore, the reconstruction effort was a miserable failure, with electricity, potable water, and sewage services remaining far below pre-war levels. Audits of U.S. taxpayer funds found contract files to be unavailable, incomplete, and unreliable, while $8.8 billion from the Development fund for Iraq were completely unaccounted for. Yet none of this interfered with U.S. corporations receiving the full amounts of their contracts plus much more.

The so-called “transition of power” to the Iraqis was accomplished in form only, with U.S. puppets installed to ensure that Bush’s agenda would proceed unhampered.

And as for U.S. oil companies, Production Sharing Agreements were put in place to ensure their access to Iraq’s oil, that access was multiplied manifold, their profits have skyrocketed since the occupation began, and the Bush administration remains hard at work to ensure that their access to oil increases and becomes permanent.


The importance of knowing which version of the reasons for our occupation our candidates accept

Their accepted version of the real reasons for our occupation of Iraq will certainly help to determine what actions Clinton, Obama, or Edwards will or will not take as President to end our occupation of Iraq. This is especially true when candidates make it clear (as is reasonable) that their actions will depend upon how events play out over time. Those who agree that the major reason for our current occupation is to provide opportunities for American corporations to accumulate billions of dollars in profits will be likely to end the occupation as soon as possible. On the other hand, those who accept, to varying degrees, the Bush version of the reasons for the occupation, will be more likely to find some excuse for continuing the occupation in some form. With that in mind, let’s consider how the words of the three leading Democratic candidates indicate their version of the reality of our current occupation:


Versions of the reasons for the Iraq occupation expressed by the three leading Democratic candidates

First, let’s acknowledge some important similarities in the positions of the three candidates. All three leading Democratic candidates say that they would begin to draw our troops out of Iraq immediately upon becoming President, and all three say that it would be their goal to get the vast majority of our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. They also acknowledge that it may be necessary to retain at least some troops in order to protect our embassy and any humanitarian missions that might be required. And they all acknowledge the importance of diplomacy and training Iraqi security forces. With that in mind, let’s consider some important differences between Edwards vs. Clinton and Obama:


Evidence of some acceptance of the Bush version by Clinton
I believe it is fair to say that some of Senator Clinton’s statements, either during debates, or from her website, indicate some degree of acceptance of the Bush version of the reasons for our occupation of Iraq:

From the September 26, 2007 debate at Dartmouth: “I said there may be a continuing counterterrorism mission which, if it still exists, will be aimed at al Qaeda in Iraq. It may require combat, Special Operations Forces or some other form….”

From the January 15, 2008 debate in Las Vegas: “We do need to make sure that, you know, our strategic interests are taken care of.”

From Hillary Clinton’s website: “Hillary will not lose sight of our very real strategic interests in the region. 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.”

Comment: Whenever I hear anyone refer to our “strategic interests” with respect to the Iraq occupation, I am struck by the similarity to the following statement from “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, written by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC):



Evidence of some acceptance of the Bush version by Obama
Senator Obama’s statements have much in common with Senator Clinton’s statements on this issue:

From the September 26, 2007 debate at Dartmouth: “…making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there.”

From the January 15, 2008 debate in Las Vegas: “We are going to have to have some presence that allows us to strike if Al Qaeda is creating bases inside of Iraq… So I cannot guarantee that we’re not going to have a strategic interest that I have to carry out as commander-in-chief to maintain some troop presence there…”

From Barack Obama’s website: “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.”


Evidence of near total rejection of the Bush version by Edwards
In contrast to Clinton and Obama, Edwards makes no mention of the need to keep troops in Iraq to counter al Qaeda or any other kind of terrorism, nor does he refer to our “strategic interests” as an excuse for keeping troops in Iraq.

From the September 26, 2007 debate at Dartmouth: “I will… continue to bring our combat troops out of Iraq until all of our combat troops are in fact out of Iraq .…”

There are, however, differences between us, and those differences need to be made aware. Good people have differences about this issue. For example, I heard Senator Clinton say on Sunday that she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq. To me, that's a continuation of the war. I do not think we should continue combat missions in Iraq… I would have our combat troops out of Iraq over a period of several months, and I would not continue combat missions in Iraq. Combat missions mean that the war is continuing. I believe this war needs to be brought to an end.

From the January 15, 2008 debate in Las Vegas: I will have all combat troops out in the first year that I’m president of the United States. I will end combat missions… As long as you keep combat troops in Iraq, you continue the occupation. If you keep military bases in Iraq, you’re continuing the occupation.

From John Edwards’ website:



More lies from Tim Russert – one of the greatest corporate media whores in U.S. journalism today

During the September 2007 Dartmouth debate Tim Russert asked all the Democratic candidates the following question:


That question is extreme in two respects: The request for a pledge and the specification that all U.S. troops will be gone. Not surprisingly, all three leading Democratic candidates declined to agree to Russert’s stupid pledge. Consequently, Russert mischaracterized that refusal by turning to Bill Richardson and saying, “You’ve heard your three other opponents say they can’t do it in four years.”

Well, the windbag arrogant liar was up to his old tricks again during the January 2008 debate in Las Vegas. Not having to respond to a request for a stupid pledge, each of the candidates discussed their desire to get troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible. Edwards made it clear, again, that he would get all combat troops out of Iraq, leaving only enough troops to guard our embassy and our humanitarian mission. Clinton and Obama made it clear, again, that they would go as far as Edwards in that regard, and that they would also leave enough troops to serve as a bulwark against terrorism and “protect our strategic interests”. There was little or no change in any of the candidates’ positions on this issue. Their statements were remarkably consistent from one debate to the next, and also consistent with what they advocate on their websites. Yet Russert claimed to his audience, both during and after the debate, that all three candidates had “changed their minds” and were now speaking much more aggressively about getting out of Iraq.

As discussed in this post, Russert also played his gotcha game with the Democratic candidates during the September debate by: mischaracterizing the torture issue and trying unsuccessfully to get the candidates to agree that torture should be legal; questioning John Edwards about his haircut; and, invoking Rudi Giuliani as a model for his irresponsible threat of a preemptive war against Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons.


Summary of differences between the three leading Democratic candidates

Clinton and Obama make frequent references to the need to keep troops in Iraq to counter al Qaeda or terrorism in general, and they often refer to our “strategic interests” as a possible reason for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq. Edwards does not do that, and he makes it clear that he will get all combat troops out of Iraq.

One other difference is also very important and worth mentioning: Edwards makes it absolutely clear that “While I’m president, there will be no permanent military bases in Iraq.” Obama is a little bit fuzzier on that issue, but he does say that “we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq.” (though he doesn’t say what will become of the many permanent bases that are already there). Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, does not as far as I can see, say anything about either abandoning our current military bases or even discontinuing the building of additional military bases in Iraq.

These differences are not transitory and I have not cherry picked them. They are quite consistent over time.

If you believe that there is legitimate justification for our combat troops in Iraq to fight terrorism or to “protect our strategic interests”, then you should favor Clinton and Obama over Edwards on this issue. On the other hand, if you believe that all the Bush administration’s talk about the need to fight al Qaeda in Iraq and to “protect our strategic interests” there and “If we don’t fight them over there they’ll follow us here” is just a bunch of baloney to serve as an excuse for the raiding of Iraq by American corporations, then you should favor Edwards over the other two.

I strongly believe that these differences are not trivial. Edwards’ statements about getting all combat troops out of Iraq are firm and consistent over time. They are also consistent with his repeated promises to stand up against the interests of powerful corporations when those interests work against the interests of the American people.

Obama and Clinton also express their desire to get out of Iraq as soon as possible, and I see that as a good thing. However, their frequent references to the potential need to continue to fight terrorism in Iraq, their references to our “strategic interests” there, and the absence of any promises to shut down U.S. military bases in Iraq, all worry me.

The violence against U.S. occupying troops in Iraq cannot be accurately characterized as “terrorism”. It is much more accurately characterized as war against an imperialistic occupying power that is intent on pillaging their country. I believe that the Obama/Clinton approach to the issue is likely to lead to a continuing U.S. military presence in Iraq, which in turn will lead to continued violence there for a long time to come.

so he's the better person. :puke:

zalinda

But then, since that time he seems to have moved way to the right. He has said that he doesn't know how he would have voted on the IWR had he been in the Senate at the time.

And then, the many things that I've talked about in this OP do not sound like the same person who was against the war at the start. He really seems to me to have moved way to the right since then. It's hard to understand :shrug:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/17/obamas_reagan_comparison_spark_1.html


I realize that there are people who say that this paragraph doesn't indicate admiration of Reagan, but rather only Obama's desire to appeal to Republicans. Well, what does one have to do to appeal to Republicans? And in any event, I sense nothing but admiration in this paragraph. And what is he referring to by the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s? This was the time of protest against the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights movement. He seems to be ignoring that.

And it's also consistent with these comments from his book, "The Audacity of Hope":


So he's saying that the Democratic Party is the reactionary party, and he's criticizing Democrats for being too suspicious of war. What war is he talking about. Democrats and Republicans alike generally give blanket approval to presidents who want to take us into war. That's what happened in Vietnam. So what war is he talking about that Democrats have been too suspicious of? The Iraq War?

I just don't understand how liberals can support his candidacy.

a tangled web !!!

i just don't understand why OBAMA won't lay it on the line with Iraq.

i just don't understand how OBAMA supporters who flocked to his banner based on his opposition to the war aren't ABANDONING him - or at least pressuring him to take a specific stand. maybe they are hypnotized by his charisma, but I'm not !!! they seem WEIRD to sound so PACIFIST on the one hand ("he was against the IWR!") and sleep right through his passive aggression in Iraq.

a failure of OBAMA to answer this challenge should stink to high heaven to OBAMA followers who believe that he is some kind of PACIFIST. it is simply NOT CONSISTENT.

he could put these blanks in his positioning out of commission with a simple speech - I thought he gave good speeches ?! can't he have one of his writers throw one together, or are they on strike too? - to the effect of "Under my plan, we will withdraw our troops and have bases and here is why - the USA needs those bases to keep its promises to Iraq, promises we have made and upon which cannot lightly renege despite the shifting political tides that will ensue my election." He needs to JUSTIFY THE BASES AND POTENTIAL AGGRESSION HE WANTS THE FREEDOM TO SUPPORT.

In doing so he will sound more Republican than ever. Are OBAMA supporters ready to support him through that justification of the continued (and PERMANENT) military presence in Iraq? Are you ? If not, please consider shifting your energetic support to a candidate that has obviously DISCOVERED THE CONSPIRACY and is out to DEMOLISH it - JOHN EDWARDS. Thanks :)

I guess that there are different ways to look at that.

On the one hand, maybe it's good strategy for the general election.

But as a liberal, it makes me very nervous about him. If he campaigns like this, what's to say that he won't govern like this, maybe even being similar to Reagan in some ways.

If either of the two frontrunners wins the nomination I'm going to be more disappointed than I've ever been about the Democratic nominee.

Great post.

Similarly, many people lump the three health care plans together as being fundamentally similar. However, the Obama and Clinton plans primarily expand the role of private health insurance, not too different from what Governor Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts, the problems of which are nicely discussed here: http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/january/doctors_give_massach.php

In short, an expensive and tremendous gift to the insurance companies.

While Edwards' plan also makes it easier for people to get private health insurance, of the three, only Edwards *also* creates a public, non-profit, medicare-like system that would be available to everyone, along the lines of what Kucinich proposes.

Edwards' plan essentially gives people a *choice* between the improved access to private insurance that they would get in a Clinton/Obama/Romney type of plan OR joining a Kucinich-like non-profit public program if they prefer. If people feel they will get superior service from the private sector, they can choose that, but it is not the only choice. The availability of a non-profit "competitor" to the private system should help keep those companies in check and keep overall costs down regardless of which plan someone chooses. Edwards' plan even has the potential to lead the country into a Kucinich-like single-payer system over time, if that's what people want... the infrastructure for that inherently exists in the plan, it's basically what happens if everyone simply ends up preferring the public plan. But rather than having such a program imposed by the government, essentially the market would decide, which would sit better with those who oppose single-payer on more libertarian grounds.

In this case, both Clinton and Obama are candidates of the status quo, no non-profit national health care, just more profits for the healthcare industry... only Edwards offers potential for real change here. As Edwards' question to Obama in the last debate implied, there is a reason the insurance companies contribute so heavily to Clinton and Obama's campaigns. We don't need to just "sit down" with the insurance companies as Obama suggests... we need to have an alternative to them.

I discuss it more in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2602279

Thanks for the link, TFC, lots of interesting info there. Though also, it looks like I was mis-informed and the Clinton and Obama plans also have a component of allowing someone to choose a public non-profit medicare-like plan. Clearly, I need to do a little more research!

Krugman notes that the Clinton and Edwards plans are very similar (and I trust Krugman's opinion on this a great deal), but he gives Edwards a lot more credit for his because Edwards' plan came well before Clinton's, and Krugman believes that Clinton was forced into coming up with her own plan because of Edwards' plan.