By: Emilian Papadopoulos
Scattered amidst the questions about planes, trains, and Hillary Clinton’s wardrobe in the Democratic YouTube debate were a handful of thought-provoking national security questions. Don’t get me started on the total absence of a question committed to Afghanistan… Let’s take a look at what we heard from the key contenders.
Blast from the past: isolationism vs. interventionism
Before wading into Iraq, host Anderson Cooper warmed the candidates up with a question about Sudan.
Right off the bat, we saw what would become a recurring theme: Bill Richardson wants to bring the troops home, keep them there, and let diplomacy work its magic:
It’s diplomacy. It’s getting U.N. peacekeeping troops and not African Union troops. It’s getting China to pressure Sudan. It’s getting the European Union to be part of economic sanctions in Sudan. It’s called leadership.
He then talked about a no-fly zone — “would be an option” — before closing with the kind of statement that raises fears of Iraq launching the U.S. head-first into a period of hands-off military isolationism:
Genocide is continuing there; 200,000 have died; close to 2 million refugees in that region. America needs to respond with diplomacy, with diplomatic leadership.
Joe Biden didn’t waste any time in hitting back. Troops on the ground?
Absolutely, positively. Look, I’m so tired of this. Let’s get right to it. I heard the same arguments after I came back from meeting with Milosevic: We can’t act; we can’t send troops there. Where we can, America must. Why Darfur? Because we can. We should now. Those kids will be dead by the time the diplomacy is over … You need troops on the ground.
So, Iraq hasn’t killed an active foreign policy yet.
Iraq’s opportunity cost
Clinton also weighed in, though she treaded lightly at first on the question of American troops: “I think that only the United States can provide the logistical support and the air lift to make a no-fly zone and the actual delivery of humanitarian aid work.” Pressed further (to Cooper’s credit), she gave her real answer: “American ground troops I don’t think belong in Darfur at this time.”
Whether you agree or disagree, Clinton’s justification, at least, was a good one: Focus on multi-national troops, and take the time to “figure out what we’re doing in Iraq, where our troops are stretched thin, and Afghanistan, where we’re losing the fight to al Qaeda and bin Laden.” Basically, the opportunity cost of Iraq and Afghanistan have made strong intervention in places like Sudan harder, though not necessarily impossible…the U.S. has risen to greater challenges before.
(A quick side bar taking off from Clinton’s comment: check out a recent NYT op-ed, Where Less is More, explaining why a troop increase could do more harm than good in Afghanistan).
Chris Dodd was the only candidate besides Clinton to directly address Iraq’s opportunity cost. On a question about Iraq, he turned back to Darfur, over protests from Cooper:
Cooper: No, no, no, no, let’s not go to Darfur….
Dodd: Well, no, because Iraq is related to Darfur, Anderson, here. It’s because we’re bogged down there at $10 billion a month, we’ve lost our moral leadership in the world. No one listens to us when it comes to foreign policy. That has to change in this country. That’s the difference here.
The difference between an exit and an exit strategy
On the question of withdrawal, the Democratic candidates were all “when,” not “if.” Here’s a quick recap of their positions:
At one end of the spectrum was Dennis Kucinich, who invoked the no-war mandate the Democrats received in November 2006 and called for no more funding and forced troop withdrawals on President Bush’s watch.
That’s a phony excuse to say that you don’t have the votes. We appropriated $97 billion a month ago. We should tell President Bush, no more funds for the war, use that money to bring the troops home, use it to bring the troops home.
Similarly outspoken was Richardson:
This is what I stand for: I believe we should bring all the troops home by the end of this year, in six months, with no residual forces — no residual forces. … A hundred American troops are dying every month. And this war is a quagmire. It’s endless. And the time has come to bring the troops home. No politics. Get it done.
Obama took a less extreme approach but, for better or worse, reinforced his point with a commitment of how he would act as president:
We have to begin a phased withdrawal; have our combat troops out by March 31st of next year; and initiate the kind of diplomatic surge that is necessary in these surrounding regions to make sure that everybody is carrying their weight. And that is what I will do on day one, as president of the United States, if we have not done it in the intervening months.
Dodd sounded similar chords: “It has been said from the very beginning: There is no military solution to this civil war in Iraq.” It’s worth noting that Dodd wasn’t the one saying it in the beginning. He has admitted as much earlier in the campaign: “I’m one who voted for [authorizing the use of force]. I regret that … I wish I could have the vote back. I made a mistake.” Like Obama, Dodd advocated a deadline that would pressure the Iraqi government.
Clinton echoed the “no military solution” perspective. Beyond that, she advocated a reasoned approach to withdrawal: the U.S. can “probably move a brigade a month … that is a lot of months. Yes, we want to begin moving the troops out, but we want to do so safely, and orderly and carefully.”
Rounding out the transition across the spectrum on withdrawal was Biden, whose argument deserves full attention:
It’s time to start to tell the truth. The truth of hte matter is: if we started today, it would take on year, one year to get 160,000 troops physically out of Iraq, logistically. … There is not a single military man in this audience who will tell this senator he can get those troops out in six months if the order goes today. … [If] you take all the troops out. You better have helicopters ready to take those 3,000 civilians inside the Green Zone where I have been seven times and shot at. You better make sure you have protection for them, or let them die. … It’s going to take a minimum of 5,000 to 10,000 just to protect our civilians.
Biden closed with a strong assault on Kucinich and the “cut the funding” camp. Responding to a question from a man whose son died in Iraq, Biden tackled both policy and politics, and his response deserves to be quoted in depth:
That man’s son is dead. For all I know, it was an IED [Improvised Explosive Device]. Seventy percent of all the deaths occurred have been those roadside bombs. We have money in that bill to begin to build and send immediately mine-resistant vehicles that increase by 80 percent the likelihood none of your cadets will die, General. And they all voted against it. … How in good conscience can you vote not to send those vehicles over there as long as there’s one single, solitary troop there?
Post a Comment