What Richardson Said...


Update: Some contractory information on Obama's site - at the top it says March 2008, but a new bolded script says all combat troops by the end of 2008, not March 2008.

So, yeah, who else is getting tired of Democratic candidates who say they want to end the war but leave troops? The latest is Obama who wants to remove "all combat brigades" by March 31, 2008". The only person who wants to "end the war" who is making any sense on this is Richardson, perhaps because he's the only one who really wants to end the war.

"I have challenged the other major Democratic candidates to tell the American people how many troops they will leave in Iraq and for how long. The American people and I still are waiting for an answer. The other major candidates have suggested that they will leave some troops behind indefinitely. That idea does not make sense. What can a smaller force accomplish that a larger force could not? The other major candidates have gone so far as to suggest pulling out our combat troops and leaving tens of thousands of other troops behind. This policy would be gravely irresponsible. Why would we leave behind tens of thousands of unprotected troops?

"More and more experts are coming to the same conclusion that I arrived at months ago. Several defense experts, including former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and former Reagan defense official Lawrence Korb, have agreed publicly with my assessment that we can get all of our troops out quickly. During this war, we have rotated 240,000 troops in and out of Iraq in just three months-- I am confident that we can get 160,000 out safely within six to eight months. The only responsible option we have in Iraq is to get all of our troops out now."

I never believed the BS about how long it would take to pull out troops, and I don't believe it now. And the idea that you're going to pull out combat troops and leave behind non-combat troops is just insane - they think the insurgency is going to stop shooting at Americans if they leave them unprotected? Say what? The US can either have a large force, or no force at all - or maybe a force in Kurdish territory, but that's it. Unless maybe the plan is to have mercenaries like Blackwater protecting American troops? Sounds crazy, but then leaving unprotected troops in a hostile country is even crazier.


Ian Welsh September 10, 2007 - 4:05pm
( categories: Iraq | USA: Campaign 2008 )

There's no war to end. It's the occupation of Iraq we're talking about ending.

Every time you consent to the terminology of "ending the war" you make a vital concession.


"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch September 10, 2007 - 4:23pm

is the best qualified Democratic candidate. He could run the country (and not into the ground).

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

mauberly September 10, 2007 - 6:25pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.