Well, if you're up for it, dear readers--here is my take on the presidential candidates' positions on Iraq.  Tomorrow, I'll veer into lighter fare with a review of 21.

Let's start with John McCain.  His plan for the Iraq war is essentially a call for more boots on the ground.  He explains that the increased number of American soldiers will clear out the insurgents, provide a more secure environment for economic and political reconstruction, halt sectarian violence and dismantle al Qaeda. 

It's interesting to note that he's been calling for more troops since 2003.  That makes it easier to understand why he remains committed to the idea that the only solution is to "win the war" with more fighting, more soldiers, more time.  

His proposal also makes clear that his prediction of U.S. involvement in Iraq extending into decades, if not centuries, is the logical conclusion of a strategy that sees force as the only way to stabilize Iraq.

On the other end of the political spectrum, both Clinton and Obama are calling for rapid withdrawal of American troops (although, since we were recently talking about spin on the comments to this blog, I found it amusing that Hillary's website calls withdrawals "redeployment").

Clinton's four-pronged plan is less detailed than Obama's.  In addition to a phased withdrawal, she proposes appointing a UN "peace broker" to work with the Iraqi government--securing peace among the various tribal factions; focusing on humanitarian aid (as opposed to funding the Iraqi government); and pushing a diplomatic initiative in the area designed to restrict outside interference, stabilize Iraq's independent status and aid in reconstruction.

By contrast, Obama's plan provides more in the way of reasoning for his proposed actions.  He grounds the entire plan in his enduring opposition for war in Iraq.  But he is not merely saying, "the war was wrong, so we should leave." 

He states that the current strategy (surge) is not working.  He notes that the Iraqi government is failing to meet its targets and promises.  Thus he proposes a rapid, phased withdrawal of troops to pressure the Iraqi government to step up. 

The other components of his plan include a call for the government to redraw the constitution to include Sunnis (thereby reducing sectarianism); diplomatic pressure to keep Iran and Turkey out of Iraq as we withdraw; and focused spending to address humanitarian issues.

Both Clinton and Obama address the need to deal with Iraqi refugees but Obama specifically calls for us to live up to our pledge to accept 7000 refugees in the U.S.

Since Hal and I've been talking a bit about Biden's plan, I thought it worth providing a link to his proposal even though he's no longer in the race.  I don't think his plan was much different than Hillary's or Barack's in terms of rapid withdrawal, focus on reconstruction and job formation, and internationally-based diplomacy.

Where his plan does merit special attention is in the idea of dividing Iraq into sectarian regions, locally managed, under a strong federal government.  As part of that plan, he included a redrawn constitution that would include the currently disenfranchised Sunnis by guaranteeing them a percentage of the country's oil profits.  That's where Biden's experience on the Foreign Relations Committee allows for a type of proposal that more generalized (and less experienced) candidates lack.  I hope whomever the Democratic nominee is, he or she will bring Biden into the fold for advice and discussion.  He'd be an interesting idea for Secretary of State.

So that's it.  If you're for more boots on the ground--vote for McCain.  Of the two democrats currently running, I give Obama a slight edge for depth of reasoning and a more nuanced grasp of (or communication of) the entire situation.

Leave a Reply