“Troops out now”. We hear it all the time. It is the opposite of “Stay the course.” But how many troops are going to leave? How many troops are going to stay? Those answers from the candidates, may surprise you.
Two candidates have forthrightly said, we need to pull all troops out now…….Both of those candidates, Kucinich and Richardson make up less than a combined 2% of all poll numbers. The big movers and shakers, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards have much different messages.
When we hear “withdrawal of American troops from Iraq” we think of all our troops coming home to parades and flags. However what is really being said, is these major candidates support the withdrawal of “combat troops” or “combat brigades.” These effective fighting forces, at the most, make up only 45% of all troops in Iraq. The rest, who are unmentioned, one can assume are to remain there for a long time, especially now that we have a new embassy and need to maintain our new military bases.
Why? Because any serious contender for President cannot publicly be for the chaotic fall of any country in the Middle East……..in other words….the loss of oil….
So the Democratic front-runners must promise voters that they will end the war — with not too many ideologically laden ifs, ands, or buts — while they assure the foreign-policy establishment that they will never abandon the drive for hegemony in the Middle East (or anywhere else). In other words, the candidates have to be able to talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time. Ira Chernus: The Democrats’ Iraqi Dilemma: Questions Unasked, Answers Never Volunteered
“It is time to begin ending this war…. Start bringing home America’s troops…. within 90 days ” says Hillary Clinton. Excuse me but did anyone hear the word “all”? It seems to have been casually omitted. Previously she said this: “We have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq…. What we can do is to almost take a line sort of north of, between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region” One reporter admits that Clinton expects U.S. troops to be in Iraq when she ends her second term in 2017. She wants 80,000 more troops with an emphasis on special forces.
Obama is not pulling all the troops out either…..To control everything and everyone, he wants “the strongest, best-equipped military in the world.… A 21st century military to stay on the offense.” That, he says, will take at least 92,000 more soldiers and Marines. Like Hillary, Barack would remove all “combat brigades” from Iraq, but keep U.S. troops there “for a more extended period of time” — even “redeploy additional troops to Northern Iraq” — to support the Kurds, train Iraqi forces, fight al Qaeda, “reassure allies in the Gulf,” “send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria,” and “prevent chaos in the wider region.” “Most importantly, some of these troops could be redeployed to Afghanistan…. to stop Afghanistan from backsliding toward instability.”
Obama plans to use redeployment as a carrot. The redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the parties in Iraq reach an effective political arrangement that stabilizes the situation and they offer us a clear and compelling rationale for maintaining certain troop levels.
Edwards goes further than either Obama or Clinton in spelling out that we “will also need some presence in Baghdad, inside the Green Zone, to protect the American Embassy and other personnel”. Edwards continues: : “I would put stabilization first.” “Stabilization” is yet another establishment code word for insuring U.S. control, as Edwards certainly knows. His ultimate aim, he says, is to ensure that the U.S. will “lead and shape the world.”
The top Democrats agree that we must leave significant numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq. This is remarkably similar to the Republican position. However,…..both sides politely seem to dismiss any mention of the number of Iraqis and/or servicemen killed during our lengthy stay………..
Well, perhaps it’s time Americans started asking such questions. A lost war should be the occasion for a great public debate on the policies and the geopolitical assumptions that led to the war
Tomsdispatch.com puts the challenge before us in clear terms. “Bush, Cheney, and their supporters say the most important message is a reassuring one: “When the U.S. starts a fight, it stays in until it wins. You can count on us.” For key Democrats, including congressional leaders and major candidates for the imperial Presidency, the primary message is a warning: “U.S. support for friendly governments and factions is not an open-ended blank check. If you are not producing, we’ll find someone else who can.”
This is a debate about tactics; not about goals. Among the American people a greater debate is raging. At stake is whether America should be allowed to create a war to further certain interests of its own economy? Or………… should America agree to play by the same rules it insists that all other’s abide by: thou shalt not invade another country for resources. At first glance it appears that in their courtship with the powerful elite for those delicious campaign dollars, the leading Democrats have placed their foot in the very same traps that snapped shut upon the feet of the Republicans.
It is time that all Americans look hard at this duplicity.
Perhaps in such a reflective light, many of the minor candidates, such as Biden, do appear to have the better shine after all…………..
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 23, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Tyler Nixon
It is amazing to me how ass backwards the media and ‘conventional wisdom’ are in this country. No offense to their supporters but Obama is an empty suit, nothing but flash and dazzle, and Hillary is an evil megalomaniacal witch. Neither has the character nor essential good faith motives to lead this country out of this present darkness. Yet these people are looked upon as the inevitables. God help us all.
Personally I am looking to Congressman Ron Paul and I think Democrats should take a serious look at Biden. Why not either of these men? They speak from the heart and mean it. I know the Senator has his consistent detractors and personally I think his legislative record has been a disaster for this country (endless useless Biden “crime bills”, RAVE Act, etc etc).
But, Jesus sakes, at least he is the devil I know and I know where he is coming from. He is not some new-on-the-scene saccharin sensation like the duplicitous Senator from Illinois or an old-to-the-scene shrill sourpuss like that soul-less wench from Illinois-Arkansas-New York-whatever. If Biden came off his law-and-order obsessed fear of being “soft on crime” and began taking ALL of the Constitution seriously, he would otherwise be a fairly thoughtful leader.
This country has got to get away from these trendy foregone-conclusion candidacies like Obama and Hilly, and start taking our future a LOT more seriously than what these two represent and put forth. I can’t even speak about the GOP side of the equation. Excluding Congressman Paul and possibly Fred Thompson…..what a rogue’s gallery, that would be laughable if it were not so frightening. I just can’t even believe that Giuliani is taken seriously by anyone. He is a complete fraud.
If it were not for Cong. Paul, the entire GOP race would be little more than a Bushie neocon clone contest. Uggh, what a dis-service to this country this whole process has become. Whether or not you like Newt, his indictment of what has become of our political process is dead-on. He sees it as stunningly absurd and trivial to a disgraceful degree of literal and total dysfunction.
F*** conventional wisdom and prevailing trends and popularity polls. Let’s get real here, people. The clock is ticking and we have not a moment to waste on re-treads and transient stampede candidacies. LEADERSHIP. INTEGRITY. CLARITY. Nothing less is acceptable. But we sure seem to be swallowing a whole lot of nothing from our would-be presidents, no?
July 24, 2007 at 12:44 am
kavips
Well said. Tyler, well said…….
July 24, 2007 at 2:44 am
Tyler Nixon
Thanks, k. Perhaps I am being too harsh on the Democrats’ front-running saviors, but I suspect not. Both are, to me anyway, nothing more than double-talkers who can speak many words that really amount to nothing but space-filling non-statements.
This country is at a point in which we desperately need to push the cautious self-serving hedge-betters aside. This is especially true of Hillary. What new or innovative or different does this woman offer in any area whatsoever? We have had enough after 27 years of a Bush or Clinton at the top of the Executive Branch. We need to break this unholy spell.
I don’t care how much old Bubba has the country reminiscing in stupefied bamboozelement about his fat, sassy presidency — Lord, anything would look good compared to what we have now. Bill Clinton and his wife are perhaps the most crooked “power couple” in world history. I say this because their actions have never, EVER matched their phony BS feel-good rhetoric. They are both bought and paid-for by the same interests that own the GOP’s nasties, but at least the GOP’s nasties don’t pretend otherwise.
Both parties would be wise to push their “first-tiers” right over a cliff and let the substance rise to the top, for a damn change in this country. I sincerely hope the typically brain-dead “side-up now” attitude of these usual party primary voters is finally washed out by new waves of voters engaging in the process, though not necessarily foreseen.
The country needs the people to be involved on a much grander scale than we have seen in recent history, or we will again have the typical mass media/elitist constituency-chosen, pre-ordained so-called “leaders” running the show for another wheel-spinning political epoch…at our incredible peril.
July 24, 2007 at 2:00 pm
kavips
What specifics would you recommend that a candidate do, to separate himself from all the spin that revolves around the front runners? How could it be done differently? How can our candidates become “real” again?….
July 24, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Tyler Nixon
If I (or anyone else) has to recommend specifics to any candidate about how to be real, it is already too late for them.
Paraphrasing Newt, again in derision of the hyper-managed hollow so-called presidential election campaign process, he bluntly stated :
“Candidates come to me and say : ‘My consultants said I can’t do X, Y, or Z’….and I say : fire them. How do you expect us to believe you can lead the free world from the White House when you can’t even make your own decisions or judgments as a candidate?”
A few people stand out to me as authentic and genuine for what they are as people versus as politicians. Obviously they are still politicians, but their essential nature is more personal (and real) than political (and staged) : Biden, Gravel, Huckabee, Kucinich, and Paul.
Their substance is truly consistent with their person, if that makes sense. They seem to speak without a political “synthetic unity of the aperception” awareness of awareness constantly going on, internally arbitrating everything they say through a political lens (and sterilizing it in self-interest).
Biden, for example, has emerged as not only a “gaffe machine” but a Teflon one! Why? Because he is forgiven these “sins” as coming from a genuine man revealing himself rather than a plasticine politician exposing himself.
Like the other candidates I mentioned Biden’s foibles make him “real”. One thing a professional politician can’t fabricate is a good foible. If you have none, you are not to be trusted in my view. Those who would present themselves as perfection have the most imperfections to hide – if not the worst ones….
Sorry not to be more informative. I will reiterate my almost 2-year old prediction that Biden emerges to get the nomination. The MSM is increasingly irrelevant to, if not out of touch with, the real outcomes. They are only showing consistently that they really know less and less if not shit about what voters are really thinking.
If Biden works his ass off with the retail politics and keeps distinguishing himself in the dog and pony shows he will be well rewarded by those crucial early voters, especially in SC… where he knows it can be way more make than break for him.
Timing and strategic momentum-building are everything for Biden, not lavish attention from the typical chattering spin machines or the fundraising frenzies. What mass media buys or sprawling staff do these substantive candidates like Biden or Paul really need anyway? If you think about it, what does big money really get you any more in national internet-era politics, other than a rubber stamp from the tired-out MSM money=credibility litmus test?
See Newt again….no money can buy leadership and integrated messaging that will truly stand out to voters. You have the integrity or you don’t. Consultants and their unwieldy bandwagoneering can only kill it for a candidate who has it.
I just keep thinking how media sensation Howard Dean was everything until a well-known Senator stepped from 4th place (in most polls) and a campaign deficit…..to take the nomination.
July 24, 2007 at 11:04 pm
kavips
Of all the candidates who run under the republican umbrella, Newt seems to make the most sense. His approach seems based on reality and less on partisanship. Aside from Ron Paul, Newt is the only other republican candidate who uses logic when he talks. Example, my ears picked up when he praised Hillary Clinton (what?), as well as her husband, at a republican breakfast in New Hampshire last May…….anyone who can recognize reality without distorting it through partisanship, brings something valuable to the campaign……….
Do you think his entry, like Ross Perot in 91, could re-shift the focus of debate back to issues, and make an end run around the same old pulp, that the MSM plans to give us?
July 25, 2007 at 10:05 am
Tyler Nixon
To me, Newt’s voice in the mix would be transformative, whether he is palatable to the conventional wiseacres who write him off as blithely as they do Biden. He is so profound and global in his thinking while detailed in his ideas that others would have no choice but to react and rise to his intellectual challenge. He would definitely impact the race heavily, no matter how he entered it. He has already called for 18 consecutive weekly 2-hour discussions/dialogues between the major candidates for president (he says the “two candidates”, ever the bi-partisan) leading up to November 4, 2008. No moderators or press involved, but televised like a national address.
Newt’s bluntness and, frankly, his brilliance are his political foibles ironically. He has the charisma of true confidence of genius but is otherwise not appealing as superficial, shallow partisan politics typically go. Newt turns people off who can’t stand to hear logic from a hated conservative Republican, in contrast to those (yourself admittedly) who can hear value in ideas and words from any person, no matter their party, without triggering an automatic partisan cranial bypass. The partisan braindead folks of this variety would rather someone like Newt just go away…and it is a shame. They are the same ones who have produced the very sham of a process Newt now indicts. They are the ones who simply don’t have the depth to understand or respond to his level of thinking, so they just ad hominem attack and disparage him…mercilessly.
Do we not truly want our best and brightest? Or just our slickest and most polished? To toss smart leaders aside because they don’t cut some grade school popularity contest criteria has for too long been a corrosive, fraudulent dis-service to our political life – courtesy of brainless media talking heads. It is this same mentality that unfortunately caused many to embrace a truly mentally-defective non-leader (at best) for the very reason he was the type who could win a grade school popularity contest (e.g. the “he is the best guy to have a beer with” pablum).
In this still cheapened, manipulated environment, as the people begin to wake up and engage after a long political coma, your abovementioned archetype will be our best shot for real change : a war horse, around for a long time (but not an operator), the devil we know, a friend when it comes down to it and certainly an American patriot above all, irrespective of ideological bent, not sold out to any interests but their ideas and desire for service. Newt and Biden actually both meet this criteria.
I emailed Beau and Hunter over a year ago to throw out a crazy idea that flashed in my brain. The ultimate Unity 08 ticket, one that would satisfy both ends of the center enough to marginalize both major parties and capture the long-brewing independent title wave : Biden – Gingrich. To me it would be a dream ticket in terms of experience, ideas, and a near perfect symbiotic complement between total opposites, but from embedded corners of the conventional “two party” system.
Find the Meet the Press archived show of Biden and Gingrich. Very interesting, mutually-respectful and dignified dynamic. Here is the transcript (the video is much better) – http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13839698/
But realistically, Joe gave a HUGE hint towards the Unity 08 option when he mentioned Hegel as his choice if he had to choose a GOP running mate. Another irony of history may be the fact that Cheney has now shown, far beyond Gore’s VP activism, that a VP can be effectively a co-President. This reality blunts deal-killing ego clashes or pettiness in any potential Unity or third way ticket, whereby both men insist on being the top dog. Even so, two good faith men could arrange a deal to alternate terms or even resign mid term and be re-appointed VP. If they are going outside tradition as far as a “Unity” ticket, nothing should be off the table.
July 25, 2007 at 11:04 am
kavips
As you know, that would not be the first time a split ticket was presented to the American people. In the early days, there were no Vice Presidents on the ticket. Out of all those who ran for president, the first in electoral votes was chosen president, the second, vice president. Jefferson and Adams, diametrically poised on every issue, grew to become bitter enemies, before renewing their friendship in their latter years. The common sense underlying this policy, was that if the president died in office, then the second most trusted person in the United States could then lead the country.
Imagine the difference we would have had over the last seven years if Gore was Bush’s Vice President instead of Dick Cheney. For one, a couple of tie breaking votes in the Senate, would have gone a different way…………….
July 27, 2007 at 2:22 am
The Glittering Eye » Blog Archive » Where’s the Beef?
[...] a fine selection of posts there. This week one of the nominations from a Delaware blog called kavips caught my [...]
January 5, 2012 at 2:01 am
Lavon Sfatcu
I will right away grab your rss feed as I can’t in finding your email subscription hyperlink or e-newsletter service. Do you’ve any? Please let me understand in order that I could subscribe. Thanks.