Can I get a re-cap?
In March 2003, with the support of the majority of the American people, and the minority of the international community, the Bush administration launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Military victory was swift – in only three weeks, the United States toppled Hussein's government in Baghdad and captured key cities. But now, only four years after President Bush announced the end of major combat operations in Iraq, an end to the bloodshed does not appear in sight. Iraq is neither stable nor democratic and the Iraqi government is neither capable of creating political unity nor of securing the country.
Although some Iraqis welcomed the United States and the ouster of Saddam, for most the invasion was not a liberation. Insurgents quickly began attacking coalition forces. Soon they also pointed their guns at rival religious and ethnic groups within the country. The intensity of the sectarian violence in Iraq, between Sunnis and Shias (and to a much smaller extent, the Kurds), and increasingly between factions within these groups, has escalated to the level of a civil war. Over 3,500 American soldiers have been killed since the invasion. Iraqi deaths have been more difficult to measure but "excess civilian deaths" since the beginning of the war are estimated to be between over 68,000 and 655,000.("Excess civilian deaths" are those directly resulting from fighting and those caused by the deterioration of healthcare due to the breakdown of law and order.)
What’s going on now?
In large part due to the growing impatience and discontentment among Americans over the handling of the war and over the evident lack of postwar planning, the Democrats took control of Congress in the 2006 mid-term elections by focusing their campaigns on "bringing the troops home". Yet in January 2007 in an effort to bring some security to Iraq, Bush ordered over 31,000 additional troops to be sent to the country in the so-called “surge” (Critics contend that “surge” is a misnomer, as the increase in troops roughly offsets the decline in international forces.).
In May, knowing they could not override the certain presidential veto, the Democrats backed down on a war-spending bill that was to include a timeline for withdrawal. Although the $120 billion compromise bill that Congress passed angered those hoping to see a concrete step to ending the war, it did require the Iraqi government to meet new benchmarks for progress, thus increasing Congress' involvement in the handling of the war.
In September, Ambassador Crocker and the overall commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, delivered a report on progress in Iraq. The general stated that overall the military objectives of the surge were being met. He pointed to the success in Anbar province, where Sunni Arab tribes had begun fighting local al-Qaeda, to a 55% decrease in sectarian violence since December (and a 70% decrease in Baghdad), and to the capture of key leaders of some Sunni militias. He recommended an immediate withdrawal of a marine unit, of a brigade by the end of December, and of some 30,000 troops within a year, noting that further reductions would be dependent upon the situation in Iraq in the summer of 2008.
Despite the report’s optimism, at the time it was delivered the Iraqi government had yet to create a political solution to the conflict. It had failed to disband militias and to pass laws on oil-revenue and power-sharing and it had met only three of the 18 benchmarks laid out by the American Congress.
Days after the general's report, Congressional Democrats proposed legislation that would effectively reduce troop levels by increasing the time troops would spend at home before redeployment. The proposal died in the Senate, falling four votes short of the 60 needed to prevent a filibuster.
What’s the Issue?
The main issue being addressed by the candidates is whether a timeline for withdrawal should be established and if so, when the troop redeployment should begin and be finalized. There is much disagreement over whether keeping troops in Iraq can help create a stable and democratic Iraq or if it is actually making matters worse. Some argue that now the only viable solution is a political one. And many believe a political solution is not possible without securing the country first.
Multiple issues vital to the security of the United States and to the stability of the Middle East figure into the debate over Iraq. When American forces leave, how can the U.S. prevent neighboring countries, such as Syria and Iran, from exerting too much influence on Iraq's internal affairs? How can America fight the radical Islamic fundamentalist groups within Iraq? How can it prevent the conflict from spreading to neighboring countries, such as Turkey which continues to threaten military operations to stop Kurds from fomenting dissent in their own country? What can be done about the huge refugee crisis, when over two million Iraqis have fled Iraq to countries that are either unable or unwilling to support them? And if the decision to withdraw is made, more questions arise - how to leave safely, how many troops should remain during the withdrawal process, and what should these remaining troops' missions be - to secure Iraq's borders, to train Iraqi troops, to protect the Kurds, etc.? In sum, the United States has put itself in a very difficult situation and must now find the best way to solve both the problems that it has created through the invasion and those that it embroiled itself in by entering Iraq.
Why Should I Care?
First, the war in Iraq is costing thousands of lives every month. So the humanitarian answer is that finding an end to this conflict means ending the loss of life. Second, the war is costing money. Over $500 billion has been spent on the war effort. That is billions of tax dollars that can be spent on schools, roads, or health care, or that can stay in your wallet. Third, the U.S. military is overextended. If we want to focus on our security we cannot continue to pour so many resources into Iraq. In addition, due to the occupation, Iraq has become a terrorist recruitment and training ground, and so American anti-terrorist measures are now linked to the situation there. Finally, our handling of the conflict and the resulting outcome will have implications for years to come – future foreign policy decisions, our relationship with the international community, our enemies' actions towards us, and the stability of the Middle East will all be affected.
What Are the Candidates Saying?
In May, knowing they could not override the certain presidential veto, the Democrats backed down on a war-spending bill that was to include a timeline for withdrawal. Although the $120 billion compromise bill that Congress passed angered those hoping to see a concrete step to ending the war, it did require the Iraqi government to meet new benchmarks for progress, thus increasing Congress' involvement in the handling of the war.
In September, Ambassador Crocker and the overall commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, delivered a report on progress in Iraq. The general stated that overall the military objectives of the surge were being met. He pointed to the success in Anbar province, where Sunni Arab tribes had begun fighting local al-Qaeda, to a 55% decrease in sectarian violence since December (and a 70% decrease in Baghdad), and to the capture of key leaders of some Sunni militias. He recommended an immediate withdrawal of a marine unit, of a brigade by the end of December, and of some 30,000 troops within a year, noting that further reductions would be dependent upon the situation in Iraq in the summer of 2008.
Despite the report’s optimism, at the time it was delivered the Iraqi government had yet to create a political solution to the conflict. It had failed to disband militias and to pass laws on oil-revenue and power-sharing and it had met only three of the 18 benchmarks laid out by the American Congress.
Days after the general's report, Congressional Democrats proposed legislation that would effectively reduce troop levels by increasing the time troops would spend at home before redeployment. The proposal died in the Senate, falling four votes short of the 60 needed to prevent a filibuster.
What’s the Issue?
The main issue being addressed by the candidates is whether a timeline for withdrawal should be established and if so, when the troop redeployment should begin and be finalized. There is much disagreement over whether keeping troops in Iraq can help create a stable and democratic Iraq or if it is actually making matters worse. Some argue that now the only viable solution is a political one. And many believe a political solution is not possible without securing the country first.
Multiple issues vital to the security of the United States and to the stability of the Middle East figure into the debate over Iraq. When American forces leave, how can the U.S. prevent neighboring countries, such as Syria and Iran, from exerting too much influence on Iraq's internal affairs? How can America fight the radical Islamic fundamentalist groups within Iraq? How can it prevent the conflict from spreading to neighboring countries, such as Turkey which continues to threaten military operations to stop Kurds from fomenting dissent in their own country? What can be done about the huge refugee crisis, when over two million Iraqis have fled Iraq to countries that are either unable or unwilling to support them? And if the decision to withdraw is made, more questions arise - how to leave safely, how many troops should remain during the withdrawal process, and what should these remaining troops' missions be - to secure Iraq's borders, to train Iraqi troops, to protect the Kurds, etc.? In sum, the United States has put itself in a very difficult situation and must now find the best way to solve both the problems that it has created through the invasion and those that it embroiled itself in by entering Iraq.
Why Should I Care?
First, the war in Iraq is costing thousands of lives every month. So the humanitarian answer is that finding an end to this conflict means ending the loss of life. Second, the war is costing money. Over $500 billion has been spent on the war effort. That is billions of tax dollars that can be spent on schools, roads, or health care, or that can stay in your wallet. Third, the U.S. military is overextended. If we want to focus on our security we cannot continue to pour so many resources into Iraq. In addition, due to the occupation, Iraq has become a terrorist recruitment and training ground, and so American anti-terrorist measures are now linked to the situation there. Finally, our handling of the conflict and the resulting outcome will have implications for years to come – future foreign policy decisions, our relationship with the international community, our enemies' actions towards us, and the stability of the Middle East will all be affected.
What Are the Candidates Saying?
Joe Biden's Five Point Plan for Iraq focuses on creating a political solution to the conflict, starting by creating a federalized Iraq, where Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis govern over their own regions and a strong but limited central government retains control over common interests such as foreign policy, border defense, and oil production and revenues. Under the plan, Sunni Arabs would be guaranteed 20% of oil revenue to ensure economic viability of their region. The national government would set oil policy and distribute revenues. In addition, the international community, including Iraq's neighbors, would pledge to support Iraq's power sharing agreement and respect its borders. Most U.S troops would be redeployed by the end of 2007. A small force would remain to engage in counter-terrorist activities, help protect Iraq's borders and train Iraqi security forces. Finally, the U.S. would provide more reconstruction and job-creation assistance (conditioned on the protection of minority and women's rights) in order to encourage work over involvement in violent activities. Senator Biden voted for the authorization of the war in Iraq in 2003, but calls his vote a mistake. He was opposed to the increase in troop levels ordered by President Bush in early 2007 and voted against the war-spending bill that failed to include a timeline for troop withdrawal.
Sam Brownback(no longer a candidate)
Sam Brownback(no longer a candidate)
Senator Brownback believes that pulling out of Iraq right now would create a "terrorist haven" in the country and that withdrawing our troops would be a victory for the anti-American Islamic extremists. Brownback proposes a "three state, one country" political solution that once in place would allow American troops to leave the frontlines and be replaced by Iraqi forces. Despite his strong opposition to a precipitous withdrawal, he did not support Bush's surge. He did not vote on the last war-spending bill.
Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Senator Clinton voted for the authorization of the use of force in Iraq in March 2003. Since then she has been a harsh critic of the Bush administration's handling of the war, but has herself refused to apologize for her vote, explaining that if she'd known what she knew now, she would have voted differently. Clinton believes staying in Iraq will not help stop the violence there and that the Iraqis must now take responsibility for stabilizing the country. She opposed the 2007 surge and voted against the war-spending bill which passed in May because it failed to include a timeline for withdrawal. Clinton's Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007 offers a plan to end the war. In short, the plan proposes redeployment of troops 90 days after the bill’s passage, leaving behind a small contingent of troops who would be charged with preventing instability from spreading throughout the region (they would not intervene in sectarian killing). The plan also includes benchmarks and consequences for the Iraqi government.
John Cox
John Cox supported the invasion of Iraq, but has been critical of the handling of the war, including the 2007 increase in troop levels. He believes the key to success in Iraq is helping Iraqis build up their oil-based economy. He points to high unemployment and lack of basic services as principal factors contributing to the weakness of the Iraqi government. When the Iraqis are able to pump more oil out of the ground and are able to rebuild their country, when they have jobs, then they will see the benefit to having their own government. And “[a] prosperous people do not turn to terrorism,” claims Cox. Once economic growth brings prosperity to the country, U.S. troops will be able withdraw victoriously. And victory there is imperative, Cox asserts, so that the U.S. does not have to fight terrorists on American soil.
Chris Dodd
John Cox
John Cox supported the invasion of Iraq, but has been critical of the handling of the war, including the 2007 increase in troop levels. He believes the key to success in Iraq is helping Iraqis build up their oil-based economy. He points to high unemployment and lack of basic services as principal factors contributing to the weakness of the Iraqi government. When the Iraqis are able to pump more oil out of the ground and are able to rebuild their country, when they have jobs, then they will see the benefit to having their own government. And “[a] prosperous people do not turn to terrorism,” claims Cox. Once economic growth brings prosperity to the country, U.S. troops will be able withdraw victoriously. And victory there is imperative, Cox asserts, so that the U.S. does not have to fight terrorists on American soil.
Chris Dodd
Senator Dodd's plan for Iraq focuses on redeploying the majority of American troops within a year and repositioning those that remain from urban to less populated and border areas of Iraq as well as to bases in Qatar, Kuwait and Afghanistan. The troops remaining in Iraq would have clearly defined missions, including training and equipping Iraqi security forces, assisting in border security, engaging in specific counter-terrorism activities and protecting U.S. personnel and facilities. Dodd opposed the military surge that began in early 2007 (explaining that we need a surge in "diplomacy and politics" instead). He voted against the most recent $120 billion war supplement because it did not include a deadline for withdrawal. Dodd voted for the authorization of force in Iraq in 2003 but has explained that if he had known what he knows today – that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and that there were no links between Hussein and al-Qaeda - he would have done otherwise.
John Edwards calls for setting a timeline for withdrawal and immediately reducing the number of Iraq troops. He voted for the authorization of war in Iraq in 2003 but has since apologized for his decision. He was a harsh critic of Bush's decision to escalate the war via the surge in 2007 and opposed the $120 billion war-spending bill that passed this May because it did not include a timeline for withdrawal. He is calling for capping of the troop levels at 100,000, ending the surge,, immediately redeploying 40,000 to 50,000 troops, and achieving complete withdrawal of U.S troops within 12 to 18 months. Edwards has also recommended engaging Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria, in helping to stabilize Iraq.
Rudy Giuliani
Rudy Giuliani
Rudy Giuliani has repeatedly linked the fight in Iraq to the fight against terrorism, often making little distinction in his speeches between the perpetrators of 9/11 and the Iraqi insurgency. Giuliani has also warned that failure in Iraq would lead to a greater regional conflict. He strongly opposes setting a timeline for withdrawal. He supported the invasion in 2003 and still does today. Although he has been hesitant to criticize Bush's handling of the war, he has made statements suggesting that he believes mistakes have been made. He supported the 2007 troop increase, explaining that the President and General Petraeus asked for support and so he would offer it to them, even though there were no guarantees the surge would work. He has admitted that the war may last many more years.
Mike Gravel
Mike Gravel
Senator Gravel believes that we need to redeploy the troops from Iraq within 60 days. Once the troops are out, the U.S. will be able to engage in "aggressive diplomacy" aimed at ending the sectarian violence in Iraq. In addition to a military withdrawal, Gravel calls for a corporate withdrawal from Iraq. Reconstruction contracts would be given to Iraqi businesses, in this way engaging the local population in rebuilding the country. Gravel has opposed the war from the beginning, publicly speaking out against the planned invasion in 2002.
Mike Huckabee
Mike Huckabee
Mike Huckabee was supportive of the invasion and although he admits that many mistakes have been made in the handling of the war, he points out that now we must focus on how to succeed. He is a strong supporter of the surge as a way to end the sectarian fighting and has proposed this July that even more troops may be needed. He is unequivocally opposed to setting a timetable for withdrawal. Huckabee describes the conflict in Iraq a "battle" in the "ideological war on terror," explaining that al-Qaeda is seeking permanent bases there. Iraq's central location within the Middle East makes the conflict there especially susceptible to spreading throughout the region. If we leave, Huckabee argues, the terrorists will use the country as a training ground to plan more attacks against America. He says that we need financial and military help from Iraq's neighbors – the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Jordanians and Turks – in stabilizing Iraq and proposes a regional summit to that end.
Duncan Hunter
Duncan Hunter
Congressman Hunter has been supportive of the war from the start, voting to authorize the use of force in 2003. He was also in favor of the 2007 troop increase, pointing out that even with the additional troops, there are still fewer than there were at previous points in the war due to the withdrawal of some international forces. He does not believe in setting a timeline for withdrawal, but that we need to continue to train and equip Iraqi forces and rotate them in for departing U.S. troops.
Dennis Kucinich
Dennis Kucinich
Senator Kucinich has openly opposed the war from the start. He voted against the recent war-spending bill, maintaining that one cannot oppose the war and still fund it. He strongly criticized the escalation of the war announced by Bush in January. His Plan to End the Iraq War, calls for the immediate announcement of the withdrawal of U.S. forces, closure of all military bases, and use of existing funds to get personnel and equipment out of Iraq. It also mandates that all U.S contractors leave Iraq, handing over all contracting work to the Iraqi government. A regional conference should then be created to develop a plan for the stabilization of Iraq and international forces should fill the security and peacekeeping vacuum left by departing US troops. A process of national reconciliation within Iraq must be developed and the reconstruction projects must be restarted. In order to further help the Iraqis, the plan calls for stabilization of Iraq's food and energy prices, global cooperation to restore Iraq's "fiscal integrity," and the payment of war reparations by the United States and Great Britain. The plan also proposes that the U.S. clearly demonstrate that the goal of the invasion was not control of Iraqi oil and that a system for the fair redistribution of oil profits is put in place. The final point focuses on establishing a policy of reconciliation between the Iraqi and American people that would repair "our relationship with Iraqis and with the world."
John McCain
John McCain
Senator McCain believes that the key to success in Iraq is increasing troop levels. Before any further economic and political developments are possible, American forces must destroy insurgent strongholds, provide security, disarm militias, dismantle al-Qaeda, train the Iraqi army, and "embed American personnel in Iraqi police units." In addition to building up troop levels, McCain believes there needs to be a new counterinsurgency strategy, with a focus on creating security for the Iraqi people. In addition, McCain stresses the importance of strengthening the Iraqi Armed Forces and police – necessary for Iraq to govern and protect itself on its own and create the conditions for political and economic recovery. McCain voted for the use of force in Iraq in 2003 and today expresses "cautious optimism" about the situation in Iraq, claiming that although the war was mismanaged, we are now on the right track and with the new general and new strategy we can win. If we withdraw, he posits, Iraq will become a "base for terrorism" and chaos will spread throughout the region.
Senator Obama, elected after the infamous war vote, has been opposed to the war from the start and believes in setting a timetable for troop withdrawal. The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007 that he introduced in January 2007 called for the commencement of the withdrawal of American troops by May 1, 2007, with the "goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008.” In this plan, some troops would remain in Iraq to provide protection, engage in counter-terrorism efforts and train Iraqi security forces. If the U.S. Congress finds that the Iraqi government meets the 13 benchmarks for progress created by the Bush administration, the withdrawal could be suspended temporarily. This May Obama voted against the war-funding bill because it did not include a timeline for withdrawal.
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Representative Paul was the only Republican member of the House who voted against the resolution granting the president the authority to use of force in Iraq. He was adamant that if the U.S. was to go to Iraq, Constitutional processes would need to be followed and Congress would first have to vote for a declaration of war. He introduced legislation calling for a declaration of war in Iraq, a bill, he explained, he would not vote for himself. Not only does Paul believe invading Iraq was wrong, he also believes it has made America less safe by creating a jihadist recruitment ground and by spreading American troops too thin to secure our country. Paul voted against the recent war-funding bill. With a large group of House Democrats, this July Paul also signed a letter to the White House that stated that no more military funding would be approved without the complete withdrawal of combat troops.
Bill Richardson
Bill Richardson
Governor Richardson's New Realism Plan for Iraq calls for immediate Congressional de-authorization of the war with complete withdrawal of troops by the end of 2007. He believes that keeping troops in Iraq only fuels the insurgency, strengthens al-Qaeda, and delays the factions within the Iraqi government from reaching a political solution to the conflict. As part of his plan, an Iraqi Reconciliation Conference would bring the rival Iraqi groups together to begin the end of the violence and mistrust among them. A regional conference that would include U.S. foes Syria and Iran would be convened to help develop a plan for the pacification and stabilization of Iraq. In addition, the U.S. would organize a donor conference to help fund Iraq's reconstruction. Finally, U.S troops could be redeployed to address "real security threats," like fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.
Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney
Although he supported the invasion of Iraq, Romney is critical of the lack of planning and of the insufficient number of troops sent to Iraq. He supported the President's decision to increase troop levels this year and he believes we need to maintain troop levels if we are to see success. Leaving Iraq today could lead to the country descending into a civil war, translating into the loss of many more lives and "devastating" consequences for America and American interests. If we withdraw now, Romney posits, it may mean that we will need to go back to Iraq in the future.
Tom Tancredo
Tom Tancredo
Representative Tancredo argues that it is time for the Iraqis to take responsibility for creating a stable and working republic. This republic was given to the Iraqis through America's "sacrifice," but it is now time for them to work to keep it. He believes in aiding the Iraqis in securing their country, by giving them the military equipment they need, for example, but taking American troops out of harm's way. Tancredo voted for the authorization of war in 2003 and has had a difficult time explaining how he would have voted had he known that Iraq was not as big a threat it was made out to be. He was opposed to the surge and recommends a phased withdrawal of American troops.
Fred Thompson
Fred Thompson
Senator Thompson voted for the authorization of force in 2002 and still maintains that it was the right, if difficult, choice. Although he admits mistakes have been made during the course of the war, he believes we must not focus too much on past errors, but instead look to the future. Thompson says progress is being made in Iraq and is strongly opposed to setting a timetable for withdrawal. He insists that the U.S. needs to do everything possible to avoid the appearance of weakness on the world stage. Pulling out now would show the world that the U.S. in not reliable and may result in us having to go back into Iraq in the future.
updated October 6, 2007
updated October 6, 2007