Candidate Issue Comparison2 - Iraq

Same thing, different issue.

Hillary Clinton

Starting Phased Redeployment within Hillary’s First Days in Office: The most important part of Hillary’s plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq’s civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary’s first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration. She would also direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to prepare a comprehensive plan to provide the highest quality health care and benefits to every service member – including every member of the National Guard and Reserves – and their families.
Securing Stability in Iraq as we Bring our Troops Home. As president, Hillary would focus American aid efforts during our redeployment on stabilizing Iraq, not propping up the Iraqi government. She would direct aid to the entities – whether governmental or non-governmental – most likely to get it into the hands of the Iraqi people. She would also support the appointment of a high level U.N. representative – similar to those appointed in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo – to help broker peace among the parties in Iraq.
A New Intensive Diplomatic Initiative in the Region. In her first days in office, Hillary would convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all of the states bordering Iraq. The- mission of this group would be to develop and implement a strategy to create a stable Iraq. It would have three specific goals:
Non-interference. Working with the U.N. representative, the group would work to convince Iraq’s neighbors to refrain from getting involved in the civil war.Mediation. The group would attempt to mediate among the different sectarian groups in Iraq with the goal of attaining compromises on fundamental points of disputes.Reconstruction funding. The members of the group would hold themselves and other countries to their past pledges to provide funding to Iraq and will encourage additional contributions to meet Iraq’s extensive needs.
As our forces redeploy out of Iraq, Hillary would also organize a multi-billion dollar international effort – funded by a wide range of donor states – under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to address the needs of Iraqi refugees. And as we replace military force with diplomacy and global leadership, Hillary will not lose sight of our very real strategic interests in the region. She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.
John McCain

Bolster Troops on the Ground

A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army; and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units. Accomplishing each of these goals will require more troops and is a crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development in the country. America’s ultimate strategy is to give Iraqis the capabilities to govern and secure their own country.
Implement New Counterinsurgency Strategy
For most of the occupation, military strategy has focused on securing all of Iraq by establishing bases and conducting short operations from them. Ultimately, this secured only small areas of the country. John McCain believes the current force structure and power vacuum persisting in many areas of the country demands a more robust counterinsurgency strategy. Iraqi and American forces must not only use force to clear areas occupied by insurgents but to stay and hold these areas to deny them as a base for insurgent forces and allow economic and political development to occur in a secure environment. By emphasizing safety of the local population, this strategy will create strongholds in which insurgents find it difficult to operate.

Strengthen the Iraqi Armed Forces and Police

    Building a capable Iraqi army is a central requirement for ensuring Iraq's 	ability to govern and protect itself long after American forces have withdrawn. 	The U.S. must accelerate the training and equipping of Iraqi armed forces and 	police to enable them to play a key role in securing Iraq. Only in a secure 	environment will the development of Iraq's political and economic institutions 	have a chance to succeed. Ultimately, Iraq's future lies in the hands of its 	people, government, and armed forces, and strengthening them is an essential 	requirement for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq. Until Iraqi forces are 	ready, however, a precipitous U.S. withdrawal would condemn Iraq to civil war 	and intervention by its neighbors and energize al Qaeda and other jihadists 	across the globe. This would gravely jeopardize American security. 

Create the security necessary for political progress and stability
John McCain believes that only by controlling the violence in Iraq can we pave the way for a political settlement. But once the Iraqi government wields greater authority, it will be incumbent upon Iraqi leaders to take significant steps on their own. These include a commitment to go after the militias, a reconciliation process for insurgents and Baathists, more equitable distribution of government resources, provincial elections that will bring Sunnis into the government, and a large increase in employment-generating economic projects.
Accelerate political and economic reconstruction in a secure environment
While it is crucial to focus military efforts on insurgents, particularly against Sunni fighters using violence to strengthen their political position, John McCain believes there must be a greater emphasis on non-military components promoting economic development and representative, accountable governance.
In territories newly secured by the “clear, hold, and build” counterinsurgency strategy, many of the critical steps to succeeding in Iraq can begin to be implemented. Massive reconstruction can go forward without overwhelming fear of attack and sabotage. A substantial employment program can begin to give hope and opportunity to Iraqi citizens. Political meetings and campaigning can take place more freely. Average Iraqis will be more secure as militias and terrorists are reigned in and violence reduced. All of this will help civil society to emerge and deepen.

Iraqis need to see tangible improvements in their daily lives or support for the new government will falter. Sunnis need to know that if they abandon violence they will have a role in the political process, and the Shia need to know that security will be provided by coalition and government forces - not by private militias. Kurds need assurance that their gains will not be jeopardized by sectarian violence. All Iraqis must be able to look forward to a future of growing security and prosperity overseen by a competent, representative government free of corruption and sectarian conflict.
Keep Senior Officers in Place
The Pentagon has adopted a policy of rotating our generals in and out of Iraq almost as frequently as the rotating of troops. John McCain believes this to be a deeply flawed practice. If these are, in fact, the best leaders for the task, they should remain on the job as long as possible. These generals and other senior officers with experience possess critical situational awareness and expertise necessary to prevail.
Call for International Pressure on Syria and Iran
John McCain believes Syria and Iran have aided and abetted the violence in Iraq for too long. Syria has refused to crack down on Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists operating from within its territory. Iran has aided the most extreme and violent Shia militias, providing them with training, weapons, and technology that they have used to kill American troops.
The answer is not to enter into unconditional dialogues with these two dictatorships from a position of weakness. The answer is for the international community to apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior. The United States must also bolster its regional military posture to make clear to Iran our determination to protect our forces in Iraq and to deter Iranian intervention in that country.
Win the Homefront
If efforts in Iraq do not retain the support of the American people, the war will be lost as soundly as if our forces were defeated in battle. A renewed effort at home starts with explaining precisely what is at stake in this war to ensure that Americans fully understand the high cost of a military defeat. The war in Iraq is at a crossroads and the future of the entire region is at stake - a region that produced the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 and where much of the world’s energy supplies are located. Success is essential to creating peace in the region, and failure would expose the United States to national security threats for generations. Defeat in the war would lead to much more violence in Iraq, greatly embolden Iran, undermine U.S. allies such as Israel, likely lead to wider conflict, result in a terrorist safe haven in the heart of the Middle East, and gravely damage U.S. credibility throughout the world.
The American people also deserve to know that the path ahead will be long and difficult. They have heard many times that the violence in Iraq will subside soon - when a transitional government is in place, when Saddam is captured, when elections are held, when a constitution is in place. John McCain believes it is far better to describe the situation just as it is - difficult right now, but not without hope. The stakes for America could not be higher.
Barrack O’Bama

Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. Press Iraq’s Leaders to Reconcile
The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing. Regional Diplomacy
Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction. Humanitarian Initiative
Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.

Mitt Romney

My Notes - For some odd reason I could not find a specific “Issue” for just Iraq on Romney’s site. He has several “Generic” issue based dicussions like “Confronting radical Jihadism” and “Combating Nuclear Terrorism” but I didn’t see anything specifically dealing with Iraq. If I missed it please let me know and I will add it here.

I support McCain quite strongly on this issue. He’s painting a realistic picture, and just pulling the plug and leaving now WILL bite us in the ass. I’d rather deploy over there a time or 2 in my 30’s than for most of my 40’s when its a real disaster if we leave.

First let me state that I was against going into Iraq from day one. However let me state that since we are there, have completely disassembled the infrastructure and government in essence completely destabilizing the country, It is my opinion we are responsible for fixing what we’ve screwed up.

That being said this is one issue where there appears to be a very clear division between the two parties. I find it hard to believe that anyone can say “When I am president I will begin IMMEDIATE withdraw on day one” and be able to do so with any level of responsibility. O’Bama’s plan is pretty specific having us entirely out of the country in 16 months, which IMHO is completely insane and a road to disaster. Hillary’s plan however is very vague and I’m guessing if elected she would more than likely not pull troops out or pull a political BS move like pulling out 100 troops every other week or something to that effect.

The true standout here is McCain and for the most part is the attitude and approach I would like to see and one that SHOULD have been taking place since day one of the invasion. Even if it takes double the troops secure the damn country. After you do that you can build an Iraqi army and stable government.

I’d much rather see overkill than “not quite enough” in a situation like this…hell I learned that playing video games :slight_smile:

I also think his “Win the homefront” section rings pretty true as well. Bush has failed MISERABLY at conveying the importance and urgency of the situation, IMHO not entirely due to his own failing but some media bias as well. I think a new fresh face would more than likely be much better suited to this if for no other reason than he can throw the monkey on Bush’s back by saying “Hey this guy royally screwed up. We can fix it but this is what it’s going to take”

~Matt

I’d like to put in a request for this thread as well: PLEASE no bickering over why we’re there, or whose fault it is. Let’s just start from “we’re in Iraq, now deal with it”. Let’s look to an eventual solution, because I really want to be done going to combat zones by the time I’m in my 40’s.

McCain’s got the right formula. Clinton and Obama are simultaneously trying to keep the rabid anti-war wing of the Democratic Party in check with platitudes about “redeployment” and “immediate withdrawal,” all while trying to appear more reasonable to moderate and conservative Democrats who are a little spooked by Obama’s inexperience and Clinton’s seeming weaknesses as a possible Commander-in-Chief.

T.

if the profit motive could be magically (or legislatively) taken out of the equation - - then the companies and contractors engaged in this occupation would quickly find other ways to invest their business assets - - and interest in this war would quickly dissipate. I am not saying this war was initiated for the sake of profit - but take profit out and the moral imperative to fix what we broke fades quietly into the sunset.

So, the government is going to spend at least 70 billion *a quarter *in 2008 to support the effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, mainly for the sake of Halliburton (which received tons of money from the Clinton administration, too), Blackwater Security, and others?

The Clintons are a tired act, with tired ideas and a complete lack of what it takes to ensure national security. At least McCain gets the security equation. Obama is so childlike in his foreign policy views that’d it be downright dangerous to put that man in the Oval Office.

Our efforts over there certainly seem to be a very benign occupation, for that matter. Outside of the anger emenating from Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Militia and the AQI factions, things seem to be going better for more Iraqis, outside of the Ba’ath Party elites, than they ever have before. Surely, there’s something noble that we can find in all this?

T.

I’m sure one can find nobility in the occupation, but that’s not what greases the wheels of (this) war.

Thought experiment: We just snap our fingers and all the profit, promotions, billions in lost cash, etc. would be taken out of the occupation - - I propose that also takes the wind out the whole effort. We’d be out of Iraq in a year and what’s going on on the ground be damned.

I’d be very sad, if that were truly the case. I’ve spent time over there, in country (on research), and I can see a difference from the first time I was over there, commanding a company of troops during the first Gulf War.

T.

My question is how do we know Iraq wants to become a peaceful whole country again?

if the profit motive could be magically (or legislatively) taken out of the equation - - then the companies and contractors engaged in this occupation would quickly find other ways to invest their business assets - - and interest in this war would quickly dissipate. I am not saying this war was initiated for the sake of profit - but take profit out and the moral imperative to fix what we broke fades quietly into the sunset.
You can say the same thing for about 99% of the activities that companies and contractors partake in, whether its in Iraq or here in the States. That is just pie in the sky thinking and serves no real purpose to the discussion.

it serves a shitload of purpose to bring up the profit motive when it pertains to the Iraqi war

because if profit motive explains why we went into Iraq, and if t explains why we are staying there, then

We began the war with Iraq in order to go to war with Iraq - and we are staying there in order to stay there.

and yes you can say the same thing about other endeavors contractors are engaged in,

but to say we build roads and bridges in order to build roads and bridges just does not ring the same.

Are you saying we went to war so we could make money?

Maybe I’m miss reading what he’s saying but it sounds to me like he’s saying we went to war so certain companies could make money.

Overall I think the premis is ridiculous as the increase in profits by these particular companies are FAR outweighed by the overall cost and drag on the economy in general. In the overall scheme of things I would not doubt that these very same companies that are making a slightly more profit will in the end, over a period of decades, will actually make less money.

In the mean time these same companies could have been making similar money in the US as it’s pretty obvious, at least around here, our infrastructure is falling into disrepair.

~Matt

Despite their different approaches, I like all three of them better than what we are doing now.

As I’ve believed from (near) the beginning. Either shit or get off the pot.

I just hope McCain has a plan to pay for this. I’ll gladly pay a war tax to cover the effort.

it serves a shitload of purpose to bring up the profit motive when it pertains to the Iraqi war

because if profit motive explains why we went into Iraq, and if t explains why we are staying there, then

We began the war with Iraq in order to go to war with Iraq - and we are staying there in order to stay there.

and yes you can say the same thing about other endeavors contractors are engaged in,

but to say we build roads and bridges in order to build roads and bridges just does not ring the same.
Ramble on Mr. Paranoid Insane Man

I was just discussing with my partner the apparent lack of REAL detail on anyones plan. Seems to me that of you’re running for president you’d put some real time into “Your plan’s” and that should include how you’re going to pay for it.

I appreciate Hillary’s line by line explanations on some of her issues, although I disagree with most of them, as it explains where she plans on spending the money. But really I can say I’m going to put everyone in the US in a million dollar home, if I can’t tell you how I’m going to do it, it’s not real.

I also understand the need to get ones “Points” across in a quick and concise way, but I would think that would be backed up somewhere with a fairly fleshed out plan.

But that’s beside the point.

I kind of agree with your “Shit or get off the pot” assessment. But I’m not sure I like the idea of getting off the pot better than what we’re doing now. I just see any pull out before there is a great deal of stabilization as a HUGE mistake.

I could be wrong but pull out now in 16 months and we’ll be right back there doing the same thing in 10-20 years. I really have no desire to go back a 3rd time, at least not for a 100 years or so.

~Matt

The big question is it possible to stabilize Iraq?

Matt, you used a lot of bandwidth when just a little would suffice.

Obama: Lose the Iraq war as quickly as possible limited only by the logistics of a relatively safe withdrawal.

McCain: Win the Iraq war.

Clinton: Triangulate. Lose the war more slowly than Obama.

Not complicated. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

**Ramble on Mr. Paranoid Insane Man **

is this your rather funny way of saying you prefer the blue pill?

or have you thought it thru and decided that the profit motive does not play a role in our occupation of Iraq?