2008 Richardson’s One-Point Plan for Iraq
posted by on August 23 at 11:40 AM
I’ve been Slogging this week about the different ways the Democratic presidential candidates approach the problem of pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, and I want to return for a moment to Bill Richardson and his “one-point” plan.
Something has been bugging me about the Richardson pitch on getting out of Iraq. On the campaign trail, he loves to tell audiences that he has a one-point plan for Iraq, and that is: “Get out.” He says he could have all the U.S. troops home by the end of this year. He says no U.S. forces would be left behind to stabilize the country, except those needed to guard the U.S. embassy. And of course, he has a TV ad about it:
But here’s what’s bugging me: Bill Richardson is the Governor of New Mexico. He doesn’t have a vote in Congress, and even if he were to win the presidency he wouldn’t have any control over what U.S. troops are doing until January of 2009. He can say all he wants that he has a plan to bring U.S. troops home by the end of this year, but he doesn’t have any power to make that happen—and, since he knows it’s not going to happen, he doesn’t have to worry too much about all the messy potential consequences (more civil war, the killing of Iraqis who worked with U.S. forces, a regional war) that could arise from a fast U.S. pullout. He also doesn’t have to worry too much about whether it’s even a practical possibility to get all U.S. troops and their equipment out of Iraq by the end of December (the other leading Democratic candidates say it’s not, and Joe Biden, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been especially blunt about this in recent debates).
In other words, Richardson has crafted a plan that he has no power to implement over the time-line he would like it implemented, and which probably couldn’t be implemented even if he did have power to do so.
Why is he doing this? Because it’s a political freebie for him. He gets to throw red meat to the “out-of-Iraq-now” wing of the Democratic party for the next six months. When the end of this year comes and goes without all U.S. troops out of Iraq, he gets to say, “I had a plan that would have had us out by now…” And meanwhile, he doesn’t have to engage in the kind of reasoned consideration of the mechanics of an Iraq pullout that those in Congress have to engage in.
Maybe this is smart politics for Richardson. (Although I don’t see his poll numbers shooting up as a result of this plan.) But it’s not serious thinking.
It's campaign season. None of these bozos are accountable for ANYTHING.
Face it, only thing that matters is how soon we get out of Iraq and how many soldiers die while we dither about it.
Sloggers, help me out on this:
We keep being told that our military is at the breaking point, current troop levels are totally unsustainable, new recruitment levels are flopping and both Iraq and Afghanistan are about to collapse into failed states.
Where, exactly, are we going to find more Imperial Stormtroopers to carry out Darth Cheney's satanic orders? They've sworn there won't be a draft, and the Talibangelicals have put the kibosh on cloning, so where are we going to find soldiers to carry out these wars for another 10 to 20 years?
Like he was ever on my radar to begin with.
Oh yes, complicated, nuanced 99-point platforms always win elections.
"Face it, only thing that matters is how soon we get out of Iraq and how many soldiers die while we dither about it."
Will, do you think we have any responsibility to leave in a way that minimizes *further* civilian bloodshed? If a partition solution that took say, 3 years were to result in saving a million Iraqi lives, would it be worth say 3000 American ones? Or a phased 12 month withdrawal that cost 1000 American lives but saved 100,000 Iraqi lives.
Do we owe the Iraqis anything?
I don't see what's wrong with offering a plan even if you don't have the power to carry it out. Cary Moon had a plan for the viaduct, and she doesn't have any power. Just a platform and a megaphone, same as Richardson.
The fact that you have people like Joe Biden responding to it and evaluating the practicality of getting out by the end of the year is progress. I mean, if they say it's impossible to be out by January, then the obvious response is, "OK, how about February? What about March?"
I think saying his thinking isn't serious is the same groupthink that the pundits used to dismiss those who said there were no WMDs and that we didn't really need to invade in the first place.
Eli,
No one in the US gets elected for telling the truth, that's like the first rule of US politics. They tell people that America is the greatest country in the world, blah, blah, blah, and whatever else that people want to hear.
Big Sven @ 6,
Sounds great. Now how do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?
And where are all these future US occupation troops going to come from?
Apparently, Bush's recent comparison of Iraq to Vietnam pissed off a lot of people there:
"Doesn't he realize that if the U.S. had stayed in Vietnam longer, they would have killed more people?" said Vu Huy Trieu of Hanoi, a veteran of the communist forces that fought American troops in Vietnam. "Nobody regrets that the Vietnam War wasn't prolonged except Bush."
The Vietnamese have a unique perspective on our "help."
Likewise, don't most Iraqis want us to leave? Hasn't the Iraqi Parliment voted for US withdrawal?
Doesn't it matter what they want?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070823/ap_on_re_as/vietnam_iraq_bush;_ylt=AghZLhUyGbwPHPDCW6ZR_pkBxg8F
Point taken on Iraqi opinion, OA. Though I think the bloodbath will accelerate after we leave, if they want us to go we should go.
I think Richardson chooses to think this way. He was not born believing in withdrawl.
Besides, if it weren't for the invasion/occupation of Iraq, what would the Democrats have to run on?
Ending domestic spying? No - they wanted that.
Stopping tax cuts for the rich? No - they wanted that.
Preventing conservative idiot judicial nominees? No - they don't seem to stop those from happening.
Ending the scourge of same sex marriage? It won't happen on their watch.
To promote healthcare for all? Do you really think they will turn their backs on the insurance/pharmaceutical industries? Is there any evidence to believe they will?
He's talking about Iraq because he hasn't got anything else to say.
@6 - no, our responsibility to Iraq ended after GWB declared victory four years ago.
What should have happened was our troops coming home.
But that would have been ... prudent.
"our responsibility to Iraq ended after GWB declared victory four years ago"
Will, I don't actually believe you think we had a responsibility to the people of Iraq *before* GWB declared victory if we didn't *after*, so I conclude that you answered my serious question- do we have any responsibility to the people of Iraq?- with the smarmy rhetorical equivilent of "George Bush sucks!"
True, but so what? Should he have declared victory? No, of course not. Did he fuck up the war horribly? Yes, of course. Should we have gone to war in the first place? No, it's now crystal clear (and yes, it was clear to a lot of people then. But not to the majority of Americans.) DO WE OWE A HUGE MORAL DEBT TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE?
YES!
I notice that the "get out now" crowd NEVER talks about what the US *should* do to help the suffering Iraqi people after our military leaves. I get the sense that some people are so eager to mark this up in the "L" column for the Republicans that the more misery in Iraq, the better.
For the millionth time, fuck the Iraqis. With our economy tanking, our military on the verge of collapse, our Constitution shredded, and our infrastructure crumbling, our house is not in order. Caring about what happens to the Iraqis is a luxury now, and one we can't afford, especially given that all of the horrible consequences are going to happen anyway.
Gitai, I couldn't possibly disagree with you more. We are the richest nation on earth, their nation went from modern to stone age by our actions.
Big Sven @ 15,
And they've got us to thank for that. A few more years of our "help," and they'll all be dead, dead, dead.
There's this weird national delusion, I'd call it "Amerogance," that our military can solve our problems. They kill people, that's what they do.
If we want to help the Iraqis, we should end the brutal occupation of their country.
"Nearly five years into the greatest American war ever, Army brass are finally admitting what nearly everyone else on Earth (including Dick Cheney) has known for so many years: Bombing the fuck out of a distant country for no actual reason and killing half a million of its people and scattering its armed military forces and destroying its entire infrastructure and executing its government and raping its children and elderly in torture chambers and forcing its educated and professional classes to flee to other countries is not, in fact, a surefire way to spread democracy in the Middle East."
http://wonkette.com/politics/dept%27-of-reduced-expectations/us-generals-finally-admit-theyre-not-in-iraq-for-democracy-either-292381.php
@15 Don't buy into that richest nation on earth bullshit. A nation's wealth doesn't matter when the distribution of that wealth is as uneven as ours. And really, when you've got $10 trillion in debt, that wealth rings kind of hollow.
And frankly, I kinda like living a first world lifestyle. I want our billions spent here on infrastructure and social services, and I only want to help other countries insofar as we can afford it and it benefits us.
And really, we're not wanted, mainly because we're killing 10k Iraqis monthly. The situation isn't going to get better with us there, and it's going to keep getting worse and worse, no matter what we do. Why should we spend blood and treasure on a lost cause? Let's get home, make our country great again, and then we can start working on modest improvements for the rest of the world.
The assumption that Iraqis will be worse off when the US leaves should be critically examined.
Iraqi suffering is likely to either stay the same or decrease if the US withdraws sooner not later.
The Iraqis are suffering now despite US presence. That level of suffering is the baseline.
First, it is likely that the baseline suffering will remain the same after withdrawal because this is a civil conflict between local interests, religions, and tribes. This civil strife will occur whether the US is in or out.
The main effect of withdrawing is to cause a spike of violence (i.e. "Chaos") as the warring factions rush to fill the power vacuum. However, this spike will occur whether the US withdraws next year or 5 years from now. The US military presence is simply delaying the spike. Whether the spike occurs now (Snow)or later (Snow+x), does not change the level of suffering. A dead person now is the same as a dead person 5 years from now.
However, by withdrawing sooner, we know we can save those lives lost between Snow and Snow+x. So, are we willing to sacrifice lives we know we can save now by withdrawing for a slim chance that we could save more lives in the future?
The only way you can answer yes is if strong evidence exists showing that Snow+X will be less than Snow.
Based on the many warring factions, the acceptability of using violence to gain power, the lack of strong political leadership and the reluctance to unite, the evidence suggests that a smooth political transition to peace is highly unlikely. Are we willing to gamble lives now for a potential for a utopian resolution to this conflict?
Second, it is likely that the violence will greatly decrease IN THE LONG TERM once the US military leaves for two reasons. 1) Without the US, the factions can fill the power vacuum and create a stable (though undemocratic) society. The local leaders (thugs, chiefs, whatever they are) will impose order on their turf just like Saddam did. But this spike in violence will soon become stable.
2) Many of those in danger will leave because they will not have the false sense of security the US military provides (leading to refugee problems, but this thing ain't perfect).
Not a nice picture, but it will lead to stability (maybe not democracy).
This endless mantra that Iraq will devolve into chaos is misleading. Chaos is likely whether or not we sacrifice US US soldiers for 1, 5, or 10 years. Lets save the ones we know we can save and use other non-military means to decrease the civil strife we know is coming.
We have to withdraw, but we have a responsibility to do everything we can to make Iraq better when we do. That means the following:
1. We end contracts to non-Iraqi companies that are profiting at Iraq's expense, immediately.
2. We pay for the damage we've done by funding the bulk of a UN-monitored, Iraqi-enacted reconstruction plan.
3. We use our diplomatic influence to call a regional conference to balance the interests of Iraq and its neighbors, to limit the possibility of a broader war.
4. We absolutely refuse to have any further say in Iraq's oil economy. If it's necessary to support out-and-out nationalization in order to avoid the appearance of manipulating oil contracts for our gain, then we should do it. Our policy should be "Iraqi oil for the Iraqi people," and then we should let the Iraqis determine what that means with no further interference.
5. We should begin a withdrawal of all military forces immediately, in secure stages, first to Kuwait and other regional bases, then out of the region entirely.
6. We abandon all "embassies" and military bases built or under construction in Iraq, except for a single reasonably-sized and typically defended diplomatic mission.
i have to agree with big sven, there is a moral imperative for the u.s. to find solutions to the problems we have created. i think, however, that the whole dichotomy of stay or leave is a false one. more international cooperation is certainly in order which could involve a continued american military presence. but regardless of the details, and even if we do pull our troops out, we owe a great deal. we all are leading comfortable lives while they are living in hell. it's fucked and we're all responsible.
I like Cascadian's plan. If we can pay to bail out the fucking S&Ls and the fucking subprime lending disaster, we can fund a *real* program to help the Iraqis after our military leaves. Hopefully Democratic President Whomever will do this, as part of repairing our international reputation.
Gitai is right.
Fuck the Iraqis.
We owe them Shiite.
Now stop SPENDING my US TAX DOLLARS in a country that IS NOT AMERICA! And bring my National Guard home to help with our National Disasters like floods, fires, bridges, and all that.
Period.
Playtime is over, combat-avoiding Republicants.
Oh, and Big Sven, if you love Iraq so much sign up and go die there - but pay for your tour from your pocket, not mine.
Well, gentlemen, you have thoroughly answered my question. The "leave right now" crowd does in fact hate our dumbfuck president so much that they are willing to blame the victims of his war and those who want to do right by its victims. Thanks for the clarification.
ps- thanks for telling me to go die, Will, for having the audacity to ask you a question. I'll avoid doing that in the future.
Corry Paul Tyler, 29, an Army captain and 1999 West Point graduate from Woodbine, Ga., was among 14 soldiers killed in the crash of a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter near Kirkuk in northern Iraq on Wednesday.Tyler, on his third deployment to Iraq, is survived by his wife, Kathy, and three small children in the Tacoma area.
A couple excerpts from Dan Savage\'s \"Say yes to War\" article October 2002:
\"War may be bad for children and other living things, but there are times when peace is worse for children and other living things, and this is one of those times. Saying no to war in Iraq means saying yes to the continued oppression of the Iraqi people.\"
\"In the meantime, invading and rebuilding Iraq will not only free the Iraqi people, it will also make the Saudis aware of the consequences they face if they continue to oppress their own people while exporting terrorism and terrorists. The War on Iraq will make it clear to our friends and enemies in the Middle East (and elsewhere) that we mean business: Free your people, reform your societies, liberalize, and democratize... or we\'re going to come over there, remove you from power, free your people, and reform your societies for ourselves.
\"
I want to add this to my comments made @13.
Dan Savage as an enthusiastic supporter of the war on the people of Iraq clearly has personal responsibility for the carnage that followed. He and every person who ever voted for Bush and Cheney are enablers for war crimes. So there Original Andrew! I said it!
Good for you Big Sven. I knew you could do it. It is not easy in a blog comprised of Dan fans to tell the truth-that Dan Savage is a fucking war monger who promoted a war he knew he would never have to fight in. He, his president, and all the other neo-con chickenhawks are sorry motherfuckers and that is the least of it.
Big Sven, Original Andrew! Have you gone mad? This is Dan Savage you are talking about. America favorite cocksucker. the man of a million rim job and cocksucker stories. The man who coined the never to be forgotten phrase of Caesar Salad to describe a fart in the face during a rim job. My God guys! So Dan wrote a article calling for war. So he casually dismissed concerns about children being harmed. It was just an act of self-promotion. You know how Dan is. You don\'t get on \"This American Life\" without being a great self promoter. All the greats step on some little people on their way up. Come back to the fold guys. Come back!!!!!!! Dan show us another picture of a guy with a bottle up his ass. Quikly Dan, QUICKLY!
Good for you Big Sven. I knew you could do it. It is not easy in a blog comprised of Dan fans to tell the truth-that Dan Savage is a fucking war monger who promoted a war he knew he would never have to fight in. He, his president, and all the other neo-con chickenhawks are sorry motherfuckers and that is the least of it.
I want to add this to my comments made @13.
Dan Savage as an enthusiastic supporter of the war on the people of Iraq clearly has personal responsibility for the carnage that followed. He and every person who ever voted for Bush and Cheney are enablers for war crimes. So there Original Andrew! I said it!
Corry Paul Tyler, 29, an Army captain and 1999 West Point graduate from Woodbine, Ga., was among 14 soldiers killed in the crash of a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter near Kirkuk in northern Iraq on Wednesday.Tyler, on his third deployment to Iraq, is survived by his wife, Kathy, and three small children in the Tacoma area.
A couple excerpts from Dan Savage\'s \"Say yes to War\" article October 2002:
\"War may be bad for children and other living things, but there are times when peace is worse for children and other living things, and this is one of those times. Saying no to war in Iraq means saying yes to the continued oppression of the Iraqi people.\"
\"In the meantime, invading and rebuilding Iraq will not only free the Iraqi people, it will also make the Saudis aware of the consequences they face if they continue to oppress their own people while exporting terrorism and terrorists. The War on Iraq will make it clear to our friends and enemies in the Middle East (and elsewhere) that we mean business: Free your people, reform your societies, liberalize, and democratize... or we\'re going to come over there, remove you from power, free your people, and reform your societies for ourselves.
\"
Someone feels strongly enough about the war to spoof my sig @28 and @32. I submit that if you keep doing this, these comment areas will lose their value and people will stop reading your anti-war, get-out-now views.
The saddest thing is that it appears ALL of us in this thread are anti-Bush Democrats that consider the war a complete failure. Yet people are slinging vile names and wishing death upon those who are about four microns away in the big political spectrum. Bummer.
Interesting post Eli. One comment - the idea that the US has any role to play in settling the conflict there is exactly the kind of hubris that led us there in the first place.
The only role we are playing right now is drawing out the civil war that must inevitably occur before any form of order can be restored. Yes, it will be vicious and bloody, but in toppling Saddam, that's the fate we chose.
Bill is right - we should get out immediately.
P.S. And for an embarassing example of that hubris, see Dan Savage's quote @33.
Fnarf @30:
Better yet, Dan, let's see a picture of you with Fnarf's nose up your ass.
Someone feels strongly enough about the war to spoof my sig @28 and @32. I submit that if you keep doing this, these comment areas will lose their value and people will stop reading your anti-war, get-out-now views.
The saddest thing is that it appears ALL of us in this thread are anti-Bush Democrats that consider the war a complete failure. Yet people are slinging vile names and wishing death upon those who are about four microns away in the big political spectrum. Bummer.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).