[Marxism] 3 leading Democrats refuse to quit Iraq

[Louis Proyect]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/27/AR2007092701658.html
Wanted: Democratic Straight Talk on Iraq
By Eugene Robinson
Friday, September 28, 2007; Page A19

Yes, you heard it right: At the Dartmouth College debate Wednesday 
evening, not one of the three leading Democratic candidates could pledge 
that all U.S. combat troops would be out of Iraq by the end of his or 
her first term as president.

That's the end of a first term. Which would be January 2013. Which would 
be 5 1/2 years from now.

"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," said 
Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Barack Obama.

"I cannot make that commitment," said John Edwards.

Makes you wonder what kind of Kool-Aid they were serving backstage. Let 
me suggest that everyone stick to bottled water next time.

In geopolitical terms, I think the answer they all gave is wrong; I 
think this represents the same kind of old-paradigm thinking about 
foreign policy and America's role in the world that all three candidates 
claim to reject. In just-plain-political terms, I think such temporizing 
-- delivered with furrowed brow and an air of wise gravitas -- is, at 
the very least, unwisely premature. The time for a Democratic candidate 
to start taking the antiwar vote for granted and scurrying toward an 
imagined "center" is after securing the nomination, not before. 
Democratic primary voters are smart enough to recognize the difference 
between saying you oppose the war and pledging to end it.

I'm also wondering what leads anyone to think that by the time the 
general election campaign gets underway, anything short of a clear 
promise to pull the plug on George W. Bush's debacle will look like a 
centrist position. By then, "U.S. troops out in a year" may look like 
the height of caution.
ad_icon

With all due respect to Clinton, we have a pretty good idea of what the 
next president will inherit. I can't imagine that at this point anyone 
thinks Bush -- who still thinks he's a latter-day Churchill -- is going 
to change his mind or his basic policy in Iraq. We'll roll into 2008 
with a bigger U.S. presence in Iraq than we had at the beginning of 
2007, and even if Bush agrees to a series of token withdrawals -- 
necessitated by the fact that we're running out of soldiers, Marines and 
guardsmen to send -- it's almost certain that on Election Day we'll 
still have well over 100,000 U.S. troops bogged down in the sands of 
Mesopotamia.

One thing we don't know is whether Bush will have sought to tie the next 
president's hands by ordering some kind of attack on Iran. Yes, that 
would complicate the situation in Iraq. So why did Clinton vote 
Wednesday for a Senate resolution encouraging Bush to label the Iranian 
Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization? Having voted to 
authorize the Iraq war -- she says Bush pulled the wool over her eyes -- 
why would she vote for anything that Bush might try to use as 
justification for yet another potentially catastrophic war?

With all due respect to Obama (who missed the Iran vote), it's his 
obligation to "project four years from now." He opposed the war in Iraq 
from the beginning; he is familiar with the mess Bush created and, like 
all the Democratic candidates, he says he will promptly begin to end the 
war. But four years is a long time -- longer than the United States 
fought in World War II, certainly long enough to bring home the troops. 
Either Obama sees a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq or he doesn't.

With all due respect to Edwards, of course he can make a commitment to 
have all American troops out of Iraq by 2013 -- if he wants to. Of 
course it's possible that unforeseen events will intervene. But does his 
intended course of action entail complete withdrawal, or not?

What we need to hear now from Clinton, Obama and Edwards is "the vision 
thing," heavy on specifics. How do they see the long-term U.S. role in 
the Middle East? ("Different from the way George Bush sees it" isn't 
good enough.) Do they buy Bush's distinction between "moderate" and 
"extremist" elements and regimes, as proxies for good and evil? Is U.S. 
involvement in the region about oil? Is it about religion? What do they 
intend to do with the permanent-looking bases the Bush administration is 
building in Iraq -- including one just five miles from the Iranian border?

And please, no hiding behind "I don't do hypotheticals." The Republican 
candidates' view of Iraq, Iran and the Middle East is dangerously 
apocalyptic, but at least it's a vision. What's yours?

eugenerobinson at washpost.com