Democratic Presidential Candidates positions would leave US in Iraq for years.

This is just another example of the hopelessness of the two party system in the US. There is a bipartisan support in the US for an aggressive foreign policy that is supposed to ensure hegemony and security for the US. The result has been disastrous interventions that are costing ordinary US taxpayers billions as well as losing American lives to say nothing of the lives of citizens of the countries where they have intervened.

NY Times, August 12, 2007
Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years
By JEFF ZELENY And MARC SANTORA

DES MOINES, Aug. 11 — Even as they call for an end to the war and
pledge
to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are
setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in
Iraq
for years.

John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in
the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for
military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator
Hillary
Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight
terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator

Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet
unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel,
fight terrorism and train Iraqis.

These positions and those of some rivals suggest that the Democratic
bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much
it
appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be
inherited by the next commander in chief. Antiwar advocates have raised

little challenge to such positions by Democrats.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico stands apart, having suggested that
he would even leave some military equipment behind to expedite the
troop
withdrawal. In a forum at a gathering of bloggers last week, he
declared: “I have a one-point plan to get out of Iraq: Get out! Get
out!”

On the other side of the spectrum is Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of
Delaware, who has proposed setting up separate regions for the three
major ethnic and religious groups in Iraq until a stable central
government is established before removing most American troops.

Still, many Democrats are increasingly taking the position, in
televised
debates and in sessions with voters across the country, that ending a
war can be as complicated as starting one.

“We’ve got to be prepared to control a civil war if it starts to
spill
outside the borders of Iraq,” Mr. Edwards, who has run hard against
the
war, said at a Democratic debate in Chicago this week. “And we have
to
be prepared for the worst possibility that you never hear anyone
talking
about, which is the possibility that genocide breaks out and the
Shi’a
try to systematically eliminate the Sunni. As president of the United
States, I would plan and prepare for all those possibilities.”

Most of the Democratic candidates mention the significant military and
logistical difficulties in bringing out American troops, which even
optimistic experts say would take at least a year. The candidates are
not only trying to retain flexibility for themselves in the event they
become president, aides said, but are also hoping to tamp down any
expectation that the war would abruptly end if they were elected. Most
have not proposed specific troop levels or particular rules of
engagement for a continued presence in Iraq, saying the conditions more

than a year from now remain too uncertain.

In political terms, their strategies are a balancing act. In her public

appearances, Mrs. Clinton often says, “If this president does not end

this war before he leaves office, when I am president, I will.” But
she
has affirmed in recent months remarks she made to The New York Times in

March, when she said that there were “remaining vital national
security
interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of
American troops. The United States’ security, she said then, would be

undermined if part of Iraq turned into a failed state” that serves as
a
Petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda.”

So while the senators’ views expressed on the campaign trail do not
conflict with their votes in Congress, particularly to set a deadline
for withdrawal, they are grappling as candidates with the possibility
of
a sustained military presence in Iraq, addressing questions about
America’s responsibility to Iraqi civilians as well as guarding
against
the terrorism threat in the region.

Among the challenges the next president could face in Iraq, three seem
to be resonating the most: What to do if there is a genocide? What to
do
if chaos in Iraq threatens to engulf the region in a wider war? And
what
to do if Iraq descends into further lawlessness and becomes the staging

ground for terrorist attacks elsewhere, including in the United States?

“While the overwhelming majority of Americans want to bring the
troops
home, the question is what is the plan beyond that?” said Gov. Chet
Culver of Iowa, a Democrat. “The first candidate running for
president,
I think on either side, who can best articulate that will win.”

Four years after the last presidential race featured early signs of war

protest, particularly in the candidacy of Howard Dean, a new phase of
the debate seems to be unfolding, with antiwar groups giving the
Democrats latitude to take positions short of a full and immediate
withdrawal. Neither MoveOn.org nor its affiliated group, Americans
Against Escalation in Iraq, have sought to press Democrats here in Iowa

to suggest anything short of ending the war immediately.

“Of course we would like to get them out right now. That sounds
wonderful,” said Sue Dinsdale, who leads the Iowa chapter of
Americans
Against Escalation in Iraq and has seen nearly all of the Democratic
candidates. “I don’t think that people realize what their specific
plans
are and what they are saying about it, but just that they are working
to
end the war.”

The leading Republican candidates have largely chosen not to wrestle
publicly with Iraq policy questions, instead deferring to President
Bush
and waiting until Gen. David H. Petraeus delivers a progress report
next
month on the troop buildup this year.

While the Democrats talk exhaustively about Iraq, a review of the
remarks they have made during campaign stops over the last six months
leaves little ambiguity in their message: If the president refuses to
end the war, they will.

To accomplish that goal, they all discuss a mix of vigorous diplomacy
in
the region, intensified pressure on the Iraqi government and a phased
withdrawal of troops to begin as soon as possible. But their statements

in campaign settings are often silent on the problems of how to
disengage and what tradeoffs might be necessary.

“It is time to bring our troops home because it has made us less
safe,”
Mr. Obama said to a throng of supporters, cheering wildly despite the
pouring rain, at a campaign stop in New Hampshire last month.

Mrs. Clinton has been equally vocal in making “bringing the troops
home”
a central theme. In February, she said her message to the Iraqi
government would be simple: “I would say ‘I’m sorry, it’s over.
We are
not going to baby-sit a civil war.’ ”

Both candidates, in interviews or debates, have said that they would
not
support intervening in a genocidal war should the majority Shiites
slaughter Sunnis — and Sunnis retaliate — on a much greater scale
than
now takes place.

Mr. Edwards, who has suggested that he would intervene in a genocide,
has tried to position himself as the more forceful antiwar candidate by

criticizing both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama for not pushing hard enough

in the Senate to bring the troops home.

“There are differences between us,” Mr. Edwards said in a June
debate.
“I think there is a difference between making very clear when the
crucial moment comes, on Congress ending this war, what your position
is
and standing quiet.”

Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut has called for the United
States military to “begin redeploying immediately.” In a debate
this
week in Chicago, he said: “We can do so with two and a half divisions

coming out each month, done safely and reasonably well.”

Americans Against Escalation in Iraq has created its “Iraq Summer”
campaign to persuade members of Congress to support legislation
changing
course in Iraq. While the group is focusing on Republicans across the
country, including deploying a blimp to fly above the Iowa straw poll
on
Saturday, it has not weighed in on the Democratic side of the
presidential race and the fact that several Democratic candidates call
for an extended but limited military commitment in Iraq. “We are in a

good position when leaders are debating the best way to bring our
troops
home,” said Moira Mack, a group spokeswoman, “rather than whether
or not
to bring them home.”

Marc Santora contributed reporting from New York