Here we go again. "DLC Dem-Lite" vs. "Berkeley wackjob fanatic". "Moderates" vs. "Progressives" vs. "liberals". Brother vs. brother. Everyone seems to suddenly have a passionate stake in this "battle" over how to get out of Iraq, and everyone seems willing to fight it with the same intensity as any pitched Howard Dean battle. But there's something weird about this fight. Sure, all the vitriol and anger is flying, but are our various Evil Villains and Unimpeachable Champions really as divided as some on this site seem to think?
Lets review:
Bayh: find realistic way to define success, then set benchmarks
Edwards: was "wrong". Wants "significant" reduction of troops after elections early next year. He'd tie the proportion of troops withdrawn to benchmarks set for Iraqi soldier performance.
Biden: no withdrawals until political situation improves, but sees 100K troops back home by '07. Does not rule out more troops if necessary. Wants admin to come clean about targets for Iraqi troop training. More civilian staff in Iraq.
Clark: add civillian component; consider adding troops; adjust the mix on the ground; establish clear benchmarks for training
Clinton: No immed. withdrawal, no troop increase, set specific benchmarks for training Iraqi forces and make it clear to Iraq that the US's military committment is limited.
Feingold: 12/31/06 is a "target date" for troops to come home. But he's flexible.
Kerry: begin drawn down of 20K troops after elections in Dec and continue if successful.
Richardson: "It is now time for the military commanders to design a phased, definitive withdrawal plan."
Warner: No immed. withdrawal, no troop increase, set specific benchmarks for Iraqi forces. Eschews "debating the past."
Now to me most of those don't sound like detailed strategies of any kind. And the majority of them are not at all incompatible. In fact, most seem to share at least a few things in common: set quantifiable benchmarks, create an orderly withdrawal strategy, and start bringing troops home as soon as possible. A smaller contingent leaves a window open for more troops, and a couple want more civilian staff in Iraq.
Now they're all delivered different ways, and I'll admit I respond differently to the different messages. I'm much less likely to listen if you refuse to hold the Bush Administration responsible, or if you cling to the idea that we have to be ready to throw more troops into the fire. But most of these positions are VERY similar, and many of the differences would probably be easy to iron out with just a little reasoned debate about the pros and cons. WHY does Biden think there'll be 100K home in two years? WHY does Kerry think 20K (as opposed to 10K or 50K) should come home after the elections? What's the reasoning behind these claims? Is it valid? What are the outcomes? That's what we should be debating. I don't think we're anywhere NEAR the point where namecalling or DINO-labelling is even remotely appropriate, except possibly with Joe Lieberman.
As far as I see it, the best strategy would be 1) a clearly articulated strategy for the remainder of the occupation complete with quantifiable benchmarks and a non-partisan oversight process, 2) a redeployment schedule linked to that strategy which either withdraws troops from the region or switches them out with more versatile civilians (like all those boring old guys who work at the State Dept), 3) at least some symbolic withdrawals after this round of elections. I mean I agree with Kos that Richardson has "the best plan", but only because it's incredibly general. We're not at the point where we should be throwing around numbers and dates yet, and it's irresponsible to do that before we have an idea of what a withdrawal strategy will entail.
So... tell me why I'm wrong now ;)