Campaign 2008 - Dueling Iraq Plans

Presidential hopeful John Edwards just released his plan for ending the Iraq war, making him the second of the major Democratic candidates to announce a proposed solution to our involvement in the conflict (Barack Obama sponsored a bill, S.433, last month that is in the Senate.) Looking at the two, I think Obama's proposal is by far the more reasonable (and realistic). It's certainly the more nuanced, and the one that provides the most flexibility to deal with changing circumstances.

Let's look at the two proposals. Edwards proposes:

• Cap funding for the troops in Iraq at 100,000 troops to stop the surge and implement an immediate draw-down of 40-50,000 combat troops. Any troops beyond that level should be redeployed immediately.
• Prohibit funding to deploy any new troops to Iraq that do not meet real readiness standards and that have not been properly trained and equipped, so American tax dollars are used to train and equip our troops, instead of escalating the war.
• Make it clear that President Bush is conducting this war without authorization. The 2002 authorization did not give President Bush the power to use U.S. troops to police a civil war. President Bush exceeded his authority long ago, and now needs to end the war and ask Congress for new authority to manage the withdrawal of the U.S. military presence and to help Iraq achieve stability.
• Require a complete withdrawal of combat troops in Iraq in the next 12-18 months without leaving behind any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

After withdrawal, Edwards believes that sufficient forces should remain in the region to contain the conflict and ensure that instability in Iraq does not spillover and create a regional war, a terrorist haven, or spark a genocide.

Obama proposes:

• Beginning to redeploy troops as of 1 May of this year, with redeployment to be complete by 31 March of next year
• Allowing for a suspension of the redeployment if the Iraqi government meets a list of specific criteria outlined in the bill. The suspension would be for 90 days, and would be renewable.
• Allows retaining troops in Iraq to continue training Iraqi forces, to conduct specifically targeted anti-terrorism operations, to provide protection for US forces, and to serve as defense attache.
• Reaffirms Congress' already existing prohibition of permanent bases in Iraq.

The big advantage to Obama's plan lies in its flexibility. By allowing for a suspension of the redeployment of the troops, it provides an incentive for the Iraqi government to try and solve the problems (provided, of course, that the Iraqi government wants our forces to stay). By mandating that the deployment take place unless the goals are met, it provides an incentive for the Iraqi government to act quickly and decisively - it's a carrot and stick approach, and it delivers the message that we do still care about what happens in Iraq. The Edwards plan, on the other hand, has us getting out quickly no matter what. This delivers the message that we no longer really care about what happens in Iraq - the Iraqis are welcome to go to hell (or not) as they see fit, without any further input from us. This message is reinforced by having forces remain in the region to protect our interests, but not in the country providing training to Iraqi forces.

The big advantage to the Edwards plan lies in getting us the hell out of Iraq. This plan will almost certainly result in the loss of fewer American lives, since it moves all American forces out of the country. Obama's plan, with forces remaining in Iraq to conduct specific missions, will keep more American troops at risk.

I think that the increased risk to the troops in Obama's plan is balanced by the effort that is being made to continue to try and help the Iraqis build a successful nation. At the moment, I don't think that we are helping the situation there, and I'm not sure that Obama's plan will result in a significant improvement in the situaiton in Iraq. I can be reasonably sure, however, that Edwards plan will not, mostly because it is not designed to try to make things better there.

(hat tip: Bora)