By Maggie Goodlander ’09

The debate over the future of the war in Iraq remains polarized in Washington and on the campaign trail as the 2008 presidential primaries begin to heat up around the country. Republican presidential contenders generally insist that we must await General David Petraeus’ recommendations in the coming weeks, but they ultimately agree with the Bush administration’s position that America must stay the course in Iraq and finish the job it started. Democrats continue to argue that the war was a mistake from the start and that America must begin withdrawing troops.

Among Democrats, however, plans for withdrawal differ dramatically in degree of specificity as well as in general strategy. While Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico argues that we must remove all troops from Iraq, Senator Joe Biden of Delaware is firm on that residual troops will be necessary to protect American security interests. Senator Biden also insists that his “Plan for Iraq”—co-written by Les Gleb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations—is the only comprehensive strategy for Iraq set forth by any Democratic candidate. Senator Hillary Clinton of New York recently echoed Biden’s belief that withdrawal from Iraq will be a massive undertaking requiring time and careful planning, admitting that this reality is not what most Americans may want to hear.

American public opinion clearly supports the Democrats’ general assertion that it is time to leave Iraq. A May 2007 CNN poll showed that 65 percent of Americans polled oppose the war, and three months later, CNN’s numbers remained essentially unchanged, with opposition at 66 percent.

With the support of the American people firmly planted behind withdrawal, it may be too easy for Democratic candidates to ride the wave of public opinion and avoid discussion of their specific strategies. Anti-war platitudes dominate the debates that inevitably come down to a blame game—who voted for the war and who did not. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois frequently highlights his opposition to the war as a state senator in 2002, challenging what he labels as the other candidates’ lack of judgment in sanctioning the war from the start. Senator Obama repeatedly argues that the United States must “exercise judgment” as it plans to withdraw troops from Iraq. Instead of delving into the specifics of how, as president, he would exercise judgment, he often merely points to the past votes of those candidates who supported the war.In addition to understanding how each candidate would specifically approach ending the war, Democratic voters and Americans at large ought to know how each presidential hopeful conceives of America’s responsibility and obligations in a post-war Iraq.

This August, I had the opportunity to ask this question of Senator Obama, who traveled to my home state on his campaign tour to speak with supporters and potential supporters at a gathering in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. After his introductory remarks, he opened the floor to questions about his heath care policy, his views on gay marriage, and early steps he would take to solving the Israel-Palestine conflict. Just as I thought Senator Obama would begin his closing remarks, he called on me to ask the final question of the evening at this gathering of 200 people looking out over Portsmouth Harbor. Thus follows a transcript of my question and Senator Obama’s response: 

Supporters of the war in Iraq argue that a precipitous withdrawal of troops will inevitably lead to ethic cleansing among Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish factions in Iraq. Some experts argue that leaving behind a small segment of residual troops will not be enough to prevent this sort of genocide. To what extent does the United States have a moral obligation to prevent ethnic cleansing in Iraq?

"There is a significant humanitarian obligation in Iraq. We broke it, and so I don’t think we own it, but I think we have an obligation to the people there. We have a security interest in preventing ethnic cleansing, but understand that we are not going to prevent violence simply by U.S. troop presence. It’s not how you stop this sort of bloodshed unless we just want to go ahead and commit our young men and women in uniform there for the next fifty years.This is why the argument about the surge never made sense. There’s no doubt that if you send an extra 30,000 troops into a small geographic area that will reduce violence. That will reduce violence only until the troops leave, unless you’re changing the underlying dynamic. The key is to arrive at a sustainable political accommodation. The question then becomes: what is the quickest way to trigger the kind of political accommodation that needs to take place? It is not for us to just stay there because, as we have seen, the Iraqi legislature has not taken any steps during this surge. That was supposed to be the rationale—we send in troops, we reduce the violence in Baghdad, then give the space for these various factions to negotiate. The only thing they agreed to do was vote on a motion to go on vacation! And they have not taken their responsibility seriously because they recognize in part that the U.S. is there to keep a lid on this. And so they can carry out their politics without consequence.So we’ve got to tell them, “No, I’m sorry, that’s it. We’re leaving. We’ll be partners with you, but you have to arrive at a political accommodation. We’ll bring in the international community, we’ll bring in diplomats, and we’ll bring in the regional powers both Shia and Sunni to negotiate a peaceful settlement. We will not, however, keep the lid on things militarily.”[This must be done] sooner or later, if it’s not this year—even in George Bush were still in office or even if a Republican were reelected. […] All of these guys—Mitt Romney and Giuliani—are all saying, “We’ve got to stay here; we’ve got to do this.” Let me tell you something: if it’s not next year, it will be the year after, and the year after. Sooner or later, the political pressure will be such that the folks who are talking tough now will start talking about initiating withdrawal. And the longer we delay, the more dangerous it becomes for our troops and for the Iraqi people.I’m always distressed when I hear this argument coming from the mouths of people searching for rationale for a bad policy. Initially it was weapons of mass destruction, then it was something else, then something else, then it was Sadaam Hussein—he was a bad guy. The rationale keeps on shifting and the policy continues to fail. It’s time we try something else."

Democrats must move beyond the blame game and publicly grapple with difficult and pressing question about America’s moral obligation in Iraq and the Middle East. This war is not simply “George Bush’s war,” as Senator Clinton has repeatedly suggested. Although the American people will in all likelihood continue to stand firmly opposed to the war in Iraq, as voters we must expect and demand from our presidential candidates more than rhetoric and platitudes about how we must bring an end to this war.

---