Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
DISCUSSING TROOP MISSION, NOT JUST NUMBER.
Although it almost certainly comes too late to have an impact on the Iowa caucuses,, the recent specificity from John Edwards on the role of Americans as "trainers" in Iraq is actually very significant. While Iraq has been less of an issue in the primaries due to broad intra-party agreement on the issue (with Democrats wanting to end the war and Republicans wanting to continue it, generally speaking), the role of U.S. forces during the draw-down -- which could last quite some time -- has not been discussed or debated in detail. I believe a significant training mission in Iraq would be profoundly counterproductive for the U.S. (an opinion that is partially informed by my occasional work with Iraqi forces when I was in Baghdad for half of 2005), but there are plenty of Democrats who continue to support such efforts.
The problem with training the Iraqi army is, in brief, twofold: First, it essentially serves to prepare one side of a civil war; as Edwards said, we are propping up their bad behavior. The government forces are largely made up of -- or at least infiltrated by -- Shia militias, and they are more loyal to the leaders of their group or sect than to the central government. Second, a prolonged training mission extends our physical occupation of the country, perpetuating the colonialist imagery (and impact) that Iraqis abhor. As far as I know, Clinton and Obama continue to support (or at least have not explicitly repudiated) some training mission, though that would obviously be reduced or eliminated as forces are redeployed based on their plans. Still, even at this late stage of the primary campaign, it would be helpful and instructive to have the question of troop role -- and not just number -- discussed by the major Democratic candidates.
--A.J. Rossmiller
COMMENTS (3)
The problem of making up these plans on the campaign trail, in my mind, is the final plan needs to be negotiated with the Iraqis and other interested parties. If we keep some trainers in Iraq we may get X in return that is more important. We also need local players to feel they are part of the process.
Posted by: Mark | January 2, 2008 2:49 PM
Actually, Obama has said explicitly that he's only open to continuing the training mission in Iraq if the Iraqi's reach a political reconciliation. Matt Yglesias compared that to saying, in effect, "I'll clean my room tomorrow if I wake up to find a pony in the backyard for me!" That is, no more training mission.
Further, as unlikely as it is that we'll see any sort of political reconciliation in 2008, 2009, or the near future at all, in the case that we do, its not obvious to me that continuing the training mission is a bad thing.
Which is why, often, what can sound like "parsing" or "hedging" is just smartly leaving one's options open for unexpected contingencies. Does anyone think Edwards would reject the training mission if somehow, miraculously, a brokered a peace between the various shiite factions, and their shiites writ large with the sunnis and the kurds, and the Iraqis writ large with Iran and Syria and all that...that in such a case, with the only barrier to a stable Iraq and a much more stable Middle East being a lack of ability of the gov't to ensure the integrity of their borders or the safety of their citizens, Edwards would reject training missions?
Of course not. Nor should one think his current "no training mission" stance closes off such a possibility, as remote as it may be. Which is kinda the point: Edwards' rhetoric is just that--rhetoric. For all his talk about not bringing lobbyists for the health care industry "to the table", he's said he'd bring Congressmen who serve their interests, which is no better. As much as he talks about partisan fighting, he still says he's have GOPers in cabinet. Etc etc.
The "fight fight fight" rhetoric is just a pander to partisans. In practice, his policies on foreign policy and the parties he brings to the table on domestic policy negotiation would most likely closely resembles Obama's.
Both, however, differ greatly from Clinton IMO, who I think has been much more explicit in her support for the training mission...which is tantamount to continuing the war by remaining involved militarily in the Iraqi internal political conflict
Posted by: Michael | January 2, 2008 4:28 PM
Here's that Obama quote, from his Iraq speech in Sept:
If--but only if--Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we should continue to train and equip those forces.
And Yglesias' response:
In other words, in the real world, the training and equipping mission will not continue but if a miraculous pony happens to emerge then that's a different story. This is correct and General Petraeus' testimony and the renewed evidence on the centrality of political progress is as good a time as any for Democrats to follow the Center for American Progress' lead and reject unconditional training of Iraqi forces. This is different from my best understanding of what Hillary Clinton's proposing.
Meanwhile, this idea about the need to keep American forces in Iraq to fight AQI seems misguided to me, but I don't think it's nearly as significant as the training issue since it's the difference between a limited involvement in a specific mission in Iraq and a deep entanglement with all of that country's political problems.
Exactly my thoughts.
linky linky
Posted by: Michael | January 2, 2008 4:31 PM