|
Thursday, 15 November 2007 |
The War in Iraq: how the candidates compare
by JAMISON DORAN
News Editor
A couple months ago I used this space to compare the 2008 presidential candidates on a topic that has been getting more and more coverage leading up to the election: healthcare.
However, there is another issue that will play a hugely important role in the upcoming election and that is the War in Iraq.
Like last time I looked at the top three candidates from each party and outlined their various ideas and plans for the war and whether or not I feel they are feasible.
Republican
John McCain
John McCain has a pretty extensive section on his campaign Web site
dealing with the War in Iraq, which isn’t surprising given his position
on the war.
McCain believes we need to have a larger and stronger troop presence in Iraq to be able to have
long-term success. He would ultimately like to see the Iraqis be able to govern their own country but
believes we need to put more troops in the country first so that can happen.
McCain also believes we need to step up pressure on Iran and Syria, because they have been helping
the insurgents in Iraq for far too long.
I don’t think it’s any surprise that I really disagree with pretty much everything McCain is saying.
I don’t think we need to increase our troop presence in Iraq, and I certainly don’t think we need to get
involved in conflicts with Iran and Syria.
Rudy Giuliani
Rudy Giuliani has a small blurb on his Web site about the Iraq War, followed by a video clip of him expanding on his position.
Basically, Giuliani believes setting a timetable for withdrawal would be a terrible mistake and would
embolden our enemies.
He also believes if we lose in Iraq, we can only expect bloodier and nastier conflicts in the coming
years. So, pretty much if we don’t win in Iraq now we’re doomed.
I wasn’t really impressed with Giuliani’s section dedicated to Iraq. It was particularly small and didn’t
give us any clear information on what he would like to do specifically over there, except that he doesn’t want to “cut and run.”
Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney doesn’t have a section on his Web site dedicated to the War in Iraq but does have a
section entitled “Defeating the Jihadists.” By this, Romney means we have to defeat “this radical and violent faction of Islam.”
He doesn’t have much to say on Iraq in general but does make special
note of Iran and its nuclear program as well as the fact that he
believes they are working in conjunction with the insurgents in Iraq.
He makes special note that the military option remains on the table when dealing with Iran.
Romney takes no time to specifically talk about the War in Iraq, which is disappointing. The war is a
huge issue and not taking a direct stance on it may hurt him come time for the primaries.
I also found his talk of Iran troubling, and I’m starting to really
believe a lot of these Republican candidates would not hesitate to use
military action on them.
Democrats
Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton does have a specific section for the War in Iraq, and she outlines her plan on how to end the war.
Her three-step plan would bring the troops home, work to bring stability to the region, and replace
military force with a new diplomatic initiative.
Clinton would work immediately, beginning with her first day in office, to start bringing the troops home.
She would also work to give aid to Iraq and to have the Iraqi government stand on its own two feet.
She would also organize a multi-billion dollar international effort to help Iraqi refugees through the
United Nations.
I like her plan, especially because it outlines getting out of Iraq quickly, and it also provides for sending
aid and relief to the region.
Her Web site had quite a bit of information about the war, and I think she did a good job of laying it all
out.
John Edwards
John Edwards also has a pretty extensive section on the Iraq War on his Web site. He believes there
is no military solution to the “chaos in Iraq.”
Edwards thinks Iraqis must solve the problem politically by taking responsibility for their own country
and the sooner we leave the country and let the Iraqi people take charge, the better.
Edwards wants to immediately withdraw 40,000-50,000 troops once he takes office and then have a
complete withdrawal within nine to 10 months after taking office.
He would want to leave around 3,500 troops in the country to protect the embassy and humanitarian
workers.
While I agree with Edwards that there is no military solution to the War in Iraq, I don’t agree with everything he had to say.
I think the Iraqi people do need to step up, but we need to cut them
some slack, because if it weren’t for us, they wouldn’t be in this
situation.
Barack Obama
Barack Obama makes sure to point out immediately on his Web site he was against the war from the
very beginning, which is true.
Obama’s plan would call for immediately withdrawing our troops engaged
in combat operations at a pace of one or two combat brigades every
month, with all the troops out of the region by the end of
2008.
Obama would also call for a new constitutional convention for in Iraq, and he would take immediate
steps to confront the ongoing humanitarian disaster.
I do like Obama’s plan, but I feel he didn’t really outline a lot of information. Plus, I’m in the boat that
we need to get the heck out of there as soon as possible, and I’m not sure I’m all about a phased
withdrawal.
All in all, I
have to say I found Clinton’s plan for dealing with the War in Iraq the
most appealing and the plan that had the most information in it.
I like that she would immediately start bringing troops home, and I
also like the fact she was able to outline ways in which to help with
aid and relief efforts over there. While I do believe we need to get
our troops out of harm’s way, we cannot neglect what we’ve done to the
country.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Show/Hide comments