What will the pro- War Resolution Dem candidates do about the

[Dover]

strong anti-war anger rising in this country (let alone abroad) if elected? A draft would likely cause a very serious uprising in this country at this point.
They will inherit a very big problem if they think that we should keep troops in all these hot theatres around the world...particularly the Middle East... for extended periods. If putting U.S. forces in Iraq or the Middle East has been the secret desire of some of these Dems (for oil and geostrategic reasons) then Bush has pretty much spoiled their chances of doing this in a way that has the appearance of legitimacy (assuming that was ever possible)if Bush's policies and Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld foreign strategies are permitted to continue much longer. Particularly if they continue to push the UN away. I suspect that even that solution is becoming impossible as the anti-U.S. anger within Iraq broadens to include ALL foreigners.

Pulling out of there completely and turning things over to the Iraqis is also dangerous at this point due to both our continued dependence on their oil which leaves us very vulnerable...and due to the instabilities of tribal/religious infighting and upheaval that might ensue. Also, it would leave Israel vulnerable...and we know that is not acceptable to a large contingent in the U.S..

Kucinich (who, as we know, never signed the Resolution) has said he'd pull our troops out of there. I haven't heard how he would do that, and if the UN is part of that plan. I assume it would have to be.

I'd like to know in specific terms what the others would do.

This much I know......we are at a crisis point and Bushco needs to go NOW.

[eileen_d]

1. It is a good question, for any candidate

Since I can't speak for any of them, I did some link-hunting on the Dems who voted for the IWR. I just looked at their campaign sites, and I have to get back to studying, but here's a start -- I'll be looking at these too when I take this damn test tomorrow!

Kerry's Plan for Iraq:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq.html

Edwards on Foreign Policy in general:
http://www.johnedwards2004.com/foreign_policy.asp
"Edwards believes that the United States cannot rebuild Iraq alone, and must bring other countries and institutions into this important effort."

Gephardt: "American Engagment and the War Against Terror"
http://www.dickgephardt2004.com/plugin/template/gephardt/8/155

Lieberman has a couple of op-eds - most recent one is "Getting Back on Track in Post-War Iraq"
See bottom of this page: http://www.joe2004.com/site/PageServer?pagename=ii_joesagenda

[Dover]

2. Thanks! I will be interested to see if they've stated what they'd

do, specifically. The situation is much more complex than I have described with so many players and issues and interests involved beyond the immediate problem...
but I want to hear from candidates how they are percieving the problem and what solutions they are entertaining...because we will need to move quickly to turn this around...and I want to know that there is a comprehensive and well thought out game plan (as much as possible).

[Devils Advocate NZ]

3. Hwo would pulling US troops out of Iraq leave Israel vulnerable?

Firstly, Iraq was not a threat to Israel in a real sense BEFORE the war, so how could they hope to be a threat AFTER it? They will be far too busy trying to get their own house in order to worry about attacking Israel.

Secondly, as the Israel supporters keep telling us Israel is more than capable of defeating any Arab nation, or even group of nations, so where is the threat?

Are you talking about the threat of terrorism? If so, perhaps you can explain how having troops in Iraq prevents terrorists from attacking Israel. It sure hasn't stopped it so far.

I guess I just don't see what you see. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

[Dover]

4. Good points. I didn't mean to suggest Iraq was a threat to Israel.

Israel is more concerned about Iran and/or a united front of M.Eastern countries I think. The U.S. has always had bases in the M.E. which I think helped bolster Israel's security. And Israel has also provided security for our interests there in the ME. So it's been mutually beneficial. We have purportedly been pulling out of some bases in SA at the behest of very nervous Saudi Royals. I think this was acceptable to the U.S. and Israel as long as we thought we'd just relocate our bases to Iraq.
It certainly can be argued that the U.S. presence anywhere in the ME might be more of a detriment than a help as far as fanning the flames of unrest. And it is true that anybody picking a fight with Israel will have to contend with their substantial defense capabilities (nuclear). But Israel is a very small country surrounded by potentially hostile countries and if it even looks like the U.S. has less interest in supporting them, perhaps that would embolden others. At least I think that is how Israel sees it.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

5. So why not base US troops in Israel?

No, US troops being based in the ME has NOTHING to do with Israeli security, and EVERYTHING to do with securing US access to ME oil.

If the US was truly concerned with Israeli security, it could base troops in Israel which would make an attack on Israel a simultaneous attack on the US troops stationed there, and thus an attack on the US, just like it bases troops in South Korea or Germany (although the threat to Germany has waned considerably since the fall of the Soviet Union).

THAT would show US commitment to Israeli security more than troops in Iraq.

But there is no oil in Israel, so...

[HPLeft]

6. Depends on the Candidate

I think all of them are in favor of capping US forces at the current level, and then reducing them as quickly as is feasible - by either bringing in UN forces or having Iraqis take over ASAP. I know Kerry certainly supports that approach.

I also think that none of the candidates who voted for the resolution are particularly attached to US troops remaining in any number of other theatres - except as necessary.