Most Dem candidates don't envision fast Iraq exit

By JEFF ZELENY and MARC SANTORAT

he New York Times

DES MOINES, Iowa — Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring U.S. troops home, most Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards would keep troops in the country to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would leave a military presence of unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for U.S. personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.

These positions and those of some rivals suggest the Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief. Anti-war activists have raised little challenge to such positions by Democrats.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson stands apart. At a recent gathering of bloggers, he said: "I have a one-point plan to get out of Iraq: Get out! Get out!"

On the other side of the spectrum is Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, who has proposed setting up separate regions for the three major ethnic and religious groups in Iraq until a stable central government is established before removing most U.S. troops.

Many Democratic candidates increasingly are taking the position that ending a war can be as complicated as starting one.

We've got to be prepared to control a civil war if it starts to spill outside the borders of Iraq," Edwards, who has run hard against the war, said at a Democratic debate in Chicago last week.

"And we have to be prepared for the worst possibility that you never hear anyone talking about, which is the possibility that genocide breaks out and the [Shiites] try to systematically eliminate the Sunni. As president of the United States, I would plan and prepare for all those possibilities."

Most Democratic candidates mention the significant military and logistical difficulties in withdrawing U.S. troops, which even optimistic experts said would take at least a year. The candidates are not only trying to retain flexibility for themselves in the event they become president, aides said, but are hoping to suppress any expectation that the war would end abruptly if they are elected.

Most have not proposed specific troop levels or rules of engagement for a presence in Iraq, saying the conditions more than a year from now remain too uncertain.

In political terms, their strategies are a balancing act. In public appearances, Clinton often says, "If this president does not end this war before he leaves office, when I am president, I will." But she has affirmed in recent months remarks she made in March, when she said there were "remaining vital national-security interests in Iraq" that would require a continuing deployment of U.S. troops.

The nation's security, she said then, would be undermined if part of Iraq turned into a failed state "that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and al-Qaida."

The candidates are wrestling with the possibility of a sustained military presence in Iraq, addressing questions about U.S. responsibility to Iraqi civilians and guarding against the terrorism threat in the region.

Among the challenges the next president could face in Iraq, three resonate the most:

• What to do if there is genocide?

• What to do if chaos in Iraq threatens to engulf the region in a wider war?

• What to do if Iraq descends into further lawlessness and becomes the staging ground for terrorist attacks elsewhere, including in the United States?

"While the overwhelming majority of Americans want to bring the troops home, the question is 'What is the plan beyond that?' " said Iowa Gov. Chet Culver, a Democrat. "The first candidate running for president, I think on either side, who can best articulate that will win."

The leading Republican candidates largely have chosen not to wrestle publicly with Iraq policy questions, instead deferring to President Bush and waiting until Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, delivers a progress report next month on Bush's troop buildup this year.

A review of the remarks made by Democrats during campaign stops in the past six months leaves little ambiguity in their message: If Bush refuses to end the war, they will.

To accomplish that goal, they discuss a mix of vigorous diplomacy in the region, intensified pressure on the Iraqi government and a phased withdrawal of troops to begin as soon as possible. But their statements in campaign settings often are silent on the problems of how to disengage and what trade-offs might be necessary.

"It is time to bring our troops home because it has made us less safe," Obama said at a campaign stop in New Hampshire last month.

Clinton has been equally vocal in making "bringing the troops home" a central theme. In February, she said her message to the Iraqi government would be simple: "I would say, 'I'm sorry, it's over. We are not going to baby-sit a civil war.' "

Obama and Clinton, in interviews or debates, have said they would not support intervening in a genocidal war should the majority Shiites slaughter Sunnis — and Sunnis retaliate — on a much greater scale than now takes place.

Edwards, who has suggested he would intervene in a genocide, has tried to position himself as the more forceful anti-war candidate by criticizing Clinton and Obama for not pushing hard enough in the Senate to bring the troops home.

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd has called for the U.S. military to "begin redeploying immediately." In a debate last week in Chicago, he said: "We can do so with 2 ½ divisions coming out each month, done safely and reasonably well."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003832818_dems12.html