Is Edwards Trying To Have It Both Ways On Combat Troops?

Tonight: "And I will do it in my first year in office. Combat missions ended. Combat troops out of Iraq, period.' Edwards: "We need to get combat troops out of Iraq. As president of the United States, I will do that. I think it's a requirement of leadership as president. And I will do it in my first year in office. Combat missions ended. Combat troops out of Iraq."

That's interesting.

Here's what Edwards said on September 7 – "As president, I will redeploy troops into Quick Reaction Forces outside of Iraq, to perform targeted missions against Al Qaeda cells and to prevent a genocide or regional spillover of a civil war."

The question: what if Al Qaeda cells are in Iraq? Would be not deploy them there?

Comments

There's a difference between air strikes and rapid deployments from Kuwait or Turkey or Jordan and having sitting ducks in Iraq.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | October 30, 2007 10:14 PM

No. Edwards is not trying to have it both ways on combat troops. His position has been consistent all along. It's the media that has been confusing things, quite frankly.

Edwards will get all combat troops out of Iraq within about a year, leaving only about a brigade (3,000 - 5,000 troops) to guard the embassy.

The troops he would leave for quick reaction would be outside of Iraq and would not enter Iraq without specific intelligence of clearly terrorist activity directed against the United States.

Posted by Laura | October 30, 2007 10:17 PM

Not at all.

Removing our troops from Iraq removes targets.

Posted by Tom Wells | October 30, 2007 10:20 PM

Also, I think we need to remember that the Taliban controls Afghanistan, they are raising billions from poppy, they can fund and house al Qaeda if they want.

We leave Iraq, the foreign fighters leave, the Iraqis work out their own civil war.

Posted by Robert P. | October 30, 2007 10:21 PM

That about answers it.

Posted by Will | October 30, 2007 10:23 PM

If we stay in Iraq, it just encourages Al Queda to stay to fight us. There are terrorists all over the world. We don't occupy all those countries. If we know there will be an attack on the US from within Iraq by al Queda there, that would warrant an attack by us first. We do need to have troops in the area but in a place where they will not targets and where they don't encourage more hatred of our country. Otherwise, we should not be doing combat in Iraq: taking our combat troops out gets us back to where we should be on this issue.

This is not trying to have it both ways any more than it is in dealing with any other country where terrorists foment their plans.

Posted by Laura H | October 30, 2007 10:32 PM

No. Stationing troops in a country is occupation. Having quick strike forces outside of it is not. Really overly simple.

Posted by jsamuel | October 30, 2007 10:36 PM

The difference in the positions of the candidates is clear to me: Clinton and Obama want to stay in Iraq, Edwards will bring our troops home. Yes, he will leave strategic forces in the area, but he will get us out of policing a civil war in Iraq. That's not having it both ways: that's being smart.

Posted by Edrie I | October 30, 2007 10:38 PM

I think maybe Ambinder should go head and delete this post, assuming he now understands the difference between inside and outside.

Posted by david mizner | October 30, 2007 10:42 PM

Troops to defend our Embassy and act as Rapid Response are vastly different from "remaining combat troops".

Posted by Nan | October 30, 2007 11:21 PM

ryfnvxdu xyigjcf whou bgdst kncwvsm mztebrl zbqyi

Posted by bpwhngt ktrf | June 19, 2008 9:51 PM