The Iraq War is probably as misunderstood an endeavor as has ever occurred in U.S. history. The “why’s” and “how’s” have become immaterial, as the fact remains that U.S. troops are indeed “over there” and in harm’s way. As no American wants never-ending war, the next administration will be responsible (hopefully) to bring this event to an honorable closure. Additionally, the honorable closure must include appropriate measures to insure long-term U.S. security and not leave a breeding ground for terror and the like so that any subsequent return of U.S. troops is remote at best.

First, we must recognize that none of us have “all the information” necessary to make substantive recommendations as to how to bring honorable closure to the Iraq War. We do not have the benefit of viewing all of the products of the Intelligence Community relating to global and regional terrorism, domestic security, military support/tactics and planning (our’s and others), nor the capability to place objective values on these products. Therefore, we must recognize that we will have to rely on the new President, his chief advisors (including the Vice President), cabinet appointees and others to have the wherewithal and wisdom to accurately interpret these intelligence products and correlate them to American capacity to respond.

Below are synopses on this issue relating to the position of the candidates for President and Vice President. I’ve gone to campaign websites and other sources to summarize their position(s) on the Iraq War. Where I may be inaccurate, I would appreciate an appropriate correction.

This issue has created much consternation, and the goal here is not to grandstand any position, but to try to better understand the candidates and their approaches, and why they believe their approach will work – to include the appropriate risks involved. This is not an exercise in who is more the patriot – they all are – but simply what they will do if elected.

Sen. Obama: Immediately upon taking office, will give the Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began. Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. He will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.

Sen. Biden: is a leading advocate for dividing Iraq into a loose federation of three ethnic states. In November 2006, Biden and Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, released a comprehensive strategy to end sectarian violence in Iraq. Rather than continuing the present approach or withdrawing, the plan calls for "a third way": federalizing Iraq and giving Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis "breathing room" in their own regions. Iraq’s political leadership united in denouncing the resolution, and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad issued a statement distancing itself. Senior military planners cautioned that a partition policy would require American military presence of 75,000 to 100,000 troops for years to come.

Sen. McCain: I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there. Our goal is an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood. Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops. And I believe we can achieve that goal, perhaps sooner than many imagine. But I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for President that they cannot keep if elected. To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility. It is a failure of leadership. “It would be a grave mistake to leave before Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated and before a competent, trained, and capable Iraqi security force is in place and operating effectively. We must help the Government of Iraq battle those who provoke sectarian tensions and promote a civil war that could destabilize the Middle East. Iraq must not become a failed state, a haven for terrorists, or a pawn of Iran. These likely consequences of America's failure in Iraq almost certainly would either require us to return or draw us into a wider and far costlier war. The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists. When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home

Gov. Palin: Has endorsed the strategies as laid out by Sen. McCain.

I request that comments be kept civil as we are all neighbors,

I have said before.......I was a registered Republican for years, now I am an independent. This article is well researched and shows we are going to get the short end of it no matter how the election goes.
The office of the Vice President has surely undergone a transformation in recent years: from Dan Quayle to Dick Cheney is a long way to travel. Joe Biden on the ticket with Obama is a victory for the War Party, which will not, as a result, be shut out of power if the Democrats take the White House. Today Biden denounces the Iraq war in passionate language, and yet it seems like only yesterday that he bloviated on the need to invade with equal if not more passion. Indeed, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden prevented any and all antiwar voices from being given a podium at the Senate hearings.

Aside from that, however, he was one of the earliest proponents of the "revanchist Russia", and now has gained a lot of momentum since Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia was magically turned into Russia's "invasion" of Georgia. He just couldn't help himself, in his speech to the Democratic convention, in bringing up the alleged Russian "threat":

"For the last seven years, this administration has failed to face the biggest forces shaping this century: the emergence of Russia, China and India as great powers; the spread of lethal weapons; the shortage of secure supplies of energy, food and water; the challenge of climate change; and the resurgence of fundamentalism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the real central front against terrorism.

"In recent days, we've once again seen the consequences of this neglect with Russia's challenge to the free and democratic country of Georgia. Barack Obama and I will end this neglect. We will hold Russia accountable for its actions, and we'll help the people of Georgia rebuild."

Russia must be held "accountable" for defending the militarily helpless statelet of South Ossetia under attack from the US-armed –and-trained Georgian military – accountable for avenging a merciless assault on the Ossetian capital city of Tskinvali. Naturally, the U.S. is never to be held accountable for any of its actions anywhere. The U.S. government, you see, is not accountable, not even to its own citizens.

Biden sees the Russian "invasion" as a game-changer, a pivotal event that perhaps marks the beginning of a new cold war – and a new bout of U.S. meddling in the region. Upon his return from a trip to Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, Biden averred:

"The war that began in Georgia is no longer about that country alone. It has become a question of whether and how the West will stand up for the rights of free people throughout the region. The outcome there will determine whether we realize the grand ambition of a Europe that is whole, free, and at peace."

The man-who-would-be-Dick-Cheney is not going to allow the conflict to be contained: no, it must ripple outward, with a little help from the U.S. government and its regional satraps, like a tsunami, flooding the region with inter-ethnic strife and violence.

Biden is going to put our money where his mouth is, proposing a $1 billion "emergency" aid package for Saakashvili's regime to do with as it pleases. That the greater part of this will go to revamping the Georgian military – which has already received billions from the U.S. – rather than the long-suffering people of, say, Abkhazia (the scene of repeated Georgian invasions), goes without saying.

Obama, say the "national security Democrats" (i.e. warmongers of the "left"), has to appear "tough." That's why he chose Biden, and why he's now in a virtual competition with John McCain to see who can antagonize the Russians the quickest.

The UN should condemn Abkhazia and South Ossetia because they don't want to live under a regime that has bombed them on several occasions, killing thousands? Obama, who reportedly is "advised" by over two-hundred foreign policy mavens of various stripes, ought to dump that crowd and commune with his own conscience, if he has one.

As ships from NATO countries make provocative incursions into the Black Sea – right at Russia's doorstep – and Bloviator Biden waxes rhetorical over the prospect of confronting Vladimir Putin, it looks like we're going to go head-to-head and nose-to-nose with Russia no matter who wins the White House this time around.

Why don't the peoples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia have the right to live under the government of their own choice? What is it with these exporters of "democracy" – why is it we never hear any talk of holding a plebiscite in these disputed regions. Oh, wait, they did hold a plebiscite – several, in fact, but the West refused to recognize the results.

Think peace is going to break out when the multi-culti messiah puts his feet up on the desk in the Oval Office? Well, I hate to disappoint all you loyal Democrats – and optimistic sorts – out there, but you had better think again ….

Biden's connections to the region are suspicious, to say the least. When lobbyist Stephen Payne was caught on tape saying he could arrange for the rehabilitation of a certain Central Asian ex-dictator for a hefty "donation" to the Bush library, he also mentioned that Biden could be brought along – presumably for a price. Bruce Ettinger, formerly Biden's director of legislative affairs, is Payne's business partner.

Biden's dubious involvement in the politics of the region is underscored by his most recent moral crusade: a bid, in tandem with the Heritage Foundation and other neoconservative groups in Washington, to publicize the plight of "democrats" in the oil-rich nation of Kazakhstan. His recent letter to the President of that country, chiding him for his country's lack of democracy, may have something to do with Kazakhstan's recent decision to consider pumping its oil through Russian pipelines, rather than through the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan route that U.S. and British investors have such a major stake in.

Kazakhstan has so far only had to endure Borat's ridicule: the future, however, looks increasingly problematic. That country is a veritable caricature of Asian despotism, with a very thin "democratic" veneer covering up the core of corruption, venality, and violent repression at the heart of what is essentially a family-run dictatorship. The Bush administration, which purportedly wants to "export democracy" to the Middle East – and indeed the whole world – has made a notable exception in Kazakhstan's case.

The repressive nature of the regime won't necessarily stop the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe from allowing the Kazakhs to take the rotating presidency of united Europe's nascent military-diplomatic arm. Of course, it beggars belief that Kazakhstan could even be admitted to the OSCE, never mind being awarded the presidency – after all, the country isn't even in Europe! (Then again, neither is Georgia …)

But no matter. While the OSCE lectures the Russians about their lack of commitment to "democracy," Kazakhstan is going to be inducted into the anti-Russian popular front of "democratic" countries, alongside Poor Little Georgia and Azerbaijan (which neoconnnish right-wingers like Andrew Breitbart and Rob Long have recently flocked to, always a bad sign).

The Republicans, for once, are relatively soft-core, compared to the Democrats, when it comes to putting pressure on the Kazakhs and others in the region – up to and including the threat of regime-change – to get with the program. That's because the Democrats have just as much if not more invested in opening up the "silk road" to riches, transporting the vast oil and natural gas deposits waiting to be uncovered beneath the Caspian Sea and exported to the West: Bill Clinton's administration devoted an entire sub-agency to realizing this get-rich-quick scheme cooked up by Western oil companies and corporate lobbyists. Millions of taxpayer dollars were poured into this project, and, today, it is a reality that is threatened by the Russians, the prospect of strife in the Caucasus, and the wave of resurgent nationalism sweeping through the region.

A lot of money has been invested in this deal – too much for the oil companies to just get up and walk away from. Using the U.S. Treasury as their private piggy bank – and, ultimately, the U.S. military as their private security force – the investors have bought themselves a lot of influence on Capitol Hill, in both parties. Not only the owners and the oil companies, but also the big investment bankers betting on the success of the BTC pipeline, have a direct interest in getting us even more involved in the region than we already are.

One possible reason for Biden's sudden interest in the politics of Kazakhstan is that the Kazakhs have been making trouble, lately, demanding a bigger share of the profits, and blaming the oil companies for delays in actually implementing the project. Could this be why Biden is suddenly making noises about that country's lack of democratic institutions? Funny, that didn't stop Biden and others from voting millions to subsidize the BTC pipeline, which benefits the Kazakh government, as well as enriching the fulsomely anti-democratic regime in Azerbaijan, another oil-rich neo-Soviet tyranny through which the pipeline passes. And of course Georgia, too, is supposed to be "democratic," which, by regional standards, it is: never mind that President Mikheil Saakashvili accused his election opponents of "treason," had them arrested, and closed down the major opposition television station run by the opposition. Saakashvili's thugs intruded right on to the set and pulled the news anchors out of their chairs! In Azerbaijan, on the other hand, they might have shot them on the spot …

Under a Democratic administration, we will see increased U.S. intervention in the Caucasus and Central Asia. The encirclement of Russia, a project begun by the Bush administration, will be continued and perhaps completed by the Obama administration – if there is one. We may be out of Iraq, but we could very well be knee-deep in Georgia (and Kazakhstan, god forbid). Of course, in true Democratic style, we'll do it with the full cooperation of our European allies, in the spirit of sharing the loot – and there's a lot of loot to go around.

In America, crony capitalism is in full bloom, and there is every indication that it will luxuriate and even reach full flower no matter who wins the next presidential election. In Obama's America, like Bush's, the system will be fully in place, and Biden's ascension to the number two spot on the Democratic ticket assures the ruling elite that they will endure.

What is it about the office of the vice president? Is there a curse on it? Seems like it…

Junglejim, You hit the nail on the head with this one.

In the US the media glosses over the fact that the "tribes" in these areas have been at ethnic-war since the Stone Age. Without some form of social engineering, the situation will remain Hatfield/McCoy ad infinitum.

What is never seen outside the DC beltway are the K Street lobbyists in action. Knowing who influences whom and for what reason is kept behind closed doors, and voters are like the proverbial mushroom. No one in the 100-Club is not affected to some degree, and the House of Reps is no better.

As far as the UN goes, there will be no condemnation or sanction - Russia is on the Security Council and has veto power over such measures.

So, it would seem that a candidate's approach to Iraq is representative of the candidate's probable approach to other situations of conflict. That brings us back to whether appeasement in kind, isolationism to some degree, steadfastness to threats - all with its primary concern being the National Security (versus lobbyist interest).

Quite a conundrum!

I must believe that Sen. Biden painted an inaccurate picture with his "For the last seven years, this administration has failed to face ..." comment. The Clinton treasury surplus occurred because of massive cuts in the intelligence and military budgets - resulting in greatly reduced collection and analysis, weapons system maintenance and replacement, personnel training and the like. The Bush administration DID recognize the threats, but its capacity that was inherited to address them was woefully inadequate to the situation. It's easy to disrupt intelligence operations and military preparedness, but very expensive and time-consuming to rebuild to close-to-comparable levels after the slicing. The same thing happened after each World War, Korea, Vietnam and Gulf I - we just never learn....

Thanks JJ and Steve, for the peek at the underbelly of this Russian debacle. Opened my eyes to facts I did not know and it sure isn't pretty, IMHO!