Iraq - Talk's Cheap [Updated]

It's one thing to say something to get elected. It's another thing to make it work. The Democrats told us during the last fall elections that they will get us out of Iraq within months. How's that program coming along? Now, let's see how those words compare to the ideas of leading Democrats in the Presidential race today.

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

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

...Among the challenges the next president could face in Iraq, three seem to be resonating the most: What to do if there is a genocide? What to do if chaos in Iraq threatens to engulf the region in a wider war? And what to do if Iraq descends into further lawlessness and becomes the staging ground for terrorist attacks elsewhere, including in the United States? ....

Talk's cheap. Responsible action is hard. But, honesty with the American people doesn't take any effort, and the Democrats won't even do that.

[Update]

My goodness, now The New York Times is beginning to provide cover for Democrats who know that reality cannot be doused with rhetoric. We cannot pull all of our troops out of Iraq immediately. Isn't that what we have been telling them? However, the NY Times makes sure to let people know that we have already lost.

...That closely follows the script some Americans now advocate for American forces in Iraq: reduce the numbers — and urban exposure — but still maintain a significant presence for the next several years. It’s a tempting formula, reaping domestic political credit for withdrawal without acknowledging that the mission has failed.

...The United States cannot walk away from the new international terrorist front it created in Iraq. It will need to keep sufficient forces and staging points in the region to strike effectively against terrorist sanctuaries there or a Qaeda bid to hijack control of a strife-torn Iraq. ....