White House hopefuls lay out Iraq plans

By Kim Ghattas
BBC News, Washington DC

Despite protests, Americans may be more focused on the economy

The three US presidential hopefuls this week marked the fifth anniversary of the US-led war on Iraq by sparring about their respective policies.

They sought to convince voters they were the most fit to deal with a conflict that in President George W Bush's own words "has been longer, harder and more costly than anticipated".

There were protests against the war across the country but, overall, the White House contenders faced an audience that is less aware of what is happening in Iraq, according to a recent Pew poll, and more focused on the growing economic crisis.

This must have proved frustrating for Republican Senator John McCain, who had probably hoped to dominate the headlines as he showed up in Baghdad on an unannounced visit.

Instead, he had to compete for airtime with the dire economic news coming out of the US.

He was ahead of his Democratic rivals, at least on the ground, as he embarked on his eighth visit to Iraq - his first since securing enough delegates to be sure of being nominated the Republicans' presidential candidate in September.

In Baghdad, he met with Iraqi and US officials in what he described as a fact-finding mission.

Sparring

The veteran Arizona senator, who also visited Jordan and Israel, has tried hard to put forward his credentials as commander-in-chief and his knowledge of foreign policy.

Mr McCain repeated his long-held view that it would be a mistake "if the US precipitously withdrew our forces.

"The victors in that pullout would be the extremists and America would lose its credibility."

WHERE THEY STAND: MCCAIN Voted for war Supported surge Says premature withdrawal would hand victory to al-Qaeda, and lead to genocide Sees permanent military presence in Iraq, like US presence in Japan or South Korea

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who are competing to be the Democratic Party's nominee to run for president, attacked each other and Mr McCain in speeches focused on Iraq.

"Senator McCain and President Bush claim withdrawal is defeat. Well, let's be clear, withdrawal is not defeat. Defeat is keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years," said Mrs Clinton, in reference to a comment by Mr McCain about staying in Iraq for 100 years.

The senator, a veteran of the Vietnam War, said his comment had been taken out of context.

Mr Obama meanwhile repeated his favourite argument against Mrs Clinton.

"Who do you trust to end a war: someone who opposed the war from the beginning, or someone who started opposing it when they started preparing a run for president?" he asked a crowd in North Carolina.

US troop deaths and numbers in Iraq

But what does each presidential hopeful propose?

Mr McCain, who supported the war from the beginning, will continue on the same track as Mr Bush.

Mr McCain's political comeback, after he was practically written off as a candidate last year, is attributed by some observers in part to the success of the surge in Iraq, which the senator had strongly supported.

He has also warned that a quick withdrawal could lead to "genocide".

To be sure, if the Democrats win the presidency, there will be a substantial withdrawal from Iraq Colin Kahl Georgetown University

Mr McCain supports what is known as population protection policy, with a strong presence of US troops on the ground, in neighbourhoods, to deny insurgents a stronghold.

On his campaign website, Mr McCain says the ultimate goal of the US is to give the Iraqi people the ability to govern themselves.

There are not many more details about the number of troops expected to stay or to leave during a McCain presidency - it depends on developments in Iraq, but it is likely to involve only a very gradual withdrawal, keeping tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for the years to come.

But Michael O'Hanlon, from the Brookings Institute, warns that while Mr McCain's strategy is probably the most prudent and would likely bring about partial success in Iraq, it also has its downfalls.

"Because of war fatigue, this may be too open-ended and patient, and there is the potential problem that this gives Iraqi politicians a blank cheque, they won't feel under pressure to deliver because they feel the US will stay with them no matter what."

'Meaningful shift'

Though the two Democratic contenders have been at odds with each other on Iraq, their strategies are not too different but they do offer a stark contrast to Mr McCain's.

"To be sure, if the Democrats win the presidency, there will be a substantial withdrawal from Iraq," said Colin Kahl, a Georgetown University security studies professor who advises the Obama campaign.

WHERE THEY STAND: CLINTON Voted for war, but said she would not have if knew what she knows now Opposed surge Advocates phased withdrawal to start two months into presidency, removing 1-2 combat brigades a month No end time-frame Would leave residual force for US mission protection, training Iraqi forces and fighting against al-Qaeda

"[Obama and Clinton both] envision substantial reductions in force levels, removal of US forces from the lead in population security and large-scale combat operations and no permanent bases - that is a big and meaningful shift from the Bush-McCain policy."

The Illinois senator has been the clearest about the fact that he wants out and has often repeated he would withdraw all troops within 16 months, leaving behind a residual force that would protect the US mission, help train Iraqi forces and possibly deal with threats from al-Qaeda.

Mr O'Hanlon argues it is unclear whether the mission of a small residual force would still make sense after the withdrawal of most combat troops, as "Iraq might be disintegrating by then".

The most recent caveat to Mr Obama's policy came from his now-former foreign policy advisor Samantha Powers, who said in a BBC interview that Mr Obama "will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a US Senator.

"He will rely upon a plan - an operational plan - that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn't have daily access now... It would be the height of ideology to sort of say, 'Well, I said it, therefore I'm going to impose it on whatever reality greets me'."

WHERE THEY STAND: OBAMA Opposed war Advocates phased withdrawal to start immediately Would remove 1-2 combat brigades a month, with all forces out of combat operations within 16 months Would leave residual force for US mission protection, training Iraqi forces and fighting against al-Qaeda Has indicated plan is not final and would be revised if elected president

Ms Powers resigned after calling Mrs Clinton "a monster" but she also took a lot of heat for the Iraq comment, although it was seen by many as a pragmatic, realistic assessment of policy making.

Just before, Mr Obama had repeated: "I will bring this war to an end in 2009, so don't be confused."

Mrs Clinton's plan does not give an end time for the withdrawal of troops.

This gives her wiggle room to adjust to changing realities on the ground.

The New York senator voted for the war and recently said she would not have supported the conflict if she knew what she knows now.

She argues often that she has what it takes to be commander-in-chief and will be ready from day one.

Mrs Clinton says she will start bringing troops home within 60 days of her inauguration - a risky move if she goes too fast, according to some observers who say that this could undermine Iraq's legislative elections that are due towards the end of 2009.

On the ground

Whatever the disagreements and differences in opinions and strategies, the next president will inherit a deeply complex situation in Iraq, with about 140,000 US troops on the ground and a fledgling Iraqi political system.

In his own speech to mark the five years after the start of the war that removed Saddam Hussein, Mr Bush reiterated that the "battle in Iraq" was necessary, and made clear he would not order any further drawdown of troops, beyond those already planned.

Mr Bush welcomed co-operation between US troops and Sunni Arabs

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote last month that the Bush administration would keep troop levels in Iraq high, until the November election, "because that would open the next administration's bargaining on troop levels at a higher level - and allow the next president to cut troops without getting down to a bare-bones level that might be dangerous".

Democrats have accused Mr Bush of trying to tie the hands of the next administration by establishing a fait-accompli on the ground, including permanent bases and a long term agreement of principles with the Iraqi government.

The administration has denied seeking permanent bases in Iraq.

Iraq's ambassador the US, Samir Sumaidaie, said: "The long-term presence or short-term presence of American forces in Iraq will be determined by the political and military leaders of both countries.

"It will be a joint decision and it will be determined by the reality of the situation on the ground.

"[Agreements between Iraq and the US] will not tie the hands of either leader, whether they're the Iraqi leader or the American leader, but they will help clarify the interface between American forces and Iraqi Security forces."

Without being drawn on the specifics of each contender, the ambassador also said that the next president would have to "think very hard before risking the loss of what we have gained, both Iraqis and Americans, what we have gained and paid for in blood and money".

Return to story