At The Pleasure of the President...: MoveOn.org Town Hall Metting on Iraq

I sat down today and listened to the Virtual Town Hall Meeting put on by MoveOn.org on April 10. You can download an mp3 of it by right-clicking here, and selecting save as. If you would rather listen to a particular candidate, you can go here, MoveOn.org separated the 88 minute long event by candidate and question, allowing you to listen to only the candidate you want and only the responses you’d like to hear.

It was the first of three such virtual town halls, and the subject was Iraq, chosen by MoveOn.org’s member-base. The other two virtual town halls will focus on global warming and healthcare. The structure of the town hall was simple, one question was asked to each of them, and then each candidate was asked two additional questions specific to the candidate and again chosen by MoveOn.org members. The universal question was, “What is the best and fastest way to get out of Iraq?” The candidates chose to answer the question on a variety of levels, from continuing congressional pressure to kill funding and end the war, all the way to committing more to interstate organizations to increase world peace.

Essentially, their answers can be condensed into the following chart. They each had an opportunity to address four questions about their Iraq policy. Where the chart says, “Didn’t Specify” it should be understood to mean that the candidate simply didn’t address the topic in his three and a half minute answer, most candidates who didn’t address some issue were discussing the problem at a different analytical level, and shouldn’t be necessarily viewed as “dodging the question”. For example, Joe Biden spent a large portion of his time discussing needed reforms in the Iraqi government, and as a result mentioned nothing about a residual force needed in Iraq. While that is an interesting question that I would ask him, I don’t believe he deliberately avoided the question. Anyway, here’s the chart.

	Start Withdrawal When:	Get Out By:
Obama	May-07	Mar-08
Clinton	90 days	Mar-08
Richardson	Doesn't Specify	Jan-08
Kucinich	Start Now	Doesn't Specify
Dodd	Start Now	Mar-08
Biden	90 days	Mar-08
Edwards	Start Now	Doesn't Specify

	Residual Force?	Residual Bases?
Obama	Doesn't Specify	Doesn't Specify
Clinton	Temporary	Temporary
Richardson	None	None
Kucinich	UN Peace Keepers	None
Dodd	Feingold-Reid	Feingold-Reid
Biden	Doesn't Specify	None
Edwards	Doesn't Specify	Doesn't Specify

*Feingold Reid does not specify a date for all US forces to be withdrawn, it allows a small force to remain there for specific purposes, such as anti-teorrorism.

Almost all mentioned engaging traditional enemies in the region, and using diplomacy to help secure and rebuild Iraq. Interesting energy independence was only brought up twice, By Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson, both of who suggested a national “Apollo-Program” for energy independence.

Each candidate also answered two more questions, but they were individualized for each candidate, and as a result there wasn’t wide overlapping that allows any systematic analysis. As an overall judgment, I was surprised that Obama didn’t sound better, although he proposed an adequate plan for Iraq, it wasn’t punctuated by innovative solutions as some of the other plans were. The stand out as far as I’m concerned, was Dennis Kucinich. Perhaps its just the first time I’ve ever heard anything from him that I didn’t watch come out of his elfish, petite body, perhaps it was because his view is by far the most radical and revolutionary, or perhaps they are just good ideas consistent with world peace. He emphasized America reengage the international community, sign on to important international accords, become more interdependent and above all to learn from our mistake in Iraq. He preached about ending preemption, and about world peace being possible through interstate cooperation. His body may be small but his ideas were the largest there. I wonder if he has potential to be tapped as a vice-presidential candidate. I can’t imagine he’ll win much support in the crowded field, but his ideas may be worth something.

I really think the low point of the debate was Biden’s “Then What?” idea. He essentially lambasted the other candidates for not having a plan once the troops are withdrawn. His plan is to federalize the Iraqi government, and allow each sect to have control over their region. So Sunni’s are protected by Sunni police, and Kurdish schools are taught by Kurdish Teachers. Its not a bad idea, these kinds of ethnic conflicts have been brought to peaceful resolutions by territorial segregation, but then rival states share borders and continued resentment could lead to future conflict, as we have seen in the case of India and Pakistan. But the largest flaw of his proposal is fundamental in nature, he isn’t Iraqi. We’ve done enough meddling in Iraqi affairs, dictating their government to them will not be successful in restoring peace. Biden is trying to be Iraq’s George Washington, which is a useful role, but certainly one that ought to be filled by an Iraqi. It is the only way the government will have any legitimacy, and any failures arising from ethnic conflict will be at the very least Iraqi failures.

Below you’ll find embedded links of each candidates answer to the first question.

John Edwards