This will not make the Liberal base very happy:
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.
For instance:
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.
In other words:
These positions and those of some rivals suggest that the Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief. Antiwar advocates have raised little challenge to such positions by Democrats.
Perhaps it is time for Democrats to put an end to the rhetoric. We know what the liberal base wants to hear (withdrawal… NOW), but we also know that this is impossible. It will take years to completely withdraw from Iraq, some troops will stay in the war torn country, to limit the damage. A complete (and quick) withdrawal would be disastrous. Whether the liberal base likes it or not, this is reality.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.