Politics -   

1
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., asks questions during the testimony of Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the status of the war in Iraq Tuesday, April 8, 2008, in Washington. Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton,a member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, listens as Gen. David Petraeus, foreground, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington on Tuesday, April 8, 2008. (AP / Charles Dharapak) Gen. David Petraeus prepares to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the status of the war in Iraq in Washington on Tuesday, April 8, 2008. (AP / Susan Walsh)

Clinton, Obama, McCain divided on Iraq solution

Viewer

CTV News Video

CTV News: Joy Malbon covers the general's grilling
Iraq Gen grilled by candidates
CTV Newsnet: Robert Guttman, Johns Hopkins University
Discussing varied responses to General Petraeus' findings
Canada AM: Petraeus says situation still fragile
The U.S.'s top general in Iraq says the surge is working, even though progress is uneven.

A A |  Email ThisEmail  | PrintComments (16) Facebook   

Date: Tue. Apr. 8 2008 7:15 PM ET

The three top contenders for the U.S. presidency laid out their very different views on the Iraq war during testimony by two top officials on Tuesday.

Democratic hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton told a Senate Armed Forces Committee hearing Tuesday that she thinks "it's time to begin an orderly process of withdrawing our troops, start rebuilding our military, and focusing on the challenges posed by Afghanistan, the global terrorist groups and other problems that confront America."

In his opening statement, presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain said: "I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interest there.

"Our goal, my 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 also believe that the promise of withdrawal of our forces, regardless of the consequences, would constitute a failure of political and moral leadership."

Sen. Barack Obama, the other Democratic presidential hopeful, had his chance to address Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker later in the day when they appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

He advocated a very different approach, saying the status quo isn't working and the U.S. should consider sitting down with neighbours like Iran to discuss the options.

"I do not believe we are going to be able to stabilize the situation without that," Obama said, referring to what he called a "diplomatic surge that includes Iran."

He also said a firm timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal would force the Iraqi parliament to meet the challenge of self-governance.

"I think that increased pressure in a measured way, in my mind, and this is where we disagree, includes a timetable for withdrawal. Nobody is asking for a precipitous withdrawal."

CTV's Joy Malbon said that position separates Obama from the others.

"Sitting down with the enemy is not received very lightly here but Senator Obama has talked about that before saying 'look, we have to be diplomatic here, you can't just go invading countries. We've got two wars on the go.' He has always advocated that," Malbon told CTV Newsnet.

She said there was none of the usual campaign-style crossfire between Obama and Clinton on Tuesday, and all the candidates appeared anxious to appear presidential.

"It was about getting their campaign voice out there and certainly appealing to voters," Malbon said. "Not a lot of people are watching these hearings all day I can tell you that, but the clips will be played over and over again."

At the morning hearing, Petraeus, the U.S.'s top general in Iraq said the surge has suppressed violence there, even though progress is uneven, and ongoing U.S. troop withdrawals should continue until July.

However, Petraeus said Tuesday that while troop levels can be drawn down to the pre-surge level by then, he wants any further withdrawals suspended for 45 days to evaluate the situation, followed by an indeterminate assessment period.

That would leave an estimated 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. In early 2007, U.S. President George Bush ordered an increase in U.S. troop levels in Iraq, raising it to more than 160,000. Last fall, Bush said a gradual draw-down of troops would take place.

Petraeus said while security has improved in Iraq since his report last September, the situation remains fragile and reversible.

While committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin questioned Petraeus, a spectator started chanting "bring them home!" -- referring to U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Security personnel removed the man from the room.

Petraeus couldn't give Levin an estimate of how many troops would be left in Iraq by year's end, assuming everything went well.

Clinton told Petraeus that the original purpose of the surge was to give Iraqis the "space" to make political progress towards national reconciliation.

This reconciliation doesn't appear to be happening, she said, adding this ongoing heavy presence in Iraq has real costs in a variety of areas that the war's supporters downplay.

"What conditions would have to exist for you to recommend to the president that the current strategy is not working?" she asked Petraeus.

The general said there's been progress, but not satisfactory progress, in a number of areas.

Al-Sadr

While U.S. officials tout the surge's success, there has been significant conflict in Iraq in recent days, mainly between Iraqi government forces and Shiite militants loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Aides to al-Sadr said the cleric is calling off a mass rally planned for Wednesday in Baghdad. The event was to mark the fifth anniversary of the city's fall to U.S. forces after the March 19, 2003 invasion.

However, some observers thought the "million-strong" march was really intended to be a show of strength as part of al-Sadr's confrontation with the U.S. and Iraqi governments.

Al-Sadr's militia has observed a seven-month ceasefire -- and many have said that the ceasefire has helped bring down violence levels in Iraq.

Last week, the ceasefire buckled as fighters loyal to al-Sadr battled Iraqi troops in Baghdad and Basra in far southern Iraq.

U.S. and Iraqi troops have been stepping up military pressure on Sadr's fighters in their Sadr City stronghold -- a Shiite slum within Baghdad.

Al-Sadr has threatened to call off the ceasefire if the Iraqi government failed to protect people from "booby traps and American militias." He wants a timetable for American forces to be out of Iraq.

McCain questioned Petraeus about the Basra situation, where more than 1,000 Iraqi security forces deserted or under-performed during recent fighting with Shiite militia members.

Petraeus said local Iraqi police still have difficulty working in areas where there is heavy intimidation, but added the Iraqi forces have improved their performance in recent days.

"Taken as a snapshot, with scenes of increasing violence, and masked gunmen in the streets, it is hard to see how this situation supports a narrative of progress in Iraq,'' Crocker said.

"There is still very much to be done to bring full government control to the streets of Basra and eliminate entrenched extremist, criminal, and militia groups. When viewed with a broader lens, the Iraqi decision to combat these groups in Basra has major significance.''

With files from The Associated Press

Comments are now closed for this story

Rob
said

The US Military cannot resolve Iraq, period. It can send thousands of troops to their deaths on foreign soil, and still accomplish nothing in the end. At the core, Iraqis are just too angry about the continued occupation by an invading force.

The only way any real progress can be made is for the American troops to be phased out as quickly as possible, and replaced by UN troops; with the US footing the bill for causing this mess in the first place. Once the American troops are gone, most of the resistance will cease.


Owen
said

I too believe that the job must be finished to the point of leaving Iraq with a stable government and populace. To leave now would be irresponsible.

Since America unilaterally almost, invaded the country, they now owe it to the Iraqis to establish a safe and functioning society, with troublemakers like Iran and Syria decisively excluded from any involvement in Iraq's affairs.


Mamad
said

In my view Obama is the most reasonable. Mackane is no better than Bush in any ways..


David Lucas
said

Seems like I see that same verbatim David T response alot.


Janus
said

Obama? Does he have a stand on an issue?

He may become the novelty president, sure, good for UTube videos, but no substance.

Let McCain and Clinton debate. Novelty president can just run out front once there is a parade in progress.


Mr Chillz
said

It doesn't matter who takes office next term. These senseless wars will continue as long as the big corporations and mainstream media continue to lie and decieve the people.


mac
said

Oh, the US should not have invaded Iraq?

Right. So when will the US apologize the world for destabilizing the ME with its unnecessary, illegal, and immoral war of aggression against Iraq, pay reparations for the consequent damage to infrastructure and deaths of one million innocent Iraqis, and turn over the war criminals responsible for that atrocity?

Stop making excuses for evil just because it waves a flag with stars and stripes on it.






Scott A
said

Too many are bringing politics, US bashing, and shallow thought to the table. I agree 100% with Dave T. A balanced, realistic and responsible approach.



Javid Radfar
said

I'm indeed very glad to see most of Canadians have come up to a very logical conclusion about the Middle East situation, especially the Iraq war. The fact is any premature troop withdrawal is equivalent with assisting the terrorist movement, not only in the Middle East, but also in the rest of the world. The withdrawal of the soldiers will result in the fall of Iraq to the hands of the biggest supporter of terrorism, the Islamic regime in Iran. As a Middle Easterner myself, I believe despite our initial disagreement with the American government about the Iraq war, we need to support the coalitions troops against the terrorists.


Robin da Hood
said

McCain promises the same old bull for another 4 years. Sure he can say pulling out is irresponsible but he failed to admit that invading Iraq was illegal, as well as incredibly irresponsible (as if that word was really strong enough here). He does'nt think they should stay in Iraq a minute longer than necessary,.. he also failed to mention that "minute" is about 100 years from now with the Republicans. :-D



31 Delta
said

Hillary Clinton as commander in chief? Man, that wouldn't be a very good scenario for Iraq or Afghanistan. Before the US even begins to start thinking of withdrawing troops, they had better make sure there is a strong security presence within Iraq. What I'm afraid of, is if the Democrats get elected in the US, is that they will rush a withdraw of troops to gain political favour at home, not just from Iraq, but from Afghanistan and much of the middle east. With that happening, a scenario may play out, where Israel will feel vulnerable and unprotected, which would lead to a pre-emptive strike on Iranian Nuclear facilities, which in turn would bring both China and Russia deep within the middle east militarily. That is a scary scenario, but under yet another Clinton administration, this could very possibly happen. Like it or not boys and girls, the US is the world security and without them, everybody in this country and around the western world probably wouldn't have the level of peace we have had since the end of the 2nd world war.


GM
said

While invading Iraq (or the policies implemented there after) may have been a drastic miscalculation, the withdrawal of U.S. forces before the re-stabilization of a competent government would be catastrophic in comparison.....to Iraqis.....and the the entire globe.....PERIOD.




Paul Out West
said

Thanks to the gods on high that Canada had Chretien as PM when the U.S. invaded Iraq otherwise we'd be mired in the blood of our own young.

Iraq was the wrong war for the wrong reasons. Afghanistan was where the terrorists were located.

George Bush, who was always supported by Harper, brought his troops to the wrong country, now both Iraq and Afghanistan are a real mess with so much death and destruction.

Get out while the going is right.


John Palermo
said

I would agree with what Dave T said.
Nobody likes war and having families lose loved ones fighting overseas, but we can't just run and leave. Good will triumph in the end and America's presence in Iraq is far better for the Iraqi people than a civil war.


Dave T
said

There is no doubt that the US shouldn't have went into Iraq in the first place. But that is history and irrelevant to the current conversation.

The important thing is that they are there now, like it or not. Now they need to figure out how to get out of there in the way that is the most beneficial for everybody involved. The best situation is a stable Iraq.

Cutting and running now, leaves no chance of a stable Iraq. Instead, that leaves a civil war in progress and 1000's of further deaths. A religious based civil war in the middle east is a bad thing.

Staying the course and rebuilding Iraq leads to a stable Iraq many years down the road. Look at Germany, Japan and South Korea as examples. All have had long term US military presence following an occupation and all are functional member of the global community. That is the better future for Iraq.

Invading them for no good reason was bad enough. Now to ditch them and say "Sorry about that and good luck with your religious civil war" is even worse. The US should have the courage to commit to fixing their mistake. They actually owe it to the Iraqi people, and the rest of the world that could be affected by a religious war.

They broke it, they should pay to fix it. Plain and simple. Can't just ditch your responsibility because you don't want to anymore.


david
said

I think "Billary" has proven to be dishonest, and the only experience she has was first lady, and I believed 4 years in the senate, as opposed to the experience she claims.

Share with your social Network:

Facebook DIGG Newsvine Delicious Twitter StumbeUpon Reddit Yahoo! Buzz

 

Advertisement

Contest

Today's Politics Stories

Quebec student strikes, tuition fees, Montreal, Quebec

Quebec students, government to resume talks Monday

More   27 Comments 27    4 Video(s) 4

Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Kathy Dunderdale receives applause from party members as the House of Assembly opens in St. John's on Monday, March 5, 2012. (Paul Daly /  THE CANADIAN PRESS)

EI changes unfair to N.L., Dunderdale says

More   20 Comments 20    1 Video(s) 1

In this Monday, Sept. 19, 2011 file photo, Fereidoun Abbasi Davani speaks during a news conference at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria. (AP Photo/Ronald Zak)

Iran says no reason to halt 20 per cent enrichment

More   8 Comments 8  

Most Talked about Stories

It is about time - as a grandparent I have watched our kids (who were allowed to fail although I do remember some nagging on our part) learn, I have watched our children now micro-manage their children. A big part of it is the fact that there are predators out there and an extreme reluctance on the parents part to alllow freedom that might result in the children becoming victims.

Harvey

Parents must learn to stop meddling, author urges