Both Obama and Clinton want to leave a huge presence in Iraq. They're just making their platform sound more liberal than it, since they're in a Democrat primary.
They want to leave to a "residual" force of 20,000-80,000 troops, keep the green zone, keep all American businesses there, build bases, and keep the majority of the 180,000+ American contractors there.
Now, I know the majority of Ron Paul supporters think the best idea is to leave Iraq completely, since we know it gives incentive for people to join up with Al-Qaeda.
However, if we are involved in Iraq, I think a reduced presence would make us worse off. Simply reducing the presence doesn't change the view of the war in Iraqi's eyes, and we won't have the man power to defend ourselves there.
Both Clinton and Obama have no plans to ask other nations to help stabilize the region, like some of the lower tier democrats had. I would absolutely love to see a full withdraw of American military and business from Iraq, but I'm not quite sure that this partial withdraw without a change in policy will be very good for the troop's safety. Any thoughts?
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us