I, like Chris, have been annoyed by candidates (especially Clinton, but in a different way Edwards, who I otherwise like) playing the game of 'I'm going to end the war' or even 'I'm in favor of complete withdrawal' while simultaneously naming a handful of missions that they think ought to be continued, and which any idiot can see would take thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of troops to be accomplished.

In particular, the canard of 'preventing genocide' has started to creep into this debate, even though what is going on in Iraq bears no resemblence to acts of genocide (in which an entire race or ethnic group is murdered by another group). Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, with two sides (the Sunnis and Shiites) both fighting each other, both well armed, both backed by powerful neighbors, and neither likely to be helpless victims of genocide. Those candidates who say that this is a major concern (mostly Republicans, but I think Clinton has used it as well) are providing rhetorical cover for American troops to stay right smack in the middle of a shooting civil war.

However, this does not mean there aren't other deserving missions we could accomplish without the futile waste of our soldiers. In particular, I'd support two:

1. Protecting the Kurdish minority in northern Iraq, which has always supported the US.

2. Launching targeted strikes against Al-Qaida bases and concentrations, from US bases in Kurdistan.

Possibly, the troops engaged in these missions could provide some security for US civilians engaged in humanitarian aid (that'd be mission #3), but ONLY if those civilians were in the Kurdish zone or were able to be rescued by troops reaching out from that zone.

I believe that these two missions are essential for America to remain at least as secure as we are now (which ain't a great state of affairs, but at least Al-Qaida isn't able to safely plot and train for missions around the world, as they once were in Afghanistan and could be again in Anbar), and to maintain what little international good reputation we have left. If we were to leave our only stead allies in the whole region (the Kurds) to fend for themselves, and simultaneously lay off attacking our only stead enemy (Al-Qaida), that really would be just the 'cut and run' sort of disgrace that the GOP claims Democrats support. I am a Democrat, and I don't want that. What's more, I don't think many Dems really do, and I'm generally pleased to hear candidates who clearly say that they want to end US involvement in Iraq's Shiite vs. Sunni civil war (what they do to each other is, I think, mostly their problem at this point), but are committed to keeping a smaller number of special and support forces in Iraq for these sort of missions.

That is, ultimately, why I voted for Barack Obama in the MoveOn poll (which he won, over Edwards in a close second). Because he has opposed the war from the start, yes, but also because he's made it clear that he thinks we can't play any role in resolving Iraq's civil war (sorry Joe Biden, that moment has passed), and that he thinks we can continue to fight terrorism (there is a global war on terror, you know, and it's important to win, especially after Bush has bungled it by invading Iraq), support our allies in Iraq, and keep our troops relatively safe while doing so. That's what I want to hear from a candidate.

As for Clinton and Edwards, I don't appreciate the 'have your cake and eat it too' nature of their positions. Clinton intends to continue so many missions (including protecting Iraq's oil fields and controlling their borders) that I can't see how she's actually reduce our troop level at all - we don't have enough troops to really accomplish those missions NOW! Edwards has calculated that he needs anti-war support to win the primary, and he refuses to acknowledge even the existence of these vital missions (have you ever heard him talk about the Kurds, or Al-Qaida?). Sticking your head in the sand won't make them go away. I appreciate so much of Sen. Edwards blunt honesty on other issues, from healthcare to his initial mistake in voting for the war, and I wish he'd level with us on this too.