FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
John Edwards says that as president there would be no more than 5,000 U.S. troops left in Iraq within 10 months.
Edwards told The New York Times the withdrawal would include forces who are training the Iraqi army and police. He says that extending the American training effort into the next presidency would require the deployment of tens of thousands of troops, which he calls "a continuation of the occupation of Iraq."
Edwards' plan calls for the immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 troops... and within 9 to 10 months, the rest of them except the 35-hundred to 5-thousand troops who would remain to protect the U.S. Embassy and possibly do humanitarian work.
Edwards suggested he would allow for the training of some Iraqi forces outside of Iraq. But he says he decided on an almost total withdrawal because of the political failure of the Iraqi government.
His plan is at odds with the strategy of military commanders, who say the situation in Iraq is still too fragile to set a timetable for withdrawal of American forces. Edwards wants a more rapid and complete troop withdrawal than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, who have suggested they're open to keeping U.S. trainers and counterterrorism units in Iraq.
Here’s my question to you:
John Edwards wants no more than 5,000 U.S. troops in Iraq within 10 months. Is that a good idea?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
George from Florida writes:
Jack, It seems like a noble plan for John Edwards to make such a promise. He is standing up for what the Democratic Congress is afraid to do. 70% of Americans want U.S. forces out of Iraq. The fact is that we are in a war we cannot win.
Allen writes:
That is a really bad idea. Although I am against the war, his plan is arbitrary and would leave Iraq in chaos which could lead to a bloodbath.
Greg writes:
You have to be willing to continue the loss of American lives if you want to leave the troops there. I am not.
Larry from Missouri writes:
Jack, This would be a worse decision than the decision of starting the war. From all reports, we are doing much better in Iraq in securing the country. We have to finish the job.
Carl from Coldwater, Kansas writes:
Cutting troop levels to 5,000 in a year or less would do no good in Iraq but talking like that may well get Edwards some more votes and that is the reason he is saying all that. Win those votes at all costs and then hope you can back down graciously.
Phil writes:
Jack, I completely agree with Sen. Edwards. By January 2009 it will be long enough. Enough money spent on a mistake and more importantly nearly 4,000 dead, brave Americans. Enough is enough.
Elaine writes:
Frankly, I thought that's what the American people voted for in 2006 when we voted in a Democratic majority, one that acts more and more like Republican “lite” all the time. Is it good idea? You bet, and long overdue.
Larry from Watsonville, California writes:
Jack, It is nice to see at least one Democrat endorse Ron Paul's Iraq policy. Could an Edwards/Paul ticket be out of the question?