Following up on Matt O’s post on where the Republican candidates stand, here is a longer breakdown of some statements on the Iraq war by McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, Gingrich, Pataki, and Brownback. It’s long, so the text is in the extended entry.

McCain, Giuliani, and Gingrich are for a troop surge. Romney was against a troop surge before he was for it (surprise surprise). Pataki and Brownback seem to be against a surge, though I wouldn’t characterize their opposition as exactly Kucinich-like. McCain had called for a deployment of 100,000 new troops to Iraq in December, but has since scaled back to the Bush/Lieberman number of 30,000 (ThinkProgress has more).

Technorati Tags: George Pataki, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Sam Brownback

SAM BROWNBACK

Brownback: Buildup without Possibility of Political Equilibrium “Doesn’t Seem to Me to Be Too Farsighted.” Sam Brownback said in an interview that he could favor more troops if they were a “precursor” to political stability. But he added: “A short-term buildup in troops, if it simply is to impose military order without the possibility of political equilibrium, that doesn’t seem to me to be too farsighted.” [Thoughts from Kansas, 1/3/07]

NEWT GINGRICH

Gingrich Favored Troop Surge as Part of Broader Strategy. On Meet the Press, Gingrich said, “[they need to] rethink from the ground up what we’re doing, how we do it, and what it takes. And it’s not just 30,000 more troops or not, it’s very important to surge troops if they’re going to bridge to a better future.” However, he suggested more must be done, by saying, “I believe a Franklin Delano Roosevelt civil conversation corps designed to mop up every young Iraqi male who’s unemployed would be as big a strategic step in Iraq towards victory as whether you have more troops or fewer troops.” [Meet the Press, NBC News, 12/17/06]

MITT ROMNEY

Romney: “I’m Not going to Weigh in [on Iraq]. I’m Still a Governor.” In an interview with the conservative publication Human Events, on December 27, 2006, Romney responded to a question asking his opinion on proposals to increase troop strength in Iraq stating, “I’m not going to weigh in. I’m still a governor. I’m not running for national office at this stage. I’m not going to weigh in on specific tactics about whether we should go from 140,000 to 170,000. That’s something I expect the President to decide over the next couple of weeks and announce that to the nation. I want to hear what he has to say.” [Human Events, 12/28/06]

Romney: We Did Not Have Adequate Planning or Troop Strength In Iraq. On October 17, 2006 CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Romney, “Do you have any problems with the president’s policy on Iraq?” Romney responded, “Oh, sure. I mean, following the collapse of the Hussein government, we found that the planning level and the troop strength level were not adequate for the need. But we are where we are now. And problems arise. And surprises occur in major international conflict. But now we’re in a setting which is very challenging. But simply turning around and walking out now could lead to a humanitarian disaster.” [CNN, 10/17/06]

Romney: “My Inclination Would be More Boots, Not Less Boots [In Iraq].” On September 27, 2006, while speaking to a gathering of employees at the Principal Financial Group in Des Moines, Iowa, Romney said, “I frankly think we have to explore how many boots on the ground we need. My inclination would be more boots,
not less boots.” [Des Moines Register, 9/28/06]

RUDY GIULIANI

Giuliani Against Withdrawing Troops From Iraq. Giuliani took issue with the Iraq Study Group’s recommendation to withdraw most combat troops from Iraq by 2008, calling a timetable for withdrawal a “mistake.” “I think we have to be committed to keep a (combat) presence there until we know it’s moving in the right direction,” Giuliani said. [Dallas Business Journal, 12/8/06]

Giuliani Supporting Increasing Number of US Troops Training Iraqi Soldiers. Giuliani applauded the Iraq Study Group’s advice to bolster the number of U.S. troops training Iraqi soldiers, from 2,000 or 3,000 to 20,000 or 30,000.”I think that makes sense, and we have to try it,” he said. [Dallas Business Journal, 12/8/06]

MIKE HUCKABEE

Huckabee: U.S. Needed “Very Defined Mission” in Iraq, Went in with “Noble Purpose,” Expected Good Advice from Baker Commission. In an interview with Don Imus, Mike Huckabee was asked what he would do about Iraq. Huckabee said there needed to be a “very defined mission of what we want to accomplish.” He said the country “can’t just walk away.” While stressing that war should be a last resort, he said the U.S. went into Iraq “with a noble purpose” but false information and what was currently needed was thoughtful review and advice that he expected the country would get from former Secretary of State James Baker and former Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton. [Associated Press, 10/18/06]

GEORGE PATAKI

Pataki: I Don’t Think It’s That Simple, That Simply Sending In 30,000 Troops Is Going To Solve The Crisis We Have Now In Iraq. When asked if more troops were needed in Iraq Pataki said, “I don’t think it’s that simple, that simply sending in 30,000 troops is going to solve the crisis we have now in Iraq.” Pataki also said that in a best-case scenario, U.S. troops could start coming home in a year. [News Channel 4, News Forum, 12/24/06]

JOHN MCCAIN

McCain Called For Large Sustained Troop Increase In Iraq, Called Short Surge “Worst Of All Worlds.” Speaking before the American Enterprise Institute, John McCain emphasized the importance of a sustained troop increase in Iraq, as opposed to a short term surge in forces. McCain noted that “there are two keys” to a troops surge, saying, “to be a value the surge must be substantial and it must be sustained.” McCain called for a “large number of troops,” calling for an additional 3-5 brigades in Baghdad and one brigade in Anbar province as the “minimum” necessary. McCain added that the increase in troops can only be reduced with mission completion, not a timetable, criticizing a short surge, saying, “the presence of additional brigades should be tied to completion of their mission rather than to some arbitrary deadline. The worst of all worlds would be a small, short surge of U.S. Forces.” McCain believes a sustained force increase is necessary to reach an end in Iraq, noting that “by controlling the violence be we can pave the way for a political settlement.” [McCain, AEI Speech,1/5/07]

JANUARY 5, 2007: McCain Said He Was Not Getting “Specific on Numbers” On Troops in Iraq. When asked “How many troops are you calling for in Iraq?” McCain answered saying, “We are not specific on numbers, we don’t have – we are talking about 3 or 4 combat brigades, in Baghdad, and one or two more in Anbar province. We are not that much detailed oriented[.]” McCain added that the troop increase had to be “sustained until we win, until we’ve got it under control and the Iraqi government can assume those responsibilities.” [McCain, AEI "Future of Iraq" Conference, 1/5/07]

JANUARY 4, 2007: McCain Advocated Roughly 30,000 More Troops. “I’m not sure,” McCain said. “I would advocate two additional combat units in the Anbar Province, four in Baghdad with one in reserve. That’s about 30,000. But I have not seen the exact plan so it’s hard for me to know. But to make it for a short duration and size would be the worst of all options.” [NBC, 1/4/07]

DECEMBER 2006: McCain Called For 100,000 More Troops In Iraq. Speaking after a meeting with President Bush in the White House, McCain called for a significant force Increase to secure Iraq. McCain said, “We must have more troops over there, maybe 20,000 more Marines, and 80,000 Army…We have to have a big enough surge that we can get Baghdad under control.” [Chicago Tribune, 12/7/06]

OCTOBER 2006: McCain Called for an Indefinite Expansion of U.S. Armed Forces To Sustain 20,000 More Troops in Iraq. Speaking with reporters in New Hampshire, McCain said a larger standing army and more troops on the ground in Iraq was necessary to avoid chaos. McCain said, “If we leave … the fighting will evolve into chaos there.” When asked to elaborate on his statement that more combat troops are needed, McCain said, “Another 20,000 troops in Iraq, but that means expanding the Army and the Marine Corps. It’s not just a set number.” [AP, 10/27/06]

McCain, Emphasizing the Need for Truth, Insisted More Troops Were Necessary to Win the War. In a speech on November 16, 2006, McCain stressed the need to be honest with the public about the reality in Iraq and disclosed the need to have more troops on the ground to achieve victory. McCain said, “In no other time are we more morally obliged to speak the truth to our country, as we best see it, than in a time of war. So let me say this, without additional combat forces we will not win this war.” [New York Times, 11/17/06]

McCain Said ISG Report Suggestions Would “Lead to Our Defeat.” After the ISG released their findings, calling for phased redeployment of troops from their combat role by 2008 and rejecting a short term increase in troops, “McCain took issue with that approach, saying he did not agree with the Baker-Hamilton group’s conclusion that the U.S. military does not have enough forces available to sustain a troop boost in Iraq.” McCain said in response to the findings, “There’s only one thing worse than an over-stressed Army and Marine Corps, and that’s a defeated Army and Marine Corps,” adding, ‘I believe this is a recipe that will lead to our defeat sooner or later in Iraq.” [AP, 12/7/06; Bloomberg News, 12/7/06; Arizona Republic, 12/7/06]

Posted by Matt Browner Hamlin
Monday, January 8, 2007 at 6:29 pm

2 Responses to “More on GOP Contenders’ Iraq Stances”

Something to say?

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website