The Iraq Position Locator - Slate Magazine


Made the case for invasion based on Saddam’s purported weapons of mass destruction. “The days of Iraq flouting the will of the world, brutalizing its own people, and terrorizing its neighbors must—and will—end,” President Bush said after signing the joint Iraq resolution.	Admits that some Iraq policies have failed, but remains committed. “This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we're in,” Bush said last January. Now says he expects America’s presence to extend “beyond my presidency.”	Calls the troop surge a success. Noted in April that “Iraqi and American forces are making incremental gains in Baghdad.” In his Sept. 13 address, he announced a drawdown in troops to pre-surge levels as a “return on success.”	Articulated a plan in January to hold areas of Iraq secured by U.S. forces, target foreign fighters that are infiltrating the country, and go beyond military solutions. A reduced American force will soon transition to a more limited role supporting the Iraqi military, he said on Sept. 13.	President Bush made his third visit to Iraq on Sept. 3.
Supported Bush’s decision to go to war but has said that the postinvasion period was “mismanaged.”	Recently called Iraq “a mess” and said that Americans are “angry” about how the war is going but has expressed support for Gen. David Petraeus’ strategy.	After some hedging, Romney called for a “surge of support” for the troop buildup. He said on Sept. 11 that the Petraeus-Crocker report “confirms the progress being made by our troops in Iraq.”	Recommends a "three-step plan": Stick with the surge, transition into a "support role" by providing air defense and intelligence to Iraqi military units, and finally, keep American troops on "standby" in Kuwait or Qatar-a step that he said could happen "relatively soon.”	Yes, on a DoD-sponsored trip in May 2006.
Supported the invasion then, supports it now.	At a debate in June, he called the decision to invade Iraq “absolutely the right thing to do.” Leaving, he said last year, would be a “terrible mistake.”	Giuliani said in January that he supported the troop surge, but he has since been hesitant to assess its progress, deflecting questions in anticipation of Petraeus’ report.	Maintain high troop levels until security is established. He has also proposed rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure—roads, schools, mosques.	No.
Strongly supported the war from the beginning. Voted for and co-sponsored the 2002 resolution.	U.S. forces must remain in Iraq; withdrawal would “hand a victory to the radicals in control of Iran.” Says he is “far more willing to lose a campaign than to lose a war.”	Has been an outspoken surge supporter, so much so that John Edwards calls the strategy “the McCain doctrine.” Recently expressed optimism about the results: “I believe we’re winning.”	Send more troops to Iraq, implement counterinsurgency strategies that don’t just “clear areas” but “stay and hold” them, and establish economic and social stability.	Has toured Iraq six times, with his last visit the week of July 4, 2007.
Voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq in October 2002.	Recently said the United States “went into [Iraq] for the right reasons” and that the country would “face a situation worse than what we face today” had we not invaded.	Voices full-fledged support for Bush’s troop-surge plan. Petraeus’ report, he said, “strengthens my conviction that we can achieve our objectives in Iraq.”	In March 2007, he said he would do “essentially what the president's doing” in Iraq.	No.
Voted against the 2002 Iraq resolution. Said there is “no convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of this country.”	Paul said in August that “going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security.”	Encouraged colleagues to vote against the troop surge and all Iraq funding bills.	Calls for America to “refocus on securing America and bring the troops home.” Supports giving Iraqis nonmilitary “incentives” to govern their own country.	No.

Voted to authorize the war, urging Bush to use this “awesome responsibility” only “as a last resort.”	Said in Feb. 2007 that she “would never have voted for it” based on what she knows now. Still, she refuses to call her authorization vote a mistake.	The surge is working, but it’s time to start bringing troops home. She told Gen. Petraeus in January, “You are being asked to square the circle, to find a military solution to a political crisis.”	Supports legislation calling to de-authorize the war in October.	Yes, in 2003 and 2007.
Opposed the war from the start. “Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors,” he said in 2002.	Now touts his position as the only top candidate who has consistently opposed the war.	Insisted in July that the “surge has not worked.” But he backpedaled in August, suggesting that the escalation might be able to slow sectarian violence. Either way, he says there is “no military solution.”	Wants to implement “a political solution, begin a phased withdrawal, and make certain that we've got benchmarks in place so that the Iraqi people can make a determination about how they want to move forward."	Yes, in January 2006.
Voted to authorize the war in 2002, declaring that the United States must “eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.”	Wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in Nov. 2005 saying his vote was “wrong.” In December 2006, called for a troop pullback.	Calls the troop surge “the McCain doctrine” and asserts that it is “dead wrong.”	Insists that there is “no military solution” and that the United States can help Iraq only by leaving. Supports an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 troops.	No.
Voted to authorize the war in 2002.	Introduced a joint resolution in May to repeal the war authorization, saying only that it was “no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq.”	Before the surge began, vowed to fight any efforts to increase troops, which he declared “absolutely wrong.” Now says it is “at the service of a fundamentally flawed strategy.”	Has called for a “soft partition,” dividing Iraq into three autonomous regions.	Biden has visited Iraq more than any other candidate—“about every six months,” he says.
Voted against the 2002 joint Iraq resolution. W arned that using force without first exhausting diplomatic methods “will be harmful to our war on terrorism.”	Backed a proposal in 2005 for troop redeployment over the course of six months. Recently called the war a “stark blunder” but said that Democrats would not cut off funding.	Sent a letter to Bush in January arguing that “adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans … for no strategic gain.”	Has consistently pushed for troop-withdrawal dates.	Yes, Pelosi toured Iraq and Pakistan in January 2007.

Initially supported the invasion. O’Hanlon predicted a “rapid and decisive” victory. Pollack wrote the 2002 call-to-arms Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.	Both have criticized the administration’s handling of the war. O’Hanlon defended the surge in January 2007 as “the right thing to try—as long as we do not count on it succeeding.”	On July 30, 2007, co-wrote a cautiously optimistic New York Times op-ed detailing what they called the surge’s positive results.	Keep the troops there for now. Pollack said in August that the political front is “absolutely dead in the water.” O’Hanlon stressed that progress can’t happen without “major national political cooperation across sectarian lines.”	Yes.
Argued in 2002 that the Arab world “needs one major country that embraces modernity, maintains its identity and inspires the region,” but emphasized the importance of postwar “nation-building.”	The war was a disaster from the outset, with “seismic sectarian consequences.” Wrote in Oct. 2006 that Bush’s best hope now is “not achieving success but limiting failure.”	Before the surge, Zakaria said he was “not so sure” it would to fail but that the military push would be worth it only if a political solution were possible.	We should be reducing our military presence to “around 60,000 troops and concentrating on Al Qaeda in Anbar province,” Zakaria wrote in March. We should also be supporting Iraqi state-owned businesses—what he calls an “economic surge”—to combat unemployment.	Yes.
Supported the invasion, predicting in 2002 that the war could have “terrifically good effects” on the region. In March 2003, he wrote: "Very few wars in American history were prepared better or more thoroughly than this one."	It was still a good idea. “If we make serious mistakes in executing a worthwhile task,” he wrote in January 2007, “then we should try to repair those mistakes … rather than abandon our friends.”	The surge’s gains convinced him that “the odds are finally better than 50-50 that we will prevail.” Bush, he thinks, has “finally found his Ulysses S. Grant … in General David H. Petraeus.”	It’s all about beefing up security: “With security established, training of the Iraqi army and political reconciliation can proceed.”	Yes, in 2007.
Hitchens made a case for war based on Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, his crimes against humanity, and the need for liberal democracy in Iraq.	It was the right thing to do. Hitchens praises the “outstanding success” in Kurdistan and says “we would not be living in a better or safer world if the coalition forces” had not invaded.	In January 2007, Hitchens waxed skeptical about the troop buildup: “A few thousand extra troops … are of scant use … unless they in some way represent a commitment to stick to Iraq no matter what.”	Hitchens praises cooperation between Sunni sheikhs and American forces against al-Qaida in Mesopotamia as “a historic achievement,” but is skeptical about proposals for an Iraq partition.	Yes.

N/A	Only three of 18 benchmarks have been fully met, the report concluded [PDF]: “[K]ey legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds.”	Two of nine security benchmarks were fully met: establishing committees to support the Baghdad security plan and creating joint security stations in Baghdad. It’s “unclear whether sectarian violence in Iraq has decreased.”	Stressed communication between the State and Defense departments and the White House about new Iraqi legislation, levels of sectarian violence, and “operational readiness” of Iraq security forces.	Yes, GAO researchers took several trips in 2006 and 2007.
Crocker opposed the invasion of Iraq and outlined numerous risks in a 2002 State Department memo, “The Perfect Storm.” Petraeus led the Army’s 101st Airborne Division during the invasion.	Crocker speaks with cautious optimism. On Sept. 11, he told the Senate foreign relations committee that “a democratic Iraq at peace with its neighbors is achievable.” Last June, he said, “I don’t see an end game in sight.”	“The military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met," Petraeus told members of the House on Sept. 10, 2007.	Recommended reducing troops to pre-surge levels by next summer. W arned that precipitous withdrawal could spur Iran to take a more active role in the region.	Yes.
N/A	N/A	Iraqi military is improving, but won’t be ready to take charge of security for at least 12 to 18 months. The 26,000-member Iraqi National Police is “incapable” of protecting neighborhoods and the Interior Ministry is “dysfunctional and sectarian.” (Read the report here.)	Recommends disbanding the police force, improving border security, fighting corruption, and “significant reductions, consolidations and realignments” of U.S. forces.	Yes, the 20-member panel sent three fact-finding missions to Iraq.
N/A	Reported in December 2006 that the situation in Iraq was “grave and deteriorating,” with “no foreseeable end.” (Read the report here [PDF].)	Former Secretary of State James Baker urged lawmakers in January to “give [the surge] a chance.”	Recommended reducing the number of troops in Iraq, opening talks with Iran and Syria, and instituting benchmarks for political progress.	Yes, the group visited Iraq for four days in 2006.