Far left “withdraw at any costs” liberals may be interested to know that all of the Democrat front runners for 2008 favor policy approaches for Iraq that would leave our troops deployed for at least another couple of years.

DES MOINES, Aug. 11 — Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.

John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.

These positions and those of some rivals suggest that the Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief.

I think this is the best example yet of how vapid and politically-motivated the Democrats’ policies for Iraq are.  Edwards, Hillary, etc. are all more than happy to placate the anti-war base with bold and nasty rhetoric aimed at the Bush administration.  But they’re also worried about the genocide that would take place in Iraq should our withdrawal be too hasty, so they’re engaging in a bit of quiet CYA with policies that would leave a token force of American troops in Iraq in order to allow them the “we tried” defense.

Which is total nonsense.  If we commit American lives to the field of battle we should either be in the war to win, or we should bring every troop home immediately, consequences be damned.  But the Democrats don’t get this.  They want to sit on the fence by bringing most of our troops home while quietly leaving some small force of troops in the middle east just to say they’re doing something over there.

For better or worse, we’ve gone to war in Iraq.  Whether or not that was a good idea is now so much water under the bridge.  What we need to be talking about now is how we’re going to make our mission in Iraq a success, and it’d be helpful if the Democrats could get serious about achieving that objective.  Which they won’t do, because their policies are calculated for political effect more than, you know, winning the war.