A Desire for Basic Changes
John Edwards spoke with Chief White House Correspondent Kenneth T. Walsh about Iraq, domestic issues, and his belief that Americans are seeking "fundamental change." Excerpts:
On his goals. We need universal healthcare, a real transformation of our energy use ... and dealing head-on with the issue of climate change. ... The voters are looking for somebody who will tell them where they stand, without equivocation, who will be honest about both the challenges we're faced with and the grave possibilities that are there.
Iraq. It's not time for baby steps anymore. It's time for us to start actually leaving Iraq, and I think that ought to take place over the next year or so.
What to do next in Iraq. We ought to say to the Maliki ... government: "There is no military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. You have not made enough effort, and neither has the Sunni leadership. We're going to shift this responsibility to you. We're going to start leaving." I'd draw down 40,000 to 50,000 troops immediately. I would continue to draw down and redeploy our troops out of Iraq over the course of the next year or so, and the plan being to have our combat troops out of Iraq and roughly, you know, we wouldn't set an exact date. ... I would specifically engage other countries in the region, not just our friends, not just the Saudis, the Jordanians, and the Egyptians, but Iran and Syria directly, because they both have an interest in some level of stability in Iraq.
Foreign policy. We are the only stabilizing force on the planet, and when we're incapable of leading, because of some of the problems ... including Iraq, it's not just us that suffers; the rest of the world suffers.
On energy. It is time to ask Americans to sacrifice, to be willing to conserve, buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. I think we need a cap on carbon dioxide emissions.
Why Americans want dramatic change. I think Iraq has played a role in that, but I don't think it's the only thing. ... Americans have seen the healthcare system get worse, more dysfunctional over time and rising premium costs. ... Those are the elements of what says to them, "We can do better than this."
On the consequences of military action against Iran. If we attack Iran, what we do is create strong support for a radical leader, because they will rally around the flag. The second thing is, we have over 100,000 troops right next door in Iraq, and they will retaliate. ... I think a lot of our people at the Pentagon don't believe that just an airstrike or a missile strike would be adequate; we'd have to have troops on the ground, and where in the world would they come from? We're already stretched to the breaking point with our military. So I think there are huge negative consequences to a military strike.
What to do in Iran. Sticks and carrots. Carrots, a serious proposal to allow them to develop and be able to use peacefully nuclear power, combined with some sticks, serious economic sanctions. Then what we do is we continue to separate [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad and his radical rhetoric from the rest of the country, because they are in economic trouble.
This story appears in the February 26, 2007 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.
advertisement
