Edwards talks about Iraq, a corrupt government

(Jonathan Wiggs/Globe Staff)

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is interviewed by Globe editors.

John Edwards, who has been highlighting his differences with Hillary Clinton on the Iraq war, acknowledged today that he also would continue combat missions against Al Qaeda in Iraq -- but from bases outside the country.

He told Globe editors, however, that ending the permanent combat military presence in Iraq -- what he calls an occupation -- is a significant distinction between him and the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

As president, Edwards says he would immediately withdraw 40,000 to 50,000 combat troops and the remainder within his first year in office. He has previously said he would end all combat missions for US troops. Clinton says she would keep a small number of combat troops in Iraq to go after Al Qaeda insurgents.

But Edwards also would keep a quick reaction force of 4,000 or 5,000 troops in Kuwait, and talked today of stationing others around the Middle East in case of a wider civil war or even genocide in Iraq. Saying it's time for American leaders to be more honest, he acknowledged that it's not clear what the impact of a US withdrawal would be.

"No one knows what's going to happen in Iraq," he said.

But with US troops no longer occupying the country, he said, the dynamics would change and improve the prospects for political reconciliation in Iraq and for a regional diplomatic effort.

Also after a withdrawal, he said, an Edwards administration would audit the contracts of Blackwater and other private security contractors in Iraq -- "paid mercenaries," he called them -- to make sure they didn't fleece the government.

The private contractors are Exhibit A of the corruption in Washington that Edwards emphasized in the question-and-answer session.

For him, it's a seamless theory that hits all the major themes of his campaign: Powerful special interests hire an army of lobbyists. Those influence peddlers get Congress to pass laws that benefit big corporations and the wealthy. Political candidates go to the rich and powerful for the money they need to campaign. Average Americans lose out and get discouraged from participating.

"It's a cycle that feeds itself," he said. "And it's unhealthy."

That critique of politics, Edwards argued, will help him do well with voters in the Iowa caucuses, where his success or not will make or break his candidacy. He, Clinton, and Barack Obama are locked in a tight race, less than two months from the Jan. 3 caucuses.

"They're looking for the most progressive candidate they think can get elected," he said, adding, "By the way, that's me."