Look! This campaign actually has subtance: Iraq

Well, in a New Hampshire-esque curveball, it turns out there are differences in the Democratic presidential canidate's Iraq plans. Who knew?

Let's jump in.

All want some sort of large troop withdrawl, but the three plans resemble Dennis Kucinich and Mitt Romney - their different.

Edwards wants an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 troops, and wants to achieve a full withdrawal in 9 to 10 months. Edward's plan would leave one brigade behind to protect the embassy and a couple hundred to guard humanitarian workers.

His plan is the most aggressive. Clinton's does not provide a target troop withdrawal, but says she would direct her Department of Defense, her Secretary of Sate, and her National Security Council to come up with a plan to begin withdrawal withing 60 days. She wants to move...but she is undeceive, like a color-blind guy nervously idling away at a traffic light.

Obama would immediately begin the withdrawal of one or two brigades a month (a brigade is roughly 1,500-3,500 troops). He would continue this until all combat troops were out, he anticipates this taking until late 2009.

All want to leave some troops in the region, but again, there are differences.

Obama and Clinton do not provide specifics, but simply say that they would leave some number of troops in the country to fight Al Qaeda and protect US interests in the country. Obama's plan would remove troops from secure areas first.

Edward's plan provides troop estimates. He would leave 3,500 to 5,000 troops in Iraq to protect embassies and humanitarian workers. Edwards also wants quick reaction troops in friendly countries, in case of genocide and to stomp out Al Queda safe havens.

On a topic in which she once used as a means to attack Obama's experience, which countries in the region to negotiate with, Clinton's Iraq plan displays a classic example of politician blabber. Earlier, she criticized Obama's foreign policy inexperience because he said he would engage hostile countries like Syria. Under Clinton's plan she would gather a regional stabilization group including: key allies, other global powers and all bordering states. It is this last group that best highlights Clinton's aptitude for politician blabber (take a look at which country is placed snugly next to Iraq's Northwest boarder).

Instead of saying, oops, I guess I would also bring Syria to the table, my bad. She slipped the idea into the politically euphemistic, regional stabilization group. Umm, that's good blabber. Obama actually takes a stronger stance than Clinton. He says he would encourage Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia to steam the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq. A clenched fist, to Hillary's foam finger.

On the issue of continued training of the Iraqi security force, there are differences in all three plans.

Edwards would intensify the training, while Obama would tie our continued training to the stipulation that the Iraqi security forces do not become sectarian. Clinton has not really addressed the issue.

Under Obama and Clinton's campaigns the United Nations would be given a fairly prominent role. Obama would have the UN convene a constitutional convention. The council would address issues such an oil revenue sharing, De-Ba'thification and Federalism. He would also have the UN create a team that would investigate possible war crimes, in an effort to prevent genocide.

Clinton's plan involves a multi-billion dollar plan, lead by the UN's High Commissioner for Refugees, to address the needs of refugees. Additionally, to help curtail sectarian violence she advocates the appointment of a high level UN representative to help broker a peace deal between Iraq's three ethnic groups.

Edwards does not give the UN an explicit role in his Iraq plan.

Im sure I missed a ton, there is much more to cover. It may be incomplete, but there is a rough outline of each Democratic canidate's Iraq plan, including their, apparently elusive, differences.