Iraq, Democrats, & Solutions
The democratic candidates are certainly in a quandary, and due in no small to Kucinich. Dean and other democrats are calling the Iraqi occupation a disaster that is driving the nation to financial ruin, destroying America?s international reputation, and sending too many home in body bags. So Kucinich is asking them an uncomfortable question: If you think its so bad, why don?t we leave ?
The leading democratic candidates (except Lieberman) are hemming and hawing, offering evasive answers. Although they opposed Bush?s 87 billion dollar reconstruction plan, they?ve offered no practical alternative. Asked what they would do in Iraq, the democratic candidates all give the same response: hand over political control to the United Nations and bring in lots of foreign troops.
\t
But U.N. control is wishful thinking, the staff having fled to Turtle Bay after the August 19th car bombing killed 23. The Democrats may want the United Nations to stabilize Iraq, but the United Nations won't return until Iraq is safe. So the Democrats want large infusions of foreign troops to help establish safety but the rest of the world no longer does. Even Poland and Spain, America's staunchest pro-war allies, sent troops only to the safest zone in Iraq. And if U.S. troops do establish Iraqi security, other nations may be more willing to contribute ? but then again, if that happens they will no longer be needed.
Kucinich is difficult to argue with. If they oppose Bush's reconstruction plan, and lack a plausible one of their own, the Democratic candidates are forced to concede to Kucinich's logic - if you don't have a strategy, why stay?
The unhappy truth is that the United States and its allies have two bad options: either rebuild Iraq largely alone, and at great cost in money and lives, or withdraw largely alone, in a Vietnam-like defeat.
The leading Democratic presidential contenders, who like most candidates hate tough choices, are trying to pretend they don't have to make one. However Kucinich represents the Democratic Party?s growing consensus. Soon, unless the democratic candidates face reality, he will represent their mainstream.
The leading democratic candidates (except Lieberman) are hemming and hawing, offering evasive answers. Although they opposed Bush?s 87 billion dollar reconstruction plan, they?ve offered no practical alternative. Asked what they would do in Iraq, the democratic candidates all give the same response: hand over political control to the United Nations and bring in lots of foreign troops.
\t
But U.N. control is wishful thinking, the staff having fled to Turtle Bay after the August 19th car bombing killed 23. The Democrats may want the United Nations to stabilize Iraq, but the United Nations won't return until Iraq is safe. So the Democrats want large infusions of foreign troops to help establish safety but the rest of the world no longer does. Even Poland and Spain, America's staunchest pro-war allies, sent troops only to the safest zone in Iraq. And if U.S. troops do establish Iraqi security, other nations may be more willing to contribute ? but then again, if that happens they will no longer be needed.
Kucinich is difficult to argue with. If they oppose Bush's reconstruction plan, and lack a plausible one of their own, the Democratic candidates are forced to concede to Kucinich's logic - if you don't have a strategy, why stay?
The unhappy truth is that the United States and its allies have two bad options: either rebuild Iraq largely alone, and at great cost in money and lives, or withdraw largely alone, in a Vietnam-like defeat.
The leading Democratic presidential contenders, who like most candidates hate tough choices, are trying to pretend they don't have to make one. However Kucinich represents the Democratic Party?s growing consensus. Soon, unless the democratic candidates face reality, he will represent their mainstream.
Comments
Echo.
Echo.
Echo
Echo.
Echo.
Echo
Echo.
Echo.
Echo
Echo.
Echo.
So far all I hear are things like "well anything other than what Bush is doing"
I really wish some democrats here could expand on that.
A curious Fellows
"A Real Plan for Success in Iraq
... General Clark believes we need to clearly define our mission in Iraq by deciding what constitutes success. Our mission is to create a secure, stable Iraq with a representative government. Only this will make America more secure and enable our troops to come home. Success means that Iraq is strong enough to sustain itself without outside forces but is no longer a threat to its neighbors; that representative government has taken root so Iraq can be a model for democratic hope in the Middle East; and that Iraqi society and the Iraqi economy are healthy enough so that Al Qaeda cannot recruit there.
Wes Clark's strategy in Iraq will be guided by the following principles:
End the American monopoly. ...
Re-incorporate our allies. ...
Create a new international authority. ...
Transform the military operation into a NATO operation. ...
Force Mix. ...
Consider adding troops. ...
Adapt to guerilla war. ...
Better use of intelligence resources. ...
Train Iraqi security forces, freeing up U.S. troops. ...
-Summon the old Iraqi army for duty at the local level. ...
-Reconstitute the Iraqi Army ...
Engage neighbors for better border security. ...
Secure Ammunition. ...
Give the Iraqis a rising stake in our success. ...
Elect a truly representative government. ...
Promote information exchange to advance civil society. ..."
Now, I don't know if the plan is good or not, haven't thought about it, but that doesn't sound like hemming and hawing to me.
Anyways, I favor my idea of splitting Iraq up into 3 different nations: Kurdistan in the North, Sunnia in the middle and Shia-ran in the South. First person to propose that gets my vote.
Btw, what is Kucinich's viewpoint?
Originally posted by THT
Er, in about a minute, I searched for the Wesley Clark webpage, and found has strategy on Iraq:
"A Real Plan for Success in Iraq
... General Clark believes we need to clearly define our mission in Iraq by deciding what constitutes success. Our mission is to create a secure, stable Iraq with a representative government. Only this will make America more secure and enable our troops to come home. Success means that Iraq is strong enough to sustain itself without outside forces but is no longer a threat to its neighbors; that representative government has taken root so Iraq can be a model for democratic hope in the Middle East; and that Iraqi society and the Iraqi economy are healthy enough so that Al Qaeda cannot recruit there.
Wes Clark's strategy in Iraq will be guided by the following principles:
End the American monopoly. ...
Re-incorporate our allies. ...
Create a new international authority. ...
Transform the military operation into a NATO operation. ...
Force Mix. ...
Consider adding troops. ...
Adapt to guerilla war. ...
Better use of intelligence resources. ...
Train Iraqi security forces, freeing up U.S. troops. ...
-Summon the old Iraqi army for duty at the local level. ...
-Reconstitute the Iraqi Army ...
Engage neighbors for better border security. ...
Secure Ammunition. ...
Give the Iraqis a rising stake in our success. ...
Elect a truly representative government. ...
Promote information exchange to advance civil society. ..."
Now, I don't know if the plan is good or not, haven't thought about it, but that doesn't sound like hemming and hawing to me.
Anyways, I favor my idea of splitting Iraq up into 3 different nations: Kurdistan in the North, Sunnia in the middle and Shia-ran in the South. First person to propose that gets my vote.
Btw, what is Kucinich's viewpoint?
This is a "plan" ? General platitudes mixed with unrealistic suggestions (get Nato involved, more international support, more democracy) is not a plan - its an evasion or tepid reformulation of existing "plans".
Its ironic, but even Nixon had a plan for withdrawing from Vietnam. If you want to see the kind of directness I'd like see this link: http://www.nixonlibrary.org/Research...html#TopOfPage
He gives the reasons for U.S. intervention, the current situation, the choices available, and where he stands.
I imagine Kucinich is simple: get out!
By the way, I agree with the three nations concept. However, State would never go along with it (Turkey would freak).
Originally posted by MaxParrish
This is a "plan" ? General platitudes mixed with unrealistic suggestions (get Nato involved, more international support, more democracy) is not a plan - its an evasion or tepid reformulation of existing "plans".
Its ironic, but even Nixon had a plan for withdrawing from Vietnam. If you want to see the kind of directness I'd like see this link: http://www.nixonlibrary.org/Research...html#TopOfPage
He gives the reasons for U.S. intervention, the current situation, the choices available, and where he stands.
I imagine Kucinich is simple: get out!
By the way, I agree with the three nations concept. However, State would never go along with it (Turkey would freak).
The topic of Iraq is being discussed on Charlie Rose this evening
Charlie Rose
Fellows
here's some comments from Josh at Talkingpointsmemo.com
"We are literally begging for assistance and not getting it.
One of the surreal and ridiculous things about the Great Push-back -- the administration's big publicity counteroffensive that started last month -- is that you'd hear the administration principals and a bunch of talk radio show hosts droning on about how the real story wasn't getting through the biased media filter. And then you'd talk to security types who'd been there -- military, military-type contractors, etc. -- and they'd say, 'No, it's terrible. It's on the brink, etc.'
Now, not always that dire of course. The most convincing reports I heard were ones of uncertainty about how the insurgency could be contained and questions about what sort of 'bench strength' the insurgents had. But, broadly speaking, pretty much the polar opposite of what the politicals were saying. And I'm talking about people who are either apolitical or are themselves hawks.
Now we have still more of the backstory: at pretty much the same time the president was pummeling the press for hiding the good news out of Iraq, his own CIA was deciding that things were going from bad to worse. And as I've said in recent days Bremer himself seems to have delivered the same message two weeks ago, and in all probability much earlier.
In this whole unfortunate business, the White House took our preeminence and mistook it for omnipotence or something near to it. And by treating our preeminence as omnipotence theyÕve put our preeminence into question."
I haven't heard a clear plan out of the whitehouse... other than "we won't cut and run". And the Governing Coucil (which they handpicked) isn't moving fast enough.
And as far as the candidates... they're wise not to layout some specific multi-point plan that the administration and it's generals can just tear apart...
Dean has said that we have to get the UN involved in a meaningful way... whatever it takes... the effort has to be internationalized... and that we need forces from the region helping too. That an american face on the force makes it seem alot like an occupying force... and that's an easy target. Also the tropps that are there now are not equipped for security... they are a war fighting machine... not a patrolling and gaurding hard target force. They need to be rotated out and replaced.
The candidates don't have the state department, pentagon and intelligence agencies at their beck and call... all things you need to create a comprehensive plan.
The funny thing is that the Bush administration had all that... and it appears that unless those agencies echoed what they wanted to do... they ignored the advice.
I think the POPULAR thing for a candidate to say is... lets bring our boys home... and the only one saying that Kucinich. And Lieberman at the other end of the scale doesn't sound much different than Bush.
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Ir...iraq_press.pdf
http://pipa.org/
The Program on International Policy Attitudes
It's a non-partisan research group... they study what the American public's perception is on world issues.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Brilliant Plan... we should encourage civil wars whenever possible! Especially if it gets us off the hook for doing something stupid!
That's an interesting spin on what I said. You guys on the Left are getting to be professionals at this.
Let me put it to you again. What I'm saying is that we should encourage and support democratic forces around the world in any way possible. Whether through economic aid or through the sale of arms, or the active deposition of entrenched dictators. But I suppose you're an incurable pacifist. And therefore your silly remark about encouraging civil war. BTW, if democracy existed in that part of the world (Israel excluded) people wouldn't have to resort to taking arms against these thugs and criminals that forcibly hijacked much of Africa and the Middle East.
Thankfully, other people had the courage and beliefs to fight for freedom. So now you can sit comfy in your home and malign everything you take for granted, or shower us with your silly remarks.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Evade this question: "Where are the WMD?"
Obviously they're where we can't find them. What a silly question.
The U.N. can't agree to Bush's terms, but that doesn't mean they couldn't put 100% support behind a democratic president.
Originally posted by bunge
Max,
The U.N. can't agree to Bush's terms, but that doesn't mean they couldn't put 100% support behind a democratic president.
Bunge,
I don?t know what to say. The U.N. has never been effective in hot wars, and usually ducks out at the first whiff of gunpowder. Except for Korea (really an American war) the U.N. has never fielded an occupying army committed to sustained combat.
And the U.N. moral aurora may be impressive to western internationalists, but is almost meaningless to the interests of regional Muslim powers and engenders little respect from militants.
There are only two options: the United States can stay as 85% of a multinational force (most of the remaining being Brits, Australians, Italians, and Poles) and build a government and army; or we can leave.
If we stay, the best that we can hope for is lip service moral support and token funds from the U.N., France, and Germany. In the end, it will require two to four years of occupation, another 150 billion dollars, and 1500 more lives ? without the assurance of success. If we leave, there will be a Vietnam like defeat that will multiply the appeal of terrorists (as well as lead to the likely butchery of 10s of thousands, or more, in Iraq).
All my friends thought I was nuts when I thought we should immediately withdraw after ?victory? was declared in May (I was a war supporter) ? but I always felt that ?nation building? was too much like Vietnam. Its now that?s too late.
Of the two policies, I guess I?m for staying?
Originally posted by MaxParrish
...
All my friends thought I was nuts when I thought we should immediately withdraw after ?victory? was declared in May (I was a war supporter) ? but I always felt that ?nation building? was too much like Vietnam. Its now that?s too late.
Of the two policies, I guess I?m for staying?
Vietnam was nothing like nation building.
Originally posted by Scott
Vietnam was nothing like nation building.
As I recall, that was one of the favorite themes of the Johnson administration (maybe back to Kennedy). Part of the ideology of the era was liberal anti-communism (cold war liberalism) which fused military containment with a belief of "removing" the causes of communism through foriegn aide and western nation-building.
Vietnam was a "noble cause" - a venture in keeping people free of communism and encouraging land reform, democratization etc. There were a ton of programs established by State and others to "transform" Vietnam through liberal economic and political reforms.
That's the kind of "nation building" I am leery of. Given that we are still in Kosovo, we ought to be.
And they wouldn't be fighting for democracy... they would fight for control of the oil fields and pipelines.
Hey. Does the US have a longstanding history of nationbuilding? Are we so good at it that it was wise to cut the UN out of the process?