No Flames >> What now in Iraq?

[Skinner]

ADMIN NOTE: From time to time, the administrators will be starting "No Flames" discussion topics such as this. There will be no flaming or incivility of any kind in this thread. There will be no discussion of any kind about other DU members. There will be no rude comments about progressive public figures, and no smears against supporters of any particular point of view. Even excessive use of profanity, capitalization, or exclamation points could get your post deleted. In other words: The normal DU rules do not apply in this thread. If you want to inflame, you can do so in another thread.

---

I was an opponent of the War in Iraq, as were many people on this message board.

The purpose of this thread is not to discuss whether or not war was appropriate. There is broad agreement here that it was not. The purpose of this thread is to discuss how the U.S. and the world community should deal with Iraq now that the country has already been invaded, Saddam Hussein is out of power, and there is an occupying force on the ground in that country.

Given the current situation in that country I believe that it would be wrong for us to simply leave Iraq. This is not an endorsement of the war. But it is an acknowledgement that our government's policies have left us with no good options.

If we were to leave Iraq now, we would plunge that country into even greater chaos than exists right now. We would virtually guarantee that the next government of Iraq would be yet another dictatorial regime -- either secular or theocratic -- which would be a disaster for the Iraqi people.

Instead, I believe that we should do the following:

1. We should internationalize the occupation force to give the U.N. and other Arab nations a significant role. We should even consider placing the entire occupation under the control of the U.N.

2. This international force should remain in Iraq until a relatively stable, democratically elected government is in place in Iraq. This democratically elected government must be based on the rule of law, and it must guarantee basic human rights to the citizens of Iraq.

3. Once Iraq has a stable, democratic government, the international force should leave.

What do you think? What now in Iraq?

[sangha]

1. I agree 99%

The only change I'd make is with #1, and the change is that I wouldn't just consider putting the entire occcupation under the UN's control; I'd demand it.

[kclown]

2. the rest of the u.n.

might have some conditions to meet, such as "you broke
it, you bought it.

[Pathwalker]

4. I think we should restore all their services too.

Water, electricity, sewage, communications, etc. We destroyed them - don't we owe it to them to restore them?
I also agree with your assessment.

[ulysses]

13. Note the date and time.

I'm agreeing with sangha, no reservations.

8/13/03, 4:11 pm here.

:)

[WilliamPitt]

21. Noted

:)

[sangha]

42. Now, if I could only

get laid tonight, I'd be CERTAIN that there really is a God!!

:-)

[ulysses]

50. don't break out the bubbly yet

Took just a minute or two for the Lieberman thread to pop up. :D

[JNelson6563]

3. agreed, we cannot just withdraw

and leave the country in a shambles. We need the UN in there, and NATO if it would help. I want our troops out of there and I realize that the main reason we aren't getting the necessary international aide is due to Team Bush's reluctance to forego any of the booty that they have plotted so long to acquire. Greedy bastards. (I hope that is not too flame-y, I see it as factual)

Julie

[Skittles]

5. 4) WE SHOULD APOLOGIZE TO FRANCE AND GERMANY

they (and WE) were RIGHT.

[CatWoman]

16. Skittles, doll

you think that will ever happen?

I agree with you, but the sheer arrogance of this cabal prevents them from ever doing that. But it would be an appropriate first step in getting other countries to lend us a sorely-needed hand.

[trogdor]

49. The topic wasn't what is possible...

...it is what should happen. We definitely should extend a sincere apology to France and Germany, and to the United Nations for Mr. Bush's remarks about that body's relevance.

If I were running for President, I would promise to do so by the close of business, January 20, 2005. I get NO champagne until this is done.

[CatWoman]

59. oh, get technical, will ya???

:D

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WilliamPitt]

6. Agreed across the board

These dumbasses (am I allowed to flame the Bushies? :) ) have got us caught in a bear trap. If we were just to haul stakes and leave now, it would be Afghanistan 1989 all over again, and see where that got us.

Problem is, these goobers have so thoroughly saturated their base with UN-hate (freedom fries, anyone?) that they will be loathe to call in the international community. The base will freak. There is also the distinct possibility that said international community, after having gotten the back of George's hand, might decide to sit back and let us take our lumps.

We need to internationalize this and pull out. Any other crew - hell, even Bush Sr. - would see that as a res ipsa loquitor scenario. These guys...I dunno. I'm not holding my breath.

[alonso_quijano]

7. All of those, plus...

4. The reconstruction of Iraq should be paid for by the people who broke it--the US--not by selling off the oil of the people who live there. A new Marshall Plan, not a fire-sale of Iraqi resources to HB&R just to give Iraq fast capital.

For that matter, disqualify any corporation affiliated with the Bush administration from bidding on reconstruction contracts.

[_NorCal_D_]

24. I definitely agree with that.

The U.N. should be the primary keepers of the peace, while the US pays the bill. It's the most honorable thing to do.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

8. I mostly agree with you

The legalities of even waging this war are in question which then shadows the legitimacy of even the remedies to resolve Iraq.

1. First and foremost trained peacekeeping forces combined with Red Cross assistance. The cost of this should be borne by the US and Britian. We created the mess, we need to pay for it.

2. Contracts signed behind closed door security meetings should be cancelled in favor of genuine free market bidding and voted upon by the Iraqi people. American corporations should not profit from infrastructure they deliberately targetted that was working at the time.

3. Once your number three is accomplished, the Iraqi military needs to be rebuilt given the other instability in the region. Iraq is far too strategically important a country to be left defenseless in that region.

[Skinner]

31. A number of people have made this point about the Iraqi military.

I agree. Iraq must be able to defend itself.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

62. I do believe that the UN should also have the final say on the legalities

of this war and if the US and Britain are found to be in violation, then appropriate measures should be taken including international criminal trials ala Nuremberg. THis is the only way to restore the RULE OF LAW internationally and to discourage further aggression.

The US/GB has created a slippery slope otherwise and the rule of law internationally is a mockery thereby insuring more terrorism not less.

How does this go to Iraq one might ask...simple..the issue of trust for international peacekeeping forces is dependent on the legitimacy of the UN as an arbiter of international justice.

[Twillig]

34. For #3

After we go to the UN on bended knee (deservedly) and get a real coalition of peacekeepers in (and us out) we declare unilaterally that any attack or invasion, or attempted invasion, of Iraq will be met with the full fury of our armed forces and repelled to the sorrow of all.





edit parentheses madness

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. The UN should be put entirely in charge.

Of all aspects of the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq. The USA should act only in a supporting role and be held responsible for damgage caused to the Iraqi people. Both financially and legally.

[Swede]

17. What country in the UN would send their sons and daughters

into this meatgrinder that Bush and his ilk started? The UN warned them not to and now the grunts on the ground are paying the price. Is their one soldier there that has a Senator or Ceo for a dad- hah.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

77. Good points, but

what other "solution" (I use the word very advisedly) is there? To leave it the hands of BushCorp's CEO's? Or turn it over to NATO surrogates? Or, allow Bush to declare victory and walk away from it?

I'm open to suggestions.

[blm]

40. Now, I'm ready to sign on...

(nod to nsma)
(nod to bandera)

[CatWoman]

10. Wha?????

a flame-free thread????????

You're no fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, agony!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hamlette]

11. Iraq needs an army too

before the international force leaves. It has to be able to defend itself. That part of the world is more instable than anywhere else. My theory on weapons of mass destruction is that Saddam didn't have them as much as he needed the rest of the world to think he did so they didn't invade and take his oil. Which of course, we did. But...if we pull out, what stops anyone else from going in? Ugh. A mess. We may need a peace keeping force forever which is a horrid thought.

Anyway, I'm advocating the UN go in and take over ASAP. It's a platform postion the Dems must advance. We can't just walk away, it would leave Iraq open for another dictator AND the families of servicemen and women...sheesh, I'm making the same argument I hated 30 years ago when it was used against us when we protested Vietnam. But there is some truth to it. The Dems need to offer a solution to get us out of this mess.

We should also be shoveling in money for humanitarian aid. If they can't eat there will be no peace.

[Divernan]

12. Agree with your points, but who will bear the economic burden?

It's not just a question of political stabilization, but repairing the massive damage of the war to the whole infrastructure of the country. There are also the massive costs of providing medical treatment and the equivalent of SSI to all the Iraqis wounded. Why should the United Nations, or other individual countries, even other regional Arab countries assume these costs when all or most of them opposed the war? Factor in the endless contamination of depleted uranium with its associated birth defects and cancers on both the Iraqi population and any peacekeepers who go into the country. I don't see any civilized country sending its soldiers or civil servants into Iraq because of the depleted uranium.

[rucky]

14. Who picks up the tab? (n/t)

[JackSwift]

15. We should leave

Declare victory, pack up, retreat in an orderly fashion and get out, and on the way suggest the UN get in. It won't happen because Halliburton and Carlylse need the troops to support their petroleum operations.

I was against the war without UN support. I suppose I would have done with Arab League, but UN was necessary to avoid rampant illegality.

This war has destroyed international law on the point of a first strike war is not allowed unless the danger is imminent. Iraq was never a danger to us, and it wasn't even a danger to its neighbors. Everyone was in a position to know this at the time. While I actually believe that Hussein must have small samples of prohibited weapons, even this does not seem to be true.

[CatWoman]

18. I think we should leave

but not before handing EVERYTHING over to the UN.

Oilwells first.

[Swede]

23. What country in the UN would send their sons and daughters

into this meatgrinder? The UN warned Bush but he had to do this alone. How many of the grunts on the ground have dad who is a Senator or a Ceo?

[CatWoman]

26. Good point, Swede

But we must look to our allies (if we still have any) to help us and the Iraqi's. Besides, I don't think a UN force will be looked at as hostily as we are.

We are, after all, invaders.

[rucky]

29. If we quit being control freaks about it...

...then much of the resistance will end. Maybe the Iraqis are saving the cheers and open arms Rummy was expecting for UN Peacekeepers.

[MGKrebs]

19. I agree with all of that, and

it's not likely to happen with the BFEE in 'da house. So, the Prez candidates hopefully will start talking specifically about how they would go about this.

I hope my candidate says something like this:

1. Invite the UN. Hopefully, whatever conditions they want to insist on can be met.
2. Support the Red Crescent humanitarian efforts.
3. End the ridiculous sanctions.
4. Stop killing people that are in places we think Saddam is or was.
5. Build an Iraqi security force and get the hell out.

[HFishbine]

46. One Prez Candidate is Talking

Dean:

- A NATO-led coalition should maintain order and guarantee disarmament.

- Civilian authority in Iraq should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N. Security Council.

- The U.N.'s Oil for Food program should be transformed into an Oil for Recovery program, to pay part of the costs of reconstruction and transition.

- The U.S. should convene an international donor's conference to help finance the financial burden of paying for Iraq's recovery.

- Women should participate in every aspect of the decision-making process.

- A means should be established to prosecute crimes committed against the Iraqi people by individuals associated with Saddam Hussein's regime.

- A democratic transition will take between 18 to 24 months, although troops should expect to be in Iraq for a longer period.

"We must hold the Administration to its promises before the war, and create a world after the war that is safer, more democratic, and more united in winning the larger struggle against terrorism and the forces that breed it," Governor Dean said.

"That is, after all, now much more than a national security objective," he added. "It is a declaration of national purpose, written in the blood of our troops, and of the innocent on all sides who have perished."

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5364&news_iv_ctrl=1441

[Clete]

20. You speak for me and many.

Now, how do get President Bush and Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld to listen to the will of the people to do this? If our present administration were working from a logical point of view, the invasion of Iraq would have never happened. Your very sensible solutions won't happen unless we win the next election.

[Aries]

22. All of that, plus

for 2)--The elected government must have control over what happens to the resources of the country, or else democracy means nothing. Come to think of it, that's what Shrub means by "democracy"--it's about everything but economics.

and I'd add a number 4) A "Marshall Plan" for Iraq, arranging some kind of (real, non-tax cut) economic stimulus package that would MAYBE prevent the next couple of generations in Iraq from hating the U.S.

On edit: Wow, alonso_quijano, we must have been tuned to the same psychic channel--same subject title, same idea...Welcome to DU!:hi:

[Hamlette]

35. economic stimulus package?

tax cuts. It's the only thing Bush knows how to do to stimulate the economy. We should suggest he try them in Iraq. "Hey, take you tax cuts to Iraq. They REALLY need an economic stimulus package."
:)

[denverbill]

25. One problem with that Skinner.

Unless we also build up Iraq's military to near it's previous level, how can Iraq defend the world's 2nd largest oil reserves? With Saddam in charge and a large modern army, Iran was able to hold it's own against him for 8 years. Now, Iraq's army is gone, totally. If we leave, Iran could walk in tomorrow, as could Syria, or damned near any other country in the region.

I said right at the start of the war, to much flaming, that now that the war had started, I had no choice but to hope it succeeds. We've been handed a fait accompli. We can't undo the war. We can't hope the US loses and Saddam triumphs. We can't root for death for Americans or Iraqis. All we could do was hope the war went quickly and that we really were welcomed as liberators.

Now, we are stuck. We pretty much have to do as you said.
1) rebuild the infrastructure.
2) get an all Iraqi elected govt in place, with at least a minimal security apparatus.
3) get the hell out.

My take was that IMMEDIATELY after the war, the US should turn over administration of Iraq to a UN committee. Bush wouldn't do that and never will.

[Zero Gravitas]

27. UN Mandate/ US $

A UN mandate with international peace keeping forces paid for by the US (if there was any justice the money would come from liquidating Haliburton & The Carlyle Group's assests and not from the tax payer) sounds great.

But what comes after? A democraticaly elected Shia-dominated Islamic Republic?

[Skinner]

41. democraticaly elected Shia-dominated Islamic Republic?

This is a very good question. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I'll give it a shot.

The new government of Iraq must have iron-clad protections for the basic human rights of all Iraqis -- especially those who are in minority groups. And regular elections must be guaranteed -- no government can get voted into power and then call off elections.

If the people of Iraq vote for a Shia-dominated Islamic Republic, I think that is their right. Provided that this Shia-dominated Islamic Republic respects the rights of all Iraqis, and must stand for election on a regular basis. My guess is that a conservative Islamic government might have a lot of appeal at first, but after a while people will grow tired of certain extremes and vote it out.

[Zero Gravitas]

55. One Person, One Vote, One Time

The problem with first time democracies (e.g. the Balkans) is that sometimes they have an election and those elected don't ever have a free and fair election again. Iraq is Shia dominated, the religous conservatives are very powerful there. If an Islamisist government is elected what's to stop them from declaring Islamic law, putting Burkhas on all the women, cancelling elections as Western degeneracy and then asking Iran from protection?

There is nothing short of re-invasion and re-occupation that can guarantee universal human rights and regular elections. Heck the USA can't even guarantee that for itself.

[Skinner]

60. Sadly, that is all too true.

I think that the international force may have to stay in Iraq through multiple elections, unfortunately. But it may be the only way to guarantee that subsequent elections actually take place.

[DagmarK]

28. I agree -- but with one other condition

ALL US influence in Iraq of any kind should be banned.

US Corps (incl those incorporated in the Caymans) should not benefit by one dollar.

No US army or intelligence personnel to be there

And the USA should fund the reconstruction.

**the point being that as long as the USA has any influence whatsoever in the Iraq situation, no peace can be attained. The entire reconstruction should be based on a full acknowledgement that the USA totally screwd up and should therefore not profit financially or politically in any way.

[Unknown Known]

36. None of this will happen with the *cabal still in power

and with that I also include Texas oil money - they will keep out any competitors. The inverse is true as well - the U.N. will never go into Iraq with this bunch around.

So, short of a paradigm shift - I see no change.

[BurtWorm]

47. I totally agree with you.

The Bushists are in the driver's seat in Iraq. They may be driving blindfolded, but the rest of us are going where they're going--unless a popular movement sparks quickly to force them to change their direction.

[bpilgrim]

63. i hear ya, but i think our leadership be POUNDING on this daily...

and maybe we need an email/phone/fax/letter campaign to 'slap the donkey' into action on the U.N. issue.

peace

[bpilgrim]

30. one slight but important disagreement with No. 1

"1. We should internationalize the occupation force to give the U.N. and other Arab nations a significant role. We should even consider placing the entire occupation under the control of the U.N."

to ever hope to internationalize the OCCUPATION FORCE we MUST turn it over to the UN, i doubt they or many nations will sign up for a U.S. led occupying rols.

secondly the MAIN GOAL should now be setting up a DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT which in my mind MANDATES U.N. leadership and this admin states as it's ultimite goal, well we should use that as leverage to get them to comply.

If the U.N. doesn't take over soon all hope will be lost for a long time imo.

we should apply preassure to our reps to push for the U.N. to TAKE OVER asap.

the leadership doesn't appear ready to fight for U.N. leadership here though :shrug:

my 2 cents.

:hi:

peace

[dani]

32. I agree with you.

And I'd like to see progressives / liberals demand that Bush & Co follow through with their claims of bringing democracy to Iraq by taking the steps you mention. I think we need to put more pressure on them about this and offer more vocal criticism of their failures in Afghanistan and Iraq in regards to democratization, development, and creating a more open society. The Repubs just don't have realistic plans for creating stability in this part of the world, and this is something they need to be called on because it's vital if the war on terrorism is going to be won, not to mention the moral imperative of supporting democracy and sovereignty.

There's something Paul Breman said in an interview about the prospects of Bush & Co building Iraq into a genuine democracy:

"On this topic I have very little faith in George Bush, and I think that success is going to require pressure from the left. But the left has spent most of its energy in opposing the war instead of doing what I think it should have done and should do now, which is press its own notion of war aims: to help these countries in their period of reconstruction to create a successful liberal democracy."

Publishers Weekly website

[THUNDER HANDS]

33. First thing we need to do

Is get those fucking civilian contractors out of there, they're obviously not doing their job. Once electricity, water and other essentials are in place, the next phases will be a lot easier.

Second thing we need to do is hold nation-wide elections for a new governorning body.

Third thing we need to do is bring in U.N. peacekeepers, about 50,000 or so, and put them in charge of the areas that are most civil.

Fourth thing we need to do is start begging and pleading the French, Germans and Russians to send in some of their troops.

Fifth thing we need to do is get some arab countries to send in troops of their own.

Sixth thing we need to do is FIND SADDAM HEUSSEIN.

Seventh thing we need to do is get a video of George Bush flying back to Crawford Texas after his election defeat and play that non-stop for a week on Iraqi tv and make sure they understand that BOTH the brutal dictatorships of Saddam Heussein and George W. Bush are over with.

that's all I can think of now.

[ozymandius]

37. Temporary international governance is a must. As well one caveat.

The U.S. cannot stay as the dominant military (and thus governing) power in Iraq. Even though we possess almost all the logistical solutions for troop transport and humanitarian aid distribution we must remove an American face from the occupation in order to give the Iraqi citizens some evidence that their destiny will manifest through their self-determination.

We must remain engaged in Iraq for one basic reason. Consider the situation involving the Kosovo war in which NATO provided troops and offered services, yet lacked the mechanical means of applying them. The same applies here. Because the U.S. spends such a large sum of money on defense, we are paramount in the capacity to transport people and goods.

There is one caveat that must be addressed with regards to U.N. administration: a partition must be created between U.S. and U.N. cooperation. Why? Because there is a general perception that the U.N. is enthralled to the United States. One only has to look at the record of Security Council initiatives to see the U.S.' fingerprints all over them. And, by proxy, Israel.

Whether the Security Council votes for punitive resolutions against a member nation; or the Unites States vetoes a resolution in defense of an ally (Israel) the Unites States must relinquish its elemental control over resource and administrative management. I argue that such a move will soften the tensions between Arab states and Israel. Perhaps diffusing potential flashpoint arguments that Israel used the United States to do its dirty work against an enemy.

In essence, we, as a nation, must disenthrall ourselves of the idea that we are in control.

[BurtWorm]

38. Ouch! What should be done in Iraq now? So much Bushist damage to be undone

In a perfect world, the Bushists would be severed from the power structure to make the necessary changes happen more quickly, before any more damage is done. The Bushists will not and cannot be made to do the right thing. They're grimy mitts are on every lever that would have to be pulled to make the transition to long-lasting peace in Iraq real. You'd need Negroponte out of the UN and someone more like Bill Richardson in. You'd need Rusmfeld out of the Pentagon and someone more like Wesley Clark in it. You'd need to send the PNACkers packing to their villas in Southern France and stock the Pentagon and State with multilateralists and internationalists. Then you wouldn't have to wait until the Bushists had a propaganda initiative in place to make it sound like what you're suggessting is what they had in mind all along.

[Junkdrawer]

39. The problem with an Iraqi democracy is that we've radicalized..

the region in general and the Shiites (the majority of Iraq and Iran) in particular. If you smash a nest of hornets with a baseball bat, there will be hell to pay. If we leave OR if we call in the UN, an Iraqi theocracy is still more likely than not.

Iraq is quite the mess. If a Democrat inherits the mess, he/she will be blamed for the outcome, much as Carter was blamed for Iran.

What scares me is that it is beginning to look like this administration's answer to the debacle is to confront Iran. I don't think China and Russia will be as passive as they were in Iraq if we go that route.

[Warren Stuart]

43. This was tried once before

Specifically Germany after WWI, we blundered into a war after a massive propaganda campaign against the Germans, (yes we taught the Nazi's everything they needed to know about propaganda). There were economic interests at stake (we profited greatly off the war)

When it was over Wison tried to implement some structure but the Republicans (typical) blocked this effort. The Germans had no experience with the democratic process and the Weimer Republic slowly dissolved crushed by the weight of war debt and reparations.

This was in a homogenous society, now throw in some bitter tribal enemies and you've got one massive f**kup. We've opened a box that was best left alone. No matter what we do it will be the wrong thing.

I predict war and misery for the Iraqi people.

[TrogL]

44. The greater good

...for the Iraqi people would be for the United States to declare "victory" and leave, letting the United Nations clean up its mess, just like it's doing in Afghanistan. This, however, would give Dubya brownie points and nothing would prevent him from going back. It would also leave Halliburton in charge of the oil wells.

In the long run, however, the best thing would be to let matters get worse to the point where a home-grown solution becomes inevitable. The West is never going to fix the middle east. The West will merely cause Islamic Fundamentalism to take over the region, until saner heads can prevail.

If the West would stop pouring gasoline on the fire (pun intended) previous diplomatic efforts (mostly by Egypt) would have a chance at making some headway.

[Skinner]

48. So you support unconditional, unilateral, and immediate withdrawal

even if nothing is left to fill the power vacuum that will inevitably be left behind?

[bpilgrim]

54. with a U.N takeover - but will our leadership push for that?

it is the best option to restore confidence in iraq, the region and the world.

pushing for a U.N. take over is what we all should be focused on.

peace

[proud patriot]

45. What Now ? That's such a tough question to answer

I believe the U.S. needs to go to the U.N. and ask
for a new peace keeping resolution where th U.N.
has authority .

America needs to do what it takes to accomplish this .
Our Troops and future Generations depend on it .

I believe that our troops and really the entire world
deserve an apology from the entire body of the U.S. government .

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

51. Get US troops out, UN peacekeepers in

Not a perfect solution, but probably the best one under the current circumstances.

[bpilgrim]

56. DITTO - our leadership should be fighting tooth and nail for this

i am sure it would have POPULAR SUPPROT and is most realistic for restoring Iraq and our rep as fast as possible.

the question is would a majority in our leadership be willing to fight for this?

peace

[ozymandius]

64. No

would a majority in our leadership be willing to fight for this?

This would be an admission of (yet another) failure in the life of Bush. I believe that as CiC, he would rather thousands die to prop up his facade of conquest than diverge from the perverted plan.

And besides this - no WMD have been found. Admitting that kind of mistake is anathema to Bush.

EDIT: I see now that you meant Dem leadership. They should fight for it. I maintain that Bush never would entertain the thought.

[bpilgrim]

66. yeah, they probably wouldn't be successful forcing the neo-cons to deviate

from their plan of world domination starting with the middle east but it would at least force a debate and help educate folks on the madness of the neo-cons policies.

peace

[Mairead]

52. Sounds like you should vote for Kucinich, is what I think

Because that's precisely what he's proposing we do.

[The Zanti Regent]

53. Skinner, I'm afraid it's just gonna get worse

Bush will NOT go to the UN and the Neocons are still living in their "lasseiz-fairyland".

It is just gonna get worse and make Vietnam look like a party...

[Skinner]

57. I have no illusions about what Bush will do.

I agree, Bush would never go to the UN. And I think a democratic government in Iraq is highly unlikely as well.

I hope that it does not turn into another vietnam. Let us hope that at least that outcome can be avoided.

[bpilgrim]

61. do you think our leadership will apply pressure to go to the UN?

I see a bipartisian opprotunity here to apply preassure on this point.

what do you think?

peace

[Skinner]

65. Sadly, I think it's highly unlikely before the 2004 election.

Until there is a Democratic nominee, there will be no unified foreign policy coming from the Democratic side. The nominee will have a great deal of impact on the Democratic approach to Iraq. Most likely the Dem nominee with fudge the issue for political expediency.

And the Republicans -- there's not a chance in hell that any of them would embrace this approach.

But I think there is a good chance that U.N. involvement of some kind would occur under a Democratic administration. Democrats are the the much more internationally engaged party. Republicans are generally the go-it-alone party.

[ulysses]

70. Skinner, a question

The nominee will have a great deal of impact on the Democratic approach to Iraq. Most likely the Dem nominee with fudge the issue for political expediency.

And the Republicans -- there's not a chance in hell that any of them would embrace this approach.

Agreed on the Repukes, but do you think that the Dems can win *without* fudging foreign policy?

[Skinner]

73. Yes, I think we can win without fudging foreign policy.

In fact, if we want to beat Bush, we must be clear about how he has screwed up, and we must offer an alternative vision.

But I think it is almost certain that the nominee will fudge the question of the U.N. role in Iraq. This topic is too emotionally charged. I haven't read all the positions of the candidates, but my guess is that they all say something to the effect of "The U.S. must remain in charge of U.S. troops, but the U.N. has an important role to play."

[ulysses]

76. ok, but...

In fact, if we want to beat Bush, we must be clear about how he has screwed up, and we must offer an alternative vision.

Does that alter your view on who should win the primary?

Ok...I know you can't answer that, and I understand why. A better question: if we can't challenge emotional topics in US foreign policy now, when will we be able to in your mind?

[Skinner]

78. We can challenge emotional topics now.

And we should.

But I think it is unlikely that on this particular issue (the U.N.), the challenge will come from the Democratic nominee, or from any high-profile members of the party.

That is not necessarily my opinion of how things ought to be. But it is my opinion of how things are.

[ulysses]

79. I agree.

But I think it is unlikely that on this particular issue (the U.N.), the challenge will come from the Democratic nominee, or from any high-profile members of the party.

That is not necessarily my opinion of how things ought to be. But it is my opinion of how things are.

Fair enough, but from where will that challenge come if not from the Dem?

[Skinner]

81. For now -- people.

Not the media. Not the party. Only people.

But I do believe that if we elect a Democrat president in 2004, we will see an effort made to involve the U.N. in Iraq.

[bpilgrim]

71. by then it will be way too late...

shouldn't we be trying to but that on the agenda though?
so when there is a nominee we can have that as priority?

to be honest, i am skeptical that the current leadership would even fight for that as i think most see our control and domination of iraq as being good for our 'national security' think oil.

but anyways, folks are giving their opinions now on teeVee from our side, why do you think they aren't pushing for a U.N. take over as individuals?

:shrug:

peace

[Skinner]

74. I think we should try to make this a priority.

But you asked for my opinion of whether it would happen, and I think it probably won't.

[bpilgrim]

80. do you think it will become one after the primaries?

what could we do to help it along :shrug:

peace

[Skinner]

82. It all depends on who the nominee is.

You can help it along by working to nominate someone who is likely to make it an issue.

[bpilgrim]

83. for example

who do you think will push for it?

i am pushing for kucinich.

peace

[Skinner]

87. I am not pushing for any candidate.

I'll leave the determination of which candidate is best on this issue up to you.

[bpilgrim]

90. which canidates would push the U.N. issue, was the question...

not who are you pushing.

i put kucinch out there as one and just came clean with who i am supporting but i am wondering who you think will push this issue.

thanks in advance :hi:

peace

[Skinner]

92. I'll say it again

I'll leave the determination of which candidate is best on this issue up to you.

[bpilgrim]

94. Huh, you won't say?

why :shrug:

peace

[Skinner]

95. Because this thread isn't about the relative merits of the candidates.

And I'm not sure I want to go there, at least not in this thread.

[ozymandius]

85. We just need to get over this idea of "winning".

This may be jumping the gun a bit - but the idea that we relinquish control to the UN just after the "mission accomplished" photo-op is incongruous with the thrill of victory. I just don't think everyone is ready for that cold reality. The victory narcotic is still flowing in people's veins.

Rhetorical question: what have we "won" at this point?

[VolcanoJen]

58. We should listen to Wesley Clark.

I'm by NO MEANS endorsing Clark here, but he's right when he reiterates the importance of internationalizing this effort in Iraq.

It's a long, tough road ahead, but we can't move forward and argue about the March Toward War (as Chimpy likes to call it, while he's blaming the media for the current economic status) ex-post-facto.

We'll learn much about the Bush foreign policy team as we move forward. Will they be able to bring NATO into the fold?

Great topic, Skinner,
Jennifer

[MGKrebs]

68. I think we have to trust the UN

to come up with a "what happens then" plan. Heck, we're still in Serbia (NATO) and it's been what, 10 years? These things take time, must go step by step. This BS that the BFEE keeps throwing out there hinting that we might be out of there next year will not work.

It won't be pretty, but I think this is exactly the kind of thing that the UN is supposed to be good at.

[neuvocat]

69. I agree mostly.

This is essentially a mess that the U.S. got itself into and one of the arguments about going there in the first place. I also agree that the U.N. should get involved.

Where I will respectfully disagree is with a "democratic" government being set up. There is a lot of resentment against such a form of government on grounds that it has christian roots-absolutely untrue of course but Rumsfeld ran into problems with this notion himself. There is also the issue with Bush being in the white house so the credibility of using ourselves as an example is pretty shot at the moment.

I don't know if there wouldn't be other forms of governments that should be put in place-Singapore for example isn't democratic but does very well, given its standard of living. In fact as I recall Iraq did have a rather affluent middle class before the U.S. put Hussein in power over there (although I don't know if there was a democracy in place). Other examples should be considered in the best interests of the Iraqi people.

[Octafish]

72. One add: Increase humanitarian aid.

The Iraqis have endured incredible suffering for decades. Saddam Hussein started the Iran-Iraq war, brutally repressed his political opponents, and squandered his nation's oil revenues on western weapons provided by the BFEE. After the Gulf War, the US and the UN imposed draconian economic sanctions that penured the country. Tens of thousands of children die each year from a lack of medicine, infant formula, and basic nutrition (remember Madeline Albright rationalizing that?).

What the US should do to fix the situation ASAFP is send over as much humanitarian aid as possible. Food, medicine, clothing, for starters. The US should do all it can to repair the nation's infrastructure — from the waterworks to the electric company to the phone company — in order to restore some quality to the lives of the Iraqis. Then will the people of Iraq look at the US as liberators.

[TheBigGuy]

75. Internationalization probably makes sense...however....

Id be suprsied to see the UN and the international community step up to the plate here as they will become targets themselves.

The past experience w. UN peacekeeping in Bosnia really makes me wonder if an international peacekeeping force would work.

[screembloodymurder]

84. When you say "democratic",

would you accept any democratically elected form of government?

Sorry didn't read far enough down the thread. This question has been addressed.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberalpragmatist]

86. Here's What We Need to Do

We MUST get UN sanctioning and involve other powers in the process. Many nations would be far more willing to send troops as peacekeepers if the occupation is sanctioned by the UN. I'm not sure that the UN should take ultimate command -- I'm not sure they'd even want to. But if we can get the UN to sanction our presence there at this point, we can get many, many others involved.

I would also get the U.S. to introduce a large-scale police force of international peacekeepers trained as police to help keep order, especially in the Sunni Arab areas, Baghdad, and Basra. I would dramatically increase the number of foreign troops there -- whether they be American, British, or, preferably, other, non-Western countries. If Turkey would be willing to send troops (though not to the Kurdish areas) this would be excellent.

Establishing order is critical. In addition to a large police force and peace keepers I would establish a functioning court system and have the Iraqis write up a basic law code, at least a temporary one. A functioning court system that is then integrated with the rest of the government over time is the best way to keep order and allow a functioning democracy to take hold.

I would also appoint commissions to study ways of rebuilding Iraq. This should be a large-scale effort that directly involves Iraqis, along with architects, urban planners, and economists. The plans should focus on getting the Iraqi economy on track and rebuilding. I truly believe there should be a well-publicized major study to present architectural visions of a New Baghdad, and new visions of many other Iraqi cities, perhaps based on Frank Lloyd Wright's excellent concepts from the 1950s. This may seem trivial, but it's not. An exciting vision of a dynamic, architecturally and artistically vibrant Iraq would have a major effect on the Iraqi people. If coupled with more concrete, practical plans on the economy and democracy, the Iraqi people could be rallied to the cause of rebuilding the country.

I would also give the Iraqi governing council decide whether they want their oil industry privatized or kept nationalized. A trust fund should be established so that oil revenues go to benefit the Iraqi people and are used as a base on which to build the economy -- they won't be able to use oil revenues to spend their way to first-world status, like many other countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait did years ago, butthey could use it to increase the quality of life for their citizens, and use it to repair infrastructure and build the base necessary for a diversified economy.

To help establish security, I would train a large force of Iraqis to assist U.S. troops, and I would establish a strict code of ethical conduct for U.S. soldiers -- there would be no tolerance for violations.

Political reform is probably one of the most significant areas. I would reorganize the provinces slightly, especially in the North, to roughly match the current zones of Kurdish control. I would do this with academics and Iraqis. However, I WOULD NOT create one mass Kurdish province, or one mass Sunni or Shia province, for this could provoke separatism -- I might make multiple provinces that collectively form the boundaries of the Kurdish or Sunni or Shia regions, but I'd make sure the boundaries were drawn to help administration and keep separatist tendencies in check.

I would appoint administrative supervisors in each of the provinces, and begin working on a provincial level. Some provinces will be in good shape relatively soon and could start electing local, municipal councils and provinicial assemblies. This would help start debate, and give a good basis for democracy. By the time the U.S. and the U.N. leave then, the provinces will have had more than a few years of experience with elections and democracy and that will be a check on authoritarian tendencies in the center.

I would work with Iraqi political parties, including the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution. It is affiliated with Iran and favors Islamic democracy, but, at least outwardly, does not favor Iranian-style theocracy -- rather, a largely Western style democracy, but one that respects local traditions and Islam -- for instance, it could call for Fridays being the day off and provide funding for religious schools (if regulated) and subsidize trips the hajj. There's no reason why the basic law code can't be written based on Islamic, Arab, and local Mesopotamian tradition and law -- after all, our legal system comes from British law and Christian traditions. Of course, such a law code SHOULD respect human rights and be progressive, open and interpretive of current eras, but there's no reason to impose US-style law in Iraq.

Lastly, I would have major discussions for a constitution. I wouldn't keep the U.S. totally out of the process -- we have a major stake in this - I opposed this war in the first place, but now that we're there we have the obligation to make this country work. I'd involve the U.S. and the U.N. but leave most of the principal work to Iraqis, Arabs, other distinguished figures and many, many academics from around the world.

The ideal Iraqi constitution would take into account local traditions to allow people to live their life according to their own lifestyles and religions -- Arabs are used to authoritarian secular regimes that restrict religion -- separating mosque and state but respecting religion at the same time and allowing people the full freedom to practice as they wish is the ideal solution, and one which is favored in Iran and by most senior Iraqi clerics. It would embrace large-scale autonomy for the provinces, and have a parliamentary system -- presidential systems can prove susceptible to authoritarianism. A form of proportional representation has been advised, though it should be done in a way that restricts extremism -- political scientists feel that that is the only way the diversity in Iraq can truly be represented. I personally am not really sure how this could be done, but I'm sure proper dialogue between Iraqis and among academics and political scientists could make a system that represents Iraqi diversity and restricts extremists.

Finally, when the U.S. leaves, I would appoint a UN administrator and keep the peacekeepers there (including many US troops). The UN adminstrator should oversee the formation of the first Iraqi parliament and government, and appoint the prime minister -- essentially serving in the same role as the Iraqi president would serve. After one successful government, I'd have the UN administrator relinquish his constitutional duties, have an Iraqi figurehead president selected, and keep the UN there to moniter the country's government and act as a check on authoritarianism.

[Skinner]

89. FYI: I'm probably going to lock this thread around 6:00 ET.

I'm leaving the office then, and I won't be able to keep tabs on it.

The discussion has been very civil. I guess this isn't a very controversial topic.

[bpilgrim]

93. one last question before you go...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=172078&mesg_id=172662&page=

i appreciate your time and responces :toast:

peace

[sujan]

91. I believe

the US should immediately withdraw.

There is no solution to the problem especially if the US keeps on getting involved.

[Junkdrawer]

96. The fly in the ointment: "Iran Says It Won't Give Up Nuke Program"

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran vowed Wednesday not to surrender its nuclear power generating program, as U.N. experts met with Iranian officials in an effort to arrange unrestricted inspections of its nuclear facilities.


"The Islamic Republic of Iran will not give up nuclear technology as a basis for legitimate power, " state television quoted President Mohammad Khatami (news - web sites) as telling Iran's most senior officials.

Khatami said Iran had no desire for nuclear weapons, as the United States maintains, "because we cannot use such weapons based on our Islamic and moral teachings."

His comments at a meeting with Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the country's top military and political officials came as a three-member team from the International Atomic Energy Agency met with government officials to try to arrange unfettered inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities.

more...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=716&e=6&u=/ap/20030806/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

And...

Iran Rapidly Pursuing Nuclear Capability-

Three-month investigation by The Times suggests that Tehran’s commercial program masks steady progress on weapons capability.

By Douglas Frantz, Times Staff Writer

VIENNA — After more than a decade of working behind layers of front companies and in hidden laboratories, Iran appears to be in the late stages of developing the capacity to build a nuclear bomb.

Iran insists that like many countries it is only building commercial nuclear reactors to generate electricity for homes and factories. "Iran's efforts in the field of nuclear technology are focused on civilian application and nothing else," President Mohammad Khatami said on state television in February. "This is the legitimate right of the Iranian people."

But a three-month investigation by The Times — drawing on previously secret reports, international officials, independent experts, Iranian exiles and intelligence sources in Europe and the Middle East — uncovered strong evidence that Iran's commercial program masks a plan to become the world's next nuclear power. The country has been engaged in a pattern of clandestine activity that has concealed weapons work from international inspectors. Technology and scientists from Russia, China, North Korea and Pakistan have propelled Iran's nuclear program much closer to producing a bomb than Iraq ever was.

snip---

A nuclear-armed Iran would present the United States with a difficult political and military equation. Iran would be the first avowed enemy of Israel to possess a nuclear bomb and the first nuclear-armed country labeled by the administration as a state sponsor of international terrorism.

---snip

more:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-nuke4aug04,1,7536926.story?coll=la-home-headlines


BTW: That's what I think the new push for the "bunker busting" nukes is all about.
Dr Strangeloves meet to plan new nuclear era

When I said earlier "If you smash a nest of hornets with a baseball bat, there will be hell to pay.", I meant hell to pay.

[Skinner]

97. Unfortuately, I think I have to lock this thread.

I'm taking off, so I can't keep track of the discussion.

I think this was a great discussion. If there is a topic from here that you wish to continue discussing, feel free to start a new thread.

Skinner
DU Admin

[kentuck]

98. We should admit we were wrong to go in without international support and

get our arrogant, ignorant butts out of there as soon as we can get an international force to oversee the setup of a new government. We declare victory and come home.