been scratching my head about Kerry's position on Iraq . . .

[OneBlueSky]

this is intended to kick off a serious discussion, so don't flame me . . .

one of the central themes of Kerry's Iraq position is bringing our allies (or, at this point, former allies) back into the fold to contribute both manpower and money to help stabilize the country . . . what I can't figure out is whether or not this makes any sense . . .

on the one hand, countries not currently involved in Iraq have very good reasons for their non-participation and, looking at it objectively, they'd be crazy to change their minds and jump into what is undoubtedly an evolving quagmire, with little hope of resolution any time soon . . .

on the other hand, the outcome in Iraq is in everyones interest if only to return some semblence of sanity to the country, and to prevent the mess from engulfing the whole region . . . further, it may be in the interest of some of these countries to offer support to an American president who isn't George Bush . . . so there may be compelling reasons for the likes of France and Germany to become involved . . . but are they compelling enough? . . . I tend to doubt it . . .

so what say you? . . . is this approach to Iraq sufficient? . . . or should we just recognize a disaster when we see it, plan for an orderly withdrawel, and let the chips fall where they may? . . .

[blm]

1. It is in EVERY nation's interest that a stable Iraq be achieved.

If it turns into a Holy War like the Bush cabal wants then the entire world will become a battleground.

[hansolsen]

19. American troops on the ground and 14 "permanent military bases" will

guarantee a "holy war". We need to get the hell out of there.

[Cha]

21. Yes, I got this very empathically from Kerry's

speech! It is a World problem now..in no small part ..thanks to bush ..but now we must all clean it up and Kerry is the guy to bring in the World.

Makes perfect sense to me!

[donco6]

2. I disagree with this part:

"further, it may be in the interest of some of these countries to offer support to an American president who isn't George Bush . . . so there may be compelling reasons for the likes of France and Germany to become involved . . . but are they compelling enough? . . . I tend to doubt it . . . "

These guys have egos, too. I think they're just looking for a chance to save face, and getting Bush out would be perfect. Kerry could appeal, hat in hand, offering them some part of the pie ("If I were president, I'd fire Halliburton tomorrow" - so someone's going to have to do the job of infrastructure rebuilding). I think they'd jump on it, myself.

[hansolsen]

20. They have much greater "incentives" to let us fail first, then come in

later and pick up the pieces. Their motto now is, America made its bed, let them lie in it.

[donco6]

23. But I think they can say they already have let us fail,

now it's time to "get in and help our long-time allies" blah blah.

Remember, the only reason ANYONE would get into the mess is because of the potential money they can make. I don't think they'll stand back for long.

[hansolsen]

31. I hope you're right but I just don't see it. N/T

[Raya]

3. Kerry NEEDS Edwards to lead a "NOT FLIP-FLOPER" Marching Band

No one knows what will work when Jan 05 arrives. Whatever Kerry
says, the worst problem is that Bushes will be chanting "Flip-Flop" and that is Kerry's biggest problem.

Flip-flop charge has to be somehow made to backfire on Bush.

[Julien Sorel]

4. An orderly withdrawal is a disaster.

A disaster for Iraq, and a disaster for American credibility. The rest of the world would snicker at us for cowardice, for one thing, for another, if we got out, what would Iraq look like? It would be a breeding ground for terrorism, perhaps engulfed in a civil war, which would likely enrage the Arabs in the M.E.

Anyway, that's somewhat of an aside. If there's any chance of getting other countries on board, it has to be with Kerry. Bush shitted on (shat on?) the rest of the world for the last time with his disastrous speech at the U.N. yesterday.

[hansolsen]

24. You make exactly the same argument that was made for staying in

Vietnam long after it was clear the only way to win that war was to nuke the place. About a million people died in the second half of that war when it was all about old men in high places not wanting to admit their mistakes and orrying that the world would "snicker" at them.

Well we left eventually anyway, the world did "snicker", the old men fell into disrepute, and the world went on. Democracy survived, America prospered, and the Vietnamese people got to decide their own fate.a All in all not as bad an outcome as was feared in 1968.

Today is 1968 in Iraq.

[Julien Sorel]

46. Actually, the world didn't snicker.

We spent 10 years on the ground in Vietnam; we've been in Iraq for not even two years. We didn't go in to Vietnam against near-unanimous world opinion with a swaggering, two-bit wannabe cowboy of a president who could barely get two words out of his mouth without screwing one of them up, either. As long as Bush is in power, a big chunk of the world wants us to fail in Iraq. And if we do, they are going to enjoy it.



Let's look at two scenarios, one involving a thought experiment.

South Vietnam collapsed soon after the U.S. left. It didn't collapse on its own, mind you, as many people had predicted it would; the North had to invade with conventional forces. Still, afterwards there was one Vietnam, and it got along pretty peacefully outside of some adventures with China and Cambodia.

Now, let's suppose the U.S. were to cut and run from Iraq. Would things go nearly as well? Let's look at Iraq. Iraq is much more multi-ethnic and multi-cultural than Vietnam. Iraq's history as a nation goes back about 60 years; Vietnam's goes back for nearly thousands. Is there any reason to expect Iraq to work out its problems on its own? We were able to walk away from Vietnam knowing the country would be stable -- perhaps not stable under a friendly government, but still, stable. If we leave Iraq, it almost certainly will not be stable, and that has direct and negative consequences for us. There will be terrorist camps there; there will be a lot of people who hate Americans and want revenge for our shitty invasion and occupation, and their gripes will be legitimate. We either find a way to make Iraq work, or Iraq will have moved from a non-entity into a serious threat to our public safety in a matter of months.

Unlike Vietnam, we have something at stake in Iraq now -- we didn't until Cowboy George waged his war, but he did, and now we're stuck with the consequences.

[hansolsen]

48. I agree that world opinion is even more against us in Iraq than it was in

Vietnam. All the more reason to get the hell out of there.

Let me ask you this: If a clear majority of the Iraqi people want us out of there, why should we stay?

Even if many Iraqis want us to stay, but they won't stand with us and fight their own countrymen, how can we ever prevail?

Do you think the intent of the Iraqi people is knowable or unknowable??

Are you sure right now that a working majority of Iraqi people want us there and are willing to fight for their own freedom alongside American soldiers?

[Julien Sorel]

52. I'm afraid you're a little more idealistic than I am.

Are you sure right now that a working majority of Iraqi people want us there and are willing to fight for their own freedom alongside American soldiers?

The will of the Iraqi people means nothing to me except insofar as it plays a role (or not) in making Iraq a stable nation that isn't going to be a breeding ground for terrorism. In other words, I don't care if they want to fight with us, I don't care if they want us there or not, as long as we are able to achieve the only goal we can reasonably have now: an Iraq that won't be a threat. Obviously, it would be better if they all wanted us to stay, but it isn't an absolute necessity.

That being said, I think the attitude of the Iraqi people would change somewhat with a new administration (one more reason to vote for Kerry), and a less overt U.S. presence -- if the effort were truly international. An international presence there would more obviously be temporary than that of one nation, since a group of nations would have little to gain by prolonging the occupation. One nation, however, could, so it looks like imperialism to the Iraqi people. Since we're essentially the only people there, and since we've shown no real sign of leaving, of course they are pissed at us.

Someone else used the silly "light at the end of the tunnel" thing. I'll be upfront: I think the odds are against success there. It depends on Kerry beating Bush, then having success with the international community, and the Iraqi people, particularly the Sunnis, deciding to play ball. The odds of all of those things happening are poor. But there's a chance, maybe 25%, maybe not that high, of a decent conclusion to this mess. If we just leave now, that chance goes to near-zero. At the very best, Iraq would revert to a Saddam-like dictatorship after a civil war, which would be an ugly black eye for us, and further devastate our moral authority in the world. At worst, Iraq becomes a big Beirut circa 1980, with terrorists moving in and out of the country at will, ugly scenes on our evening news, and a whole lot of people who hate the shit out of us, and who have few governmental constraints being placed on their ability to get revenge. Of course, the Iraqi people lose in both scenarios.

It seems to me that the potential benefits of trying to reach a decent solution there outweigh the cost of sticking around for another year or so to see if the winds start to blow favorably.

To sum up, if Bush wins then we should pull out, because I think our long term chances of success are close to zero. If Kerry wins, we should stay for a year and see if diplomacy pays off.

[hansolsen]

55. Your theory is correct, IMO. I would just move the decimal point on those

percentages one position to the left. Hans

[Jacobin]

33. Yes. We must stay in Vietnam. We can't afford to lose

Don't forget to bring your dominoes and your light at the end of the tunnel to this war party, too.

[neuvocat]

5. Per the first point

yes it does make sense to get others involved. The go-it-alone approach without the UN has made the mess we're in now. We have far less control than you might imagine.

Per the last point, Kerry said that he would try to withdraw troops in four years.

[LittleClarkie]

45. And the Vietnam anology can only be stretched so far

We're talking about a rebuild, not a war. If Kerry offers contracts to the other nations, they'll jump in.

Surely you don't think Kerry will not remember Vietnam. And I will repeat for the second day in a row that if we end up pulling out of Iraq like we pulled out of Vietnam, we do NOT want Cheney and Rumsfeld anywhere near it. They were partly responsible for the all-out retreat before the fall of Saigon.

Whatever Kerry does, it's gotta be better than that. And he's flexible enough to change course if things get that bad. Remember: flexible, not flip-flop.

[judy]

6. Another thing, and I don't know if Kerry mentions it or not,

is to give back the rebuilding of Iraq and its infrastructure to Iraqi companies (no Bechtel nor KB&R, etc.), this would give people back their jobs and would greatly help with limiting attacks.

If the US was not there as occupier, but as a true peacekeeper (which excludes profiteering, racketeering,etc.) I think things would be quite different.

You could then make a deal with the different groups (Kurds, Sunnis, Shias, etc.) to create a common State owned company to manage the oil, if they can agree on a form of government and organize elections under the aegis of the UN.

Changing US Presidents in itself might go a long way toward calming things down if Kerry denounces empire building as a goal.

[Career Prole]

14. "Give back the rebuilding of Iraq and its infrastructure"

"to Iraqi companies (no Bechtel nor KB&R, etc.), this would give people back their jobs and would greatly help with limiting attacks."

Yup...Kerry did indeed mention this. :thumbsup:

[hansolsen]

30. We should withdraw our troops and hand over the $87 billion a year it

cost to run the war. The mothers of /american troops would be happier and so would the Iraqi people.

As a matter of fact, lets put that to a vote of the Iraqi people. Which would you prefer:

a. American troops stay for four more years at a cost of $200 billion down a rat hole. or

b. Take your troops home and just send us the $200 billion.

Anybody want to bet what that vote would be?????!!!@!!

[OneBlueSky]

18. that's a great point . . .

it's always baffled me why, if our goal is to rebuild Iraq, we gave all the contracts to non-Iraqi firms . . . (well, I actually know why) . . . given the kind of construction that took place in Iraq during Saddam's reign, it's obvious that there are plenty of great construction firms there, and that's where the rebuilding money should be going . . . not to the likes of Halliburton and Bechtel . . . of course, the Iraqi firms aren't BushCo contributors . . . which explains a lot . . .

[Career Prole]

39. Kerry has addressed that specifically.

"One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we’re paying the price.

Now, the President should look at the whole reconstruction package…draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects… and cut through the red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton. He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort."

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0920.html

[hansolsen]

25. I hope you are right but I seriously doubt it. I think the Iraqi

nationalists who are fighting us now are not fighting George Bush alone, they are fighting against foreign troops occupying their country. That battle will go on even with Kerry in office, IMO.

[joefree1]

7. We need the oil

I'm not saying that this is any justification for the war but now that we are there we need to bring some stability to the region.

Bush has seriously f**ked up the whole Middle East and so it's our unlucky task to beg, cajole and yes even threaten the rest of the world to help us.

But first we got to get rid of Bushco.


Download the free poster/bumper art here:
http://ediablo.com/eDiabloGallery.html

[hansolsen]

26. Bush is proving every day that we cannot "bring stability" to the middle

east from the turret of an M1 tank.

If anyone seriously thinks Kerry can be triumphant in the middle east by executing Shrub's war plans better than Bush can, they are putting too much faith in military solutions. Solutions which are not working, and will not work, no matter who is President, IMO.

[Mountainman]

8. Other nations would help out if only to counter balance U.S. influence

Oil is the thing that attacks everyone to that part of the country.

[hansolsen]

28. No they won't. For openers they don't have any troops to send. N/T

[NMDemDist2]

9. as I understand it...

we would get the allies to train Iraq security in their home countries.

We would release recontruction funding to all countries willing to help, rather than having all the $$ go Halliburton

it would work IMHO....

[TexasSissy]

10. Yes, this is the plan.

What Bush offered them was: contribute your money and your troops. What do you get for that? A more stable Iraq.

What Kerry will offer: contribute your money and your troops. Training in your country is fine, as well as putting up some $$. What do you get for that? Bids on reconstruction projects....and maybe even preference for some of them. With a guarantee that a certain percentage of the contracts will go to your country.

[liveoaktx]

17. My understanding, too, when you add a FINANCIAL incentive, it

is no longer dependent entirely on idealogy.

and, also, who knows, as Kerry has said, what situation he will face when he takes office?

[hansolsen]

29. Your rose colored glasses are the same tint Shrub uses. It is utter folly

to think we can train and equip Iraqi troops right now, and count on their loyalty. The dessertion rate is 80% in some areas of the country. Half the new Iraqi troops we train turn right around and aim their guns at us.

Kerry can use this argument as a cudgel to beat on Bush for a while, but this is no long term solution, IMO.

[NMDemDist2]

50. if they are taken out of Iraq and welded into a corp with good

leadership and training, they will be less likely to return to the "tribe" when they get back home....

[hansolsen]

57. Dream on. N/T

[Career Prole]

11. Kerry specifically mentioned security for U.N. personnel.

They need to be there if the Iraqi election is to have any validity to Iraqi people (hell, I'm starting to feel that way about our election), but they're reluctant after the huge bomb that killed so many of them. Kerry would make sure they were protected. In direct contrast, repuke operatives have been all over the news basically calling the U.N. gutless because of their concerns.
A little member-nation assistance in providing that security would be pretty handy.

[hansolsen]

34. If it is possible to hold elections at all, the first vote should be to

decide if the Iraqi people want us there or not.

If they say yes, that would give us immense credibility for staying and dry up support for the insurgency.

If they say no, we should leave.

[Career Prole]

41. I'm with you there. n/t

[hansolsen]

44. Good. Thanks. I was starting to think I might be crazy. N/T

[Career Prole]

47. Not at all!

As soon as the Iraqis tell us to leave I believe we should...but before we can know the will of the Iraqi people that puppet government of bushco's needs to be out.
That's going to require an election with legitimacy which hopefully U.N. monitoring will be able to provide.
That's why I'm glad Kerry has demanded that something be done to provide security for U.N. personnel. Kerry no doubt understands already that if a legitimately elected Iraqi government requests our departure we are bound to oblige. He's probably all for it. :)

[rndmprsn]

12. what european papers are saying...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/22/international/europe/22CND-EURO.html

good read...i think if shrub was removed from the equation and a with a new kerry presidency (that most of the people in europe support: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3640754.stm), it would give more european govt's the diplomatic cover to provide more resources etc.

edit

...In France, two major newspapers commented on Mr. Bush's remarks in New York. The left-of-center Liberation congratulated Mr. Kerry for belatedly setting forth a comprehensive position on Iraq, and for advocating an approach that would "involve U.S. allies in a broader way."

President Bush, the paper said, is "part of the problem rather than the solution" when it comes to working with allies. In his speech to the United Nations, the paper said, Mr. Bush "showed that slightly autistic self-satisfaction remains the dominant tendency of American power."

In Le Figaro, which reflects the thinking of France's conservative establishment, the correspondent Philippe Gelie observed that Mr. Bush was "impervious to criticism" in the conduct of American foreign policy. His speech in New York was that of a "campaigning American president" who "lectured the rest of the world."

"In his vision of a global war between good and evil, each new crime strengthens his conviction of having been right against those who accuse him of having invaded Iraq under false pretenses," Mr. Gelie wrote.

The German daily Tagesspiegel's editorial was blunt in its review of the speech. Its headline said, "US, UN, Iraq: the truth counts for nothing."

[Nicholas_J]

54. The FInancial TImes (Great Britain)

Did a scathing attack on BUsh's speech at the U.N.

[gbwarming]

13. Kerry can not just plan a withdrawal to let the chips fall. No way.

His plan may not be sufficient in the end but he can _not_ win an election on a platform of defeat.

I like a lot of his plan - It's common sense: Give the Iraqis jobs and electricity. Why the F@#$ has Halliburton been importing workers from all over the globe to spend our money? Maybe it makes their security screening process easier but it's totally counterproductive. It's be like FDR bringing foreigners in to fill jobs in the CCC and WPA.

Training police outside Iraq makes sense too - that would keep them safe until trained.

[hansolsen]

35. Half the die hard Bush supporters in my home town are now saying

exactly the opposite of what you are saying. The biggest war hawks in town are saying:

"Let's get the hell out of there."

"The damn Iraqis are ungrateful and don't deserve our help."

"Fuck 'em, let's leave"

This sentiment is much more widespread than you think. It would be a bitter irony if Shrub win in November and turns right around, declares victory in Iraq and pulls the troops home by the start of spring training. I think that is a much bigger possibility than half the people on DU ever think it is.

[hansolsen]

15. Well you are one brave blogger to post this thread. But I'll enter the

"serious discussion".

I think even Kerry knows this idea won't go far -- he has taken pains to say it is very "late" for this to happen, that Bush must act this week, or the window of opportunity will close. This gives Kerry the option of announcing at any time that "this window has closed".

He can always say it is too late now, Bush should have listened earlier, and now we need to do something different.

My sense is Kerry should make it clear now that he will not "stay the course" in Iraq alone. He should stipulate that if our traditional allies in Europe and our supposed allies in the middle east will not support us with a major infusion of visible support, including money and at least some troops, then Kerry will determine that this is a lost cause and withdraw.

In effect Kerry should call their bluff.

The other angle that makes sense to me is to make the first vote in Iraq a referendum on whether or not they want us there. If we can hold elections to form a government that has credibility, surely that same election can answer the primary question of whether or not we are welcome there.

If we cannot hold elections any time soon, which I believe is the case, we should not assume we are welcome there. Iraqi public opinion is not "unknowable". We can infer from the severity of the insurgency and from the support the insurgency receives that we are not welcome, IMO. We cannot ignore the facts on the ground which are that the insurgency is provided great sanctuary. That tells us all we need to know.

[gohawks]

16. The Kerry difference is that....

he would give our allies a "stake" in Iraq:
The contracts would not all go to Halliburton....
Security decisions would be shared with other countries...
The US would not be in charge.... peace would be a possibility.


The Bush plan:
Keep troops and build new bases in the middle east (Iraq.
Contracts to Halliburton.
The US in charge.. do what we say...

PEACE... that would ruin everything

[underpants]

22. Yep I've said all along it is about $$$$$$$$$$

Blair was the only one stupid enough to give significant numbers of troops and not allow his country to get their hands in the moneybag.

[bigtree]

27. Chips

That's a cruel euphemism for the citizens whose lives we have disrupted and left vulnerable to the enemies Bush has created with his arrogance.

[Jacobin]

32. No. It doesn't make any sense, but it sounds good

IraqNam is toasted, stick a fork in it, Smirky has burned it. No one wants to get anywhere near it, no matter who is president now.

It sounds good. That's okay by me to get him elected.

He'll have to figure out how to retreat, as in Vietnam. I don't think Kerry will have the neo-cons around driving him into new wars. That's the main thing.

Give the man a break. He has to deal with an epic, SmirkSuperSizedFuck-up

[hansolsen]

36. I'm willing to give the man a break, but I doubt the press will, and for

sure the debate moderators won't give him a break.

Kerry's plan is full of holes. Yah, it sounds good to the rose colored eye shade crew, but the press will pick him apart on it, and he had better have some better answers by next Thursday than the ones littering this thread.

[Jacobin]

40. I'm sure he can gloss over it

Anything will sound better than the "stay the course all is well" that Smirk is using.

I'll grant you though. It is a phenomenally crafted quagmire with no good answers. NONE. Not one good answer. zip. zero. nada.

Its a godawful fuck up. Only smirky and the neo-cons could have created this.

[hansolsen]

43. I agree with that. N/T

[moondust]

37. Give Kerry six months after inauguration.

That should be enough time to figure out if it is salvageable.

[seabeyond]

38. call a time out......................state a do over

new leadership. a different leadership. not doing it in arrogance and greed, just in fixing. bring the parties of iraq. bring the middle east parties. those are the main parties. then further bring in the european countries adn they get to bring in their companies and contracts and make some money.

shifts it all.

[hansolsen]

42. Here is Justin Raimondo's take on your topic, over at Antiwar.com N/T

Here is the link: http://antiwar.com/justin/

******

In the ultra-partisan, highly personalized world of post-imperial politics, it won't seem at all odd when the same people who hate Bush because they're supposedly against the war will suddenly rediscover the joys of staying the course. The same do-gooder emotionalism that led them to oppose the war in the first place will lead them, inexorably, into the trap of opposing U.S. withdrawal – in the name of our alleged obligation to rebuild the nation we destroyed. Aside from the utter impossibility – not to mention the sheer cost – of such a task, these sentimental interventionists ignore the reality that our very presence in Iraq is a destabilizing factor: the occupation is the cause of the insurgency, which won't abate until we leave.
********
A U-turn on the road to empire, going at this speed and at this late date, is bound to have some negative repercussions, but that's the price one pays for making mistakes. An orderly and honorable withdrawal from Iraq is far preferable to a forced retreat under fire, or a rebellion led by the government we helped bring to power.
Novak's glad tidings of a coming Bush withdrawal, if true, would certainly trim the sails of the anti-Bush bandwagon. Even these simple but well-meaning folk will surely see the absurdity of being able to accept the prospect of peace from anybody but Bush. And that's just one more reason to hope Novak's right.
– Justin Raimondo

[Jacobin]

49. Man O Man. That article NAILS my fear of Democrats

turning into imperialists.

Nails it

[hansolsen]

56. And I hear a little of that coming through in the DU posts that want us to

stay in Iraq and "fix it." It takes a little hubris to believe that is still possible. Hans

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

51. The question is:

Hussein or Khomeini?

An exact replica of one or the other will eventually rule Iraq.

How many people have to die for us to save face?

[bushwakker]

53. Iraq is now a terrorist state - we can't just bail

AWOL has made Iraq a hornets nest of bad guys that wish to do us harm. We must do what we can to reverse this. Bush is going to bail after the election. Kerry will do what is right (and what most DUers will not like) and try to make it work. It will cost money and take time.

[Sparkly]

58. The whole equation will change with a new administration in the US

It will change how other leaders can persuade their constituents to see the risks of involvement vs. the risks of not becoming involved.

Right now, other leaders face political suicide if they try to support the US. (Instead they're withdrawing!) They realize a failed state in Iraq could harm them, and that success there could benefit them; but this isn't the time to breathe a hint of that.

This is a time for them to sit tight and pray to whatever God they pray to that Kerry gets elected here.

Otherwise, they won't be able to persuade their own people that getting involved in Iraq makes sense until it's so far gone, it's a world war.

That's how I see it.