DEFENSE: Candidate plans on the Iraq War fix

Re-POSTED DUE TO THREAD DRIFT

Seth Bullock:

Anyway, as I said on another thread, none of the liberals on this board will admit they were wrong.


So, since you are so keen on Mr. Kerrys Iraq plan lets look at it for a moment shall we?

www.johnkerry.com...
www.johnkerry.com...

The plan is divided into four parts:
1. Persuade NATO to Make the Security of Iraq one of its Global Missions
2. Internationalize the Non-Iraqi Reconstruction Personnel in Iraq
3. Launch a Massive and Accelerated Training Effort to Build Iraqi Security Forces
4. Plan for Iraq�s Future

PART 1

Persuade NATO to Make the Security of Iraq one of its Global Missions and to deploy a significant portion of the force needed to secure and win the peace in Iraq. NATO participation will in turn open the door to greater international involvement from non-NATO countries.

Goal: Get NATO to take a significant part of the peacekeeping duties in Iraq.
Method: Not stated.
Reasoning: NATO involvement will increase involvement from other countries.

My two cents: Aren't France, Germany and Russia imporant members of NATO? And Spain? Do you really think these countries will suddenly send troops just because Kerry asks them to? Spain has already caved to the terrorsit demands and France, Germany and Russia have spoken to long and to loud to reverse their stances at this point. Also, Mr. Kerry does not say whether or not he would place United States troops under NATO command, but I will bet you dollars to donuts he would do it in a heartbeat if it meant NATO involvement. So, is ti do-able? Probably not. Is it a good idea? Hmmm U.S. troops under a French command... No, it is not a good idea.

PART 2:

Internationalize the Non-Iraqi Reconstruction Personnel in Iraq, to share the costs and burdens, end the continuing perception of a U.S. occupation, and help coordinate reconstruction efforts, draft the constitution and organize elections.

Goal: Spread the cost of rebuilding Iraq by inviting other countries to participate.
Method: Not stated.
Reasoning: Having other countries involved will possibly defray cost and lower the perception that the U.S. is an occupier and not a libarator.

My two cents: Mr. Kerry is obviously again talking about Germany, Russia, France etc. He intends to do this by asking foreign governments to pay 'their share" of reconstruction costs and forgiving Iraqi debts. Now why, I ask myself, would anyone want that deal? Pay for reconstuction and forgive debt? Well, Mr' Kerry doesn't exactly say, except for one little vague statement "It also means letting them be a part of putting Iraq's profitable oil industry back together." Hmm. Seems he is saying he will give them part of Iraq's oil industry in return for their help. Boy, that should make the Iraqi people happy. Do-able? Possibly. Good idea? No. the cost to the future of Iraq is too high.

PART3:

Launch a Massive and Accelerated Training Effort to Build Iraqi Security Forces that can provide real security for the Iraqi people, including a major role for NATO. This is not a task for America alone; we must join as a partner with other nations.

Goal: Improve the Iraqi security forces.
Method: Not stated.
Reasoning: Get others involved, give NATO a role.

My two cents: Here again, it requires many NATO members to reverse long standing policy on the Iraqi issue, something I doubt they will do. Also, the goal here is to make Iraq an independent country. A permanent NATO force is not the answer. I am also troubled about the statement "We should also give them a leadership role in pursuing our wider strategic goals in the region." Call me old school, but I do not like U.S. forces to be under foreign command. Do-able? Probably not. Good idea? No. It risks the "too many cooks" problem and is not realistic for the future of Iraq.

PART 4:

Plan for Iraq�s Future by working with our allies to forgive Iraq�s multi-billion dollar debts and by supporting the development of a new Iraqi constitution and the political arrangements needed to protect minority rights. We will also convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq�s internal affairs.

Goal: Reduce Iraq's debts, protect minorities, strike a deal with Iraqs neighbors.
Method: None stated.
Reasoning: Get Iraq ready for democracy.

My two cents: I actually like part of this. He calls for talks amongst the factions inside Iraq. If he could do that, I would support it. The Republicans actually want this also. But, good luck to both parties on getting it done. As far as involving Iraq's neighbors, not a chance. They should be warned that any attempt to interfere with Iraq will not be tolerated. Do-able? No. Good Idea? Some of it.

In conclusion, I find Mr. Kerrys inability to say how he will do these things telling. Most of his plan seems to be statements that will appeal to liberals, with no real specifics on how he will do any of it. You, of course, will disagree as is your right.

The difference between you and I is that I see the issues and evaluate them on their own merits. You just hate Bush and Cheney. If Mr. Kerry's plan was to nuke Iraq, you would support it because it is not Bush. If it was to pull out immediately you would suport it because it was not Bush. That is what I mean by black and white.

[edit on 15-9-2004 by Bout Time]

Why would I admit that I'm wrong, when on the original topic of Slander & Fear Mongering covering the Cheney campaign pitch of Vote for Us or Die ( to paraphrase), at the least - the nations newspapers editorial boards have also denounced the statement & Cheney himself has back peddled away from it; at the most - I'm dead on right. What don't you understand & why aren't you conceding a lost point? I thought the Cheney retraction/qualifying of intent was enough for any reasonable person to realize it was a suspect statement?

ON THREAD:

Let's start with the obvious question: We have one candidate in charge, as president of the Iraqi war planning in this 2004 election; WHERE IS HIS PLAN!?!? I've looked for it, mind you, but have seen nothing but the continued Mayberry Macheveli politicizing of this effort, as evidenced by this emblematic statement on how the military on the ground was overruled in order to bring a "righteous retribution" facade to the US electorate:
Lieutenant General James T. Conway said the abortive assault, launched in response to the brutal killing of four US civilian contractors by a mob in Fallujah on March 31, spiked tensions in the area and helped make the region more hostile to US forces today than when his forces took charge of the area six months ago. "We felt like we had a method that we wanted to apply to Fallujah, that we ought to probably let the situation settle before we appeared to be attacking out of revenge."

Boston Globe

Here's why the only plan for resolution that's been offered is a sound one from Sen. Kerry:

Part ONE: Persuade NATO to Make the Security of Iraq one of its Global Missions and to deploy a significant portion of the force needed to secure and win the peace in Iraq. NATO participation will in turn open the door to greater international involvement from non-NATO countries.

Part TWO:Internationalize the Non-Iraqi Reconstruction Personnel in Iraq, to share the costs and burdens, end the continuing perception of a U.S. occupation, and help coordinate reconstruction efforts, draft the constitution and organize elections.

The reality of any reconstruction is much less about cost, and much more about profit. The second part enables the first: The Neocons in power had a war as the primary impetus, but the close second was crony capitalism. They've made billions of dollars to date for Worldcomm, DynCorp, Halliburton & the US/UK oil cartels. All rhetoric aside, if France & Germany were included in the profit phase, a contingent of equal size to the UK's would have been on the ground from each country.
There will be no NeoCons or anyone from the aforementioned companies board of Directors in the Kerry White House.

Part THREE: Launch a Massive and Accelerated Training Effort to Build Iraqi Security Forces that can provide real security for the Iraqi people, including a major role for NATO. This is not a task for America alone; we must join as a partner with other nations.

Part FOUR: Plan for Iraq�s Future by working with our allies to forgive Iraq�s multi-billion dollar debts and by supporting the development of a new Iraqi constitution and the political arrangements needed to protect minority rights. We will also convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq�s internal affairs.

One of the most consistent citings of stupidity by the former heads of CENTCOM ( Zinni & Shwartkorpf ), was that the political arm unduly running the post invasion effort disbanded the Iraqi Army. The loss of control to insurgents over most of the country is a direct result of that. Kerry's plan is to put different faces on this critical effort; again, faces that have the overwhelming profit motive behind their drive for success. The alternative? It has to be done, but Seth Bullock, the Bush "staying the course" doctrine on this is the equivalent of putting the Child Molester Priest in charge of the Parrish Day Care Center - these same forces seen as murderers of women & children are now the benevolent teachers? A solution void of consideration for the perception of those it serves is no solution at all - it's an imperial edict.
US Forces have been & will be under foreign direction due to our NATO alliances. We've suffered no ill affects to our autonomy as a nation because of it. No member country is anything but an ally , despite the bashing of France & Germany. Concurrent to their financial interests was also that of a freind telling us we were making a bad decision.
Forgiving portions or all of Iraqi debts is also possible, again, by dividing up the reconstruction profits pie. Those nations holding 'liens' will make more via inclusion than debt collection - it's simple math.
A big part of the problem with the insurgency, is that it comes from ethnic minorities in the majority. Review what Team Bush has done: They swore Democracy for Iraq, yet tinkered with the one man one vote mainstay because there were more Shia's , then they cancelled elections....on the way there , closing newspapers and media outlets. Team Bush has never actually enabled Democracy to take hold, and there is clear evidence that it's Representative Government that is applicable there; a reality that is in play around the world, not a cookie cutter template of the "American Experience".
It's fairly easy to establish a No Tinker policy on the new Iraqi nation's development with the neighboring countries. A Kerry presidency will not close the base in Qatar, so the might of swift retribution is the sword that will remain of Iraq's neighbors heads.

Senator Kerry has been as eloquent & forth coming on this topic as a candidate for office is given time to be. What's really disturbing is that the sitting president prosecuting this war HAS NOT.
The contention that Kerry's plan "appeals to Liberal" is only half right; it appeals to Conservatives and Independent who are capable of rational thought & appreciate the only framework out there to initiate reversal of the quagmire that Iraq has been managed into by Team Bush.

In closing this is categorically false:

"
The difference between you and I is that I see the issues and evaluate them on their own merits. You just hate Bush and Cheney. If Mr. Kerry's plan was to nuke Iraq, you would support it because it is not Bush.

This is pure embracing of ignorance. I've never stated that "I hate Bush" or have posted anything that could be construed as that. Polar opposition to mismanagement, misleading, suspect morality and suspect intent on protecting Americas interests over his Plutocratic ones, is not hate.
As by example of the above statement, that is what I MEAN by black & white fundamentalism on your & Team Bush's part....frame the debate in emotinal, visceral terms, so that logic can be scapegoated as being couched in "hate".

Bout Time: I cannot resist.... Russia is not part of NATO.

That being said, one key point is this: Kerry has made much of his plan to take care of Iraq if he elected. Your post and his public statements have made that very very clear. However, as you pointed out, he has never as you pointed out "stated a method" of how his plan acutally will work.

Regardless of the motive, the contracts for the post war construction should go to countries that participated in the invasion. Really now, if I did a ditch, why should you get payed for it? The debt owed to countries like France (some of which is for weapons sales in violation of the UN sanctions) is no impedance to a democracy. France will have to wait to get its ill gotten funds.

Most fo the plan that you have mentioned is already being or int he process of being implimented. Iraqi police are being trained. Reconstruction is underway, and yes it is going slow, but it is happening. Kerry's plan and all of Kerry's foreign policy plans seem to revolve around the theme of submitting to the will of the UN and "old" Europe. I for one, like the idea of coalition building, but not at our expence. We seem to forget in these debates that there was a coalition that helped in the war. Kerry grand coalition plans guarrantee nothing, and absent the facts on how he plans to achieve it, I for one remain skeptical.

And I'll continue to ask that!

"Submit to the will of" - this is simply not going to happen, and I can't find anything in Kerry's record that would support this theory.

The flip flop of Bush on the nation building issue is one President Kerry will have to live with. Suspending the debt is a valid tool to assist that; the quid pro quo his plan employs is obvious - to share in the wealth you'll need to share in the commitment. Just getting US fingerprints off of everything involved will decrease the wrath against us, have our troops rotated out with other nations forces, and save us the cost of footing the bill across the board.
The reconstruction is a boondoggle - vital aspects ( electricity/water/sewage) are not online and have no completion dates. We have investigations going on now at the Congressional level & accounting inquires aswell, since the receipts show the US taxpayers had paid - but the '1st Reich' corporations have not delivered.
NATO is the only big dog we should be wooing. Of course, we had a great coalition with us on Operation Iraqi Freedom! Yup, Bulgaria & the Solomon Island kick @ss!
Washington Post: White House spins Coalition Numbers

We need to cut the US death count & we need to stop the Billions leaving the US towards paying contractors who happen to be White House buddies. Our infrastructure can't support this & trillion dollar debts.

Originally posted by Bout Time
"Submit to the will of" - this is simply not going to happen, and I can't find anything in Kerry's record that would support this theory.

That is only because you are blinded by your own spinning agenda�.the proof of that, in Kerry�s record was in the signature of the poster. I guess it was hiding right in front of you.

so here, so you can see for yourself this is the part of his record that supports it:

Feb 18, 1970: �I�m an internationalist. �I�d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.� John Kerry

To address the problem of waste stored at sites throughout the country, Kerry said he would convene a "blue-ribbon" panel of international experts with the goal of discovering a way to destroy or use up the waste.

"I'm convinced we can come out of this with a much stronger counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation, pro-environment solution and that is what I intend to do," Kerry said.
wizbangblog.com...

better yet, i'll save you some time, i'll state it for you so you don't have to waste time spining and smearing me yourself; the fact that i like a non-spining representation of the facts, must make me a republican............ according to you.



[edit on 15-9-2004 by keholmes]

Take it to Political Scandals or one of the other forums - I'll gladly go point for point with you. You keep voiding the nature of this forum ( Read a Team's standpoint & delineate where Your Team's standpoint is different or better ).
It's no spin that you consistently leave no mention of the Libertarian perspective to educate us, while being in red meat attack mode like a conventioning Republican. I've no beef with you, but it seems you have with me?

Didn't you just give me high holy hell for my supposed taking out of context a phrase? The quote that I'm too dumb to not have read: it's 34 years old!! Before he was a Senator, before, well everything, in his political life that makes him the best choice for president today. Only the severely retarded don't nuance & grow in wisdom on their perspectives in 34 years. John Kerry is butt ugly, as is every other presidential candidate this year, but he's not retarded!!

ONE WORLD: why not bring in the best minds of our allies to determine how to best safeguard nuke materials? We have a stellar example in the former Soviet republics that has resulted in extreme danger on the counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation, environment fronts.

Allow me to take over where my "teammate" should have started.

Badnarik says "In short, a libertarian foreign policy is one of national defense, and not international offense. It would protect our country, not police the world."

But what would he do?

"The U.S. government has meddled in the affairs of the Middle East far too long, always with horrendous results. It overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran and replaced him with the Shah. After making Iranians the enemies of Americans, the U.S. government gave weapons, intelligence and money to Iran's mortal adversary, Saddam Hussein. The U.S. government also helped Libyan Col. Qaddafi come to power, propped up the Saudi monarchy and the Egyptian regime, and gave assistance to Osama bin Laden."

"As your president, one of my first tasks will be to begin the orderly process of bringing our troops home as quickly as can safely be accomplished. "

I think this sums it up pretty well albeit not to specific as to the actual roadmap. This is something I can only see as being on of careful consideration after the next president takes the Oval Office.

The only way to curb the entire situation is not to control, contain, and annex, but rather to revert inward for the serious internal repairs we need to survive as a nation and to pacify the region by removing ourselves from the crosshairs.

Is this an overnight response? Of course not, much as reverting the drinking age to 18 would obviously have damaging short term problems.

Personally, I don't think this is a viable option considering the fickle nature of the American people with the 24 hour talking heads chewing up everything that happens to the point of monotony.

I don't know if having France, Germany, and Russia in Iraq with us is such a good idea anymore. The motives of these countries, as well as their record in this paticular region, smells about as good as the Haliburton boys and their agenda.

Sure, more countries involved would be nice. Just not THOSE countries.

Well,

I guess Kerry nor anyone can clean up the Iraq mess Bush has started and for that reason no other nation will unless you put a 'knife' at its 'throat'.

But it's not about making a mess, now is it?
It is about making a buck.

[edit on 10-10-2004 by labyrinth]

[edit on 10-10-2004 by labyrinth]

[edit on 10-10-2004 by labyrinth]