Ankle-biting Democrats

NCfan

Everyone concedes that Iraq has not turned out like we hoped it would. But it's painfully obvious that Democrats (and some Republicans) are now emersed in political posturing based on opinion polls.

They know the majority of Americans oppose the war, and so they are trying to score political points with their constituents by demanding that the war come to an end.

But I haven't heard a cohesive plan from anybody... You hear I'm in favor of a "phased withdrawal" or "bring all the troops home"... but do the problems in the Middle East end there? Of course they don't, which begs the question - then what?

Bring the troops home, and then what? Phased withdrawal and then what?
Nobody wants to talk about what's to come afterwards. Isn't this a bit short-sighted?

For all of his problems and downfalls, Bush's strategy is the only one that deals with the long term. His plan might have a small chance of success, but at least it offers a long term solution if it does prevail. Nobody else can say that, mostly becuase it is something nobody else wants to talk about.

I have all the respect in the world for somebody who doesn't like this war. But I will never understand why people would want us to leave now and abandon a nation in need. If anything, we need to buck up and do the dirty work that needs to be done to secure that country. It isn't beyond our capabilites - it's just beyond our will, which is pathetic.

RainDog

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_De-Escalation_Act

This plan addresses most of what you bring up.

even flow?

If Bush and Co. would have realized that going into Iraq and not having people from other arab nations come to fight along with their brothers, would be like arabs invading Tenn and not thinking that the rest of the US was going to come and help out is more than a bit short sighted.

And usually when people who screw up bad don't like to admit they were wrong, they are going to keep pressing their agenda and issue until it blows up in their face. And even then, the plan dosen't veer of the beaten path.

So who on the board is actually going to vote for a third party to show their displeasure? Aside from the people who already do that.

baraka

NCfan wrote:

Everyone concedes that Iraq has not turned out like we hoped it would. But it's painfully obvious that Democrats (and some Republicans) are now emersed in political posturing based on opinion polls.

They know the majority of Americans oppose the war, and so they are trying to score political points with their constituents by demanding that the war come to an end.

But I haven't heard a cohesive plan from anybody... You hear I'm in favor of a "phased withdrawal" or "bring all the troops home"... but do the problems in the Middle East end there? Of course they don't, which begs the question - then what?

Bring the troops home, and then what? Phased withdrawal and then what?
Nobody wants to talk about what's to come afterwards. Isn't this a bit short-sighted?

For all of his problems and downfalls, Bush's strategy is the only one that deals with the long term. His plan might have a small chance of success, but at least it offers a long term solution if it does prevail.

I have all the respect in the world for somebody who doesn't like this war. But I will never understand why people would want us to leave now and abandon a nation in need. If anything, we need to buck up and do the dirty work that needs to be done to secure that country. It isn't beyond our capabilites - it's just beyond our will, which is pathetic.

Yeah, what a fine mess we have gotten ourselves into. I've thought about this as well. I was always against this war, but now that we are involved, I'm not sure just packing up and heading out is the right idea. Seems like we are very good at starting conflicts and leaving a huge mess that usually ends up coming back to us years later in the form of terrorism or an unstable country. I have to admit, I don't know the correct solution.

NCfan

RainDog wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_De-Escalation_Act

This plan addresses most of what you bring up.

This plan is basically Bush's Surge strategy "light" withe exception of promoting regional diplomacy.

It basically promotes everything Bush is trying to pursue, except our troops sit on the sideline somewhere and watch instead of actively participate in the process.

Basically, Obama's plan would allow a civil war and genocide to take place within spiting distance of American forces - that is terrible...

blackredyellow

Iraq: A Way Forward

President Bush does not have a strategy for victory in Iraq. His strategy is to prevent defeat and to hand the problem off to his successor. As a result, more and more Americans understandably want a rapid withdrawal, even at the risk of trading a dictator for chaos and a civil war that could become a regional war. Both are bad alternatives.

There is a third way that can achieve the two objectives most Americans share: to bring our troops home without leaving chaos behind. The idea is to maintain a unified Iraq by federalizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis breathing room in their own regions. The central government would be responsible for common interests, like border security and the distribution of oil revenues. The plan would bind the Sunnis - who have no oil -- by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of oil revenues. It would convene an international conference to secure support for the power sharing arrangement and produce a regional nonaggression pact, overseen by a Contact Group of major powers. It would call on the U.S. military to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2007, with a residual force to keep Iraqis and their neighbors honest. It would increase economic aid but tie it to the protection of minority rights and the creation of a jobs program and seek funding from the oil-rich Gulf Arab states. The new, central reality in Iraq is deep and growing sectarian violence between the Shiites and Sunnis. In last December's elections, 90 percent of the votes went to sectarian lists. Ethnic militias increasingly are the law in Iraq. They have infiltrated the official security forces. Massive unemployment is feeding the sectarian militia. Sectarian cleansing has forced at least 250,000 Iraqis to flee their homes in recent months. At the same time, Al Qaeda is now so firmly entrenched in Western Iraq that it has morphed into an indigenous jihadist threat. As a result, Iraq risks becoming what it was not before the war: a haven for radical fundamentalists.

There is no purely military solution to the sectarian civil war. The only way to break the vicious cycle of violence - and to create the conditions for our armed forces to responsibly withdraw -- is to give Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds incentives to pursue their interests peacefully. That requires an equitable and viable power sharing arrangement. That's where my plan comes in. This plan is not partition - in fact, it may be the only way to prevent violent partition and preserve a unified Iraq. This plan is consistent with Iraq's constitution, which provides for Iraq's 18 provinces to join together in regions, with their own security forces, and control over most day-to-day issues. This plan is the only idea on the table for dealing with the militia, which are likely to retreat to their respective regions. This plan is consistent with a strong central government, with clearly defined responsibilities. Indeed, it provides an agenda for that government, whose mere existence will not end sectarian violence.

The example of Bosnia is illustrative. Ten years ago, Bosnia was being torn apart by ethnic cleansing. The United States stepped in decisively with the Dayton Accords to keep the country whole by, paradoxically, dividing it into ethnic federations. We even allowed Muslims, Croats and Serbs to retain separate armies. With the help of U.S. troops and others, Bosnians have lived a decade in peace. Now, they are strengthening their central government, and disbanding their separate armies.

The course we're on leads to a terrible civil war and possibly a regional war. This plan is designed to head that off. I believe it is the best way to bring our troops home, protect our fundamental security interests, and preserve Iraq as a unified country.

The question I have for those who reject this plan is simple: what is your alternative?

Joe Biden
A Five Point Plan for Iraq

1. Establish One Iraq, with Three Regions

* Federalize Iraq in accordance with its constitution by establishing three largely autonomous regions - Shiite, Sunni and Kurd -- with a strong but limited central government in Baghdad
* Put the central government in charge of truly common interests: border defense, foreign policy, oil production and revenues
* Form regional governments -- Kurd, Sunni and Shiite -- responsible for administering their own regions

2. Share Oil Revenues

* Gain agreement for the federal solution from the Sunni Arabs by guaranteeing them 20 percent of all present and future oil revenues -- an amount roughly proportional to their size -- which would make their region economically viable
* Empower the central government to set national oil policy and distribute the revenues, which would attract needed foreign investment and reinforce each community's interest in keeping Iraq intact and protecting the oil infrastructure

3. Convene International Conference, Enforce Regional Non-Aggression Pact

* Convene with the U.N. a regional security conference where Iraq's neighbors, including Iran, pledge to support Iraq's power sharing agreement and respect Iraq's borders
* Engage Iraq's neighbors directly to overcome their suspicions and focus their efforts on stabilizing Iraq, not undermining it
* Create a standing Contact Group, to include the major powers, that would engage Iraq's neighbors and enforce their commitments

4. Responsibly Drawdown US Troops

* Direct U.S. military commanders to develop a plan to withdraw and re-deploy almost all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2007
* Maintain in or near Iraq a small residual force -- perhaps 20,000 troops -- to strike any concentration of terrorists, help keep Iraq's neighbors honest and train its security forces

5. Increase Reconstruction Assistance and Create a Jobs Program

* Provide more reconstruction assistance, conditioned on the protection of minority and women's rights and the establishment of a jobs program to give Iraqi youth an alternative to the militia and criminal gangs
* Insist that other countries take the lead in funding reconstruction by making good on old commitments and providing new ones -- especially the oil-rich Arab Gulf countries

Plan for Iraq: What It Is - and What It Is Not

Some commentators have either misunderstood the Plan, or mischaracterized it. Here is what the plan is - and what it is not:

1. The Plan is not partition.

In fact, it may be the only way to prevent a violent partition - which has already started -- and preserve a unified Iraq. We call for a strong central government, with clearly defined responsibilities for truly common interests like foreign policy and the distribution of oil revenues. Indeed, the Plan provides an agenda for that government, whose mere existence will not end sectarian violence.

2. The Plan is not a foreign imposition.

To the contrary, it is consistent with Iraq's constitution, which already provides for Iraq's 18 provinces to join together in regions, with their own security forces, and control over most day-to-day issues. On October 11, Iraq's parliament approved legislation to implement the constitution's articles on federalism. Prior to the British colonial period and Saddam's military dictatorship, what is now Iraq functioned as three largely autonomous regions.

But federalism alone is not enough. To ensure Sunni support, it is imperative that Iraqis also agree to an oil revenue sharing formula that guarantees the Sunni region economic viability. The United States should strongly promote such an agreement. The final decisions will be up to Iraqis, but if we do not help them arrange the necessary compromises, nothing will get done. At key junctures in the past, we have used our influence to shape political outcomes in Iraq, notably by convincing the Shiites and Kurds to accept a provision allowing for the constitution to be amended following its adoption, which was necessary to secure Sunni participation in the referendum. Using our influence is not the same as imposing our will. With 140,000 Americans at risk, we have a right and an obligation to make known our views.

3. The Plan is not an invitation to sectarian cleansing.

Tragically, that invitation has been sent, received and acted upon. Since the Samarra mosque bombing in February, one quarter of a million Iraqis have fled their homes for fear of sectarian violence, at a rate now approaching 10,000 people a week. That does not include hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - many from the professional class - who have left Iraq since the war. Only a political settlement, as proposed in the Plan, has a chance to stop this downward spiral.

4. The Plan is the only idea on the table for dealing with the sectarian militia.

It offers a realistic albeit interim solution. Realistic, because none of the major groups will give up their militia voluntarily in the absence of trust and confidence and neither we or the Iraqi government has the means to force them to do so. Once federalism is implemented, the militias are likely to retreat to their respective regions to protect their own and vie for power, instead of killing the members of other groups. But it is only an interim solution, because no nation can sustain itself peacefully with private armies. Over time, if a political settlement endures, the militia would be incorporated into regional and national forces, as is happening in Bosnia.

5. The Plan is an answer to the problem of mixed cities.

Large cities with mixed populations present a challenge under any plan now being considered. The essence of the Plan is that mixed populations can only live together peacefully if their leadership is truly satisfied with the overall arrangement. If so, that leadership will help keep the peace in the cities. At the same time, we would make Baghdad a federal city, and buttress the protection of minorities there and in the other mixed cities with an international peacekeeping force. Right now, the prospect for raising such a force is small. But following a political settlement, an international conference and the establishment of a Contact Group, others are more likely to participate, including countries like Saudi Arabia which have offered peacekeepers in the past.

6. The Plan is in the self-interest of Iran.

Iran likes it exactly as it is in Iraq - with the United States bogged down and bleeding. But the prospect of a civil war in Iraq is not in Tehran's interest: it could easily spill over Iraq's borders and turn into a regional war with neighbors intervening on opposing sides and exacerbating the Sunni-Shiite divide at a time Shiite Iran is trying to exert leadership in the Islamic world. Iran also would receive large refugee flows as Iraqis flee the fighting. Iran, like all of Iraq's neighbors, has an interest in Iraq remaining unified and not splitting into independent states. Iran does not want to see an independent Kurdistan emerge and serve as an example for its own restive 5 million Kurds. That's why Iran - and all of Iraq's neighbors -- can and should be engaged to support a political settlement in Iraq.

7. The Plan is in the self-interest of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

The Sunnis increasingly understand they will not regain power in Iraq. Faced with the choice of being a permanent minority player in a central government dominated by Shiites or having the freedom to control their day-to-day lives in a Sunni region, they are likely to choose the latter provided they are guaranteed a fair share of oil revenues to make their region viable. The Shiites know they can dominate Iraq politically, but not defeat a Sunni insurgency, which can bleed Iraq for years. The Kurds may dream of independence, but fear the reaction of Turkey and Iran - their interest is to achieve as much autonomy as possible while keeping Iraq together. Why would Shiites and Kurds give up some oil revenues to the Sunnis? Because that is the price of peace and the only way to attract the massive foreign investment needed to maximize Iraqi oil production. The result will be to give Shiites and Kurds a smaller piece of a much larger oil pie and give all three groups an incentive to protect the oil infrastructure.

RainDog

NCfan wrote:

This plan is basically Bush's Surge strategy "light" withe exception of promoting regional diplomacy.

It basically promotes everything Bush is trying to pursue, except our troops sit on the sideline somewhere and watch instead of actively participate in the process.

Basically, Obama's plan would allow a civil war and genocide to take place within spiting distance of American forces - that is terrible...

It's not a "surge strategy light." How could it be if there's no surge?

Bush is (supposedly) trying to pursue stability in the area; so is Obama (again, supposedly). So, yeah, it's pursuing the same goals - as is just about everyone. It's a question about how to go about it.

At what point can we leave? When there's no threat of conflict breaking out in the area? There's been conflict in the area for centuries. Do we stay for centuries just to make sure?

RainDog

blackredyellow wrote:

Iraq: A Way Forward

Biden's plan isn't a bad one either. There are actually quite a few workable strategies floating around Washington. To say that it's all just political posturing based on opinion polls is, well ...... what's that McCain word everyone's been using lately?

Collin

Was there ever a plan for Afghanistan?

NCfan

blackredyellow wrote:

Iraq: A Way Forward

President Bush does not have a strategy for victory in Iraq. His strategy is to prevent defeat and to hand the problem off to his successor. As a result, more and more Americans understandably want a rapid withdrawal, even at the risk of trading a dictator for chaos and a civil war that could become a regional war. Both are bad alternatives.

There is a third way that can achieve the two objectives most Americans share: to bring our troops home without leaving chaos behind. The idea is to maintain a unified Iraq by federalizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis breathing room in their own regions. The central government would be responsible for common interests, like border security and the distribution of oil revenues. The plan would bind the Sunnis - who have no oil -- by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of oil revenues. It would convene an international conference to secure support for the power sharing arrangement and produce a regional nonaggression pact, overseen by a Contact Group of major powers. It would call on the U.S. military to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2007, with a residual force to keep Iraqis and their neighbors honest. It would increase economic aid but tie it to the protection of minority rights and the creation of a jobs program and seek funding from the oil-rich Gulf Arab states. The new, central reality in Iraq is deep and growing sectarian violence between the Shiites and Sunnis. In last December's elections, 90 percent of the votes went to sectarian lists. Ethnic militias increasingly are the law in Iraq. They have infiltrated the official security forces. Massive unemployment is feeding the sectarian militia. Sectarian cleansing has forced at least 250,000 Iraqis to flee their homes in recent months. At the same time, Al Qaeda is now so firmly entrenched in Western Iraq that it has morphed into an indigenous jihadist threat. As a result, Iraq risks becoming what it was not before the war: a haven for radical fundamentalists.

There is no purely military solution to the sectarian civil war. The only way to break the vicious cycle of violence - and to create the conditions for our armed forces to responsibly withdraw -- is to give Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds incentives to pursue their interests peacefully. That requires an equitable and viable power sharing arrangement. That's where my plan comes in. This plan is not partition - in fact, it may be the only way to prevent violent partition and preserve a unified Iraq. This plan is consistent with Iraq's constitution, which provides for Iraq's 18 provinces to join together in regions, with their own security forces, and control over most day-to-day issues. This plan is the only idea on the table for dealing with the militia, which are likely to retreat to their respective regions. This plan is consistent with a strong central government, with clearly defined responsibilities. Indeed, it provides an agenda for that government, whose mere existence will not end sectarian violence.

The example of Bosnia is illustrative. Ten years ago, Bosnia was being torn apart by ethnic cleansing. The United States stepped in decisively with the Dayton Accords to keep the country whole by, paradoxically, dividing it into ethnic federations. We even allowed Muslims, Croats and Serbs to retain separate armies. With the help of U.S. troops and others, Bosnians have lived a decade in peace. Now, they are strengthening their central government, and disbanding their separate armies.

The course we're on leads to a terrible civil war and possibly a regional war. This plan is designed to head that off. I believe it is the best way to bring our troops home, protect our fundamental security interests, and preserve Iraq as a unified country.

The question I have for those who reject this plan is simple: what is your alternative?

Joe Biden
A Five Point Plan for Iraq

1. Establish One Iraq, with Three Regions

* Federalize Iraq in accordance with its constitution by establishing three largely autonomous regions - Shiite, Sunni and Kurd -- with a strong but limited central government in Baghdad
* Put the central government in charge of truly common interests: border defense, foreign policy, oil production and revenues
* Form regional governments -- Kurd, Sunni and Shiite -- responsible for administering their own regions

2. Share Oil Revenues

* Gain agreement for the federal solution from the Sunni Arabs by guaranteeing them 20 percent of all present and future oil revenues -- an amount roughly proportional to their size -- which would make their region economically viable
* Empower the central government to set national oil policy and distribute the revenues, which would attract needed foreign investment and reinforce each community's interest in keeping Iraq intact and protecting the oil infrastructure

3. Convene International Conference, Enforce Regional Non-Aggression Pact

* Convene with the U.N. a regional security conference where Iraq's neighbors, including Iran, pledge to support Iraq's power sharing agreement and respect Iraq's borders
* Engage Iraq's neighbors directly to overcome their suspicions and focus their efforts on stabilizing Iraq, not undermining it
* Create a standing Contact Group, to include the major powers, that would engage Iraq's neighbors and enforce their commitments

4. Responsibly Drawdown US Troops

* Direct U.S. military commanders to develop a plan to withdraw and re-deploy almost all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2007
* Maintain in or near Iraq a small residual force -- perhaps 20,000 troops -- to strike any concentration of terrorists, help keep Iraq's neighbors honest and train its security forces

5. Increase Reconstruction Assistance and Create a Jobs Program

* Provide more reconstruction assistance, conditioned on the protection of minority and women's rights and the establishment of a jobs program to give Iraqi youth an alternative to the militia and criminal gangs
* Insist that other countries take the lead in funding reconstruction by making good on old commitments and providing new ones -- especially the oil-rich Arab Gulf countries

Plan for Iraq: What It Is - and What It Is Not

Some commentators have either misunderstood the Plan, or mischaracterized it. Here is what the plan is - and what it is not:

1. The Plan is not partition.

In fact, it may be the only way to prevent a violent partition - which has already started -- and preserve a unified Iraq. We call for a strong central government, with clearly defined responsibilities for truly common interests like foreign policy and the distribution of oil revenues. Indeed, the Plan provides an agenda for that government, whose mere existence will not end sectarian violence.

2. The Plan is not a foreign imposition.

To the contrary, it is consistent with Iraq's constitution, which already provides for Iraq's 18 provinces to join together in regions, with their own security forces, and control over most day-to-day issues. On October 11, Iraq's parliament approved legislation to implement the constitution's articles on federalism. Prior to the British colonial period and Saddam's military dictatorship, what is now Iraq functioned as three largely autonomous regions.

But federalism alone is not enough. To ensure Sunni support, it is imperative that Iraqis also agree to an oil revenue sharing formula that guarantees the Sunni region economic viability. The United States should strongly promote such an agreement. The final decisions will be up to Iraqis, but if we do not help them arrange the necessary compromises, nothing will get done. At key junctures in the past, we have used our influence to shape political outcomes in Iraq, notably by convincing the Shiites and Kurds to accept a provision allowing for the constitution to be amended following its adoption, which was necessary to secure Sunni participation in the referendum. Using our influence is not the same as imposing our will. With 140,000 Americans at risk, we have a right and an obligation to make known our views.

3. The Plan is not an invitation to sectarian cleansing.

Tragically, that invitation has been sent, received and acted upon. Since the Samarra mosque bombing in February, one quarter of a million Iraqis have fled their homes for fear of sectarian violence, at a rate now approaching 10,000 people a week. That does not include hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - many from the professional class - who have left Iraq since the war. Only a political settlement, as proposed in the Plan, has a chance to stop this downward spiral.

4. The Plan is the only idea on the table for dealing with the sectarian militia.

It offers a realistic albeit interim solution. Realistic, because none of the major groups will give up their militia voluntarily in the absence of trust and confidence and neither we or the Iraqi government has the means to force them to do so. Once federalism is implemented, the militias are likely to retreat to their respective regions to protect their own and vie for power, instead of killing the members of other groups. But it is only an interim solution, because no nation can sustain itself peacefully with private armies. Over time, if a political settlement endures, the militia would be incorporated into regional and national forces, as is happening in Bosnia.

5. The Plan is an answer to the problem of mixed cities.

Large cities with mixed populations present a challenge under any plan now being considered. The essence of the Plan is that mixed populations can only live together peacefully if their leadership is truly satisfied with the overall arrangement. If so, that leadership will help keep the peace in the cities. At the same time, we would make Baghdad a federal city, and buttress the protection of minorities there and in the other mixed cities with an international peacekeeping force. Right now, the prospect for raising such a force is small. But following a political settlement, an international conference and the establishment of a Contact Group, others are more likely to participate, including countries like Saudi Arabia which have offered peacekeepers in the past.

6. The Plan is in the self-interest of Iran.

Iran likes it exactly as it is in Iraq - with the United States bogged down and bleeding. But the prospect of a civil war in Iraq is not in Tehran's interest: it could easily spill over Iraq's borders and turn into a regional war with neighbors intervening on opposing sides and exacerbating the Sunni-Shiite divide at a time Shiite Iran is trying to exert leadership in the Islamic world. Iran also would receive large refugee flows as Iraqis flee the fighting. Iran, like all of Iraq's neighbors, has an interest in Iraq remaining unified and not splitting into independent states. Iran does not want to see an independent Kurdistan emerge and serve as an example for its own restive 5 million Kurds. That's why Iran - and all of Iraq's neighbors -- can and should be engaged to support a political settlement in Iraq.

7. The Plan is in the self-interest of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

The Sunnis increasingly understand they will not regain power in Iraq. Faced with the choice of being a permanent minority player in a central government dominated by Shiites or having the freedom to control their day-to-day lives in a Sunni region, they are likely to choose the latter provided they are guaranteed a fair share of oil revenues to make their region viable. The Shiites know they can dominate Iraq politically, but not defeat a Sunni insurgency, which can bleed Iraq for years. The Kurds may dream of independence, but fear the reaction of Turkey and Iran - their interest is to achieve as much autonomy as possible while keeping Iraq together. Why would Shiites and Kurds give up some oil revenues to the Sunnis? Because that is the price of peace and the only way to attract the massive foreign investment needed to maximize Iraqi oil production. The result will be to give Shiites and Kurds a smaller piece of a much larger oil pie and give all three groups an incentive to protect the oil infrastructure.

Wow, never liked Biden but I surely like this plan. If makes the most sense of anything I've heard so far. Not sure if I would vote for him for president. But if none of the other players can come up with a better plan than this - then it's Biden in 08!

slightofjeff

NCfan wrote:

Wow, never liked Biden but I surely like this plan. If makes the most sense of anything I've heard so far. Not sure if I would vote for him for president. But if none of the other players can come up with a better plan than this - then it's Biden in 08!

But I heard somewhere that plan was a foreign imposition that invited sectarian cleansing and was not the answer to the problem of mixed cities

blackredyellow

slightofjeff wrote:

But I heard somewhere that plan was a foreign imposition that invited sectarian cleansing and was not the answer to the problem of mixed cities

not to mention that it's entirely in the self-interest of Iran...

soulsinging

NCfan wrote:

For all of his problems and downfalls, Bush's strategy is the only one that deals with the long term. His plan might have a small chance of success, but at least it offers a long term solution if it does prevail. Nobody else can say that, mostly becuase it is something nobody else wants to talk about.

bush's strategy? he has no strategy, that's the problem. certainly not a long term one. that is what the GENERALS were pissed about. bush had no plans for post-capture-of-baghdad. none. he doesn't have any sort of long term strategy and if you think he does you're as clueless as he is.

slightofjeff

chiefojibwa wrote:

to me, bush's "plan" seems to be let the dems and a few outsider repubs have this debate, then blame them when the surge doesn't work.

i mean, c'mon, do you think that 21,500 more troops is going to solve this problem in the long run? bush and co. want to cut and run just as bad as anyone, and this way they can place the blame on anyone who "weakened" their hand by opposing the surge.

The problem in Iraq from the get-go has been not enough troops. Bush apparently favored Rummy's "quick and agile" to Powell's "overwhelming force."

So, it stands to reason that surge could work. I'm just not so sure it's not too little, too late.

NCfan

blackredyellow wrote:

not to mention that it's entirely in the self-interest of Iran...

Not sure what you guys mean here. Just because it may be in the self-interest of Iran, doesn't mean it's not the best choice.

Abookamongstthemany

The Kucinich Plan to End the War in Iraq includes the following:

1. Congress must deny more funds for the war.
2. The President will have to call the troops home, close the bases, and end the occupation.
3. Initiate a parallel peace process which brings in international peace keepers.
4. Move in the international peace keeping and security force and move out U.S. troops. Peacekeepers will stay until the Iraqis are able to handle their own security.
5. Order U.S. contractors out of Iraq.
6. Fund an honest process of reconstruction.
7. Protect the economic position of the Iraqi people by stabilizing prices in Iraq, including those for food and energy.
8. Create a process which gives the Iraqi people control over their economic destiny without the structural adjustment policies of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
9. Give the Iraqi people full control over their oil assets, with no mandatory privatization.
10. Fund a process of reconciliation between the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds.
11. The U.S. must refrain from any covert operation in Iraq.
12. The U.S. must begin a process of truth and reconciliation between our nation and the people of Iraq.

NCfan

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Bush has said it repeatedly and often that he is not seeking war with Iran. Everybody knows that we're not going to wake up one morning and we invaded Iran.

But Murtha would have us all think that way. It is complete political posturing! And it is done in a way to undermine the confidence in our president. This is terrible. Murtha is an unhonerable man to do something like this.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/15/us.iraq.ap/index.html

jlew24asu

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

1. Congress must deny more funds for the war.
2. The President will have to call the troops home, close the bases, and end the occupation.

so victory or stability in Iraq arent important? got it

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

3. Initiate a parallel peace process which brings in international peace keepers.
4. Move in the international peace keeping and security force and move out U.S. troops. Peacekeepers will stay until the Iraqis are able to handle their own security.

peacekeepers? and who the hell is that? the UN? wont happen. scratch that idea.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

5. Order U.S. contractors out of Iraq.

why?

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

6. Fund an honest process of reconstruction.

what does this even mean? I thought we are kicking US contractors out. now we are going to contract the contrators but this time make it "honest"

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

7. Protect the economic position of the Iraqi people by stabilizing prices in Iraq, including those for food and energy.

sounds great, good luck with that.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

8. Create a process which gives the Iraqi people control over their economic destiny without the structural adjustment policies of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

again, why do this? the role of the world bank is to be responsible for providing financing and advice to countries for the purposes of economic development and eliminating poverty

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

9. Give the Iraqi people full control over their oil assets, with no mandatory privatization.

ok

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

10. Fund a process of reconciliation between the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds.

here we go dreaming again. fund a process? should we buy new table and chairs for the to sit and talk with each other. I dont know, I'm all for peace between these parties but lets come up with more precise ideas.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

11. The U.S. must refrain from any covert operation in Iraq.

horrible idea.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

12. The U.S. must begin a process of truth and reconciliation between our nation and the people of Iraq.

ok

RainDog

NCfan wrote:

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Bush has said it repeatedly and often that he is not seeking war with Iran. Everybody knows that we're not going to wake up one morning and we invaded Iran.

But Murtha would have us all think that way. It is complete political posturing! And it is done in a way to undermine the confidence in our president. This is terrible. Murtha is an unhonerable man to do something like this.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/15/us.iraq.ap/index.html

Bush repeatedly said that war with Iraq would be a last resort, and we all know how that turned out. A lot of rhetoric coming from the administration sounds painfully similar to what was being said prior to the invasion of Iraq.

I don't trust Bush. And I have absolutely no confidence in him. In fact, if this country had a "vote of no confidence" I'd be pushing for it right now. Bush has broad war-time powers right now, and I don't trust him with them. I wouldn't put it past him to move into Iran and call it part of the overall (and never ending) war on terror. Personally, I'm glad Murtha is pursuing this - as the administration has all but outright said they do not need Congressional approval to move on Iran - as that was already given to them with the Iraq war vote. I say Bullshit, but maybe there is some ambiguity there. I say remove that ambiguity and put this shit in writing.

Abookamongstthemany

jlew24asu wrote:

so victory or stability in Iraq arent important? got it

What is victory there exactly? And of course stability is important, putting more money into this war is in no way going to bring stability to Iraq.

jlew24asu wrote:

peacekeepers? and who the hell is that? the UN? wont happen. scratch that idea.

Peacekeepers help bring stability and peace to a region and no I'm not scratching that idea.

jlew24asu wrote:

why?

Becausing they are profiting off of an horrible situation and not making much progress in the country to boot.

jlew24asu wrote:

what does this even mean? I thought we are kicking US contractors out. now we are going to contract the contrators but this time make it "honest"

Fund people who are not simply vested in only making huge profits but actually want to make the place better for the Iraqi people.

jlew24asu wrote:

sounds great, good luck with that.

Thanks for your well wishes.

jlew24asu wrote:

again, why do this? the role of the world bank is to be responsible for providing financing and advice to countries for the purposes of economic development and eliminating poverty

If you haven't noticed, they do the exact opposite of that.

jlew24asu wrote:

here we go dreaming again. fund a process? should we buy new table and chairs for the to sit and talk with each other. I dont know, I'm all for peace between these parties but lets come up with more precise ideas.

The basic idea is diplomacy and easing the suffering and chaos for all parties involved so they can begin to heal and make progress. What would be your idea?

jlew24asu wrote:

horrible idea.

How so?

jlew24asu

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

What is victory there exactly? And of course stability is important, putting more money into this war is in no way going to bring stability to Iraq.

victory means having a stable democracy and no presense of el queda or foreign fighters.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Peacekeepers help bring stability and peace to a region and no I'm not scratching that idea.

yea but who will be the peacekeepers? not the UN. they wont do.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Becausing they are profiting off of an horrible situation and not making much progress in the country to boot.

people who work get paid. if you want to kick out US contractors, some out nation will move in and profit. how do you know we arent making progress in rebuilding?

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Fund people who are not simply vested in only making huge profits but actually want to make the place better for the Iraqi people.

who are these people you speak of?

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

If you haven't noticed, they do the exact opposite of that.

no I havent noticed. care to prove it?

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

The basic idea is diplomacy and easing the suffering and chaos for all parties involved so they can begin to heal and make progress. What would be your idea?

yea lets do it. whatever it takes. i'm on board.