Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26415

A Strategy for Iraq

By John F. Kerry
Tuesday, April 13, 2004; Page A19 (WaPo)

To be successful in Iraq, and in any war for that matter, our use of force must be tied to a political objective more complete than the ouster of a regime. To date, that has not happened in Iraq. It is time it did.

In the past week the situation in Iraq has taken a dramatic turn for the worse. While we may have differed on how we went to war, Americans of all political persuasions are united in our determination to succeed. The extremists attacking our forces should know they will not succeed in dividing America, or in sapping American resolve, or in forcing the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops. Our country is committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society. No matter who is elected president in November, we will persevere in that mission.

But to maximize our chances for success, and to minimize the risk of failure, we must make full use of the assets we have. If our military commanders request more troops, we should deploy them. Progress is not possible in Iraq if people lack the security to go about the business of daily life. Yet the military alone cannot win the peace in Iraq. We need a political strategy that will work.

Over the past year the Bush administration has advanced several plans for a transition to democratic rule in Iraq. Each of those plans, after proving to be unworkable, was abandoned. The administration has set a date (June 30) for returning authority to an Iraqi entity to run the country, but there is no agreement with the Iraqis on how it will be constituted to make it representative enough to have popular legitimacy. Because of the way the White House has run the war, we are left with the United States bearing most of the costs and risks associated with every aspect of the Iraqi transition. We have lost lives, time, momentum and credibility. And we are seeing increasing numbers of Iraqis lashing out at the United States to express their frustration over what the Bush administration has and hasn't done.

In recent weeks the administration -- in effect acknowledging the failure of its own efforts -- has turned to U.N. representative Lakhdar Brahimi to develop a formula for an interim Iraqi government that each of the major Iraqi factions can accept. It is vital that Brahimi accomplish this mission, but the odds are long, because tensions have been allowed to build and distrust among the various Iraqi groups runs deep. The United States can bolster Brahimi's limited leverage by saying in advance that we will support any plan he proposes that gains the support of Iraqi leaders. Moving forward, the administration must make the United Nations a full partner responsible for developing Iraq's transition to a new constitution and government. We also need to renew our effort to attract international support in the form of boots on the ground to create a climate of security in Iraq. We need more troops and more people who can train Iraqi troops and assist Iraqi police.

We should urge NATO to create a new out-of-area operation for Iraq under the lead of a U.S. commander. This would help us obtain more troops from major powers. The events of the past week will make foreign governments extremely reluctant to put their citizens at risk. That is why international acceptance of responsibility for stabilizing Iraq must be matched by international authority for managing the remainder of the Iraqi transition. The United Nations, not the United States, should be the primary civilian partner in working with Iraqi leaders to hold elections, restore government services, rebuild the economy, and re-create a sense of hope and optimism among the Iraqi people. The primary responsibility for security must remain with the U.S. military, preferably helped by NATO until we have an Iraqi security force fully prepared to take responsibility.

Finally, we must level with our citizens. Increasingly, the American people are confused about our goals in Iraq, particularly why we are going it almost alone. The president must rally the country around a clear and credible goal. The challenges are significant and the costs are high. But the stakes are too great to lose the support of the American people.

This morning, as we sit down to read newspapers in the comfort of our homes or offices, we have an obligation to think of our fighting men and women in Iraq who awake each morning to a shooting gallery in which it is exceedingly difficult to distinguish friend from foe, and the death of every innocent creates more enemies. We owe it to our soldiers and Marines to use absolutely every tool we can muster to help them succeed in their mission without exposing them to unnecessary risk. That is not a partisan proposal. It is a matter of national honor and trust.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

Man, Billgerat is going to puke at the outrageous exploitation of the suffering of US troops in Iraq for political capital.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26415

Here was an interesting comment I read elsewhere:

quote:

---

So you're a war supporter, and Iraq is going to hell. You want to pull the troops out, but doing so might require admitting defeat. And admitting defeat would mean that the bloodbath in Iraq was all for naught.
What to do? Easy.

Blame Iraqis. Talk about how the US came in, altruistic at heart, hoping to spread "freedom" to the Iraqi people. And then, pointing to the current broad-based rebellion, screech about how "ungrateful" the Iraqis are to the US for bringing said "freedom" to the country.

And then cut tail and run.

Watch the Right. It's gonna happen.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

It already did happen.

Congresspersons on the left have been braying for months about how Iraq is inherently unsuited to western-style Democracy, and they signalled their desire to cut and run by voting against the authorization of funds for the occupation.

A number of individuals on these forums have made the same arguments and opposed the same funding.

Kerry's proposal, by the way, has some merits, although terrorist actions against UN facilities in Iraq lead me to believe that a multilateral veneer won't make one iota of difference in terms of resistance to the occupation. At least he's come around to the idea that putting more troops on the ground is a good thing.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26415

He's been saying that for months (long before the nomination was clinched, back when he was still debating Lieberman). It was one of the subjects of a Bush attack ad, I believe.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

Don't recall the ad; couldn't find it on the Bush campaign website.

Explain again how Kerry squares voting against S. 1869 (the $87 billion bill financing the occupation) with putting more troops on the ground in Iraq? I remember he had a story attempting to reconcile the two, but I don't recall what it was.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26415

The attack ad I think was one of the "Kerry flip flop ones", maybe to the very effect you're mentioning. I seem to recall it being "John Kerry voted against the War in Iraq, but now supports more troop deployments there" or something to that effect (in an ad listing different recants). I could very well be wrong though, or thinking of a 3rd party ad.

He said he was willing to support the 87 billion if it came from repealing enough of the tax cuts to pay for it, but he doesn't support it being carte blanche added to the deficit. Since the president didn't attach any way to fund the 87 billion save adding it to the deficit, he voted against it. Don't know if he suggests that he would pay for it differently were he president. Presumably, I guess, he would.

edit: Now that I think about it, I know that's why he voted against the 87 billion, I think his more troops stance is separate. Something about shuffling around forces or providing better enlistment bonuses or some fucking thing. It was fairly convoluted, as I recall, or maybe just my recollection of it is.

Last edited by Paint CHiPs on 04-14-2004 at 02:51 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

Oh, yeah, that was it.

He opposed the expansion of the US presence in Iraq because there was no mechanism to pay for it.

He supports a different expansion, although he hasn't mentioned how he'd pay for it.

You can see how this would be a critical distinction.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26415

Just sayin'.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHiPsJr
Oh, yeah, that was it.

He opposed the expansion of the US presence in Iraq because there was no mechanism to pay for it.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

(Referencing Paint's post above) Yeah, I understand where you're coming from.

The thing I'm saying, I guess, is that if the Republicans should try to pull that particular strategy as an exit from Iraq, you're going to hear a lot of people shreiking about it who espoused exactly the same thing when it wasn't Bush proposing it.

I don't know that Kerry in particular is one of them, but it will be a bit hard for him to vigorously wave a finger on the issue given the, ahem, "nuance" of his previous "stance" on the matter.

Anyway, pulling out prior to the agreed-upon timetable would be a bad idea, whereas more troops on the ground is a good one. The question Kerry needs to now be asked is: does he support more troops on the ground as a worthy step IN ITSELF, or does he support them only if the multilateral organizations in question are given the authority he suggests?

Last edited by CHiPsJr on 04-14-2004 at 05:21 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

Political and (I guess) military logic would dictate that he has to support the extra troops, at least in the short term, as an extra measure to safeguard the troops already there (protecting the supply line to Fallujah so that the marines there don't run out of ammunition, for example, would be pretty handy). I guess that his hope for greater multilateralism is a mdium-term objective, and the US is underwriting all of this with a blank cheque in any case, that is a done deal (as you say, pulling out too early would be a Bad Idea).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
When he was apparently previously saying that there were more troops needed, the obvious implication would be that he would pay for it through the same mechanism that he wished to find some or all of the $87 billion, which is to say, through repeal of some of the Bush taxcuts.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
Political and (I guess) military logic would dictate that he has to support the extra troops, at least in the short term, as an extra measure to safeguard the troops already there (protecting the supply line to Fallujah so that the marines there don't run out of ammunition, for example, would be pretty handy). I guess that his hope for greater multilateralism is a mdium-term objective, and the US is underwriting all of this with a blank cheque in any case, that is a done deal (as you say, pulling out too early would be a Bad Idea).

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

I think that they both have to be supporting more troops as is; Abizaid has asked for them and I think that it would be politically stupid to say 'no, you can't have them' when the military are publically saying that they can't do the job without them.

It would be far better for the candidates to be clear about their spending; even if Bush is sourcing his spending, he has little credibility on that anymore (given that his estimates have been off-beam up until now) and Kerry doesn't seem to be getting successfully pressed as to where money will come from.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 3063

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHiPsJr
Don't recall the ad; couldn't find it on the Bush campaign website.

Explain again how Kerry squares voting against S. 1869 (the $87 billion bill financing the occupation) with putting more troops on the ground in Iraq? I remember he had a story attempting to reconcile the two, but I don't recall what it was.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Harm's Way
Posts: 557

quote:

---

Iraqis build a.... peaceful and pluralistic society

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged