John F. Kerry: A Strategy for Iraq

MonstaThrilla

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2000
1,652
0
0
WaPo Op/Ed

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.
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
A very skillfully crafted political speech. And I mean that as a compliment, not an insult. It will be interesting to see if we can get NATO in there. From a political perspective (not a military one), we screw the pooch in Iraq and then expect other countries to send their people to die. I'd have to get something pretty good in return, but who knows? Perhaps altruism will prevail.
 

CrazyHelloDeli

Platinum Member
Jun 24, 2001
2,854
0
0
There he goes with the "We need the UN to succeed" mantra. I have no reason to believe that the UN would be more succesful at providing and executing a plan for Iraq's sovereignty, than the US has been. On the other hand, I see no real reason NOT to try and get the UN involved to see if progress could be made, however small a chance that would be. Personally, I think Iraq in its current state and the cultural underpinnings make it incompatible with any form of a democratic government. As much as I hate to say it, these people can only be governed by a ruthless dictator such as Sadam, and Bush was foolish for even entertaining the thought of a democratic Iraq. No matter if the US goes it alone, or the whole world unites behind this fairy tale, as soon as power is transferred civil war will erupt.

As far as Kerry's speach, I cant fault the man for at least having a plan, regardless of how futile it may be.
 

Painman

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2000
3,728
29
86
I tend to agree, democracy may be desirable for everyone but not feasible everywhere. Iraq suffers from a similar malady as Afghanistan - its borders are arbitrarily drawn on the map by conquerors and colonialists with little regard to established tribal and ethnic boundaries. We're trying to unite groups of people that have nursed their enmities towards each other for centuries (Shiites and Sunnis) as well as some who strongly prefer to do their own thing (Kurds).

I dunno, there's no rewind button in life, we can't go back to 1918 and start all over again.
 

NightCrawler

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2003
3,179
0
0
I have news for Kerry and the rest of the pundits who continuely drone on about getting more countries to send troops............It's not going to happen !!!!!!!!!!!!

Most other countries don't have any major interest in the middle east and it only gets them in trouble at home. It will be 50 years before French troops step foot inside Iraq.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Neither the U.N. nor NATO wants involvement in Iraq. That would be a hard sell.

I think we lose regardless of what we do now in Iraq. No winning strategy exists. If we stay there 10 years and have lost 2000 Americans and spent 500 billion dollars, will we have won? If we leave now, will we have won? Just what constitutes winning and how do we do it?

That post convinces me that Kerry is utterly clueless about what to do in Iraq and should admit it. Bush should admit it as well.

-Robert
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Indeed, chess9. It's even worse than Vietnam, where, in the end, all we wanted to save was our pride, where there was only one united adversary, and where the results of withdrawal were entirely predictable, other than the incredible ferocity of the Khymer Rouge.

It's likely the greatest foreign policy blunder of all time. Pulling out precipitously invites intervention by the Turks, Syrians and Iranians- remaining in place calls for a plan and the application of force that we hadn't bargained for...

From a historical perspective, Baathism had the only winning strategy, warped as it was by Saddam and his henchmen. Maybe bringing them back in a rehabilitated form would work, much as we did in Japan and Germany post-WW2.

At the moment, we're just repressive enough to keep them riled up, and not ruthless enough to make them submit- caught in the middle.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
Originally posted by: chess9
Neither the U.N. nor NATO wants involvement in Iraq. That would be a hard sell.

I think we lose regardless of what we do now in Iraq. No winning strategy exists. If we stay there 10 years and have lost 2000 Americans and spent 500 billion dollars, will we have won? If we leave now, will we have won? Just what constitutes winning and how do we do it?

That post convinces me that Kerry is utterly clueless about what to do in Iraq and should admit it. Bush should admit it as well.

-Robert

Bush isn't clueless about what to do in Iraq. His answer simply reflects his lack of caring. Iraq is the result of the Bush administration policy of Full Spectrum Dominance. To Bush "Freedom", Democracy for Iraqis etc. mean nothing compared to the US need of preserving a military presence in the Middle East region. This need naturally bankrupts any credibility the US has. Full Spectrum Dominace dictated the invasion but the Bush administration did not have a plan prepared for the aftermath of Iraq simply because they do not care about Iraq and the Iraqis as long as US goals are met.

The democrats are furious at Bush not so much for his policies as the fact that he committed the US on a course from which there is no return.



 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Why do you think one of the reason Bush's father didn't want to topple Saddam? He knew the mess that would be created. And that administration was much better prepared to handle such a situation than this one is.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Why do you think one of the reason Bush's father didn't want to topple Saddam? He knew the mess that would be created. And that administration was much better prepared to handle such a situation than this one is.

How so?