Next President: a Democrat. Iraq question.....

RDWYTruckDriver

Senior member
Jul 16, 2003
300
0
0
A Democrat wins the Presidency and George W. Bush is defeated. What does this next President do with the Iraq situation ?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
That's a difficult question to answer considering there's more than a year to go before that happens. A lot can transpire in that period of time...
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
Well, it's like asking what you do with dog poop on your shoe. It's yours if you want it or not. The US owes the Iraqis. Big time. My guess? Pretty much the same as we have now as far as reconstruction goes, but with more international involvement.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Maintain a presence, arrange an equitable troop rotation, and get UN involvement - so we can reduce our troop presence.

1) We can't walk away from this like we have done with other countries in the past, the stakes are too big.
A show of dedication of action is more important that a show of force.

2) If we can entertain a presence from NATO countries, and inject their energies into this action, then the
Iraqi's will see the shift that signals our future exit, and a return to them of their country for 'normalizing'.

3) Most likely the physical attacks would be reduced, extremists would rant and rave, Clerics could hold them in check.

4) Diminishing manpower troop rotations after an assisted ( by UN Peacekeepers ) stabilization period, and
continued reduction in personel involved - US and UN troops, reduction by merit - the calmer it becomes
the more easily we can let it procede, until we are comfortable with the results as we exit.

5) Do not overlook the fact that the present status of Iraq makes them vulnerable to additional attacks by their
untrusting and opportunistic neighboring countries - which may see the chance of a land grab if we left.

6) We have to undertake the defense of that country, until such time that it's military presence may be
re-instated - if ever. Japan had to go with virtually no military of it's own for 50 some years.

 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Maintain a presence, arrange an equitable troop rotation, and get UN involvement - so we can reduce our troop presence.

1) We can't walk away from this like we have done with other countries in the past, the stakes are too big.
A show of dedication of action is more important that a show of force.

2) If we can entertain a presence from NATO countries, and inject their energies into this action, then the
Iraqi's will see the shift that signals our future exit, and a return to them of their country for 'normalizing'.

3) Most likely the physical attacks would be reduced, extremists would rant and rave, Clerics could hold them in check.

4) Diminishing manpower troop rotations after an assisted ( by UN Peacekeepers ) stabilization period, and
continued reduction in personel involved - US and UN troops, reduction by merit - the calmer it becomes
the more easily we can let it procede, until we are comfortable with the results as we exit.

5) Do not overlook the fact that the present status of Iraq makes them vulnerable to additional attacks by their
untrusting and opportunistic neighboring countries - which may see the chance of a land grab if we left.

6) We have to undertake the defense of that country, until such time that it's military presence may be
re-instated - if ever. Japan had to go with virtually no military of it's own for 50 some years.

What you are talking about here is a 7-10 year plan. There isn't going to be an equitable troop rotation. Iraq is going to become the Middle eastern equivalent of S. Korea or Germany, a permanent military presence is going to be established there along with increased presence in Kuwait and Qatr. NATO is already in Afghanistan and those countries will not or cannot commit the amount of forces necessary to do what needs to be done in those countries plus their other commitments. We are in Iraq for the long haul, a lot longer than 7-10 years. The trick, obviously, is duplicating what we did in Japan and Germany.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Dean's Statement on Iraq
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Governor Howard Dean, M.D. called for United Nations cooperation in helping rebuild Iraq.

"We knew from the outset we could win this war without much help from others. But we cannot win the peace by continuing to go it alone," Governor Dean said. "Our goal should be what the Administration has promised-an Iraq that is stable, self-sufficient, whole and free. Our strategy to achieve that goal should be based on a partnership with three sides-U.S., international and Iraqi-and a program that begins with seven basic points."

Those points are:

*
A NATO-led coalition should maintain order and guarantee disarmament.
*
Civilian authority in Iraq should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N. Security Council.
*
The U.N.'s Oil for Food program should be transformed into an Oil for Recovery program, to pay part of the costs of reconstruction and transition.
*
The U.S. should convene an international donor's conference to help finance the financial burden of paying for Iraq's recovery.
*
Women should participate in every aspect of the decision-making process.
*
A means should be established to prosecute crimes committed against the Iraqi people by individuals associated with Saddam Hussein's regime.
*
A democratic transition will take between 18 to 24 months, although troops should expect to be in Iraq for a longer period.

"We must hold the Administration to its promises before the war, and create a world after the war that is safer, more democratic, and more united in winning the larger struggle against terrorism and the forces that breed it," Governor Dean said.

"That is, after all, now much more than a national security objective," he added. "It is a declaration of national purpose, written in the blood of our troops, and of the innocent on all sides who have perished."
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,410
4,790
126
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Maintain a presence, arrange an equitable troop rotation, and get UN involvement - so we can reduce our troop presence.

1) We can't walk away from this like we have done with other countries in the past, the stakes are too big.
A show of dedication of action is more important that a show of force.

2) If we can entertain a presence from NATO countries, and inject their energies into this action, then the
Iraqi's will see the shift that signals our future exit, and a return to them of their country for 'normalizing'.

3) Most likely the physical attacks would be reduced, extremists would rant and rave, Clerics could hold them in check.

4) Diminishing manpower troop rotations after an assisted ( by UN Peacekeepers ) stabilization period, and
continued reduction in personel involved - US and UN troops, reduction by merit - the calmer it becomes
the more easily we can let it procede, until we are comfortable with the results as we exit.

5) Do not overlook the fact that the present status of Iraq makes them vulnerable to additional attacks by their
untrusting and opportunistic neighboring countries - which may see the chance of a land grab if we left.

6) We have to undertake the defense of that country, until such time that it's military presence may be
re-instated - if ever. Japan had to go with virtually no military of it's own for 50 some years.

What you are talking about here is a 7-10 year plan. There isn't going to be an equitable troop rotation. Iraq is going to become the Middle eastern equivalent of N. Korea or Germany, a permanent military presence is going to be established there along with increased presence in Kuwait and Qatr. NATO is already in Afghanistan and those countries will not or cannot commit the amount of forces necessary to do what needs to be done in those countries plus their other commitments. We are in Iraq for the long haul, a lot longer than 7-10 years. The trick, obviously, is duplicating what we did in Japan and Germany.
psst, S. Korea ;)
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
So long haul it is, we can't cut and run now with the inititative we have launched.
First stability of the region sill take at least 5 years, if we decide to maintain an
advanced milirary presence so we can 'Watch-Dog' - we double or triple our time line.

With the UN involved and if we forgo a 'Saudi' type military build up, we could transfer
responsibility to UN and when a certain coalition troop count is reached, initiate a phased
reduction to incrementally lowered - by say, 10,000 per month as 5,000 per month are
phased in by UN personel until a rotational comitment to sustain 50,000 boots on ground
will not lead to quiting the military, by over-using people throuh extensions and re-deployments.

This is not going to be the looked forward to pleasurable assignment - like present Germany,
or any of the European assignments that we have taken for granted today,
and we dare not burn the soldiers out like we did in 'Nam during the draft days.

My son is willing to go ahead and make the service a carrer, but he is unwilling
to place himself in continuous state of re-deployment to a place he cannot take his family.
Strangely enough, should he take the civilian side of his military assignment,
it would place him into just that compromising position repeatedly, but with higher pay,

You know it dosen't matter whether it's a Dem or a 'Pub, retraction must be co-ordinated.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
The problem with Iraq is that now we are stuq. Democracy is not going to be the end-all. What if we set up a democracy, and tomorrow, the people of Iraq elect some pro-iranian president? Are we going to just stand by and be OK with it? I think in the end of the day we'll have to put in a pro-American dictator and leave, basically we'll replace one Saddam with another. That is unless we plan to stay there indefinitely.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY