Kerry Says U.S. Must 'De-Americanize' Iraq Policy

[PfcHammer]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4806433

Kerry Says U.S. Must 'De-Americanize' Iraq Policy

DURHAM, N.H. (Reuters) - Democratic challenger John Kerry said on Monday Washington needed to "de-Americanize" the transformation of Iraq by replacing U.S. administrator Paul Bremer with someone like top U.N. aide Lakhdar Brahimi.

Laying out an alternative to what he called President Bush's failed diplomacy, Kerry said: "If I were president today, right now today, I would be going very directly to the United Nations and I would summon the world to an effort that I think the world has a stake in."

Republicans have criticized Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, for failing to tell Americans what he would do differently in Iraq.

The Massachusetts senator, who is walking a fine political line between supporting U.S. troops and criticizing Bush's conduct of the war and its aftermath, has tried to focus on his economic agenda on the campaign trail.

<snip>

Kerry acknowledged he could not guarantee that would happen automatically because the Bush administration had "pushed people further and further away."

DIFFERENT DIPLOMACY

He recalled that after the statue of Saddam Hussein fell in Baghdad a year ago, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan had offered help but had been "basically rebuffed" by Bush.

<snip>

[jpgray]

1. That's a good start

I love how the press sees a fine political line between criticizing Bush and supporting the troops, when in reality they are one and the same. :D

[senseandsensibility]

3. The last thing they want to do is deAmericanize Iraq

How could they steal everything then?

[sandnsea]

2. Is it getting reported?

No. Is it any different than what he's been saying since 2002? No. It's one thing to have the media not report it, it's another thing entirely for certain people to repeat this "no plan" garbage when they really ought to know better and know it only helps Bush.

[cindyw]

5. Oh they could never report it because it would break the media's

false impression with the public that Kerry is all trash and no solution. The media has to perpetuate the false impression of Kerry.

[0007]

26. ....and junior will soon change his mind about god,

when he finds that god isn't helping him.

[JI7]

11. yup, he has ALWAYS been saying this

this is nothing new.

[gristy]

4. Well, this proposal is a damn sight better than his "Misery Index"

but note that he says

In some of his most detailed remarks on Iraq, Kerry told students at the University of New Hampshire he would be prepared to turn over authority for the political transformation of Iraq, and its reconstruction, to the United Nations. But he said he would "hold on to the military security component under our command."

So he wants other nations in there but they don't get to help direct military operations? That doesn't seem workable. Is "partitioning" Iraq one way to make this work? The French get a small section, the British another section, the U.S. a section (the one with the oil, of course), etc.

[legin]

14. "hold on to the military security component under our command."

So there is a war crime going on in Falluja.

There have been two stories recently about the behaviour of some of the u.s. troops.

The british military high command in Iraq are complaining about both of above.

And Eagleburger and O'Really are going around saying that Falluja should be leveled.

Not interested. Sorry Kerry, come up with better proposals. If the UN are going to be asked to sort out this mess then the main cause of it needs to be neutralised.

[IndianaGreen]

21. Iraqis don't want to be partitioned by a colonial and imperialist power

I noticed that Kerry did not bother to ask the Iraqis what they want, preferring to continue Bush's failed policy of occupation and conquest.

[grytpype]

6. I have not been looking forward to this moment...

Once Kerry announces a plan for Iraq, the Flying Monkeys will be turned loose on him.

All we're going to hear for weeks is how Kerry's plan is appeasement, weak, will hurt America, and so on. Just watch.

[gristy]

7. Well, as plans go, this one holds the "appeasement" critics at bay

pretty well, I think. He wants the rest of the world to share the burden of Iraq given that the rest of the world has the same self-interest in a peaceful, stable Iraq as the U.S. There is no mention or implication of a withdrawal in his proposal. But by spreading the burden, he gains points with voters who are very critical of Bush's insistence on going it alone over there.

[drfemoe]

17. I hear snippets of

O'Billy from roommate's tv... HE said tonight that he didn't think Kerry would be an "appeaser". He gave kudos to Kerry for taking the "high road" lately by not criticizing the resident (he took a dig at Dean at that point too -- of course "no class Dean" would have taken a different tack, according to O'B). He also said he thinks gee-w should "risk" losing the election if needed to get this mess straightened out. Just thought you might want to know what O'Billy said. . . .

[nolabels]

8. These words came from him, but he is being backed into it

Even a person with a half-a-brain could never get behind bush@Quagmire_Iraq.com

[noyoda]

9. What is wrong with The

"Constitutional Monarchy" That existed before the Coups, "what" in 1956 ?. It has been ignored by the neo-cons, but Iraq had an excellent
success and all parties, sunni and shia and kurds respected the King who was descendent of Mouhamoud, No Theocracy and had Parliment ,free elections ect. There are what 20 some countries with a "CM" ,England, Dutch, Norway ECT. This Prince has been Sitting and waiting for US to even look at him. Has wide all party support and his site is informative. This would be The out we need RIGHT NOW this week.

http://www.iraqcmm.org/cmm/natcov.html

http://www.iraqcmm.org/cmm/concepts.html

[mulethree]

12. needs to spell out :

"Emphasis on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

Can't use the whole UN declaration as thats inconsistent with a hereditary monarchy and the states/regions/whatevernametheyused.
If you can't use the whole thing then what parts would be used?

Many parts - equality of sexes, freedom to live anywhere, freedom of religion/thought etc, would contradict the sections on "states" rights.

I wonder if/which countries have tried to incorporate/reconcile that declaration with their own laws?

[noyoda]

18. If you look at

The links I gave you will see that their new Declaration incorporates all your points. Did you read before posting?:-)

They are not REESTABLISHING the old regime and Constitution, but a new
Authority for the US to turn power over too. The king will be the authority to build the elections and the Parliament with absolute commitment to the new Constitution that the Parliament will make. What will be absolutely included in the new Constitution are all the points demanded by Human Rights as outlined by the links ands your
The Iraq's will Rally to the king's Guarantee of overseer status to establish a democratic Constitution echoing the Similar one before the coup. major persons of all parties agree this will work and give the Iraq's their fate in their own hands.
Bush and PNAC will be against it wanting a leader beholding to the US

[mulethree]

22. some examples

The human rights declaration gives equal rights to everyone of every social origin, birth or other status. All have the right to equal access to public service. This contradicts with a hereditary Monarchy where one person has the only right to a particular public service position based on birth. Perhaps you don't consider the monarch as a public service position though he/she is an arbiter.

The human rights declaration gives equal rights based on sex, race, religion, beliefs. Some religions assign women an inferior status, or even teach intolerence of some other races, religions, sects. So it needs to be clear which comes first, the requirement of the declaration to not discriminate, or the teaching of the religion?

The right of freedom of movement and residence within the state, and the right to worship, teach in public or private his religion and to change his religion. Yet the foundations guarantee to every administrative unit the independence of its local character ... freedom of religious worship ... If this means that freedom of religion can vary amoung administrative units, then it contradicts with the broad religious freedom that's already assigned the entire state. If you don't wish to have a contrary religion preached in public at an Islamic shrine ... some provision is needed. If you don't want pilgrims to be subject to hearing the preaching of contrary religions... same

I'm not sure what exactly "Islamic Identity" means but it would seem to contradict the broad religious and cultural freedoms. I would say America is seeing a strong surgence of "Christian Identity" lately, and there have been surges in the past, with attempts by a majority to impose Christian-flavored laws over our non-religious constitution. My family has people of 4 different religions and wish the government to remain non-religious.

I lived in New York City for 22 years, and I've never seen a more culturally diverse place. There are conflicts, but almost always limited to an exchange of foul glances or unkind words. There are still some discriminations, but our human rights declarations are not quite as broad as those in the U.N.'s

I realize this isn't a full drafted constitution, and many details would need to be filled in. But I had looked at the U.N. declaration before and contemplated the issues that would be faced to incorporate it into a government. I hope my discussion has been useful to you.

[noyoda]

25. Thanks mulethree

For your assesment. But where can you point out were your assesment disagrees with the following info. Looks like to me all basis have been covered, and the Prince will NOT be a ruler. but I must admit some of your reasons have left me scratching my head, also I am not up on all the niceties of UN Human Rights but a lot of people are behind this and certinally they must think it approaches a chance for a hearing and consideration. I would love it to get Iraq off our plate so to speak with a parlimentry democracy. Show me the Trouble points so ican see my fault in supporting this. Thanks


The future democratic regime in Iraq must be based on the following:

Emphasis on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Political pluralism and the right of the political parties to function according to law.
An administrative system structured in such a way as to guarantee to every administrative unit the independence of its local character, language, tradition, freedom of religious worship and distinctive cultural heritage.
Freedom of the press and media, and right of private, in accordance with constitutional law.
Equal opportunities for all people irrespective of their religion, sect, ethnic group or language, so that all people may achieve absolute equality in the eyes of the law.
Freedom to organize trade unions and other organizations on a democratic and professional basis.


The Constitutional Monarchy hereby solemnly pledges:

First: To uphold the unity of the Iraqi nation and to maintain it sovereign independence.
Second: To affirm the Islamic identity of Iraq while respecting all religions and beliefs and recognizing their inviolable rights.
Third: To implement a free and direct national referendum to decide the nature of government and the Head of State.
Fourth: To draft a permanent Constitution to be confirmed by the people of Iraq in a free public referendum.
Fifth: That the nature of the Monarchy will be hereditary and constitutional emanating from the will of the people and that the Monarch would be the symbol of the unity of the people and the pride and honor of the nation.
Sixth: The establishment of a pluralistic democratic state in which power is transferred via the ballot box and the establishment of healthy democratic institutions on the basis of the complete separation of power between the executive legislative and judicial branches.
Seventh: The affirmation of the sanctity of the judiciary and its independence from any group or person in the state.
Eighth: To completely uphold the principals of Basic Human Rights as laid down by religion the United Nations and International Institutions.
Ninth: That the armed forces belong to the people and that their sacred mission is to protect the nation from external aggression and are prohibited from any political activity.
Tenth: To institute a free economy and encourage and develop the industrial agricultural and commercial sectors while maintaining a balance between the rights of ownership and the free market and the rights of the people to social justice equal opportunity and basic amenities.
Eleventh: To implement a comprehensive national reconciliation based on forgiveness and absolution far from a desire for vengeance and retribution with due consideration for the rule of law and justice.
Twelfth: To amend the legacy left by the dark era on the basis of just laws with foremost consideration for ethnic and secular issues, the nationality law, voluntary and forced emigration and on the foundation of equal rights and responsibilities for all citizens as stated in the permanent constitution.

[newyawker99]

27. Hi noyoda!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[noyoda]

29. Thanks for warm welcome

glad to have found this excellent site, that is proactive against the Flamers and so many seem to be on top.

[kodi]

10. repeat after me, the operative word is "arabization" of the troops

as in "vietnamization"

here it is 2004 and a man awakening from a 35 year sleep would think nothing changed while he slept except for the country america invaded.

[mulethree]

15. oh

had to look it up. Thought it might have had something to do with teaching our troops to respect the "host" culture.

[Laughing Mirror]

13. Occupation is occupation, whatever cosmetic change you make

Whatever Mission Impossible Rollin Hand face you peel for another, Bremer to Brahimi, who does not want the job and seems to be a reluctant player.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aneerkoinos]

19. Maintaining military control

ain't de-americanazing it.

[mulethree]

23. First

you get all the courts de-americanized, hopefully thats done.
Then get the americans out of policing ... in the works.
Then the americans get out of the way, but stick around in case
theres civil discontent beyond what the Police can handle, or
in case some neighboring country starts "disputing borders"
When you get sufficient Iraqi army for civil and defense needs, then the Americans can go home.

I suppose Haliburton and friends will be looking for some long contracts before the sovereignty gets turned over, but once the Iraqi's have sovereignty they should be able to contract with any company/nations they want no? Maybe we'll see the Bin Laden family construction business in there ;-/

I'm pretty sure the US will try to keep a military base or 3 or 4, but I suspect the Iraqi's could negotiate it to one on a long lease and 2 others on shorter leases. But you know the DoD, they'll want 2 army bases 2 airforce bases a navy base and a marine base.

[IndianaGreen]

20. "de-Americanize" is Kerry's version of Nixon's "Vietnamize."

The Kerry that addressed Congress in 1971 with the famous quote "How do you ask a man to die for a mistake?," can not even comment on the casualties and bloodshed in Iraq.

Today's Kerry is more like a parody of his old nemesis Richard Nixon, substituting "de-Americanize" as his version of the Nixonian "Vietnamize."

Iraqis will reject any occupation force, and Americans will continue to die in Iraq until the day our politicians admit they lost the war and bring all the troops home.

[Malva Zebrina]

24. He is walking a fine line

I don't like the way that this war is being validated, by implication, by Kerry. I wish it would not seem as if he is trying to justify it becasue he voted for it. He did vote for it so there is nothing else to expect. It's wrong. That should be the message--not-- well yeah, Bush has a failed policy and I can fix it.

I think we should withdraw the troops--there are months to go and all that can happen is that this gets worse. More lives will be lost for nothing. On lies.

[daleo]

28. Elites don't like to admit defeat

They will try every trick, but I doubt that it will matter. At this stage Iraqis are not going to welcome the U.N. any more than the U.S., especially if the U.S. military is still there. Eventually, everyone will have to leave, and let the Iraqis work it out, hoping for the best.