Kerry's Position on Iraq

[Q]

From Kerry's 'for President' website:

A Strategy for Success in Iraq
To establish security and move forward with the transition to Iraqi sovereignty, the President must show true leadership in going to the major powers to secure their support of Lakhdar Brahimi’s mission, the establishment of a high commissioner for governance and reconstruction, and the creation of a NATO mission for Iraq. These steps are critical to creating a stable Iraq with a representative government and secure in its borders. Meeting this objective is in the interests of NATO member states, Iraq’s neighbors and all members of the international community. True leadership means sharing authority and responsibility for Iraq with others who have an interest in Iraq’s success. Sharing responsibility is the only way to gain new military and financial commitments, allowing America to truly share the burden and the risk.

I. Make Iraq a Part of NATO’s Global Mission

NATO is now a global security organization and creating a stable and secure environment in Iraq must be one of its global missions. Every member of NATO has a huge stake in Iraq’s future. NATO agreement to take on this mission should be reached no later than the NATO summit in late June. NATO can take on this mission in phases, beginning with taking control of Iraq’s border security, and taking over responsibility for northern Iraq and/or the Polish sector, and the training of Iraqi security forces. This would free up as many as 20,000 American troops, open the door to participation by non-NATO countries like India and Pakistan, and send an important message to the American people that we are not bearing the security burden in Iraq virtually alone.

II. Authorize a High Commissioner for Governance and Reconstruction

An international High Commissioner should be authorized by the UN Security Council to organize the political transition to Iraqi sovereignty and the reconstruction of Iraq in conjunction with the new Iraqi government. Backed by a newly broadened security coalition, the High Commissioner will organize elections and the drafting of a constitution, and coordinate reconstruction. The High Commissioner should be an individual who is highly regarded by the international community and who has the credibility and capacity to talk to all the Iraqi people. The High Commissioner should be directed to work with Iraq’s interim government, the new US Ambassador, and the international community after June 30 to ensure a process that continues to move forward on the path toward sovereignty, while focusing on the immediate needs of the Iraqi people. While the process of establishing the High Commissioner is underway, we must fully support the efforts of Lakhdar Brahimi to set-up an Iraqi interim entity.

III. Launch a Massive Effort to Build an Iraqi Security Force

We need a massive training effort to build an Iraqi security force that can actually provide security for the Iraqi people. We must accept that the effort to date has failed and must be rethought and reformed. Training must be done in the field, on the job as well as in the classroom. This key task should be part of the NATO mission, and units should be put on the street with backup from international security forces. The creation of viable Iraqi security forces – military and police – is crucial to a successful exit for us and other international forces.

Protecting Our Military Families in Times of War: A Military Family Bill of Rights

John Kerry has proposed a Military Family Bill of Rights that will provide our military families with competitive pay, good housing, decent health care, quality education for their children, first rate training, and the best possible weaponry, armor, and state-of-the-art equipment.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0317.html

------------

- Question: After all is said and done...is it even possible to 'win' anything in Iraq? It seems to me that Kerry will pick up where Bush* left off...attempting to install a 'representative government' in the aftermath of an illegal invasion, shock and awe, thousands of dead innocents, torture and a majority of a population that doesn't trust America. What will Kerry do if the Iraqis don't WANT to be occupied? Use more force?

- America shouldn't even BE in Iraq. They don't want us there. Yet...Kerry insists that he can "finish" the mission. The problem is...it's Bush's* mission that Kerry will be finishing. Kerry needs to realize that things have gone too far in Iraq, the mission's over and all the good intentions in the world won't repair the damage.

- And what about involving the Iraqis, not just 'security forces' in the rebuilding of their own country?

[kentuck]

1. Fix it so Bush and the Neocons can take credit for it....?

But it's sort of a Hobbesian choice....

[Media_Lies_Daily]

3. If Kerry "fixes it", the credit will go to Kerry and his administration,..

...not the NeoCons.

I don't understand your contention that the NeoCons, who have gotten us into progressively further into this mess with each passing day, could EVER claim credit for anything that happens after they're booted from power.

[kentuck]

7. Reagan won the Cold War , didn't he?

Atleast, that's what they say and believe..

[bigtree]

12. So, man is a destructive and dangerous creature, a menace to the Earth

By your logic, we should have faith in no one, as we are all equally culpable. But some of us will place our faith in John Kerry. Reckless idealism, this hope that Kerry will actually do what he says, with the reality of our hideous nature and all.

[LittleApple81]

2. I think Kerry feels bad about leaving Iraq in shambles. But that

might be the least bad alternative. After seeing that the pictures appeared on the papers in Iraq, I don't think we can stay and make it better.
see this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x557762

[Vitruvius]

4. If the Iraqis don't want us in Iraq -- and they don't -- the only decent

thing to do is to get out. Immediately. It's THEIR country.

[sandnsea]

5. Ooops

Hiccup

[sandnsea]

6. Weird Interpretation

Hmmm, Kucinich wants to get the UN in, but when Kerry wants to get the UN in, it must be as an occupation force.

Kucinich calls for UN peacekeeping troops and Iraqis commissioned as police and military 'security forces' and that's a good idea. Kerry calls for the exact same thing, recognizing that the US is always the bulk of any large UN peacekeeping force.

Dennis calls for continued US and UN partiticipation in Iraq until "a major milestone will be reached when Iraqi sovereignty is established" and "A nationwide election will take place to elect representatives to a Constitutional Convention." and "In one year, there will be nationwide elections pursuant to the new Constitution, which will install an elected government in Iraq."

Kerry calls for the exact same thing and he's a PNACer.

Read the two plans. If you keep an open mind, you'll realize the only difference is that Kerry is honest about the fact that there are no 150,000 UN troops just waiting to go into Iraq.

http://www.kucinich.us/bringourtroopshome.php

[Ardee]

9. Dennis calls for :

The United States must ask the United Nations to manage the oil assets of Iraq until the Iraqi people are self-governing.

The United Nations must handle all the contracts: No more Halliburton sweetheart deals, No contracts to Bush Administration insiders, No contracts to campaign contributors. All contracts must be awarded under transparent conditions.

The United States must renounce any plans to privatize Iraq. It is illegal under both the Geneva and the Hague Conventions for any nation to invade another nation, seize its assets, and sell those assets. The Iraqi people, and the Iraqi people alone must have the right to determine the future of their country's resources.
The United States must ask the United Nations to handle the transition to Iraqi self-governance. The UN must be asked to help the Iraqi people develop a Constitution. The UN must assist in developing free and fair elections.
The United States must agree to pay for what we blew up.
The United States must pay reparations to the families of innocent Iraqi civilian noncombatants killed and injured in the conflict.
The United States must contribute financially to the UN peacekeeping mission.
The United Nations, through its member nations, will commit 130,000 peacekeepers to Iraq on a temporary basis until the Iraqi people can maintain their own security.
UN troops will rotate into Iraq, and all U.S. troops will come home.
The United States will abandon policies of "preemption" and unilateralism and commit to strengthening the UN.


Kerry calls for NATO and the UN but in a subordinate position to the US interests while Kucinich CLEARLY states that we will withdraw in favor of UN control. These two positions are only similar if you are a Kerry supporter and simply cannot see the weaknesses.

[sandnsea]

14. Which is different how?

The United States must ask the United Nations to manage the oil assets of Iraq until the Iraqi people are self-governing.

The United Nations must handle all the contracts: No more Halliburton sweetheart deals, No contracts to Bush Administration insiders, No contracts to campaign contributors. All contracts must be awarded under transparent conditions.

The United States must renounce any plans to privatize Iraq. It is illegal under both the Geneva and the Hague Conventions for any nation to invade another nation, seize its assets, and sell those assets. The Iraqi people, and the Iraqi people alone must have the right to determine the future of their country's resources.

Kerry: "An international High Commissioner should be authorized by the UN Security Council to organize the political transition to Iraqi sovereignty and the reconstruction of Iraq in conjunction with the new Iraqi government." "The Iraqi people desperately need financial and technical assistance that is not swallowed up by bureaucracy and no-bid contracts, but instead goes directly into the hands of grassroots organizations."



The United States must ask the United Nations to handle the transition to Iraqi self-governance. The UN must be asked to help the Iraqi people develop a Constitution. The UN must assist in developing free and fair elections.

Kerry: "The second key element is the High Commissioner. Backed by a newly broadened security coalition, he should be charged with overseeing elections, the drafting of a constitution and coordinating reconstruction. The Commissioner should be highly regarded by the international community and have the credibility to talk to all the Iraqi people.

This Commissioner should be directed to work with Iraq’s interim government, the new US Ambassador, and the international community after June 30 to ensure a process that continues to move forward on the path toward sovereignty, while focusing on the immediate needs of the Iraqis themselves."

The United States must agree to pay for what we blew up.
The United States must pay reparations to the families of innocent Iraqi civilian noncombatants killed and injured in the conflict.
The United States must contribute financially to the UN peacekeeping mission.

Well, no freakin' duh. Even George Bush has agreed to this.


The United Nations, through its member nations, will commit 130,000 peacekeepers to Iraq on a temporary basis until the Iraqi people can maintain their own security.
UN troops will rotate into Iraq, and all U.S. troops will come home.

Kerry: "First, we must create a stable and secure environment in Iraq. That will require a level of forces equal to the demands of the mission. To do this right, we have to truly internationalize both politically and militarily: we cannot depend on a US-only presence." "In parallel, the President must also go to NATO members and others to contribute the additional military forces and to NATO to take on an organizing role." "We need a massive training effort to build Iraqi security forces that can actually provide security for the Iraqi people."

The United States will abandon policies of "preemption" and unilateralism and commit to strengthening the UN.

Kerry never signed on to any policy of preemption and has supported the UN all along.

Kerry calls for NATO and the UN but in a subordinate position to the US interests while Kucinich CLEARLY states that we will withdraw in favor of UN control. These two positions are only similar if you are a Kerry supporter and simply cannot see the weaknesses.

Kerry is clearly callling for UN control and the only U.S. control he calls for is U.S. control of U.S. troops, which we have always, always, always done. And the only reason you can't see the weaknesses in Dennis' plan is because he isn't telling you the truth about the fact that UN Peacekeeping Forces DO NOT exist. UN and NATO countries commit forces, they don't have 150,000 forces to commit, and it is going to take a MAJOR diplomatic effort to get them to do anything to start with. US troops out in 3 months would never happen, not even if Kucinich was President tomorrow.

Read, just because Kerry's ideas aren't listed in the exact same order as Kucinich's, doesn't mean they aren't nearly identical.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0430.html

[Ardee]

20. just because your bias leads you astray

doesnt make an orange into an apple.

Kerry refuses to take the position that the USA must immediately leave Iraq. Kerry doesnt call for the UN to assume FULL control of the mess we have created there.Kerry unlike Dennis Kucinich is part of the problem with american politics.

[bigbillhaywood]

17. One difference...Kucinich did not vote for the war in the first place.

I don't care about whether Kerry thought we should have had UN support before going to war, because you know what? WE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN INVADING IRAQ PERIOD AND THE UN KNEW IT, SO THEY NEVER WOULD HAVE AUTHORIZED IT AT THE TIME! So Kerry shouldn't have voted for the resolution period. What don't you Kerry war resolution apologists understand? 1. He shouldn't have handed a psycho like Bush a blank check. 2. We shouldn't have invaded Iraq, PERIOD. There was a fuckin reason Bush, Sr. didn't take Baghdad WHEN HE HAD UN APPROVAL AND A MULTINATIONAL COALITION-- he (or others around him) knew the fuckin quagmire that would develop for the US.

There is no defense for Kerry on this, he should admit his mistake and move on. Same thing he's telling Bush to do re "staying the course". Kerryites-- your boy made a mistake. Admit it, and move on-- he made a huge mistake but that doesn't mean there aren't other reasons to vote for him.

[bigbillhaywood]

18. As to Kerry's current plan, I like it theoretically, but I have my doubts

about just how involved we will be able to get NATO, the UN and Arab nations. I think most world leaders won't want to touch this with a ten-foot pole, regardless of who the US Prez is and what diplomatic efforts he makes. Certainly Kerry will have a better chance than Bush at doing this and he is more realistic than DK, but this will be a huge mess for whoever takes over. You could clone FDR and Abe Lincoln, and I still think we'd be fucked.

[sandnsea]

19. You might be right

And if you read his most recent speech, he says this may be the last chance to get Iraq right. So he's well aware that the whole situation may be totally fucked. At that point, I guess we just pray the Iraqi's decide not to embrace terrorist groups.

[Ardee]

21. oh so now its in the hands of god huh?

Well I prayed yesterday and she told me not to vote for smarmy self serving politicos who helped create this mess and still refuse to admit those mistaken votes.....:eyes:

[GreenArrow]

8. it's not Bush's mission

see Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Bush simply chose to proceed stupidly in implementing a mission that was bound to occur eventually.

[wyldwolf]

10. sounds like a great plan to me

[Ardee]

22. Of that IM certain

But many of us are not neoconservative democrats and war mongers.To those of us who are not that plan doesnt sound much different from current plans..........

[seabeyond]

11. the iraqi's.....not terrorist; distinction

gave us a year. and watched the abuse, things not get better, no jobs, and bush being greeding taking and occupying their land. they gave us a year, and finally said enough

i think with kerry in, and bush fired, they will once again give kerry the opportunity. and it will be if kerry does it with good intent adn they will work with him.

the people want this to work. but they know it cant work with bush

to see us fire bush, will give them hope. to see democracy in play, and say you arent good enough bush, will give them hope

then again, maybe by january everything will be in the toilet. cant project the future, have to wait for the now of it to analyze what needs to be done

[Tellurian]

13. I have a question..

Now that Hirsh has provided well documented insight into the warped jaundiced yellow world of the Bush Administration, how do we surgically remove these parasitic bloodsuckers feeding from the governmental trough of power and unlimited supplies of money?

freekin vampires!

[Cascadian]

15. It will not work.

The anger and hostility is such plus the prisoner scandal his destroyed America's reputation in the Middle East and the World. The idea might have worked a year ago but it is too little too late. This is Vietnam. It is worse than Vietnam in fact. It is time to rethink the policy and just pull out.

I cannot see how people can support this. This "we broke it we fix it" is already old hat. I think we can save our reputation by just getting out of the Middle East altogether.


John

[rumguy]

16. I don't kow if it'll work but it sounds rational