How is Kerry going to build a coalition, exactly?

[DerekG]

Unless Kerry is simply keeping mum on his desire to pull us out of that bloodbath, I'd have to say I found his answers a bit disturbing ("winning the peace" is too Nixonian for my taste).

I don't mean to be a downer, but who in their right mind would join us, no matter who won the election? And does anyone here actually think a gang rape is preferable to the merry occupation as it exists now?

Did anyone else watch that debate thinking--WTF?

[MGKrebs]

1. The fact is, we are the WORST entity to be trying to rebuild iraq.

We are responsible for the damage, which should make us responsible for the rebuilding, but they hate us for attacking and occupying. They don't trust us.

The UN will step in if we move out. It is not a pleasant job, but it must be done. The UN is not a supernatural entity. It is just the collection of nations. Those nations realize that the work must be done. But Bush just wants them to come and fight for us. He will give the UN no say in how to set up a government or any other aspect of the rebuilding. No one will come in under those circumstances. Remove the restrictions- give it a chance to succeed in other words- and they will come.

[Eloriel]

66. Right. I think Kerry specifically said that he'd open Iraq up

and let go of U.S. control over all the other aspects of being there (other than the fighting and dying part). Remember, we told nations who didn't participate that they couldn't bid on contracts, etc. It was a poke-in-the-eye punishment. We firmly control the government, too, which isn't exactly appropriate.

[Paulie]

2. Makes sense

When you bring them to the table, you say, we're sorry, we made a mistake, can we have your advice on how to get out of here? Would you be willing to help if we turn control over to the UN, and bring in new troops that don't have the stain of this invasion on them. Security will improve once we start rolling out our troops. We also resolve to have no claims on Iraq, or it's natural resources, or any of the rebuilding contracts. Control of the new puppet government is now in the hands of a UN team.

We beg the forgivness of the Iraqi people, saying we thought we were doing the right thing. We now pledge to pay reparations for the next 20 years or so.

[movonne]

3. I think he has been talking to other leaders and he may know things

he can say right now...This of course is just a feeling but he seems to think he can build a coalition. Remember he will be inheriting a huge mess. Anything he does will have to be better, at least he will listen.

[starroute]

53. I agree with you on that

Remember back some months ago Kerry got into trouble for saying that leaders of other countries wanted him to beat Bush? I think he's got his own lines of connection and has been getting reassurances that if he makes the right moves the support will be there.

In fact, on some level, I can't imagine that *not* being the case. I suspect that there have been very high level discussions going on in many centers of power for the last year and a half about how to clean up this Iraq mess, and that everbody from the French to the Saudis is prepared to play their part once Bush is out of the way.

[Fleshdancer]

4. Follow the money trail

My guess is that Iraqi oil is a wonderful motivator for many nations. Hasn't Halliburton been hogging it all at this point?

[AntiFascist]

21. I agree....

Oil has to flow all the way from the oil fields down to the port in order to be exported. It seems that the only way this may be possible is to replace U.S. interests with those of other nations, if the reindustrialization is ever to continue.

To get a feeling for the depth of anti-U.S. sentiment, see this article:

http://207.44.245.159/article6992.htm

[Zhade]

25. Um, it's not our oil to give away.

That's one of the biggest problems with the whole idea - we have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to offer other countries a cut of the IRAQIS' oil.

[Fleshdancer]

28. Personally, I agree. But....

when have you ever heard of an occupying force NOT raping the land of it's precious natural resources for financial gain?

[Zhade]

29. So we should accept it as the price of a Kerry presidency?

Fuck that. If it's wrong, it's wrong, and it's just as wrong if Kerry does it as when b*sh does it.

It sickens me that even DEMS think it's okay to give away the Iraqi people's resources. Disgusting.

(Not aimed at you, just a general rant.)

[Fleshdancer]

33. well you obviously bring up a very good point

I think the majority of the Democrats don't agree that we should give away the Iraqi people's resources, but I fear that the minority of Democrats who think it IS okay are all in DC and play a part in actually making that decision.

I wish I had a better answer for you. Again, I agree with you 100%. I'll vote for Kerry next month, but I'm not convinced that he wouldn't use Iraqi oil as a tool to build a coalition.

[AG78]

36. Agreed

Especially since the debate, that message seems to have been said far too much. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just reading and focusing on the posts that say that.

"Alright, our man won the debate, so it's time to start dividing up the contracts in Iraq for other countries so they can help us."

On a number of levels, I don't see how that will ever get us out of Iraq. Not that I think we're leaving anyway, Kerry or no Kerry.

[paulk]

49. they're not offering a cut of Iraq's oil

The Bush administration has excluded many countries from investing in Iraq's oil industry. A Kerry administration presumably would open up bidding. Investing in another country's industries is not "giving away" resources.

[K-W]

51. Unfortunately, that is our oil now.

Might makes right.

We own Iraq right now.

[johncoby2]

5. How will bush?

We have a better chance finding life on Mars (or Arkansas) than having bush build a coalition.

Kerryis our ONLY chance of getting our allies to support us. We have no chance with bush.

[union_maid]

6. Not really

You have to keep in mind what the world thinks of Bush. It's a very bad thing to have the POTUS be an uninformed, idealogical zealot. Not to mention stupid. To much of the world it's their worst nightmare. Other nations will have a huge stake in having a Kerry presidency succeed. If BushCo is out of office, it's to the world's advantage to make sure they're buried deep. If Kerry doesn't succeed they could resurface. I think Kerry already knows he's got some support. He can't possibly be specific at this point, though. Any understandings that he's reached would have to be totally confidential. But he's right. He does know the leaders of the world better than Bush does and General Clark knows them even better.

[Frances]

7. Kerry said 2 things that were important

1--We won't build 14 permanent U.S. military bases the way Bush is doing. Iraqis hear about the bases and conclude that the U.S. intends to make Iraq a U.S. colony. Not building those bases will signal that the U.S. does NOT intend to make Iraq a U.S. colony.

2--Bush does not let other countries do business in Iraq. Kerry will. When other countries realize that they will get Iraq contracts, they will help to bring stability.

3--A fresh leader with a fresh approach will have more credibility with Iraqis and other countries.

[annabanana]

8. All he has to do is agree to cut them in (along with the Iraqi's)

on the rebuillding contracts. There are PLENTY of companies with the necessary expertise that aren't Halliburton subsidiaries.

The whole world would be so relieved to see someone with some common sense in the White House they'll be falling all over each other to help. (Ok, maybe slight exaggeration there, but you get the idea)

[grasswire]

9. he said.......

....that he would give them a piece of the pie. A big reason they aren't willing to go is because all the potential for profit is going to Bush cronies. He said a couple of times that other nations have an interest there and implied that the contracts now going to Bushco would be up for negotiation.

[tabasco]

10. The first and most important step:

Don't be an assshole. Bush has made the US a pariah state that nobody wants to help.

Kerry will rebuild trust with our allies and hold a summit to plan multilateral operations in Iraq.

Kerry will not insist on unilateral control of operations in Iraq.

Kerry will pledge that the US has no long-term ulterior interests in Iraq.

Kerry stated these goals quite clearly. I was not thinking WTF at all.

What do you expect Kerry to do. Say that we start loading the planes the minnute he gets elected?

[skooooo]

11. Europe will help the US succeed....

...if it doesn't want another Republican president in office next go around.

[RoyGBiv]

12. Joining "us"

If you'll read between the lines of the criticism European and other nations are throwing at the United States, a great deal of it is directed at Bush himself. The world despises him, individually. The US they have less of a problem with, although they're beginning to ask questions about why the hell this election is so close. It all seems very clear to the rest of the world. Prune the Shrub!

Short story: A friend of mine visited Ireland a few months ago. During his visit, everywhere he went people would ask him if he had voted for or would vote for or in any way supported Bush. When he said "Not just no, but hell no," the beer taps opened wide.

Whether this kind of sentiment will translate into the US government's ability to form coalitions to deal with these situations is another question, but one thing is clear. It will not happen under Bush. It could happen under Kerry. Our alliances in the world are in trouble, not just in Iraq itself. We need an adult in charge again who will at least attempt to rebuild them. Bush simply doesn't care. Look at his rhetoric since the debate. He's promoting being a "lone wolf" as being a virtue.

[alcuno]

13. We currently have a Sec of State who doesn't like to travel and a

president who has offended most world leaders with his snotty attitude. Maybe if someone started doing the "hard work" of DIPLOMACY and actually LED the world instead of alienating it, others would help us out.

It's called picking up the phone and going to other nations to build support. We have an administration who considers that beneath them. How often has * even left this country to meet with world leaders?

I remember Madeleine Albright and she seemed to be all over the world. Colin Powell appears to be snug in his bed every night. We've got a bunch of "homebodies" running our government.

[Disturbed]

19. The most respected person in Iraq?

That is who Kerry needs to have a talk with. Of course that's al Sistani. Also, invite a leader of the Kurds and one from the Sunnis. The US Puppet Govt. is hated by most Iraqis. If an election was held in Iraq today and Allawi, Saddam and al Sadr were running for PM, who do you think would get the most votes?

[FlemingsGhost]

14. There is going to be a lot of disappointed Democrats ...

when very little changes under a Kerry administration.

The ABB crowd will feel particularly foolish. John Kerry is not going to make it all better. In fact, he might unwittingly make it worse. It's LBJ all over, and it just might pull the Democratic Party apart once and for all.

[thecrow]

17. Oh I see somebody took their happy pills today...

[FlemingsGhost]

18. Sorry. I calls 'em the ways I sees 'em

Sooner or later we will have to address our problems.

[BeFree]

20. DemsUnite?

Since when is spreading manure a uniting effort?

If you look at JK's history you will see he is a uniter and not a manure spreader. I have far more trust in a Kerry administration to do the hard work necessary to unite the world, than in manure spreading the likes of which we see here tonight.

[FlemingsGhost]

22. Thanks for your contribution

Duly noted.

:hi:

[BeFree]

37. No thanks for yours

I call 'em as I see 'em, and yours was....

Frankly, you sounded like Nader saying there is no diff. Well, that pile of manure has been thoroughly defeated and I'm suprised someone with your moniker would spew it again.

You're welcome!

[FlemingsGhost]

42. I promise ...

I won't tell you "I told you so."

[sally343434]

24. I disagree, but even if you're right...

I disagree quite strongly. While Kerry may not be perfect, he's not a puppet of the neoconservative movement. And, as a democrat, he would be subject to pressures within the party. This one-party government we have now is nothing short of fascism.

Are you saying that it is better to vote for Bush?

[FlemingsGhost]

31. "Are you saying that it is better to vote for Bush?"

Hardly.

I see so many folks attaching such lofty hopes for change, to a Kerry administration. They are setting themselves up for bitter disappointment. That is a dangerous prospect.

Historically, political unrest, (and yes ... even revolution,) doesn't usually occur at the political perception of a nation's neediest hour. It occurs when folks believe that a particular change, whether it be leadership or otherwise, is going to improve their condition. Ease their pain.

When it doesn't quite measure up to their expectations, or gets worse, all hell breaks loose. Folks turn on each other. Irrational finger-pointing and misdirected hostility rules the day. In my opinion, the Democratic Party is currently laying the groundwork for such a scenario. Take solace, the Republican Party's condition is even worse.

Please, vote for Kerry. I will. However, I don't expect very much to come of it. I'm preparing to embrace a different vision ...

[Hutzpa]

40. So the devil finally shows its head......

I was wondering when you will reveal your true color.

DemsUnite....ah!!

[FlemingsGhost]

43. Where was your "head" on February 2001?

Mine was here.

[Hutzpa]

52. If your head was here then you should be......

in a position to know Kerry's strategy more most people, so my advice is not to play dumb and realize what's at stake.

What does revealing his plan proves, more vote, I don't think so, it will just arm the enemy. :think:

We are in a War, not an election, just so you know.

[welshTerrier2]

44. "I don't expect very much to come of it"

why don't you expect very much to come of it ???

bush is not an ordinary old republican ... he is evil and far more dangerous ...

pick an issue, any issue ... the environment? i expect much better things from Kerry than we've had from bush ... education? tax fairness? supreme court appointments? electoral crime? massive budget deficits? civil liberties? global conquest?

look, I'm far to the left of Kerry ... the evils of a runaway corporate state will not be addressed when Kerry is President ... Kerry is a step on a path ... not the end of the journey ...

but to say that you don't expect very much to come of it seems ludicrous ... Kerry is not the solution to all our problems but he'll take us a long way on the road to progress from where we are now ... and that's a lot ...

[FlemingsGhost]

50. I hope you are correct. I really do.

My instincts tell me otherwise. I've certainly been wrong before.
However, I always trust my gut, first and foremost.

I appreciate your civility. I'd rather not be a lone voice in the wilderness, but I see Party unrest ahead ... I'm compelled to give warning.

Thanks, welsh.

[welshTerrier2]

54. unity born of necessity

we must be united to defeat bush ... we have no choice and probably have never been as united and energized as we are now ...

and Kerry will win ... and yes, there will be disappointments once he's in office ... and the "out" party will see that the neo-cons have driven a wedge into their hearts ... and the neo-cons will be sent packing ... and the pendulum will swing back to republican unity as rifts develop among the democrats ...

there is rarely any urgency for those in power ... i'm afraid it's human nature for the strong to divide and the weak to huddle together ... and so the pendulum you warn about swings back and forth ...

many of us have swallowed our deepest ideologies to defeat bush ... i see this as political maturity and wisdom ... perhaps you are too focussed on the glass half empty ... we, and you, are doing the right thing supporting Kerry as best we can ... even with your cautious understanding of what might evolve, it would be folly to temper your support for Kerry who, after all, is our best chance, our only chance, to lift the dark curtain and rid us of bush and his evil cabal ...

to do otherwise only enables the possibility of total darkness ...

[crispini]

70. re: Party unrest

Yeah, the Democratic party is more united now than ever before. And after Kerry gets elected, probably some of the ultra left Peace folks will begin to fall away as he starts to do the hard work. His plan says that he will expand the active duty forces, etc.

The left shows a strong tendency to be fragmented esp. around individual issues i.e. peace, reproductive rights, environment, etc. And I have no doubt that party unrest might ramp up after this election if Kerry gets re-elected... that's in the D tradition.

IMO, we need to all read George Lakoff's book and realize that even though we have different agendas, we are coming from a great common ground, the ground of the nurturing family ideal. That we are stronger united than divided, and that we need to continue the great union of the Big Tent if we are going to retake power in any significaant way for the long term.

[Gman]

15. Don't worry about it right now

the most important thing right now is beating Bush. None of us knows what's going on right now behind the scenes.

[HEyHEY]

16. As an outsider I can tell you

As soon as Buhs is out other nations will be more willing to work with the USA. If Kerry respects the opinions and ideas of other nations, there is a chance.

[southern democrat]

23. Well the American people may have more to do with it than Kerry.

The rest of the world is looking at the U.S.election.I believe citizens in most other nations are hoping that Kerry wins.They are counting on American voters and the American eletroal system to change leadership in our country and therefore change global policy.

The way Bush has taken us in Iraq has tainted his presdency.Therefore America is not speaking with one voice and a unified message.How can we realistically expect our true historical allies throughout the world to rally behind the U.S.if the American people are not sending a unified message.

If lord forbid,Bush should win I believe allienation and resistance to the U.S. will presist or even be worse.But a Kerry administration would birng new faces to the table and untainted credibilty,also in my opinion a more unified America.

The reason I say this even though the Republicans will be sour over the election loss they really have more at stake pollitically for success in Iraq.The pressure on the Kerry team will also be tremendous.Both of these are win-win senario for the people(especially if Kerry wins big)because the mandate from the people will have been dealt and the Bush policies will have been rejected.The rest of the world be receptive and better off for it.

[welshTerrier2]

26. a real coalition IS possible

i look at Iraq this way ... first, we should never have invaded Iraq ... Kerry's IWR vote was dead wrong ... second, to argue Kerry's position, bush made no effort diplomatically and bush failed to plan for a post-invasion Iraq ... the results have been catastrophic and I'm very skeptical anything but civil war can result ...

having said that, however, I think there is at least some merit to Kerry's argument that bush's credibility with the rest of the world has been permanently destroyed ... i think it's a fair argument that a "fresh face" gets a new hearing ...

and in that hearing, there are two possibilities ...

one is that the U.S. continues to be seen as a nation acting in its own selfish interests ... invading Iraq was never about helping the Iraqis ... look at what bush said during the debate: "they attacked us" ... even his bogus justification fails to recognize that the real goal should be to help the Iraqis ...

the other is that Kerry is able to convince other countries that he wants to fix the mess and get the hell out ... it's important to understand that this would be a major change in U.S. policy ... we really do have allies we can count on when our cause is noble ... such has not been the case with bush's Iraq invasion ... so, ignoring the hell that's going on in Iraq, I do see at least a possibility of bringing the international community back into the equation ...

in conclusion though, I hold out very little hope that anything but civil war will define Iraq's future ... and that's with or without a broader coalition ...

[H2O Man]

27. No mystery here ....

If you listen to Kerry and his people, it's easy to understand. He has said you need to take a regional approach. This means that Muslim nations are watching the US approach on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; if Kerry takes positive actions there, it makes it more likely that the other Muslim nations will be more trusting of our goals in the Middle East. It means working on a regional approach to the reduction of WMDs in the Middle East, specifically Iran. And, as he said in the debate, it means not having a dozen US military bases in Iraq.

[Hutzpa]

45. BOOM!!!! Somebody..

is paying attention.

B-)

[bowens43]

30. anyone with a stake in having a peaceful Iraq

will join us. Bush locked out everyone who didn't participate in the invasion.

[Disturbed]

35. In the meantime...

the Neo Fascists are bombing Iraq and slaughtering innocent Iraqis, mainly women and children. This bombing them into submission will go on for months. Yeah, if a million Iraqis are slaughtered most Americans won't give a damn. Iraq will be a destroyed country by the time Kerry can do something else than kill people. It is totally unpredictable what will happen in the next six months, except that there will be a lot of death and maiming. I don't beleive that mst Iraqis will ever accept a US Puppet Govt. and the colonization of Iraq.

Here is the Neo Fascist plan. Most American are unaware of it but even if they were would they care? My answer. Hell no, they would not!!


The Hand-Over That Wasn't: Illegal Orders give the US a Lock on Iraq's Economy
by Antonia Juhasz

Officially, the U.S. occupation of Iraq ended on June 28, 2004. But in reality, the United States is still in charge: Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.

These little noticed orders enacted by Bremer, the now-departed head of the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, go to the heart of Bush administration plans in Iraq. They lock in sweeping advantages to American firms, ensuring long-term U.S. economic advantage while guaranteeing few, if any, benefits to the Iraqi people.

The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life - from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.

Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi - a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0805-07.htm

[AG78]

32. Honestly

I hope that John Kerry is the Superman that so many seem to say he is.

You basically have to vote for him, because there are only 2 choices.

But I'm tired of the American Empire. I want it to stop. The problem is, there are other possible empire's out there looking to expand power. Which means that unless we want to be run over eventually, we have to build and maintain our own. Sums up human history nicely.

Those forces(plus others) won't go away because Kerry is in office. Then again, they wouldn't go away if some 3rd party were in the White House either.

Sometimes it make you wonder where all this voting and democracy is going. Just something to grab onto while we spin aimlessly in a vacuum on this mostly wet blue dot, where different groups of people try to gain power over other groups?

[K-W]

34. It's easy, if he's willing to do it.

He says the following things.

-The US will cede control.
-The US will give up control of thier assets.
-The US will provide any support that is neccessary under the command of an international coalition.

The world NEEDS this situation to end, it is causing headaches for everybody. They just need to know that the US is going to get out and give up control.

[Hutzpa]

38. Here comes the party Poopers!!!!

People like yourselves can never be satisfied, this is not the time to bring that up, after the election that can be addressed. unless you are here for a purpose then you might want to rush for answer to coalition building.

To put it bluntly this smells more than a manure!

[K-W]

39. No, this is a very valid concern.

We learned in vietnam that well meaning men can get sucked into these situations.

Until Kerry says, we are leaving no matter what there is always the possibility of more quagmire.

[Hutzpa]

41. Kerry cannot say or reveal everything now,

he can only say so much, when he is in full control then dish it out.

We just have to show patience, a true Democrats knows what Kerry is about, only reThuglicans don't.

[K-W]

46. We've been dissapointed by good men before.

Hey, I am not dooming and glooming here, I think internationalizing Iraq is the exact right strategy, and I do think Kerry understands how it needs to be done, but things dont always work according to plan, and Kerry can be the greatest man alive, sometimes things just get out of control.

[Hutzpa]

48. Points taken, Points made......its true

If in doubt read post #27, at least you might get an idea.

[DerekG]

56. This war smells like manure, spokane

You're correct, I'm not satisfied when my candidate--who was complicit in ushering in this horror--employs such abominable phrases as "winning the peace." How are we going to achieve this--by killing every man, woman and child in Iraq?

[H2O Man]

60. You'll note that spokane

makes reference to post #27. As I posted it in response to your original post, and it explains in some detail exactly what Kerry and his camp have spoken about on numerous occassions, I'm curious why you choose to ignore it? The possibilities seem to fall into a very narrow range, Derek, which include {a} that you prefer to ask a rhetorical question for purposes other than focusing on the actual answer; or {b} that you are not following the Kerry campaign close enough to know the answers that he and his people have been giving for months. Is there another option that I am missing?

[neverforget]

47. We need to stay the course, W proved we don't need coalitions.

......just kidding......We need help in getting out of the greatest strategic blunder in American history and * has proven he doesn't have the slightest intention of doing so. With Kerry, at least there's a better chance of help bailing our asses out of Iraq.....

[jackieforthedems]

55. I Don't Think It Would Be Wise

to give any plan in explicit detail - so that the terrorists knew what was planned, etc... Do you follow? Nobody is going to release their exact strategy. But I can tell you one thing, regardless of whether Bush was out touring hurricane sites or whatever, he is the current President and that's his job now. There was still no excuse for him to look like the jackass he looked like on Thursday night. The truth is, the guy's an idiot, he can't talk without his speech writers, and he is a blinking liar. John Kerry fought in an actual war, so, he can command one better, he was a prosecutor - he knows how to deal with criminals. You'll get what you see with John Kerry - a dignified, composed, well-versed, strong leader!!!:hi:

[Yupster]

57. I was wondering to whom he was referring

Japan isn't going to send any major troops out of their country.

Germany absolutely will not.

Russia just said their army is near collapse just fromChechnya.

I read a report that Canada's army is having trouble even meeting peacekeeping commitments because it's been reduced so much.

France already said no way.

I really don't know who he thinks we'll add.

# 1 choice would be Middle Eastern countries which I wouldn't think would be such a great idea. Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Eqypt, Syria. Those countries have no interest in a democratic Iraq. They'd want a general installed.

# 2 choice would be small countries like Belgium, Finland, etc, but that would hardly help.

I really don't know who he expects to add.

[Speed8098]

61. "France already said no way."

Yes, they said, no way, to *.

That doesn't mean they will say "no way" to President Kerry.

"Germany absolutely will not."

That's not etched in stone either.

An educated, cultured man in the White House is going to put a new face on the United States. Everyone in the world knows that this was *'s war. It's as plain as the nose on the proverbial face. He is trying to gain the approval of his "daddy" regardless of the consequences.
The world has had 4 years to get to know this shallow little man we mistakenly let bully his way into our White House. They have heard and seen the atrocities his family has been connected to.
They are right to hesitate to align themselves with this sad excuse of a leader. The BFEE's record of stabbing their friends in the back is out there for all to see.
Kerry, at this point, will be like a sigh of relief.
There will be high points, and there'll be low points, but there will be light at the end of the tunnel.

[nini]

58. Make Bill Clinton Sec. of State

reach out to our allies we pissed off.. which are most of them but espeically Germany & France as they have a lot of pull with other contries too.

pull in Middle eastern countries we can talk to ie. Jordan, etc... and get togehter and figure this thing out.


Clinton's negotiation skills mixed with his respect around the world makes him my first choice as S of S. Whether he'll do it or he'll even be asked - I have no idea.

[vetwife]

59. Remove Bush and you get a coalition .They hate him ! I am sorry works

[PATRICK]

62. So many reasons that details can't be given

and whether any are reasonably possible until he gets behind the desk that the real problem is how to tell people he can do better. Nixon tried to make that point, and of course a helpful reporter misinterpreted it as a "secret plan." Well, since that was very helpful, Nixon let that dodge run without much comment.

In the main, just as Kissinger and Nixon had a broad plan to dominate negotiations(which didn't work). Kerry and his advisers also have a broad plan. Details would derail future negotiations especially with a bitter rival to go after all those details back home. The difference in this case is that the world would very much cooperate with Kerry but that it is again diplomatically necessary not to say so now. Common sense tells you that. Russia, France, the other Arab nations would very much see positive things in the regime change. You can't remark on those common sense things either because of the spin machine.

One strong statement by Kerry in the debate got sidelined but I am sure the world leaders heard it very well. That no longer would the US try to exploit a monopoly of US(Halliburton) interests in Iraq. THAT was clear.

The only thing left really after deescalating the situation and changing the guard would be to prevent a civil war and defang or satisfy the "insurgents" of various stripes AND get the foreign terrorists out. That will not be predictably easy. Holbrook is tough enough to deal directly with that situation whereas the truncated Powell people and the bewildered neocons float above our bombers and hide behind our tanks. It is Napoleon in deserted Moscow waiting for the defeated to come crawling to him- all over again.

Equally grim will be dealing with the sourpussed fault finders back home whining all the way. But the key point for domestic consumption is the withdrawal of ordinary troops from confrontation and occupation
once the Bush hand is out of the cookie jar and the Imperial High Crusade is sand in the wind.

Concurrently to avoid the image of retreat, Kerry will engage Al Qaeda itself forcefully elsewhere and get about the business of nuke non-proliferation.

Of course these are generalities, but the intentions are purer than most candidates who have played the defense card, and advisers like Clark and the competents who deserted Bush are better than anything Rumsfeld's Grand Army of the Pipeline has to offer.

People want details? With Bush screwing things up and blatantly driving for more wars of failed liberation who knows what kind of options will be left. For all intents and purposes Bush has driven us out of Iraq as an effective peacekeeping force. One possible responsible commitment down the toilet. That makes it a lot less dangerous for Kerry to continue the quagmire. Eisenhower won his election by promising a stalemate in Korea, for crying out loud. People want the war to end and Bush is advancing plans on Iran.

[H2O Man]

63. very good post!

I understand that those who favor Bush are going to ignore and distort the information that the Kerry people have made very clear. I'm puzzled why those claiming to be democrats would do the same. There must be some really obvious reason that a democrat who supports Kerry would ignore and distort that information. But, as long as they select to do that, it's very important that people like you take the time to tell the truth. Thank you.

[in_cog_ni_to]

64. People like Wes Clark will get a coalition together,

through diplomatic means. Wes Clark knows all the heads of state, they RESPECT him, he knows how they think, he knows how to negotiate with them and they TRUST him. Personally, I think people like Wes and Richard Holbrooke have already talked to those people and have gotten support. The UN and NATO will be involved..somehow. Peace talks..like Clinton did with Israel and Arafat? Talks about changing our foreign policies in the ME? Get the right people in there and things will change.

NO leader from another country is going to say that they WILL support the U.S. in a coaltion until Hitler is out of office...he would make their lives a living hell if they did.

We will have some kind of coalition with the right SOS.

[H2O Man]

65. Great points!

I notice on the cable news shows, republicans ask the question "exactly what would Kerry do?" When democrats explain it much as people have on this thread, the republicans either ignore or distort the answers, and continue to ask ,"Exactly what would Kerry do?" It becomes clear that the republicans are only interested in trying to plant questions, sow ignorance, and confuse voters by distorting thje clear answers the Kerry camp has given. They are doing this on Fox news as I write this. What I don't understand is why any sincere democrat would try to make the same "talking points" as Fox news? The democrat on Fox is saying the same general things that you just dids, and said it is important for democrats to keep doing so. Thus, I appreciate that you took the time to confront this issue. I loved your answer!

[Robert Oak]

67. think "free trade" and privatization

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2004/0128oilprofit.htm

Look who has access to Iraqi oil? It's always been about oil.


Bush & Co. awarded contracts for "reconstruction" primarily to US corporations.

The neocon intent for Iraq is to make it a "free trade" (i.e. suppressed nation) economy with "foreign investment".

Kerry can easily build a coalition by offering other nations a piece
of the pie (think the scene in the Godfather where they divided up
Cuba symbolically as a cake to each Mafia leader) and no doubt
further concessions to sell our own economy down the river (think
preferred trade status with China even though it's cruxifying us
and China is now the major component in our trade deficit).

What I want to know is the "coalition" going to give jobs to Iraqis
and not privatize their oil? (although state run oil can also be completely corrupt).

think about being over there...you just had someone blow you up,
fill your country to toxic, cancer causing chemicals and then
a series of foreign "contractors" come in and start stealing, oops, I mean rebuilding, while you starve.

[TexasSissy]

68. I agree with Kerry. Regardless of how we got there, we are there, now.

We can't just cut and run abruptly, or the terrorists or insurgents WOULD take over the country. If that would happen, 9/11 would look like a picnic, if Al Qaeda actually owned a country as large and as wealthy as Iraq with the ability to get all the nuclear weapons it wants.

I think Kerry's plan sounds sound. It may not work...but what we are doing now is certainly not the answer. I may not know what we'll be getting, but I know what we've had. Four more years of the same will be disastrous.

It's not the plan...it's the man.

[AP]

69. How is he NOT going to build a coaltion. NOBODY except Bush wants chaos in

Iraq.

The reason nobody got involved was because they knew that, for Bush, it was all about chaos ($50 a barrel oil, anyone?).

For Kerry it obviously won't be all about creating chaos. Other countries will definitely want to get involved to prevent chaos, rather than create chaos.