What should be the U.S. military policy in Iraq ??

[welshTerrier2]

The following poll is predicated on the assumption, whether valid or not, that the U.N. will not be willing to send peace-keeping troops into Iraq as long as the U.S. maintains such a visible presence and a high degree of control there.

For the sake of this poll, let's assume the U.N. has rejected a U.S. request to send in peace-keeping troops unless the U.S. agrees to leave the country completely within some negotiated timeframe ...

Please comment on whether you believe the assumption made above is valid or not.

[welshTerrier2]

1. the U.N. would not "share" the work with the U.S.

many have argued that we "should get the U.N. in there" ...

how many countries do you think would be eager to "stand side by side" with bush and his cronies after he ignored their vote prior to the start of the invasion? how many countries think a peace can be achieved as long as the U.S. remains in Iraq? i can't imagine a situation that the U.N. would be willing to send in peace-keeping forces under terms dictated by the U.S.

now, if you're talking complete U.S. withdrawel from Iraq, or at least total withdrawel of all military personnel, then there's some hope that the U.N. might play a peace-keeping role ... for the time being, i'll bet they're just loving watching bushie boy get his little nose rubbed in the sand ...

for these reasons, i think the assumption made in this poll is probably accurate ...

[donco6]

2. Another Option: Elect a real president,

proceed hat in hand to the U.N., let them know a new administration is in charge and we need their help.

[ComerPerro]

3. No kidding

Someone who won't make every effort to piss off and offend our allies.

[welshTerrier2]

4. a real president would be fine BUT ...

well, i'm certainly in favor of electing a new president ...

HOWEVER, it is not clear to me that doing so, no matter who gets elected, will make much difference in the U.N. ... the problem in Iraq is that the U.S. invaded and is occupying a sovereign nation ... let's face it ... we are NOT liberators ...

the Iraqis are not very likely to appreciate the difference between one American president and the next ... frankly, i'm not sure most americans really know the foreign policy differences between one president and the next ... so, the question remains, even if we get a "good guy" president, what impact is that likely to have in the U.N. ... and does it mean that you think we should remain in Iraq until we get a new president ...

i, for one, don't want to wait that long ... for me, your solution is just not an option ... the "ugly american" has reared its hawkish face in iraq ... and no new president will earn the trust of the iraqi people or those in the middle east (or in the U.N.) alienated by american foreign policy anytime soon ...

[welshTerrier2]

5. which candidate comes closest to the poll results ??

well, the early poll results seem to be favoring the option that calls for withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq in 6 months to give the U.N. adequate notice to fill in with peace-keeping forces should they choose to do so ...

does anyone know which candidate, if any, comes closest to this position?

i haven't heard any of them articulate this position ... i hope one of them does ...

[dpbrown]

9. I think Kucinich is closest

8/25/2003

U.N. Should Take Over Peace Keeping in Iraq

Congressman Kucinich issued the following statement on Iraq today:

"It is clear now that the United States is bogged down in an ongoing guerrilla war with almost daily casualties. The situation is one that the Administration did not plan for and is not adequately prepared to handle.

"Assertions by the President, and his Administration, that the war is over and that our mission was accomplished, like their claims about Iraq's 'vast stockpiles' of WMD's, are false and misleading. While this Administration was quick to send troops into harm's way, it has no exit strategy for removing US troops from the country.

"Negotiations for an exit must begin now. The UN must take over management, accounting and distribution to the Iraqi people of Iraq's oil profits. There must be no privatization of the Iraqi oil industry. The UN must handle the awarding of all contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq so that there can be no more sweetheart contracts for companies like Halliburton. Additionally, a transition from UN control to self-determined governing structure by and for the Iraqi people must be planned.

"It was wrong to go into Iraq. It is wrong to stay in Iraq. Let's support our troops by bringing them home."

http://www.kucinich.us

[RichM]

6. When you say "should," does this mean for the benefit of Iraqis, or for

the benefit of American citizens? Things look different, depending on what question one is trying to answer.

As far as US citizens are concerned, just leaving immediately would the best thing -- no more wasted money on the occupation, no more soldiers getting killed.

As far as the US ruling elite is concerned, pulling out ignominiously will be seen as a humiliating disaster -- so it won't be permitted to happen.

As far as Iraqis are concerned, it would help if the US was made to pay reparations for destroying their country. (Fat chance!) Iraqis could benefit if moves were made for the most rapid transition possible to a real Iraqi government -- not including US stooges like Chalabi, of course. But such a government would be very hard to construct, not least because of the internal Sunni vs Shiite strife. It's very hard to see how anarchy is NOT going to reign, over there. Right now, the "Iraqi people" have no organized bargaining power at all; they have to live at the tender mercies of whoever will be occupying them.

About the UN: France & Germany & Russia would probably be willing to "help" in Iraq, as long as the terms are made sufficiently attractive for them. They are just as bad as we are (or would be, if given the chance) & only were balking at the idea that the US was trying to grab all the loot for itself. So I think the UN will go along as long as "the price is right." The UN is usually, though not always, pretty well controlled by the great powers. The US usually, though not always, gets its way. So if Bushco offers the Europeans enough of a deal, they'll pony up soldiers & help defray the costs of occupation.

This doesn't help the Iraqis, though. Nothing too good can come from being bombed, then occupied & exploited by powers mainly interested in taking as much as they can get their paws on.

[welshTerrier2]

7. a couple of points ...

hi rich ...

first of all, the word "should" in the question is, as you correctly point out, open for interpretation ... my intent in phrasing the question as i did was to leave that interpretation to those responding ...

the reason i asked about "military strategy" instead of just "post-war policy" was to focus on what should be done regarding american troops ... i totally agree with you that the U.S. has significant obligations to fund the rebuilding of iraq ...

the one point that we may disagree on is whether France, Germany and Russia could be "bought" by the U.S. ... i think the only terms that may be sufficiently attractive to those countries, and more importantly to the Security Council as a whole, would be the complete military withdrawel of the U.S. ... perhaps i'm wrong about this ... who knows ... it's just hard to imagine a scenario where U.N. troops enter the fray with the lightening rod of U.S. troops standing at their side ...

there cannot be any progress in Iraq as long as there is any U.S. military presence ... all U.N. members would easily see this and i expect they would see nothing but failure from "sharing the military work" with the U.S.

[welshTerrier2]

8. kick for the daytime crowd

n/t