this statement was a one-liner at a presser. It's not a policy or a campaign. Besides, the issue is moot. Reid won't bring it up again, and said the day after this remark that he intended to move on. So . . .
Richardson has proposed a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq by the end of 2007.
He said he's worried that the United States could still be embroiled in Iraq by the time a new president takes office in 2009 ''because the president's not listening. He's continuing to ask for an increase in troops.''
''The strategy seems to be full speed ahead, without reversing course,'' he said.
Richardson favors coupling a troop withdrawal with the ''political solution'' of a reconciliation conference involving Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, as well as a dialogue with Syria and Iran.
''I think diplomacy is the only way to achieve a political solution in Iraq,'' he said. ''I don't think there's a military solution.''
http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/aprichardsoniraq01-23-07.htmCONCORD, N.H. Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson says President Bush needs to learn from recent diplomatic success with North Korean and engage in negotiations in the Middle East to end the Iraq war.
Richardson told a crowd in New Hampshire today that he hopes the president talks to Syria about Hezbollah and Iraq. And Richardson, New Mexico's governor, also says he hopes that Bush talks to Iran about interfering in Iraq.
Richardson, a former U-N ambassador who has negotiated with North Korea and Saddam Hussein, says his own Iraq plan combines diplomacy with a troop withdrawal by the end of 2007.
http://www.wluctv6.com/Global/story.asp?S=6101711&nav=menu134_2_6Richardson, a former United Nations ambassador who has negotiated with North Korea and Saddam Hussein , said his own Iraq plan combines diplomacy with a troop withdrawal by the end of 2007.
Diplomacy would take two paths, he said. The United States should negotiate with Iraq's three main ethnic groups to set territorial boundaries and divide the government and control over oil.
"Not necessarily break up the country but I think possibly (create) three separate government entities," he said.
The United States also should lead talks with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt to get their cooperation in securing and rebuilding Iraq.
"I believe that would at least give Iraq a chance to keep itself together and not be overrun by a sectarian conflict," he said.
On the same day the U.S. House passed a nonbinding resolution rebuking the president's decision to send more troops to Iraq, the former congressman said he would rather have seen Congress spend time working on a resolution to bring a real end to the war, instead of debating a symbolic measure.
http://www.wluctv6.com/Global/story.asp?S=6101711&nav=menu134_2_6Richardson Proposed Solution
Iraq is in a state of civil war, and only they can stop it. Bush's policies have brought us to the point where we now have to choose between bad options and worse ones. We need to choose the path that will do the least damage to American national security—not the one that does the least damage to the President who created this catastrophe.
I agree with Senator Levin that our leverage is the withdrawal of our troops.
Once Iraq's leaders understand that our military presence in Iraq is neither permanent nor unconditional They are far more likely to take the political steps necessary to deal with their political crisis.
We should give the Iraqi cabinet the opportunity to discuss the details of our departure with us and to make suggestions, but we need to establish a 2007 departure date.
If the Iraqi government agrees, we should announce jointly that our mission is over, and that we will leave by the specified date. If they doon't agree, we should announce that date without them.
We should harbor no illusions. This withdrawal will not be pretty. People will die. But fewer will die than if we stay. There are no guarantees that our departure will end the civil war. But it is sure to continue so long as we stay.
The Iraqis might, or might not, resolve their political crisis. It is up to them. They distrust and fear one another, and this makes it very tough.
But they share one goal they don't want to destroy their own country. To save it, they need to stop killing each other and start compromising
And we need to get out of the way. And then we have a moral obligation to help.
Once we are on our way out, I believe we can be helpful in the following ways:
First, we should encourage national reconciliation talks.
Second, we should work with the Iraqis and the UN to convene a regional conference similar to the Dayton conference that produced a settlement in Yugoslavia. .
Third, the United States must lead the way on economic assistance for reconstruction. Working with the UN, the Europeans and other countries
And for our own security, we must return National Guard troops to their States, where they are needed, and redeploy troops to Afghanistan, to knock down the resurgent Taliban.
Redeployment from Iraq will help us rebuild our military, so we can negotiate from a position of strength with countries like Iran, Syria and North Korea. One thing the Bush administration has never understood is that diplomacy and military power are not alternatives to one another, but rather are complementary sources of strength. Because diplomacy without power is weak, and power without diplomacy is blind.
Conclusion
There are no quick or easy answers to the crisis in Iraq. Our choices are between bad options and worse ones.
Some prefer military escalation. Some choose staying the course. These options are illusions. The only realistic choice we have is to stand down militarily, and let the Iraqis stand up and face the political crisis which only they can resolve.
more:
http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/issues_iraq/
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
