Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So, Does "ANTI-WAR" have to mean "Get the F*ck out NOW"?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Labors of Hercules Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 10:50 AM
Original message
So, Does "ANTI-WAR" have to mean "Get the F*ck out NOW"?
Edited on Sun May-27-07 10:56 AM by Labors of Hercules
Pulling out without minimally establishing the peace... like leaving a boiling kettle on the flame and ripping off the lid. -BBC newswire


Who gives a shit whether Dems caved on continued funding when there's NO viable exit strategy on the table? If we want to end this war before 2008 without creating an even worse mess in Iraq, then the President must be brought to his knees and FORCED to adopt the right strategy, and it sure as hell doesn't mean simply cutting off funding:

All we keep hearing is "the president needs a new strategy in Iraq, his has failed..." over and over again...

What we need to hear is 1) that our Democratic leaders have a New strategy that will END THIS WAR as soon as possible while establishing a reasonable stability in Iraq, 2) that a UNILATERAL Democratic concensus is behind it, and 3) that EVERY measure is being taken to put it into action and force this Administration's acquiescence to it with immediacy.

Perhaps allowing smarter heads to step in and make the right decisions crosses the line of the Separation of Powers, perhaps it impedes the president's "authority" as "Commander in Chief". So what? This jackass has been shitting on Congressional Authority to keep us in this mess for 6 years. It's high time our Democratic leaders take their authority back, (and then some), and if they can't do it with the little shit in office, remove him. Actually, I take that back, We should remove the stupid cuss regardless...

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Edgeoforever Donating Member (97 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
1. Answer: YES! Why "before 2008"? Why not "before the end of the day?"
This 2008 deadline sounds extremely craven to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
2. "Put one foot in front of the other..."
"...and soon you'll be walking from the war!"

Sorry, my exposure to Rankin-Bass animated specials is showing, here. But it took a lie to get us into Iraq in the first place. The truth, if the Democrats in Congress will embrace it, will get us out of Iraq just as easily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Labors of Hercules Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. And that truth is? *Drumroll please*...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. The truth is that we were lied into Iraq and have no business being there in the first place
First, the Gulf of Tonkin. Second, the "fool's gold" WMDs in Iraq. We cannot afford a "third strike" as far as our standing with the world is concerned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Labors of Hercules Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. Wouldn't a third strike be to leave Iraq and have it collapse into anarchy?
So no-one misunderstands me, I DO NOT want our troops staying in Iraq to carry out Bush's fucked up decisions. I want them to stay only as long as is needed to make a transition and avoid creating an even more horrible disaster by leaving than we did by going there in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yukari Yakumo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Problem is...
The problem is that ensuring a stable Iraq would take decades, perhaps even centuries, before it would ever happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-29-07 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #18
39. That problem exists even IF U.S. troops continue their occupation
Our presence isn't helping anything anymore, if it ever did. Every day the Occupation goes on, the Iraqi "government" loses another shred of credibility.

And the closer privatization of the Iraqi oil distribution network comes, the closer Iraq comes to permanent insoluble chaos. Privatization would ensure that Iraq lives under an eternal series of austerity regimes, perpetually increasing poverty among the Iraqi people and perpetually providing recruits for all the militias.

We aren't preserving anything good by staying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-28-07 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #17
37. Understood, but my point is that the insurgents target US more than they target each other
When we leave, the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds are going to fight each other, true enough. But they're already fighting each other right now, and sometimes performing horrific acts of torture and wholesale murder on each other. Our withdrawal will not change this reality in any appreciable way, nor will our staying in Iraq encourage these three factions to sit down at the table and work out their differences.

If we're going to send our troops anywhere, Darfur is more in line with our international interests than Iraqi oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Rankin-Bass! With the herky-jerky animation! Kids today would never watch that, LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. Rankin-Bass!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-29-07 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
43. There is, of course, no such thing as "getting out of Iraq easily"
Leaving will be a mess, just like getting in was a mess. Literally, a bloody mess.

Remember how we're all convinced the troop surge won't work? Why? Because the insurgents are merely gonna lay low until the surge is over with. One of the biggest deterrents to the slaughter is the presense of US troops. When you remove that deterrent (as will happen inevitably) there will be a huge uptick in the slaughter of Iraqis by Iraqis.

The troops will not just leave all of a sudden, of course. Reality doesn't work that way. A pull out will occur over a space of months--probably with a departure from the less violent places first, such as Kurdistan. The ugly spots like Baghdad and Fallujah will be the last to be evacuated. The whole time there will be dramatic slaughters of civilians and the chattering Fox News Heads will blame Democrats every step of the way.

I do support ending our occupation, but please don't call it easy. It will be ugly and it will make America even more hated than it is now.
.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
6. No, and "get the fuck out now" does not have to mean "anti-war."
I am not a pacifist. I am a former infantry officer. I am not anti-war.

I am anti-unjustified wars. The Iraq war has no just cause and we should get the fuck out now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Labors of Hercules Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. So, at this point it is in our and Iraqi's best interest to just pack up and leave?
Really? So without employing a successful stabilization strategy first, we can just leave and all hell will not break loose?

You promise?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
31. LMAO. Successful stabilization strategy.
Getting the fuck out is THE ONLY successful stabilization strategy unless we want to make Iraq the 51st state. A very expensive 51st state. Meanwhile, as we are packing our shit, we can start providing the UN the billion dollars a week this fiasco is costing us, and beg or cajole them to get in there. The bottom line is that the US forces are seen as invaders and NO puppet government that we install will last five seconds after we leave.

Speaking of packing, pack yours up and go here if you think our continuing occupation is so vital:

www.goarmy.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-29-07 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #12
42. Yes.
Any possible "successful stabilization strategy" will require
that we LEAVE, just as a prelude to actual implementation.

How many more do you want to see DIE for an already-failed fantasy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dave_p Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
7. To hell with "strategy", just exit
They shouldn't be there. They're achieving nothing by being there beyond getting people killed.

"Pulling out without minimally establishing the peace" - what the heck does that mean? What's this war ever had to do with "establishing peace"? Every day they're there means more dead and less chance for Iraqis to restore their country without the interference of an incompetent and predatory occupier. The US has had four years to "minimally establish the peace" and every one of those years has seen the situation deteriorate.

The only right "strategy" is getting the hell out. If the US wants to do something for Iraq it can pay massive no-strings reparations when Iraqis have established a proper government to replace the joke regime imposed by those who ruined their country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Labors of Hercules Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. I'm sure your right...
We ruined their country and opened the flood gates of insurgency and civil war. Now that our mission is accomplished, we should leave and let them enjoy the fruits of our labors. It's not like we have any responsibility to at least attempt to flush the toilet after we shit in it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dave_p Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
35. Iraq's not America's toilet
A better parallel's an attacker who thinks a fifth year of daily raping his victim's going to give them a steady relationship and happy, stable kids. Because that's pretty much what this is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
8. "minimally establishing the peace"
for THIS WAR AND OCCUPATION, the answer to the question is your subject line is YES.

your preference to at least "minimally establish the peace" is kindly but naive. what strategy is it that you seem to believe in that could possibly achieve that objective? how much more evidence do you need that the US is NOT going to establish anything in Iraq?

and keep in mind, any strategy you propose has to recognize the reality that bush is still in the White House. so, not only must you, or the Democrats, propose a solution that could at least "minimally establish the peace" but you also would either have to replace bush and cheney or somehow force them to acquiesce to your plan.

the truth is, that there is NO PLAN that the Democrats could propose that would establish any kind of peace, they will not be able to get bush and cheney out of there in any reasonable timeframe if at all and, even if they did, bush and cheney would never go along with any plan you proposed.

the truth is that, while the US has a huge obligation to help rebuild Iraq, remaining in occupation even another day is wholly unconscionable.

the truth is, as many have said, that we have far too few troops in Iraq to achieve anything and no viable source of adding more troops.

the truth is that we are in Iraq for oil and remaining even another day does little more than give bush more time to get the Oil Law signed.

we have killed perhaps as many as one million Iraqis. we have lost more than 3,000 troops. we have totally destroyed Iraq's infrastructure. we have totally destroyed any semblance of regional stability in the Middle East. we have poisoned Iraq with depleted uranium. we have lost the support of almost every other country in the world. we will have spent more than two trillion dollars by the time we finish paying for this debacle. and on and on and on ...

so, yes, in this case ANTI-WAR means GET THE F*CK OUT NOW !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
9. You can't just be a little bit pregnant. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
10. It does for me. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevedeshazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
13. We already won the war. It's an occupation!
Chimpy McFlightsuit declared V-I Day on May 1, 2003.



No WMD. Saddam deposed.

Every moment since that day has seen the United States illegally and immorally occupying a sovereign nation.

We're just there to guard and steal their oil for the profit of the super-rich.

There's really no other plausible explanation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
15. No, Not By A Huge Longshot. And I Agree With Your Assessment.
Some will scream out the whole 'OUT NOW!' meme and I can understand the reasons for their passion, but in the real world an immediate withdrawal without some sort of initial strategy and stability would be a nightmare. But you are right in that what we need is a sound go forward exit strategy and a sense of hope that this plan could be accomplished so that we could ultimately, as soon as possible, get our brave men and women out of there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
16. Call in UN troops and NATO
This isn't rocket science. The US and its Allies have negotiated these deals successfully dozens of times.

But Bush and the news media have been successful in erasing the collective public memory on how we go about keep peace in the world.

If Dems in Congress haven't taken steps to develop such a plan, most would find that troubling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yukari Yakumo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. That would be different... how?
The armed forces in Iraq for used to be an international one. How do you plan to convince them to go back into Iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doggyboy Donating Member (586 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. And even if you could convince
how would that change the situation? Iraqis will continue to attack the occupiers. Neither the Shiites, the Sunnis, nor the Kurds are going to give up any power simply because their occupiers are no longer Americans.

The only difference it would make is that it would be European soldiers dying instead of American ones and Iraqi citizens will still die in large numbers. Preferring the death of European soldiers over the death of Americans ones undercuts the whole principled nature of the opposition to the occupation. It's hard to claim you oppose the violence on principle, while at the same time supporting a plan that substitutes a US occupation with an international one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-29-07 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #19
40. At least it wouldn't be an army of conquest and domination.
There needs to be a peacekeeping force that isn't driven by any nation's economic self-interest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. This is what "get the F* out now" means to me also
Stop patrols into areas where they aren't already. Fortify troop camps while developing and getting it together to get them home. This will take a bit of time since there are a lot of people and stuff there. Call in UN and NATO. End the occupation of Iraq now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #16
34. We supply the troops for all major UN/NATO deployments. No one else has that many.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
21. Out now! To hell with new "plans" and "new strategies".
We heard this same crappola throughout the Vietnam slaughter. The Democrats caved to Bush and his Blue Dog allies so they wouldn't have to accept and acknowledge that the "war" is an unmitigated failure and a catastrophe for all concerned.

The American presence in Iraq stirred this pot of boiling oil into existence and now only continues to add fuel to the flames keeping the pot boiling.

The Iraqis and their neighbors will settle this as soon as we get the hell out of the country, and hopefully, the whole region.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Labors of Hercules Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. So, we just leave. Then what?
You're right. It's a failure. The country is still devastated and the Iraqis are barely able to maintain any sense of order even with our troops there to draw the wrath of the insurgency. If you think that the violence will be reduced when those who are only "protecting their homeland" are no longer fighting against our military, think again. If we aren't very careful in the way we exit the country, we could potentially create a holocaust that makes our initial mistake of invading look like a desert safari.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. We aren't "helping". And, our continued presence is only destructive.
The violence will, of course, continue until someone, or some group, displaces the "government", seizes power. As has been the case since Saddam fell, there is a power vacuum that will be filled. Whether it is brought into being by the strongest faction in Iraq, or put in place by the other regional actors, (Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or a combination of) is what will happen.

Our influence is nil. We have become irrelevant to the process save to keep the pot boiling and supply the killers with arms and money. The only option left, other than get out, is to take sides. Which will only increase the violence and further destabilize the whole region.

Our day is done in Iraq, and probably the whole middle east.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
23. Get the troops OUT now, send Bush and Cheney IN now...
In an effort to reconcile with the Iraqis this monstrous crime, I suggest we get the troops out NOW and send Bush/Cheney IN now. I suggest we put them in orange jumpsuits and 'cuff them, then just dump them out onto the streets of Baghdad. Let the Iraqis deal with them as they will. Oh, and we can say "sorry" too, not that that will smooth things over completely.

I'm not too proud to say "I'm sorry" when I know my country was wrong...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Labors of Hercules Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Now your talking. Then President Pelosi can sign an international peace treaty...
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Edweird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
24. For me, yes. For you, it can mean whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
27. The troops are a major cause of instability
Not the only one but getting them out now will speed up the process for stabilizing Iraq. Of course our fearless leaders don't want that because they will lose the chance to steal any more oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
28. We load our troops on planes and airplanes
and bring them home.

Not that hard to figure out actually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
29. How many more deaths in a "new strategy"? How many lost limbs?
God forbid anyone sitting on their ass at home do the dying and bleeding while they spout the vomit of "not now."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
32. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
We can NEVER bring peace to Iraq with armed forces. Fucking duh and that is an old mistake that has been around for thousands of years.

Stupid people should never get the chance to run the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HardRocker05 Donating Member (486 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
33. We've got to keep pouring gasoline on this fire to put it out!!!!!!! Come on, help pour!!!!! jeez
jeezus h. christ, we are making things LESS peaceful and stable over there, don't you get it? We are the PROBLEM, not the solution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-27-07 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
36. It does to this anti-war voter.
Anti-war meant "don't go to Iraq" from the very beginning for me. It's meant "bring the troops home now" since the moment they landed over there.

It's simply not true to say that there is "no viable exit strategy on the table." Dennis Kucinich offered up an exit strategy in 2004, irc. The only reason it isn't "viable" is that his own party is in no hurry to bring the war to a close, and all those "mainstream" democrats don't want him stealing their thunder someday when they get around to it.

The current version:

<snip>

Kucinich unveils comprehensive exit plan to bring troops home, stabilize Iraq
Dennis J Kucinich, Monday, January 8, 2007, New York City

The US thinks in terms of solving our own military, strategic, logistical, and political problems. The US can determine how to solve our problems, but the Iraqi people will have problems far into the future. This requires an intensive focus on the processes needed to stabilize Iraq. If you solve the Iraqi problem you solve the US problem. Any comprehensive plan for Iraq must take into account as a primary matter the conditions and the needs of the Iraqi people, while providing our nation with a means of righting grievous wrongs and taking steps to regain US credibility and felicity within the world community.

I am offering such a plan today. This plan responds to the concerns of a majority of Americans. On Tuesday, when Congress resumes its work, I will present this plan to leadership and members as the only viable alternative to the Bush Administration's policy of continued occupation and escalation. Congress must know that it cannot and must not stand by and watch our troops and innocent Iraqi civilians die.

These are the elements of the Kucinich Plan:

1. The US announces it will end the occupation, close military bases and withdraw. The insurgency has been fueled by the occupation and the prospect of a long-term presence as indicated by the building of permanent bases. A US declaration of an intention to withdraw troops and close bases will help dampen the insurgency which has been inspired to resist colonization and fight invaders and those who have supported US policy. Furthermore this will provide an opening where parties within Iraq and in the region can set the stage for negotiations towards peaceful settlement.

2. .US announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops and necessary equipment home. Congress appropriated $70 billion in bridge funds on October 1 st for the war. Money from this and other DOD accounts can be used to fund the troops in the field over the next few months, and to pay for the cost of the return of the troops, (which has been estimated at between $5 and $7 billion dollars) while a political settlement is being negotiated and preparations are made for a transition to an international security and peacekeeping force.

3. Order a simultaneous return of all US contractors to the United States and turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi government. The contracting process has been rife with world-class corruption, with contractors stealing from the US Government and cheating the Iraqi people, taking large contracts and giving 5% or so to Iraqi subcontractors.

Reconstruction activities must be reorganized and closely monitored in Iraq by the Iraqi government, with the assistance of the international community. The massive corruption as it relates to US contractors, should be investigated by congressional committees and federal grand juries. The lack of tangible benefits, the lack of accountability for billions of dollars, while millions of Iraqis do not have a means of financial support, nor substantive employment, cries out for justice.

It is noteworthy that after the first Gulf War, Iraqis reestablished electricity within three months, despite sanctions. Four years into the US occupation there is no water, nor reliable electricity in Bagdhad, despite massive funding from the US and from the Madrid conference. The greatest mystery involves the activities of private security companies who function as mercenaries. Reports of false flag operations must be investigated by an international tribunal.

4. Convene a regional conference for the purpose of developing a security and stabilization force for Iraq. The focus should be on a process which solves the problems of Iraq. The US has told the international community, "This is our policy and we want you to come and help us implement it." The international community may have an interest in helping Iraq, but has no interest in participating in the implementation of failed US policy.

A shift in US policy away from unilateralism and toward cooperation will provide new opportunities for exploring common concerns about the plight of Iraq. The UN is the appropriate place to convene, through the office of the Secretary General, all countries that have interests, concerns and influence, including the five permanent members of the Security Council and the European community, and all Arab nations.

The end of the US occupation and the closing of military bases are necessary preconditions for such a conference. When the US creates a shift of policy and announces it will focus on the concerns of the people of Iraq, it will provide a powerful incentive for nations to participate.

It is well known that while some nations may see the instability in Iraq as an opportunity, there is also an even-present danger that the civil war in Iraq threatens the stability of nations throughout the region. The impending end of the occupation will provide a breakthrough for the cooperation between the US and the UN and the UN and countries of the region. The regional conference must include Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

5. Prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to move in, replacing US troops who then return home. The UN has an indispensable role to play here, but cannot do it as long as the US is committed to an occupation. The UN is the only international organization with the ability to mobilize and the legitimacy to authorize troops.

The UN is the place to develop the process, to build the political consensus, to craft a political agreement, to prepare the ground for the peacekeeping mission, to implement the basis of an agreement that will end the occupation and begin the transition to international peacekeepers. This process will take at least three months from the time the US announces the intention to end the occupation.

The US will necessarily have to fund a peacekeeping mission, which, by definition will not require as many troops. Fifty percent of the peacekeeping troops must come from nations with large Muslim populations. The international security force, under UN direction, will remain in place until the Iraqi government is capable of handling its own security. The UN can field an international security and peace keeping mission, but such an initiative will not take shape unless there is a peace to keep, and that will be dependent upon a political process which reaches agreement between all the Iraqi parties.

Such an agreement means fewer troops will be needed.

According to UN sources, the UN the peacekeeping mission in the Congo, which is four times larger in area than Iraq, required about twenty thousand troops. Finally the UN does not mobilize quickly because they depend upon governments to supply the troops, and governments are slow. The ambition of the UN is to deploy in less than ninety days. However, without an agreement of parties the UN is not likely to approve a mission to Iraq, because countries will not give them troops.

6. Develop and fund a process of national reconciliation. The process of reconciliation must begin with a national conference, organized with the assistance of the UN and with the participation of parties who can create, participate in and affect the process of reconciliation, defined as an airing of all grievances and the creation of pathways toward open, transparent talks producing truth and resolution of grievances. The Iraqi government has indicated a desire for the process of reconciliation to take place around it, and that those who were opposed to the government should give up and join the government. Reconciliation must not be confused with capitulation, nor with realignments for the purposes of protecting power relationships.

For example, Kurds need to be assured that their own autonomy will be regarded and therefore obviate the need for the Kurds to align with religious Shia for the purposes of self-protection. The problem in Iraq is that every community is living in fear. The Shia, who are the majority fear they will not be allowed to government even though they are a majority. The Kurds are afraid they will lose the autonomy they have gained. The Sunnis think they will continue to be made to pay for the sins of Saddam.

A reconciliation process which brings people together is the only way to overcome their fears and reconcile their differences. It is essential to create a minimum of understanding and mutual confidence between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

But how can a reconciliation process be constructed in Iraq when there is such mistrust: Ethnic cleansing is rampant. The police get their money from the US and their ideas from Tehran. They function as religious militia, fighting for supremacy, while the Interior Ministry collaborates. Two or three million people have been displaced. When someone loses a family member, a loved one, a friend, the first response is likely to be that there is no reconciliation.

It is also difficult to move toward reconciliation when one or several parties engaged in the conflict think they can win outright. The Shia, some of whom are out for revenge, think they can win because they have the defacto support of the US. The end of the US occupation will enhance the opportunity for the Shia to come to an accommodation with the Sunnis. They have the oil, the weapons, and support from Iran. They have little interest in reconciling with those who are seen as Baathists.

The Sunnis think they have experience, as the former army of Saddam, boasting half a million people insurgents. The Sunnis have so much more experience and motivation that as soon as the Americans leave they believe they can defeat the Shia government. Any Sunni revenge impulses can be held in check by international peacekeepers. The only sure path toward reconciliation is through the political process. All factions and all insurgents not with al Queda must be brought together in a relentless process which involves Saudis, Turks and Iranians.

7. Reconstruction and Jobs. Restart the failed reconstruction program in Iraq. Rebuild roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, and other public facilities, houses, and factories with jobs and job training going to local Iraqis.

8. Reparations. The US and Great Britain have a high moral obligation to enable a peace process by beginning a program of significant reparations to the people of Iraq for the loss of lives, physical and emotional injuries, and damage to property. There should be special programs to rescue the tens of thousands of Iraqi orphans from lives of destitution. This is essential to enable reconciliation.

9. Political Sovereignty. Put an end to suspicions that the US invasion and occupation was influenced by a desire to gain control of Iraq's oil assets by A) setting aside initiatives to privatize Iraqi oil interests or other national assets, and B) by abandoning efforts to change Iraqi national law to facilitate privatization.

Any attempt to sell Iraqi oil assets during the US occupation will be a significant stumbling block to peaceful resolution. The current Iraqi constitution gives oil proceeds to the regions and the central government gets nothing. There must be fairness in the distribution of oil resources in Iraq. An Iraqi National Oil Trust should be established to guarantee the oil assets will be used to create a fully functioning infrastructure with financial mechanisms established protect the oil wealth for the use of the people of Iraq.

10. Iraq Economy. Set forth a plan to stabilize Iraq's cost for food and energy, on par to what the prices were before the US invasion and occupation. This would block efforts underway to raise the price of food and energy at a time when most Iraqis do not have the means to meet their own needs.

11.Economic Sovereignty. Work with the world community to restore Iraq's fiscal integrity without structural readjustment measures of the IMF or the World Bank. \n\n\n

12 .International Truth and Reconciliation. Establish a policy of truth and reconciliation between the people of the United States and the people of Iraq.


More:

http://kucinich.us/node/1803

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-28-07 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
38. American Democratic politicians can no more "establish stability"
within Iraq than Republics can. The Iraqi people must establish stability and learn to work together, if that is what they choose to do. If not, they will choose to separate into smaller nations. This is not for us to decide and never has been. It is a fool's quest to think that we can resolve it.

We have no business being there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-29-07 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
41. Realistically,no.
But the longer we put it off the longer it takes.Lets start now and get them out of there as fast as possible.Six months,a year...whatever.Putting it off just continues the death.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC