My Challenge to DUers: Develop an effective "Out Now" plan for Iraq

I've been working on this for a few months, and I cannot come up with a "Get the troops out NOW" scenario that will actually work. Such is the depth of the mess Bush has created.

There were no terrorists in Iraq before the invasion, but they are there now. Bush and his people ballyhooed the 'international coalition' that participated in this invasion, but the truth is we are all alone. We slapped down the United Nations to such a degree that this body, which could help us by replacing our troops with a true international coalition, wants nothing to do with us. That hardly matters, because the Bush administration wants nothing to do with them.

If a magic wand was waved and Bush decided to pull our soldiers out of Iraq, the nation would collapse into a bloodbath that would make Rwanda look like a picnic by comparison. Iraq could easily become a terrorist stronghold much the way Afghanistan did after we abandoned that nation to its fate in 1989. The entire Middle East would become destabilized. The wobbly House of Saud could fall and place all that oil into the hands of Wahabbi fundamentalists like Osama bin Laden. The chaos could reach all the way to Pakistan, where radical fundamentalists would love to topple that government and come into possession of that nation's battery of nuclear weapons.

There is no simple solution, in my opinion. An immediate withdrawal will set the stage for an incalculable slaughter in an Iraqi civil war, more terrorism against the United States, half a dozen more wars in the Middle East, the world's petroleum falling into the hands of al Qaeda, and the potential for Pakistani nukes in the hands of bin Laden. Staying in Iraq, conversely, will bring us more dead and wounded American soldiers, more dead and wounded Iraqi civilians, more terrorism against America, and billions and billions more dollars poured onto the sand.

The only solution, I think, involves a long-term strategy. Bush must be defeated in November, and a new administration that does not get its jollies by urinating in the faces of the international community must be elected. That new administration must pull out all the stops to bring a true international coalition into Iraq, so the American soldiers who inspire such demonstrable hatred from the Iraq people can be rotated home.

But that isn't a "NOW" solution. If anyone has one, I'd love to see it.

"Just do it" doesn't count as a strategy.

:silly:

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

for it must be said.
dp

Will, I can think of no one better to remark on Dennis' Iraq strategy - if, that is, you are so inclined.

your emoticon and usual comments are expressive enough, if not one and the same.

dp

...perhaps you should reread Dennis' plan. Now there's a real flight of fancy.

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

Given the oil-for-food scandal, this will not fly easily, if at all.

2. 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.

See above.

3. 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.

That's easy enough, if we are willing to do so.

4. 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.

This puts the future of Iraq before a large committee with massively diverse desires and strategic goals, and not everyone in this committee has Iraq's best intersts in mind. A lot of these countries would like to take the profiteering lead (see#3).

5. The United States must agree to pay for what we blew up.

OK.

6. The United States must pay reparations to the families of innocent Iraqi civilian noncombatants killed and injured in the conflict.

OK.

7. The United States must contribute financially to the UN peacekeeping mission.

OK.

8. 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.

From which countries? Didn't we just finish pissing in their faces? We damaged the UN, perhaps mortally. How will this come together, exactly?

9. UN troops will rotate into Iraq, and all U.S. troops will come home.

When? See #8.

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

See 1-9.

Granted, any country that joined the coalition is tarred with the same brush as the US, but there were some rather notable holdouts which caused considerably controversy at the time. Of that number, Canada has the biggest advantage in numbers, moxy, reputation and face.

A UN special commission, headed by Canada (or similar unblemished country) driving a UN peacekeeping missions (ditto) would be less dooomed to failure than any other scenaio I can think of.

There is another solution, but I'll make that a separate post.

UN role should not be discounted lightly. Special commission headed by Canada overseeing UN peacekeepers sounds like good plan to me.

perhaps post 18 above describes that the best.

for those who want to belittle Kucinich's ideas, and plan to return our troops home: HOW DO YOU KNOW IT WILL NOT WORK...if it is not given a chance?

debate amongst yourselves all you want, something tells me that any perfect plan concocted here on DU stands about as much as a chance of being implemented as even heard outside of this site.

Will, you seem to either agree or at least partially accept #3,5,6 & 7 above.
Points 1, 2 & 4 come about only if it is attempted.
Point 7 generates success of point 8 & 9, and point 10 shows a commitment to success of the plan.

but nothing happens, unless it is attempted.

good luck with your thread here all the same.
dp

to a lot of sentiment around here. I have another thread going which quotes Kerry saying he'd have our troops out by the end of his first term. That did not sit well with a lot of people, so I was looking for a plan that would get our troops out sooner than that. I haven't seen it yet.

and you are correct - this is a very difficult situation. There aren't any clear answers or absolute solutions. The best efforts could be targetted at trying to cobble together something like a quilt of overlapping initiatives that only exist to help the actual Iraqi people figure their own way out of this mess.

Bush needs to be removed from the Presidency via impeachment before November if we are to be on our way out of Iraq by 2005. If he isn't and Kerry wins in Novemeber the FIRST THING HE DOES is call for investigation into the IRAQ war and the reasons behind it. He should also ask for the resignation of several Military leaders who are known NeoCons...

Those non-neocon GOPer's need to wake up and get on track before they go down in a flaming wreck with the likes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolowitz, Cambone, Kristol and all the other PNAC'ers....

And when it doesn't work, we can just waltz back into Iraq and resume what we were doing?

Wow - I can't argue with logic like that.

- the writer of post 18

>8. 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.

OK, first things first... There is no magical reserve of UN peacekeeping tropps. The UN itself has no troops. These troops come from member nations. So... basically we'd be trying to get our troops out of the way and replace them with troops from 3rd party nations who *inentionally avoided* this conflict? That doesn't make any sense. It especially doesn't make any sense in light of the fact that Al Qaeda is not going to stop blowing things up when the UN steps in. Some people seem to have gotten this notion that UN peacekeeping troops walk on water, are always respected, and will never be attacked. That isn't usually the case *anywhere* and it certainly isn't the case here. Essentially, this whole thing reeks. We'd be asking people from other countries to die for our sins.

1) Some of the nations who avoided sending troops initially did so because they wanted this done through the UN, not by the US alone. So, theoretically speaking, it's probable that *some* countries would be open to sending some troops under UN control. But not 130,000.

2) It's likely that a large number of troops in any sizable UN Iraq peacekeeping operation would have to come from... The United States. So in this theoretical world, we've basically just applied some blue spraypaint to our vehicles and transferred some command functions to the UN (though the day-to-day ops would probably still be dominated by US military brass)

An American in a blue uniform is still an American. Maybe some of the insurgents won't want to attack UN troops, but Al Qaeda really doesn't give a damn who they kill, as long as they get to kill someone.

"Al Qaeda is not going to stop blowing things up when the UN steps in"

come'on ya know better, sheesh this is an UPRISING resting OUR presence.

we need to ABBANDON our GREEDY design on their land before anyone else will participate and then we get out.

peace

Since we have no credibility and because I imagine that it would be in other countries best interests to NOT have the US controlling Iraq, I think Dennis's plan is doable.


And even if we didn't leave tomorrow - to begin the wheels of us leaving would be huge.

If other countries had no stake in what we did with Iraq, it would be a different matter.

It's kind of surprising that the whole world is just sitting there letting us do what we're doing, anyway. Or that they don't see it adversely affecting them down the road. Or not much....

They must trust us more than I do. :crazy:

8. 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.

Q: From which countries? Didn't we just finish pissing in their faces? We damaged the UN, perhaps mortally. How will this come together, exactly?

A: I am inclined to believe that most countries and the UN want to see this fiasco end ASAP, but, with good reason, do not trust the Bu$h Administration and their motives. So they refuse to commit aid, troops, or resources to a dangerous, costly, and futile quagmire administered by the US at this time. If the UN were to be given cooperative oversight along with Iraqi leaders in Iraq, the Iraqis might take this as a sign of good faith and discontinue major resistance. Then many nations that previously refused to participate might also take this as a sign of good faith, recognize that the situation had stabilized, and agree to commit troops and resources. Granted, Bu$h would probably never agree to this plan, and the US must have new leadership to begin implementing any constructive and acceptable exit strategy.

9. UN troops will rotate into Iraq, and all U.S. troops will come home.

Q: When? See #8.

A: This would take some time. First, an agreement would have to be reached among the US, the UN, the Iraqis, and nations willing to commit peacekeeping troops and resources. The situation in Iraq would probably have to stabilize considerably before many nations would commit. Nations willing to commit peacekeepers might need considerable time to assemble and send troops and supplies. The amount of time that all this would take is not easily determinable. The US could pull out once a majority of the peacekeeping forces were in place.

I believe that the majority of Iraqis are tired of fighting off an occupying nation and would welcome a peaceful, plausible, and productive alternative to foreign occupation and aggression.

Granted, it may take more than 90 days to bring all our troops home after this process was initiated.

But other than cut and run, DK's plan seems to me to be quickest, most constructive, and most ethical strategy for exiting Iraq.

So I am very inclined to trust his judgement about how the US should proceed in Iraq in the future.

He's far more informed on the situation than I am. Like any really good leader, his main concern is the protection and continued security of his own people:

"If we stay the course it will do damage to American security. Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 and had no weapons of mass destruction. It was wrong to go in and it's wrong to stay in. The demands of an occupation are overstretching our armed forces. And the extended deployment of reserve forces makes us vulnerable at home. The reserve call-ups include large numbers of firemen, policemen and other first responders who are needed for hometown security. Americans are asking, is there a way out? I say there is. This is my plan to get the UN in ... and the U.S. out of Iraq! This plan will bring our troops home within 90 days of UN approval, and strengthen American security."DK

IMO, because the US has now lost all credibility in the view of the majority of Iraqis, the Iraqi people will never fully accept a US implemented/administered democratic government. US anti-humanitarian transgressions in Iraq have caused the Iraqis to consider the US as an adversary and occupier.

The people of Iraq will more than likely continue to resist a US implemented government for as long as it takes to overthrow it.

Rather than continue this destructive and costly exercise in futility, it might be best to follow DK's plan to use the UN to administer/implement some form of democratic government in Iraq immediately. One advantage of this approach is that resistance efforts in Iraq might lessen or stop completely if the Iraqi people no longer see themselves in danger of permanent occupation. Subsequently, nations that have been heretofore reluctant to commit troops due to the hostile environment/distrust of US motives in Iraq might be more amenable to committing troops and resources to a peacekeeping mission administered by the UN. Personally, from my admittedly limited perspective, I believe that if I were a citizen of Iraq, having an international organization that did not sanction a preemptive attack on my country helping administer governmental transiton would be far more acceptable than having a hostile aggressor/occupier nation coercively implement this transition.

So I tend to agree with DK's plan. I have not seen an exit strategy that is IMO more plausible, or one that has a possibility of being more effective or successful in both the short and long term.

DK's plan:

"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."
----------------

Bottom line: Our troops leave ASAP and sustain the least amount of deaths and injuries possible. A prudent and rapid exit from Iraq will be far less costly for American taxpayers than indefinite military occupation. The Iraqi people may find this plan acceptable and discontinue violent resistance to occupation. The process of setting up a sustainable form of culturally based democratic government will be accelerated.

Not to mention the fact that a military draft would no longer be an imminent possibility.

The terrorists anger would be solely directed at the US.

Unfortunately the solution you presented is the only one that even has a chance. Boot Bush and present a rational leader to the rest of the world to show them that the US is serious about getting back on the right track.

Boot Bush and present a rational leader to the rest of the world to show them that the US is serious about getting back on the right track.

The prime issue here isn't how the rest of the world views us -- it's how Iraqis view us, that will ultimately affect any honest efforts toward any kind of positive outcome. The CINC of the boys and girls in desert camo occupying Iraq matters none to the Iraqi people. With the torture scandals at Abu Ghraib, Iraqi estimation of US troops has gone into a virtually unstoppable freefall. As long as US troops remain in the region now, they will be seen solely as an occupying power to be detested.

If any other countries are brought in (outside of other Arab countries), they will be seen as little more than an extension of the US occupying force. Therefore, they will be treated in much the same manner.

I remember in the immediate aftermath of the invasion, the clergy actually helped organize local police and hold local elections to attend to day-to-day matters on the community level. The US authorities ignored these local officials, instead preferring to deal with puppets instead. Hell, even al-Sadr and his people were instrumental in this initial efforts.

IMHO, the only way to extricate ourselves from this mess is to deal with these groups. Cancel all foreign contruction contracts, and remove all profiteers immediately from the country. Hold immediate local elections to help establish short-term order, and to establish the people with whom we will have to work, on the ground.

The US should then establish a fund for Iraqi reconstruction, to be carried out by the technical expertise of Iraqis.

The problem in this scenario is the middle step -- how do you keep foreign aid workers, those who will be doling out reconstruction funds, in the country? Obviously security will be a concern, but to keep US troops in the region would possibly cause these people to be LESS safe. In any event, I think that the best weapon for fighting the terrorists entering the country is to ensure the relative prosperity of the Iraqi people. The three best friends of terrorism are poverty, lack of dignity as a source of outrage, and ignorance. Iraq only has the first two, meaning it is not yet a lost cause. However, the longer we remain, the more that third element will creep in, hurting the prospects for the future.

their country. I am sure there are many Iraqi's who are capable of driving trucks, rebuilding war torn structures, repairing the roads, etc. Instead, Halliburton is bringing Americans over to do what I think should be done by the Iraqi's themselves. It would instill a sense of pride to be a part of rebuilding what we have destroyed. Just my thought.

In Islamic cultures, people give a significant portion of their earnings to charity. As a result, people feel they've done enough, and are less likely to volunteer for civic duties.

Americans over to repair the damage, hire local Iraqi's. They are more then capable of repairing the infrastructure and rebuilding homes. The only jobs that *appear* to be available are those in security and how many Iraqi police have been killed in the last year? Not to mention it appears Iraqi's are turning their backs on those who "help" the US.

I think it would go along way if many of the Iraqi males could go back to work.

IMO, one of the bigger factors feeding the insurgency is the lack of jobs for Iraqis. Your idea is definitely a good one.

This is off the topic, but our discussion the other day regarding Kerry's position on Iraq...I thought about it that night and you are absolutely correct. I realized the point you were making. :hi:

to be honest, I don't remember the discussion. But either way, I'm glad to hear that you give other's opinion due consideration.

:hug:

The US "face" has to be taken off the occupation, but that can only happen AFTER the US regains some it's demolished credibility and is able to get the rest of the world involved. The US can no longer have any say whatsoever (or at the very least not appear in any way to have any say) in Iraq's future.

Sends flowers to as many Iraq's as possible. We start in this country, to forgive and love the Iraqis and the world and our selves. We start singing "We are the world" again...

We need a new theme song.

:)

cause that seems like what most smart realists are thinking about.

they can come here and live like the Hmong were when we left Vietnam but they'll have to wait in line.

Laos, Hmong Bill Passes U.S. Congress: Urges Stalinist Regime to Address Crisis and Reform

5/6/2004 4:10:00 PM


To: National and International Desks

Contact: Ms. Xoua Kue or Paul Christopher, 202-543-1444, 559-252-3921 or 202-318-0266 (fax)

WASHINGTON, May 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- In an historic vote today, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed strongly worded legislation (H.Res. 402) introduced by Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) and a bipartisan coalition in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding the emergency crisis facing the Hmong people in Laos and the urgent need for freedom, democratic reform, and the international monitoring of elections, human rights and religious liberty in Laos.

"Today's historic vote in the U.S. Congress for the passage of H. Res. 402 is something that we at the Lao Veterans of America have worked very hard at for nearly two years in Washington, D.C.," stated Colonel Wangyee Vang, national director and founder of the Lao Veterans of America, Inc., the nation's largest Lao and Hmong veterans organization. "Today's vote in Congress for Congressman Burton's Laos bill marks an important victory for the freedom-loving Lao and Hmong people now suffering under the Communist regime in Laos as well as all of the veterans and the Laotian and Hmong-American organizations and individuals who joined together as a team to help us fight for the passage of this important legislation, to help bring freedom and democracy to Laos," Colonel Wangyee concluded.

Rep. Dan Burton was joined by Reps. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), Mark Green (D-Wisc.), Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), Ron Kind (D-Wis.), Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Thomas Petri (R-Wis.) and others in introducing the Laos legislation on October 16, 2004. H.Res. 402 was introduced following a special session of the U.S. Congressional Forum on Laos, held in the Longworth House Office Building, where a number of prominent Members of Congress, Laotian and Hmong organizations, dissidents, victims and human rights organizations testified about the current crisis in Laos and the plight of the Hmong people, including the Lao Veterans of America, the Lao Students Movement for Democracy, Amnesty International and others. Hundreds of Lao and Hmong veterans, and their families, are slated to convene in the U.S. Congress early next week for a special U.S. Congressional reception and events to honor Rep. Burton's legislation and Members of Congress who have taken a leadership role in its passage. The Congressional events are cosponsored by the Lao Veterans of America, Inc., and the Center for Public Policy Analysis.

"Congressman Burton's bold new legislation addressing the current situation in Laos is a first step toward engaging the Pathet Lao regime, United Nations and the State Department more seriously, honestly and effectively regarding the horrific plight of the jailed Laotian students, political and religious dissidents and Hmong civilians and rebels now under brutal siege in closed military zones," stated Philip Smith, executive director for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Public Policy Analysis. Smith also serves as the Washington director for the Lao Veterans of America, Inc., the Lao Students Movement for Democracy and a coalition of Lao and Hmong organizations seeking political and human rights reforms in Laos.

more
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=155-05062004



Hmong Proving Potent Political Organizers in U.S.
SuabHmongRadio, News Report,
Compiled and Translated by Pha Lo, Apr 30, 2004

MILWAUKEE, Wisc. -- Milwuakee is home to approximately 20,000 Hmong, a nomadic tribe that emigrated from Laos in the Vietnam War's aftermath. Here in the United States, Hmong are discovering that their traditional, clan-based system of leadership can benefit U.S.-style grassroots politicking.

Tens of thousands of Hmong left Laos in the 1970s and 1980s after losing a war in which they were covertly recruited to serve alongside the U.S. military. Here in the United States, many were naturalized as U.S. citizens after the Lao-Veterans bill, introduced in 1996, expedited the process for those who had served or been disabled in that war.

Since gaining citizenship, Hmong have begun to exercise their voting rights. This year marked a political rite of passage for Milwaukee-are Hmong who worked on Republican State Sen. Bob Welch’s campaign for the U.S. Senate. He won the Republican primary and will compete in general elections.

Wisconsin is home to approximately 40,000 Hmong.

Victor Vaj is a Hmong radio personality in Milwaukee who spent a year working on the State Senator’s campaign. For Vaj, seeing an older generation of naturalized citizen exercise voting rights fulfills a second purpose. It encourages the U.S.-born generation to use their birthright along with their traditional Hmong upbringing to pursue politics in this country.

http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=9d4de22d1f...
US WI: Sen. George Asks UW For Probe On Vang Pao

URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n809/a09.html
Newshawk: Drug Policy Forum of Wisconsin www.drugsense.org/dpfwi/
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Sat, 27 Apr 2002
Source: Capital Times, The (WI)
Copyright: 2002 The Capital Times
Contact: tctvoice@madison.com
Website: http://www.captimes.com /
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/73
Author: Pat Schneider


SEN. GEORGE ASKS UW FOR PROBE ON VANG PAO

State Sen. Gary George is calling on UW-Madison Chancellor John Wiley to order an investigation into allegations by a UW-Madison professor that the commander of the CIA's secret army in the Vietnam War - now a leader of refugee Hmong in the United States - engaged in drug trafficking in Laos.

The allegations, 30 years old, resurfaced this month, enraging the refugee community.

"We will seek the truth and follow that path wherever it leads," George said Friday at a news conference at the State Capitol packed with Hmong veterans and supporters of Gen. Vang Pao.

Professor Alfred McCoy wrote about his findings on the role of Vang Pao and the CIA in drug trafficking in southeast Asia in a 1972 book, "The Politics of Heroin."

McCoy said the U.S. government assisted Vang Pao in bringing opium, an important cash crop for the Hmong, to heroin factories to help Vang Pao seal his leadership role and ensure a supply of fighters who waged a secret war against the North Vietnamese in Laos.

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n809/a09.html


McCoy said the U.S. government assisted Vang Pao in bringing opium


Posted on Wed, Apr. 28, 2004


ST. PAUL: Crime spree on Hmong investigated

BY LENORA CHU and TODD NELSON

Pioneer Press


Authorities are trying to determine whether a connection exists between anonymous death threats leveled Monday against seven Hmong community leaders and recent crimes committed against prominent Hmong.

St. Paul Police spokesman Paul Schnell revealed Wednesday that the death threats came in an anonymous call received by a St. Paul Hmong veterans group. Local and federal law enforcement agencies are investigating the alleged hit list.

Authorities also confirmed Wednesday that an object hurled through a window sparked the arson fire that destroyed the home of Cha Vang, son of influential leader Gen. Vang Pao. Cha Vang narrowly escaped the early Sunday fire with his wife and three daughters.

A flammable substance was also found in the home, according to Maplewood Police Chief Dave Thomalla, who declined to identify the object and substance.

Two other crimes are being investigated for possible connections. On April 20, someone fired five shots into the Maplewood home of Xang Vang, Gen. Vang Pao's translator. The following day, officials discovered someone had thrown a brick into a window and started a fire at the St. Paul offices of the Lao Family Community of Minnesota.

more
http://www.realcities.com/mld/twincities/8543732.htm

were shared by most. Kerry is definitely the right guy to head the effort. Immediately after 9/11 he asked boldly that we need to understand what the root causes are that would lead to such an act against this country.

credibility and *a step in the right direction* would be to hand over ALL the control. That means pull Halliburton, KBR, Bechtel, and all of the other "Crony capitalists" out of Iraq and let other nations become more involved in the rebuilding. We would also have to give up control of the oil and the security. I think (and it is just my *humble* opinion) that if we take away the notion that we are trying to profit from Iraq, we could get other nations involved via NATO and the UN and replace a vast number of our troops with a "true" international force. I know that is not a NOW plan but it would be a step in the right direction of internationalizing the Iraq situation. In short, as long as we have to keep control, I don't think anyone will come in help stabilize the region.

Because it won't and could not happen under CIC bunnypants. The vacuum would have to be filled or what you predict would become reality and there ain't NO ONE willing to pull bushies titties out of the wringer.

The only way is for a complete change in administrations, sacking of the entire motley crew and possibly bringing charges against them to signify that we realize how badly they fucked the world over and that we are sorry for it. This would also entail a purge of some of the military brass as well.

Next, or concurrently, we would have to go hat in hand to the UN, NATO, League of Arab Nations, EVERYONE, apoligize, offer to supply the costs and muscle (for a while) under their direction in order to rebuild the country and develop a workable political structure. I think we would also have to offer reparations and years of foreign aid to the new Iraq.

This all will take time and there is no guarantee other nations would go along but it is the best I can think of.

If the US prosecuted these criminals I think it would send a good signal to the rest of the world and help mitigate some of the damage we've done.

The Bushists won't do it because it will be an admission of error and failure. But someone in the Senate could introduce legislation to set the conditions for a US withdrawal contingent on replacing US forces with Iraqi, UN and/or other peacekeeping forces. The US should end its war on the "insurgency" now. Its posture should be strictly defensive until a pull-out can be effected: no more incursions into rebellious or holy cities, no more sieges, no more shooting up wedding parties.

But, I fear we have damaged our reputation irreparably in Iraq. We went in on a gamble and we must get out on a gamble. We must gamble that the Iraqi people can run their own country better than we can. In the end, they will have to resolve their own problems and form their own government.

Starting next week, I would withdraw American troops from all cities in Iraq. I would pull them back to monitor traffic at all the main roads in and out of Iraq. That would be their major responsibility. I would put the UN and UNICEF on notice that we may need their help with humanitarian assistance, food and shelter. We must make sure the people do not starve.

No doubt, there will be a battle within the country to see who fills the power vacuum. We would only use our troops to protect the innocents involved in conflicts between the opposing forces. We would encourage elections in each town and village in the country. We would have liaisons working with the elected leadcrs chosen. We would give them an ultimatum of six months to work it out on their own.

In the meantime, our main mission would be to keep outside influences from entering Iraq. Our troops would be base-camped outside of contact with average Iraqis. Our goal would be to leave the country totally in six months. We went in on a gamble and we must leave on a gamble. I gamble that they will do better without our assistance.

Starting next week, I would withdraw American troops from all cities in Iraq. I would pull them back to monitor traffic at all the main roads in and out of Iraq. That would be their major responsibility. I would put the UN and UNICEF on notice that we may need their help with humanitarian assistance, food and shelter. We must make sure the people do not starve.

No doubt, there will be a battle within the country to see who fills the power vacuum. We would only use our troops to protect the innocents involved in conflicts between the opposing forces. We would encourage elections in each town and village in the country. We would have liaisons working with the elected leadcrs chosen. We would give them an ultimatum of six months to work it out on their own.

How will we protect the innocents involved in conflicts between opposing forces if we have withdrawn from the cities and fortressed ourselves? How will we get humanitarian groups to come in if we can't offer them protection because we are fortressed in? How can we begin to organize elections if there is a free-fire zone in the cities because we have withdrawn and fortressed ourselves?

It is up to the Iraqis. We will not be out of the country . Any place in Iraq, our troops would still be prepared for battle. They could be at some places in minutes with choppers and troops. After all, we would be in control of all the roads. I did not say humanitarian "groups". I was referring to food drops or medicine drops, etc. The UN could supply those. They are not asked to supply troops. We will still be in charge of securiy - but at a distance. I said it was a gamble...

Governmental elections are NEVER organized by individuals; They're organized by governments, and unfortunately, we destroyed Iraq's govt. Someone has to organize the elctions, and that takes time so any plan to organize elections is inconsitent with the idea of "out NOW"

Also, there's no such thing as security at a distance. That's what we're trying to do in Afghanistan, and it's not working.

Are we going to pick their candidates. if not, it is up to the Iraqis. They had places to vote before we came in. Granted, Saddam won all the elections, but the people do know how to vote. We cannot pick their leaders. It will not work. 'Security at a distance' is a threat to use force. It's better than what's happening now, in my opinion.

Are we going to pick their candidates. if not, it is up to the Iraqis.

That's overly simplistic, black and white thinking. Fortunately, their are more than two choices (ie either we pick their candidates, or the Iraqis do (through some unmentioned process))

but the people do know how to vote

More simplisticism. It's not about teaching people how to vote. It's about organizing elections. An Iraqi might know how to vote, but that doesn't mean they know how to organize an election.

'Security at a distance' is a threat to use force. It's better than what's happening now, in my opinion.

Threats are not security. And though your opinon does count for something, I'd more likely be persuaded that security would be improved by your suggestion if you offered me something in addition to "your opinion". Some evidence supporting your opinion might help.

"And though your opinon does count for something, I'd more likely be persuaded that security would be improved by your suggestion if you offered me something in addition to "your opinion". Some evidence supporting your opinion might help."

Of course, it is our opinions! what are you offering?

And how do you knw the Iraqis are not capable of "organizing" elections?

And you didn't say how you would pick the candidates to lead their country???

And how would you suggest we maintain "security"?

Just give us your opinion, because that is all you have.

Of course, it is our opinions! what are you offering?

I did make a reference to Afghanistan, and how "Security at a distance" is failing us there. IOW, I offered more than just "my opinion". I also provided an real-life example.

And how do you knw the Iraqis are not capable of "organizing" elections?

Because they can make all the rules they want, but they have no ability to enforce them because they have no govt to enforce them. When the American colonialists won their freedom, they had govts in the form of state govts, and even then it took years to write a Constitution and form a Federal govt. Unlike us, the Iraqis have no form of govt at all, and they are surrounded by other nations eager to interfere in their internal affairs. What makes you think it will be easier for them?


And how do you knw the Iraqis are not capable of "organizing" elections?

Simple, they do not have any govt. Can you name ONE election that was organized without the aid of a govt?

And you didn't say how you would pick the candidates to lead their country???

Again, it takes a government. The (or "A") govt would decide the process, and the process picks the candidates, often through primaries and political parties. Unfortunately, there is no govt in Iraq aside from ours.

And how would you suggest we maintain "security"?

I would suggest that the UN maintain security.

Just give us your opinion, because that is all you have.

No, that would be you. Just because opinion is all you have, doesn't make it true for the rest of us. As this post shows, I can cite history to support my opinions. So far, all you have to support your opinions are "your opinions". That's a little circular, don't you think?

....with fact...How is Afghanistan "security at a distance"? We don't have the troops to offer security in Afghanistan. Most of them are around and in Kabul, protecting Karzai...?? Aand that's your "real-life" example?

And how do you know the Iraqis are not capable of "organizing" elections?
"Because they can make all the rules they want, but they have no ability to enforce them because they have no govt to enforce them." Are you suggesting that we are the ones to make sure all the rules are enforced? I think that is why we are getting our asses shot off everyday - because we want to enforce the rules - not only enforce the rules but make the rules. I think that is even more of a recipe for disaster than a complete withdrawal, just my opinion, JUST MY OPINION, because we really have proven that we cannot enforce our ideas on anybody.

"Again, it takes a government. The (or "A") govt would decide the process, and the process picks the candidates, often through primaries and political parties. Unfortunately, there is no govt in Iraq aside from ours."
And how do you propose they get that "government"?

And how would you suggest we maintain "security"?

"I would suggest that the UN maintain security."
And how realistic do you think that idea really is??

"As this post shows, I can cite history to support my opinions."
What history of our nation is relevant to the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq that came out successful? If it was unsuccessful, then we would have to assume we should have done something different? If that is the case, that is nothing but an opinion, because there is no historical standard to compare it to...

and you don't seem to undersatnd how your mistakes work to support MY opinion.

How is Afghanistan "security at a distance"? We don't have the troops to offer security in Afghanistan. Most of them are around and in Kabul, protecting Karzai...?? Aand that's your "real-life" example?

US troops in Afghanistan are NOT providing security in Kabul, which does happen to be relatively secure. Kabul is being secured by UN peacekeepers. US troops are located in remote bases near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Their job is two-fold:

1) To track down and capture or kill Al Queda members and Taliban insurgents

2) To provide security from a distance, in the event of an outbreak of hostilities in Afghanistan, such as the recent events in one of the provinces where Karzai ousted a recalcitrant governor/warlord.

The part that bolsters my opinion is that the part of Afghanistan secured by "boots on the ground" UN peacekeepers is relatively secure. Meanwhile, the parts of Afghanistan where security is provided "at a distance" by the US military, security sucks.

"Security at a distance" doesn't work, and never has.

Are you suggesting that we are the ones to make sure all the rules are enforced?

No, I haven't specified which entity would enforce the rules. If you want to be specific, I would suggest the UN or possibly the Arab League.

And how do you propose they get that "government"?

With the UN's help. They have a record of success in this sort of activity.

"I would suggest that the UN maintain security."
And how realistic do you think that idea really is??

Given the mixed history of the UN's providing security, as compared to unblemished failure of "security at a distance", I'd say the odds for the UN are more favorable than for "security at a distance"

What history of our nation is relevant to the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq that came out successful?

We're talking about potential elections, not the invasion. Please don't confuse the issue with irrelevant facts.

not now, not in six months, years, or centuries. there can be no good outcome to this mess. get out now, don't waste one more American life on these poor, ignorant people. a lot of American people seem to have an idea that democracy was bestowed on our great land. democracy must be earned, paid for by sacrifice,and begun in blood. perhaps the greatest service this war has given to the iraqi people is they have greater reason than ever to unite against a common enemy, saddam or the u.s. i feel that the most terrible time in our history is the civil war, but it had to be fought. as dylan said "if you don't believe there's a price for this sweet paradise, just remind me to show you the scars". just buy their oil, and the sand will all too soon blow over their land, unnoticed.

It's a mess alright.

Is to have the Bush cabal stand trial for war crimes. This would help to establish our reputation, and show that we KNOW that what was done was WRONG.

Will, we done gone and screwed the pooch.

NOTHING we do will heal the wounds. We are what Bush set out to make us: the big, bad, bully boys of the oil patch.

The House of Saud is half Wahabbist already; a safe bet is that they have hedged THEIR bets by laundering enough cash with Riggs Bank to fund the entire "debacle in the desert." Whether we just leave (and lick our wounds) or stay and get the living SHIT beaten out of us abroad and at home, THEN just leave (and lick our wounds), the results will likely remain the same.

Will, this is a lose/lose bigger situation. We need to get the HELL out of there. RIGHT NOW. Leave in the night, without a drum, in silence. The country was duped into this in the first place; it is time to avoid the trappings of a clown.

LEAVE NOW. RIGHT NOW. START PACKING. BUY THE TICKETS. BEAT FEET.

The US can stop offensive actions now and put into effect a peacekeeping plan until the UN can step in. Then the US should pull its troops all the way out of Iraq until it is prepared to be part of the UN force--equal to the remaining parts, not in charge of it. The next administration--may it be Kerry's--should take aggressive steps to disown the Bushist failure, to make clear to the Iraqis and the world that it was Bushism, not the US, that was responsible for the fiasco in Iraq. The Bushists disowned Clintonism, so it should be present no ethical prblem to disown Bushism.

"until the UN can step in" means many months (at the very least) in the future.

The best we can hope for is an immediate end to offensive actions, an immediate halt to the war on insurgency. That's the next best thing to an immediate exit, which isn't going to happen.

There is no "out now" plan because there CAN'T be one. The posters calling for "out now" do not have a clue

But there should be an exit plan that gets us to the nearest exit as soon as possible. Continuing the war on the insurgency, and continuing to stage manage the "new Iraq" will only keep us mired.

See "Saigon, 1974-75"

Seriously, Will, they don't want us there, they want us to LEAVE, NOW, and take anybody that wants us to stay with us.

We maim women and children, we shoot up weddings (TWO weddings now), we took Hussein's dungeons and re-opened them like a McDonald's "UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT."

You know my feelings: the country is on borrowed time as it is. If we don't get out, FAST, the repurcussions in THIS country will make Chicago in 1968 look like a Girl Scout Picnic.

Time to cut our losses.

"Only a fool fights in a burning house." Klingon Proverb

:eyes:

It's the most sensible thing I've seen that poster post.

...then we'd be out of there now, victorious, with the smell of the flowers the Iraqis laid at our feet still in the air.

Unfortunately, Bush's pithy phrases have got us nowhere.

When did I last dis YOU? I seem to remember that once upon a time in this country you could hold a differing opinion without being dismissed as nonsense. Where is your solution?

Using "Klingon proverbs" as a solution to a deadly real-life situation.

But hey, what do I know? Maybe Powell has been using Star Trek analogies with Bush this whole time -- to keep it on a level he'd understand.

If something said by the late BENNY HILL in one of his silly songs fit the argument, I'd quote him in a NY minute.

If a busty British bombshell wanted to dance around and give me her opinion on Iraq, I'd listen.

:silly:

from the other thread?

My draft plan for Iraq:

institute a nationwide lottery draft to fill all positions in military and police, as well as much of the beurocracy(sp.) - regardless of religeous or political affiliation. UN to oversee the education and training of personel at those posts. This is the limit of outside oversight. The Iraqi people hold their own executive elections, electing a council member from each region, as well as a president. After the elections are over, they create their own constitution and everyone but Iraqi's are out, and they get to either fight for their own footholds of freedom, or not.

i didn't say it'd be sexy - but it's a plan that encourages co-operation.

TRaining peacekeepers, soldiers and police, organizing and holding elections, and writing a Constitution, takes a lot of time and effort. It's not an "out NOW" plan, nor is it realistic.

not us - I suggest we leave as soon as the draft was completed and let the Iraqis figure out the rest. At least it'd set them up for the beginning of their own very long road to whatever sort of country they choose.

That's not an "out now" plan.

institute a nationwide lottery draft to fill all positions in military and police, as well as much of the beurocracy(sp.) - regardless of religeous or political affiliation.

Those positions will be inevitably filled by people looking to tear down whatever system looks like it might work, especially if there is 'democracy' involved. It's just the law of large numbers.

UN to oversee the education and training of personel at those posts.

What section of the UN? People say 'The UN' without realizing they're dealing with another massive bureaucracy.

This is the limit of outside oversight. The Iraqi people hold their own executive elections, electing a council member from each region, as well as a president.

How? What if civil war breaks out?

After the elections are over, they create their own constitution and everyone but Iraqi's are out, and they get to either fight for their own footholds of freedom, or not.

See last.

Sadly, that may be one of the outcomes our invasion of Iraq will have instigated. Civil wars happen. Happened here, too. They are bad and bloody and they sometimes serve a purpose. Maybe they are unavoidable. Maybe nothing we ever do will prevent one in Iraq. But I have read all the posts here in this thread, and you may have caused quite a few of us to "fess up and admit quick fixes and silver bullets and magic pills don't exist. Altho I am still rooting for that magic fat melting pill to be invented.

"What if civil war breaks out?"

a REVOLUTION already has.

peace

And as such, no progress will be made until the overwhelming majority of troops are withdrawn, and fast.

The prime issue here isn't how the rest of the world views us -- it's how Iraqis view us, that will ultimately affect any honest efforts toward any kind of positive outcome. The CINC of the boys and girls in desert camo occupying Iraq matters none to the Iraqi people. With the torture scandals at Abu Ghraib, Iraqi estimation of US troops has gone into a virtually unstoppable freefall. As long as US troops remain in the region now, they will be seen solely as an occupying power to be detested.

If any other countries are brought in (outside of other Arab countries), they will be seen as little more than an extension of the US occupying force. Therefore, they will be treated in much the same manner.

I remember in the immediate aftermath of the invasion, the clergy actually helped organize local police and hold local elections to attend to day-to-day matters on the community level. The US authorities ignored these local officials, instead preferring to deal with puppets instead. Hell, even al-Sadr and his people were instrumental in this initial efforts.

IMHO, the only way to extricate ourselves from this mess is to deal with these groups. Cancel all foreign contruction contracts, and remove all profiteers immediately from the country. Hold immediate local elections to help establish short-term order, and to establish the people with whom we will have to work, on the ground.

The US should then establish a fund for Iraqi reconstruction, to be carried out by the technical expertise of Iraqis.

The problem in this scenario is the middle step -- how do you keep foreign aid workers, those who will be doling out reconstruction funds, in the country? Obviously security will be a concern, but to keep US troops in the region would possibly cause these people to be LESS safe. In any event, I think that the best weapon for fighting the terrorists entering the country is to ensure the relative prosperity of the Iraqi people. The three best friends of terrorism are poverty, lack of dignity as a source of outrage, and ignorance. Iraq only has the first two, meaning it is not yet a lost cause. However, the longer we remain, the more that third element will creep in, hurting the prospects for the future.

It is insulting beyone belief to tell a culture that thrived for centuries, without any help from us, that they are incapable of rebuilding their country.

Our only choice now is to exit the stage as gracefully as we can throwing billions of dollars at them for rebuilding.

you already read it in editorials. It could be "tweaked" with your suggestion of getting the US Contrators out and letting open bids take place.

The biggest flaw I saw with Livingstone's proposal was that Bush would never allow any American concerns to be placed under UN rule. Plus, I'm not sure how the Iraqi's would feel about troops from other Arab countries there. That might be another recipe for disaster. Still he has some good ideas for holding the "real elections" now or in the next couple of months and giving the UN real authority.

First would be enlisting countries that would be willing to provide peacekeepers. Second would be distrust that still is there due to the UN skimming funds off the top of the old oil-for-food program. Third would be perception by Iraqis that the UN is just a front for US interests.

I wish it were as easy as just getting the UN in, but it isn't. And that little fact tends to make things much, much, much more complicated.

of the power vacuum that would be left by the withdrawal of our forces?

Also, how would the new Iraq defend themselves against insurgent forces bent on destabilizing the elected authority, if they ever got to that one?

How can you clamor for Iraqi sovereignty from the U.S. and accept leaving Iraq to the destabilization from outside forces bent on their destruction?

Would Turkey be free to resume their reprisals with the U.S. forces out of the way?

We removed the controlling authority there which our past foreign policy regarded as a buffer to more pernicious regimes like Iran. What becomes of Iraq's sovereignty if we leave them to these destabilizing influences without the means to defend their new government?

Iraq was indeed thriving before the first imposition of sanctions and the Gulf war. What would have become of that thriving culture at the brunt of a successful assault and takeover by Iran in the '80s?

If we just up and left, as improbable as that is, who would eventually rule a defenseless Iraq? I don't think Iraqis will have the means to defend and maintain any government they might form, with or without us, in the short term. We crippled their defenses, we bear some responsibility for helping them achieve the means to defend their new government.

I have great worries about other Arab States coming into Iraq at this time. Given Chalabi's overtures to the Persions in Iraq that would be a bad move.

However, I wait for the day when Islamics can go beyond Osama and unify themselves. I'm pragmatic enough to wonder how the great nation of Islam can allow themselves to be taken over by a Moron Chimp and his Israeli Sympathizers!

There...I've said it. Probably will be banned from DU for this. But, I can't find any other solution? And WHY the Iraqi's haven't been able to find help outside the UN and US just baffles me. It does lead one to wonder if there isn't something that THEY see about "TRIBAL LOYALTY" that we have lost in our "Walmart AMERICAN Culture."

I don't know...it's all boggling one's mind. WHY ARE WE THERE?????

"...and it has the sense to get out of the rain."

When Kerry gets in...

• Admit that the US government was overthrown by a fascist coup
  
• declare all activities by the Bush* so-called "government" null and void
  
• declare that no WMD's have been found and ask for a resumption of UN inspections
  
• evacuation of US troops (the Brits might wanna catch a ride)
  
• immediate elections under UN control (Carter might want to lend a hand)
  
• if a theocracy gets in, let the chips fall where they may
  
• develop strategy to wean US from Middle East oil, either breaking OPEC's stranglehold (buying direct from Canada, Mexico, Norway and UK) and/or crash development (ie. Manhatten project) of alternatives (fuel cells, safe nuclear, solar, wind, thermal)
  

(spelling)

Note that even if the first two bullets don't go down as you describe, the remaining five bullets are perfectly achievable.

He's spoken repeatedly of the need for an "Apollo Project" dedicated toward renewable forms of energy. The current situation should be even more of an impetus to act.

Surely there would be a way of financing it through actually charging oil and gas companies royalties from all profits (and environmental cleanups) on federal lands....

It would be great if it were to happen. If I get a vote on this - I vote yes to your plan.

Just like they did in Vietnam, despite the predictions of a "bloodbath".

or, have "our" candidate promise to turn over complete control to the UN, including military, bring in spokesmen from all the Iraqi factions, and let them start talking about how to run THEIR country. Let them set up their own government, even if we don't like it, and get the hell out.

Not quite immediate, but a helluva lot better than 4 more years of the bloodbath that's now underway in the guise of "restoring stability" (Nixon called it "Peace with Honor).

My plan:

1.) Drive and/or fly all the shit down to Kuwait with all the troops.
2.) Fly or ship them all home from there.
3.) Wait until the Iraqis form their own government(s) to their
own satisfaction and then apologize to each of those, if there is
more than one, and offer reparations and rebuilding assistance.

There is no way in Hell the Iraqis are going to fuck themselves
up any worse than we have already.

The idiotic idea that the Iraqis are hell bent on self destruction bespeaks itself of the contempt that some have for anyone not American.

the people who cry that "civil war" and "widespread chaos" will come with the withdrawal of the invaders apparentally don't see what's already happening now...

It is impossible to break something already broken.

It is WE who have shown an inability to govern Iraq,
not the Iraqis. They did fine with it for millenia,
most of the time anyway.

Too bad no one listens to his point by point on this.

The simple fact is there is no winning a "war on terrorism".

A bomb thrown here or a train blown up there or a plane crash somewhere will be impossible to stop. The first step to peace is to come to a realization of this. To bring a world-view back in linwe with sanity and rationalization.

They HAVE to talk with the terrorists and they MUST meet their demands which, on the face of it from what I have learned, are not really all THAT ridiculous.

1.Get in contact with Osama Bin Laden (by whatever means possible) and cut a deal to call off the dogs. This would be done covertly, of course. Ask Osama how we can get out of Iraq.

2.Try to get significant numbers of Arabian troops in there from Libya (our new found friend)

3.Solve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. Get Israel to pull out all of its settlements in the "occupied territories". Set up a compensation fund for disaffected Israeli colonizers.

4.Immediately hold elections in Iraq. If I were Iraqi, I'd be pretty damned tired of hearing how you've come to liberate me but just can't let me have a vote yet. (because no self-respecting Iraqi gov't would cede control of its vast oil wealth to US corporations)

Cut a deal with Bin Laden?!? :wtf: :crazxy: :silly:

Do you really wants us to go back to pre-1798?

"Millions for defense, not one penny for tribute."

Now if you mean we should negotiate with the legitimate leaders of the Arab World, maybe.

But Bin Laden? NEVER!

Just my opinion...

:silly:

but isn't there a history of "dealing" with the devil in US foreign policy?

I seem to remember something called the "October Surprise" back in 1980. And something called Iran/Contra in 1987. And US corporate support of Adolph Hitler.

I guess my suggestion is akin to someone suggesting in 1944 that we offer Japan a conditional surrender and then getting yelled down for suggesting such a thing because of the horror of what happened at Pearl Harbor vis-a-vis Osama and the horror of 9/11

Maybe cut a deal and then 5 seconds later send in a bunker-buster.

They were treasonous acts by Busheviks loyal only to the Imperial Family.

(jeez, I feel like I'm channeling Pres. Murtly Muffly from Dr. Strangelove)

You must know that there are 2 worlds to foreign policy. The overt and the covert.

In the overt, we have this fairy-tale image of the good-guy that is sold to people who only matter on election day and school children.

The covert is where all the deals are cut. Foreign policy is a gangster operation run by two different parties.

hoping to see the Kuwaiti border before the sun is baking in the heat of the day.

That is the only way the occupation army will be extracted out. Those who have put it there have too much of an investment to willfully see it gone. There can be no "peace with honor", no puppet regime left over, no "victory", etc..

Don't you read the papers, Will? There is already an incurable slaughter; the "civil war", a favourite meme of occupation apologists and party hacks, is rather a war of resistance against the invader. Almost unprecedented cooperation across Party & confessional lines is being shown.

You might wake somebody up.

We have too much invested in that forsaken place. We are not going to leave. We are an occupation Army, probably for the rest of our lives. :(

I believe that the current insurgency issues stem directly form a U.S. presence in Iraq. While the U.S. is pulling out we will have to let Iraq sort itself out until the U.N. and Iraq itself can handle security. GOP will call this cut and run. Frankly there is no other way. The Bush administration has made a HUGE mess out of Iraq and we have to admit that as a country. Here is how:


1. Prosecute the reasons to go to war.
Bush and administration must be held accountable for the lies about WMDs. This is very important. We need to regain credibility with the world community. If it envolves Bush and his entrie administration collapsing then so be it. Regardless of the election Bush needs to own up. The american people cannot let his slip away into the night on this.

2. U.N. Control - Total...The U.S. upon holding leadership responsible for thier errors then allows the U.N. to take charge. U.S. Must abstain from all U.N. security council votes on this matter. They must also abstain from influencing the U.N. Essentially the U.S. is place on "probation" and loses some rights.

3. War Crimes Trials for Abuse and Torture - This goes without saying. Rumsfled, Bush, Cambone . MI, CIA, OPBs whoever will be held responsible.

4. Agree to and Pay Reparations to Iraqis whos families have been needlesly killed and injured. Using a independant mediator selected by U.N.

5. U.S. Oil and Halliburton to withdraw as well. Again arbitration by U.N. without U.S. influence to manage Iraqi assets.

How about that for a start

very clever....

Any plan for withdrawl will be wrought with uncertainties. There is nothing to ensure that if we find a way to keep troops in Iraq for 4 years, aid them in re-establishing a civil society, and then pull out -- that they whole place STILL won't degenerate into civil war. Likewise, there is no way of knowing that if we were to withdraw all combat troops on the ground over the next 90 days, that somehow the country WON'T turn into a bloodbath.

That's the problem with such situations. The only thing that is currently certain is that the present approach is not working. Your choice is to either keep going with the present approach, which is certain, but doesn't work -- or to go with a different approach, which is uncertain, but just might work.

The only thing that this thread has proven is that the situation is full of uncertainties, and we must be willing to accept those uncertainties in order to come to any different course.

very positive. It'd be worth it to at least consider your proposition. Especially since nothing else is working and all currently proposed plans are based on the current paradigm.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1633666#1633963

Let me know what you think, nobody else really seems to want to. Perhaps it would go over better if I just made pithy comments and criticisms of other people's opinions, as a few on this thread seem to be more interested in doing.... :shrug:

and it's actually more productive to debate here on Du than to try with most others who aren't as committed to open discussion. I am going to read your post now.

to the top of the page, actually. Was your link posted higher up?

I thought I linked directly to it, but apparently not.

I thought my criticisms were pretty substantive.

However, I sometimes get the impression that you're a bit unwilling to look outside of the present paradigm out of fear of uncertainties -- you sometimes appear more comfortable with the known that isn't working as opposed to the unknown that just might have a chance.

Of course, I vaguely remember through an alcohol-induced haze that you, Beetwasher and I hashed out many of these same issues one Saturday night in NYC. ;-)

to the DU rank and file.

:)

BTW, here's my impression of myself from that night....

:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

:puke:

I guess it all depends on the definition of "NOW!".

I would prefer to say "Get the troops out as fast as we can without leaving a steaming, deadly pile chaotic shit behind" or in other words, do the best we can with what we've been given. Iraq is going to be worse than Afghanistan as a breeding ground for terrorists if we do anything less, and it still may be even if things go swimmingly from here on out.

The Bushists clearly are not going to cut and run unless they think they've figured out how to make it not look like a cut and run. And Kerry won't pull out until some force fills the vacuum we leave.

There is no guaranteed answer to this problem that Bush Co has gotten us into. The most honorable thing we could do, in my opinion, IN MY OPINION, would be to put our trust in the Iraqi people that they could form their own government, without our noses under their tents, so to speak, but close enough to offer security if needed.. As another poster stated, we are an occupation army and we really have no plans on leaving. We have too much invested. The idea is to stop American casualties, because that is the only thing that will defeat America in this conquest.

My idea has been to withdraw most of our troops, but keep enough there to prevent a civil war from breaking out. Hopefully, the USAF can do a lot of that like they did under Clinton. If I'm not mistaken, the Kurds are mainly in the North, Shiites in the South and Sunni in the middle. That way, if we keep them separate, they stay separate. And, it allows Iraqis to rebuild Iraq, instead of Halliburton. Though, financially, we are obligated to help.

Work closely with the UN & NATO to come up with a legitimate government in Iraq. I have no idea what to do - 3 countries or 1 country; relgious or secular; I have no idea.

Hope & pray that if we help the country get back on its feet, it won't become a terrorist breeding ground.

"My idea has been to withdraw most of our troops, but keep enough there to prevent a civil war from breaking out"

That would require more troops than presently are in Iraq!

Before, I thought a civil war would break out - but, now it seems more like fighting against the occupation.

It falls upon a Democratic President to own the shame with which Bush has disgraced America.

Those who led the US into a war of aggression with lies and imperial dreams must be persecuted.

Say to Iraqis, "We were wrong. Please forgive us." And back it up with the $$$ to help Iraqis rebuild their own country.

Say to the world, "We were wrong. Please help us." No provisos for the US directing the course of a future Iraq. 90 days: All US troops out and UN peacekeepers, largely drawn from Muslim nations, in.

Am I gullible to think this reasonable?
Am I cynical to think this is unacceptable to the esteemed members of the Council on Foreign Relations?

Am I gullible to think this reasonable?
Am I cynical to think this is unacceptable to the esteemed members of the Council on Foreign Relations?

We would be gullible to think losing all that lovely oil would be acceptable to the CFR ;)

I agree with you though. In this world there is right and there is wrong. I would like to think my party were courageous enough to stand for the RIGHT thing.

runs the economy right now, unfortunately. It did before Bush, and it will after he is gone. Most people who cry for revolution wouldn't want to be within 10,000 miles of what will happen in this country if the economy completely explodes.

Fixing the oil addiction, by the way, is central to Kerry's campaign.

never mind if it runs our economy, it's not ours. There will never be peace in this world as long as certain nations consider themselves entitled to appropriate the resources of other countries because we need them more for "our" economy.

I could not care less if our economy collapsed. It's been built on the sweat, blood and tears of too many people for too long. The world doesn't have 50 years to wait for the US to get its ass in gear and show a little self-sufficiency.

Also Kerry has no plan to fixing the oil addiction. His plan is a political bluff that amounts to decreasing the junkie's fix with a 17% reduction over 10 years.

It's not our oil Will; we have no right to expect the rest of the world to subsidize our way of life.

Kerry’s objectives are a move in the right direction, but they do not go far enough or fast enough. The Middle East supplies only 17 percent of our total crude oil consumption or 28 percent of imports. That means America would still be dependent on the global oil market, which is increasingly reliant on Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf. As long as we get our oil on the global market, we will be chained to the dysfunctional politics of the Middle East.

Fortunately for Kerry, he won’t need to study the problem for another decade. It turns out that three months before the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment published its explosive report about the threat posed by climate change, it published another report entitled, “A Strategy: Moving America Away from Oil.” The report, prepared by the Arlington Institute, outlines how to wean the United States off oil completely in 15 years. That’s well beyond Kerry’s 17 percent reduction over 10 years.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/natres/oil/2004/0312dumping.htm

--when asked whether they were concerned that someone like Saddam had control of so much oil "We think that whoever owns the oil will find that they have to sell it."

there will be no genuine exit strategy. Just window dressing to mask the intentions of the colonial masters.

So, the bases are built, the soldiers rotate in an out, and Iraq remains the Pentagon's "tactical pivot" in the Middle East. But hey, after four more years, if the guy in the white hat wins, most combat troops will be gone. I wonder to where? The Saudi fields? Iran?

With an opposition like this, who needs a dictatorship?

Yesterday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee brought in 4 experts to talk about the crisis in Iraq. I think at least 3 of them had supported the war, but no longer do. They are: Anthony Cordesman, Phoebe Mann, Larry Diamond and a retired general. It was on C-span overnight last night and discussed exactly this problem.

The visceral anger at the neo-cons was stunning. And ALL agreed that the US had to give up all hope of controlling the Iraqi economy. I'm still looking around for a transcript, but I encourage you to try to watch it at C-span.

Actually, they didn't go so far as to urge a quick withdrawal of troops. And some (especially Diamond, who I think was a neo-con, now somewhat defensive) seem unwilling to really believe that somehow the disaster cannot be turned around.

Personally, I agree with those who think that it is hubristic to think that only the US can solve Iraq's problems. At present, the US *IS* Iraq's problem. ANYONE else would be better at offering the security which now seems to be the last reason we "can't" leave. Like some others on this thread, I reject the knee-jerk assumption that the UN is too corrupt (I do think the oil-for-food scandal was being trumpeted by the RWers in the US to discredit the UN--which makes me wary.).

Anyway, IF peacekeepers are needed, and maybe they are, maybe the UN can ask for help from the countries in the world with the LEAST likelihood of twisting the task to their own advantage.

One other point. Phoebe Mann mentioned that Iraq is organized into 18 states (or was until the US army arrived). These could be the focus--getting local governments elected, and up and running first. I think the CPA has been trying this, but unfortunately any approval by the US makes for immediate suspicion. No Iraqi politician or leader now can afford to appear friendly to the US. (I think even this rift with Chalabi is something Chalabi wants because even he can see that his links to the US are only a liability. Not that he has a chance anyway.)

My point is that when the US has ZERO credibility, there is nothing at all that we can do to "help" except to get out of the way.

Has anyone found any websites where Iraqis are discussing this? How to get the Americans out, and how to avoid violence as they re-form their own government?

Published on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 by the Guardian/UK
We Must Withdraw
by Ken Livingstone


(SNIP)

The Lib Dems, who opposed the war before it started, have flirted with the idea for more than a year that more troops should be sent. I hope they conclude that there is no military mechanism that can solve this political problem. Security cannot be achieved until Iraqis are convinced that they have a legitimate administration and security forces. Only elections will deliver this. The most rapid possible timetable for elections, not the chimera of military solutions, must be the British policy in Iraq.

While elections are being organized, the UN should take charge of all foreign security forces in Iraq. The main political organizations in Iraq would have an entirely different attitude to a UN-commanded force than the current US-led one, isolating those engaged in military actions. This would also have the welcome effect of widening the Iraqi administration, which ought to be restructured to take this into account.

In principle, US and British troops could be transferred to such a UN command. But the US has always refused to put its troops under UN command. US and British troops are now compromised in the eyes of the population. The only way forward is to transfer command of security operations to the UN and announce the progressive withdrawal of US and British troops.

The Iraqi administration, working with the UN, would be responsible for deciding what security measures, what combination of internal, UN and neutral foreign forces, it wished to maintain during the transition. This might well mean temporarily replacing departing British and US troops with those from members of the Arab League - which are more likely to be seen as neutral by Iraqis.

This is literally a life-and-death matter for British soldiers and Iraqi civilians. The policy we are pursuing cannot succeed and it will remain far worse for everyone involved, not just the Iraqis, than the earliest possible withdrawal of British forces from Iraq.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0519-11.htm

It depends on having the UN provide security, and any plan that involves the UN will require many months to organize the effort and to get the troops there. Furthermore, in a UN organized security force, the majority of troops will most likely be from the US, leaving us with the exact same problem we now have with the Iraqi people's dissatisfaction with the US.

Force them to resign IMMEDIATELY. Replacing the administration, even with a new Republican leadership, will reopen a dialogue with the UN. I don't believe it's America they won't talk to but those particular Americans.

It's the whole Bushista/PNAC cabal that has to go. Then we will vote for Kerry in November, who will win. We can't be sure that there will be an election in November if the Bushistas aren't deposed as soon as possible.

I believe if our Democratic leaders can put together a really tough commission to present to the WH what could happen to them, like trials for war crimes, etc. etc., they may opt to resign a la Nixon.

Other than that, I am as dumbfounded as anyone as to how to prevent sinking into the quicksand the Bushistas have created.

You have to impeach 2/3 of Congress first, and fill those slots with pro-impeachment congresspeople. Do you have a plan?

Somebody has got to get the guts to bring together like-minded Americans who want to save our democracy. I don't know who will step up to the plate and do this. This is not a partisan issue. This is an illigitimate government that is holding our government hostage. I think Edward Kennedy could if his health permits. Any other suggestions?

Or, would it have to come from outside Congress, with Bill Clinton, Al Gore or Jimmy Carter forming a committee of sorts to speak the impeachment word, or the President is no longer able to discharge his duties according to the Constitution argument. My God, they are all lawyers, surely they can find a way?

Remember, Impeachment is a House affair. It is 100% a partisan affair, unfortunately.

allows for Congress to make the President step down when he is unable to discharge his duties anymore. I think this President and Vice President have demonstrated over and over that they can't discharge their duties. This is a matter of patriotism over party politics. It really is.

You are a writer. Write a piece calling every Republican Congressperson unpatriotic, traitors if they don't ask this administration to step down now. Other than that, we can cross our fingers and wait for November. That strategy, though, smells too much to me like putting all your eggs in one basket, to quote an oversused, but apt, platitude.

Khalifa. On June 30, submit the Khalifa to the Iraqi people for consent. Use the tribal leaders as the Shura for the time being. Adopt a constitution that is based on Islamic law, but also clarifies that the Khalifa must obtain the consent of the Shura to rule. Appoint the Shura from the various tribes or regions of Iraq via whatever means the tribe selects.

Provide the new Islamic government with grants and loans to fund the development of the government and establish a military (subject to routine and regular UN inspections). Then get the hell out as fast as possible. This requires giving up any desires to have bases in Iraq or to control Iraqi oil.

Staying four more years will not prevent Civil Wars when we leave. Only force will prevent Civil Wars. Four years of U.S. occupation will not overcome centuries of rivalries between the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds or inter-tribal rivalries between tribal leaders vying for more power. Staying four years will only delay the inevitable. The only way to prevent Civil Wars is to give the government (whatever it may be) sufficient power to deal with any uprisings.

In truth the only real argument for staying in Iraq is the need to control the oil resources. IMO no more blood for oil. In the U.S. we must start a Manhattan project for energy just as Kerry has suggested.

leaders right away. Why don't we just release Saddam and let him take power again? This is what it would amount to, even without Saddam. There would be another Saddam to follow. We need the international community involved to make a transition to a peaceful and free Iraq. I do agree with you, Americans should not get one drop of oil out of this.

the best option we have available IMO. We can hope that we end up with a more humane leader than Saddam in Iraq, but there are no gurantees.

The positive of the approach I outlined is that under the Koran, a properly appointed Khalifa derives his authority from Allah and would have a much greater chance of being capable of maintaining a stable government after the US leaves.

I thought four thousand years of civilization has proved that Allah, Yahweh, Osiris, Zeus or whatever you want to call your divinity, prefers His Kingdom to be in Heaven and for us to be ruled here on earth by mere mortals who can encompass governance of all religions and gods without interference from them.

The problem with deriving your authority from Allah, is that it means nothing to Christians, Jews and any other minority religions in the region.

as long as the Iraqi people accept the government. Not to be crass, but the other minorities are going to get screwed when we leave regardless. I know it is not a perfect solution, but there is no perfect solution to this mess.

can only happen in a secular state. Sorry, but no Sharia is acceptable in this modern day and age. As an American I refuse to believe we have to let this darkness happen because of stupidity at the highest levels of our government. We must to everything to right this wrong, not only at home, but in the Middle East. Woman and children can no longer be pawns and innocent victims in these greed wars conducted under religious banners started by men.

vulnerable as their numbers diminish. I do think we should send every member of the malAdministration to dover their backs till the last uniformed person is on a plane and out of Iraqi airspace. This fierce backup force of brave defenders should also include every chicken shit, err Chicken Hawk who has shown the audacity to question or attack the honor, dignity, and commitment of veterans who spoke against this engagement. Get Rush and Hastart in there too. McCain can show them the way to the rear, he deserves the honor of seeing them piss themselves.

Tell the kids to pack their gear, load 'em up and pipe in Frankie singing as dey be flying OUT,

"It's very nice to go wanderin'
the camel route to Iraq
It's very nice to go wanderin'
but it's so much nicer, yes it's oh so nice to wander
BACK."

Y'all can expose your deep deutsch roots and discuss the stuff you don't want to confront directly till the cows come home, let's cut to the chase cuz this is bloody CHAIN-REACTION FUBAR shit.

The U.S. *MIC has raped Iraq and is destabilizing the globe. The ONLY ONES who don't seem to get it are Amis. The invincible teenager. :SIGH:

GO HOME. GO TO YOUR ROOM. NOW. DON'T MAKE ME HAVE TO_________!!!!

1st- All military pack-up their ruck packs.

2nd- All military personel move to the transport area.

3rd- All military personel board the transports.

4th- All transports return to USA deportation points.

5th- All military personel deboard transports and assemble for orders to return home.

6th- All military personell return to their various homes.

There you have it folks. A doable plan to get out of Iraq. I know this is a hard plan to follow, but if we try, I think it will work.

Just watch where you draw the lines, carefully.



Ed:sp

which they will to get the northern oil fields...

And when the Shi'ite state joins Iran before going to war against the Sunni state...

While extricating yourself from the Iraq clusterfuck, you(us) make it clear that the boundaries are enforced by Coalition<sic> military forces. Withdraw back into the Gulf(carriers, where they've been for decades). Warn Iran and Turkey. This is as close to withdrawal-with-dignity that I can come. You'd be basically splitting the effect of reducing your footprint while maintaining your presence. Iran gets the benefit of the removal of a direct American presence on it's borders and Turkey has a decision to make.


Edited for clarity.

just so you can say you tried to help those Iraqis.

Warn Iran and Turkey

So you want to replace our invasion of Iraq with an invasion of Turkey and Iran. That's quite a novel "anti-war" position.

Invasion was never mentioned. Withdrawal was. We're less of a threat(albeit still a threat) to Iran if we pull back to our carriers. Turkey, as a member of NATO, will have to choose between economic participation and historic regional animosities. Think it out.

Benfits to Iran:

No foreign barracks in a neighboring state.
Release of tension of internal activists.
A cooling off period.
Stable bordering state.

Benefits to Turkey:

Economic participation with NATO countries.
Stable bordering state.
(I see the solutuion to this problem as very much riding on the Turkish response. They have to decide if they're going to move forward into an EU/US paradigm or return to fight the phantoms of their past.)

Benefits to the US:

Troops removed from Iraq.
Footprint removal lessens tension in the area.
The area is more secure because each rivaling faction is given the territory that they traditionally(comfortably) occupy.

that Turkey will freak out if we allow the Kurds their own state. In the first Gulf War we bought Turkish cooperation with two things; 1) A fuckload of cash; 2) A promise that no Kurdish state will be allowed to form. We screwed them on 1, but kept our promise on 2.

We did the same thing this time around. Understand that this is a Turkish national security issue, as far as Turkey is concerned. According to Kurdish nationlists, half of the Kurdish homeland is in Turkey. If the Kurds get half 'their' country, they'll want the other half. Turkey, by comparison, doesn't want a fractious new neighbor on their border. Christ, they've been rubbing elbows with Hussein for 30 years, back to when he did have a bigass army.

Then there are the oil fields around Mosul, right in the heart of Kurd country. We hosed Turkey on the GW1 payoff. They want Mosul as back pay.

Bank this. Bank it.

It is a mortal lock that Turkey will freak out if we allow the Kurds their own state.

The solution runs through Turkey. It comes down to the question of whether Turkey is more concerned with economic interaction with NATO states or vanquishing the demons of the past. Turkey has to choose. We have to make them choose, if we want to get out with dignity.

And you think that's going to happen NOW?

Not with this group in power. I'm answering the hypothetical of this thread. What's your bright idea?

is that it is impossible to pull out "NOW"

Forget thousands of years of history, only an American presence will produce the proper result. :silly:


I'm not saying right this instant. First, bring leadership of the respective regions to the table and negotiate the new borders along historic lines. This idea that we can't pull out is suggesting that there is some magical effect that our occupation is going to provide. That time is past, if it was even ever possible. Our goals there are no longer achievable. Time to recognize that, whether you agreed with the original mission or not.

Split into the three talked about provinces and let them do as they please. All I care about are our soldiers right now. It was a mistake doing the UN's dirty work in the first place.

The only solution that will work at this point is a quick move to begin the division of the nation of Iraq into geographic "pieces". This is not such a radical idea, for the truth is that "nation" Iraq was an invention of the British anyway...sort of like South Vietnam was an invention of the Pentagon in the early 1950's.

The Past is Prologue:

After declaring war on the Ottoman Empire in 1914, the British invaded and occupied Mesopotamia including Baghdad, Basra, Kirkuk and Mosul.

Clandestinely, the British, along with the French, in 1916 had drawn up the very imperialistic "Sykes-Picot Agreement" dividing up the old Ottoman empire. By 1919, Britain had created the current national borders that the world recognizes today as "Iraq". The following year, the "League of Nations" dutifully sanctioned and granted British control over the new nation of Iraq.

So, the unfortunate, yet popular understanding that the current borders of modern day Iraq are some sort of sacred and cultural extension of the ancient Persian Empire is simply wrong. The borders of Iraq are mere pencil marks from a British pencil less than a century ago.

Here's How to Divide Up Iraq Now and Possibly Spare A Holocaust in Civil War:

1.) Establish either an independent Shi'a Islamic Iraq which will probably meld into Iran within two years --- or fast forward the inevitable and cede the Shiite territories now to Iran. Since the Americans must always "save face" and have "peace with honor", the former is more probable, but the latter is inevitable.

2.) Establish a Sunni Iraq with Baghdad as the Sunni Capitol.

3.) Establish a new national state of Kurdistan.

4.) Cede some of the northern Iraqi territory to Turkey as a trade-off for the establishment of Kurdistan. Turkey currently has oil leases in Northern Iraq and this would be the quid pro quo and would finally deal with the business left undone after the break-up of the Ottoman Empire.


The Saudis and The Israelis Will Just Love This:

The Balkanization of the current nation we know as Iraq as I have prescribed above will have the further benefit of pleasing both the Saudis and the Israelis who would prefer having smaller, less powerful neighbors in the Region than the former, unpredictable Iraq. Imagine that: the Israelis and the Saudis nodding approvingly at the splintering of their old nemesis.


Make Certain That The New States All Have Oil Fields of Their Own:

One of the greatest sources of friction between the world's predominately Islamic Nations has been this: some have oil resources and others don't. The solution I've described above begins to address the uneven distribution of petro-wealth in the Muslim world.

Certainly, the ability of Saudi Arabia to lord its proud purse over Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians (Muslims without oil) and over the poor in Pakistan and Afghanistan (Muslims without oil) has been at the very root of so many of the world's problems. Indeed, Osama bin Laden's initial appeal in the poorer Islamic world was made possible by his Saudi petro-wealth, wasn't it?


The Nations Out of One Keep Osama Out of All:

With the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis truly independent and having their own states; and with allowing Turkey to "get a little of the goodies" in return for good behavior, Osama bin Laden and his crowd will have to go hunting for another scab to pick for they would hardly be welcomed in either of the three new nations.


Little Time Remains For Dividing Iraq Before Civil War Begins:

Let's face it. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are now advocating exactly what they had crowed against: Cutting and Running. The arbitrary date in June of the facade of turning over the government of Iraq to the Iraqi people will be the beginning of the upcoming bloodbath between the distrustful Kurd, Sunni and Shiite camps. Why wait until thousands are thrown into the nightmare of Iraqi Civil War?

If the British could divide up the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the 20th Century for Imperialistic motives, why can't we, along with the United Nations, finally address the elephant in the living room and now divide up Iraq without bloodshed...before it divides itself up, pretty much as I have described, but only after a horrific bloodbath?

--D.Z.

Everyone thought I was nuts. Although we believe in integration here in the USA (in theory anyway not that we always practice it), I believe the ME is not ready for that yet, but would be happier divided into countries according to their ethnicity and tribal affiliations.

Let's face it, Europe was pretty much this way until the last century. It provides a balance of power as long as one country can't bully another. A Palestinian state is needed also. But, this would take great leaders to accomplish and look what we have Bush/Cheney.

I'm afraid it is now too late.

We should have never "started the fire" (sorry, B. Joel) with the Invasion of Iraq and stayed focused on capturing Osama bin Laden and then setting hard on the Saudis for their participation in the events of 9/11.

But, as Nancy Pelosi said today, George W. Bush is incompetent.

Nature abhors a vacuum, they say. We have sown the wind in Iraq and are now inheriting the whirlwind.

I'm afraid the Civil War is already begun. The "turn over" of the fig-leaf of "government" in June by the United States to its post-Chalabi puppets, is just Bush's fastest method of cutting and running with a modicum of face-saving before the November elections and the coming bloodbath of Civil War in Iraq...which Rumsfeld and Powell and Bush and Cheney know is now a foregone conclusion.

now. It will be just elections, Kobi Bryant, Michael Jackson all the time. Iraq? What about it? Nothing to report there.

...that asinine statement means.

My guess is that something of this nature, with more warts likely, will be the "End" with or without Generalissimo el Busho at the helm of the SS ProtoFascist Theocratic States of Amerika.

Damn, it's not easy to make a working plan considering the quagmire it's now. Anyway, these are important steps i think.


MOST IMPORTANT

Remove the Bush administration


MILITARY

Remove the coalition forces

Replace the coalition forces by Islamic peacekeeping troops under UN flag,led by a trustworthy Islamic state. Westerners are too much hated now and don't grasp the culture, lets face it. So strictly Islamic peacekeeping forces. Hopefully they won't refuse when its clear the western coalition forces will leave.

Restore the Iraqi army. A country like Iraq needs an army. Appoint trustworthy military leaders.The army's only purpose is to protect against foreign invasions.


POLITICS

Allow two months for creating and registering political parties and selecting candidates. Present members of the IGC are excluded. The UN is responsible for helping organizing the elections and explaining it to the people.

Use the oil for food program for registering voters.

The Iraqis can choose the government they want but the rights of minorities and constitutional rights are protected in a paragraph in the constitution that can only be changed by a large majority of votes.


SECURITY
Get rid of the guns and the artillery shells etc. This is very, very important. Give really good money for heavy weapons and ammo. Only handguns are permitted. Give Iraqi's jobs to find and get rid of the heavy weapons and ammo.

All (military) prisons are subjected to regular visits by the ICG to avoid possible torture by the restored Army. Amnesty International is asked and permitted to evaluate the human rights situation regularly.



ECONOMY

Reconstruction projects will benefit the Iraqi people.There is a quotum for the percentage of foreigner contractors. e.g. 80 % of the created jobs must be filled by Iraqi workers.

An Iraqi tax on all foreign reconstruction projects. So a percentage of the profits flows directly back to the Iraqi people.

The money that is saved by pulling the troops ( 4 billion a month) is spent anyway in Iraq paying for the war damage and compensating the victims.


RESTORING IRAQI HONOR AND PRIDE

A national reconciliation program South African style

Dismiss the new flag

No U.S. embassy in the palaces. Give the Green Zone and the palaces back to the Iraqis

The Abu Graib prison becomes a national occupation/liberty museum.

>Remove the coalition forces
>Replace the coalition forces by Islamic peacekeeping troops under UN
>flag,led by a trustworthy Islamic state.

This assumes that:
a) There are Islamic countries willing to send the number of troops necessary to provide security for Iraq. Our experience has show that this number is probably somewhere north of 150,000.

b) There is a "trustworthy" Islamic state that would be *willing* to do this. Who do you have in mind?

>Restore the Iraqi army.

Quite a few of them have already restored the Iraqi army... as an insurgency.

>Allow two months for creating and registering political parties and >selecting candidates. Present members of the IGC are excluded. The >UN is responsible for helping organizing the elections and >explaining it to the people.

Accomplishing this on that timetable would be a first anywhere in the world. How do political parties establish themselves, decide upon a platofrm, pick leaders, and establish public understanding of their goals in only two months?
Secondly, when are these two months going to happen? Getting the UN organized to the point where it could start working will take months. So I suppose these two months aren't going to be June and July.

>Use the oil for food program for registering voters.

I'm kinda confused by what you mean. Can you elaborate a bit?

>Get rid of the guns and the artillery shells etc. This is very, very
>important. Give really good money for heavy weapons and ammo.

The problem here, I think, is that the people who currently have all the guns and artillery shells are trying to use them to put themselves in a position of great power, where they will have really good money anyway.

>Reconstruction projects will benefit the Iraqi people.There is a
>quotum for the percentage of foreigner contractors. e.g. 80 % of the
>created jobs must be filled by Iraqi workers.

This ought to happen anyway, regardless of how or when we choose to leave. One thing to point out, though, is that every time we try to rebuild something, the insurgency or al Qaeda blow it up.

>An Iraqi tax on all foreign reconstruction projects. So a percentage
>of the profits flows directly back to the Iraqi people.

I love you.

>RESTORING IRAQI HONOR AND PRIDE

Everything under this heading should be done anyway, as with the economic stuff.

So, getting down to brass tacks, what you're basically proposing as our "get out now" plan is to hand things over to the UN.
I posted elsewhere in this thread that I think this idea is unworkable, because it assumes that the UN wants and will accept this role. Keeping in mind that UN peacekeepers are human beings and citizens of countries, just like you and me, we have simply replaced our troops with another set of troops who are still going to get killed and be in harm's way.

Granted this isn't originally my idea but a sudden pullout would only create chaos worse than what we have now. On top of that it would only further aggrivate the world for not having a strategy that considers a timely withdrawl.

how timely, DK on the commondreams.org site today...

"This is the time for a peace plan for Iraq and an exit strategy for the U.S. The world community will not make a
commitment absent a change of direction in U.S. policy.
These needed steps can bring our troops home, reconnect the U.S. with the world, re-establish our moral authority
and lead Iraq toward stability and self-governance:... "

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0520-01.htm

snip,
dp

...that insists upon using the magic "Just give it to the UN" bullet.

And that is to help a new Saddam rise to power. A dictator with absolute control who basically promises to be friendly to us and not fund terrorists. I don't think that is a good solution.

But I could see it being part of a three-state split. I know all the dangers attributed to three states, but I don't know if they are any more dangerous than one-state Iraq that erupts into civil war before become three states. I simply think the force of history is ultimately going to be a three-state solution so we might as well do it now while we have the boots on the ground to scare Iran and Turkey into behaving in the short term.

"Just do it" doesn't count as a strategy.

Neither does the "we have to do the responsible thing ..."

Let's first start with this basic premise: the continued presence of the U.S. military in Iraq, no matter how well intentioned any reason for their presence might be, can only serve to further inflame the situation ...

Implicit in any argument for a continued U.S. occupation must be the idea that we can make things better than they are now ... I do not believe this to be the case ... we have lost the battle for the hearts and minds of not just the Iraqis, not just those who follow Islam, but most of the people all over the planet ... when we explore the horrors that will likely result after the U.S. withdraws from Iraq, we seem to ignore this fundamental reality ... we are like the husband who has badly beaten his wife and now claims he's sorry for any improper conduct and he only wants to do what is best for her ... it's too late for that ... trust has been destroyed by our current conduct in Iraq and by our treatment of 3rd world nations over the last 50 years ...

We financed Saddam ... we looked the other way while he perpetrated his evil on a helpless people ... we did the same with the Shah in neighboring Iran ... for many years, we have been the evil enablers of regimes in the middle east that brought (and brings) horrible oppression ... and now we want people to believe we're the good guys??? it's kind of sweet but it just isn't going to happen ...

so, Mr. Pitt, arguing that you can't find a justification to leave now because of what will happen if we do falls short of a thorough analysis ... if you make the standard about whether Iraqis will go through hell when we withdraw, perhaps you can make arguments for continuing the occupation ... but the standard you set cannot be viewed in isolation ... as with any policy, you must compare the outcome of one policy (i.e. leaving) to the likely outcome of other alternatives ... and the likely outcome from "more of the same" can only be "more of the same" or worse ... things are getting worse in Iraq, not better ...

Having said this, one could reasonably conclude that immediate withdrawal is a perfectly reasonable option. There you have it ... a NOW "solution" ...

And one last twist ... here's what I think is what should be done. I think the U.N. should convene a conference of representatives from Muslim nations and "selected Iraqis" to help chart a course for Iraq ... the U.S. has no credibility there and cannot fulfill this role ... and elections by June 30 ??? I wish we could have elections in this country by June 30 ... that would at least make some sense ... I do not support the idea of "internationalizing" the Iraq occupation without specifying that all activities in Iraq should be guided by the governance of a community of Muslim nations ... the goal of this effort would, of course, be to gradually dispense power back to Iraqi citizens with some hope of avoiding civil war ... btw, I think civil war in Iraq is inevitable but some type of diplomatic process might be worth a try ...

there is no other way to get out, except to just leave. The civil war was enevitable as soon as the dictator was removed. Maybe Iraq should never have been a single country to begin with.

But however it works out, it MUST be worked out by the Iraqi people themselves.

We will cause more harm by staying than by going because we have shot all our credibility in that part of the world.....and perhaps around the world.

Can't come up with a proposal of his own!

How can this be? Kucinich laid out a real plan, and it might be "faulty" but didn't you have the job of making it good?

I didn't come up with the plan. It was my job to sell it. Bigass difference.

Riverbend, May 7:

There was a time when people here felt sorry for the troops. No matter what one's attitude was towards the occupation, there were moments of pity towards the troops, regardless of their nationality. We would see them suffering the Iraqi sun, obviously wishing they were somewhere else and somehow, that vulnerability made them seem less monstrous and more human. That time has passed. People look at troops now and see the pictures of Abu Ghraib… and we burn with shame and anger and frustration at not being able to do something. Now that the world knows that the torture has been going on since the very beginning, do people finally understand what happened in Falloojeh?

...

I don't understand the 'shock' Americans claim to feel at the lurid pictures. You've seen the troops break down doors and terrify women and children… curse, scream, push, pull and throw people to the ground with a boot over their head. You've seen troops shoot civilians in cold blood. You've seen them bomb cities and towns. You've seen them burn cars and humans using tanks and helicopters. Is this latest debacle so very shocking or appalling?

The number of killings in the south has also risen. The Americans and British are saying that they are 'insurgents' and people who are a part of Al-Sadir's militia, but people from Najaf are claiming that innocent civilians are being killed on a daily basis. Today the troops entered Najaf and there was fighting in the streets. This is going to cause a commotion because Najaf is considered a holy city and is especially valuable to Shi'a all over the world. The current situation in the south makes one wonder who, now, is going to implement a no-fly zone over areas like Falloojeh and Najaf to 'protect' the people this time around?

I sometimes get emails asking me to propose solutions or make suggestions. Fine. Today's lesson: don't rape, don't torture, don't kill and get out while you can - while it still looks like you have a choice... Chaos? Civil war? Bloodshed? We’ll take our chances - just take your Puppets, your tanks, your smart weapons, your dumb politicians, your lies, your empty promises, your rapists, your sadistic torturers and go.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

it is not our choice.

...that will work. The pooch is rightously screwed in Iraq. If there's no benefit in staying, then there's little to lose by leaving.

U.S. out of Iraq, NOW. If we stay, the PNAC and the noe-cons win. It's that simple.

If there is no disaster there, then withdrawing elsewhere should not be much of a problem.

One thing that can be done right now, and could have been done a year ago for that matter, is local elections. In general, a lot of local control over local conditions will make for way less resentment on grounds of religion and ethnicity. Just as complex computer programs are best built bu putting together tried and true subroutines, nations are best built from well-run towns and regions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57791-2003Dec11.html

As soon as Witwit resigned, the local representative of the U.S. occupation authority appointed a former Iraqi air force officer as acting governor. To the protesters, that was unacceptable. The new governor, they insisted, should be chosen not by an American but by Iraqis -- through an election.

"Yes, yes for elections!" shouted the protesters, a collection of students, clerics and middle-aged professionals whose ranks swelled to more than 1,000 on Thursday. "No, no to appointment!"

The protesters have pledged to continue their sit-in outside the governor's office -- they have erected tents and dug latrines -- until their demand is met. Leaders of Hilla's largest labor unions have vowed to hold a general strike starting Saturday in support of elections.

The Bush administration has resisted elections, contending that the absence of voter rolls and an electoral law would make a nationwide ballot time-consuming. Officials also argue that a hasty election would be vulnerable to violence and manipulation by religious militants and loyalists of former president Saddam Hussein.
Ibrahim and other members of the Hilla council insist a national database that is used to distribute monthly food rations could serve as a voter roll, enabling occupation authorities to hold a quick ballot. "It would be very easy to hold elections," said Hamid Ibrahim Awadi, a lawyer and council member. "We could do it right away."

And another thing--the Sunni/Shia thing has been way overblown. There is a lot of intermarriage, according to Riverbend. During the assault on Fallujah, Shi'ites in Baghdad organized relief expeditions immediately for the Sunnis of Fallujah. The biggest Shi'ite cheese of all, Sistani, is not in favor of a theocracy.

The division that is really a problem is Kurds vs. everyone else. Kurdistan is going to have to be either autonomous or loosely federated, regardless of what Turkey thinks of that.

Kucinich makes the very good point that the UN cannot be seen as a cat's paw for US interests. We must publicly and emphatically announce that we are renouncing the original war aim, to wit, a semi-permanent military presence there.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17923

Garner added, ''Look back on the Philippines around the turn of the 20th century: they were a coaling station for the navy, and that allowed us to keep a great presence in the Pacific. That's what Iraq is for the next few decades: our coaling station that gives us great presence in the Middle East."

The most militant of firebrands, Sadr, is willing to accept UN forces provided that they are not tied to the US. If he will, why shouldn't the more moderate and respected clerics like Sistani go along with that?

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_20-4-2004_pg1_5

Sadr also indicated through his spokesman that he favoured the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force in Iraq “on condition that it be made up of Muslim countries or countries which did not join the occupation of Iraq such as Russia, France or Germany”.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1089933.htm

Meanwhile, a spokesman for Sadr has called for the sending of UN peacekeeping troops to Iraq and demanded the immediate withdrawal of US-led occupation forces.

"It is in the interest of the whole world to send peacekeeping forces under the UN flag," Qais al-Khazaali, who is spokesman for Sadr's Mehdi Army militia, said in an interview with Bulgarian television.

" the occupation forces must withdraw from the occupied regions and must release political prisoners. The war will thus end."

great post, thanks for sharing :hi:

peace

First 24 hours: arrange safe passage for them (military and USG civilians only -- contractors are ON THEIR OWN) through Jordan and Turkey.
Second 24 hours: destroy all fixed equipment and classified papers
Third 24 hours: start convoys to pre-arranged border checkpoints
Fourth 24 hours: arrive at border checkpoints. Abandon all military equipment and weapons at the border. Cross the checkpoint and surrender for safe passage thorugh Jordan and Turkey. Arrange for F-16 strikes from Incirlik Air Base to destroy all abandoned equipment.

Arrange air transport for troops back to the nearest port of entry into the USA. Purchase a one way plane ticket back to their home of record. Process the troops to identify potential war criminals. Those who are positively cleared of war crimes suspicions are provided honorable discharges and transported back to their home of record. Those who are under suspicion are held and further investigated. Those who are chargeable are transported under armed guard to the Hague where they stand trial as war criminals (under a UN court).

This plan would accomplish three things:
- First, it would get us out NOW without leaving a massive residual military capability that could be exploited by the local nationals
- Second, it would reduce our military strength to that which is needed to defend the US borders -- and those borders alone
- Third, it would reduce the expenditures of the Federal government quickly -- and start to undo the deficit that Bush* left us.

Fifth 24 hours: Many Iraqis celebrate the exodus of US forces. The IGC, which has no power over the military or police, dissolves into squabbling. Iraq is effectively without government of any kind. Ayatollah al Sistani calls for calm and meets with Sunni elders regarding establishment of an interim government. The UN sends envoys to the surrounding countries to assure them that they will have assistance in dealing with any problems that might arise.

Sixth 24 hours: Talks between Sistani and the Sunnis break down when Muqtada al Sadr declares all Shiite-majority territories to be soverign and under his control. Militiamen from Sadr City occupy parts of central Baghdad, including the former green zone. Al Sistani denounces al Sadr for his actions, but can do little to stop him. Sunnis, who have most of the weapons, begin organizing their disparate militias into an army.

Seventh 24 hours: Kurds declare independence from Iraq and establish a free Kurdistan. Several major electricity substations and water facilities near Baghdad are burned to the ground by persons unknown. Baghdad is without electricity and running water. Looting of grocery stores and markets begins. Syria, Iran, and Kuwait begin sending troops to secure their borders with Iraq.

Eigth 24 hours: Turkey masses troops on its border with free Kurdistan. Sunni forces fight off Sadr's militia and take control of central Baghdad. Several other cities are without electricity, water, or sewage treatment due to bombings and equipment failures. Israel mobilizes its armed forces in response to the Iranian and Syrian mobilizations.

Ninth 24 hours: Kurds demand free passage between Kurdistan and Kurdish areas of Turkey. There are border clashes between armed Kurds and Turkish border patrols. Attempts to restore water and electricity to Baghdad fail. Looting of hospitals begins in most major cities. Many people with the ability to leave Baghdad do so.

Tenth 24 hours: Baghdad has been without water or electricity for 72 hours. Looting of stores carrying life essentials (water, food, ammunition, etc.) continues until there is nothing left. Sunni and Shiite forces clash again in central Baghdad. Several large fires are started by rocket explosions. Houses known to have private wells become flashpoints for violence. Many people begin using unsanitary river water instead for cleaning, drinking, etc.

Eleventh 24 hours: Refugees from Baghdad and other parts of central Iraq begin to reach the borders with Kuwait, Syria, Iran, and Turkey. An epidemic of various diseases is beginning in Sadr City and other poor areas of Baghdad, due to usage of contaminated river water. Kurdistan negotiates with Turkey to restore the border to normalcy. Thousands of refugees from central Iraq descend upon Mosul.

Twelfth 24 hours: Kuwait closes its border with Iraq and refuses to allow any more refugees. 200,000 have made it across the border before it is closed. Sunni forces attempt to surround Sadr City to contain the humanitarian crisis and prevent it from spreading to the rest of Baghdad. Word of the situation in Baghdad reaches Tehran. Thousands of Iranians, both military and civilian, are allowed to cross the border into Iraq to assist the Shiites.

Thirteenth 24 hours: Iraqi refugees overwhelm Kuwaiti border stations. Saudi Arabia closes its border with Kuwait. US troops still in Kuwait move to help secure the Iraq border. Much of Baghdad has been abandoned. Syria authorizes its troops to use deadly force to prevent refugees from entering Syria, but it doesn't work. The chaos has allowed many al Qaeda operatives to slip into Kuwait and Syria with large quantities of explosives.

Fourteenth 24 hours: There are now half a million refugees on the outskirts of Kuwat City. International aid agencies rush aid into Kuwait in order to head off disease outbreaks and prevent starvation/dehydration deaths. Iranian aid convoys approaching Baghdad are met by gunfire. The Iranian army begins to move into southern Iraq to support the Iraqi Shiites and protect aid convoys.

Fifteenth 24 hours: The US warns the Iranian military to leave Iraq in two days or face attacks. Massive truck bombs kill several high-ranking members of the Kuwaiti government and destroy several government buildings. Refugees begin to enter Kuwait City proper. Residents of Kuwait city variously try to help the refugees, fight the refugees, or swamp the airports on their way out. Small watercraft filled with Iraqi refugees begin to reach Qatar and other points around the Persian Gulf. Bad things are happening in the Kuwaiti oil fields - there are multiple reports of explosions at refineries and drilling sites.

Sixteenth 24 hours: Refugees flood Kuwait City. For all intents and purposes the Kuwaiti government has collapsed. US troops evacuate south and set up positions just north of Saudi Arabia to defend the oil fields. Thousands of Iraqi and Kuwaiti refugees are killed or injured while trying to escape into Saudi Arabia.

Seventeenth 24 hours: US warplanes begin bomging Iranian army columns in Iraq. Iranian army units in the open desert either retreat towards Iran or enter Iraqi cities for cover. Part of one Iranian army division has made it into Baghdad. Mosul is running out of food and water. Refugees flow north from Mosul to the Turkish border, where they are stopped by the Turkish armed forces.

Eighteenth 24 hours: Iranian forces rout the Sunnis in Baghdad. Iran now controls the capital and some southern cities. Israeli war planes are seen over Iraq and Iran.

Nineteenth 24 hours: Israel begins clandestinely bombing Iranians in southern Iraq. Iranian forces successfully shoot down several Israeli war planes. The Iranians display pieces of the downed planes on television. The US warns Israel to stay out of the conflict.

Twentieth 24 hours: Palestinians riot in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel, already on edge because of the neighboring chaos, vastly overreacts and kills hundreds, if not thousands of Palestinians.

It goes on and on and on.

Obviously, this is the absolute worst-case scenario. However, what frightens me is just how plausible it really is. It may very well happen even if we stay in Iraq. There is a fine, thin thread now between organized chaos and total chaos in that country. And *we* are that thread, for better or worse. All it would take to plunge the country into unrecoverable chaos and lunacy would be to remove electricity and water services for about three weeks. And we also have al Qaeda is rooting for chaos in Iraq. They would be only too happy to help in that endeavour.
The ramifications of the above scenario are huge and disturbing - World War III disturbing. And it may very well happen, maybe not with the speed and ferocity I've described, but in some form that is probably so fiendish that my limited knowledge of the region, poor reasoning skills, and morbid curiosity may be insufficient to even contemplate it.

I think I need to get drunk now.

frankly, I'm not quite that arrogant to think we can do anything to save Iraq. Only Iraq can save Iraq. IF (and only if) Iraq (not the US, but Iraq) asks for UN assistance, they should get it (and the US should pick up the tab).

The question was (my rephrasing): is it feasible to get out NOW. I just showed that it was. If that question was asked, I assume that getting out NOW was the best course of action. Maybe the question SHOULD be: "Should we get out NOW?" rather than "CAN we get out NOW." (BTW, my answer to that is YES. We have screwed that country up bad enough already...we need to leave before doing any more damage).

a strategery that didn't result in total disaster.

...I consider that type of position to be a little on the arrogant side. Think about it...that part of the world has some of the oldest, if not THE oldest, culture on the face of the planet. There are people there who are descendents of that culture. Others come from regions that have organized themselves for thousands of years.

Who are we to think that those people can't sort their country out for themselves? I'm sorry...but I am liberal enough to believe that people can do the right thing if given a chance. If you believe that they REQUIRE "help" (and are not smart enough to ask for it themselves), then it seems that you are buying into the justification for continued occupation.

Let me emphasize again, I am not attacking you as a person, but am trying to get you to see the situation from another perspective here. I, for one, think that the Iraqis are intelligent enough and cultured enough to take care of themselves and for THEM to ask for assistance from the UN, other governments, or appropriate NGOs (which, btw, I do think we should fund completely in the event that such assistance is requested).

whatsoever for anything to do with Iraq, at least as it concerns US military forces.

The smartest thing to do at this point is to get out before the house collapses on top of the US forces there, saving lives on both sides.

Implementing "stay the course" while running off a cliff isn't a smart plan.

create a diversion, like try Saddam. Keep it aired on large screen TV for everyone to watch, give them newspapers with lots of scandals, stretch it out, with lots of witnesses. Get some actors to play him, kicking and screaming, reality TV stuff. Hell, do a survivor thing, they could bet on. Quietly install a government that would rule better than Saddam. ABS (anybody but Saddam). Meanwhile, exit stage left.

they need a serious distraction. All they can see is USA, bad.

We gotta get to the faith-based for help. So give them cash like this country. Give them a couple of TV spots like Jerry Fallwell or Pat Robertson. Seriously, GOP stragedy.
Think about it. Don't you wonder how all this crap is falling apart around us in this country, and watch the Republicans. Hear no evil, see no evil. (2 outta three) Don't see anything except War on Terra.

BTW, I think they are setting the stage right now with Chalabi.

It has to be a regional solution, with international support. America has no business dictating the terms there. On what basis?

I don't see a way out unless we surrender to other countries and tell them to take over and clean up our mess.

* will never do that.

The US government should let Saddam go. We now have concrete proof that there are no WMD. With the whole Chalibi scandal today, we now know the truth.

Why does Pat have to speak for Vidal, myself, etc.? John Wayne common sense: "Back out of the bar with both guns blazing". Non-interventionism and making sure this country has its fucking act together so that it doesn't have to anxiously follow Third World developments should be on the table! Democrats as the opposition party can more easily follow Pat's advice to "admit the mistake, turn around, get out with all deliberate speed". P.S.: C'mon, you have to admit "17 million sullen Syrian adoptees" is a great line!