Dean Laid Out Multi-Lateral Iraq Plan in April

Dean Laid Out Multi-Lateral Iraq Plan in April


Senator Kerry today claimed that Governor Dean doesn't have an Iraq plan. "Governor Dean has no policy on Iraq evidently, except 'no.' 'No' is not a policy."

In fact, Dean unveiled his seven-point Iraq Reconstruction plan on April 9--months before Kerry unveiled his. The press release on Governor Dean's multi-lateral plan for reconstruction, and the governor's remarks at the time follow:

Dean Presents 7-Point Plan for Multilateral Reconstruction in Iraq

Wednesday April 9, 2003

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Governor Howard Dean, M.D. called for United Nations cooperation in helping rebuild Iraq.

"We knew from the outset we could win this war without much help from others. But we cannot win the peace by continuing to go it alone," Governor Dean said. "Our goal should be what the Administration has promised-an Iraq that is stable, self-sufficient, whole and free. Our strategy to achieve that goal should be based on a partnership with three sides-U.S., international and Iraqi-and a program that begins with seven basic points." Those points are:

* A NATO-led coalition should maintain order and guarantee disarmament.

* Civilian authority in Iraq should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N. Security Council.

* The U.N.'s Oil for Food program should be transformed into an Oil for Recovery program, to pay part of the costs of reconstruction and transition.

* The U.S. should convene an international donor's conference to help finance the financial burden of paying for Iraq's recovery.

* Women should participate in every aspect of the decision-making process.

* A means should be established to prosecute crimes committed against the Iraqi people by individuals associated with Saddam Hussein's regime.

* A democratic transition will take between 18 to 24 months, although troops should expect to be in Iraq for a longer period.

* "We must hold the Administration to its promises before the war, and create a world after the war that is safer, more democratic, and more united in winning the larger struggle against terrorism and the forces that breed it," Governor Dean said.

"That is, after all, now much more than a national security objective," he added. "It is a declaration of national purpose, written in the blood of our troops, and of the innocent on all sides who have perished."

www.blogforamerica.com

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5364&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1301

What was his plan on Iraq in 2002? That's the question. He said today it was containment. How does endless containment, sanctions and no-fly zones ease the suffering of the Iraqi people and the tensions this was causing in the ME? And, if his policy was containment, why did he say give Iraq 30-60 days and then go in militarily? And if he was willing to go in militarily, why does he say he was anti-war?

And this "Iraq plan" had been stated by nearly every Presidential candidate before the war even started.

Kerry said: "Governor Dean has no policy on Iraq evidently, except 'no.' 'No' is not a policy."

Kerry was wrong. Kerry is either woefully misinformed, or he's simply a liar.

He was talking about the Iraq policy from the beginning until now. Dean has never had a consistent policy on Iraq. It is so clear that he's over his head in foreign policy. He supports Israel bombing terrorist camps in Syria because everybody else does, but he supported doing nothing about terrorists grouping in Kurdish controlled Iraq. Doing nothing, that is, if you believe his anti-war rhetoric, which would be totally pro-war if things had turned out differently. He is such a phony.

I might respond.

1. There is no proof Iraq is an imminent threat to the US, though he might have some WMD which would be a threat to the region.
2. An imminent threat would be Iraq with nuclear capabilities, or giving chem/bio weapons to terrorists.
2. Since there is no proof, unilateral invasion is unjustified.
3. Since unilateral invasion is unjustified, we should work through the UN to disarm him.
4. If Iraq refuses to disarm Saddam, we should go to the UNSC and get a resolution to give Saddam an ultimatum.
4. If the UN refuses to disarm Saddam, which would be extremely unlikely, we should give Saddam an ultimatum to disarm.

See this thread for details.

Of course, in Kerryspeak, this all means "no!"

which I guess is why you don't want to talk about it.

You think his plan is the most horrible thing to ever be put in print, and I don't. All the democratic candidates want to bring in the UN, make it a multilateral effort, and try and reduce the presence of US troops so we are perceived less as an occupying power and share the burden of costs. I don't care about nitpicking.

* A NATO-led coalition should maintain order and guarantee disarmament.

Why NATO? Why not the UN? Won't NATO be viewed as European Crusaders?


* Civilian authority in Iraq should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N. Security Council.

What international body? Dean doesn't say. Why not? Why not the UN?


* The U.N.'s Oil for Food program should be transformed into an Oil for Recovery program, to pay part of the costs of reconstruction and transition.

The Oil for Food program is already scheduled to be terminated on November 21. http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/


* The U.S. should convene an international donor's conference to help finance the financial burden of paying for Iraq's recovery.

* Women should participate in every aspect of the decision-making process.

A laudable goal, but what is Dean's plan for achieving it?


* A means should be established to prosecute crimes committed against the Iraqi people by individuals associated with Saddam Hussein's regime.

What means? Again, Dean states a goal, not a plan to achieve that goal.


* A democratic transition will take between 18 to 24 months, although troops should expect to be in Iraq for a longer period.

How will this transition be accomplished? In short, what is the plan?

We could call them 'the Crusaders' -- a U.N. force makes alot more sense.

:hi: Lil' Buddy!

Dean didn't start talking to Clark until after that according to everything I've read.

What a brilliant foreign policy mind.

.

or after Kerry walked on water?


Sorry to be so snippy blm, but can Kerry do any wrong in your eyes? It just seems from your posts that if Kerry said today was Tuesday, you'd agree.

You'd sound far more reasonable as a supporter if you admitted that he has faults- as all our candidates do. Meant as kind advice- take it- or not- as you will. :-)

but I know that people are not familiar with many of the details from the last twenty years that I happen to be pretty darn good at recalling and relating to current events and dialogue. Kerry gets the short end of the stick because of what people do NOT know about recent history. Many people PM me and thank me for pointing out those things.

I'm not a great writer, but, I have a pretty good political memory for what matters. I am also not big on being personally popular, so, I just reply as I feel is appropriate to the post.

When Kerry has done wrong in my eyes, I call his Senate office or campaign office and tell them where I disagree. I have noted a few things here at DU, as well. Like when I didn't want him to spotight the CIA leak. I thought that should be the CIA and FBI and the appropriate Senate committee that will deal with it, and the presidential candidates should not make it political as Rove would like.

on edit. also...many of the longtime BFEE watchers hold Kerry in high esteem because we watched him work against the toughest obstacles to expose the corruption in BCCI, IranContra and CIA drugrunning. This is the very core of the BFEE and we know that Kerry can destroy them with the proper focus from the American people.

"Civilian authority in Iraq should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N. Security Council. "

What international body? A new one? An existing one? Sounds like Dean really doesn't have a plan for who would have civilian authority.

"The U.N.'s Oil for Food program should be transformed into an Oil for Recovery program, to pay part of the costs of reconstruction and transition."

The Oil for Food program is already scheduled to be terminated on November 21. http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/

"The U.N.'s Oil for Food program should be transformed into an Oil for Recovery program, to pay part of the costs of reconstruction and transition."

The Oil for Food program is already scheduled to be terminated on November 21. http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/

seeing as how no NATO members have indicated their willingness to commit troops.

Is there anybody out there?

Just looking for a fair debate of this policy, but I guess that's too much to hope for. :(

about policy. If it's not polls, fundraising, or flamebait, they don't answer.

God, I just gave myself a headache.

We'll never know until we boot out the idiot in chief and friends who don't seem to know the meaning of diplomacy.

force?

I imagine people in Iraq study history just like people here study history. Won't an occupation force made up entirely of Europeans just seem like a modern crusade?

And it's not the only security force he wants to use.

likely to sustain the hostilities?

If the goal is to reduce violence and speed the reconstruction of Iraq, why go with an arrangement that will probably be more likely to continue the problems?

And abandoning it will further destroy Iraq. Going into Iraq was one of the stupidest things the US could have done, and Dean opposed it. Now we just have to make the best of a bad situation.

Dean wants as much help with this as possible, whether it be from NATO, or from other middle east countries which he also want's involved.

I mean, are you agreeing that a UN-led force will be less likely to attract hostility and violence or do you think that any force will suffer equal hostility and violence?

Regarding NATO / middle east countires cooperating... is there much precedent for that?

I think it will be very difficult, as UN or NATO member nations have very little political interest at this point in putting their people's lives on the line to act as peacekeeping forces in the Iraqi wasteland we created.

More than likely, the only way this can happen is if we turn over complete control of all of Iraq's resources to the UN or NATO. Even then, it will be a tough sell. And no matter what happens, the US will still be on the hook monetarily for this mess- no other countries are going to throw their money down this hole.

I think this is a problem for all of our candidates, since they all would like to see greater involvement of other countries.

The UN and its member states have already made clear that absent the US ceding control to the UN, that they are unwilling to provide military, material or logistical support.

NATO I'm not sure has even weighed in on the issue, but as I pointed out in an earlier post, if they are more closely allied with the US then logically you'd expect that Iraq would be more hostile to that kind of a peacekeeping force as opposed to something managed by the UN.

Lumping them together just obscures the issue.

Dean says NATO should lead the occupation force. Kerry says it should be a UN sanctioned force under US command.

That is a clear policy distinction. So which makes more sense?

A NATO force is just going to be viewed as a replay of the Crusades. Why not work through the UN? Despite all the knocks the UN has taken from the Bush administration it is the only organization that has the standing and credibility to do this. NATO is a mutual defense pact. It already stretched it's charter to the breaking point in Kosovo. Do we want to tread that slippery slope again?

So given you only cited Dean and Kerry's positions, I'd say neither makes the most sense. I like Dean's b/c the US has no control. I like Kerry's b/c it uses the UN. Gosh, unike others here, I can admit that some of my guy's plans are good, but that others have good points too. Guess I forgot to drink that kool-aid this morning. :eyes:

I think all of our candidates have good ideas on how to deal with this, but that they all face problems. Right now, none of us knows which will actually work. We'll just have to wait and see.

Kucinich supporters weigh in please?

I believe we have a tradition of having our troops serve under foreign command... am I right about that? At any rate having our troops under UN command would probably be an easier sell at the UN, but a harder sell politically here at home.

I think one of the realities is that no matter how much help we are able to get from other nations, we are going to be providing a large percentage of the troops. And I was under the impression that our military is generally opposed to serving under UN command.

What I meant to say was:

"I believe we have a tradition of NOT having our troops serve under foreign command... am I right about that? At any rate having our troops under UN command would probably be an easier sell at the UN, but a harder sell politically here at home."

And yes, there is a history of us resisting having our troops serve under anyone else's command. Kucinch's plan addresses that problem and intends to work it out through agreements with the UN. He gets more specific but that's my best effort at paraphrasing it for now.

That's just one more reason I love Kucinich -- he's detail-oriented like me!

"Civilian authority in Iraq should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N. Security Council. "

What international body? A new one? An existing one? Sounds like Dean really doesn't have a plan for who would have civilian authority.


What's wrong with transferring authority to the UN? Does Dean share Bush's view that the UN is 'irrelevant'?

The UN seems to have done a pretty good job in East Timor. Not perfect, but what international body could do better?

That is to say, the UN Security Council would most likely be approached ab initio for its ideas on who it thought would be the most appropriate international body would be; it could be NATO, OAS, the EU, etc. (examples only). I don't think the plan envisions us submitting the names one-by-one for an up or down vote.