NYT editorial singles out Kerry for praise on post-war Iraq plan

Almost all the Democratic contenders talk about enlisting more help from America's allies and the United Nations. What's missing is an explanation of how they would achieve this desirable goal given the obvious reluctance of many countries to contribute troops as long as America retains exclusive political control. Senators John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman are headed in the right direction when they suggest putting the U.N. in charge of Iraq's political reconstruction and transferring more authority to Iraqis. Sharing power might also bring more competitive bidding for contracts.

On another big issue, Senators Lieberman and Kerry are right to call attention to the strain Iraq places on the army and reserves. Senator Kerry usefully suggests expanding the active-duty force by 40,000, half of them specialists in the postconflict assignments now falling to the reserves. Other candidates need to address this issue. One of them in particular, Gen. Wesley Clark, has the expertise to speak knowledgeably about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/20/opinion/20MON1.html

Can't turn things over completely to the U. N. Naw, we gotta keep control of the occupation and the oil.

?

the Deans are cemented in the unflawed view of their man. Kerry's considerable experience, gravitas, and vision are completely lost on them.

?

I'd bet a significant amount that that poster is NOT A DEANIE... but thats OK we're the evil ones right?

Look at Kerry's own words.
www.johnkerry.com

>>>>
The Kerry Plan offers something else the Bush Administration never has – an honest explanation of how these costs can be met.  With Senator Biden, Senator Kerry is asking Congress to roll back the Bush tax cut for the wealthiest Americans – asking them to help protect our future by sacrificing some of their tax cuts at a time when our soldiers in Iraq are still sacrificing their lives.

The Bush Administration betrayed America's trust by not having this kind of plan in place before it took the nation to war.  Real leadership demands that we take these four steps now:
1. Share the military risk and cost.  Show leadership at the United Nations by leading the creation of a UN military force under U.S. Command.  The U.S. Military will still be in charge, but other big nations will send troops – they've said so – to relieve our overstretched soldiers.

2.  Share the cost and responsibility of reconstruction.  Show that we understand real partnership by reaching out to our allies, rebuilding the good will we   squandered, and asking the UN to do what it has done well from Kosovo to East Timor by putting Iraqi governance and reconstruction under UN authority. It's not necessary for the U.S. to go it alone on rebuilding Iraq's institutions and meeting humanitarian needs – and we shouldn't have to.

3. Get going to train and equip a serious Iraqi security force.  Just recruiting untrained soldiers and police does not create security – in fact, it creates insecurity. Extensive training and monitoring is vital, just as they are for new officers in any city police force.  And reliable Iraqi forces are the key to minimizing the risks to U.S. forces while allowing for the successful reconstruction of the country – there's no way around it.  Again, we don't have to do this without help from our friends – but we do have to ask our friends for help.

4. Give a clear timetable of benchmarks for turning power back to Iraqis quickly.  Like anyone else, Iraqis want to know what the future holds.  Washington should tell them – with a phased transfer of responsibility as Iraqi leaders and institutions are ready for it.  Those institutions may not be perfect, but Iraqis will own them – and thank America. 

The U.S. doesn't turn over control of its military to anybody. We just don't, that's the way it is. Other than that, Kerry is calling for complete UN involvement:

"The Bush Administration must stop stonewalling on the central question of control over reconstruction and governance. The United Nations knows how to do this. It’s done it before. In Namibia, Cambodia, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor. Its record may not be perfect, but it is far more experienced in reconstruction and political transitions than the Pentagon. This is not a mission for soldiers, but for civilians. And putting the civilian side under UN authority will enhance the credibility and legitimacy of the effort and encourage other nations to provide much needed funding and technical assistance. The US should not act as if Iraq is an American prize, but treat it as a nation that belongs to the community of nations. Nor is it the booty of war – with contracts and concessions to be handed out by the Administration to favored companies that are less interested in winning the peace than in winning a piece of the pie."

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0930a.html

while other candidates are bickering over what they would have said, hypothetically (and contrary to their statements at the time), over six months ago, kerry is laying out plans to deal with the mess BUSH INC. made... obviously with his experience he will make informed decisions with the best interests of the you.s., iraq and the rest of the world in mind.

I didn't know that Clinton asked for Dean's help, too, in drawing up a post-Saddam plan for Iraq. Wow. Dean really did alot that we never knew.

I didn't know we were planning on foolishly invading and toppling the country, or that Kerry was developing a post-war plan for this action.

Yeah, regime change has been US policy since 1998.
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm

Here's a list of quotes to explain why:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/rhjunior/100887.html?mode=reply

Among them:

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production."
-- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

I just didn't know it required the US invading and conquering the country, or that Clinton was planning to do so, or that he asked Kerry to formulate a post-war plan.

I also question the logic of wanting invading and taking over a country that has had it's infrastructure destroyed, is an artificial country of different factions with contradicting goals that has only been able to be ruled with ruthlessness, and would almost certainly get us involved in a long-term guerilla war in a land that is hostile to the US, and, if Saddam was as much threat as we were told, would cause him to use his WMD's which would cause unknown amounts of damage to our troops, his own people, and/or surrounding countries.

Scott Ritter even testified at Kerry's hearing that Saddam still had them.

Clinton did tap Kerry to help him develop a plan for Iraq, and even Dennis Kucinich was supportive of the effort at the time.

Targetting every suspected WMD site. We crippled their progress for years to come. Didn't need invasion or regime change.

What was Kerry's plan in 98?

It isn't a plan for an invasion or military take-over. It's a plan to lead Iraq towards democracy and remove Saddam in the process. That would necessarily mean a post-Saddam plan which would look the same as a post-war plan.

I would think it would all be based on how we were planning on overthrowing saddam. Assasination? Coup? Multilateral invasion? Unilateral invasion? Special Ops?

:eyes:

Just not his personal correspondance.

And what the hell does that have to do with backing up the claim that Kerry had his current post-war Iraq plan since 98?

And what it has to do with is showing how it is possible to avoid talking about the actual subject matter at hand ( a plan for post-War Iraq, today ), and instead seizing on some unrelated or unimportant topic ( produce Kerry's 98 plan! ) or setting up a straw man (no one has claimed that 'Kerry had his current post-war Iraq plan since 98' ).

And for your statement about the sealed records only being 'personal correspondance' -- it is false.

In the course of negotiating an unprecedented 10-year period for keeping his official papers confidential, former Vermont governor Howard Dean through his legal counsel explored the possibility of making the privacy period contingent on whether he was running for president, according to newly released documents.

<snip>

A seal longer than 10 years would have significantly eclipsed periods sought by previous Vermont governors, who traditionally received six-year seals for their official papers.

Dean, who left the governor's office in January 2003 and is now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, agreed in the end to a decade-long seal -- with no extension -- for nearly half of his official correspondence, meaning the documents will be available for public viewing in 2013. Shortly before he left office, Dean told Vermont Public Radio, "Well, there are future political considerations. We didn't want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any future endeavor."

In an interview with the Globe in July, he said in response to a request that he waive the seal, "No, it's sealed for a reason."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/09/dean_feared_a_horton_scenario

Read BLM's post which is in response to the link I first posted. Jesus christ.

About the papers:

"The vast majority of his records have been made public, including []ball official correspondence, proclamations, declarations, pardons, extraditions and appointments," Enright said.

http://www.hispanicvista.com/html3/080403fp.htm

is not impressive.

Yes, I read and understood what's written. For instance, you said only Dean's personal correspondence was under seal and I showed that was false. To which you respond by saying that the majority of his records are public. So what? It doesn't change anything. I'm not going to bother to explain your flawed logic because I'm sure you already see it.

blm didn't claim what you said he claimed. :eyes:

I'm trying to find the link. They mentioned it was just his personal papers and that everything else was released. So Dean got 4 extra years than other VT governers.

Has Kerry released his personal papers over the years?

And I asked for Kerry's post-war Plan, since BLM suggested Kerry had one since 98.

:eyes:

There is a transcript online at there site... or was at their site.

I'll try to remember next time.

I just chose to ignore it.

:eyes:

is released. I imagine he'll cover that part extensively.

No. Your questions are ridiculous.

BLM said he had he helped Clinton by developing a post-war plan for Iraq. POST-WAR. I asked what it was, and if he supported going to war with Iraq at that time.

If his plans were just for post-Saddam, I would still like to know what his plans were and under what conditions we were planning on overthrowing Saddam.

Am I really that obtuse, or does everyone just see my name and disagree with me out of force of habit?

which is what is the best plan for Iraq NOW.


Here's Dean's plan: http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_foreign_iraq_7pointplan

Here's Kerry's plan: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq_plan.html

For example, Dean calls for a NATO-led force. But Iraq is clearly outside the scope of the NATO charter -- it would never happen. It just shows Dean's lack of sophistication in foreign affairs. Kerry's plan calls for creation of an Iraqi government and reconstruction of Iraq under U.N. authority -- which would allow a real multinational force, sanctioned by the U.N., under U.S. command.

That's a policy difference. That's something that can be discussed reasonably.

The point of which is that Dean realeased a plan in April which has many or all of the elements the NYT was praising about Lieberman and Kerry's, who released their plans months later.

That 'plan' was a hollow shell of Kerry's January "Do Not Rush To War" speech. There is just no comprehensible way you can put a Dean plan next to a Kerry plan and honestly say, yep, Dean's is better.

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5459.xml

Where did say it was better?

"I didn't know that Clinton asked for Dean's help, too, in drawing up a post-Saddam plan for Iraq. Wow. Dean really did alot that we never knew." Post-Saddam.

And I laid out the Resolution which shows what the plans were. Read it again, I guess.

Thread Title: NYT editorial singles out Kerry for praise on post-war Iraq plan.

My posts title: The Dean Plan: As put forth by Kerry and Lieberman

BLM's post title: Dean helped Kerry with a plan for Iraq in 98?

Hmm... yeah, why would I assume this was a reference to post war? I must be retarded.

Do you need the sarcasm button?

:eyes:

I like being able to mix it up. More fun that way.

She said post-Saddam plan.

I think it's safe to assume post-war, since blm made no distinction between post-war and post-saddam. And there would be different courses of action depending on how Saddam was overthrown.

Prosecute war crimes
Give humanitarian aid
Support a democratic transition
Get foriegn help for Iraq's debts

That's not much of a plan. IMO.

Here's Dean's plan: http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_foreign_iraq_7pointplan

Here's Kerry's plan: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq_plan.html


One difference is that Dean's plan says 'authority should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N.' -- what international body? Some new organization? An existing body? Kerry's plan calls for transferring civilian authority immediately to the U.N., and then for the UN to transfer control over governance to Iraqis as soon as reasonably feasible.

That's a policy difference.

I have no problem with Kerry's plan as it is now, and most democrats agree on the direction to go for post-war Iraq.

But I guess you aren't interested in talking about that.

The only difference is the wording.

Lieberman wants more American troops, and UN troops.
Dean wants more UN troops.
Kerry wants more UN troops, and less American.

Those are the biggest differences I see.

One difference is that Dean's plan says 'authority should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N.' -- what international body? Some new organization? An existing body? Kerry's plan calls for transferring civilian authority immediately to the U.N., and then for the UN to transfer control over governance to Iraqis as soon as reasonably feasible.

Another difference, Dean calls for a NATO-led force. But Iraq is clearly outside the scope of the NATO charter -- it would never happen. It just shows Dean's lack of sophistication in foreign affairs. Kerry's plan calls for creation of an Iraqi government and reconstruction of Iraq under U.N. authority -- which would allow a real multinational force, sanctioned by the U.N., under U.S. command.

There are other substantive differences as well. Really when you come down to it Dean's '7-point plan' isn't really much of a plan at all. He includes some nice goals, like 'Women should participate in every aspect of the decision-making process.' and 'A democratic transition will take between 18 to 24 months, although troops should expect to be in Iraq for a longer period.' but doesn't actually address how to achieve those goals.

There was more in the Resolution itself and certainly more in planning than what goes into a Resolution. Point being, Kerry has been working on this for years while you're touting a parroted plan from a couple of months ago.

or Post-Iraq plan. How would he prevent us from getting bogged down in guerilla war? How would he transition to a democratic Iraq? How would he counter the threat of WMD's to our troops or allies if Saddam actually had them? Etc...

let's compare

??

It's his story and Kerry helped him when tapped. I'm quite certain Clinton accessed the most knowledgeable people he could.

I'm not really sure what you mean by post-war plans. For occupation?

In any case, here is Kerry in spring of 2001 on Iraq and sanctions:

Nearly ten years after the United States and a coalition of allies defeated Saddam Hussein, the international sanctions regime against Iraq has clearly failed to force a change in leadership in Baghdad and has lost meaningful support in the world community as a means of eliminating his weapons programs.

Each newspaper story about commercial flights from Moscow or Paris into Baghdad International Airport further discredits the sanctions regime. Meanwhile, the people of Iraq continue to suffer terribly, as Saddam profits from the sanctions, using them as a tool for maintaining his reign of terror.

The oil-for-food program has improved access to food and medical supplies in Iraq, especially in the northern territories not under Saddam’s control, but humanitarian conditions in Iraq remain bleak.

In Congress, concern that Iraq is rebuilding its WMD programs is bipartisan. Since the withdrawal of UN weapons inspectors from Iraq two years ago, however, little serious attention has been paid—either by the Congress or the White House—to addressing Iraq’s growing threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region.

What little debate there might have been over the UN’s attempt to lift economic sanctions on Iraq in exchange for a resumption of inspections evaporated as it became clear that Saddam would not consider allowing UN inspectors to return.
In the absence of international inspections, it is vital that tight sanctions remain in place on exports of military goods and dual-use technologies to contain Iraq’s ability to threaten its neighbors.

Secretary of State Colin Powell is preparing to reinvigorate the international sanctions regime. Such an effort is not only warranted, but long overdue. Rebuilding the coalition to hold Saddam accountable to international law, however, will not be easy.

Given the de facto evisceration of the UN sanctions regime, the United States may have to find another way to ensure that goods and technology meant for Iraq’s weapons programs do not find their way to Baghdad.

We should be willing to consider adjusting the current economic sanctions, as long as such a change is accompanied by renewed commitments from U.S. allies and others to enforce the sanctions on military and dual-use exports to Iraq.

This thread was about post war plans. I posted a link which has Kerry and Lieberman releasing plans that were praised by the NYT's which are essentially the same ideas as Dean. I was curious about the snub to Dean in the NYT, and had fun poking fun at lieberman and Kerry at the same time due to all the "My candidate came up with this generic platform first, you're canidate is a copycat and sucks!" threads.

Then blm posts about a Kerry's plan in 98, and I ask what it is and am shown a link to the resolution making regime change official US policy, and then crap about Dean sealing his papers, and a link to a bunch of quotes from Kerry stating the danger of Saddam's WMD's, and then saying blm only meant post-Saddam, and not post-war, and ask about what Kerry's plan would entail in other circumstances, and now I have no idea what the hell this discussion is about or why people are arguing with me.

“We need a United Nations resolution for a multinational force under U.S. command. Part of that is to turn the political, humanitarian and government component of this over to the United Nations. That is the fastest way to get additional countries invested. It is the best way to reduce the cost to the American people.”
-John Kerry on Face the Nation (September 14, 2003)

1. FINANCE THE COSTS BY ROLLING BACK TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHIEST AMERICANS

* Kerry believes that we should roll-back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in order to pay for our responsibilities in Iraq. John Kerry and Senator Joseph Biden have introduced an amendment in the United States Senate that would do just that -- pay for the cost of U.S. efforts in Iraq by reducing the tax cut for the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Further, under Kerry's Plan greater international funding participation should eventually reduce the cost to the American taxpayer.

2. WINNING THE BATTLE AT HOME

* America’s military strength also depends on a strong U.S. economy. For the U.S. to afford to pay to build communities in Iraq, we need to put people back to work and improve our schools and health here at home. Senator Kerry has proposed a State Tax Relief and Education Fund that will give $30 billion to states to stop cuts in educations and health care. Instead of tax cuts aimed at the wealthy, Senator Kerry would take an additional $30 billion to invest in the American people with domestic programs to help the states provide services to our communities, to support education for our children, and to restore jobs eliminated over the past two and a half years during the Bush Administration’s job-destroying “recovery.”
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq_plan.html#a5

Note that Kerry does not talk about Iraq in a vacuum. He's been on the national stage for years and has learned how it all really ties together. It's not just a glib cliche -- you really can't be strong abroad if you are not strong at home. We didn't just win WWII for instance on the battlefield -- we also won it in the factory. Not coincidentally, Kerry also has a plan to restore manufacturing jobs.