Reply #13: This makes sense... [View All]

[Clarkie1]

"We need to focus all of our energies on making 2006 the year in which we turn over that struggle to our partners within Iraq, and do everything possible to give the next Iraqi government the local, regional, and global legitimacy it needs to survive and thrive. I've set out a series of steps we could take to eliminate the perception of a permanent military occupation, and achieve the political solution our generals say we need to weaken the insurgency, isolate the foreign jihadists, and bring Iraq stability."

One of the most important steps we can take to elimate the perception of permanent military occupation is loudly and publically commit to having no permanent military bases in Iraq. The question I have after reading Kerry's short blurb on Iraq provided here is, what are his steps?

Now, if by series of steps he means Washington-driven timeline to have full redeployment by July 2007, that makes no sense. Redeployment must happen in relation to events on the ground. The problem can't be solved over here in a Senate committee, it has to be solved over there with real diplomacy on the ground, using carrots and sticks.

Yes, I do agree, and Clark would agree, with much of what Kerry is saying. That's what makes it all the more puzzling that Kerry has handicapped his ideas for regional dialogue with an insistance on a Washington-driven timeline, although I note he makes no mention of the July timeline in this link. Has he changed his mind? To me, the idea of making the most of regional diplomacy and setting a Washington deadline for redeployment are self-contradictory.