Let's compare plans: Foreign Policy and the Iraq War Resolution

[wtmusic]

Howard Dean:

"The United States has a special role to play in world affairs as an historic inspiration to those around the world seeking democracy, freedom, and opportunity. Our own fight for independence, democracy, and basic human rights has allowed us to act as a moral force in world affairs and a guiding light for other nations.

In the last century, our strength as a nation was measured more by the extent to which others emulated and respected us abroad than by the extent to which they feared and loathed us.

Under George W. Bush, this nation has lost its way. Not only are we less secure at home and abroad, we have squandered our role as the inspiration and guiding light for other peoples. I seek to restore America’s rightful place in the world and its moral leadership in world affairs.

We remain the sole superpower in the world. As Madeleine Albright once put it, we are the "indispensable power" for addressing so many of the challenges around the world. But we cannot lead the world by force, and we cannot go it alone. We must lead toward clearly articulated and shared goals and with the cooperation and respect of friends and allies.

I seek to restore the best traditions of American leadership. Leadership in which our power is multiplied by the appeal of democratic ideals and by the knowledge that our country is a force for law around the world, not a law unto itself.

I will not divide the world into us versus them. Rather, I will rally the world around fundamental principles of decency, responsibility, freedom, and mutual respect. Our foreign and military policy must be about the notion of America leading the world, not America against the world.

I opposed President Bush’s war in Iraq from the beginning. While Saddam Hussein’s regime was clearly evil and needed to be disarmed, it did not present an immediate threat to U.S. security that would justify going to war, particularly going to war alone. From the beginning, I felt that winning the war would not be the hard part winning the peace would be. This Administration failed to plan for the postwar period as it did for the battle, and today we are paying the price.

My opposition to the war, however, is part of a comprehensive view of America’s role in the world that I presented to the Council on Foreign Relations on June 25th (click here for full text). In that speech, I laid out four goals for American leadership in the world:

*
First, defeat the threat posed by terrorists, tyrants, and technologies of mass destruction.
*
Second, strengthen our alliances and ensure Russia and China are fully integrated into a stable international order.
*
Third, enlarge the circle of beneficiaries of the growing world economy.
*
And fourth, ensure that life on our fragile planet is sustainable.

Fifty-five years ago, President Harry Truman delivered what was known as the Four Point speech. In it, he challenged Democrats and Republicans alike to come together to build strong and effective international organizations, to support arrangements that would spur global economic recovery, to join with free people everywhere in the defense of human liberty, and to draw upon the genius of our people to help societies who needed help in the battle against hunger and illness, ignorance, and despair.

Harry Truman believed that a world in which even the poorest and most desperate had grounds for hope would be a world in which our own children could grow up in security and peace not because evil would then be absent from the globe, but because the forces of right would be united and strong.

Harry Truman had faith as I have faith, and as I believe the American people have faith, that if we are wise enough and determined enough in our opposition to hate and our promotion of tolerance, in our opposition to aggression and our fidelity to law, we will have allies not only among governments but among people everywhere.

Such an alliance can never be beaten.

The creation of such an alliance will be my goal if I am entrusted with the presidency of the United States. Because, this is what will keep America strong. This is what reflects the best in the American people. And this is the core of the national security message that I will be carrying to all of America throughout this campaign: I am committed to working constructively with friends and allies around the globe to help people in every corner of every continent to live in freedom, prosperity, and peace. "

http://www.deanforamerica.com

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. That's not a plan, it is a speech. Can't you tell the difference?

This is a plan:

John Kerry's Plan for Involving the UN and Providing Security in Iraq


1. GET A UN RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A MILITARY FORCE UNDER U.S. COMMAND

* Kerry’s plan calls for working through the UN to create a multinational force under U.S. command and control. This will enable us to recruit participation from nations with the security-building capacity needed in Iraq. There is no peacekeeping situation in which the percentage of U.S. forces has ever been this high; we need to spread the risk and share the burden. The United States will always retain command and control over all forces. Under Kerry’s plan, we will not send any additional American troops to Iraq. Once the security situation stabilizes through the participation of additional international forces, there would be an increased potential for the U.S. to reduce its force level in Iraq – and bring some U.S. troops home.

2. PUT THE CREATION OF A NEW IRAQI GOVERNMENT AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF IRAQ UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED NATIONS

* This aspect of Kerry’s plan is key to getting a larger international military force, and greater participation and funding on the civilian side. In return, other nations must contribute a substantial share of the multi-billion dollar reconstruction bill. UN member nations would also be expected to contribute expertise in reconstruction tasks. Effective American diplomacy is needed to bring this about. Simply passing a UN resolution incorporating these points, while necessary, will not be sufficient. Achievement of these goals will require a major U.S. diplomatic effort to increase military and financial participation by others. Sadly, we had such support following September 11, but have squandered it by our unilateralist policy in Iraq.

3. TRANSFER AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY TO IRAQIS

* Kerry’s plan calls for the UN to transfer control over governance to Iraqis as soon as reasonably feasible. In order to accomplish this, the UN would preside over the phased-in transfer of control over governmental functions to a representative body of Iraqis in accordance with an announced timeframe of benchmarks pegged to the Iraqis’ ability to assume greater governing responsibility. In this way, power could be transferred in phases to the Iraqis without the need to wait for completion of a constitution and general elections. The announced benchmarks would provide the Iraqis a clearer picture of their future by giving them an understanding of the steps they would need to take to assume control.

4. ACCELERATE EFFORTS TO TRAIN AND EQUIP IRAQI SECURITY FORCES

* Kerry’s plan calls for expanding the training operation for Iraqi security forces by involving our allies to provide more classrooms, more trainers, and more on the job training. The actual number of trained, capable Iraqi security personnel is woefully inadequate. Our allies are well positioned to change this by serving as mentors to Iraqi police, civil defense and military forces, and providing interim security personnel while this process is ongoing. A key task of the UN is to develop a plan that provides a foundation for Iraqi security.

Paying for the Plan

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

Dean does actually have an Iraq plan though. Why don't you post it so we can compare the two?

What are the other candidates' plans for Iraq?

[wtmusic]

2. OK, if you want to get semantic about it

He outlines the PLAN in his SPEECH...

more...

"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."

And you know what? It's a load of bunk from both candidates, because all it illustrates is their intentions. No one can possibly know at this point what will be required in 01/05. So much for plans.

It sure would be nice if we hadn't gotten into this mess in the first place...

[blm]

3. Dean and Kerry were closer on IWR than many notice.

It's easier to say one was antiwar and one was prowar, however, the truth is they were pretty close. They were both in favor of the Biden-Lugar amendment to the IWR, which, if it had passed, Dean would have been on record as supporting the IWR. And even with B-L, we'd still be in Iraq. Bush just would have tapdanced through those requirements, too.

The big difference is that Kerry had to pay for the concessions made to get the better bill that put inspectors back in, kept the UN in the process, and prevented the further invasion of Iran and Syria. It cost him his vote.

[wtmusic]

Oh really?

Just how was the UN 'in the process' as we were pelting Baghdad with cruise missiles? Where were those inspectors then?

If that's what Kerry bought he should get his money back.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. The resolution was more than a year ago. Who has the best plan NOW?

We have to clean up Bush's mess in Iraq. What's the best way to do it?

[wtmusic]

7. Right -- let bygones be bygones

And if a candidate messes up now, one day that will be past too, so it doesn't really matter, right?

:eyes:

[blm]

11. Bush was stuck with UN inspectors back in Iraq.

And stuck presenting evidence to the UN, which forced them to over reach and lose credibility. That dog and pony show of Powell's has since come back to bite them.

The shot to Bush's credibility with the American people is what will bring him down in 2004. Prior to that overreach, Bush had the credibility with the public that was hard to pierce considering the protection he received from the media.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. NATO?

A NATO led force is a terrible idea. Will we also paint Crusader's crosses on their helmets for the Iraqi's to use as targets?

We need a multi-national, UN authorized force. The UN is the only organization that has the credibility to do this.

[redqueen]

15. That's my take on it too, but apparently the UN won't send troops...

but NATO members have already pledged to send 150K, right? :eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. What is this unnamed 'international body'?

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

What body? Is this some new organization that will be created? An existing one? Dean doesn't say.

Why not transfer control to the UN as Kerry would do? The UN has the experience and the respect needed to get the job done.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. A laudable goal but

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

How does Dean plan on making this happen? Are we turning authority over to an unnamed body only on the condition that they follow certain guidelines concerning women? What guidelines? How well will this work in Iraqi society? Are they ready to accept women as leaders? If not, how does Dean plan on changing Iraqi attitudes? In short, what is the plan?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. Dean's plan is out of date on Oil for Food

"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/

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. Is this a plan or a wish list?

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

Perhaps so. What means? What is Dean's plan.?


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

And what is the plan for this democratic transition?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. So let's compare plans.

Come on Dean folks, let's have a discussion about who has the best plan for Iraq. We already know Dean has the best sound-bites.

[DrFunkenstein]

12. The Result Of 15 Years On The Committee Against Terrorism

"While we must remain determined to defeat terrorism, it isn't only terrorism we are fighting. It's the beliefs that motivate terrorists. If you look at countries stretching from Morocco through the Middle East and beyond - broadly speaking the western Muslim world - what you see is a civilization under extraordinary stress.

A combination of harsh political repression, economic stagnation, lack of education and opportunity, and rapid population growth has proven simply explosive. The streets are full of young people who have no jobs, no prospects, and no voice. State-controlled media encourage a culture of self-pity, victimhood and blame-shifting. This is the breeding ground for present and future hostility to the West and our values.

From this perspective, it's clear that we need more than a one-dimensional war on terror. Of course we need to hunt down and destroy those who are plotting mass murder against Americans and innocent people from Africa to Asia to Europe.

We must drain the swamps of terrorists; but you don't have a prayer of doing so if you leave the poisoned sources to gather and flow again. That means we must help the vast majority people of the greater Middle East build a better future. We need to illuminate an alternative path to a futile Jihad against the world...a path that leads to deeper integration of the greater Middle East into the modern world order.

The Middle East isn't on the Bush Administration's trade agenda. We need to put it there.

The United States and its transatlantic partners should launch a high-profile Middle East trade initiative designed to stop the economic regression in the Middle East and spark investment, trade and growth in the region. It should aim at dismantling trade barriers that are among the highest in the world, encouraging participation in world trade policy and ending the deep economic isolation of many of the region's countries.

I propose the following policy goals:

We should build on the success of Clinton Administration's Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Since the United States reduced tariffs on goods made in "qualifying industrial zones," Jordan's exports to the US jumped from $16 to $400 million, creating about 40,000 jobs. Let's provide similar incentives to other countries that agree to join the WTO, stop boycotting Israel and supporting Palestinian violence against Israel, and open up their economies.

We should also create a general duty-free program for the region, just as we've done in the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Andean Trade Preference Act. Again, we should set some conditions: full cooperation in the war on terror, anti-corruption measures, non-compliance with the Israel boycott, respect for core labor standards and progress toward human rights.

Let's be clear: Our goal is not to impose some western free market ideology on the greater Middle East. It's to open up a region that is now closed to opportunity, an outpost of economic exclusion and stagnation in a fast-globalizing world.

These countries suffer from too little globalization, not too much. Without greater investment, without greater trade within the region and with the outside world, without the transparency and legal protections that modern economies need to thrive, how will these countries ever be able to grow fast enough to provide jobs and better living standards for their people?

But as we extend the benefits of globalization to people in the greater Middle East and the developing world in general, we also need to confront globalization's dark side.

We should use the leverage of capital flows and trade to lift, not lower, international labor and environmental standards. We should strengthen the IMF's ability to prevent financial panics from turning into full-scale economic meltdowns such as we've seen in Argentina. And in the Middle East especially, we need to be sensitive to fears that globalization will corrupt or completely submerge traditional cultures and mores. We can do these things."

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

<>

[redqueen]

14. deleted n/t

[redqueen]

16. Dennis Kucinich's Exit Strategy for Iraq

UN in, US out
Kucinich's Plan to Bring Our Troops Home

The war in Iraq is over and the occupation of Iraq has turned into a quagmire. The US troops have become the targets of criminals and terrorists who are flowing into Iraq for the chance to shoot Americans. The cost of the occupation keeps rising: The President has already asked for more than $150 billion to pay for it. And there is no end in sight. The UN is now in an impossible situation, where most of the members view the war and occupation of Iraq to be a US folly. Under these circumstances, the UN can’t help. The US is stuck, mostly alone, with a costly, unpopular and unending occupation of Iraq. If we stay the course, it will do damage to American security. Iraq was not and is not a threat to the US, yet the demands of an occupation will overstretch our armed forces. And the extended deployment of reserve forces make us vulnerable at home because the reserve call ups include large numbers of firemen, policemen and other first responders who are needed for the homeland defense mission.

People are asking, is there a way out? I believe there is. I am writing to share with you a plan that will get the UN in Iraq and the US out. This plan could bring the troops home by New Year’s day, it will cost much less than the President’s, and it will increase American security.

The President must go to the UN and announce the US intention to hand over all administrative and security responsibilities to the UN. The UN would help Iraqis move quickly toward self-determination.
The UN, not the US, will administer Iraq’s oil revenues. It will be necessary to renounce clearly and unequivocally any interest in controlling Iraq’s oil resources.
The UN will administer contracts to repair Iraq. War profiteering will no longer be practiced by the White House. It will be necessary to suspend all reconstruction contracts and close the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority, because of the suspicion caused by the sweetheart deals that the Administration has given to large American corporations. In its place, the UN would help Iraqis administer funds to employ Iraqis to repair the damage from the invasion.
Bring US troops home as UN peacekeeping troops rotate into Iraq: The goal is to bring all US troops home by the new year, but in any case, to bring them home as quickly and as safely as possible with a planned and orderly withdrawal.

As soon as practicable after this address, the UN Security Council would ratify a new resolution on Iraq that would deploy a multinational force under UN mandate to keep the peace in Iraq while the interim Iraqi government receives UN support and a new Iraqi government is elected. It is my hope that within one month, the first UN troops and support personnel will arrive in Iraq, and the first US troops will be sent home. UN peacekeeper troops and Iraqis who are commissioned as police and military will replace the US (at a rate of two UN peacekeepers for every three US troops). In place of the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority, the UN will open an office to provide administrative support to the Iraqi Governing Council, which will direct the repair to infrastructure damaged by US invasion in the immediate term. In two months, the UN will begin to conduct a census of the Iraqi population to lay groundwork for national elections. At the same time, new temporary rules for the election will be promulgated, guaranteeing universal suffrage on a one-person –one vote basis. During the transition period, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the American and UN force commanders for a turnover period will settle the question of who commands the troops. The MOU will specify who is to be in charge in case an incident happens during that period. These might be local agreements such as have been used before or they might be for the entire area of operations. By the end of month three, all US troops will have returned home.

In month four, a major milestone will be reached when Iraqi sovereignty is established for the first time. A nationwide election will take place to elect representatives to a Constitutional Convention. The Constitutional Convention will have two duties: 1) elect a temporary Prime Minister who appoints a cabinet to take over responsibility from the Iraqi Governing council, and 2) draft a national constitution. Accountability of this Prime Minister is achieved by virtue of the fact that he can be recalled by a majority of the Convention.

In one year, there will be nationwide elections pursuant to the new Constitution, which will install an elected government in Iraq.

The US owes a moral debt to the people of Iraq for the damage caused by the US invasion. The US will also owe a contribution to the UN to help Iraq make the transition to self-government. American taxpayers deserve that their contributions be handled in an accountable, transparent manner. However, Americans are not required to build a state-of-the-art infrastructure as the Administration is planning. The Administration is ordering for top shelf technology from US corporations for Iraq and paid for by US taxpayers. Sweetheart deals have been awarded with billions of dollars to top corporations and political contributors. That is precisely what corrupts the Administration’s reconstruction efforts today. Instead, Iraqis should be employed to repair Iraq, and US taxpayers should pay only for the damage caused by the US invasion, including compensation for its victims. US taxpayers should not be asked, however, to furnish for Iraq what we do not have here.

The war and occupation in Iraq have been costly in other ways too. One price the Administration has forced the US to pay is America’s moral authority in the world. The Administration launched an unprovoked attack on Iraq, and the premises of the war are proving to be false. This has cost our credibility and done serious harm to America’s standing in the world. After the attacks of 9-11, the world felt sympathy for us. But this war and the occupation have squandered that sympathy, replacing it with dangerous anti-American sentiment in most of the world’s countries. And, perhaps most costly of all, the US occupying force serves as a recruiting cause for terrorists and people who wish us ill.

All we can do now is to make a dramatic reversal of course: we must acknowledge that the continued US military presence in Iraq is counterproductive and destabilizing. We have a choice in front of us: either we change course, withdraw our troops and request that the UN move in, or we sink deeper into this occupation, with more US casualties, ever higher financial costs, and diminished security for Americans.

We need a real change. My plan will bring the troops home by the new year, transfer authority to the UN with provisions made toward a rapid transition to Iraqi sovereignty, and it will save billions over the Administration’s occupation. It will enable the US to think creatively about how the US will deal with threats that come not from established countries with conventional armies (our armed forces are more than adequate to that task), but rather threats that come from networks of terrorist and criminals, who use unconventional means to injure Americans. We must also apprehend the criminals who masterminded the 9-11 attacks on this country, a goal that is hindered by the occupation of Iraq. Lastly, it will also enable the US to redirect scarce resources to rebuild America.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. I like Kucinich's ideas but I don't think it is realistic to believe that

in 3 months time, enough troops would come from other countries to bring all of our troops back.

I mean, I wish we could bring all of our troops home. Just like when I make a mess in my kitchen I wish someone else would clean it up. But the United States created this mess, and I think it will be impossible to convince other countries to provide troops while at the same time saying we are pulling all of ours out.

[redqueen]

18. You may be right.

But I gotta say, I do love Kucnich's method of aiming high. There's just something about his optimism, his going for the best of all possible outcomes, that I find refreshing.

Maybe it's from decades of having Dem leaders tell us we have to compromise, and then watching them start compromising from a 'less' than best-of-all-possible-outcomes type position (I almost said 'centrist', heh). I dunno.

But I like it. :)