How does Biden's plan fit with Kerry's and the others

[karynnj]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/25/AR2005112500864.html

The link to this Washington post editorial written by Biden was posted in DU-P. I was going to answer there, but realized that I couldn't without referencing Mass's brilliant explanation of the differences in Murtha's and Kerry's plans. She pointed out that Murtha's was primarily a military plan, while Kerry's was a call for a political solution.

Biden seems to trying to fill the space between Kerry and McCain. Unless I am missing something, Biden doesn't say what the US military should actually be doing. Kerry speaks of the US handing over search and destroy and policing to the Iraqis and keeping US soldiers in garrisons. McCain talks of clearing and keeping (isn't this safe hamlets) I'm not as sure what Biden is saying.

On reconstruction, Biden is talking about needing more (coalition ) people in to help with running ministries and to fix the infrastructure. Kerry, I think has always wanted to give these jobs to Iraqis. It seems arrogant to think that in a country that had an educated class for many generations has no good people to take on these tasks, if we help protect them. They can't steal more than Halliburton did.

In terms of the political solution, Biden and Kerry seem on this surface level to be saying relatively similar things. Sunnis can't control, but need a stake and the neighboring countries need to be involved. Even here, Biden's call for the US to convene an area conference seems US centric as the Arab league seems to have their plan and has it on their agenda for February. I may be wrong, but a difference I sense is that on this, Kerry, as on the military and reconstruction efforts, is for a less dominant, less controlling role for the US.

Biden also speaks to a much longer lasting US role - more than simplistically comparing 2006 to 2007.

[ProSense]

1. You make some good points.

Biden: We also need an effective counterinsurgency strategy. The administration finally understands the need not only to clear territory but also to hold and build on it. We have never had enough U.S. troops to do that. Now there is no choice but to gamble on the Iraqis. We can help by changing the mix of our forces to include more embedded trainers, civil affairs units and Special Forces.


Here's my problem---his closing statement says it all (Biden’s comments in bold):

We also need an effective counterinsurgency strategy.

We are the cause of the insurgency, train the Iraqis and get the hell out.

The administration finally understands the need not only to clear territory but also to hold and build on it.

That is the purpose of war. If the Administration didn’t know this, not only were they ill-prepared for war, but also they were ill-prepared to lead. Besides, this sounds like occupation.

We have never had enough U.S. troops to do that. (hold on to territory)

We shouldn’t be there in the first place, but now that we are cut all the talk about how many troops it would have taken. Reminds me too much of the Vietnam solution: not working out, add more.

Now there is no choice but to gamble on the Iraqis. We can help by changing the mix of our forces to include more embedded trainers, civil affairs units and Special Forces.

This sounds like his plan calls for an occupying force for years to come, so back to my first point: train the Iraqis and get the hell out.


That’s why I like Kerry’s plan best:

The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay “as long as it takes.” To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. At the first benchmark, the completion of the December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays.

The Administration must immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn. No more shell games, no more false reports of progress, but specific and measurable goals.

It is true that our soldiers increasingly fight side by side with Iraqis willing to put their lives on the line for a better future. But history shows that guns alone do not end an insurgency. The real struggle in Iraq – Sunni versus Shiia – will only be settled by a political solution, and no political solution can be achieved when the antagonists can rely on the indefinite large scale presence of occupying American combat troops.

[karynnj]

2. Is Biden then speaking almost for a McCain type solution,

but highlighting winthdrawal to make it more appealing to Democrats? I didn't mention I far prefer Kerry's too. (I think it interesting that Kerry wants us out of the policing and search and destroy and Biden wants us there long term - could it be one fought in Vietnam and saw how poorly the mixed units worked?)

I wonder if and when the Clintons will come out with a plan. It does both me a little that I wrote ClintonS and plan - because as a former President and the leading candidate for 2008, each could be expected to have a plan.

[ProSense]

3. I don't think so.

I don't think Biden is calling for additional U.S. troops. But while he is saying train the Iraqi troops, he's also advocating a long-term U.S. presence by shifting the makeup of the forces there.

[karynnj]

4. I agree - nowhere does he call for more troops

but he does speak, I think of clear and hold and a long term presence. I didn't mean he agreed with McCain - but that if you were trying to place plans next to ones they were similar to it seems his would be between the (Kerry, Feingold, Kennedy) plans and McCains - rather than being very close to either McCain or Kerry et al. Murths's goes off into a totally different directon.

[sandnsea]

5. It seems to me

that maybe the difference is that Kerry wants to push the Iraqi troops into specific cities, ALONE. And then pull our troops out altogether. That's what I think he means by sector by sector. Have some cities that are visibly standing on their own, Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurd. As the rest of the country sees this happening, the reason for the insurgency dissipates. Then, hopefully, people will begin turning against the remaining terrorists making it easier for the Iraqi's to find them and arrest them. Especially if they have a stake in their own reconstruction and community building. That's the only way I ever see Iraq turning out anywhere near stable. If Biden is calling for a reduction of troops all across the country, leaving troops in every city but in smaller and smaller numbers, then I don't see that working. As long as we have any significant number of troops in a city or area, they will be used as an excuse for terrorist attacks, justified or not. That seems to be the difference between the two, if I understand it all correctly.

[ProSense]

6. You're exactly right! n/t

[_dynamicdems]

7. Biden's plan...I don't really give a damn.

Sorry to rant, but notice how everyone suddenly has a plan? Where were they before John Kerry spoke out? Senator Kerry goes out on a limb and it doesn't break, so now everyone has their own plan. Easy to come up with a strategy after someone has already done the groundwork.

Kerry's plan was a beginning. He'd be the first to admit that and he would be willing to sit down and hash out the details of implementation. It is easy to take someone else's work, change a few things, make improvements (because you can always refine and improve any theoretical plan) and put it out there as "better." We can see who is the leader here and who are the followers.

My question: how many would have publicized plans had the proverbial limb broken when Senator Kerry tested it?

[karynnj]

8. Feingold had his withdrawal plan earlier

It was pretty vague on how to do it - but it did propose that we set flexible target dates to get out. So, if this were posted outside, there would be3 people saying Kerry followed Feingold. But, this was Kerry's 3rd or 4th plan (Sept '04, Jan MTP, July '05) - Sept '04 and Jan MTP press were very similar. But, they might say, he didn't say "withdraw (though they are clearly exit plans). Well, Kennedy in Jan aor Feb '05 called for a withdrawal plan. (This misses all the house plans, journalist plans, and think tank plans.)

I do agree with you that Kerry's was breathtaking in it's scope and in the new ideas brought to it. After the exchange with Prosense, I think the giant step in it is the real faith he puts in the Iraqis and the neighboring Arabs. His expression during the exchange with Matthews on the cultural problem of our soldiers entering Moslem homes showed he is on a different plane of existance as compared to Bush, Murtha, Biden and McCain. I'm not equating those four - but all they see a need for American control, where Kerry seems to want to give Iraq back to the Iraqis. (I didn't mention Edwards or Feingold as I have no idea whre they are here, though I would guess Feingold is with Kerry.)

[ProSense]

9. Also

see post #5 for sandnsea's terrific explanation of Kerry's strategy to withdraw sector by sector.

[karynnj]

10. Thanks - I missed that

It makes a huge amount of sense. I thought of sector as the type of function (search and destroy etc), where clearly it means area and that explains why they would feel they're getting their country back.

I'm blown away by the amount of thought in each little aspect of Kerry's plan. I hope before they die, the SBVT realize how many people they hurt and killed when they told their lies. O'Neil really needs a Dickens' Christmas carol like night.

[_dynamicdems]

13. You're right of course. It wasn't an intention to marginalize

Sen. Feingold or Sen. Kennedy who were both at the forefront of the movement to tackle the Iraq situation earlier in the year. Sen. Feingold plan to use a timetable didn't get a very positive response, if I recall correctly.

Kerry was the first to come up with something that actually used strategic means to implement our withdrawal from Iraq instead of saying, "One, two, three...time's up...we're out."

Maybe this is an oversimplification, but after the Senate Speech that Sen. Kerry gave, where he tied his plan to strong criticism of the President and the Administration, did the idea of a "plan" start to generate some interest. Since then, plans have cropped up all over and many of them are very similar to Kerry's. It annoys me to no end how the press is fawning over other plans. By announcing a detailed plan, Senator Kerry went out on a limb because the more detail there is, the more there is to criticize.

[karynnj]

14. I wasn't meaning to criticise

I also think that Kerry's plan is the most significant because it has many components that are genuinely new and different. Many of these pieces are also very intuitively appealing once explained (both the sector idea (which I didn't understand until sandnsea explained it and the turn over of S&D to Iraqis are examples.) Everything in his plan is consistent with empowering Iraqis and becoming an ally vs an occupier. (This was one difference I saw with Biden's in that on many things he seems to imply that we can do things better. The fact that we imported even laborers to work in Iraq rather than hire Iraqis is pathethic and made it harder for them to have a stake in the country succeeding.

I haven't heard any critism of Kerry's plan - other than McCain saying he was against it and calling it withdrawal. If Kerry were asked, he would criticise McCain's plan. Edwards got more publicity with his "I was wrong" than with his plan which was almost too vague to comment on. Stephanopolis is the only one I know pushing him as the possible anti-war candidate, which may mean he wants someone Hillary could easily beat. (As he was for the war itself months after it started and has a trail of quotes to live down, this could be hard.) I've seen little (other than the WP editorial and the speech itself) on Biden's.

[_dynamicdems]

16. Oh, I didn't take it that way, but I do want to be careful not to do to

other Dems what is done to Senator Kerry on a regular basis. Sen. Feingold is a terrific Democrat and I respect his positions, but feel his plan was more ideology than substance. Still, it was wrong to dismiss his plan.

That said, Biden has always annoyed me in the way he treats Senator Kerry, his "friend." They may work closely together on many issues, but Biden likes to be in front of the cameras and often makes snarky remarks about John Kerry. And Biden's plan is very similar to Kerry's.

The more I've been reading, the case becomes stronger for Kerry's plan. For one thing, Sen.Kerry's method and plan seems to rely more heavily the International Community. While there hasn't been any strong criticism of Kerry's plan, I've been trying to find strong support from either a military expert or within the International Community. So far, nothing, but an interesting paper written on the issues involved in ending the occupation did turn up. It was written last year, but the points of International Law have not changed nor have the basic concerns that are examined. It is fairly long (I printed out a copy and read it with highlighter in hand.)

The End of Occupation in Iraq

Professor Sir Adam Roberts*

"Its main focus is on what law is applicable to the changing situation in Iraq. It is not an assessment of whether the initial use of force against Iraq was justifiable – in legal, moral or prudential terms. Nor is it an assessment of whether the coalition operating in Iraq has in fact observed the terms of the law on occupations: there have been massive problems in that regard, especially as regards the failures to prevent looting, the ill-treatment and torture of prisoners, and the changes to the law regarding foreign investment in Iraqi companies. Although these matters are briefly mentioned, the focus here is on the overall status of the occupation and of the situation resulting from its formal ending."

[karynnj]

17. If they both run, seeing them side by side is totally in Kerry's favor

When Kerry proposed his prisons amendment and Biden came in to add his amendment, the contrast between them was amazing. On appearance alone, Kerry blew him out of the water. Biden's presentation of his amendment was lack luster. When Roberts said Biden's couldn't be added, Kerry politely and repectfully described a way his amendment could have both of there's as secondaries and it would preserve everything everyone wanted - Warner looked like he understood but Roberts and possibly Biden (who was silent) seemed confused - so Warner sent them off so they could resolve it.

Biden's endless stories get annoying.

[kerrygoddess]

11. LA Times reports Bush to give speech on Wednesday

Bush Administration Laying Groundwork for Significant Troop Pullout From Iraq
November 26th, 2005

The pressure has been on for the Bush administration to begin drawing down the troops from Iraq. From John Kerry’s speech at Georgetown late last month, to the fracas the ensued from Murtha’s plan in the House, to Biden’s OP/ED in today’s WaPO, it’s becoming increasing difficult for the Bush administration to ignore the calls.

The L.A. Times reports that “President Bush will give a major speech Wednesday at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., in which aides say he is expected to herald the improved readiness of Iraqi troops, which he has identified as the key condition for pulling out U.S. forces.”

The administration’s pivot on the issue comes as the White House is seeking to relieve enormous pressure by war opponents. The camp includes liberals, moderates and old-line conservatives who are uneasy with the costly and uncertain nation-building effort.

MORE - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1249

[Mass]

12. IMHO, Biden is the more timid plan there is about.

I never know where the man falls, but it seems clear to me that he is closer to Lieberman and Clinton than to Kerry and Feingold here.

[karynnj]

15. definately