The Kucinich Plan: Swap U.S. Troops for U.N. Troops

[corvusblog]

Run time: 03:56 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS6JyiAt0xg   Posted on YouTube: April 17, 2015 By YouTube Member: YouTube Help Views on YouTube: 4759469   Posted on DU: January 24, 2007 By DU Member: corvusblog Views on DU: 847

 
http://www.kucinich.us

http://www.youtube.com/kucinich1


How To De-Fund The Escalation
Gareth Porter
January 16, 2007


Gareth Porter is a historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam was published in June 2005. During the Vietnam War, Porter was a Ph.D. candidate specializing in Vietnamese history and politics who debunked the Nixon administration's "bloodbath" argument in a series of articles and monographs.

Democratic congressional leaders have thus far been unable to decide what to do about a president and vice-president who have openly announced their intention to defy the electorate. While the last election rejected our current foreign military adventure, Congress has stopped far short of acting on that sentiment, allowing the Bush administration to continue indefinitely and to even escalate the war. Comments from some Democratic leaders reveal a misunderstanding of the power Congress has in the present situation.

The Democrats have gravitated toward a nonbinding resolution that would do nothing to force George W. Bush to bring the troops home. The Democratic haziness about the options available to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq is exemplified by presidential candidate Joe Biden’s comment last week that Congress can do nothing to stop the war, because, “It's unconstitutional to say, you can go, but we're going to micromanage.”

The Democrats’ real problem appears to be political rather than constitutional: They have convinced themselves that they cannot cut off funds without being accused of failing to keep faith with U.S. troops in Iraq.

But this is a false dilemma. Congress can force Bush’s hand without being vulnerable to the charge of stranding U.S. troops simplyby setting a date beyond which no funds can be used for U.S. military presence in Iraq. As long as the date provides a reasonable time for those troops to be “redeployed” from Iraq, the burden falls on the executive branch to adjust its policy to the congressional requirement by taking them out of the war zone.

Democrats have either forgotten the precedent for such legislation during the Vietnam War or have learned the wrong lesson from that precedent. An amendment offered by Democratic Senator George McGovern and Republican Mark Hatfield on September 1, 1970 would have cut off all funding for any U.S. combat activities in Vietnam after December 31, 1971—15 months after the date of the vote in the Senate. The amendment was defeated 55 to 39, and a House companion bill was defeated 254 to 158.

The Republican attack on the McGovern-Hatfield amendment and its sponsors was even more vicious than the Bush-Rove accusation of “cut and run” against the 2006 Democratic proposals for a timetable for withdrawal. But no one suggested during the debates that the amendment was unconstitutional, despite the fact that Congress had given blanket approval in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution to “all necessary steps, including the use of armed force” to assist South Vietnam.

The fact that Congressional opponents of the war could not muster sufficient votes to pass those amendments has led some observers to conclude that such a legislative timetable for withdrawal should not be tried today. That view ignores the enormous differences between the situation faced by Congressional doves in 1970-72 and their present-day counterparts. Consider the following contrasts:

The Trend in Military Involvement. By the time McGovern-Hatfield was brought to a vote in September 1970, Nixon had already convinced most Americans that he was getting out of Vietnam, even if it was only to replace U.S. troops with Vietnamese. The number of U.S. troops in Vietnam had already fallen from 550,000 when Nixon took office to 225,000, and the withdrawal would have been completed in two more years at the monthly rate then being implemented.

Bush, on the other hand, has not only resisted the broad bipartisan recommendation of the Baker-Hamilton report to begin a military disengagement, but has proceeded to announce a plan for increasing U.S. troop strength. And he has done that in the face of advice against doing so by the U.S. military commanders who had been in Iraq since 2005.

Perceptions of winning or losing. Even more difficult for the sponsors of the McGovern-Hatfield amendment was the fact that Americans were generally under the impression that the United States was succeeding. By 1969, as many as 40,000 troops—five whole divisions—of a total of 90,000 North Vietnamese troops in South Vietnam at the time of the Tet offensive had been withdrawn into North Vietnam or Laos, and those who remained in the South had adopted more defensive tactics than previously. By the end of 1971, there was not a single North Vietnamese division in South Vietnam. U.S. and South Vietnamese forces were able to take advantage of the lull on the battlefield to gain control over much more of South Vietnamese territory.

As a result, Nixon and Kissinger were able to sell their strategy of Vietnamization to the American public. And even after the North Vietnamese launched their Spring 1972 offensive across the DMZ, Nixon was able to maintain public support by mining the port of Haiphong in North Vietnam and by maneuvering diplomatically with the Soviet Union and China.

Bush, by way of contrast, has lost the ability to convince the American people that his strategy in Iraq is succeeding for more than a year. Today nearly 60 percent of the public believe the United States is losing in Iraq and that it cannot succeed. And unlike Nixon in 1972, Bush has no military or diplomatic options that he can use to reassure the public about the deteriorating situation in Iraq. Any move toward war with Iran would be far more likely to pose a serious political crisis at home than to shore up his support.

Public support for a timetable. Given the circumstances of that period, it is not surprising that there was no clear majority in 1970 advocating setting a timetable for complete withdrawal. In a Gallup poll from mid-March 1970 to June 1970, 46 percent of the respondents supported either immediate withdrawal or a timetable for withdrawal within a year and a half, while 38 percent supported the president’s policy. Three months later Gallup showed 44 percent of those surveyed favoring either immediate withdrawal or a deadline of the end of 1971, with 35 percent opposing it.

The Iraq debacle, however, has produced a much clearer national choice in favor of a timetable for withdrawal. From September 2005 to October 2006, Pew Research Center survey data shows that a clear and consistent majority, ranging from 53 to 58 percent of those surveyed, supported either setting a timetable for complete withdrawal from Iraq or getting out immediately, whereas a minority ranging from 37 percent to 42 percent opposed the timetable.

That survey data is consistent with the results of exit polling in the mid-term election. Exit polls showed that 57 percent of voters disapproved of the war in Iraq—41 percent disapproving “strongly”—and 58 percent disapproved of Bush's job performance. The voters’ rejection of the war and its continuation could hardly have been clearer.

The McGovern-Hatfield legislative approach to ending the U.S. war in Iraq—setting date for complete withdrawal after which no more funds can be used to carry on the war—is the weapon on the wall for American democracy. The American people are waiting for Congress to use it. And as George McGovern himself observed before the Progressive Caucus last week, if George Bush refused to carry out its provisions, that would clearly constitute an impeachable offense.


http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/01/16/how_to_defund_the_escalation.php

[Retired AF Dem]

1. Would the UN be as effective in Iraq

as they were in Rwanda and Darfur?

[corvusblog]

4. Would the UN be as effective in Iraq - Effective?

Effective? Are you kidding me? Just exactly how do you propose the U.S. government be "effective" in doing anything in Iraq? There's no such thing. Effective as what? Effective as who? George Bush? The U.S. military? They've been uneffective - nothing more than targets in a turkey shoot. There's nothing left to do but effectively bring the troops home. You can't be "effective" in Iraq because you don't belong in Iraq. Why is that so hard for Americans to understand? It's as if you believe the U.S. government owns Iraq. You don't.

The point is to bring the troops home by cutting off the funding to the war. Try telling America to bring the troops home without substituting some kind of peacekeeping force. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[SheilaT]

2. I understand that U.N. troops

are intended solely for peace-keeping missions. And the situation in Iraq hardly qualifies. Plus, why should they take over the mess we created?

[corvusblog]

6. I understand that U.N. troops SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT INSTEAD

If Bush was a law-abiding President, he wouldn't have unilaterally invaded Iraq in the first place. If Bush was wise, he would have asked the U.N. to send in U.N. peacekeeping forces after he captured Saddam. But no, Bush wanted to make Iraq the 51st state. The situation in Iraq does not qualify for U.S. troops to be present in Iraq in the first place. Bush's invasion and military occupation of Iraq was and remains illegal. Personally, I prefer to withdraw our troops immediately - U.N. or no U.N.

At least Dennis has proffered a plan infinitely more viable than other plans. The Democrats' plan is to vote YES on Bush's upcoming $100 billion war bill this April. Bush only cares about keeping the troops in Iraq till he leaves office. Bush adminstration neocons have explained to him that history will blame Democrats for "cutting and running" from Iraq, once the Dems withdraw the troops in 2009(if even then) "President Bush stayed the course in Iraq till the Democrats succumbed to the will of the terrorists." This is the kind of garbage you'll hear for years to come.

To answer your question, "Why should they take over the mess we created?"

The U.N. is ready to help in Iraq.

"The UN stands ready to actively assist the Iraqi people in the 'crucial endeavor' of stopping
the violence and promoting national accord" head of UNAMI says - 1 March 2006

"The UN role can assist in building an inclusive political process, helping to cultivate a regional environment supportive of a transition to stability, and pursuing reconstruction through the International Compact."


Again, Dennis' plan to replace U.S. troops with U.N. troops is a plan designed to get our troops out now. What part of that don't you understand? Try getting America to withdraw our troops WITHOUT attempting to replace U.S. troops with some kind of security force. These Pro-War Democrats and Republicans constantly rail about what will happen if we simply withdraw from Iraq without security being established. Dennis' plan addresses those concerns. That's more than what I've heard coming out of Democrats' mouths or Bush's mouth.

What's your plan to get U.S. troops out of Iraq?

[mopinko]

3. no blue hats

that will not work. they will be over their head. that is not what they are trained to do. they will be chewed up and spit out.
ya know, i try to like dennis, but every speech has an item like this of such glaring unreality. he is just a dreamer to the point of not living in the real world sometimes. this is not a good trait in a president.

[corvusblog]

5. no blue hats - Get Out Now! hats or no hats!!!

Dear Mopinko:

Since you're so concerned about what U.N. troops are trained to do, why don't you vocalize your concern for what our troops are trained to do? Our troops are not trained to be used as a security force - our troops are trained to go in and kill, and get the hell out. Our troops were not meant to be used as target practice for countless guerrilla snipers in a large urban area.

In this instance, our troops have no business whatsoever being in Iraq in the first place. It was unlawful for Bush to attack, invade and militarily occupy Iraq - therefore, any subsequent military occupation is unlawful as well.

You accuse Dennis Kucinich of not living in reality - it's you who aren't living in reality.

You posted no solution, therefore I believe you have no solution.

How can you claim to live in reality when you offer no solution, and Dennis has?

Dennis solution is more viable than your solution - which is to do nothing.

Unless Democrats refrain from approving Bush's upcoming $100 billon war bill this April, Bush will use that money to keep the troops in Iraq till Bush leaves office - at this point, that's all Bush wants. He knows that if he can force Democrats to approve his war bill, Bush will be able to keep the troops in Iraq till he goes back to Crawford, Tejas. In his mind, and the minds of the neocons, history will blame Democrats and the newly-elected Democratic President for losing the war in Iraq. This is all about Bush passing the blame to the Democratic Party.