A Strategy for Iraq
Washington Post
April 13, 2004
"A Strategy for Iraq"
Op-Ed by Senator John Kerry
To be successful in Iraq, and in any war for that matter, our use of force must be tied to a political objective more complete than the ouster of a regime. To date, that has not happened in Iraq. It is time it did.
There has been a political objective from the beginning. Kerry just doesn't have a clue or either he is just lying again. [/color]
In the past week the situation in Iraq has taken a dramatic turn for the worse.
A small number of religious fanatics coupled with terrorists from other countries who aren"t Iraqi's doesn't make a "dramatic turn for the worse". [/color]
While we may have differed on how we went to war,
I thought the war was in response to our being attacked on 9/11.
What would Kerry have gone to war over? [/color]
Americans of all political persuasions are united in our determination to succeed.
No we aren't. Kerry wishes Bush would fail. Democrats think they need bad news for the USA in order for them to win. Any success by Bush is seen as a setback for the Democrats.
It's not about the USA, it's about Democrats getting the White House. [/color]
The extremists attacking our forces should know they will not succeed in dividing America,
They don't have to Kerry, they have you and the Democrats. [/color]
or in sapping American resolve, or in forcing the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Again, they have you and the Democratic party. [/color]
Our country is committed to help the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society. No matter who is elected president in November, we will persevere in that mission.
Yea, like you did in Vietnam? [/color]
But to maximize our chances for success, and to minimize the risk of failure, we must make full use of the assets we have.
That's exactly what we're doing, inspite of YOU and the Democratic leadership.
If our military commanders request more troops, we should deploy them.
You must have been listening to Bush to get this thought.
Progress is not possible in Iraq if people lack the security to go about the business of daily life. Yet the military alone cannot win the peace in Iraq. We need a political strategy that will work.
That's exactly correct and what Bush is doing. [/color]
Over the past year the Bush administration has advanced several plans for a transition to democratic rule in Iraq. Each of those plans, after proving to be unworkable, was abandoned. The administration has set a date (June 30) for returning authority to an Iraqi entity to run the country, but there is no agreement with the Iraqis on how it will be constituted to make it representative enough to have popular legitimacy.
That's being worked out right now. You haven't stated how you would accomplish that any sooner than what is taking place now. [/color]
Because of the way the White House has run the war, we are left with the United States bearing most of the costs and risks associated with every aspect of the Iraqi transition.
Who elswe could handle this load Kerry, you? [/color]
We have lost lives, time, momentum and credibility.
The only credibility that is lost is YOURS. [/color]
And we are seeing increasing numbers of Iraqis lashing out at the United States to express their frustration over what the Bush administration has and hasn't done.
This is expected. [/color]
In recent weeks the administration -- in effect acknowledging the failure of its own efforts -- has turned to U.N. representative Lakhdar Brahimi to develop a formula for an interim Iraqi government that each of the major Iraqi factions can accept.
A plan is a failure? [/color]
It is vital that Brahimi accomplish this mission, but the odds are long, because tensions have been allowed to build and distrust among the various Iraqi groups runs deep.
So why do ou expect instant success from Bush? [/color]
The United States can bolster Brahimi's limited leverage by saying in advance that we will support any plan he proposes that gains the support of Iraqi leaders.
Well, ANY plan is not necessarily the best plan. It seems like "any plan" is what was used in Vietnam that was used for the U.S. giving us in Vietnam.
Failure seems to be what Democrats are best at. If you don't believe this, just look at the war on poverty that the Dems have been waging for decades in this country.[/color]
Moving forward, the administration must make the United Nations a full partner responsible for developing Iraq's transition to a new constitution and government.
The U.N.? Aren;t they the bunch that pkmtyolped resolution after resolution for Saddam that went ignored until Bush took action?
Isn't the U.N. the bunch that REFUSED to help in the first place? [/color]
We also need to renew our effort to attract international support in the form of boots on the ground to create a climate of security in Iraq.
Do you mean the likes of the French and the Germans, your hero's?
[/color]
We need more troops and more people who can train Iraqi troops and assist Iraqi police.
We should urge NATO to create a new out-of-area operation for Iraq under the lead of a U.S. commander. This would help us obtain more troops from major powers. The events of the past week will make foreign governments extremely reluctant to put their citizens at risk.
You've just debated yourself. [/color]
That is why international acceptance of responsibility for stabilizing Iraq must be matched by international authority for managing the remainder of the Iraqi transition.
The internationals have already shown they have no stomach for doing what is needed, just like you. [/color]
The United Nations, not the United States, should be the primary civilian partner in working with Iraqi leaders
They already did. It was called "the oil for food program".
Your "partners" were willing to let Saddam alone to develop more WMD's just so they could gain their kick backs in the oil for food program. [/color]
to hold elections, restore government services, rebuild the economy, and re-create a sense of hope and optimism among the Iraqi people.
These things are already in the workings thanks to Bush.
Name one world leader who has stepped up to the plate in these matters? [/color]
The primary responsibility for security must remain with the U.S. military, preferably helped by NATO until we have an Iraqi security force fully prepared to take responsibility.
NATO has refused any responsibility so far, so what makes you think you can convince them to take responsibility now? [/color]
Finally, we must level with our citizens. Increasingly, the American people are confused about our goals in Iraq, particularly why we are going it almost alone.
The only reason americans are confused is because of people LIKE YOU!! You run around and call success, failure.
You are critical of the U.S. president in a time of war WHICH IS GIVING THE ENEMY AID AND COMFORT!! I would suggest that you are committing treason! [/color]
The president must rally the country around a clear and credible goal.
He has, and YOU and the Democratic party are constantly trying to confuse american with your lies and distortions. [/color]
The challenges are significant and the costs are high. But the stakes are too great to lose the support of the American people.
Then why don't you stop working to accomplish just that? [/color]
This morning, as we sit down to read newspapers in the comfort of our homes or offices, we have an obligation to think of our fighting men and women in Iraq who awake each morning to a shooting gallery in which it is exceedingly difficult to distinguish friend from foe, and the death of every innocent creates more enemies. We owe it to our soldiers and Marines to use absolutely every tool we can muster to help them succeed in their mission without exposing them to unnecessary risk. That is not a partisan proposal. It is a matter of national honor and trust.
Thias is exactly what Bush is doing.
If my memory is correct, lacking the proper tools in Somalia is what caused 18 americans to lose their lives in "Blackhawk Down".
If the military would have had the armor that was requested, those soldiers could have been rescued before they were killed. They lost their lives after their ammunition ran out and they couldn't be resuppl;ied because THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE TOOLS they needed under a Democratic president.
Did you forget about this example of how Democrats run the military?
Kerry, why don't you just admit that it's YOUR party that failed the military and move on.
[/color]
I think Kerry has the right idea. Here we are in this horrific mess -- like it or not, and the solution to get out of it will not be an easy one. International involvment is critical for our future not only from a financial standpoint, but our security, restoring our credibility, and we are not going to achieve peace in that region going it alone and playing watchdog. Our current foreign policy ticks these people off.
JKerry has some right ideas, but some of his ideas would lead to failure.
Kerry thinks the U.S. military should be subject to the control of others, which is stupid to anyone with sense. [/color]
