Former US presidential advisor Brzezinski presents plan to quit Iraq

[Barrett808]

WARSAW (AFP) - Polish-born former US national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski has put together a four-point plan for the United States to withdraw from Iraq.

The plan would allow Washington to disengage gradually in Iraq, "without victory, but also without defeat," said Brzezinski, who worked for US President Jimmy Carter.

The first step would involve "Washington suggesting to the Iraqi authorities that they publicly ask the United States to pull out of Iraq," he told private Polish television TVN24.

Next, a date would be set for US troops to be pulled out, following which the Iraqi government should invite its neighbours to a "regional conference of Muslim countries" aimed at stabilising the situation in Iraq, Brzezinski said.

Lastly, the United States should call an international conference to discuss funding for the reconstruction of Iraq.

"I think that a programme such as this one, set up in the space of one year, would close the affair in such a way that we might not be able to speak of a clear victory, but also not of defeat or running away," Brzezinski said.

(more)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060331/pl_afp/iraquspoland

[Warren Stupidity]

1. It is a start.

However I take exception to this statement: "Lastly, the United States should call an international conference to discuss funding for the reconstruction of Iraq." No. Nobody else ought to pay for the mess we created. This is our responsibility, The internation conference ought to decide, without our having a say in it, exactly what the bill ought to be for reconstruction, how it ought to be paid, and how it ought to be administered.

[NanceGreggs]

2. Conference not necessary.

"... call an international conference to discuss funding for the reconstruction of Iraq."

The necessary funds for rebuilding Iraq have already been handed over - to Halliburton. Just issue a demand that they take it out of their personal Swiss bank accounts and hand it over, pronto!

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. Cheney leave the oil in the hands of a pack of "towel heads"?

After all of the embarrassment they have been through over this? Not on your best day!

[tatertop]

7. Bush has no interest in leaving Iraq.

He has more countries to invade
and a LOT more Treasury gouging
to go before he sleeps

[Rambis]

4. Sounds like Peace with honor

Or Iraqization(Vietnamization) call it what you like. We shouldn't have been there in the first place.

[Roland99]

5. The problem is getting the Mideast leaders together

Too many egos that have to handle volatile populations.

[MrPrax]

6. Why exactly should 'face-saving'

be a concern to a 'peace plan'--what's Ziggy saying?, the US should ONLY leave their illegal occupation of Iraq if it looks good?

And why, if the US is pulling out, would the Iraqis NEED the US to call an international conference regarding reconstruction financing. Iraq has the money--it's being looted by the US/Br. oil companies and contractors.

Iraq would have NO problem inviting international tenders and investors WITHOUT the US; in fact the inclusion of the US in such talks would undermine any involvement. Which I suppose is the whole point of the US occupying Iraq in the first place...the oil.

[bluestateguy]

8. Democrats don't have a plan, Democrats don't have a plan, Democrats don't

Democrats don't have a plan, Democrats don't have a plan, Democrats don't have a plan, Democrats don't have a plan....

[heidler1]

9. Not likely, but sounds rational considering all factors.

[Jim__]

10. Does this address the potential for an Iraqi civil war?

There is still a power vacuum in Iraq. I don't believe the Sunnis are willing to live under the current constitution. I don't believe the Shiites are willing to share a substantial amount of power with the Sunnis. The Kurds want out.

I think the only possible resolutions to this are: return a strongman to power - i.e. a new Saddam Hussein; or partition Iraq and destabilize the entire Middle East.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. That is for the Iraqis to decide.

We cannot on either a moral or practical level continue to determine what happens in Iraq. Our presence there just makes things worse. It is not for us to decide to install a 'new strongman' any more than it is for us to install 'freedom and democracy'. We are a hostile occupation force, and the first step towards peace is for us to get out. Will Iraq descend into bloody chaos? It is already there. Iran Turkey Syria Kuwait Saudi Arabia and Jordan, Iraq's neighbors will have to deal with what transpires. At least they share a common cultural heritage.

[Jim__]

20. To say Iraq is already in bloody chaos is not to say it is already

as bad as it can get.

We have no right to be there. We never should have gone in. However, we are in the position of a burglar who breaks into a house full of sleeping people and ignites a fuse that leads to a bomb that will blow up the house. Our breaking in woke up some of the people and they start shooting at each other. But, in a minute or two the bomb will explode and blow up the house with all the people. It is not enough for the burglar to now claim, "Well, I never should have been here" and just leave. He has an obligation to try to put out the fuse before the bomb explodes.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. We cannot put out the fuse we are the fuse.

The 'but it will get even worse if we leave' excuse is just the latest in the long series of bogus justifications for why we have to to stay and kill more Iraqis.

Might it get worse? Yes it might. But it certainly isn't going to get better while we stay there, an occupying army of foreign heathens, our very presence helping to ignite the violence.

[Jim__]

22. No, actually, we aren't.

Iraq was constructed deliberately to contain warring ethnic groups. Britain was obligated to give Iraq its independence by the League of Nations. It did so in a way that it knew Iraq could only be governed by a strongman; and Britain was confident that they could keep that strongman dependent on them. The ethnic make-up of Iraq is the problem. That ethnic volatility was under control before we overthrew the controlling power. To walk away now is to condemn a large number of Iraqis to death.

That said, our just staying there doesn't mean that we are saving Iraqi lives. Under Bush, my belief is that the best thing we can do is leave because he will not implement policies that wil benefit Iraqis. However, that doesn't free us from thinking about what might actually be done to help the people whose lives we have so seriously endangered.

One option might be that we give Iraqis, particularly Sunnis - they're in the most danger, the option of leaving Iraq before we withdraw.

It's very easy to say we jsut have to withdraw. However, without looking at all the options, there is no way of knowing what is the best thing we can do right now. Simply claiming that our withdrawal is the best possible policy, without making the arguments that prove that to be true, without contrasting the likely result of that policy with the likely results of other policies that we could implement is to fall into the same lazy mental trap that led George W bush to invade without thinking through the potential results of his action.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Which just leaves us right where we are.

Sure we can pick and choose and annoint and divide and play colonial ruler, and we can do so with all sorts of lofty good intentions, but we will continue to be a focus of violence, a major cause of violence, and our attempts to pick and choose winners in whatever comes out of the former state of Iraq are doomed.

We need to set a short timetable and get out. Six months is more than long enough. The Iraqis are capable of sorting out their problems by themselves, even if they do so with a burst of sectarian violence that makes the prolonged occupation seem relatively calm. The regional forces that are directly affected by Iraqi instability are the right nations to deal with the situation. We continue to be the hated despised foreigners. We don't speak the language, we don't understand their culture, we generally despise them and the feeling is mutual. Our motives were false from the outset and continue to be dishonest and/or delusional, but we are going to settle their affairs for them, we are going to play the role of honest broker? This is never going to work and the sooner we realize it the better it will be for all concerned.

I continue to be amazed at the good intentioned people who, after three years of bloody disaster, still find reasons for continuing this illegal and immoral war and occupation. How many more years of our killing Iraqis are you willing to rationalize? One more year? Two? Three? 10? When is enough enough?

[Jim__]

26. No matter what your or I call for, we are left right where we are.

The admin does not care what anyone else wants or thinks.

The problem is to try to have a viable solution available should control of our government fall to rational people. The best way to find a solution is to look at all the options available and work through how each one may play out. That may be the only productive thing for people outside of the adminsitration to do right now. We may even find a solution that the admin can't say no to.

Because it was wrong to go in, it does not automatically follow that the best policy now is to get out. Just getting out also leads to disaster. There may be a non-disastrous (or less disastrous) policy available.

[PATRICK]

11. He's really frustrated

on the sidelines to come up with THE obvious plan IF all private national interests were taken out of the equation. At first base, still standing, is the absolute safeguarding of Bush interests- not Iraqi or US or even war interests- which is why this simplest, most obvious and sanest of all solutions- the only one remaining other than a simple bugout is so much empty air.

He still thinks the debate is legitimately framed around losing or winning militarily when that is not the highest priority keeping Bush policy in firm place.

It reminds me of the sensible people surrounding the Three Stooges presenting logical arguments as if the distinction between types of fools was not as important as bi-partisan comedy.

Like Kerry and Clark and others who keep presenting the simple disinterested plans to help Iraq and get the US fingers out of the pie, these solutions keep getting summarily vanished into the night and their very possibility becomes ruined day by day with the evil and losing occupation currently dictated to the rest of the world by the WH. With lies, deaths and defeat, but always war tagged tax dollars pouring into GOP pockets.

[dweller]

12. checkmate, zbig.

dp

[Demeter]

14. Why Require All This Bowing And Scraping?

Bush unceremoniously dumped on Iraq, the US can unceremoniously bug out, too.

[against all enemies]

15. "I can't quit you Iraq" from Brokeback Bush. There are no plans

to quit.

[WhiteTara]

16. this one created the Afghan war for

Russia. We armed the Mujahadeen, the predecessor to Al Qaida and we are supposed to listen to his half cocked plan. No victory No defeat No leaving No change. Shut Up.

[bemildred]

17. More bullshit for the Rubes.

(But, we're gaining the upper hand on these assholes.)

[roseBudd]

18. Rate it up it only has 14 votes

[Barrett808]

23. Done. 30 votes, 3.5/5 stars n/t

[cantstandbush]

19. Now is only such a plan would be applied to the I/P situation. n/t

[happydreams]

24. Well, he concocted the idea of taking over the region, now

he is giving us the plan for quiting. :eyes:

But it was all a game anyway.

See "The Grand Chessboard".