You've just come into office...

[knowledgeispower]

...as the next President of the United States (as a Democrat, of course). What do you do about Iraq?

It seems to me there are three possibilities:
1: Withdraw troops completely
2: Double number of troops to around 300,000
3: Internationalize conflict

In my opinion, the first option is simply not feasible. By simply withdrawing all troops, the United States would be leaving a gaping hole of anarchy in the middle of an already destabilized area. This would be bad for the Iraqi people, it would be bad for the American people, and it would be bad for the entire Middle East. Furthermore, U.S. interests in the reason would be compromised beyond repair. Had we not invaded Iraq we could have lifted the sanctions and dealt fairly for Iraqi oil, but now we are forced to make sure ourselves that we can get in on the oil. A country in the throes of anarchy would not make a very likely trading partner.

As far as escalating the conflict by increasing the number of truths, history has shown us the potential downfalls of such a strategy. However, before the war, military planners WHO WEREN'T SOLIDLY IN THE POCKET OF THE ADMINISTRATION estimated that it would take around 300,000 soldiers to secure Iraq. Given the ongoing chaos, this seems to be a pretty likely estimate. So obviously more troops are needed, but this will only result in more deaths (both US troops and Iraqi civilians), greater expenditures of taxpayer dollars, and even more of an appearance of an occupation.

So internationalizing the conflict seems like the only way to go. The problem is that I don't think other nations are going to be anxious to give anything more than political cover in terms of help in Iraq, and even that would come at a great price. The United States would have to make a LOT of concessions behind closed doors at this point-perhaps more than we can. We have already spent countless billions of dollars buying "assistance" (in the form of a few hundred troops per country)...imagine what it would take to get something tangible in return.

So...I put forth the hypothesis that, while the third option is most desirable, the second option is likely the only possible scenario. I would HAVE to put more troops in Iraq, even though I know this would be a bad idea. Why? Because it is really the only option. I know it would most likely end up like Vietnam (or worse), but the small chance that it could work is all I would have to work on.

[ComerPerro]

1. If I were the next Democratic President

I wouldn't have time to make a decision on this. I would be too busy being impeached by a Republican congess for massive deficits beginning in early 2001, as well as for leading our troops into the next Vietnam.

[knowledgeispower]

4. Very true

I am fairly certain this is one of the reasons the Bush administration went to war with Iraq. They knew that it would turn into a quagmire and tie the hands of the next administration. We can't spend money on anything else because the deficit is reaching alarming proportions (foreign countries and the World Bank WILL stop loaning us money if they think we can't make good on it). The next Dem will get smeared over Iraq even though he or she will have had nothing to do with it. In short, if Bush loses in 2004 it is no biggie because the next guy won't be able to do a damn thing to reverse his policies.

[ComerPerro]

7. Exactly

Plus, this seems to be the way of things anymore. A Republican comes in and completely fucks up the country. He lowers taxes and spends like crazy. The rich get richer, everyone else goes nowhere or sometimes actually ends up worse off. Then a Democrat gets elected, sets taxes back to their normal levels, and has budget surpluses. He is attacked relentlessly by Republicans for problems they caused.

[knowledgeispower]

12. Even the dems don't do a whole lot

Yeah, the Republicans are a whole lot worse. But when a Dem like Clinton gets into office it is analogous to putting a band-aid on a severed artery to try and stop the bleeding. Under Clinton the disparities in wealth increased ENORMOUSLY. I don't have figures to back this up, but I seem to recall hearing that the income gap got wider under Clinton than under ANY OTHER PRESIDENT in modern times.

This is why my support for the Dems is shaky at best. Yeah, they are a much better option than the Republicans. But both of them are leading the country into a train wreck, its just a matter of how fast we will get there.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Girlfriday]

3. I think we have to internationalize

The next pres has to start from scratch and go to the UN. He will have to recind the no-bid contracts for American corporations and open the bidding to other countries. What we need in Iraq is transparency. Once this criminal outfit is voted out of office, other nations will be more inclined to deal with the U.S. I have thought all along that the reason the French, Germans and Russians reacted the way they did was because shrub used a sledgehammer when all he needed was a feather.

[knowledgeispower]

6. I just don't think we will have the money

Right now the United States is paying for every troop in Iraq (except the Brits, I think). So it seems likely we would have to keep doing that, ON TOP OF giving up large lump sums of cash as bribes. With U.S. hegemony already on the decline, I don't think that the U.S. can afford to conceed a lot in terms of interests and access.

[Girlfriday]

8. But how is the US benefitting now?

The money being spent presently is not a loan, we are flat out paying for it. Overinflated prices to boot! Let's not forget, the French and Russians have offered to train the new police force in Iraq for free! We are lining the pockets of private firms - war profiteering plain and simple.

Hans Blix cost us nothing - what has Kay cost the US so far? And now they want another $600 million? Even if the American people don't see it, the rest of the world does. It is sickening!

[knowledgeispower]

11. All very true

I'm just saying that in order to get any kind of help other than political cover the United States is going to have to line A LOT of pockets. I suppose its hard to say which option would end up costing more in the long run, but one thing is for sure: they are both great big money pits. We'll be lucky if we get out of this thing without bankrupting the country and bringing the entire global economy to its knees. And no, I am not exagerating.

[trof]

5. 1. Accept the resignations

from all holding political appointments made by the previous misadministration.
2. Get my team (including Joe Wilson, unless he's down in the VP's office) up and running.
3. Go - personally - to the UN on my hands and knees (at least figuratively) and plead for their forgiveness for the outrageous behavior by bush* et al during the past 4 years. Apologize to "old Europe". Then, option 3.

[legin]

10. One slight problem I can see

is that you are going to have to get the Arab world back onside too.

It would be interesting to speculate quite what they would want to sate their anger.

[knowledgeispower]

13. I just don't think you could get the Arab world on board

The whole thing goes so deep that no level of concessions, no amount of transparency, etc. will ease their anger. Nothing short of pulling out completely will work, and even in those circumstances there is the risk that the Arab world would then blame the U.S. (and rightfull so) for fucking up an entire country.

[legin]

15. Without Arab support

it will mean that you are still left with the problem of resistence fighters trundling into Iraq from neigbouring countries to fight what used to be the u.s., but is now what the resistence fighters would call 'western imperialist lackeys of the u.s.'.

The west has a long history of detrimental interference in the Arab world, of which this present crises is just another example, imposing yet another solution from above on the Arabs has some serious downsides.

[cally]

9. I think other nations will help

if a new admin comes in and immediately apologies and asks for help with world peace. We have to be humble, give the UN most of the control, and deal with the oil fairly. I think we can still get an international coalition in there which will help stabilize the entire region.

[knowledgeispower]

14. Might it be too late?

By January of 2005, the earliest time anybody could do anything about this, we might be so deep into an endless conflict that NO AMOUNT of internationalization will help. Other countries will see it as us trying to pass the bag to them, and will thus refuse. Yes, Russia, France, and Germany would LOVE to get in on the oil contracts, but I think they are smart enough to realize when a situation is hopeless.

[dofus]

16. What I don't understand

is why anyone thinks we should just dump this on the rest of the world. After all, they clearly didn't want to go to war. Why should they have to clean up our mess?

I'd re-instate all the taxes, make sure companies that had mail drops in the Cayman Islands or whereever still had to pay their fair share, and use THAT money to get Iraq back on its feet as quickly as possible. Hold elections and get the hell out.