Kucinich's Iraqi exit plan - why won't it work?

[laura888]

Last night in Florida, Kucinich outlined his plan for the U.S. to exit Iraq. Hand it over to the U.N. and just bring the troops home.

He said that the theory that the U.S. must stay because all hell would break loose, is the same reason why U.S. gave for staying in Vietnam so long.

Why not keep searching for Sadam, but let the UN take over from here, as long as they are willing?

I haven't heard any good arguments to counter this yet....

[ThirdWheelLegend]

1. here is a link for you

http://www.kucinich.us/statements.htm#100903

More details on his plan.

TWL

[goodhue]

63. Stop Escalation of Iraq War

11/22/03
Kucinich: Stop Escalation of Iraq War: End the Occupation

"The US forces in Iraq are escalating the war. Residential areas are now being attacked and flattened. Opposition forces in Iraq are likewise escalating their attacks. The President is talking about sending more troops to Iraq, while discussion of a draft continues to swirl. The US presence in Iraq is inciting violence around the world. This Administration is issuing new terror warnings even as its policies make Americans less safe. And yet, incredibly, Democratic candidates, including one who claims to have opposed the war, continue to support the occupation.

"This occupation must end. The United States must go to the UN with a new resolution which will demonstrate that the United States is ready to take a new direction and bring the UN in and get the US out of Iraq.

"News reports indicate US tanks and helicopters are flattening houses, which raises questions about possible violations of the Geneva Conventions. Is this administration deliberately violating the Geneva Conventions in the name of fighting terrorism? Is it now 'bombing the villages to save the villages'?

"The United States occupation of Iraq is making Iraq and the world a more violent place. There is still time to step away from this path of abject destruction. Go to the United Nations. Seek the help of the world community. End the occupation of Iraq. Bring the UN in. Get the US out. Bring our troops home."

http://www.kucinich.us/statements.htm#100903

[xJlM]

2. All that oil money...

I'm not sure what else it could be, unless we need a base to springboard our next military adventure in the Middle East from. All I hear from chickenhawks who aren't serving is that we can't just walk away from the mess we've made there. Well, guess what, in a just world we would be paying through the nose to rebuild what we have destroyed, and cleaning up the depleted uranium we left all over that country. Some military "leaders" would be heading for prison, and some for an execution chamber.

[NNN0LHI]

3. You can only hand something over to someone if the other person wants it

I have not heard the UN say that they want to have this quagmire handed over to them unless I missed something.

Don

[xJlM]

4. The UN doesn't want this mess

And I can't say as I blame them. Send your young people to die so Bush's big campaign donors can milk more money from a state they've already profited from destroying? I don't even think so. America needs to pay for this mess, and unfortunately we will for generations to come.

[Isome]

7. I agree, but...

We don't have to maintain exclusive military control as the only form of "paying" for it. We may have to keep some troops there, but we can turn leadership over to the U.N. They have specifically requested that.

[Nederland]

64. Some troops?

By "some" troops, I assume you mean "merely" around 70 or 80 thousand? That hardly sounds like the pull out that Kucinich is promising.

[Isome]

66. I put no number on it.

[Nederland]

67. True

Because putting a number on it would force you to either concede the argument or reveal yourself as being either hopelessly naive.

[Cappurr]

6. Ahhh.....practicality

I love it. And you are right on.

The reason we can't leave Iraq like Dennis (bless his sweet little heart) suggests is because we now own the problems of this entire country. We own it. It is that simple. We have to fix it and not leave the Iraqis to their own devices or we will be digging up hundreds of thousands of more mass graves. Thats what Bush I did -- told the Shites to rise up against Sadaam and then refused to help them when they were murdered in the thousands. Now his son's administration is digging up those graves to prove how barbaric Sadaam was.

We can't leave until there is enough security provided by Iraqis, international forces, and some of our own. That is the hell of it and that is what this jerk off president has done to us. I predict we will be there at least ten years and God only knows how much it will cost in dollars and lives. The favored corporations and oil interests, of course, will make billions.

[Isome]

12. It's not true.

There won't be any semblance of "security" until the U.S. is demoted from their position of occupiers.

Again, the other countries have asked for control, so the argument that no one wants it is false.

September 10, 2003
.::.The Guardian.::.

France and Germany will back the new UN resolution on Iraq sought by President George Bush only if the proposal gives the UN full political rule over the country.

...according to the Washington Post, violent resistance to US forces in Iraq was predicted by intelligence agencies...

U.N in... U.S. OUT!!

[Cappurr]

15. Read the Guardian article again....

The UN resolution had nothing to do with troops. It was a plan to give political control back to the Iraqis....a transisition plan. France and Germany would never agree to send troops. Money, maybe....but not boots on the ground. AFTER a political system has been set up, the UN would help maintain peace but there has to be peace to maintain. And right now, there isn't.

Hell, NATO hasn't even kept its pledge in Afghanistan. They were supposed to send more troops than they have -- way more.

Its simple -- Bush has involved us in two on-going wars. And we have to figure a way out of it. The UN will not help us at this point....but turning political control over to the UN would be a good start. It just won't get our troops out of the country.

[Isome]

17. Read my POST again.

I specifically said we may have to have SOME troops there... but until we're no longer seen as occupiers/conquerors, there will be NO security.

Countries have expressed a willingness to send troops, if America gives up control.

I have to add:

.::.MSNBC.::.

...at the foundation is a demand by Security Council states that the U.S. make the post-war reconstruction effort “more transparent” and allow a U.N. Security Council resolution that would internationalize the military occupation, even if it remains under U.S. command.

...several powers have rejected requests to make major troop contributions for post-war peacekeeping, including Pakistan, Turkey and India. All three, along with Russia and France, have indicated that they might revise their policies if the U.S. would formalize the United Nations’ role in the occupation.

“No one is asking the U.S. to make its troops wear blue helmets,” says a European diplomat. “But, the feeling is among many, why should we put our troops under American command in a fight we opposed in the first place?”

It just plain WRONG to say that no one wants to take over. They WILL take over if we agree to step aside, though we may have to keep some troops there to participate and we will have to shoulder the burden of most of the cost. That's the American people's fault.

[Cappurr]

22. You cite me one

country (or several) that are willing a capable of taking over the mess in Iraq today. NATO is even failing to do what it promised in the way of providing troops in Afghanistan.

[Isome]

27. There isn't ONE country that can...

But there are many countries that are willing to ban together and do what we cannot do alone or with our coalition of the willing. Supremacism and arrogance, in the guise taking responsibility, aren't going to help us out of this mess.

It sounds ridiculous to say that no other country can do it, when we've already shown that WE can't do it ourselves. We need to step aside.

[Cappurr]

39. Well....

actuallly.....North Korea can do it. China too. You wanna get them involved? :eyes:

Germany has a small army. It is a pacificst nation today. The French have many of their troops in Afghanistan and Africa. The Brits are already doing what they can. The Poles have no army to speak of, neither do the italians. South Korea is a possibility but they have so much trouble with the North they are pretty unlikely to send massive troops to the Middle East.

[Isome]

45. We're talking about members of the U.N. ...

Not the countries doing it for their own personal gain. But, you did say name ONE country who can do it, and then you turn around and name two who YOU think can.

Ultimately, it is American arrogance that got us into this mess, and it's American arrogance that is cheerleading the continued occupation because no one else is as capable as we are... we're almighty, alrighty.

Come on, think about the arguments you're making, while ignoring news that's already six months old!!

The U.N. proposed a multi-national force with a U.N. mandate. We said no. That cuts your argument off at the knees.

[Cappurr]

49. Oh come on now....

ANY countries that supplied forces to a coalition-- whether UN or US -- are doing it for personal gain. Its all about money and power.

The problem is you don't understand the limitations of the UN. It is NOT a military power. It doesn't HAVE military power. It can do peacekeeping but that is it.

And I am not saying that the US is the ONLY country that can do it.....I'm saying the US is the only country that has a DUTY to do it. We created a mess. And we must clean it up. And we won't under this administration.

[Ardee]

53. WE cannot clean it up

As long as US troops remain on Iraqi soil they will be a focal point for fundamentalist assumptions that this is a Christianity vs. Islam issue, the recruiting of new terrorists will be boosted and the acts of terrorismn will continue to escalate.

I agree that we are obligated to clean up our mess but the only way to do that is by turning full control over to the UN allowing their peacekeepers to replace our troops and lend full financial, economic and other technical assistance to the reconstruction.

[Isome]

55. I understand fine... thanks anyway though.

Of course the U.N. isn't a military power. Did I say or imply that they were? I can't be responsible for your inferences. I've repeatedly said we would have some troops over there be part of an internationalized force. I've also posted an article (more than one & more than once) showing that other countries have offered to send their troops if the U.S. would step out of the leadership role, to refute the initial assertions that no one WANTS to send troops or to take over.

There is no argument that THIS administration won't clean it up. There is no argument that we have a DUTY to do so. I've already posted that we owe and we'll have to pay with troops (not as many as we have now if things go the RIGHT way) and financial assistance.

Now, from where I sit, the problem is that you don't understand the above paragraphs.

[Tinoire]

20. Afghanistan - Another country where the US had NO business!

This phony war on terror is nothing more than a smokescreen for our push towards a renewed Anglo domination of this world.

The US has so much egg on its lying face that our most honorable option is the embarrassing "tail-between-the-legs" but we are not mensch enough to do it.

Instead we'll come up with all sorts of fabrications and feigned concern about the "poor Iraqis" and what will they do without the big White man there to help them out of the mess the big White man created.

The sun never did set on the British empire, did it?

I'll bet Nike and the Gap just can't wait to get those little Iraqi fingers on those sewing machines for the pleasure of WalMart shoppers.

[Cappurr]

24. I agree with so much of what you say Tinoire...

but the truth is that unless you want a bloodbath we have to stay. And that sucks big time. And I hate it too. And I am ashamed of my country for what we have done. But I would be more ashamed if we turned around and walked out.

[Tinoire]

40. I've swallowed my pride on this one

I understand you and remember our discussions in I/P (back when it was still possible to hold a discussion) so I know you're coming from a place of good.

Even if Gandhi were elected as US president tomorrow and our troops changed uniforms and laid down their arms, the hatred for what we have done is too strong.

Picture yourself as an Iraqi...
You've seen the graphic photos of what we've done...
We've been their enemy for 16 years and their memories are not as short as ours...

Could you forgive and forget?

Do you think we can go from 16 years of war, sanctions, starvation, another obscene war and be seen as helpers overnight? The slaughter of our soldiers will get even worse because this has built up into so much more than a war/occupation of Iraq. This is now the Anglo/Zionist Western world against Arab/Muslim world. It is World War IV and it's only going to get worse I fear.

The only way I see that we can avoid a larger conflagration is to start profusely apologizing to the Iraqi people and to the world and to write a big fat check. A HUGE check drawn from the coffers of Bechtel Group Inc., Fluor Corp., Halliburton Co. & its subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root, Louis Berger Group Inc., Parsons Corp. and Washington Group International Inc., DynCorp etc... ((On edit link: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/rebuilding_iraq/index.asp for pre and pro-war contributions))

In no way must those companies reap one red cent from this obscenity and that's exactly what any US occupation will do.

Our biggest fear is that if we don't maintain control, all that lovely oil will benefit others (the Iraqi people for example) and that other countries will get the oil contracts. Is that not how it should be after 16 years of US obscenities against the Iraqi people?

And, danger Will Robinson, at the same time, people like us better keep a very keen eye on Venezuela which is our major supplier of oil because the US is really pissed off at Chavez (this too started before Bush).

I am like you, really ashamed of my country. Where we part though is that in now way, under no administration except Kucinich's do I trust my country to do the right thing. I feel that only Kucinich is willing to not let our interests outweigh those of the people we oppress too much. He still won't make it right because our system would collapse if we stopped exploiting others overnight but he seems to be the only one willing to take the right step in the right direction.

I just don't see how we have any other decent option than to turn around and leave giving the reins to others who have proven to be more humanist than us. :shrug:

[Cappurr]

44. I understand...

and you have hit the only difference between us right on the nose. I don't trust this country to do the right thing either. Like I said...all the choices suck.

[diamondsoul]

70. Interesting statement there, Cappurr.

"I don't trust this country to do the right thing either."

It brings me to an important reason I support Kucinich SO strongly and I am convinced his exit plan would indeed work-

I haven't trusted this country to do the right thing as far back as I can remember. Surprise of the century? I DO trust Dennis John Kucinich to do the right thing, and I'm not alone in that trust. The UN has plenty of reason to share it with the numerous speeches he's made to the members about peaceful international relations. NATO has good reason to share it with his willingness to commit US troops for reasonable and rational purposes, such as self-defense or defense of another nation. Every other National Leader has good reason to share it with his statement that shock of all shocks He'd actually sit down and TALK to the leader of NK!

I haven't trusted this country since I was a child, and I think it's long past time to change that, for myself and for every other Nation on this planet. It would work because Dennis Kucinich inspires trust and support.

[Darranar]

57. I disagree...

with the basic idea that this is a world between worlds and cutltures. It seems to me that Afghanistan was conducted for political gain, to show the American population the "glory of war" and how the country is bombing all the terrorists to shreads. The problem with waging an effective unconventional war against terrorism, combined with political and economic means to make it work, is that there are no cool pictures to show the American population the glorious victories of the US armed forces and the devestating effect "smart" bombs have on various targets.

Iraq was for oil.

The people of the western world are not attacking the people of the Arab world. Rather, a number of corporate interests in the Western world are hijacking Western governments and demanding that they fight wars for them.

The interests of the PEOPLE of the Western World correspond rather closely to the interests of the PEOPLE that are being abused by the hijacked Western governments. Both want better lives; both, in many ways, are being denied them by the same groups.

On the particular issue of withdrawing from Iraq, I know I have disagreed with you in the past. My opinion has changed as the situation there gets worse. Kucinich is right, and was right all along; I was wrong.

The US should get out of there as soon as possible. The US is simply adding to the problem; it should help fund the UN effort, but it should have little control over it.

On edit: When it comes to your mistrust of the Democratic candidates, I agree with you. Kucinich and Shaprton are the only ones who are willing - and make it clear that they are willing - to slightly change this country's foreign policy for the better. As you say, I doubt it will be major, but hopefully something will be accomplished.

One last point: I don't think Israel or the right-wing Zionists are too deeply involved in this. They are mostly tools of the US corporate interests, not part of the motivation for listening to them.

[dweller]

60. After all, WE OWN IT right? We own it...

well, good let's give the 87B in REPARATIONS to IRAQ, all of the other countries that didn't want to go, told us not to go, and to the UN and let them use it to bring back some semblance of peace and order to Iraq, while they heal after the bloodbath that was brought on by the *moron (damn his black and heartless soul) and his illegitimati government.

the sure sign of insanity is to keep repeating the same actions (or talking points) that got you in the mess to begin with.
Why should 'we' be trusted to fix what 'we' have fucked up? Do you trust them to?

bring the troops home NOW!
dp

[NNN0LHI]

30. Did you see anything in the article you posted that mentions...

...replacing American soldiers with French and German soldiers? Of course you didn't. That is because France and Germany want complete control of the situation and for American soldiers not to leave Iraq, but rather to exchange their green helmet for blue ones. There are currently 150,000 "coalition troops" who are mostly American and that requires another 150,000 to allow troop rotation. Where they going to come from? Mostly from the USA. And the rest we are still going to pay for as we are doing right now. There is no easy way out of this mess. There are only two options here. Neither of which are pleaseant. But the outcome is going to be the same. There is the cut and run right now approach which would be certain to lead to a civil war and many will die. And then we have a stay there as long as we can and then cut and run, which will also lead to a civil war and many will die. The end result is certain. Only the number of names that are going to be on the Iraqi war memorial that will be built in Washington DC a decade or so from now, and how much money we waste from now until then is variable. Slogans like "UN in, US out" are catchy I admit and I like DK, but this idea is not realistic. I wish it was.

Don

[Isome]

35. They did specifically mentioned...

The soldiers NOT having to wear blue hats.

[Isome]

36. It also said this:

Last week, following Powell’s visit, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan attempted to square this circle by proposing that American forces could remain in command of a multinational post-war force in Iraq if Washington would agree to allow the Security Council to pass a resolution that gave the force a U.N. mandate. ...

That isn't demanding complete control. The argument that no one wants control and that no one is willing to send troops is patently false.

[GreenArrow]

23. "we own it"

yeah, kind of like Hitler's Germany owned Poland, Czechoslovakia and so on.

[Cappurr]

26. Don't you dare compare

anything I say to Hitler. I've been around this board too damn long. And when I say "we own it" I mean that we own the fucking mess we have created. It is a psycological term. A lot of therapists make sure their patients "own" their own actions.

[Isome]

38. The comparison is valid. No malice was intended...

I don't think. It did seem like a bit of contempt was in there though.

[Cappurr]

42. Hmph

I get touchy sometimes. Especially about this subject. War just makes be so sick and I am so angry at the choices this administration has created for us. All the choices suck.

[Isome]

43. NO argument from me about that... I'm sick of it too! n/t

[GreenArrow]

54. I wasn't comparing you, just the situation

No need for you to take it personally. Little good will come from us staying in Iraq. We have NO moral grounds to even be there. We had NO moral grounds to be there the first time around.

[Tinoire]

10. The UN was begging to take this but Bush refused

At one point they were even close to an agreement but America would have had to give up the dominating role and Bush, of course refused. I posted several articles about this... This was shortly before the UN HQs were mysteriously blown up in Iraq.

France, India, and several other countries were actively pushing for this.
The UN wants it with the US NOT calling any shots and an end to a US/UK occupation. Again, the US refuses. Kucinich knows exactly what he's talking about.

[Zomby Woof]

5. one key point

U.N troops are trained for peacekeeping and policing. U.S. troops are trained for combat, and to kill. Combat troops are the worst-equipped and trained for occupation and police work. This little tidbit is the big elephant in the room.

[Cappurr]

8. But Zomby....

we ARE in combat. The war isn't over.

[Tinoire]

11. And the war won't be over until the US is O-U-T

Occupation brings nothing but low intensity war-fare. Just ask Sharon.

On edit- from whom Bush has been taking a wee bit too much advice. Even the re-configured bull-dozers Bush bought from the Israelis are moving in now terrorizing the Iraqis.

What will it take for the rapist to do the right thing and leave the god-damned room? The rapist can NOT help his victim and no amount of hand-wringing will make the victim see him as anything other than the rapist who inflicted so much harm.

[Isome]

13. Thank you...

Until we get out and abdicate our role as conquerors with the good intentions of bringing democracy (rolling my eyes), there will continue to be guerilla warfare and a total absence of real security.

[laura888]

14. "occuption brings nothing but low intensity war-fare"

extremely well put!

[Cappurr]

19. You guys have the right instincts...

but the wrong application of solutions to this problem. I hate war. Ive seen it. And its ugly. And occupation is ugly. And what we have done in Iraq is ugly.

But we are there now. We have taken away all of the order of their society. We have taken away their government. There are so many different factions in Iraq with different agendas that if we were not there there would be a bloody civil war that would infect the entire Middle East. The UN is NOT CAPABLE of fighting a war -- only of keeping peace. Peace must come first.

[Isome]

25. You can't kill people and call it creating PEACE.

That's what we're currently doing there. We've bombed, bulldozed, barbwired and bullied. We're not going to create any peace. How many dead American soldiers, Iraqis, and "coalition" troops will have to die before we realize that?

[Cappurr]

33. Well....

now you are talking sense. And tactics. And our tactics suck. We have the wrong mix of specialties in Iraq right now. We need more intelligence, more mps, more engineers and most of all more people that understand the culture and interplay between factions in Iraq. Iraqis are the only ones that can do that last one. And the UN could help our military understand how important it is to be respectful of the culture of that country. Right now they are doing a piss poor job of it. But that is because their leaders don't give a damn about culture nicieties.

[Isome]

41. We don't have the ability to empathize...

with other cultures, except in a condescending manner that screams: we can bring you peace through war and non-violent democracy through violent regime change.

We need to stop cheerleading an occupation, while pretending that we're the only ones who can do it right.

U.N. in, U.S. OUT!

[Cappurr]

46. We are awful about other cultures

Hell, most Americans don't even want to watch foreign news (unless of course it is the war).

I saw it big time in Vietnam. Our guys treated the Vietnamese civilians pretty shabbily most of the time. They were just "gooks". But I came to know and really care about some of those civilians and I still wonder today what happened to them when we left. They were helping us, you see and the North Vietnames weren't so kindly disposed to "traitors".

I'm not cheerleading anything except getting out with as little loss of life as possible. And just leaving will NOT accomplish that.

[Isome]

48. I don't believe we're just "leaving"...

We're relinquishing control. I don't believe we could just "leave". There'd have to be transition. I'm certain the loss of life could be curtailed when we do just that. I'm equally as certain the loss of life will increase the longer we play the role of occupier.

[Cappurr]

50. Insome...

WHO do we reliquish control to? THAT is the conundrum. (Besides the obvious fact that this administration is unwilling to reliquish control until it has all the control over the oil and the ME itself that it wants).

If we leave without leaving a strong Government and Iraqi security in place, there will be a bloodbath. It is just that simple. And just that awful.

[Isome]

56. The U.N.... that's who.

You've already admitted we don't understand the culture or the people, and yet you expect we'll be able to accurately determine WHEN they have a STRONG goverment? Huh'?

Again, I must say the ideas you're expressing are premised on the U.S. knowing what's best for Iraqis, while the Iraqis are seen as unable to determine their own government.

[Tinoire]

29. That's the whole point Cappurr! Not having a war...

We all know that the UN is NOT CAPABLE of fighting a war. No one says they are. The US MUST pull out at which point peace will come with the UN gracefully moving in so that there's no vaccuum. Only the UN is capable of bringing peace.

Our Democratic leaderships is just as bad as the Republicans when it comes to economically exploiting the 3rd world.

The entire intent of those politicians saying that we must remain there to rebuild their government and infrastructure is to ensure that our coporations have their sweatshops in place before a US/corporate friendly regime is installed.

[Cappurr]

37. I only wish it were so....

but the UN will never go into Iraq without a commitment from our troops to stay there until a solid government has been installed. And peace is established.

We have lit a tinderbox. We all knew it before the war even started. We talked here about it for months. But then, we didn't know just how damn much we were being lied to by the administration re: WMD. At least I didn't. I figured they were exaggerating but not out and out making shit up.

None of us here at DU are surprised by what is happening. It was all sickeningly forseeable. But we who opposed the war were the ones who were "unpatriotic". :puke:

[Isome]

32. Part of the problem...

with those different factions in Iraq vying for control is that it's a "country" that was created by false lines of demarcation that BRITAIN drew. That should tell us Westerners that we need to quit mucking around in other people's affairs when we don't understand (or even try to) the culture or the people. The factions were there before the we invaded and destroyed their infrastructure. We can't handpick one over the other, unless we're willing to be content with the knowledge that we will once again have a puppet regime in another country.

An international force, under U.N. control, is the only way to go.

[Zomby Woof]

69. I know...

But I was speaking of high-intensity combat, as it was from Day 1 until May. What we have had since is guerilla-style combat, with the occasional flare-up from U.S troops as a "show of strength", then random retaliatory strikes against the troops. And so on, and so on... All in all, having combat troops intensifies the anti-U.S. hostility and will create more terrorists, and acts of terrorism, down the road.

All in all, we share the same revulsion, and I though I am not sure how feasible it is to get UN peacekeepers, I do know we cannot let the status quo continue indefinitely, and we HAVE to get our troops out, and home.

I also fear it will get worse before it gets better, and Bush must not be allowed to get away with a free pass any longer. But yet he still does!

[laura888]

9. ah - the "elephant in the room"!

but that's the most important point, I do think!

[Zomby Woof]

71. well, we know that

But the mass of the public would just as soon bury its head in the Iraqi sand. Oh! Wait! Who is going to marry The Bachelor this week? Britney did WHAT? Oh, that crazy gal! Paris Hilton!

We live in a climate in which ANY honest criticism of the troops' presence brings instant hositility and censorhip from others, in public, in the media, everywhere. People have been conditioned not to critically separate how we can support the troops AND oppose the war, and want them home. They are trained to think support for the war AND the troops go hand in hand. How to fight that mindset?

[Tinoire]

16. There are no good arguments. Scratch each one & you'll find greed & pride

G_j (1000+ posts) Sun Dec-07-03 04:31 AM
Original message
"How Can We Leave Iraq?"


http://www.traveling-soldier.org/11.03.leave.php

12/05/03: (Traveling Soldier) Have you noticed how the politicians who ask that question aren't in Iraq? They're making speeches and holding press conferences in Washington about "How can we leave Iraq?"

An old story from Vietnam Days comes to mind.

Somebody asked a soldier who was against the war, "How can we leave Vietnam?"
The answer: "Ship or plane, either is good."

The liars in Washington in those days were selling a different line of bullshit. If "we" leave Vietnam, the Communists will take over Vietnam, then Thailand, then Malaysia, then Burma, then India, then the Philippines and before you know it they're landing in California. "It's better we fight communism in the streets of Saigon than in the streets of New York," they said.
Vietnam "fell" and none of that happened.

Today Vietnam is full of sweatshops where people get paid shit making sneakers for U.S. corporations and all kinds of other stuff, but noticeably few Communists have invaded California, and no Vietnamese appear to be interested in getting even for their millions of dead by traveling over here and fighting in the streets.

So what would happen if the U.S. military left Iraq and all the troops came home now?
...more...
(provocative questions)

---


bvar22 (1000+ posts) Sun Dec-07-03 08:56 AM
Response to Original message

11. Exit Plan (posted to another thread in GD)


The bush* controlled media and CorporoDems have portrayed this issue as having only two choices:

1) Cut and Run
or
2) Stay the Course

There are MANY, MANY alternatives that are NOT being discussed.

1) REALLY turn the occupation over to the UN. Not simply demand that the UN supply the US with foreign troops to be placed under US command so that they can be used for cannon fodder.

2) Remove ALL bush* appointed theater commanders to be replaced with NATO commanders.

3) Disband the Council of Quislings (IGC), replace them with a genuine interim council based on proportional representation with delegates from UN Supervised local elections. This council will have ONE PURPOSE: Produce a Transitional Constitution that will guarantee a governing body based on proportional representation and 3 branches of a National Government. Provide for Senate and House representation from at least three states.

4) Expell ALL US CORPORATIONS, and turn the rebuilding over to Iraq. Continue to provide adequate and generous rebuilding funds on a diminishing schedule.

5) If the Iraqis WANT an Islamic Theocracy, then SO BE IT!! It is THEIR country!

The above measures would go a LONG way to making Iraq a more secure country. This is Not CUT AND RUN, neither is it Staying the Course.

There are MANY other alternatives that should be MAJOR TOPICS in our National Debates!!!

IMHO: Civil War in Iraq is inevitable. It will be a BLOODY DISASTER if the US gets Caught in the Middle of the coming Civil War! Simply Staying the Course until SUCCESS (whatever that is) will produce this disaster!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=842935

[Cappurr]

21. Vietnam was different....

That was a civil war. There were two governments in place. The North wanted there to be one government. So when we left Vietnam, there was one government....a strong one as it turns out.

In Iraq there IS no government. There is no infastructure. It would be pure chaos to leave them to their own devices.

[Darranar]

58. But the US wouldn't be!

Everything the US is providing could be provided by the UN. There are two main problems with the US staying in Iraq:

1. The US is too highly influenced by corporate interests.

2. The US is generally hated by the Iraqis, pretty much rightfully.

[onebigbadwulf]

18. What happens if America gets Saddam...

Hey...we're going to ... pretend you did stuff... okay. (shoots him)

[Egnever]

28. simple reason

Its a false choice. Even if the UN was willing to take on responsibility for Iraq which it might. The other countries would not send troops or would send very few troops. The majority would still be US troops.

I agree with Denis in that the UN needs to take over rebuilding the government of Iraq but denis is dreaming if he thinks they will put other countries soldiers in danger instead of ours when and if they took over.

We might ber able to get the UN in ( and I think we should) but that wont make the US come OUT as Denis suggests. It would however give us a decent shot of getting Iraq back up on its feet sooner so that we could get out sooner.

[sandnsea]

31. Yes, the UN needs US troops

And strong US support in order for them to hold the line on extremists from taking over the country. If the UN could have done this without pressure from the US and Britain, they would have.

[IndianaGreen]

34. Kucinich's plan for Iraq will work and it will save lives

Any other plan that keeps the troops in Iraq waiting for some elusive victory or an Iraqi version of Vietnam's "Peace with Honor" and "Vietnamization" is doomed to failure. The only thing it will accomplish is in getting more people killed.

Is that what we want, get more people killed?

I'll say let's bury our false pride in the sands of Iraq and bring the troops home NOW!

Nothing we do will change the ultimate outcome: an Islamic government in Iraq. Should have thought of that when we were attending the "Support the Troops" rallies!

[Mattforclark]

47. It is not a black and white issue

I think liberals are capable of realizing this.

As Egnever says, "We might ber able to get the UN in ( and I think we should) but that wont make the US come OUT as Denis suggests. It would however give us a decent shot of getting Iraq back up on its feet sooner so that we could get out sooner."

Iraq is different from Vietnam because Vietnam was a generally homogeneous political and ethnic entity. Iraq is not. The argument for not pulling out of Vietnam, as I understand it, was that it would cause a domino affect in other countries, and things would go to hell there, not in Vietnam. Whereas in Iraq, things would go to hell in Iraq, but not necessarily in neighboring countries, though that would also be possible.

If we pull US troops out and give total control to the UN, a predictable consequence would be civil war. People would die, but they would be Iraqi, not American. There is no telling what, if anything, would emerge from that civil war.
N
If we do not pull out, people will die. Many of these people will be Americans. On the other hand, we can try to avert a bloody civil war.

And then there are two kinds of not pulling out, though even that is an oversimplification. There is the Bush way and the sane way. The Bush way is to basically do what we have been doing wrong. The sane way is to get organizations like the UN that have international legitimacy working on the international level, and get more countries involved. Specifically, we also want to do as much as possible to get Iraqis involved, running their country in as democratic a manner as possible. We should be working towards the point where WE take orders from a functional Iraqi government, not US giving orders to a disfunctional Iraqi governing council.

It is not pretty, and I don't claim that it is, but I think it is less not pretty than the alternative of pulling out.

Note: the 'Bush way' of not leaving may well be even less pretty than cutting and running altogether. About that I don't really have an opinion, because both options are extraordinarily horrendous. I am comparing the 'sane way' of not pulling out, IE the kind advanced by the Democratic candidates, not the Bush way.

[Cappurr]

51. Wow

You just said in one post what I've been trying to say in ten.

[LeahMira]

52. Kucinich has learned from history.

He said that the theory that the U.S. must stay because all hell would break loose, is the same reason why U.S. gave for staying in Vietnam so long.

Kucinich is stone cold right on target.

All hell seems to have already broken loose in Iraq. Saddam, for all his evils, did keep some sort of lid on it. The U.S. is not going to be able to replace the vacuum it created because the Iraqi people are united about nothing else but that they want the U.S. out of there. The question becomes what sort of guidance will they accept in order to create a situation that is the least problemmatic for all the various tribes and factions.

Of course the only hell that Bush imagines could break loose would be the hell of American corporations not being permitted to rape the land and people at will. I'm sure he thinks that would be hell on earth, just as, at one time, another administration imagined that communist control of Vietnam would be hell for the so-called balance of power. The only balance America could accept then or now would be if America's weight crushed down everyone else. So much for democracy.

[Darranar]

59. It will...

There are good arguments both for and against, but as the situation worsen's I'm becoming more and more convinced that he is right.

[dweller]

61. He is right

and it is up to us to make sure he is given the chance to do it.

dp

[Nederland]

62. Here's Why

The US has 135K troops in Iraq right now, and most sensible people say that's not enough. You are never, repeat, never, going to find any collection of countries to replace even half of those troops, let alone all of then as Kucinich claims you can. If Kucinich followed his plan you would end up ceding complete control of the operation to the UN while still having to keep at least 70K or 80k troops over there. I doubt very much if the American people would stand for such an arrangement.

[funkyflathead]

65. Isn't the UN committed elsehwere

like East Timor, Congo, and Kosovo?

I mean what countries have enough troops-besides Britian who is ALREADY THERE- to contribute?

Do we really think the attackers won't kill soliders in blue berets??

[Isome]

72. you would end up ceding complete control of the operation ...

That's the whole idea... to GIVE UP CONTROL.

[bobthedrummer]

68. Kick.

:dem: