Can A Kucinich Person Explain His Iraq Plan?

[DrFunkenstein]

I find it a little hard to believe that Dennis would just cut and run in Iraq, leaving the country to become overrun by fundamentalist elements supported by Iran (which already towers over the Middle East).

I'm sure that he has a larger plan than just "Let's get the hell out of there," but it doesn't come across in the debates or major media. I could probably navigate through his website for the anwser, but I don't think I'm alone in wondering about this. I think the Kucinich people should use the opportunity to explain his position a little better.

Beyond Iraq, what is larger goals (and plans to arrive there) for the Middle East at large?

[Frodo]

1. I believe it's "get the US out and the UN in"

It's not a very refined policy. But it isn't the same a "cut and run".

At this point none of our candidates can afford to get too detailed. The situation is too much in flux and there is little to be gained. Best thing to do is just snipe at whatever Bush does wrong - Then some up with a plan of what you "would ahve done" close to the election when you find out what didn't work.

Dennis at least has a little courage on the issue.

[Rashind]

2. I think what he wants...

Is to get the US to play a larger role in the UN(as in committing US troops to UN command), and get us to a state where any US troops in Iraq are under UN command.

He seems to think that with the UN running the show in Iraq, a lot of the resistance will stop. Maybe he's right, but it seems a bit simplistic to me. Still the best Iraq plan I've heard.

[cyclezealot]

3. it is not cut and run

I find his plans wise...The hatred of the US is growing daily.. The only way we will get international support is if we internationalize this ASAP. The policy speaks for itself..US out and UN in.
No it is not super defined,however; I recall on his Congressional web site it is outlined as proposed..
When we show every intent of turning control of the situation to the only body that will legitimize this illegal occupation- the UN, then we will get foreign troops. Those will not be so hated by the Iraqi people... Up until then, basically we are on our own..For other's troops to join in now, any given country would have to be nuts... Of course, US forces would be pulled out gradually as other's troops we called in..

[Mairead]

4. His policy is very simple

1. The US surrenders control of the oil revenues to the UN. The UN handles the collection and distribution of all oil revenues for the Iraqi people, with no privatization.

2. The US surrenders control of all contracts. The UN handles the awarding of all contracts - no more Halliburton sweetheart deals. No more war profiteering by Republican contributors and Bush administration cronies.

3. The US surrenders control of re-establishing indigenous government. The UN creates the conditions for Iraqi self governance.


His assumption is that with those 3 things in place, we can start pulling our forces out by the hols. Possibly even have them all home by the hols, if everyone exdigitates.

[goodhue]

5. Please read the plan!

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

10/09/2003
UN in, US out
Kucinich's Plan to Bring Our Troops Home

The war in Iraq is over and the occupation of Iraq has turned into a quagmire. The US troops have become the targets of criminals and terrorists who are flowing into Iraq for the chance to shoot Americans. The cost of the occupation keeps rising: The President has already asked for more than $150 billion to pay for it. And there is no end in sight. The UN is now in an impossible situation, where most of the members view the war and occupation of Iraq to be a US folly. Under these circumstances, the UN can’t help. The US is stuck, mostly alone, with a costly, unpopular and unending occupation of Iraq. If we stay the course, it will do damage to American security. Iraq was not and is not a threat to the US, yet the demands of an occupation will overstretch our armed forces. And the extended deployment of reserve forces make us vulnerable at home because the reserve call ups include large numbers of firemen, policemen and other first responders who are needed for the homeland defense mission.

People are asking, is there a way out? I believe there is. I am writing to share with you a plan that will get the UN in Iraq and the US out. This plan could bring the troops home by New Year’s day, it will cost much less than the President’s, and it will increase American security.

* The President must go to the UN and announce the US intention to hand over all administrative and security responsibilities to the UN. The UN would help Iraqis move quickly toward self-determination.

* The UN, not the US, will administer Iraq’s oil revenues. It will be necessary to renounce clearly and unequivocally any interest in controlling Iraq’s oil resources.

* The UN will administer contracts to repair Iraq. War profiteering will no longer be practiced by the White House. It will be necessary to suspend all reconstruction contracts and close the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority, because of the suspicion caused by the sweetheart deals that the Administration has given to large American corporations. In its place, the UN would help Iraqis administer funds to employ Iraqis to repair the damage from the invasion.

Bring US troops home as UN peacekeeping troops rotate into Iraq: The goal is to bring all US troops home by the new year, but in any case, to bring them home as quickly and as safely as possible with a planned and orderly withdrawal.

As soon as practicable after this address, the UN Security Council would ratify a new resolution on Iraq that would deploy a multinational force under UN mandate to keep the peace in Iraq while the interim Iraqi government receives UN support and a new Iraqi government is elected. It is my hope that within one month, the first UN troops and support personnel will arrive in Iraq, and the first US troops will be sent home. UN peacekeeper troops and Iraqis who are commissioned as police and military will replace the US (at a rate of two UN peacekeepers for every three US troops). In place of the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority, the UN will open an office to provide administrative support to the Iraqi Governing Council, which will direct the repair to infrastructure damaged by US invasion in the immediate term. In two months, the UN will begin to conduct a census of the Iraqi population to lay groundwork for national elections. At the same time, new temporary rules for the election will be promulgated, guaranteeing universal suffrage on a one-person –one vote basis. During the transition period, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the American and UN force commanders for a turnover period will settle the question of who commands the troops. The MOU will specify who is to be in charge in case an incident happens during that period. These might be local agreements such as have been used before or they might be for the entire area of operations. By the end of month three, all US troops will have returned home.

In month four, a major milestone will be reached when Iraqi sovereignty is established for the first time. A nationwide election will take place to elect representatives to a Constitutional Convention. The Constitutional Convention will have two duties: 1) elect a temporary Prime Minister who appoints a cabinet to take over responsibility from the Iraqi Governing council, and 2) draft a national constitution. Accountability of this Prime Minister is achieved by virtue of the fact that he can be recalled by a majority of the Convention.

In one year, there will be nationwide elections pursuant to the new Constitution, which will install an elected government in Iraq.

The US owes a moral debt to the people of Iraq for the damage caused by the US invasion. The US will also owe a contribution to the UN to help Iraq make the transition to self-government. American taxpayers deserve that their contributions be handled in an accountable, transparent manner. However, Americans are not required to build a state-of-the-art infrastructure as the Administration is planning. The Administration is ordering for top shelf technology from US corporations for Iraq and paid for by US taxpayers. Sweetheart deals have been awarded with billions of dollars to top corporations and political contributors. That is precisely what corrupts the Administration’s reconstruction efforts today. Instead, Iraqis should be employed to repair Iraq, and US taxpayers should pay only for the damage caused by the US invasion, including compensation for its victims. US taxpayers should not be asked, however, to furnish for Iraq what we do not have here.

The war and occupation in Iraq have been costly in other ways too. One price the Administration has forced the US to pay is America’s moral authority in the world. The Administration launched an unprovoked attack on Iraq, and the premises of the war are proving to be false. This has cost our credibility and done serious harm to America’s standing in the world. After the attacks of 9-11, the world felt sympathy for us. But this war and the occupation have squandered that sympathy, replacing it with dangerous anti-American sentiment in most of the world’s countries. And, perhaps most costly of all, the US occupying force serves as a recruiting cause for terrorists and people who wish us ill.

All we can do now is to make a dramatic reversal of course: we must acknowledge that the continued US military presence in Iraq is counterproductive and destabilizing. We have a choice in front of us: either we change course, withdraw our troops and request that the UN move in, or we sink deeper into this occupation, with more US causalities, ever higher financial costs, and diminished security for Americans.

We need a real change. My plan will bring the troops home by the new year, transfer authority to the UN with provisions made toward a rapid transition to Iraqi sovereignty, and it will save billions over the Administration’s occupation. It will enable the US to think creatively about how the US will deal with threats that come not from established countries with conventional armies (our armed forces are more than adequate to that task), but rather threats that come from networks of terrorist and criminals, who use unconventional means to injure Americans. We must also apprehend the criminals who masterminded the 9-11 attacks on this country, a goal that is hindered by the occupation of Iraq. Lastly, it will also enable the US to redirect scarce resources to rebuild America.

Sincerely,
Dennis J. Kucinich
Member of Congress

[DrFunkenstein]

6. I Agree With Kucinich With One (Major?) Caveat

What countries are these UN troops going to come from? Only England, France, Germany, and Russia have the standing armies capable of doing this - and most are extremely hesitant to put any sizable amount of troops into a powderkeg, even under a UN umbrella.

I honestly cannot see the UN being able to provide anywhere near the manpower needed to provide stability to Iraq so that it doesn't become a new Taliban in the next 5 years.

As for the "Vietnamization" of Iraqi police forces, I am not sure if they are firmly committed to stopping the "Talibanization" of the government. Is it our place to tell them not to become fundamentalist extremists while they sit on top of one of the most powerful regions in the Middle East? Is it our place to tell them not to merge with Iran?

Please don't mistake my honest questions for hostility. I don't have the answers, but I will tell you that I want to be sure we don't f- this up.

As far as nationalizing the oil, I totally agree so long as there are anti-corruption measures and transparency. I would hate for Iraq to become another Saudi Arabia (or Iran).

[veganwitch]

7. i think that the UN doesnt want to get involved...

at least at this time is because of shrubco's handling of the situation. assmonkey wants friends to play with but only if they play by his rules, that he can change at whim.

however, a bit more humility about the iraq situation, especially by someone who will say, "look I didnt want to go there in the first place but i need to clean this up, please help." would probably get a better reaction.

[dfgrbac]

8. The USA would not be excluded.

We are still a supporting member of the UN, although we have been giving them a difficult time in recent years. Dennis Kucinich's plan (I believe) is to strengthen our support for the UN by (1) giving them control of the Iraqi nation building process, and (2) helping them in whatever way they ask - including troops. This way, the USA will be relieved of overall responsibility; it will be all under UN control. This will be much more palitable to Iraqis and the rest of the Middle Eastern nations. Since other nations would be contributing considerable numbers of troops, many (maybe most) of the Americans could come home.

The countries you mention have indicated they are not willing to send troops with the USA in charge, but with the UN in charge, all that changes. With UN control the "powderkeg" would become much less intense!

[Mikhale]

9. It's too late

to worry about f-ing this up (as you might say). Staying will make it worse for everybody. Think about it this way: when 24 million Iraqis say "Like it or not, you're leaving --now!", could the US Army even fight its way out? Would it be easier in 12 months?
There's no WMD, Sadaam's gone, the majority Shi'ite Arabs of Iraq don't want to be Persian vassals and Iran has plenty of problems of its own, anyway. The Iraqis, if they choose --and it's their choice-- to remain one state (see Kurdish nationalism) are the only people capable of building a consensus.
And, respectfully, I think there's an element of ethnocentrism in your analysis of the weighted capabilities of non-western militaries. Let the Iraqis ask around. They are a generally well-educated and compassionate people. They have a secular tradition. Moreover, occupation/reconstruction duties don't warrant the full-time attention of the best military on Earth.
Finally, since you remember the Taliban, the US is still there and American best intentions aren't working out. I think it's time to take a hint: empire isn't something Americans do well. If it were, the *Shah of Iran's Army* would have taken care of Sadaam in the 80s, and few would know how to spell ayatollah.
I respect your honest question. It's just not the right question, which has always been one of the "exit strategy": how do we get out? The answer has become "Alive."

[sandnsea]

16. Would better policy make a difference?

You mention Afghanistan and the Taliban. That was also horrible U.S. policy. They should have expanded UN peacekeeping from the start and focused more on nation building. The UN did just pass a resolution authorizing more peacekeepers there, so maybe that will help. What alternative would you recommend in dealing with the Taliban and al qaeda in Afghanistan? We were attacked, those two entities were working together, attacking Afghanistan was fully justified as self-defense. But we can't just attack, roust out a few al qaeda and leave. So what do we do?

And the Shah was overthrown before the Iran/Iraq war. We were on the side of Saddam. I'm not sure what you're referring to there.

[Mairead]

12. Actually, Jordan, Syria, the Emirates, Pakistan, and Brunei

could all contribute forces as well. And they would need many fewer, too, because they would be co-religionists and not the invaders who butchered the Iraqi people. What Iraq really needs right now are cops plus enough military force to discourage any warlord-wannabees.

[sandnsea]

10. Kucinich supporters...

Is Iraq democracy important? Putting aside the motives and illegal methods of this war for a moment, at this point is Iraq democracy necessary for stability in the ME? Why or why not?

[goodhue]

11. yes, very important

Which is why the Kucinich plan calls for Iraqi sovereignty in four months, followed by a constitutional covention that will elect a temporary prime minister and draft a national constitution. Nationwide elections will then be held within one year! Now that's democracy.

Again, please read the plan! And I challenge you to find similarly detailed plans for DEMOCRACY from the other candidates.

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

* * *
In month four, a major milestone will be reached when Iraqi sovereignty is established for the first time. A nationwide election will take place to elect representatives to a Constitutional Convention. The Constitutional Convention will have two duties: 1) elect a temporary Prime Minister who appoints a cabinet to take over responsibility from the Iraqi Governing council, and 2) draft a national constitution. Accountability of this Prime Minister is achieved by virtue of the fact that he can be recalled by a majority of the Convention.

In one year, there will be nationwide elections pursuant to the new Constitution, which will install an elected government in Iraq.
* * *

[sandnsea]

14. Just checking

I wasn't sure whether a democratic Iraq was seen as essential now that we've made this mess over there. Kucinich's plan is excellent, I'm just not sure that it's reasonable to conclude that there are enough UN troops to handle Iraq without US troops.

Kerry's plan is good too and recognizes almost everything Kucinich's does. There are a couple of differences. One being U.S. troops will not be under UN control. That's just some weird U.S. sovereignity thing that I don't fully understand, but I know it's important to mainstream America. The second is that he believes Iraqi's can begin to govern with UN assistance even before a Constitution is drawn up or elections have happened.

"Kerry’s plan calls for the UN to transfer control over governance to Iraqis as soon as reasonably feasible. In order to accomplish this, the UN would preside over the phased-in transfer of control over governmental functions to a representative body of Iraqis in accordance with an announced timeframe of benchmarks pegged to the Iraqis’ ability to assume greater governing responsibility. In this way, power could be transferred in phases to the Iraqis without the need to wait for completion of a constitution and general elections. The announced benchmarks would provide the Iraqis a clearer picture of their future by giving them an understanding of the steps they would need to take to assume control."
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq_plan.html

He basically wants everything except the actual military operation turned over to the UN.

"The US should not act as if Iraq is an American prize, but treat it as a nation that belongs to the community of nations. Nor is it the booty of war – with contracts and concessions to be handed out by the Administration to favored companies that are less interested in winning the peace than in winning a piece of the pie."
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0930a.html

Here's several statements, speeches, etc.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq.html

[JohnKleeb]

18. Glad we are respecting each other here guys

Kerry's plan seems nice too.

[sandnsea]

23. I love DK

You know that. I just think he's a bit idealistic is all. I am totally impressed with him standing with the union workers in CA, by the way. I've wished I could boycott my own Safeway and Fred Meyer (Kroger), but I have nowhere else to buy food!!!

[LWolf]

25. I'm getting a change in diet!

The closest non-Von's, Albertson's, or Ralphs is the local Vallarta Market. So I headed that way, and found about 10 % of the stuff on my list. I substituted all of the things they didn't have with new stuff I've never tried before. So far, so good.

[sandnsea]

26. Good for you

Supporting the union AND adding some spice to your life! The nearest stores to me would be over 60 miles. There's just nothing reasonable I can do in this situation. They were both going to strike last Christmas and I had decided I should donate every time I go to the store since I knew I would have to buy food. They settled though, so I avoided that little conundrum.

[Mairead]

13. Important, yes. Necessary for stability, no.

Democracy is always important, no matter where. But if some thug wanted to start shooting anyone who looked crosseyed, I'm sure that would 'stabilise' things to a sufficient degree for the oil to be stolen.

[sandnsea]

15. A dictatorship is stable

I don't think Bush is actually aiming for a true democracy. I was just wondering if Kucinich thought that U.S. involvement in Iraq was important in order to do our best to ensure we didn't end up with another Saudi Arabia. When I say U.S., I mean what you and I think of as U.S., not George Bush.

[Mairead]

17. What would be 'another Saudi Arabia'?

[sandnsea]

22. I'm sure you know

A phony propped up government that's in bed with the Bushies, creating poverty and anger in its population which leads to terrorist attacks on the U.S. Or we could have Iran or Afghanistan, with religious leaders in charge creating poverty and anger in its population which leads to terrorist attacks on the U.S.

With Bush, we have danger of the first. With only the UN, we have danger of the second. Does Dennis see this clearly? I'm not entirely sure.

There is no doubt in my mind that Kerry sees it and has a comprehensive plan to lead Iraq to true independence as well as create the economic and social conditions in the rest of the ME that will move them towards democracy as well.

[Mairead]

24. Oh, okay...I just wasn't sure what you meant

I thought you might mean Wahhabi fundyism, which I'd think is rather unlikely in Iraq but who knows.

Yes, I think it'd be good not to create another ugly client dictatorship too.

[genius]

19. Easy. Give the authority over contracts to the U.N and the Iraqi people

and the U.N. will gladly send in peacekeepers to replace our mercenaries. There's no reason for them to send in troops to support Halliburton. By stoping the profiteering and getting the U. N. peacekeeping forces to replace our guys on the ground, we will save a great many American lives.

[JohnKleeb]

20. Guys I would like to point out with a smile

about the civility going on here :D. Thanks Kerry and Kucinich supporters a lot, maybe you guys did look at my thread with all the curses and shit. I am glad to see that you guys like our guy's plan and to be honest I think Kerry has a pretty cool one too. IWR bothers me but I do like Kerry, I respect him and agree with him on most.

[LWolf]

21. I too appreciate it.

Thanks, Doc!