What is the democratic party's alternative to Bushes Iraq policy?

[niceypoo]

Is there one? I was asked this by a repuke and I can't rightly answer. Seems all democrats want to "send MORE troops". Its obvious the war is lost. ALlowing the country to degenerate into chaos immediately after invading guaranteed it. How can I answer this guy?

[YOY]

1. I'd like to know as well

My solution would involve much crow eating and beseaching other nations for assistance...

but that's just me.

[blm]

4. Basically, that's all that CAN be done now that Bush has EFFED it up so

much.

The US needs to go in with some targeted effort to stop the chaos long enough to bring in other countries that WOULD help if the US if their leader would give them a reason to trust him.

Here's what Kerry said last June:

    The Speech the President Should Give
    By John F. Kerry
    The New York Times

    Tuesday 28 June 2005



    Boston - Tonight President Bush will discuss the situation in Iraq. It's long past time to get it right in Iraq. The Bush administration is courting disaster with its current course - a course with no realistic strategy for reducing the risks to our soldiers and increasing the odds for success.



    The reality is that the Bush administration's choices have made Iraq into what it wasn't before the war - a breeding ground for jihadists. Today there are 16,000 to 20,000 jihadists and the number is growing. The administration has put itself - and, tragically, our troops, who pay the price every day - in a box of its own making. Getting out of this box won't be easy, but we owe it to our soldiers to make our best effort.



    Our mission in Iraq is harder because the administration ignored the advice of others, went in largely alone, underestimated the likelihood and power of the insurgency, sent in too few troops to secure the country, destroyed the Iraqi army through de-Baathification, failed to secure ammunition dumps, refused to recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces and did no postwar planning. A little humility would go a long way - coupled with a strategy to succeed.



    So what should the president say tonight? The first thing he should do is tell the truth to the American people. Happy talk about the insurgency being in "the last throes" leads to frustrated expectations at home. It also encourages reluctant, sidelined nations that know better to turn their backs on their common interest in keeping Iraq from becoming a failed state.



    The president must also announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq. Erasing suspicions that the occupation is indefinite is critical to eroding support for the insurgency.



    He should also say that the United States will insist that the Iraqis establish a truly inclusive political process and meet the deadlines for finishing the Constitution and holding elections in December. We're doing our part: our huge military presence stands between the Iraqi people and chaos, and our special forces protect Iraqi leaders. The Iraqis must now do theirs.



    He also needs to put the training of Iraqi troops on a true six-month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget needed to deploy them. The administration and the Iraqi government must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more.



    The administration must immediately draw up a detailed plan with clear milestones and deadlines for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The plan should be shared with Congress. The guideposts should take into account political and security needs and objectives and be linked to specific tasks and accomplishments. If Iraqis adopt a constitution and hold elections as planned, support for the insurgency should fall and Iraqi security forces should be able to take on more responsibility. It will also set the stage for American forces to begin to come home.



    Iraq, of course, badly needs a unified national army, but until it has one - something that our generals now say could take two more years - it should make use of its tribal, religious and ethnic militias like the Kurdish pesh merga and the Shiite Badr Brigade to provide protection and help with reconstruction. Instead of single-mindedly focusing on training a national army, the administration should prod the Iraqi government to fill the current security gap by integrating these militias into a National Guard-type force that can provide security in their own areas.



    The administration must work with the Iraqi government to establish a multinational force to help protect its borders. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India.



    The deployment of capable security forces is critical, but it alone will not end the insurgency, as the administration would have us believe. Hamstrung by its earlier lack of planning and overly optimistic predictions for rebuilding Iraq, the administration has failed to devote equal attention to working with the Iraqi government on the economic and political fronts. Consequently, reconstruction is lagging even in the relatively secure Shiite south and Kurdish north. If Iraqis, particularly Sunnis who fear being disenfranchised, see electricity flowing, jobs being created, roads and sewers being rebuilt and a democratic government being formed, the allure of the insurgency will decrease.



    Iraq's Sunni neighbors, who complain they are left out, could do more to help. Even short-term improvements, like providing electricity and supplying diesel fuel - an offer that the Saudis have made but have yet to fulfill - will go a long way. But we need to give these nations a strategic plan for regional security, acknowledging their fears of an Iran-dominated crescent and their concerns about our fitful mediation between Israel and the Palestinians in return for their help in rebuilding Iraq, protecting its borders, and bringing its Sunnis into the political process.



    The next months are critical to Iraq's future and our security. If Mr. Bush fails to take these steps, we will stumble along, our troops at greater risk, casualties rising, costs rising, the patience of the American people wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face. Our troops deserve better: they deserve leadership equal to their sacrifice.



    --------

    John F. Kerry is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts.




  -------

[YOY]

5. Yes, but we (both sides) never appologize without much criticism

It is seldom done and when brought out it enflames many feeling sof how 'we can do no wrong.'

Nationalistically speaking it is a huge shot the the collective ego...just ask the Germans, Russians, Japanese, etc...

[CWebster]

11. Yesiree, pour more oil on the fire

Lets just bomb them 'til every last one is dead--and then, guess what? No problem.

[blm]

20. Other world leaders talked to Kerry last January and told him they offered

help. They told him what they WOULD do.

Now, you either go with what the world is WILLING to do to help end this, or you don't.

Choose.

[CWebster]

23. It is not for the West to decide

If Iraq wants help, they decide.

[mattclearing]

2. It is "What he said, only better 'n' stuff." n/t

[wryter2000]

3. That's a very hard question

Unfortunately, there is no good solution now that Bush has effed the country. Try pointing that out.

I personally will go off on the next person who says to me, "Okay, we shouldn't have invaded, but now that we have, how do we fix it?" I feel like screaming, "Your guy did this. I told you not to, but did you listen? Don't ask me for answers!"

After I'd told people that, I'd add. 1) Democrats don't take their direction from memos from on high. Different people have different opinions. 2) Democrats favor international solutions, as opposed to going it alone and to hell with the rest of the world.

[Clark2008]

6. If they haven't adopted this already, this is what it SHOULD be:

But fighting terrorism at home isn't just a matter of "killing terrorists." Terrorists aren't born that way. They are created by their interaction with their surroundings. To win this war, we must defeat the ideology of terrorism, depriving angry young people of their ability to justify their hateful actions in the name of Allah.

This will require not only strong Islamic condemnation of terrorists and their acts, but also a winning dialogue within Islam to defeat Koranic interpretations seeking to justify the use of force against innocent people. We need to encourage "moderates" in Islam to debate, to proselytize and to win over potential terrorists. They are the only ones who can do it.

In the meantime, attention and resources must protect not just the airlines but also U.S. mass transit, rail and other infrastructure. Yet almost four years after 9/11, plans are late and resources lacking.

The latest example: directing the Department of Homeland Security to submit a national strategy for the protection of U.S. transportation by April 1, 2005. The strategy still hasn't been delivered.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-07-10-london-clark_x.htm

And:

'Resolve' on Iraq Is Fine, but We Also Need a Plan
Letter to the Editor
Wall Street Journal

In your June 30 editorial "Wanted: A Constructive Opposition," following
the president's speech on Iraq, you chided me and a number of other Democrats for simply critiquing the president's plan rather than offering our own. Your criticisms are both incorrect and misplaced.

I and others have offered our plans again and again. We called for a diplomatic strategy in the region -- rather than relying wholly on threats and warning -- more and better equipped U.S. forces focused on training the Iraqis, and a more intensive effort to promote political and economic development in Iraq. I first articulated my plans in my 2003 book, "Winning Modern Wars," and continued to propose a better approach throughout the presidential campaign.

But no matter: It is the duty of the president to propose a plan that works, and to explain it and win the support of the people. Instead, as casualties mount and Americans begin to doubt, all the president does is call for "resolve."

I'm all for resolve -- I lived it during my tour in Vietnam. But Americans are beginning to understand that success in Iraq requires more than just resolve: It requires an effective plan, sufficient resources and effective execution of political, economic and diplomatic efforts, not just great "soldiering."

We in the loyal opposition are doing our duty by pointing out shortfalls
in the president's approach.

Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark
Washington

www.securingamerica.com

[CWebster]

16. the religion is only the vehicle

there are REAL GRIVANCES that fuel conflict in the ME.

[JDPriestly]

25. Clark has the most realistic view.

Let's don't follow Nixon's example. He announced that he had a solution to end the war in Viet Nam. That was 1968. We finally made our shameful retreat in 1975 leaving many, many innocent people who had stood by our side during the war to the mercies of the vengeful revolutionaries. Our exit was as inexcusable and shameful as our entry.

Bush made a mess. Like Humpty-Dumpty we have fallen off the wall and all the king's horses and all the king's men are not going to be able to put us back together again. This is a tragedy and we and our children and grandchildren will all pay for Bush's hubris.

Clark offers no miraculous rescue plan, no surefire guarantee of peace with honor. But, his proposal is realistic and rational, the only one I have seen that makes sense.

[second edition]

35. This plan isn't bad if implemented in conjunction with Kerry's plan.

It's not enough to get the Iraq people on their feet and get our soldiers home as quickly as possible. Permanent bases- which is what Bush is going to do- will not help us change opinions and minds. It's a possibly decent long term goal, but it doesn't address the needs mentioned above- Iraq Independence and our troops coming home quickly.

[blm]

36. Clark and Kerry are on the same page - too bad BushInc isn't wise enough

to implement their ideas.

[opihimoimoi]

7. Because Bush doesn't want input.// he gets no free help...

Bush wanted the job to do all by himself...in a very selfish arrogant manner...now, he can drown in it....Help from the DEMs with suggestions? Bush has rejected everything the Dems have been saying for years....

Answers from the DEMs...now he is reduced to finding out answers from the DEMS?....Bwahahahahahaha

[Brotherjohn]

8. A) It's BUSH's problem, he needs to fix it... put the onus on THEM.

There IS no easy solution... that's the point! That the Dems don't have one either doesn't make the Dem side of the issue somehow the same as Bush's. BUSH has gotten us into this situation that there is no easy solution to.

B) We'd never make such a bonehead move in the future. Bush is already threatening to do the same thing in Iran.

[gratuitous]

9. Congratulate him on finally recognizing that there's a problem

And since the Democrats are so relegated to minority status, and the Republicans are so entrenched in power, it doesn't matter what the Democrats have to say or think or do. The Republicans won't listen anyway, and will only appropriate the credit for any solutions that work.

Tell him to fix the fucking mess himself -- maybe he should enlist. Democrats have been cleaning up Republican messes for the last quarter century, and we're getting out of the maid business.

[CWebster]

10. No alternative yet they anticipate our vote

For what?

[expatriot]

12. There is no Iraq policy "litmus test" to being a Democrat.

(Wow, I should be a spinmeister, shouldn't I?)

But seriously, there is a vast array of different schools of thought on what should be done in Iraq that run the gammit from the neocons in our own party (1) to the "out now and wash our hands of the whole thing" camp. Most Democrats have positions within this spectrum somewhere based on particulars (i.e. who should be the transitional authority (i.e. Arab League, UN) and how long this transition should be), what should the US role be in promoting stability in Iraq _after_ we pullout (i.e. foreign aid), what should our priorities be after we pullout (i.e. the promotion of security above all else or the promotion of democracy at the risk of domestic instability), etc.

I just posted a response in another thread stating my belief that while pretty much everyone realizes Bush F-d up in Iraq and is an F- up in general, he can still control the debate pretty well exactly because he F-d up so much and there are no alternatives that sound all that great. There are no "good" options available in Iraw exactly because the Bush Option was so horrible.


Notes:
1. The central figure in this camp is Joe Lieberman, whose foreign policy stances are straight Bushie (he does vote Democrat on a lot of basic domestic issues, but his foreign policy is pure freeper).

[thoughtanarchist]

13. The DNC is free to adopt my personal exit strategy:

Let the Iraqis carve up into the regional ethnic states. This seems to be what they want...

It seems like the greatest risk of collapse or escalating violence related to our withdrawal stems from ethnic groups jockeying for power in the federal system we're foisting upon them. Let them carve up into regional states and I think the violence will diminish even as we pull out.

we know the Kurds want autonomy in the north.
we know the shiites want autonomy in the south.
that leaves a central region for sunnis.

All they need is a treaty to ensure oil revenues are shared among these groups and representation in a ministry to provide oversight to the oil industry.

Once autonomy in each region is achieved, these states can handle their own affairs without outside intervention.

As they negotiate the details, our troops can pull back to the former "no-fly" zones and watch from the sidelines, to be available for a brief period as diplomatic referees to promote a fair process.

[Number9Dream]

14. Link to General Wesley Clark's thoughts on Iraq

http://securingamerica.com/issues/iraqplan

[karynnj]

34. Thanks for the link - I've heard references to Clark's plan but hadn't

it. If we create spectrum of Bush's (not explained plan) to B. Clinton's statement to Kerry's plan to Leave immediately, would I be correct in saying that his plan would come closest to Kerry's plan.
Reading his plan it seems that there many of the underlying principlesbehind Kerry's and Clark's plans are pretty similar.

During last year's campaign, it seemed that Clark would make a fantastic Secretary of Defense. As it was he did an excellent job as a surrogate. Posting detailed proposals like this is great. It definitly makes me more positive towards Clark if my first choice either drops out.

[Career Prole]

15. Having a different president with his/her mind rooted in reality

instead of the neocon wet dream fantasy would in itself bring greater international cooperation, which is critical. I believed it during the last presidential campaign and believe it now.

We were denied that once.

Taking back the Congress in '06 and impeaching the nutcases in the WH would go a long way towards getting us back on track.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[CWebster]

18. The Democrats goose-stepping behind your monkey boy leader

are not us.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[CWebster]

22. Durbin's only mistake was apologizing

Aside from that, he tends not to be one of the goosesteppers.

[Career Prole]

29. Oh, bullshit!

There's always this...but that will get the same treatment as Kerry's did.

What's the plan "you guys" have?

The shit we've been seeing?

[AndyTiedye]

21. Turn BushRoveCheney over to the ICC & Ask UN to Help Clean Up the Mess

Explain that our nation was temporarily taken over by the criminal Bush gang,
repudiate and apologize for all of their actions,
turn them over to the International Criminal Court for trial.

Our troops prepare to leave Iraq and we try to get the UN and the Arab League
to help stabilize the country.
Then we leave. We can do no good there now.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[CWebster]

28. Its a sight better

than waging war for nothing--oh wait, revenues for oil execs, Halliburton, Israeli neo-con ambitions that may kill your son, or drain the economy until the line fades into the horizon.

[AndyTiedye]

39. The Mods Were Quick. I Take It Someone Did Not Like My Suggestion

[Armstead]

26. "We can do the same thing better."

Individual Denmocrats may have clear policies -- like Kucinich, Kennedy and some otehrs -- but the Democratic Party Establishment have the Kerry/Hilary/Biden position which is, um,er,....I'm not sure what it is this week.

[AuntPatsy]

27. Just tell them by allowing this war hungry elitest to continue

who now holds the reigns is nothing short of suicidal for a vast majority of this nation. Tell them to watch more than Fox news cycles or for that matter any televised media outlet, tell them to read more liberal open minded journalists who are still out there and trying desperatly to enlighten those so blinded...

Its their duty as a citizen of this country not to allow politicians to continue these upper handed tactics of dismissal.

[Wizard777]

30. Impeachment , Prosecution, Conviction, Execution, and All Apologies

Iraq will never go our way with Bush in the White House. Bush will not allow it and the insurgents will not allow it. Meanwhile our troops are caught in the mainstream of this pissing contest. I think most of what America is incurring are personal vendetas against the Bush Family and not so much America. I think the Middle East is wise to the Bush family Business Modus Operandi. They run off to the M.E. and kick sand in everyones Face. Then they run home and the oil Companies buy them the White House. Then they bomb the M. E. before they can complain. As long as Bush is in The White House. We're walking the world with a Target painted on our asses.

[emulatorloo]

31. normalize peoples lives(water sewer electricity security), self-governance

different ideas about how to do that, but that's it in a nutshell

vs bush -- keep screwing it up, stay there forever

[niceypoo]

32. I believe that the end result will be the same regardless

of what we do. There will be a taliban/iran style gvt in Iraq. It boils down to how many americans die in the mean time. I say we should ask for UN help, de-americanize the war, get out, admit our mistake then get out of the middle east altogether. Commit a trillion dollars to developing a cheap way to produce hydrogen from water. Make a goal of cutting oil use by 2/3 over the next 20 years and converting to hydrogen fuel. Make lemonade from the lemon Bush has thrust in our laps.

[SoCalifer]

33. The policy should be

The same one made at the end of the Vietnam war.

That it is less damaging for us to completely pull out now, then it is for us to stay and erroneously try and repair something for which we are the problem. Its like a cancer believing that it can benefit a body more by staying inside it, than by completely eliminating itself from it. The longer it stays, the more damage it causes.

And its no different here, its our presence that causes the strife. And whether we pull out now, or pull out later, it will make no difference in the minds of those who view any political structure in place today, as nothing but an American corporate tool that needs to be removed. So the only question that honestly remains is: "how long until the government figures that out, and how many more have to die before that happens?"

Well........that's how I see it anyway. But as far as the Washington elite's are concerned, what do I know -- I am just a dumb longshoreman on the "left" cost..






.

[Zhade]

37. One of the alternatives makes little sense to me...

...and that's the 'train them to handle their own security' aspect.

In case any of the genius politicos pushing this notion missed it, when we train Iraqis, they turn around and attack us the majority of the time.

Why? Because they don't want us in their country.

How those who advocate the training-to-freedom angle would ensure this didn't happen is beyond me.

[Dr Fate]

38. To stop the lying, faking evidence, and obstructing dissenting opinions.

It's a great start.

[keep CHOICES legal]

40. DEMS: Don't take the bait!

The Republicans know they are in trouble in Iraq. They are wondering how they can take the focus off of Bush and put it onto the Democrats. How will they do this? They will relentlessly badger the Democrats... claiming Democrats "have no plan". Don't take the bait. If Democrats start responding....the focus will shift, and the Republican bashing on the Democrats "plan" will begin.

Respond to the "Dems-have-no-plan" accusations by saying, "Bush is always bragging about being a strong, resolute leader. What's HIS plan? We're still waiting?"

A strong leader DOES NOT ask his opponent to present a plan to solve HIS problem. Let's name Bush as the WEAK leader that he is....any bully can create a fight. And like all spoiled children, they start whining and blaming others when they don't get their way.

[niceypoo]

41. What is the alternative? Do we have one?

WHat is the partys position on Iraq? You never hear anything on ths subject. Why arent our leaders speaking out? What has happened to the democratic party? Is it that our party has no position? I am not asking for a plan. I want to know what the official position is. Dean or SOMEONE needs to start issuing positions. To hell what some stupid ass repuke thinks. I want to know.

[ClassWarrior]

42. Alternative to what? What IS Bush**'s plan?

Huh? Answer that.

NGU.

[niceypoo]

43. Bushes plan is endless war

And a permenant presence in Iraq. Its also lie and deny at all costs.

That is a good question though. Next time I "debate" (shoot down his talking points) the moron I will ask him just that.

Why do the democratic leaders merely say "We've got to send MORE troops"? Where are the yarbles?

[leesa]

44. It's a primary problem...the warhawks like Feinstein, Kerry and Clinton

are all for this war. They refuse to stand up against Bush and his crimes. It's going to kill us again.