Iraq: What Would Kerry Do?

by

Presumptive Democratic nominee for president, Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), outlined his strategy for winning the peace in Iraq in the Washington Post today. He began by insisting that we cannot fail the people of Iraq, but went on to argue that the President’s approach has led us to where we now “bear…most of the costs and risks associated with every aspect of the Iraqi transition” and noted that “We have lost lives, time, momentum and credibility.”

To correct this situation, Kerry’s strategy includes the following steps:

  • Bolster U.N. representative Lakhdar Brahimi’s limited leverage by saying in advance that we will support any plan he proposes that gains the support of Iraqi leaders.
  • Make the United Nations a full partner responsible for developing Iraq’s transition to a new constitution and government.
  • Renew our effort to attract international support in the form of boots on the ground to create a climate of security in Iraq.
  • Urge NATO to create a new out-of-area operation for Iraq under the lead of a U.S. commander

He also advocates the following guiding principles:

  • The United Nations, not the United States, should be the primary civilian partner in working with Iraqi leaders to hold elections, restore government services, rebuild the economy, and re-create a sense of hope and optimism among the Iraqi people.
  • The primary responsibility for security must remain with the U.S. military, preferably helped by NATO until we have an Iraqi security force fully prepared to take responsibility.

To accomplish all this under Bush would seem unlikely given how disgruntled our allies are. However, regardless of which man is in office come January 2005, Kerry’s final recommendation seems obvious: “The president must rally the country around a clear and credible goal.”

President Bush is scheduled to address the nation at his press conference this evening. I look forward to his explanation of his clear and credible goal.

19 thoughts on “Iraq: What Would Kerry Do?”

  1. I’d look forward to any Press Conference by Bush where he’s not given the questions in advance by the reporters…kind of like “POTUS for Dummies”.

  4. Why does he need to do this?
    BTW, in the article Barone makes a fair observation about the political leanings of the press, thought his number was a little low.
    Back to the topic, Edward now why should the Iraqi people trust the UN, after the rape and pillage of the Iraqis by the UN Oil for Food Program? I have the same question about the French, Russians et al.
    One other question, how many extra boots does Kerry plan for?
    Finally, hasn’t Bush already invited the UN in and wasn’t it a precusor to UN involvement that Iraqis would be running the show. Thus, the cutting edge aspect of Kerry’s plan alludes me. Eddie, maybe you can detail those specifics.

  5. Back to the topic, Edward now why should the Iraqi people trust the UN, after the rape and pillage of the Iraqis by the UN Oil for Food Program? I have the same question about the French, Russians et al.
    hmmm…they don’t seem to have much trust for the US at the moment, but that’s beside the point. By having the UN take over restoring government services, rebuilding the economy, and holding elections, you eliminate the charges of American Puppets that would surely dog otherwise instituted. Remember, it’s not only the perception within Iraq that’s going to determine the success of the new government, but also the perceptions outside Iraq.
    how many extra boots does Kerry plan for?
    As many foreign ones as he can muster (to alleviate the US burden).
    hasn’t Bush already invited the UN
    Bush has no credibility with the UN or most other nations who can help here.

  6. how many extra boots does Kerry plan for?
    As many foreign ones as he can muster (to alleviate the US burden).
    I’m calling extreme cop out on that response. Generously we are talking 5-10,000 at most, and realistically we are probably talking about 2-4,000. That is drop-in-the-bucket territory. Furthermore you suggest that it is ‘to alleviate the US burden’. Isn’t Kerry’s current position that we need more people? Or do you mean the phrase to suggest a burden sharing?
    The problem is that you and Kerry are being unrealistic about the number of troops that are ever going to be available from the UN (or whatever countries are going to be used by the UN). Or if you are not being unrealistic you are being duplicitous by avoiding a suggestion of the ridiculously small number of troops that would be available even with a very involved UN.

  7. Edward, but you don’t eliminate UN Puppets and given the UN’s record in Iraq, UN Puppet has much uglier sting to it.

  8. I think part of the problem is that the Bush administration has an ideological committment to how Iraq’s economy should be reconstructed. To oversimplify, let’s call it supply-side free market plan vs. demand-side welfare state. And might also imagine creating a model for the other ME states to become less dependent on oil revenues. This is not trivial, nor insincere; however much I might think it misguided or premature. Or implemented with astounding incompetence.
    The UN would of course, have a completely different perspective on the economy, and by the Bush’s perspective, might create a state dependent and economically retarded for a generation.

  9. Bob, I hate to point this out but the only company which really counts is the entity which controls Iraqi’s energy sector. That sector will be controlled by Iraq’s Federal Government.
    On capitalism and the UN, I’m not sure why the UN would be opposed to attracting non-governmental foreign capital, unless they are concerned about not getting their fair share of kickbacks.

  10. via Billmon, the NY Daily News (no idea if it’s any good) claims:

    A senior military official told the Daily News that Abizaid, who speaks fluent Arabic and is regarded as more independent than his predecessor, Gen. Tommy Franks, has been repeatedly discouraged from asking for more soldiers because President Bush has publicly pledged to bring 25,000 troops home from Iraq before the November elections.

    “Rumsfeld has made it clear to the whole building that he wasn’t interested in getting any requests for more troops,” the Pentagon official said.

    IIRC, Biden (of Bidenlugar) has an offer of 2k French troops – sounds like a start. Or too little too late, if we’re already screwed.

  11. Oh, well.
    So much for that idea, eh?

    UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Tuesday violence in Iraq will prevent the world body from re-establishing a major presence in the country anytime in the foreseeable future.

    Annan told reporters that even the small team now in the country, led by top U.N. official Lakhdar Brahimi, has been hampered in advising Iraqis on forming an interim government and plan for elections early next year.

    “Of course given the deteriorating situation and the violence on the ground, even that task has been rather difficult,” Annan said.

    “For the foreseeable future, insecurity is going to be a major constraint for us. And so I cannot say right now that I am going to be sending in a large U.N. team,” Annan said.

    The United Nations withdrew its permanent foreign staff last October following attacks on aid organizations and the August bombing of its own headquarters that killed 22 people.

    Asked whether, in light of the current turmoil, the handover of power should still occur by June 30, Annan said there was little choice. “The date has been out there for some time. It has been embraced by the Iraqis themselves, who are anxious to see the end of occupation as soon as possible, and I believe it is going to be difficult to pull it back,” he said.

    Now we find out if Biden is full of crap or not.

  12. “but the only company which really counts is the entity which controls Iraqi’s energy sector”
    I hope not, Timmy, at least in the long run. The ME should be the chemical and plastic factory of the world, and I hope Iraq will soon have a diversified economy.
    On the other hand, to my point, Iraqi security grunts are being paid $50 dollars a week. (Cite via Jim Henley, if you want one). This not enough, either to ensure their loyalty or invigorate the Iraqi economy. And we can afford more.

  13. The problem is that you and Kerry are being unrealistic about the number of troops that are ever going to be available from the UN
    There may be a subtle difference that’s escaping me here, but I took Kerry’s strategy to mean he was asking for UN control over domestic concerns, and NATO help militarily. He never asks for UN troops, per se.
    Or if you are not being unrealistic you are being duplicitous by avoiding a suggestion of the ridiculously small number of troops that would be available even with a very involved UN.
    I don’t take charges of duplicity that lightly.
    I will say that your somewhat ambiguous statement here seems to suggest that by not acknowledging the number of troops available to help relieve US forces with (something I don’t have ready numbers on, admittedly), I’m unduly magnifying the significance such a focus could bring. I totally disagree. Symbolically, it would begin to restore credibility to the entire endeavor. Militarily, even if it only brought home 10,000 stressed out Americans, I’d say it was worth it.
    But don’t believe me, ask their families.

  15. “I’m unduly magnifying the significance such a focus could bring. I totally disagree. Symbolically, it would begin to restore credibility to the entire endeavor. Militarily, even if it only brought home 10,000 stressed out Americans, I’d say it was worth it.”
    Yes you are unduly magnifying. In a scale of 1-10 the available troop usefulness is maybe a 2. If your argument rests mostly on symbolic significance I guess we just have to disagree because there is no way to prove how significant this particular symbolic act would be. I suspect that it would be nearly worthless. There was symbolic UN support of the 1991 invasion, and the UN approach is a huge part of what brought us to this ugly point. There was actual UN support of the Food-for-Oil program which looks like it may be one of the largest corruption cartels in the history of the world. I’m frankly baffled by the idea that UN support means anything but the support of a hyper-corrupt institution which has decision making stifled by authoritarian regimes.
    But so long as you are admitting that the value would be mostly symbolic as opposed to military, we are in agreement.
    I suspect you put a lot more value on symbolic internationalism than I do. Symbolic internationalism tends to produce severely watered down substantive action and/or significant wastage in committee. And when it comes to troops symbolic internationalism means Americans get to die while the French get to have a large hand in keeping anything from happening. Since it will be our troops who will die under either system, I would rather that we have the largest say in how things are arranged.
    Your NATO/UN distinction doesn’t change anything regarding the number of troops not available. Of course the UN troops from Europe would have to come from the NATO pool.
    “I think part of the problem is that the Bush administration has an ideological committment to how Iraq’s economy should be reconstructed. To oversimplify, let’s call it supply-side free market plan vs. demand-side welfare state.”
    Bob, this makes no sense. To oversimplify, you can’t have a European-style welfare state without having a successful market-based economy to take advantage of first. It isn’t a matter of ideological committment, it is a matter of how do you pay for a welfare state without a pre-existing and functioning economy.

  16. “Bob, this makes no sense.” You, are for somer reason talking general macroeconomic theory rather than citing CPA behavior and facts on the ground.
    See my post about Iraqi security pay. There are billions going into Iraq, demand side would involve simply handing cash to every citizen.
    Supply side would involve loans for building factories and so on to provide jobs.
    Which do you think the CPA is doing?
    I would also remind you of the desire last year of the CPA to close down parts of the oil-for-food program.
    Factories are a great idea, but take time. Meanwhile the Iraqi people need to eat, etc, and are not happy with their current economic conditions. Kearts and minds, man.
    Although, now you will tell me that 90% are delirious about the economy and standard of living.

  17. I’ll worry about the details of Kerry’s plan in about another six months. Right now, I’d like to hear any details from Bush and crew. So far its platitudes and baloney. (stay the course; the terrorists will not defeat us; resolve; blah blah blah)
    And I expect that is all we will hear tonight… The latest talking points repeated robot-like to any question (a la MTP a few months ago), with Karen Hughes in his ear piece shreeking “stay on message.”
    Or else he’ll imitate Bremer… “That’s a good question,” and then provide no answer.

  19. Sebastian,
    Yes you are unduly magnifying. In a scale of 1-10 the available troop usefulness is maybe a 2.
    Fareed Zakaria disagrees with your assessment that what’s available is “ridiculously small”.

    And after July, if the transition to Iraqi self-rule is administered by the United Nations, it should be possible to get other countries’ troops involved. Obviously, the numbers offered will be much lower than they would have been a year ago. But something is better than nothing.

Comments are closed.