Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What is the exit strategy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Fish Eye Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-03-03 02:32 PM
Original message
What is the exit strategy
and or plan for Iraq WHEN the new democratic president takes the whitehouse?

I may not be up on all the latest from the candidates but I seem to have missed this issue. I have NOT watched the debates (lack of TV) so if it was covered please excuse.

I would love for the american troops to come home ( it makes me sick to see th einvaded have to kill in order to defend their home and it makes me sick to see soldiers who may not want to do Bush's bidding die) but I realize what a mess the US has made of things. Can a democratic administration fix the problem in Iraq? and how? Jeez the Mid east is messed up already without a bloody invasion....

just where IS Saddam?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Brucey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-03-03 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. By next summer, several things will have happened:
1) US corporations friendly to Bush will have squeezed as much as they can out of the national treasury ($79bn + $87bn are just the beginning), thus increasing the deficit to the point at which reducing or cutting social programs will be acceptable to many Americans; 2) US corporations friendly to Bush will be allowed to buy and take control of Iraq's most lucrative corporations and resources; 3) a provisional puppet government friendly to the US will be appointed in Iraq and military will be assigned to protect it; 4) Bush will declare that the Iraqi people are liberated; 5) many soldiers will come home to victory parades, confetti, and heros' welcomes; 6) the media will declare that it all was worth it and will stop broadcasting anything substantive about Iraq anymore, although repeated attempts will be made to upset the puppet regime; 7) Bush will be considered a hero and will be re-selected in 2004. Get ready to beat Jeb in 2008!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fish Eye Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-03-03 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. 1-4
I can agree with the rest I (wishfully) am not buying. The last bit about Jeb would be a nightmare come true..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-03-03 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. Here's Bremer's 'exit plan'


One hopes that among 9 Democrat candidates, they'll be able to come up with something with a little more foresight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fish Eye Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-03-03 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. I am old enough
to remember that scene.........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StephNW4Clark Donating Member (547 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-03-03 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. Clark on Iraq Exit Strategy - more to come on Thursday
w/ National Security Speech - check out the website then for a transcript of the policy.

I know it's not a 1-2-3 plan in its current format, but I do believe it provides at least a rubric that will be filled out in the coming week.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let's turn to Iraq. More attacks today. There have been horrific attacks this week. If you became president tomorrow, what would you do to restore some sort of security there?

WESLEY CLARK: Well, the first thing I would do is get the big picture right. And what you've got is a regional dynamic in which both Syria and Iran are working consciously against the United States in the region because they believe that this administration intends to handle them next.

So that a U.S. success, however it's defined in Iraq, means that then the United States is free to put more pressure on them. So they don't want us to have that success so the regional dynamic needs to be worked inside Iraq. We would go immediately back to Kofi Annan at the United Nations and say let's talk again about what the United Nations or an international organization could do. I would remove that occupying power, that authority there. I'd put it under the United Nations or an international organization. I would ask the Iraqi governing council to take more responsibility for governing Iraq.

One of the things we want to do is we want to avoid the emergence in Iraq of more intense sect feelings. You have the Kurds in the North. They're armed; they kept their army. They're very concerned if the Turks were to come in. They're prepared if anything should go wrong in the rest of Iraq, they're prepared to say, okay, we have got our independent Kurdistan. You have the Shia in the South. They've never gotten really organized and they're not... they have not been traditionally as radicalized as the Iranian Shia population has, but they're organizing. There's a 500,000 man army of god in Baghdad. There's others and there's jostling for position and there's been some assassinations and assassination attempts in there. If that goes the wrong way, we could have real violence in Iraq.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let's go back to something you just said, though. Are you saying that the coalition authority that Paul Bremer heads now, you would transfer that authority to the U.N.?

WESLEY CLARK: Yes, I would.

MARGARET WARNER: Would you retain U.S. authority over the military aspect?

WESLEY CLARK: Yes, you must do that. The United Nations cannot do the military piece, but I believe that you can put the United Nations or you can form an international organization as we did in the case of Bosnia to do the political development and the economic development, and you can take Halliburton out of the expanded nation building role it has and let it do what it normally does which is provide some of the logistics back up for the American troops.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. But are you saying you would do this because you think then that would encourage foreign countries to send serious numbers of troops to help?

WESLEY CLARK: I think you do it for three reasons. First, because it takes the United States off the blame line in the eyes of the Iraqi people and especially in the Islamic world. So now it's not a U.S. occupation. It's a lot of the different nations who are simply there trying to help because remember it's not only the international authority but you make the Iraqi governing council immediately take more responsibility. Then number two, I think it improves your chance of getting more significant, more immediate grant economic assistance. Number three, I do think it makes it more likely you'll get more substantial numbers of foreign troops.

MARGARET WARNER: President Bush said in his press conference Tuesday, we're not leaving, quote unquote, until Iraq is stable. Are you suggesting that the U.S. would ever leave militarily before the situation was stable?

WESLEY CLARK: I think we have to be very careful about leaving. We don't want to leave prematurely. We don't want Iraq to fall apart, but there is a window in there in which we've got the optimum chance for stabilizing and after which if we don't handle things right, it could go downhill and be counterproductive for us.

MARGARET WARNER: So when you say, as you said in the debate Sunday night, you said you want the president... let me get the exact words...you're waiting for the president, to quote, have a strategy to get out. What is your strategy to get out?

WESLEY CLARK: Well, what I do is first of all I've just described it. I put the international authority in. I reduce the influence of the U.S. occupying authority. I put the Iraqi governing council more in charge. I work for the constitution of the Iraqis in the long term. I keep the U.S. in charge of the security situation. I build up the Iraqi security forces. And I would... I do it all the same way we did it, let's say, in the Balkans. We put out a matrix. You said here's your political. Here's your economic. Here's your military. Here's what you're going to do this month, that month, so forth. Here's where you want to be. Here's your objectives. Here's how much it's going to cost. Show it to the American people.

MARGARET WARNER: Here's what I'm trying to get at. Do you agree, for instance, with the Bush administration that until the Iraqis have a constitution and a government elected under that constitution that they can't run the show themselves?

WESLEY CLARK: No, I don't agree that they've got to have a constitution. I mean it took the United States of America seven years after its independence to get a constitution finished. I mean, we started with the Articles of Confederation. So they may work for a long time on a constitution. We don't want to be there running the show in Iraq for seven years.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec03/clark_10-30.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark Can WIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-03-03 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Cool. Great link.
thanks :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fish Eye Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-03-03 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. thanks for the link
and I actually agree with Clark and I do belive that th einternational community would jump at the chance to do its job ..that is the UN would step in because the Iraq situation should be the responsibility of the world comminuty not the US
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brotherjohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-03-03 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Exactly. We NEED to give the U.N. a REAL role.
Perhaps, as Clark says, this does not entail giving them immediate control over U.S. troops. But in order to succeed, we NEED we need more (substantial) troop and financial commitment from other nations, and in order to get that, we NEED to cede substantial control in Iraq over to the U.N.

This exit strategy is obvious. No, it will not instantly make things better over there. But you can't make pumpkin pie from mud. And what the Bush administration has given us is mud. We have to do what is best to improve the situation in Iraq. Unfortunately, all indications so far are that leaving it a total U.S. operation will not only NOT improve the situation in Iraq, but may indeed make it progressively worse.

Of course, ceding any control to the U.N. is the last thing Bush et al want to do, because it conflicts with their agenda (more U/.S. control in the Mid-East, an extended military campaign, the appearance of fighting terrorism).

But such an exit strategy is so easy and so obvious, it was what the entire planet was saying before the war. The Bush administration simply chose not to listen. I applaud Clark for laying it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC