– Provide better training for Iraqi security forces.
– Provide benefits to the Iraqi people.
– Ensure that democratic elections can be held next year as promised.
There is a ton to talk about here but the thing that stands out to me the most is **“Get more help from other nations”. **I guess I am not clear about this. What kind of help? From who since France and Germany have been really clear about their stance? Spain is out so who does that leave? In a recent article I read it said *“According to Der Spiegel newsmagazine, Richard Holbrooke, expected to become Secretary of State if Kerry is elected, recently told Schröder the first thing the new US president would do would be to invite the German chancellor and Chirac to the White House. The implication being that he would push for a greater European military presence in Iraq.” *Now, based Germany and France stance this seems like it falls in the “cold day in hell” column.
IF he does put pressure on them then it puts those leaders in a bad spot because they have already promised their countries they are out right so the only way they can help Kerry is to look like a fool who can’t hold their ground? I guess I just don’t see why he would put this in his plan when there is little hope it will happen.
For our friends in Europe, what would happen to Chirac and Schroder if they relented and sent people to Iraq?
I heard a couple versions of commentary on this plan, and the general consensus was thet Sen Kerry was talking about greater financial contribution and personnel help in the reconstruction of Iraq. I think his idea is that part of the resistance we’re getting from European countries is directly because of their feelings about Pres Bush, not so much about America. He’s trying to say that with a new face in the White House, some govts could change their policies, get more involved, and save face because their populace really doesn’t like Pres Bush in particular.
Well that seems like a gamble to me that he is betting that he can effect that type of change. I also heard today that Chirac has already responded by saying again he isn’t going to send troops to Iraq. I am waiting to hear some more detail on this. Maybe STers in France or Germany have heard something about it from their side of the pond?
Don’t you think it puts Chirac and Schroeder in a bad place though? How will they explain to their people they have changed their stance? I seem to recall they made the stance that they were / are fundamentaly opposed to the war in Iraq and not interested in reconstruction because of that reason not just because they didn’t like Bush.
The Europeans won’t provide adequate support for wars they do support and for presidents they do like. The whole Bosnia/Serbia mess lingers on with no progress and limited resources. That was Clinton’s war. They provide pennies on the dollar for what is needed in Afghanistan, a war they did “support.”
Expecting help from the Europeans in Iraq is about as likely to work as expecting help from the tooth fairy.
I think I finally have a line on what Kerry will do. He will go through the motions of recruiting support. He will fail to get it with the exception of words and statements. Failing to get support of our “allies” has been the norm my entire life, so no knock at Kerry is intended. He can’t do the impossible.
Then in about a year or so he will declare victory, cut and run, and when the country falls apart in a few months, blame everyone but himself.
Reconstruction contracts were purposely not awarded to companies based in countries that were not members of the “coalition of the willing”. This policy, unveiled by the white house in Dec. 2003 effectively barred France, Germany, and Russia from any reconstruction work (some 18.6 billion in work). I am not sure if this policy has changed or not, I can’t find an article that says it hasn’t.
If it hasn’t, then opening up the reconstruction to the French, Germans and Russians will provide them with an economic boost. If this is the case, I am certain their governments would be more amenable to other avenues of support.
This would be one way for Kerry to make a change to increase international support. If the French, Germans, and Russians are already able to bid on reconstruction work, my point is moot.
Get more help from other nations? Well, the French and Germans don’t really have the troops to help even if they wanted to do so. As far as the Germans go, I think it’s a good thing that they don’t have the desire to send their troops into foreign countries and that they really don’t have the military force to do it if they wanted to do so. I hope that they keep the attitude up.
but, maybe Harry Potter will wave his magic wand and create the French legions that will take over fighting this war for us if Senator Kerry is elected.
Casey, come on, support who ever you want but the UN really is worthless. It should be completely revamped or scrapped. What benefit is it to anyone? The meet and make resolution about stuff that have no weight so everyone can feel good about it and then they go home.
Chirac used it to propose a war on poverty for god sakes!
I agree Tibbs which is more confusing to me. So far neither has come to the table with a new solution and if I were Kerry I would be banging the table telling my people we need a better plan than ask Europe for help because they aren’t going to help. He needs to stick his neck out and come up with something fresh.
I think your wrong and here is why. Everyone sees Iraq as a money pit and no one who is elected is going to sign up to start dumping their countries money in there. In addition, with people being killed daily now they are not going to be jumping at the chance to send people there. If you are Chirac how will you go to your people and say, “now we might be able to make some money because the Americas gave us a peice of the rebuilding pie so I have changed my mind we will help build Iraq” What will he say when French contractors start coming home dead. The French and German people are not going to go for that.
To me Kerry puts that on his list because it makes the people who wanted Bush to get their help in the begining fell better but there is no chance they will help and he damn well knows it. It is just there to make people think he has the answer.
The point is about Bush and his plan or if he has one, the point is Kerry knows there is no chance of this and yet he puts it on the list to manipulate people in thinking he can get them to change their stance.
It’s not about another country dumping money there. The French and Germans have already written off a lot of Iraqi debt. Remember, you and I are paying for this reconstruction through our tax dollars (or our huge deficit, which will come due someday).
I can’t see the French, Germans, Russians, having any interest in working with us on Iraq unless they have an economic incentive to do so. If a German company gets a $1 billion contract to do work there, the German goverment will have a reason to care (think about all the tax revenues off that profit). The fact that we (you and I) are paying that $1billion is what makes me sick, but then, we’ve been through that a bunch of times already.
Whether this is what Kerry has in mind or not, I have no idea.
The sad story is that there is an obvious plan that is an improvement on what Bush is doing. I think Bush is very vulnerable to an attack from the right. Bush has allowed on again, off again attacks and allowed the establishment of enemy stongholds in Iraq. Even worse, the Marines have fought and died to take turf only to give it back up again and allow the enemy to leave and regroup. If you want Vietnam analogies, there they are.
I hate to say it, but Joe Biden, of all people, is making a lot of sense along the above lines. I never thought I would support that guy’s views on anything. Almost the same applies to McCain.
Kerry won’t go for this obvious approach, which might really catch on. He is the wrong messenger, and it is probably too late for him to pull this off credibly.
I believe Bush is in the process of moving to fixing these problems, but he has made some poor choices in this regard. Sadly, we don’t have an opposition party that can call him on these mistakes.
I don’t think Germany and France will generally refuse to help in Iraq. And it’s not only for the money either. I think it’s a matter of circumstances. Under the present circumstances it would appear more than inconsequent to help. And those circumstances are caused by Bush. Under other circumstances, I would bet, Germany and France would particpate and help build up a future in Iraq. We’re doing it in Afghanistan, why shouldn’t we do it in Iraq? It’s all a matter of diplomacy.
Whether this is what Kerry has in mind or not, I have no idea.
Neither do I and I bet Kerry doesn’t either. The statement is vague enough that any help will allow him to say “told you I would get international help”.
I agree, I don’t want to pay it all either and your are right, a Billion will buy a lot of interest but if it is still as violent do you think they will send people there? I just don’t see it being a popular move in France or Germany though which means Kerry will have to find a way to improve security on his own because I really doubt they will sign up to help get things under control, they have been really clear about not sending forces.
**We’re doing it in Afghanistan, why shouldn’t we do it in Iraq? It’s all a matter of diplomacy. **
Because people in Germany, like the US, see these as two completely different actions and most people don’t believe they are related. Supporting Afghanistan is a politically survivable position, where as I doubt doing the same in Iraq is for European leaders, especially if you start taking loses.
Bush went into war by himself, and didn’t listen to others. If Schröder now decided to help, it would definitely be evaluated as an inconsequent step. In public it would rather look as if Germany was just good enough to do the “Shit” work but not worth listening to from the beginning.
As soon as one can say we are doing humanitarian and reconstruction work, it’s a different picture.
I don’t know if you know details about the German constitution, but after havng started 2 world wars within 1 century, Germanys constitution says that our military is only allowed to defend on a direct attack from outside, but NEVER again to attack. Of course we can now argue that we could have participated in the war, because it was a defensive step against terrorism, but that is exactly where opinions go apart.
– Get more help from other nations. Which will do what to increase the chances of success in Iraq? All this babbling about getting Europe more “involved” in Iraq, and whether or not we can convince France, Germany, Spain, etc to contribute or not, blah blah, blah, is just a bunch of politicians jerking themselves off. The situation in Iraq is not a result of not having enough money, or manpower, or military skill. Getting Europe involved, even were it a realistic expectation, would not improve Iraq.
– Provide better training for Iraqi security forces. How? I mean, sure, let’s get them some good training. I’m all for it. Is that going to enable them to snuff out the insurgency? And peace and justice will flow across Iraq?
**-- Provide benefits to the Iraqi people. **I’ll pass on that.
– Ensure that democratic elections can be held next year as promised. Good luck. Elections, if held on schedule, are going to be a sham, at best. The requisite conditions for democratic elections simply do not exist. If they did, we would probably not like or accept the results.
You are quite a pessimist Vitus. Of the 80 odd new democracies that have come into existence over the last 40 odd years, how many did not have the requisite conditions?
How many of the 100 plus countries that are not currently democracies do have those requisite conditions?