Bush and Kerry on Iraq. Where is the Failure and what is the Plan?

[Tom Rinaldo]

This is rather a long opinion piece that I am working on. Not breaking any new ground here, but hoping to help move the ball forward on framing the Iraq issue.


Bush had a simple plan for Iraq; Invade and depose Hussein, Pay American Corporations to rebuild Iraq using Iraqi Oil Revenues, install Ahmed Chalabis as Iraq's new Head of State, and use Iraq as a base to extend American influence throughout the Middle East. Well the first part succeeded anyway, Invasion Accomplished. Since then Bush has continually been off balance in Iraq, reacting very slowly after the fact, as each of his underlying assumptions about Iraq are proved wrong by reality on the ground, starting with the missing stockpiles of WMD. Iraq's oil industry is a basket case, Iraqis are more likely to throw grenades than flowers at American troops, and they had to cut Ahmed Chalabis loose after he compromised critical U.S. Intelligence secrets to radical fundamentalists in Iran. Most troubling, a large part of Iraq is evolving into a base for expanding Al Quada's influence in the Mid East, not America's.

The Bush administration is always the last to acknowledge what the whole world sees clearly; what the U.S. is doing in Iraq isn't working, and matters only keep getting worse. That is the key failure of the Bush Administration in Iraq. They only react to deteriorating conditions in Iraq AFTER the window of opportunity to reverse that damage is closed. Their attitude embodies a toxic mix of fanatical loyalty to discredited visions, and a cynical misrepresentation of any fact that disputes their ideologically driven agenda.

Securing the United States for Bush's reelection in November has become more important to the Bush team than securing Iraq for free elections in January, despite their lofty rhetoric to the contrary. Politics once again trumps policy as they now hold back on making moves in Iraq that would further stress the National Guard back home, or risk greater casualties for troops in Iraq before Novembers election.

This pattern of failure is the only consistent aspect of Bush's Iraq policy. Under "get it wrong Rumsfeld's" direction, Bush dragged his heels on increasing U.S. troop strength on the ground in Iraq so long that by the time he minimally did so our Coalition allies were already pulling troops out in fear and frustration, and Iraqi resentment toward the U.S. for lack of security had mushroomed so that increased U.S. troop strength remained woefully insufficient for the unraveling task at hand.

Bush's Administration recruited American Corporations to rebuild Iraq through no bid contracts, while disbanding the Iraq Army, causing hundreds of thousands of Hussein's conscripts to lose the only means they had to provide food for their families. Anyone with eyes open could see where that was heading, further recruits for the insurgency, but Bush's ideologues stuck to their man Chalabi's Debaathification policy, and Halliburton's lucrative Iraq contracts, until the damage to Iraq was essentially irreversible. Bush ceded responsibility to the UN for shaping a new Iraq government, but waited so long to do so that anyone taking control of an interim Iraq government was doomed to be labeled an American stooge.

Time and time again George Bush was Six or more months late initiating pale copies of policies in Iraq that John Kerry advocated when they actually could have made a difference. And for that the media by and large rewarded Bush by belatedly saying, "Bush and Kerry are largely in agreement over what should be done in Iraq", as if getting it right the first time was of little or no consequence. Even now Bush refuses to concede that Iraq keeps spinning further out of control, but the media chooses to ask "What is John Kerry's plan for Iraq?" while crediting George Bush with a clear strategy for the war on Terror that Bush equated WITH Iraq.

John Kerry knows you can't manage a problem you refuse to recognize for what it is. The U.S. is dangerously isolated in Iraq, bearing huge costs in dollars and lives, because of the stubborn arrogance of Bush's foreign policy. John Kerry knows America achieves its goals of national and international security by cooperating with our allies, as we have consistently done, during World War II, the Cold War, and the Post Cold War era through structures such as N.A.T.O. We may have our differences, but President Kerry would not derisively dismiss some of our longest and closest Allies for representing "Old Europe" one day, while pleading for their help, empty hat extended, on the next.

And John Kerry has the common sense and judgment to anticipate and prepare for the problems inherent in any course of action. He will always have a plan for success for every major undertaking. And should unforeseen difficulties arise, John Kerry will swiftly and decisively react to resolve them. You can be sure with a Kerry Administration that a Secretary of Defense as dependably wrong as Donald Rumsfeld would have been looking for new work years ago.

Iraq can not be allowed to become a failed state and training ground for another generation of international jihad terrorists the way Afghanistan was and may well be again under Bush's relative neglect. To turn Iraq around will require more trust and cooperation from Iraq's citizens than the discredited Bush Administration is capable of now winning. They saw American troops, following Bush's priorities, guard the Ministry of Oil but virtually nowhere else after Hussein's fall. Iraqis pleaded for more security but were told to expect American troop reductions, once the oil fields were secured. When the viscous prison torture scandal broke, President Bush was slow and hesitant to apologize, and no recognizable American, from the Secretary of Defense down, was ever held accountable for that horror.

Now President Bush himself needs to be held accountable for the massive failures in Iraq, allowing America to turn a new leaf, restoring our trust and credibility with President Kerry as Commander in Chief.

[creeksneakers2]

1. What should Kerry say he's going to do about it now?

I agree with your analysis 100%. I think Kerry can really hurt Bush this week with the problems in Iraq. I also think that they'll ask Kerry what to do about them. There are only two choices I can think of. Escalate the war, at least temporarily, or pull out. Losing isn't an option. If Kerry chooses to add some troops I'm hoping the left doesn't desert him. If Kerry chooses to withdraw I think everybody else will desert him. The upside is, if Kerry comes out with something clear this time, he can put to rest the indecisive image.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. I think Kerry should pledge to improve Iraq's immediate security.

...if asked to by the Iraq government. (Sorry for the delay in responding by the way, I was out). I haven't given this a great deal of thought, but I lean toward the former of your choices, with some conditions.

Kerry should pledge to establish a larger U.N. mandated International security force in Iraq, under American command, one that would not undertake significant military actions in Iraq without the full consent of Iraq's sovereign government. Kerry should offer meaningful additional American troops and logistical support to such a force, for a time limited period of perhaps 18 months, allowing Iraq breathing room to rebuild their own security forces. Kerry should pledge that such an Internationally mandated force would remain in Iraq for an agreed upon period only with the consent of Iraq's sovereign government, and that it would leave Iraq upon reasonable short notice if asked to by that government.

The thrust of the policy would be to make good on America's obligation to the people of Iraq to help them restore their domestic security after having overthrown their previous government. And to do so in an internationally validated contest, but only with the approval of the Iraq people as expressed through their own sovereign government, no more ambiguity about a quasi occupation. If the U.S. were told to leave, we would do so.

At the same time Kerry should demand special funding from Congress to provide a new safety net of benefits for the families of Reservists and National Guard units that are unfortunately now required to serve prolonged periods called up for service due to the current crisis in Iraq that he will be inheriting. Our current military system was not designed to so heavily depend on these forces for such extensive periods of time, and that has led to significant hardships for the families involved, who were not, and had no reason to be, prepared for such dramatic economic and personal sacrifices. On top of everything else the men and women who are pressed into dangerous war time service for our nation should not need to also worry about the precarious economic viability of their own families while they are serving in Iraq.

Kerry can announce this plan in conjunction with a program to reconfigure and somewhat expand the number of personnel in our active Armed Forces to prevent a crisis of this nature happening again in the future, where the United States can not meet predictable security needs without undo dependency on our Reserves and Guard Units, with compensation packages offered reflective of the skill sought in our reorganized Armed Forces. Long term however, the difference will be, John Kerry will not take America to war unless it is the only viable option to defend our security, and John Kerry will work respectfully with our allies, seeking their help and welcoming their input, to share the burdens and benefits of a world wide war on terror.

[creeksneakers2]

3. Great response!

Thanks. Those are some great ideas.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Any other comments? n/t