Debate #1 – GO FOR THE JUGULAR?

[wadestock]

Essential background information which help forms a basis for responses:

1. The implementation of the war strategy was ill-conceived and irresponsibly implemented. Bushco. rushed to war with the true intent of a “no holds barred” assault, with especial intent to get Saddam. There is no other explanation whatsoever for why the war was executed with no attention to anything other than full speed ahead. This relentless and careless approach overly focused on the high tech “shock and awe” military assault, caused such an unacceptable loss of human life and collateral damage that chaos quickly ensued, allowing insurgents to steal loads of ammunition from unprotected ammo dumps, promoting a core anti-America hatred, and making “winning the peace” 100 times more difficult than it otherwise would have been if an intelligent step by step approach had been taken.

2. Those who have illogically signed onto the war have fallen into the most convoluted logic of “It’s better to fight them over there than over here”. People must be confronted head on with this issue. What are we to believe, that Al Qaeda has not decided to initiate a street fight in the US because they’re too preoccupied with the Iraq War? What evidence exists whatsoever that Al Qaeda has ANY involvement with trying to kick the US out of Iraq or that it otherwise cares?

3. How could anyone believe that the true intent of the offensive action was to bring peace and stability to the area when this was never part of the plan in the first place? Our troops were essentially given the mission to maintain the peace on ground as an after thought...and trained on the fly with poor equipment to do the mission. This war was emotionally endorsed by Bush because of the potential to get even with Saddam, but it is important to note that the inevitability of this war was intellectualized and sold by the collection of new breed neoconistic Thomas Barnett strategy sucking militarists, who fundamentally believe that the only way to deal with uncivilized or evil portions of the world is through US military presence and/or force. You see the formula goes like this. You insert strong military presence, and then perhaps 10 or 20 years later democracy and free enterprise grows. It’s simply inevitable. You don’t bring along the spread of democracy from the inside out, but from the outside in. Military presence is the “miracle grow” agent that allows democracy to flourish. It is for this exact reason that we see the lackadaisical attitude on the part of the administration. That “greater than thou” attitude that they seem to know something that we don’t. Well that attitude is fundamentally due to the fact that they believe they HAVE ALREADY achieved success through the plantation of US forces in the area.

Potential Kerry talking points for the debate:

1. RE: FLIP-FLOP - I have been given the tag of flip flopper in the issue of the war, and we might as well settle this all right now. I voted for the president to use force. Force which the president said would be used only if necessary. I did NOT vote for an ill-conceived and mismanaged war in which the administration would plod ahead for years and flounder opportunities for winning the peace. I also gave a heartfelt PROTEST vote against the AMERICAN PEOPLE contributing another 87B to the war effort when a substantial part of this represented an unfair tax break to the wealthiest people in the country, and thus the burden of the war was being disproportionately put on the middle class. To me that’s just not fair.

2. RE: WHAT EXACTLY IS WRONG WITH THE BUSH PLAN - I see arrogance in this administration that is hard to define. It appears to center around a belief that a quick military victory was somehow the real prize in the first place, not true stability for the Iraqi people or peace in the region. Why else would the administration be so lackadaisical about our lack of control on the ground? Now we’re supposed to believe that following a calendar of events makes everything alright...but it doesn’t. Because the president never imagined a need to win control on the ground, what we now have is a country with increased disarray and confusion, with the number of dissidents rising from perhaps 5000 to over 20,000 or more, with less security on the ground and more attacks per day and more unfortunate deaths than ever before.

4. RE: HOW IS KERRY’S PLAN DIFFERENT? – There is no other single issue more important than control on the ground. Winning the peace can only start once control on the ground is ensured. I have already outlined details about this plan, which includes a crash program to train a well equipped Iraqi anti-terrorist police force. This force, to be legitimate, will have to be approximately 50,000 strong and well equipped as well. I differ significantly from the president in terms of building and raising the credibility of this force as well as the legitimacy of its endeavors so that other nations will not see our efforts as yielding a hopeless quagmire. The world must be sent a clear sign that the US has STRONG intentions of winning the peace. Fundamental to realizing all of this will be my specific efforts to provide the best protective equipment that we can provide and I will cut no corners in this regard. I will initiate new programs to train and quickly supply this force with improved battle gear and bombproof HWMMVS. I want to specifically improve our ability to withstand makeshift car bombs, sniper attack, and the like. This is exactly what is required to bring credibility to the force and help it succeed. Patrols must be performed in a bombproof and sniper proof manner or else the Iraqis will never gain the confidence necessary to maintain this force in the long term. My plan WILL show progress on the ground, and it will afford other countries a more honest stake in contributing to a peaceful solution. It will attract wider multinational support because it is an honest, success oriented approach.

5. RE: BY STATING THAT THE WAR IS FAILING, AREN’T YOU SENDING THE ENEMY THE WRONG SIGNAL? The enemy is not listening to rhetoric on television; the enemy is seizing opportunities where they exist. Let us not be confused about this. As president, my actions, not words, will result in our gaining control on the ground, and as a result of these actions, the enemy will be sent the strongest signal that could possibly be sent...that is....law and order can and will be maintained.

6. RE: WHEN WILL TROOPS START COMING HOME? The only clear success oriented formula for getting our troops home is to quickly train the Iraqi/Multi-National police force and empower it to bring control on the ground and start winning the peace. As this force evolves and succeeds, we will ultimately see our troop strength needs diminish. As you can see, with the President’s plan, one can imagine a scenario where there is no real hope in reducing the number of troops which have to stay in the theatre, when rebellion is on the rise and measures to counter this rebellion are not intelligently taken.