I was eager during the first Presidential debate to see what Kerry might propose as his plan for Iraq. I was disappointed to only get the stump speech bullet-points. I've read his plan from his website, and I confess to being confused. I've said it before, it seems like his plan is more or less the same as Bush's plan, except for the forming of a real 'international coalition' to help bear the load. I'm curious about two things. One, who is he talking about? Which countries will comprise the new coalition? France and Germany?
Kerry himself knows that's not going to happen:
"Does that mean allies are going to trade their young for our young in body bags? I know they are not. I know that," he said. Asked about that statement later, Mr. Kerry said, "When I was referring to that, I was really talking about Germany and France and some of the countries that had been most restrained."
So who's left? Russia and China? Do I need to detail why they are certainly not going to help no matter what?
Kerry's plan includes this bit:
"Convene a summit of the world's major powers as well as states in the region, and key Arab and Muslim nations, followed by a standing Contact Group to consult on the way forward, and press them to make good on the steps called for in UN Security Council Resolution 1546: providing troops; providing trainers for Iraq's security forces; providing a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission; and providing more financial assistance and real debt relief. Offer potential troop contributors specific and relatively low-risk but critical roles, such as training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq's borders."
I bolded stuff. Which Arab states are going to send troops/trainers into Iraq? Syria? Iran? Saudi Arabia?
Nevermind. How about the other thing I'm curious about: Who has a military force to spare? The military of most of Europe is not just small, but also largely out-of-date. They simply don't have the kind of resources to devote to Iraq that would make a significant difference. The only other superpower-grade militaries will never get involved in Iraq. Who's left?
Taking a look back at what formed the First Gulf War Coalition, there are some pretty interesting facts. 76% of the troops were ours. So we're 14% short? Quick math - 14% of 160,000 is around 38,000. Currently the non-US troops are something like 16,000 so we're 22,000 troops short of the "real" coalition. Unless it's not the numbers, but the symbolic value of the participants, in which case - see above - they ain't coming.
Short of getting really serious about building an Iraqi security force (military and police) ASAP, I don't see how anyone is going to get us much help for this.
At the same time, I cannot help but think of the price of failure. Those who advocate retreat, or simply wait on the sidelines, are signing up for culpability in the result. Certainly it was Bush's decision to invade Iraq, but to leave Iraq as-is (much less without even attempting to bring liberal democracy) or to allow it to sink into civil war or worse - that is everyone else's decision.
Posted by Matt at October 7, 2004 10:41 AMread more »
I'm preparing myself for the possibility we -will- get a chance to see someone else get a shot at it. What I'm bracing for is the "I inherited this mess" attitude that could devolve into "Look, Bush's crazy Iraq plan failed, let's get the hell out of there - screw the stupid towelheads!"
And the same folks clamoring for responsibility and accountability will be silent as the middle east turns into something much, much, much worse than it is today.
Posted by: Matt at October 7, 2004 08:11 PMIt is difficult for me to see how Kerry's Plan for Iraq is so different from Bush. He's talking about more international support, but that's unlikely not only because of past actions (or inactions) but because of what appears to them as the lack of US success in Iraq. (There's nothing like success to attract support).
What I'm sure about is that with Bush we can count on more of the same for the next four years. I'm inclined to give someone else a chance, even if at this point his plan appears not to be "distinguishable" from Bush's.
Posted by: Ira at October 7, 2004 08:02 PM
TOTALLY. I've been a busy ape, but I'd love to jabber atcha.
Posted by: Matt at October 7, 2004 08:02 PMYa, ya.
Hey, you still at the same email? I'm coming to town at the end of the month. Wanna get coffee?
Posted by: ruby at October 7, 2004 05:54 PMWhat defines a "real" word for you? If you look up "distinguishment" you'll find that although archaic, it is in fact an English word.
Let it go, Theo, one word can escape you without the world crumbling.
As for the cost of the war - at what price, victory, indeed.
Posted by: Matt at October 7, 2004 04:39 PMThe bill thus far for the war/occupation in Iraq is $120B. The projected bill by OMB through 2004 is $200B, but the sky is the limit.
http://costofwar.com/
"distinguishment" is not a real word, "irregardless" of what you think.
Posted by: TK at October 7, 2004 03:36 PMI often question what the cost of 9/11 was. More or less than 120B? (btw, I thought we were at over 200B, not 120...?)
I want Kerry to have solid positions that have real details. That would be a -real- distinguishment from the president.
Posted by: Matt at October 7, 2004 01:23 PMIn the first Gulf War the US share of the costs was $5B. Today it stands at $120B with no end in sight. We need coalition partners to help pay the bills.
Why is Kerry's position on Iraq restruction difficult to understand? Because he's trying to differentiate himself from Bush when his own plan isn't really new or different.
Posted by: TK at October 7, 2004 11:31 AM