The topic for debate is this. Do we have the right plan in place in Iraq right now? If so what is it and why is it right? If not why is our present strategy in Iraq flawed?

From what I can see, the problem with Iraq is not that the plan in force is good or bad, but that there doesn't appear to be any plan.

There are certainly objectives - for instance, withdraw troops, having secured peace and established a political and basic public infrastructure - but even these seem open to debate, depending on who you talk to. The plan on how to achieve these objectives, if it exists, has not been made public anywhere I've heard of.

President Bush made a speech last night that is trying to put a commitment into creating a democratic middle east from the United States example. This is a plan gone insane. Two sources of anti-americanism are our interventionist policies that are seen as invading the sovereignty of islamic nations and the secularism of the western world of which the united states is the most obvious example and the most successful. How is this not going to be seen as a push to expand the American cultural influence in the Islamic world?

It is simply too bad that we didn't focus our war on terror on Palestine, where a people are trying to put together a democracy and where terrorism is being committed on an almost daily basis. That could have solved several tasks at once. Arab countries would have been pleased if we help form an independent Palestine. We could placed incredible pressure to end a type of terrorism (seen by most Arabs as freedom fighting) that seems to be generally approved of in the Arab world, and we could have helped our ally in the region find a new period of peace.

Now we are committing ourselves to remake the middle east and we are calling ourselves the vanguard of a democratic revolution.


Bush Urges Commitment To Transform Mideast

This is not a war on terrorism. It is a bad idea.

Yeah, I gotta agree with you Eeyore. I was reading about the Bush plans in Newsweek and -- based on the information there -- I'm concerned that Bush is looking for a politically expedient way to make Iraq look safe by next November... even at the possible expense of long-term stability in Iraq.

Look, I definitely disagreed with this war (based on the lack of published evidence that we were in danger), but I think that now that we broke the place, it's our job to fix it and fix it right so that we don't have to go back there in 5 years to fix it again. And we definitely haven't "fixed" ANYTHING in Afghanistan and haven't committed the manpower to do that.

It's a mess. I'm bummed.

As interesting a debate as Bush's Mid-East plane would be, it really isn't the same thing as a plan for Iraq. I'll post my thought on the topic soon (time...), but here's a hint. What kind of plan are you looking for? Have any thought on one?

I wouldn't have gone in the first place. I would have had a larger troop presence to quiet resistance and gain more complete control of the country.

At this point I would be looking for fast and viable exit plans. I would not be looking to redesign the political map of the middle east when an occupation of Iraq is looking increasingly beyond our present capability.

We need to turn over as much authority as possible to the UN. There should be a greater Arab role in this process. We need to pledge to provide funds for reconstruction and pledge to bring about a legitimate government with a reasonable shot at stability but we need to recognize that this is a difficult task in a country that is ready to balkanize or return to dictatorship.

We need to severely limit our goals in Iraq not expand them.
The UN is actually good at this stuff as opposed to stopping wars.
This is a sinkhole and we need to get out with credibility. If we turn this into a holy grail for democracy our Camelot is going to get awfully dreary.

I like the plan we have in place. Rebuild the infrastructure, develop an Iraqi constitition, hold free elections, develop representative government.

Will this be difficult to accomplish? Yes...all good, important things are.

The only other plan I have heard seems to be "cut bait and run", this is completely unacceptable.

From what we've not seen lately, I'd say the part about developing an Iraqi constitution is currently on hold... by the Iraqis. Seems the governing council hasn't met much lately and has turned the running of the country over to the cabinet ministers.

Will we get to free elections? Or will Iraq continue to bump along this way until the USA leaves and then have a good ol' civil war between the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites? Or will both happen?

Eh? It seems to me there has been steady progress in the area of democratization. Certainly there have been report of "delays" but seeing as the administration never intended to set a deadline (according to Paul Bremer) it is indeed being paced according to the will of the Governing Council (GC) however, they have placed the timing at at least one year (from October 1). This of course does not mean US forces will be needed in the same number for that time, given the rapid increase in Iraqi involvement.

People have been raising the specter of Civil War since before the war. Just how foolish do we think the Iraqis are? Clearly even after attempts to start major sectarian conflict by terrorists, they have recognized peace is in their best interest. I for one trust them to retain that attitude.

The plan we have while not a sharply defined one "a la Wile E. Coyote" is the right one, Iraqis must be able to control their country and we are facilitating that control.

How would the actions mentioned here help?
Can you back up that last assertion?

Turnea,

I am still waiting for you to weigh in on this issue. Come on in with why the plan is working.

Then I will further explore why I think the actions will help. The short of it is that we will get out of Iraq without leaving anarchy directly behind.

As to my assertions about Iraq. It is based on the fact that there are distinct factions with competing interests in the Shia, Sunni, and kurdish communities. The Kurds have a history of fighting each other and two rival organizations. The Shia community seems to be involved in a war amongst themselves for the direction they want to take. The Sunni's don't want to go give up being a ruling minority.

Democracy has not been developing in the region. There are monarchies, fundamentalist theocracies, and secular dictatorships.
Democracies have taken in places with developed economies and a strong and stable middle class. Elsewhere democracies seem to have a lot of trouble holding on. (Africa, South America)

Since we are in Iraq, the first statement is a non-issue.

Most people believe that a larger troop presence simply means more targets. What would more troops do? More patrols, more convoys, more attacks.


Cut our losses and run? Leave before accomplishing anything? I don't think that is wise at this point.

That is a statement of opinion. Part of the rationale behind this war was exactly this: bringing a democratic Arab nation into being. I think it is certainly unfounded that "the occupation of Iraq is looking increasingly beyond our present capability".

Are there challenges: yes. Can we meet those challenges: yes.

And since the UN has rejected that larger role, what then? The UN has (begrudgingly) given its blessing to the US. Key members of the UN (France, Germany) have stated that they have neither the means nor the desire to help in Iraq. Surely you don't think we can force the UN to administer Iraq?


Very debateable there.

What we need to do is finish the job. A concrete timeline would be nice, but it can also be used as a political bludgeon. I think that is why the Preident is reluctant to commit to one.

I really fail to see how there ISN't a plan.

War doesn't give itself to being nice, neat and predictable. ever. Yet "no plan" seems to be the catch phrase of the day.

From what has been presented...establishing security is the plan with the help of the Iraqis. Iraqis are being trained as police officers and very likely enlisted into an Iraqi army. who better than the Iraqis themselves? Increasing autonomy in this area is in the plan. They need coalition help until they are self-sufficient. They are aware of this. After which the coalition will eventually relinquish control.

To have Iraqi council draw up a constitution, perhaps sooner rather than later. Enable an environment in which elections can take place. most likely within a year or less. Repair infrastructure, all taking place in an area of terrorist conflict.

Secure the borders. talks with Syria and Iran to secure commitment in this area.
Have things gone well so far? In some areas yes as far as infrastructure building, training iraqis and getting recognition of the Iraqi council. In other areas, not so well , more terror attacks. marines, special forces, and more intelligence are now in the "plan."

these are parts of the plan some of which have been stated numerous times.

It's not the absence of a plan, but really things "not going according to plan" that is the reality.

The main plan in Iraq is to get infastructure re-built (power, water, food levels), which are done. Power is nearing Pre-War levels and Water is already above pre-ar levels and so are food levels.

Also, train a new police force and army. That's the big problem. It's slow going with the police force and also with the army.

Also, get elections and a constitution going

Lastly, as for the peace: The terrorists, i think, will leave when we leave because what good is it to be in Iraq when American troops are gone? The only ones trying to kill each other is the shitte and Sunni rivals. Those dudes will be a pain to deal with

In response to a line item critique of an earlier vaguely defined alternative plan(mine, the plan that is).

All quotes are from Amlord, all of the quotes within are from my earlier post.



I was posting this statement up front because I thought it was relevant enough as an introduction. I did not want to convey a tone of someone gung-ho about attacking and occupying countries.



Since my post is being nit-picked at, who exactly is most people? If our occupation of Iraq had provided the shock and awe that it was intended to it may have made more people think before staying in resistance groups. A greater invasion force would IMO have created a more stable postwar Iraq and would have been able to get basic services up and running more quickly. A smaller force can only seem to keep up the work of running around trying to put out the brushfires of a guerilla war. As the guerillas have more success without immediate capture or death, then others Iraqis are encouraged to participate or other terrorists may sneak into Iraq and join the resistance. I think a larger force (and the Gulf War force was much larger and only focused on the goal of driving Iraq out of Kuwait) would have ben in the best interests of the individual American soldiers and the prestige of our overall military. As it is, we do not look very strong and perception can help create reality.




The key word here is viable. I have posted several times throughout AD that I do not think we can pick up and leave right now. But we should not be expanding the definition of our goal in Iraq. We are engaged in a so-called war on terror. All aspects of the war IMO should be directly for reducing the threat of terror in the world. So I think we need to stay and encourage Iraqis to participate in the formation of a government. I think we need to invest heavily in Iraqi infrastructure and private businesses. And I think we need to give strong support to the creation of an independent judiciary. But Iraqis should know that they are going to get this system fairly quickly and it will be theirs to have or to let crumble. We should not be in the business of tying our credibility to democracy in Iraq. If they don't step up and grab their opportunity then it should simply be a lost opportunity and business as usual in the middle east.


Every thing in here is a statement of opinion. Policy is not science.



That has always been IMO a clearly incorrect objective. The war was sold to the American people because of Iraqi WMDs and their intent to expand their program by developing a nuclear bomb. It was deemed unsafe to allow the Iraqi government to remain in place. Then we misnamed the operation, by spin, Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Iraqi people are owed a chance at self-determination. They should be able to convene a representative constituent assembly for the purpose of forming a new government, whatever that form may be. That is a democratic process, but that should not mean that we have the right to declare Iraq a democracy. It is their sovereignty not ours.



To me this is chicken and egg stuff. We are the ones that said the UN was becoming iirrelevant We did not use the UN to fight this war. I do not see where the UN has refused to play a larger role in this if they get to name the conditions. I will stand corrected when I see said information.




This quote is in reference to my statement that the UN is good at quelling war zones. Okay. I'll give you this in terms of I have a less-informed opinion that came from a conservative who said something of that sort before the war in an NPR piece. So yes, that is definitely debateable.

As to needing to finish the job. I agree. now, what is the job? Is it this?

(in reference to the below cited article from the Washington Post from the President's speech last night)


Bush Urges Commitment To Transform Mideast

I don't think so. I think the job is to stop international terrorism and work with countries arounds the world to find ways of stopping terrorism everywhere. The job should not be to create a "GLOBAL DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION" using Iraq as the poster country. (IMO)

Easy enough topic, you dont have to offer an alternate plan. That would be beyond my feeble imagination.

The administrations plans for reconstructing and democratizing Iraq are flawed, fataly flawed.

The primary flaw is that the plans are plans created by the United States of America and no islamic extremist wants these plans to come to fruition.

A second flaw, inexorably tied in with the first, is the geographic location of our grand designs. Much right wing talk (I will cite referrences for these premises tomorrow, i'm late for work) has said that fighting extremists in Iraq is prefferable to fighting them in New York. Would this not also suit the surrounding monarchies, theocracies and militant democracies. I think they secretly welcome a local U.S. created magnet to draw their extremists. More tomorrow....... gotta run

p.s. America's Debate is theraputic for my deppresion, you could look it up.

No, no we don't. I like GW and Co. but the post-war Iraq plan is not working very well, we need to secure the area before we start rebuilding the place. It would be nice however if the Iraqis would help us out a little more on that, and if our allies would give us more of a hand. But the point remains, we haven't done a great job protecting our boys [and girls] out there.

I do, however agree with Amlord in that the UN is nothing, it has chosen to be meaningless and so it will remain. With that said I think more pressure needs to be put on our allies to help take care of the infrastructure while we go weed out the terrorists.

CP

I'll ask again (and don't worry about my own opinion, it's coming ).
How exactly can they improve, what is it about the plan that is wrong?
Just because attacks occur doesn't mean the plan is wrong...

Critical distinction.

[Underline for Emphasis ]
I think security right now is more important than infrastructure, I think that we do need to start establishing free elections, however I feel that we need to focus in on that and security and less on infrastructure.

CP

I see...

But I do not understand.

That is to say, you make it sound as though resources are being taken and giving to infrastructure which are needed for security. Form what I understand the CPA and the military are being given what they want for both, it's not an either-or situation. I believe that infrastructure improvement is critical for maintaining the good-will of the Iraqi people, which will in turn aid security.

\ I'll try again


Don't get me wrong, I agree that we CAN do both, but it doesn't seem like we're doing both very well, that's why I propose that we focus mainly on security, then the rest, it might take longer, but it also might save lives.

CP

I assume that there has to be a plan.

You just don't tell 250,000 soldiers to invade Iraq without a plan. Do you? From what I heard, saw and read, it seemed that the US wanted to bring democracy to the Iraqis, along with the means to sustain society. The plan was designed to increase the quality of life of the Iraqis and the success of America.

We all know that its the dead who are increasing, and that the plan is much more difficult to apply than it was thought in the first place. Does it mean that the plan was wrong in the first place? Perhaps in a certain point of view.

Having been part of the military for a short while, I sincerely don't think that there is a 'right' plan for any given situation. I believe there has to be a plan for sure, but it must rely on improvisation and constant evolution to succeed.

In the end, the outcome could be different that what was 'planned' in the beginning. Some will be surprised of course, but others like me won't.

Iraq, sadly, is not an accountancy problem with an exact mathematical solution.

The Dem presidential hopefuls, or at least some of them, have harped on the absence of a "plan", or the promulgation of a flawed "plan" by GWB et al., as evidence of administration bumbling.

How the hell can one realistically "plan" for an engagement that has so many variables and so few precedents?

Yes, the US rebuilt Germany and Japan after WWII and imposed democracy on them. (Japan took 7 years, btw.) Japan was ethnically homogeneous; Germany largely so. Both were actual "states", and had been for centuries before WWII.

"Iraq", in contradistinction, is a Western construct. Posters above have correctly noted the Shi'a-Sunni-Kurd trichotomy there.

Given the prevailing realities in the Middle East, the only "plan" that has been proven to work is so nauseating that no Western leader could seriously consider it.
It is as follows: since much of the terrorism against coalition soldiers has issued from the so-called "Sunni triangle", pick a key "opposition" city in the Triangle, say Fallujah... and level it.

This is what may be called the Assad/Hama solution. Barbaric and unspeakable as it is, it works.

http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/63P58.htm

Fallujah has a population of 500,000, but even if it had a thousandth of that population, the Assad approach could not be employed by any Western force.

As such, coalition forces must of necessity "play it by ear", while working toward generalized goals... restoration of essential services, police power, oil pumping (toward self-support), and the rule of law. The US/coalition approach is along these lines and cannot be called inappropriate.

It seems to me that anyone who sets the bar higher than that for at least the first year following the fall of Baghdad is being intentionally unrealistic. No one could turn Iraq into Denmark in a few short months.

Germany became a unified state in 1871. Just thought I'd point that out...

But as you say there has been no plan and rightly so, this is clearly not true. Iraq has a largely illegitimate ruling council, the country has had it's assets sold off to foreign investors; these are the earmarks of a premeditated approach to post-occupation management, and they are clearly failures.

The German confederation dates back to 1815, the Holy Roman Empire,l admittedly not coterminous with "Germany", but certainly encompassing it (and historically associated with it) dates back to the 10th century. Do we consider Durer and Luther (both born in the 15th century) anything other than "Germans"?

Wow. It took me so long to respond because I read this wrong. I think this is a case of major spin.

Yes, casualties are increasing (as if they would decrease) however that isn't all that's going on in Iraq. The quality of life of most Iraqis has most certainly been increased. Over vast swathes of the country aid agencies can work in peace with a sense of cooperation with the people. This is reality for most of Iraq. They have basic political freedoms they never thought they'd have. They have a number of regional governments of Iraqis controlling the basic of day to day life. There a a number of reconstruction projects being completed. To ignore all progress is pointless, if we are to have a constructive discussion clearly we must look at the entire picture.


That, I believe is what the administration has recognized all along...


A plan for disaster...

The interim government and the CPA has the support even of most residents of Baghdad, I feel the worst thing we could do is squander the considerable good will our efforts have built up.


Spin again...

The council is "illegitimate" yes, but what exactly do you expect for a country without democratic institutions? That is what the GC is working on...

Would you rather there be no Iraqi representation? Or maybe a joke of an election without the system to carry it out properly. The GC is far from a failure with the Iraqis.


In a Poll, Baghdad Residents Call Freedom Worth the Price

The Iraqis were equally ambivalent about the CPA

The Iraqis at least have suspended their judgement. It is more likely a biased media that claims to speak for them that has shaped our perception.

How exactly is the privatization of industries in Iraq (except the oil industry...) a failure?

So in my opinion we certainly do have the right plan in Iraq. The plan is to draw from the greatest source of power the country, the collective will of Iraqis for a better home. No group of terrorists, no matter how vicious, can stop that for long...

I was going to start another thread, but this one seemed the closest to what I thought wasn't being discussed that needed to be.

The current plan seems to be to bring democracy to Iraq and set it up to be the shining example in the region for all the despots to look at and cringe (or whatever despots do). The order of the plan seems to be to make the Iraqis more responsible for security and then have the USA-picked governing council create a constitution that brings about democracy.

My concern is what was expressed in another thread, which is that we're trying to forceably drag the Arab world from the Dark Ages into the Industrial Age without a transition through the Reformation and Enlightenment eras -- the ones where we separated religion from government and everyday cultural affairs.

Is it reasonable to try to create democracy for people who still subscribe to a theocratic point of view?

I'm not sure it's possible, but how do you get them past where they are? Education? Well, that's mostly controlled by the Imams, so maybe that's where we should be starting. I don't know.

Democracy appeared in the US and France while these countries were monarchies. Was it reasonable to hope for democracy then? Certainly not. But I believe it happened and lasted because some 'unreasonable' men fought for it.

Any regime can turn to democracy as long as the citizens want it. That's why we'll fail if we don't include the Iraqis themselves in the process of democratisation. They have to have the power back in their hands to make the change happen.

Because if they don't do it, no one has the power to do it for them.

Hence my point about the Reformation and Enlightenment. BOTH the US and France had to first throw off the yoke of religious control over social institutions before democracy could come about. Also, the USA and France fought for democracy from within, not had it imposed from the outside. Had the USA's revolution occurred 100 years earlier, we might have ended up with a theocracy, because the Puritans were firmly in control.

The Arabs are in the same situation in many countries. The CULTURE of the people may not be ready for the democracy that Bush claims we should bring to the Middle East.

A shining example? I don't think democracy ever really 'shines', but ok.
I wouldn't underestimate the sense of deep disquiet that the shahs, mullahs and assorted autocrats of the Middle East are feeling right now. We've destabilized the Middle East, and in a good way.



I agree with making ordinary Iraqis responsible for security because it gives them what they really need when it comes to running a democracy of their own: experience, practice. That tactic makes Iraqis partners in this venture - not spectators. Nothing could be more democratic, actually.



I think a more pressing question is: "Can we afford not to shepherd them into the 21st Century? Can we continue to ignore the region's political backwardness?"

I think the answer to that question is, "No."



I think the problem is not so much the people of the Middle East, so much as their leaders. Change is difficult, you're dead on the mark about that amf. But the alternative to trying is to continue to let those people languish. Many people still believe that the Islamic world just doesn't fit with the concept of democracy, that somehow they just can't handle it.

But that's nonsense. They say the natural state of man is freedom. That would include the Arab Sphere as well. It worked with the Japanese, didn't it? And they had an Emperor, whom they believed was of divine origin. How is that so different from the Middle East? The Japanese are Westernized in the sense that they have a working economy and a functioning democracy - and yet their culture is still distinctly their own.

If Japan is a valid example of a democratization that succeeded, then we should prepare to remain in Iraq for some time to come.

I don't like the idea of sheparding people in any direction at all. This has quite a Victorian, "White Man's Burden' tone to it. Are we our brothers' keepers. Are these nations too immature to decide their fate for themselves? I think we can encourage democracy by extolling its merits or refusing to deal with non-democratic nations, or by placing a strong emphasis on human rights.

But it is not up to us to decide the form of government for countries. All of us are in the 21st century and the world climate is what is is.

We would better serve the world by modelling democracy and good world citizenship. Not as stewards or guardians but as a member of a community.


Addressing quotation number two.

Yes the Arab governments do have many problems. Whether they are monarchies from the end of the colonial era, secular dictatorships that overthrew those monarchies, or fundamentalist states that overthrew those monarchies.

However I think it is too bold to say that the people of the Arab world are clamoring for the American way of life. How does that explain the mass demonstrations of exhuberation during the Iranian revolution or the returning of the bodies of the terrorists of Munich to Libya, or the expressions of joy by people of Palestine after 9-11 (those were quieted down by the PA)


Addressing #3

It is important to remember that Japan had successfully industrialized first, which I think is almost a mandatory ingredient for a democracy, the creation of a stable middle class) They had also had a democracy that fell (as many others did ) during the economic climate between the two world wars.

The only non-industrialized successful democracy that I can think of is India, which has a fairly highly educated population. But its democracy was basically a family dynasty in the years from 1950-1991. With only a few interruptions it was Nehru-daughter Gandhi--grandson Rajiv sp? Gandhi) and the later two were assassinated.

I thought that was the utopian goal – to be our brother’s keeper - it takes a village – all that good stuff. Did I miss a meeting?



Yes Eeyore, in my opinion, Iraq is too immature to make the huge leap from - over 40 years of being brainwashed to something resembling a democracy on it's own. Many of these people never even dreamed of freedom. Their ideals have been implanted since youth. They need direction. They need some influential leader/country to pull them back on course. One of my greatest fears regarding this is that Iraq will be taken over by religious fanatics or another dictator.

Of course, we can’t shove democracy down their throats AND we are going to face opposition and uprisings along the way. Opposition, uprising, and religious zealotry happened right here on American soil a few hundred years ago. Look at the despicable things this country allowed, even endorsed during those early years - slavery, suffrage, and the witch-hunts to name just three. But we had goals, ideals, resolve and just look at us today.

We ARE the world’s model of democracy and world citizenship. We are also the world’s super power and with that comes the added responsibility of being guardian to many countries.

Does the US have the right plan?

The Bush administration had a plan to be in Iraq approximately 18 months. The general plan was to provide:

“…forces that would keep the peace, hunt down Mr. Hussein's top leaders and weapons of mass destruction and, "keep the country whole."

These “general” plans are available on-line at the following links:

US Is Completing Plan to Promote a Democratic Iraq

US Plans '18-Month Occupation of Iraq' After War

Was it the right plan? This is subjective, but there is no doubt in my mind the plan certainly got us started. It accomplished many of its objectives as is easily demonstrated by looking at Iraq as a whole. Electricity is up. Shops, restaurants, schools, and hospitals are open and in better shape than they were. With the exception of the triangle, Iraq is relatively calm. Local governments and economies are moving forward.

Can the plan be improved upon? Of course it can and this administration is doing just that – sometimes slower than is comfortable, but at least they are flexible. Flexibility is the most important ingredient to any plan.