I get so frustrated with Democrats not having a plan in Iraq....

[pfife]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082301419.html

A Plan to Hold Iraq Together

By Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Thursday, August 24, 2006; Page A21

Four months ago, in an opinion piece with Les Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, I laid out a detailed plan to keep Iraq together, protect America's interests and bring our troops home. Many experts here and in Iraq embraced our ideas. Since then, circumstances in Iraq have made the plan even more on target -- and urgent -- than when we first proposed it.

The new, central reality in Iraq is that violence between Shiites and Sunnis has surpassed the insurgency and foreign terrorists as the main security threat. Our leading civilian and military experts on Iraq -- Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and Gens. George Casey, Peter Pace and John Abizaid -- have all acknowledged that fact.

In December's elections, 90 percent of the votes went to sectarian lists. Ethnic militias increasingly are the law in Iraq. They have infiltrated the official security forces. Sectarian cleansing has begun in mixed areas, with 200,000 Iraqis fleeing their homes in recent months for fear of sectarian reprisals. Massive unemployment feeds the ranks of sectarian militias and criminal gangs.

No number of troops can solve this problem. The only way to hold Iraq together and create the conditions for our armed forces to responsibly withdraw is to give Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds incentives to pursue their interests peacefully and to forge a sustainable political settlement. Unfortunately, this administration does not have a coherent plan or any discernible strategy for success in Iraq. Its strategy is to prevent defeat and hand the problem off when it leaves office.

Meanwhile, more and more Americans, understandably frustrated, support an immediate withdrawal, even at the risk of trading a dictator for chaos and a civil war that could become a regional war.

Both are bad alternatives. The five-point plan Les Gelb and I laid out offers a better way.

First, the plan calls for maintaining a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis their own regions. The central government would be left in charge of common interests, such as border security and the distribution of oil revenue.

Second, it would bind the Sunnis to the deal by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of oil revenue. Each group would have an incentive to maximize oil production, making oil the glue that binds the country together.

Third, the plan would create a massive jobs program while increasing reconstruction aid -- especially from the oil-rich Gulf states -- but tying it to the protection of minority rights.

Fourth, it would convene an international conference that would produce a regional nonaggression pact and create a Contact Group to enforce regional commitments.

Fifth, it would begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces this year and withdraw most of them by the end of 2007, while maintaining a small follow-on force to keep the neighbors honest and to strike any concentration of terrorists.

This plan is consistent with Iraq's constitution, which already provides for the country's 18 provinces to join together in regions, with their own security forces and control over most day-to-day issues. This plan is the only idea on the table for dealing with the militias, which are likely to retreat to their respective regions instead of engaging in acts of violence. This plan is consistent with a strong central government that has clearly defined responsibilities. Indeed, it provides an agenda for that government, whose mere existence will not end sectarian violence. This plan is not partition -- in fact, it may be the only way to prevent violent partition and preserve a unified Iraq.

To be sure, this plan presents real challenges, especially with regard to large cities with mixed populations. We would maintain Baghdad as a federal city, belonging to no one region. And we would require international peacekeepers for other mixed cities to support local security forces and further protect minorities. The example of Bosnia is illustrative, if not totally analogous. Ten years ago, Bosnia was being torn apart by ethnic cleansing. The United States stepped in decisively with the Dayton Accords to keep the country whole by, paradoxically, dividing it into ethnic federations. We even allowed Muslims, Croats and Serbs to retain separate armies. With the help of U.S. troops and others, Bosnians have lived a decade in peace. Now they are strengthening their central government and disbanding their separate armies.

At best, the course we're on has no end in sight. At worst, it leads to a terrible civil war and possibly a regional war. This plan offers a way to bring our troops home, protect our security interests and preserve Iraq as a unified country. Those who reject this plan out of hand must answer one simple question: What is your alternative?

The writer is a senator from Delaware and the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee.

[whitaker900]

Ummmm your subject line and article don't seem to match. This looks like a plan by a Democrat. What are you trying to say?

[Motor City Sonics]

Hey, Whitaker........I know you are new around here. That's not condensation on your screen, it's beads of sarcasm oozing from this website....get used to it.

[whitaker900]

Originally Posted by Motor City Sonics

Hey, Whitaker........I know you are new around here. That's not condensation on your screen, it's beads of sarcasm oozing from this website....get used to it.

Lol, ok.

I think the pubs think we have no plan, because as we talk, they are too busy shouting, "LIBERAL, UNPATRIOTIC!"

Then a year later, after what we said would happen, happens, they start saying, "Sheesh where did this come from? Looks like we got a problem here."

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by whitaker900

Ummmm your subject line and article don't seem to match. This looks like a plan by a Democrat. What are you trying to say?

And you call UM fans stupid? Typical Buckeye.

[djhutch]

First of all, let me say that I'm glad to see a plan has been formulated. I appreciate the effort, but I think it has some holes.

First, the plan calls for maintaining a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis their own regions.

The biggest problem here is that this is the same logic that's used when telling Israel to just give "a little more" territory to the Palestinians. "If we just give them what they want" won't work, because what they want is for us to die.

Second, it would bind the Sunnis to the deal by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of oil revenue. Each group would have an incentive to maximize oil production, making oil the glue that binds the country together.

That is assuming that these people will be happy with the share they get. I don't think they can be trusted to live by their word.

Fifth, it would begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces this year and withdraw most of them by the end of 2007, while maintaining a small follow-on force to keep the neighbors honest and to strike any concentration of terrorists.

So they'll play nice for a year, & when we leave what happens?

[billms]

First, I think you are crazy if you think Muslims 'want us to die'. But more to the point, if thats what the Iraqi's want, don't you think we should just leave rather than stay around and get kicked some more?

Which group do you not trust? There are three completely different groups here. Do you just not trust anybody from the middle east? Or somebody in particular.

When we leave the mess in thier country is their problem. Thats how it works for the rest of the world. If they want to kill us and they are all liars why should we care what happens to them?

[Melody]

Originally Posted by whitaker900

Lol, ok.

I think the pubs think we have no plan, because as we talk, they are too busy shouting, "LIBERAL, UNPATRIOTIC!"

Then a year later, after what we said would happen, happens, they start saying, "Sheesh where did this come from? Looks like we got a problem here."

Your plan to divide Iraq into states was proposed before during the drafting of the Iraqi constitution. The Iraqi's didn't like it. Among the problems is that it would require many Iraqi's to be relocated from their homes into other regions. THAT always causes problems.

[billms]

Actually, many Iraqi's liked it. And many don't like the current plan.

In any case, I'm surprised to hear you say this. Am I remembering wrong? I thought you were one of the people suggesting the Dems had no plan.

[NotoriousCPC]

Originally Posted by Melody

Your plan to divide Iraq into states was proposed before during the drafting of the Iraqi constitution. The Iraqi's didn't like it. Among the problems is that it would require many Iraqi's to be relocated from their homes into other regions. THAT always causes problems.

Wasn't an even bigger problem that they all wanted control of the biggest oil producing regions of the country?

[billms]

yep

so can we formally add to the bush plan letting turky invade kurdish areas?

[djhutch]

Originally Posted by billms

First, I think you are crazy if you think Muslims 'want us to die'. But more to the point, if thats what the Iraqi's want, don't you think we should just leave rather than stay around and get kicked some more?

I think the radical Osama-led militant Muslims definitely want us to die. They see America as the "Great Satan."

Which group do you not trust? There are three completely different groups here. Do you just not trust anybody from the middle east? Or somebody in particular.

The Palestinians more than anyone. I trust Israel.

When we leave the mess in thier country is their problem. Thats how it works for the rest of the world. If they want to kill us and they are all liars why should we care what happens to them?

It seems to me that was the prevalent opinion before 9/11. It's their problem. Again, I don't think all Muslims want us dead. & I don't care what happens to the ones that do. As Patton said "The purpose of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his."

[Oblong]

http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/toridof.htm

Alan: Hello.

Noel: Hello.

Alan: Well, last week we showed you how to become a gynaecologist. And this week on 'How to do it' we're going to show you how to play the flute, how to split an atom, how to construct a box girder bridge, how to irrigate the Sahara Desert and make vast new areas of land cultivatable, but first, here's Jackie to tell you all how to rid the world of all known diseases.

Jackie: Hello, Alan.

Alan: Hello, Jackie.

Jackie: Well, first of all become a doctor and discover a marvellous cure for something, and then, when the medical profession really starts to take notice of you, you can jolly well tell them what to do and make sure they get everything right so there'll never be any diseases ever again.

Alan: Thanks, Jackie. Great idea. How to play the flute. (picking up a flute) Well here we are. You blow there and you move your fingers up and down here.

Noel: Great, great, Alan. Well, next week we'Ll be showing you how black and white people can live together in peace and harmony, and Alan will be over in Moscow showing us how to reconcile the Russians and the Chinese. So, until next week, cheerio.

Alan: Bye.

Jackie: Bye.

[billms]

Originally Posted by djhutch

I think the radical Osama-led militant Muslims definitely want us to die. They see America as the "Great Satan."

The Palestinians more than anyone. I trust Israel.

It seems to me that was the prevalent opinion before 9/11. It's their problem. Again, I don't think all Muslims want us dead. & I don't care what happens to the ones that do. As Patton said "The purpose of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his."

1) OK - perhaps. But thats a small group overall. And an extremely small group in Iraq. The three main groups in Iraq are the kurds, the sunni, and the shite. OBL is *none* of them.

2) The palestinians and Israel are not in Iraq so they are irrelevent.

3) Given the above information, does your analysis of this proposal remain the same?

[Buddha]

The Palestinians more than anyone. I trust Israel.

Why don't you trust "the Palestinians"?

Why do you trust Israel?

[Mr. DNA]

Originally Posted by Buddha

Why don't you trust "the Palestinians"?

Why do you trust Israel?

It's not like Israel has ever done anything to betray the trust of the United States, like bomb the USS Liberty, sell our secrets to the Russians, or illegally use our bombs against civillian populations.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by Mr. DNA

or illegally use our bombs against civillian populations.

Israel? But they dropped leaflets in towns! Leaflets! If people were still there the next day, it was obviously because they were Hizbullah.

And if they were driving away in a car with a white flag on it, they were obviously hizbullah.

And if the were driving an ambulance, obviously hizbullah.

Or in a convoy with medical supplies, hizubllah.

Obvioulsy. D'uh.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by billms

Actually, many Iraqi's liked it. And many don't like the current plan.

My recollection is that it was only the Kurds who liked it. Can't say that I blame them much, given the treatment they've received by the rest of Iraq. But that would probably escalate problems with the Kurds in Turkey. I think that, as noted, oilfields are a big issue as well.

In any case, I'm surprised to hear you say this. Am I remembering wrong? I thought you were one of the people suggesting the Dems had no plan.

That's not a plan, really. Like Kerry's "plan" to send in the U.N., in spite of their resolution NOT to be involved militarily, this "plan" doesn't take into account what the Iraqi people want.

I haven't noticed that attempts by the British and/or French in the 1940s to divide countries into religious or political factions did much to quell violence in the ME and Asia.

[billms]

Thats right - the kurds liked it for a number of reasons, including the fact that their land would naturally include the oilfields.

Sure its a plan. Its a concrete plan and, in my view, a plan that is more likely to happen than the one that W espouses. Though the most likely is iranianization. W's plan also doesn't take into account what all of the iraqi people want - i don't know of any plan that does. Is that a requirement now? Because its a tough problem, and if we need 100% agreement I suggest we quit now - because it aint ever going to happen.

It seems awfully simplistic to say "they don't have a plan" then when one is presented say "thats not a plan because not all the people want it". Heh.

Who said that the goal was to quell violence? Countries clash. Using your reasoning Israel is a failed experiment as well.

[djhutch]

Originally Posted by billms

1) OK - perhaps. But thats a small group overall. And an extremely small group in Iraq. The three main groups in Iraq are the kurds, the sunni, and the shite. OBL is *none* of them.

2) The palestinians and Israel are not in Iraq so they are irrelevent.

3) Given the above information, does your analysis of this proposal remain the same?

1) It may be a small group, but it took less than 30 people with an agenda to pull off 9/11.

2) You asked do you not trust anyone from the middle east - I answered I don't trust the palestinians.

3) My analysis remains the same.

[billms]

1) So? We are talking about Iraq. I-effing-raq! In a country of that size you will *always* have 30 people who hate the US. Or any country. And none of those 911 people were iraqi as far as I recall.

2) I didn't ask you about trusting people in the middle east. We were discussing a plan to deal with Iraq. You said you didn't trust them. I asked who specifically you didn't trust. As I said, the palestinians have nothing to do with Iraq - what does the fact that you don't trust the palestinians have to do with your opinion on this, or any other, peace plan for Iraq? Nothing, I'd guess.

3) Ok, given that your reasons for reaching your analysis are detached from the plan and the country involved (you know, like the whole palestinian thing) I would be interested in hearing what about Iraq, and this plan, lead you to reach your conclusion. But if you say its because the Nazi's moved to South America I promise to drop the discussion.

[djhutch]

Originally Posted by Buddha

Why don't you trust "the Palestinians"?

Why do you trust Israel?

I believe they have proven they cannot be trusted. Especially under Arafat, who would negotiate for more land & more land, & when a proposal to give it to him would come, he'd refuse it.

Beyond that - we are talking about an age old division that dates back to Abraham sleeping with Hagar. Even though we are living in the "church age", I believe a time will come when the church age will end & God will turn his grace toward his chosen people, Israel.

[billms]

You do realize that the proposal was not just to give him land, right? A lot more - or rather a lot less. The devil is in the details - but if the simple analysis comforts you go with it.

The last part is revealing and freaky. But its good to know that your trust is based on faith rather than reason - we can stop discussing it now.

[djhutch]

Originally Posted by billms

2) I didn't ask you about trusting people in the middle east.

Originally Posted by billms

Link
...Do you just not trust anybody from the middle east? Or somebody in particular.

I guess I don't make much distinction between thugs in Iraq & thugs in Palestine, or Afghanistan, or Buffalo for that matter. I used the Palestinian land grabs as an example. I know they don't have anything to do with the Iraqi conflict, but I don't believe the factions we are fighting against in Iraq can be trusted any more than the Palestinians. & I don't believe they're only fighting us because we're in their land. The fact that none of the 9/11 pilots is from Iraq doesn't mean they wouldn't try to pull off an attack like that.

[djhutch]

Originally Posted by billms

You do realize that the proposal was not just to give him land, right? A lot more - or rather a lot less. The devil is in the details - but if the simple analysis comforts you go with it.

The last part is revealing and freaky. But its good to know that your trust is based on faith rather than reason - we can stop discussing it now.

Why are you so quick to dismiss people who make decisions based on their faith? What kind of faith would it be if it didn't direct my decision making?

[pfife]

Originally Posted by Buddha

Israel? But they dropped leaflets in towns! Leaflets!

paper cuts

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by djhutch

I guess I don't make much distinction between thugs in Iraq & thugs in Palestine, or Afghanistan, or Buffalo for that matter. I used the Palestinian land grabs as an example. I know they don't have anything to do with the Iraqi conflict, but I don't believe the factions we are fighting against in Iraq can be trusted any more than the Palestinians. & I don't believe they're only fighting us because we're in their land. The fact that none of the 9/11 pilots is from Iraq doesn't mean they wouldn't try to pull off an attack like that.

What about thugs in Isreal?

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by djhutch

I believe they have proven they cannot be trusted. Especially under Arafat, who would negotiate for more land & more land, & when a proposal to give it to him would come, he'd refuse it.

Beyond that - we are talking about an age old division that dates back to Abraham sleeping with Hagar. Even though we are living in the "church age", I believe a time will come when the church age will end & God will turn his grace toward his chosen people, Israel.

I didn't see this when I made my last post. Sorry.

As for the Arafat comments, why does that bother you more than Israel making promises it would not take any more Palestinian land, and then taking it anyway? What's the difference? Why would you trust Israel to make good on its promises any more than the Palestinians?

[billms]

Originally Posted by djhutch

I guess I don't make much distinction between thugs in Iraq & thugs in Palestine, or Afghanistan, or Buffalo for that matter. I used the Palestinian land grabs as an example. I know they don't have anything to do with the Iraqi conflict, but I don't believe the factions we are fighting against in Iraq can be trusted any more than the Palestinians. & I don't believe they're only fighting us because we're in their land. The fact that none of the 9/11 pilots is from Iraq doesn't mean they wouldn't try to pull off an attack like that.

Ooops. You are right, I did ask you if you didn't trust anybody in the mid east. Still, the topic was on iraq and you said you didn't trust them. Who there don't you trust? The kurds? The christians? The sunni? The shite?

Sure you make distinctions between thugs. There are the good thugs - i.e. those we support, and the bad thugs, i.e. those we don't support. Who are thugs, by the way? Whats your definition?

[billms]

Originally Posted by djhutch

Why are you so quick to dismiss people who make decisions based on their faith? What kind of faith would it be if it didn't direct my decision making?

I'm not dismissing it at all. You are missing the point. I am dismissing any efforts to reason about it. Your views are your views. They are based on your faith and not reason. Fair enough. I don't share that faith. If we don't share a reality based world view that allows us to reason about how we got here and how we can get where we want to go then I don't see how we can have a useful dialog.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by billms

It seems awfully simplistic to say "they don't have a plan" then when one is presented say "thats not a plan because not all the people want it". Heh.

Hey, I have a plan to live in this beautiful house with acreage in Westlake. Unfortunately, Terry Bradshaw doesn't want to move out and give it to me. So, I guess it's a plan. But unless Terry gets on board with it (unlikely), it's really not a very workable plan.

Who said that the goal was to quell violence? Countries clash. Using your reasoning Israel is a failed experiment as well.

The Arabs sure think so.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by Melody

Hey, I have a plan to live in this beautiful house with acreage in Westlake. Unfortunately, Terry Bradshaw doesn't want to move out and give it to me. So, I guess it's a plan. But unless Terry gets on board with it (unlikely), it's really not a very workable plan.

Hey, I have a metaphor. Unfortunately, the metaphor is not really relevant. So, I guess its a metaphor. But unless it magically becomes relevant, its not really a workable metaphor.

So, does the UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE BUSH PLAN in Iraq manifest itself in the form of suicide bombs, ied's, and civil war?

just sayin

[Melody]

Originally Posted by Buddha

And if the were driving an ambulance, obviously hizbullah.

This ambulance?
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/

Or in a convoy with medical supplies, hizubllah.

Obvioulsy. D'uh.

Unfortunately, as Israel has repeatedly experienced, these "medical supply" convoys and ambulances are often used to transport weapons. Israel is claiming that the Arab claims are false, and that these relief trucks were, indeed, being used to smuggle weaponry. UN trucks were permitted through, having given reassurances to Israel that the UN was taking responsibility to ensure that the trucks contained nothing but relief supplies.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by pfife

Hey, I have a metaphor. Unfortunately, the metaphor is not really relevant. So, I guess its a metaphor. But unless it magically becomes relevant, its not really a workable metaphor.

So, does the UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE BUSH PLAN in Iraq manifest itself in the form of suicide bombs, ied's, and civil war?

just sayin

Of course it's relevant. A legitimate plan has to take into account the desires of the citizens or owners of the property. This one has been knocked around for years, and has been repeatedly rejected by many, especially the Iraqi people. Heck, even Juan Cole thinks partitioning Iraq is a bad idea. I wouldn't call HIM on board with the Bush Plan.

[billms]

Huh. Who'd a thunk it - a radical pro-israel web page says it didn't happen so it guess it must not of.

OT: I found this picture in their hall of shame section. For the sake of decency, I'm only going to post the link. Click if you wish but don't complain. Its not violent or racist or political. Just bizarre and disquieting. And kind of funny too! http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_sh...6-5635_IMG.JPG

[billms]

Originally Posted by Melody

Of course it's relevant. A legitimate plan has to take into account the desires of the citizens or owners of the property. This one has been knocked around for years, and has been repeatedly rejected by many, especially the Iraqi people. Heck, even Juan Cole thinks partitioning Iraq is a bad idea. I wouldn't call HIM on board with the Bush Plan.

that exact same characterization fits the bush plan, by the way, so obviously you agree that the administration has no plan either

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by Melody

This ambulance?
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/

Hmmm....who's photoshop should we believe?

Unfortunately, as Israel has repeatedly experienced, these "medical supply" convoys and ambulances are often used to transport weapons. Israel is claiming that the Arab claims are false, and that these relief trucks were, indeed, being used to smuggle weaponry. UN trucks were permitted through, having given reassurances to Israel that the UN was taking responsibility to ensure that the trucks contained nothing but relief supplies.

So that give Israel the right to destroy them? Alls fair in love and war crimes.

http://hrw.org/reports/2006/lebanon0...#_Toc142299224

[pfife]

Originally Posted by Melody

Of course it's relevant. A legitimate plan has to take into account the desires of the citizens or owners of the property.

Bush's "plan" does not meet these requirements.

This one has been knocked around for years,

and strangely, Republicans still parrot the RNC line about Dems not having a plan...

and has been repeatedly rejected by many, especially the Iraqi people.

Once again, the universal acceptance of bush's "plan" is manifest in suicide bombs, ieds, and civil war?

Heck, even Juan Cole thinks partitioning Iraq is a bad idea. I wouldn't call HIM on board with the Bush Plan.

ipse dixit. That is, unless Juan Cole is the absolute, omnipotent authority.

[djhutch]

Originally Posted by Buddha

As for the Arafat comments, why does that bother you more than Israel making promises it would not take any more Palestinian land, and then taking it anyway? What's the difference? Why would you trust Israel to make good on its promises any more than the Palestinians?

If memory serves me correctly, Israel has been asked to give a lot more land than it's been given in the last 40 years. Israel certainly isn't above doing what you suggest, but I think this type of thing has been overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the Palestinians.

Originally Posted by billms

I'm not dismissing it at all. You are missing the point. I am dismissing any efforts to reason about it. Your views are your views. They are based on your faith and not reason. Fair enough. I don't share that faith. If we don't share a reality based world view that allows us to reason about how we got here and how we can get where we want to go then I don't see how we can have a useful dialog.

I agree that our belief systems put us on different territory when trying to find common ground. However, it seems a little smug to me that you continue to insist your beliefs are based in reality while mine are not.

Originally Posted by billms

Sure you make distinctions between thugs. There are the good thugs - i.e. those we support, and the bad thugs, i.e. those we don't support. Who are thugs, by the way? Whats your definition?

You're right, I probably do make distinctions between thugs. Maybe thug isn't the best word. It seems like we're trying to apply the rules of a conventional war to the situation in Iraq & they just don't fit.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by djhutch

If memory serves me correctly, Israel has been asked to give a lot more land than it's been given in the last 40 years. Israel certainly isn't above doing what you suggest, but I think this type of thing has been overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the Palestinians.

First of all, Israel has been asked to give land because Israel is the dominant military power who took the land in the first place. The Palestinians didn't have any land to give in return. What would they give?

Secondly, the Israelis have violated all the agreements with the Palestinians, just as the Palestinians have violated them. They're both at fault. Why did Israel continue to allow settlers onto Palestinian lands after agreeing not to do so? For years and years. Israel has broken their word as many times as the Palestinians have. Probably more times.

Furthermore, for years Israel complained about not having a legitimate partner to negotiate with in Arafat (and with good reason). But then once Arafat was gone and Abbas took over, Israel did nothing to support him. Instead it dithered and told him to "reel in the militants" that he had no control over or else he'd get no help from Israel. In the meantime, they continued to build their huge wall on Palestinian land and make Abbas look like a fool. They undercut him. And in the end what happened? They ended up with Hamas.