QandO

August 09, 2004

Kerry's non-plan for Iraq
Posted by McQ

John Kerry presented his "grand plan" for Iraq in a USA Today op/ed piece. As an editorial in the same paper points out that appears Bush and Kerry, unsurprisingly, want the same things:

Both want more international military and financial help, a stable and relatively democratic government, an intensive training of Iraqi security forces and a gradual drawdown of U.S. troops. But who wouldn't? The question is how to get there.

Precisely. But Kerry has yet, other than a bit of hand-waving and vague promises, described how he'd do that. Now that he's finally getting around to some specifics he's promising either the impossible or that which has already been done.

For instance, this under on of his plan's promises:

Lead NATO to make the security of Iraq one of its global missions and to deploy a significant portion of the force needed to secure and win the peace there. NATO participation will open the door to greater international involvement from non-NATO countries.

A majority of NATO nations are already participating in Iraq. NATO has just sent its first contingent to train Iraqi security personnel. I guess Kerry didn't get that briefing.

In reality, this is simply another in a long line of promises to get France and Germany involved without saying "France and Germany". Folks, France and Germany are not, let me repeat that, not going to send troops to Iraq regardless of who is president. No way, no how. It is a no-go. Why Kerry thinks he has the power and influence to pull this off is beyond me ... and, in the big scheme of things it doesn't matter anyway.

As the USA Today editorial points out:

Since the Cold War, Europe has slashed defense budgets, and NATO already is stretched thin stabilizing Afghanistan. Even if more forces were found, the question remains: How would their inevitably small numbers change the role of the 140,000 U.S. troops already there?

It wouldn't. So again, a vague promise which, even if fulfilled, would have little if any impact.

Then there's this:

Internationalize the reconstruction efforts in Iraq to end the continuing perception of a U.S. occupation and help coordinate the rebuilding.

Its already internationalized. And it hasn't changed the perception one bit. Why is it so important to Kerry to change the perception? I have no idea. But can that perception actually be changed in reality? This late in the game? Why no. So this is a nonsense point.

Launch a massive and accelerated training effort to build Iraqi security forces that can provide real security for the Iraqi people, including a major role for NATO. This is not a task for America alone; we must join as a partner with other nations.

Kerry, apparently, just flat missed this one. What he's promising his already happening.

NATO sent a group of officers to Iraq on Saturday to begin its training mission for Iraqi forces.

The first four officers left Saturday from a command center in the southern Italian city of Naples, NATO said in a statement fromNaples, calling it the official start of the mission in Iraq.

The main part of the NATO training mission group, initially consisting of 45 members, will deploy next week, said the statement.

So the NATO advanced party has deployed to set up the NATO training mission to do what? Train Iraqi forces.

Hello ... calling Mr. Kerry.

Lastly, Kerry says:

Plan for Iraq's future by working with our allies to forgive Iraq's multibillion-dollar debt and involve our allies in the development of a new Iraqi constitution and the political arrangements needed to protect minority rights. At the same time, we should convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq's national affairs.

Uh, done, done and done.

Where has this guy been? He's proposing what's already being done. I can only assume he's reproposing it with the inferrence that he'll just do it better. Oh, that's right: "We can do better, and help is on the way".

Right.

I will meet our sacred commitment to our brave troops in Iraq — to end their mission successfully and bring them home as soon as possible. At stake is whether Iraq will complete its march to democracy or degenerate into the next proving ground for terrorists.

Well if all of the above is what it takes to end the mission successfully and bring them home as soon as possible, I'd say we're well on the way. Kerry proposes nothing "new" except the usual veiled reference to including France and Germany. Other than that, his plan is Bush's plan.

The difference is Bush's is being executed.

TrackBack