You are the one who has repeatedly run away from my challenges. Not the actions of someone who actually believes in himself as much as you seem to. BTW, your analogy is flawed since a high school team would never challenge the Pistons in the first place, particularly not to a game that actually has stakes that both teams are interested in. Your cowardice is plain and evident for all to see.
The question was about Kerry's plan. It only seems logical that Kerry's website would be a good place to go for his plan.
Yeah, I think it is understandable that someone would challenge Kerry supporters to show what he will do differently. I am happy to show that he does have a workable plan on his website. Being challenged on MY credibillity by t_j is laughable, though.
OK, Kerry has a theoretical plan on his website that appears far more workable than the "more of the same" being proposed by Bush.
He has no plan. Supposedly, it is at www.johnkerry.com, but it is nothing than platitudes and pie-in-the-sky ideas of a man who is not connected with reality.
Here is the plan from JohnKerry.com: 1. Internationalize, because others must share the burden; 2. Train Iraqis, because they must be responsible for their own security; 3. Move forward with reconstruction because that's an important way to stop the spread of terror; and 4. Help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it is up to them to run their own country. Which of these is the Bush Administration not pursuing or has not pursued?
What other countries? France and Germany have already said they don't want any part of Iraq, regardless of who the president is or will be.
As I mentioned before, even if France and Germany are intransigent on their decision not to put troops on the ground in Iraq, they could still help out in other ways like training Iraqi soldiers and police to take over once we leave. GWB will not get other countries to help AT ALL since he basically thumbed his nose at the rest of the world in the lead up to the invasion. John Kerry will be able to bring those countries back to the table in order to find out how they ARE willing to help.
A key detail about European troops being in Afghanistan is that they are predominantly in <i>peacekeeping</i> rather than <i>peacemaking</i> roles. That is a <i>difference</i> that you and FranchiseBlade are not mentioning. I recently did extensive research on what to expect from the Europeans and posted it in this thread: <a HREF="http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85076&perpage=30&pagenumber=2">MSNBC: Iran rebuffs Europe on nuclear fuel</a> I have read several articles on the topic of potential U.S. - European joint military ventures from what I would deem to be quality sources.........yet there are accusations of repeating GOP talking points when other posters echo sentiments similar to mine. Since you and FranchiseBlade participated in that thread and are advocating the same/similar positions in this thread, should I add my previous posts on this topic to the current (active) thread so they can be addressed here?
Now that debate (the p -keeping/making) one is a blast from the past, let's party like its 1999! All kidding aside, I don't know if Afghanistan qualifies as peacekeeping; I thought that NATO troops (at least in support roles) were part of offensive operations vs. the Taliban, etc, I recall Canadian forces that were accidentally bombed as part of some operation. I think we would agree qualifies as peacemaking, no?
I would call the Canadian action as aiding in <i>peacemaking</i>............but am unsure about calling them Europeans. Germany, France and others from the <i>Continent</i> are the countries that seem to be reluctant in taking on <i>peacemaking</i> roles in troubled parts of the world. Here is one of the articles that I posted in the other thread: <a HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53701-2004Jun18.html">The Allies Must Step Up </a> <i>Critics of the Bush administration at home and abroad have long called for an early return of Iraqi sovereignty coupled with the internationalization of the assistance effort. The U.N. resolution that was passed unanimously June 8, though late in coming, does just that. What's more, the resolution reflects significant efforts by the Bush administration to meet the concerns of key nations that opposed the Iraq war in 2003. Iraq will enjoy full sovereignty after June 30, not limited sovereignty. Iraqi forces will be under Iraqi command, not the command of the multinational force. The mandate of the multinational force will expire once the political transition has been completed. And the forces will be withdrawn if the Iraqi government so desires. One would think, therefore, that the new U.N. consensus on Iraq would offer real hope not only for putting Iraq on the right track but also for healing some of the rifts between the United States and its European allies. France and Germany demanded a significant U.N. role, and they've gotten it. They demanded a rapid turnover of sovereignty to the Iraqis, and they got that, too. With the two countries having gotten their way in the negotiations on the resolution, the time has come for them to pitch in and join in the effort to build a peaceful, stable, democratic future for Iraq. After all, French, German and other European officials have insisted all along that the success or failure of Iraq is as much a vital interest for them as for the United States. They've also insisted, understandably, that if the United States wanted their help, it would have to give them a say over policy in Iraq. Unfortunately, now that the Bush administration has finally acquiesced to their requests, it appears that France and Germany are refusing to fulfill their end of the bargain. Leaders of both countries have declared they will not send troops to assist in Iraq under any circumstances. Still more troubling was French President Jacques Chirac's declaration at the Group of Eight summit last week that he opposed any NATO role in Iraq, even though the resolution France supported explicitly calls on "Member States and international and regional organizations to contribute assistance to the multinational force, including military forces." The positions staked out by the French and German governments are an abdication of international responsibility. Everyone knows success in Iraq will require a greater effort on the part of the international community than has so far been forthcoming. The United Nations will have to establish a major operation on the ground if it is to assist the Iraqi government through a difficult political transition over the coming months. Security inside Iraq will have to improve significantly for elections to proceed on schedule and for the economy to begin to grow. An intensive training and equipment program for Iraqi security forces -- including police, civil defense and regular military forces -- will ultimately enable the Iraqis to maintain security. But until then the task will fall mainly on the multinational forces. Thanks to bad planning by the Pentagon, there have never been enough troops in Iraq. At least in the short run, real security requires additional troops. Most of those troops need to come from the United States. But American friends and allies should be sending more forces as well. Beyond the needs in Iraq, there are broader issues at stake. Above all, there is the question of whether there is any meaning left in the term "alliance." Admittedly the United States hasn't been the best of allies over the past two years. We have missed opportunities to work more closely with NATO countries. But it takes more than the United States to make the transatlantic alliance work. If some of the strongest NATO powers refuse to participate in vital security missions, such as that in Iraq, then it should hardly be surprising when Americans and their leaders begin to dismiss those nations as serious strategic partners. Good allies don't join only the causes that they choose and that are already going well. When the United States sent troops to Bosnia and later fought the Kosovo war, it was not because the Europeans had handled those situations well. Nor did a majority of Americans believe that Bosnia and Kosovo were their concern. Much of the reason the United States fought in the Balkans during the 1990s was for the sake of the alliance itself. <b> NATO officials, as well as some allied countries, argue that with the alliance already involved in Afghanistan, taking on Iraq as well is beyond the organization's capacity. But the truth is, if NATO cannot take on a mission such as Iraq, when the United States is providing 90 percent of the forces, then why should Americans continue to value the organization? Germany may be tapped out in Afghanistan and the Balkans, which is a sorry commentary on the state of that enormous and wealthy country's military capabilities. But surely France has several thousand troops to spare, if the French government wants to provide them. </b> Now that the Security Council has opened the door to internationalization in Iraq, the Europeans would be wise to step through. Alliance leaders meeting in Istanbul later this month should agree to take over the security training and equipping mission immediately, with a country such as Germany (which is already involved in training some police) perhaps taking the lead. They should also agree that NATO will take command of the Polish-led sector in southern Iraq immediately and begin planning for eventually placing the entire multinational force under NATO command. It will be a deadly blow to transatlantic relations if NATO does not become involved in providing security in Iraq. Many Europeans believe their problem is only with the Bush administration. That's a dangerous miscalculation. If John Kerry wins in November, one of his first acts will be to request Europe's help in Iraq. If France and Germany are intent on saying no, then future American administrations, including Kerry's, will have to reconsider the value of the alliance. Do Europeans really want to sever their strategic ties to the United States? If not, they need to understand that the ball is now in their court. </i>
Intellectual laziness is one thing but cyber laziness is unacceptable. Why don't you do the research yourself and comeback and ask reall questions.... See link below for a start... Winning The Peace In Iraq
That's an important distinction, but doesn't make that type of help insignificant in Iraq. Even if they were only peace keeping troops, that would free up our troops to then move whole heartedly into peacemaking operations. The U.S. troops would could then focus their efforts. We also know that France did extensive bombing runs during the initial action in Afghanistan, so there is still the slight chance they would do more in Iraq too. I do agree that it would be a very slim chance of that happening, but even peacekeeping troops might be able to guard, or free up other troops to guard ammo supply areas like al-Qaaqaa. I remember reading your previous articles on this, but I wouldn't mind reading them again as it pertains to this topic.
I don't see too much different between Kerry's plan and what the current Admin is trying to do in Iraq. The one main difference is that given the hatred of GW Bush internationally the current Admin has no chance of getting more help while a Kerry Admin has a slim chance. Other than that I don't see any good solutions to getting out of Iraq.
Except that European troops did take part during the initial invasion of Afghanistan and have engaged in major combat operations there since. I don't think there much of a peacekeeping vs peacemaking distinction in Afghanistan.
Germany has troops in Afghanistan, but they aren't in <i>tip of the spear</i> situations. <a HREF="http://paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=78386">Role of German troops in north Afghanistan questioned after riot</a> <a HREF="http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=9816"> Rocket attack on German camp in Afghanistan</a> <i>.........Already, the German troops in Afghanistan have a reputation of being over-cautious in avoiding casualties. When on 8 September an angry mob attacked the offices of the Swiss charity Medair (after rumors that local female staff had been raped), it was unarmed staff from the British security firm Global Risk who came to the rescue - not the German troops. And in Kabul, according to one security contractor, German troops “race from one end of town to the other” in their armored vehicles without daring to get out and patrol on foot.</i> <hr color=blue> The European NATO partners seem reluctant to put there forces in <i>tip of the spear</i> situations. <a HREF="http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3618276">Nato Spearhead Force 'Ready for Action'</a> <i>...........However, initial French opposition to using part of the new force to help protect last weekend’s elections in Afghanistan has raised questions about the effectiveness of such a multinational unit – where approval for its deployment must be unanimous from all 26 allies. Eventually NATO, including France, agreed to send some 550 Italian troops from the NRF to the Afghan elections. The force is scheduled to grow to 24,000 within the next couple of years. Officials were to declare today that it is prepared for a full range of operations including peace support, humanitarian assistance and rescue missions. NATO hopes the force can help avoid delays which have dogged efforts to expand its Afghan operation since it was launched in August 2003. Nations’ reluctance to provide troops for the costly and dangerous mission prevented the alliance from completing an expansion of the operation from the capital, Kabul, into northern provinces until this month. NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer is expected to impress on ministers the need to quickly expand the mission into western Afghanistan – a move that would free up US troops to fight Taliban and al-Qaida remnants in the south and east. Nicholas Burns, the US ambassador to NATO, told reporters travelling with Rumsfeld late on Tuesday that the US is pressing the alliance to take over the US-led military mission in Afghanistan, possibly as early as 2005. NATO currently commands the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul and it has set up five Provincial Reconstruction Teams in northern Afghanistan, but it does not conduct combat missions like the US forces do.............</i> Nor does it appear that they are currently up to handling <i>tip of the spear</i> situations. <a HREF="http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/9906892.htm?1c">Germans Reject NATO-Afghan Proposal </a> <i>........POIANA BRASOV, Romania - Germany's defense minister rejected a U.S proposal to have NATO take over the U.S.-led military mission in Afghanistan, saying Wednesday that his country wants to focus on stabilization. Peter Struck spoke on the opening day of a meeting of NATO defense ministers. The proposal would combine the NATO peacekeeping force in Afghanistan with the 18,000 strong U.S.-commanded combat mission fighting remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaida. "We are against a merger of the two mandates," Struck told German radio. "The German government sees its engagement primarily with the ... stabilization mandate." NATO currently commands the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul, the Afghan capital, and it has set up five Provincial Reconstruction Teams in northern Afghanistan. Its troops do not conduct combat missions as U.S. forces do. Nicholas Burns, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, had told reporters traveling with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday that the United States wants the two missions combined under an alliance commander, possibly as early as 2005. "It's a very complicated issue, how you put these two very different military missions together," Burns said. "But there will be a number of people who will support - we will certainly support - a direction to the military leaders of the alliance to go and look at this question." Burns said he expects the alliance's military leaders to present answers at a planned February meeting of defense ministers in Nice, France. Since August 2003, NATO has run a peacekeeping mission in the Afghan capital, Kabul, separate from the U.S. combat mission. In recent months, NATO has expanded the mission into northern provinces in Afghanistan and is now seeking to increase the 8,000 troop force to move into a western sector. <b> Struck said he backed the drive to get more NATO troops to expand the peacekeeping mission, but he doubted Germany's parliament would support a change of the mandate to allow the alliance to take on the combat mission. </b> Germany is one of the largest contributors to the peacekeeping mission, with 2,500 soldiers....... ..........<b>The 26 NATO ministers opened their meeting with a debate on how to speed up decision making and modernize their militaries to prevent the delays which have dogged efforts to expand the Afghan mission. As the Cold War alliance seeks to find a new role in the post-Sept. 11 world, allies are under pressure to modernize their outdated militaries so more European troops can deploy on overseas mission. "We have less reason for satisfaction with our arrangements for marshaling forces for operations and sustaining them in the field," NATO's Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told the meeting.</b></i>
