Bottom line: What is it? I've watched the debates, ads, etc. and I've seen all of the "my plan will" bs between the two canidates. For those of you who follow Kerry closely, what is his plan on Iraq? I know he said in a debate that he'd have them out in 6 months, once we stabilize the country -- but uhhh duh, wouldn't Bush do the same thing? Of course we're gone once things stabilize, the problem is HOW you're going to do this. Just curious if he has detailed this anywhere or if one of you knows
His supposed plan is based upon at least two things: 1.) Getting support from other countries, thereby allowing the US to reduce the troop committment 2.) Increase the size of the US military, specifically the special forces who should be able to more effectively fight terrorists than a large army. I don't think #1 will happen, but I believe he'll give it a real try, fail and then blame it on Bush. I wonder what he would do to increase our special forces. I have no idea how that would be done effectively.
I heard a figure that 7 out of 10 people serving the United States in the military do not support Kerry.
That sounds about right to me. I have no idea what the percentage will be, but I'm sure Bush will carry the military vote by about 15 points. I was just clearing up the misconception that the backdoor draft could be used by carry to increase the size of the special forces.
Kerry's plan: 1) Keep telling our troops they are failing 2) Cut 3) Run If Kerry had a clear plan that did not look like the above, then he could articulate it for all to understand. Sadly, he can't. When the overwhelming majority of the military backs Bush, I think that pretty well sums up who the people closest to the situation think has the best plan. Bush.
Kerry actually has at least three parts to his plan for Iraq. 1) Bring other countries to the table, possibly opening some of the reconstruction contracts up to foreign companies in return for troop commitments. If those countries have people involved in rebuilding, they will have a vested interest in providing troops and funds for security. 2) Accelerate the training of the Iraqi forces so that they will be able to secure the country even in the absence of US troops. Eventually, they will have to be able to handle that job and as soon as they are to that point, we will be able to begin bringing some of the guys home. 3) Increase incentives for enlistment and retention so that we can train more special forces troops, troops that will be far more effective at fighting terrorists than your traditional infantry troops. In particular, he will improve retention bonuses because special forces troops have to have REenlisted in order to qualify for spcial forces (at least, that is how I understand it).
1) Wrong, French, Germany and Russians are not going to send their troops into Iraq just because Kerry is the president, even if they get a few contracts, with the current conditions in Iraq, there are just too much risk for them. 2) I thought this is happening now as we speak, I am pretty sure GW also wants get the Iraqis to police their own country asap. 3) Although this is a good idea, it take a long time to train special forces, some takes 3 to 4 years. Even you increase the enlistment now, its not really going to help the Iraq situation. Kerry as a typical politician, offers up some plans(rhetorics) that will sound nice, but after you exam them objectively, they really don't solve any problems.
Bush supporters keep spouting this crap, but one thing we KNOW is true is that with Bush at the helm, those countries will absolutely NEVER commit troops. Kerry at least has a chance of drawing those countries to the table, a chance that we need to take to increase troop strength in Iraq. Right, and Kerry's plan is to further accelerate this training so that such a handoff would happen sooner than it will under Bush. The immediate goal of increasing the military by 40,000 would help in the short term, but the increase in spcial forces would be a long term solution that would dovetail in nicely with Kerry's plan to increase the capabilities of our intelligence services (particularly in human intelligence) to the point that they can alert us to the presence of terrorist cells at which point, we send out the spcial forces to take out the terrorists without having to invade and occupy an entire country. Why don't you try examining them objectively first, rather than just repeating the GOP talking points. Once you ACTUALLY examine these plans, it is clear to see that Kerry's plans are FAR better than the "more of the same" that we will see from GWB.
There is no way to know what they will do when dealt with in different ways. They did risk their troops for Afghanistan, so we know there are some conditions under which they will risk troops. You may well be right that they won't risk them, but until we try we will never know. Bush definitely does want them to form their own forces. But without sufficient troop levels it might be hard devote enough resources to training the Iraqis as fast as Kerry plans to. That's a good point. The sooner we start recruiting and training the new guys the better. It may not help with major stabilization efforts, but there will be plenty of resistence groups there in 3 years that will need mopping up.
Andy, would you look at things objectively for once. French, Germany are not going to send their troops into Iraq when there are car bombings, motar attacks, suicide attacks everyday. Those two French hostages would be beheaded if French soldiers are in Iraq. Are those country willing to take the enormous risk involved? Especially when the Iraq war is so unpopular within their own country. The answer is absolutely not unless Iraq is a lot more stable, but the question is how do we get Iraq to be more stable in the first place. What is kerry actually going to do differently to "further accelerate this training" other than shout "I will further accelerate this training". We want to hear actionable plans. You obviously have no clue what it takes to add two more army divisions and make them combat ready. Its not a "Short Term" plan, just as adding more special forces. I actually agree with Kerry on this one, but just don't think it will help the current situation in Iraq, which is what we are talking about in this thread.
I feel like I am looking at things objectively. As FB pointed out, we know that there ARE circumstances where those countries will commit troops, we just need a president who is a strong enough leader to identify those corcumstances, create an environment where those countries feel it is in their best interest, and lead the world in this action. GWB has conclusively proven that he does not have what it takes to make this happen. Kerry is the only one with enough worldwide credibility to make it happen and it is time to let him try. From Johnkerry.com... "TRAINING IRAQI SECURITY FORCES Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. Two weeks ago, he admitted that claim was off by more than 50 percent. Iraq, he said, now has 95,000 trained security forces. Neither number bears any relationship to the facts. By the administration's own minimal standards, just 5,000 soldiers have been fully trained. And of the 32,000 police now in uniform, not one has completed a 24-week field-training program. John Kerry and John Edwards believe the President needs to: Provide incentives to improve and accelerate military and police recruitment. Expand urgently the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq by establishing a single, common template for police training and another for military training, and enlisting our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. Recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. Strengthen the vetting of Iraqi recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. " http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/iraq.html#2 Other countries can play a part in Iraq without even committing troops on the ground. They can train Iraqi forces, host those forces during training, and contribute in other ways. GWB will not be able to make this happen as evidenced by his inability to accomplish it so far. Kerry will have far more worldwide credibility and will be able to lead the world where Bush has spurned it. Adding more troops WILL help in the short term (basic training is only 3 months for Marines and is shorter for the other armed services) as will attracting other countries to the effort. It may very well take years to add 40,000 troops, but since (with either Bush or Kerry at the helm) we will be in Iraq for years to come, those additions will impact the effort there.
You know, just because some people don't happen to agree with Kerry's plan doesn't mean they're "spouting crap" or "just repeating the GOP talking points".
At this point in the game, Kerry doesn't have some plan that's radically different from what Bush is going to do in Iraq. For me, the important point is that Kerry would never have made the mistakes that got us to this point in the first place. And Kerry will at least have some shot at negotiating for more international support, be it financial, military or otherwise, whereas Bush has less than zero. But as far as handling the present mess, neither of them are going to handle it terribly differently. Kerry wouldn't have made the massive blunders that got us here in the first place and is far less likely than Bush to make more in the future. He can actually adapt and learn and use judgement. You can praise Bush for sticking to his principles, but if he sticks to his mistakes (like he's doing now) you have to question the guy's judgement.
I know, but the stuff he said in response to my post was nothing more than a rehash of Limbaugh and O'Reilly rants from after the debates. Baseless claims, assumptions, and more of the same from the right.
Sorry, andy, but you have no credibility when *all* of your 'objective' data comes from Kerry's website. Nice try, but your claims reek of hypocrisy.
