BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

The Kerry plan

33 comments on The Kerry plan

The Kerry plan
: I’ve been begging for a Kerry plan for Iraq. Today, he presents it.

This anniversary is not a time to shout. It is not a time for blame. It is a time for a new direction in Iraq and for America to work together so that once again this nation leads in a way that brings the world to us and with us in our efforts….

This moment in Iraq is a moment of truth. Not just for this administration, the country, the Iraqi people, but for the world. This may be our last chance to get this right. We need to put pride aside to build a stable Iraq….

The campaign press release summarizes his three-point plan:

First, Kerry said that NATO is now a global security organization and creating a stable and secure environment in Iraq must be one of its global missions.

33 responses to “The Kerry plan”

  1. lk Avatar
    lk

    Things are so bad in Iraq, any decent ideas need to be considered. How about letting Republican Guard generals help out? Whatta ya mean Bush did that? It was my idea first.

  2. Alex Knapp Avatar
    Alex Knapp

    Isn’t Bush doing, at least in part, #2 and #3?

  3. Trump Avatar
    Trump

    Kerry, as usual, offers nothing of substance or intelligence.
    He’s simply crossed out “UN” in his speeches, and replaced it with NATO
    BOTH organizations are useless.
    As is Kerry

  4. Trump Avatar
    Trump

    “When NATO members have been treated with respect…”
    Oh, does Kerry mean those members of the “fradulant coalition” , those members who were “tag alongs” and “fig leafs” and were “bought and bribed and coerced”?
    The next time Kerry treats these members with respect will be the 1st…

  5. Chuck Avatar
    Chuck

    But who would trust Kerry to actually do anything. The man will say anything/everything at one time or
    another.

  6. Trump Avatar
    Trump

    And Jeff, one more for you if I may:
    Since Kerry has given us a long record of flip flops, pandering, word parsing and outright lying (since the primary season!) why should you now give ANY creedence to something Kerry says?

  7. sol Avatar
    sol

    Things are not bad in Iraq. On a scale the terrorists and other forces of sh** can’t effect (and that you doomsayers – gleeful or otherwise – aren’t able to see on your tee vee screens) the 25,000,000 Iraqis are already well down the road to securing the foundation of freedom, economically and psychologically in each individual act of building a life and gravitating towards interests and building businesses and their lives in general.
    Other than that the turnover to Iraqis will create psychological forces in favor of freedom that you just aren’t able to discern now. It will also solve most if not all the seeming ‘unsolvable’ problems on the ground today, which, again, you won’t see on your favorite news sources…
    (Kerry, by the way, will only undermine all the good that is happening, if he has the opportunity – God forbid – to effect anything to begin with…)

  8. Faramin Avatar
    Faramin

    “…NATO is, on the one hand, somewhat saner and more under our influence…”. So, is that what you care about? Influence? How cheap!

  9. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    Beware Kerry’s siren song. What he says today is not what he will do or say tomorrow and, particularly after he’s in the Oval Office. I guarantee you, within 100 days in office, Kerry will find a way to bug out, which would be a catastrophe for us, the Iraqi people, and the world.

  10. Syl Avatar
    Syl

    Turn over the reconstruction? To someone the UN Security Council trusts? Yep. Sure. Obviously Kerry doesn’t understand anything about accountability and transparency.

  11. sbw Avatar
    sbw

    If I’m not mistaken, NATO operates on consensus.
    So count the “No” votes, first.
    Who might vote no? Oh, I don’t know… France?
    > when NATO members have been treated with respect, they have always

  12. lk Avatar
    lk

    How’s about the Bush fallujah flip-flop – “We will find the murderers and bring them to justice”, that was then, and now let’s call the whole thing off, and turn things over to Saddam, Jr. I agree with Bush’s flop – Fallujah is not worth another drop of American blood. And not bringing in UN or NATO will also cost American blood, but that’s OK, as long as you avoid watching Nightline. Iraq is not worth our blood, Osama (remember him)should be job 1.

  13. curious Avatar
    curious

    I also understand that perhaps NATO cannot undertake the entire Iraq mission right away. But it could possibly take control of Iraq

  14. John Avatar
    John

    Internal polling results probably showed the Kerry campaign that “Go to the U.N.” as a primary political strategy onh Iraq was going over with the voting public like a lead balloon. So today’s Fulton speech was more “nuianced” to use a favorite word of the senator — we will now go to NATO first, with the U.N. as back-up, in large part because NATO is viewed more favorably by the public (while keeping the U.N. option in there on a secondary level is designed to placate those who thought Kerry’s initial Iraq plan was just ducky in the first place).
    Plam II sounds more reasonable — at least until the various NATO natior leaders are asked to weigh in on the proposal. If the same countries that are opting out now indicate they’re not all fired up about this idea, the Kerry people may have to come up with Plan III before the summer’s out, though there’s not that many other options, except to continue the Bush strategy but invite Kofi Annan amd Jacque Chirac to the White House more if elected.

  15. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    With the UN oil for food scandal still being uncovered, how can anyone seriously trust the UN to do anything respectable? And exactly how would Kerry secure NATO forces? How would he get Germany and France and now Spain to participate in Iraq?
    His third point is pure garbage. Who can do a better job training the Iraqi forces than the greatest military in the world? Not to mention his third point seems to be the exact thing WE are doing in Fallujah.

  16. Rootbeer Avatar
    Rootbeer

    Who can do a better job training the Iraqi forces than the greatest military in the world?
    Perhaps the US military should concern itself first with training its own troops not to abuse prisoners before deigning to tell an Iraqi security force how to operate…

  17. Mike Avatar
    Mike

    Whatever rootbeer, like that sort of thing is confined to the US. Unfortunately there are stupid people everywhere in the world.

  18. Mark L. Avatar
    Mark L.

    The greatest muilitary in the world? You mean the military that is retreating from Fallujah or the military that humiliates and abuses its prisoners in disgusting and grotesque ways? I see a lot of UN and euro bashing on this page and little shame for the disgusting and uncivilized behaviour of your soldiers. For this reason, and for many other reasons, Kofi Annan commands a lot more moral authority in the world than George Bush and his ridiculous, comical, infantile pronouncements on American exceptionalism. The world is sick and tired of your claims to moral superiority. Take a good look in the mirror.

  19. Ptolemy Avatar
    Ptolemy

    Spoken like true Euro-Canadian trash there Mark L. Not that I’m complaining. I like my enemies bitter and impotent.
    You are right about the horrible situation concerning our troops in that episode however.
    The difference will be that our perps will be prosecuted rather than promoted (Arab world) or ignored (Europe/Asia)

  20. old maltese Avatar
    old maltese

    To several regarding Fallujah: read http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/
    It will give you a perspective (right or wrong) that’s considerably different from CNN’s.

  21. Syl Avatar
    Syl

    Yes! Belmont Club gives perspective that I’ve not seen anywhere else.
    And keep in mind before anyone starts complaining about using Iraqi troops and an old Saddam general…the most important fact is putting an Iraqi face on this. Give them ownership of their own country.
    The other point is that the general was probably vetted by Chief Wiggles!

  22. DSmith Avatar
    DSmith

    Wow, the rhetoric really has descended to Vietnam-era levels. Pretty soon it’ll be “baby killers” and “NLF is gonna win!”.
    Those who violated the Geneva Convention and/or the UCMJ at Abu Ghraib are going to be punished severely. Expect to see jail time for some, and end of career for others.
    That’s what’s different about the guys in the white hats. We ain’t perfect, but at least we try. We’re not sunk in the morass of moral relativity and empty hatred.
    As to Fallujah, this looks like it’s a home-grown deal by Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children. Read their announcements carefully, not just the soundbites. It’s a pretty intriguing plan, and it just might work well. I’m willing to give the 1st MEF the benefit of the doubt.

  23. William Avatar
    William

    We need to make this all about oil. We’ve seen Saddam’s success; we need to replicate that. To get a world where everyone but us is corrupt to be with us and not against us, we should speak their language. Lefties are always criticizing the US despite so many favorable comparisons. We should strive for the lowest common denominator. Net-net, we’ll still come out looking better.

  24. Steel Magnolia Avatar
    Steel Magnolia

    1) NATO has already been queried on this mission, and they’ve already said no more than once! They’ve got their hands full in Afghanistan, thank you very much.
    Does he really think deploying “NATO” troops means we won’t still be doing the heavy lifting. Can he seriously believe anyone’s holding back because they just don’t get it — let alone because we forgot to say please?
    2) Brahimi’s already there, but why on earth does Kerry think Iraqis should, or even would, be willing to plop all their eggs right back into the UNSCAM basket? Jeez. Here’s something for his IN Box:
    http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000322.html
    3) Building an Iraqi security force? Now there’s an idea. Somebody should tell 1st MEF.
    Bottom line?
    This is not a three-point plan. These are talking point revisions. One more iteration, and you won’t be able to distinguish his position from the status quo. Apparently there’s nothing wrong with our foreign policy that changing our style can’t fix.

  25. l. santos Avatar
    l. santos

    As an european – just browsing – I must confess my surprise at some of the comments.
    If I were to – unduly – generalise about the US as some of the commentators have about Europe I would have to say that it remains, on the whole, absolutely self-centred, with a – surely derived from ignorance – fear of sound and coherent debate. Not understanding that despite its (recently streghtend) unity Europe is still the end sum of many different cultures and identities, not being able to distinguish between “war on terrorism” and “war on Iraq”, and most relevantly, dismissing other peoples arguments with no other tool appart from plain insult, is worrying.
    Having read a few history books myself, having alrealy lived in three different continents, and having been given the opportunity to learn from people who have always insisted on the “non-black-or-white” nature of most man created situations, I would of course not be thinking that of all americans and of the land which has given the world a few examples of highly apt and discerning political minds.

  26. Steel Magnolia Avatar
    Steel Magnolia

    l.santos —
    Thank heaven you’ve managed to resist the urge to generalize — unduly — about the States. In my limited personal experience, that makes you almost unique among the multi-cultural Europeans who post to American discussion boards.
    When it comes to sound and coherent debate, I’d be curious as to what particular model you have in mind. I certainly deplore the gratuitous insults which proliferate. At the same time, looking at the state of public discourse in England and France, I’d say it ranges over a far narrower political spectrum than public discussion here.
    Speaking for myself, I would find the Franco-German attitude toward differing European cultures and identities more worrisome than any ignorance on our part. As I recall, Secretary Rumsfeld was widely excoriated for distinguishing between Old Europe and the New — yet that is a distinction which M. Chirac certainly seems more than willing to make when it comes to the expanded EU membership. I also think that one could hardly argue that France, for example, does not remain on the whole absolutely self-centered both culturally and economically.
    All in all, I’d say stereotypes abound in almost equal measure on both sides of the Atlantic. Frankly, I think our foreign policy has historically been far too Euro-centric for our own good. I believe that is changing as it becomes clearer that our interests do not coincide as neatly as we once believed.

  27. lsantos Avatar
    lsantos

    S.Magnolia,
    Thank God for small mercies. I am glad I’ve been of some service and I would add this: there’s more of us.
    I would agree with you on the hegemonic tendencies of France and Germany. Then again, the same could be said of Britain – if only that chance arrised – and, who knows?, even of Spain or newcomer Poland. I would however not derive from this the conclusion that such tendencies have a direct and continuous effect on the whole of the EU’s policies. Its more of a balancing act than you might think (an example: see how Tony Blair changed his position on a referendum as soon as Spain announced its intentions on the matter).
    Not knowing France as well as I should I hesitate to comment on the quality of their political debates, yet I very much doubt the assertion you put forward regarding Britain.
    As I have said before, the Franco-German attitude towards the rest of Europe is something we’ve have been able to cope with for a long time, and despite all the problems these two countries are undoubtedly at the heart of this unique experience in political and economic cooperation. As I recall, the US has made great strides for that to happen.
    The “Old and New Europe” was just another unfortunate sound bite. Everything in Europe is old. That is what we all are – old nations, hopping to have learned our lesson after centuries of internal wranglings.
    One note on France’s self-‘regard’: I agree with you, though we might differ on the readings we make of it.
    One last note on American foreign policy (last 50 years, OK): Europe has always been understood as a non-troubling-useful-barrier-ally by Washington. The Cold War gave it all a “we’re on the same side” nature. No questions asked, no doubts as to what was decided in Washington. The end of the old enemy led to a streghtening of European Unity – and, to the exception of Clinton, all american leaders ever since have opposed the developement of both an european army and an autonomous european foreign policy.
    So has your policy so far been so europe-centred? I do not think so. Unless by that you mean “centred on attemps to dominate (and commercially penalise) Europe”.

  28. Steel Magnolia Avatar
    Steel Magnolia

    lsantos–
    Ah yes, a non-troubling-useful-barrier-ally, safely nestled under the umbrella of U.S. military strength — a half a century of protection which we humble citizens in the U.S. have been paying for — subsidizing, in effect, so many of the more civilized improvements our allies were thus free to undertake.
    Mr. Clinton simply told everyone whatever they wanted to hear, and then did nothing about it when he got back home. Such are the ways of diplomacy! Nevertheless, my recollection differs somewhat from yours. As I recall, despite years of prodding (begging!) by the U.S., Europe felt so little need to provide troops for its own protection, that they would not have been able to do anything about the genocide on their Balkan doorstep — even if they had wanted to.
    I believe France & Germany have finally begun to commit resources to military development. It’s my impression, however, that this is being done on an individual, national basis rather than a EU one? I admit, though, I haven’t really paid much attention since the U.S. proposed that its NATO allies develop a matrix of specialized forces. Perhaps that’s what precipitated the sudden French desire to go it alone, : )
    Believe it or not, I’m not a complete Euro-phobe. I just find the inevitable lecturing increasingly tedious.

  29. Steel Magnolia Avatar
    Steel Magnolia

    lsantos —
    Almost forgot, I meant to inquire whether you think that if Kerry were elected President, Europe would automatically be more amenable to deploying troops in Iraq? Mr. Kerry strikes me as rather over-confident in that regard. I’ve always thought it was more than a matter of saying please and thank you, but I’d be interested to hear your views on the subject.

  30. Dave F Avatar
    Dave F

    I seem to recall that France is, by choice, not part of Nato’s military decision-making body, since it sees its own interests in that direction as all-important. It can block such decisions, however. The fact is that Kerry hasn’t thought this through at all. In the event of the UN taking over, it would be simply a matter of US forces putting on the blue helmets and dickering over chain of command. Simillarly with Nato. It’s just talk. I get the impression Kerry doesn’t really want the JOB …

  31. l. santos Avatar
    l. santos

    This is becoming interesting.
    First, let us concentrate on the half century of ‘out of the kindness of our hearts’ protection. It is, I admit, a fair assumption from your standpoint. Yet we- the ungrateful ones – would not view it in such simple terms. Just two pointers:
    Strategic reasons – providing for Europe’s ‘protection’ has helped to secure support at the international level and has given political decisions the once-so-needed clout of consensus.
    Economic reasons – this ‘help’ has had a considerable effect on the expansion of the american military industry, with very relevant cascading effects on other sectors and industries (let us just pause to consider if a company like Airbus might not have appeared sooner, were it not for the state-promoted preponderance of american civil aviation, which had its development costs payed for by its military operations or affiliates).
    The issue is much more complex than this. Never as simple as you might suggest.
    Clinton’s posture: I would agree with the broader sense of your comment, though I do not share the implied (please excuse me if I am wrong) assumption that ‘there are those who do things and those who only think and/or talk about them’. Stepping aside from Clinton for a second, I would tend to consider that doing things just for the sake of it seems to have been the recipe for the beggining of most of the world’s problems. And this would be a good place to talk about Iraq, for instance. Did they really thought this one over as they should? Did they realise the several layers of implications? Were they aware of the consequences of the infamous ‘China-shop principle’ in international politics (you brake it, you pay for it)? Surely not. I do not think so. It would be unfair to presume that a patriot such as Mr. Chaney (with an insignificant interest at Haliburton, I presume) would push forward all of this to see the hand-out of Fallujah to a former Saddam general or to see pictures of atrocities commited by his own troops, under the supervision of his own secret services.
    In short, the ‘cowboy spirit’ does not go down well over here.
    The argument about the Balkans is false. What has unfortunately happened resulted from poor political decisions (namely from Germany, when it decided to recognise Croatia unilateraly), from the release of a latent internal strife, and from the initial innoperance of the world community. Europe did not have an organised military structure because, among other reasons, the US would not see it as a good thing. And such matters cannot be dealt with – involving different languages, cultures, military traditions – in a few months or even years.
    Finnaly – Mr. Kerry.
    His views are naturally – by its less beligerant and intolerant nature – more in tune with Europe’s standing. That is not to say that his election would bring about eternal bliss and whatever else. He would still be the president of the US and that would surely mean he would have to deal with his own ‘inheritance’. Which is heavy, we must admit.
    Would his election gather support for european soldiers’ deployment to Iraq – I honestly do not think so. Most europeans think Bush deviated into madness after Afghanistan. And Kerry would have to live with the consequences of that.

  32. Steel Magnolia Avatar
    Steel Magnolia

    santos

  33. Steel Magnolia Avatar
    Steel Magnolia

    lsantos —
    Apparently I should have hit the preview button one last time. In addition to leaving out your “l,” in paragraph #1, “inaccurate” should actually (& obviously, I hope) read “accurate.”