Kerry's Plan for Iraq?
Published October 27, 2004
Sebastian Mallaby has a good column today, basically asking what are Kerry's plans for Iraq. The short answer: he doesn't have one. Kerry's plan (if you want to call it that) is to basically re-energize the transatlantic alliance, to better make them amenable on Iraq, hopefully, in the form of troop commitments. But both France and Germany have repeatedly said they will not send troops to Iraq no matter who occupies the White House.
So what's plan B? It's either to withdraw unilaterally, which would be a disaster for Iraq, or to increase the number of American troops. And how will Kerry find these troops without reintroducing conscription?
- Kerry's Plan for Iraq?
- Published: October 27, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Niraj
- Niraj's BC Writer page
- Niraj's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Isn't it amazing how excellent the posts supporting one's opinion are?
Who'd a thunk it?
Isn't it amazing that Hal Pawluk didn't like this post?
HA!!!
Isn't it amazing, andy, that you don't know squat about what I like and do not like?
Alright boys and girls settle down. Find another place to degrade each other. Regarding Kerry's plan, these other countrys have told president Bush that they will not participate in securing Iraq but that doesn't mean that they won't for a fresh president. Plus this will not be an overnight success. The plan is to continue to train troops and get the hell outta there. I swear, if these terrorists don't let up I have no doubt we will unleash the beast on their ass and stop screwing around. They have no doubt that the can shut them down tomorrow but because of our past actions in Vietnam and other minor wars we have shown that we are more interested in politics than winning. I have no doubt that Bush or Kerry will put some serious heat on that area before the option of bringing in more troops. The game plan is to secure this country and get outta there and that goes for both candidates.
Yensid,
This is not true. Both France and Germany have clearly said that they will not contribute to troops 'EVEN' if Kerry becomes President. Of course, they are saying this publicly, god knows if what they are saying privately. Remember, Kerry claims to have been contact with numerous foreign leaders who wish him to be President.
His plan is to fight to the last drop of someone else's blood. That's all.
Cute, urthshu, but how do you justify all the American deaths when there was no need for anyone's blood to be spilled in Iraq?
Yep. Iraq would be better off with Saddam in power.
Right, Hal?
Once again, RJ shows his deep concern and compassion for those poor people in Iraq.
Amazing that he never asks how America would "be better off".
feh.
More than 1,000 Americans who gave their lives would still be with us.
Another 8,000 wounded Americans would not have had their lives and bodies mangled.
Perhaps 30,000 Iraqis would still be alive.
380 TONS of explosives would not have been handed to terrorists.
But you would still be the same, RJ.
10,000 people die a month in Sudan, meanwhile nobody does anything. Maybe we've lost all tolerance for war, even when its called for.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/21493)
excellent Niraj, thanks, you beat me to this one. I actually talked with Mallaby last week - very gracious guy and unusual for a major columnist in that he isn't afraid to discuss his own indecision and uncertainty