i luv this man

[Guest guest]

took the words right out of my mouth

 

 

tho...i prolly will not volunteer on his campagin this time around, as i

apparently am the kiss of death for campaigns i work for

 

 

The Kucinich Plan For Iraq

 

By Dennis Kucinich

 

01/10/07 " Information Clearing House " -- -- In November of 2006, after an

October upsurge in violence in Iraq, the American people moved decisively to

reject Republican rule, principally because of the conduct of the war.

Democratic leaders well understand we regained control of the Congress because

of the situation in Iraq. However, two months later, the Congress is still

searching for a plan around which it can unite to hasten the end of US

involvement in Iraq and the return home of 140,000 US troops.

 

There is a compelling need for a new direction in Iraq, one that recognizes the

plight of the people of Iraq, the false and illegal basis of the United States

war against Iraq, the realities on the ground which make a military resolution

of the conflict unrealistic and the urgent responsibility of the United States,

which caused the chaos, to use the process of diplomacy and international law to

achieve stability in Iraq, a process which will establish peace and stability in

Iraq allow our troops to return home with dignity.

 

The Administration is preparing to escalate the conflict. They intend to

increase troop numbers to unprecedented levels, without establishing an ending

date for the so-called troop surge. By definition, this escalation means a

continuation of the occupation, more troop and civilian casualties, more anger

toward the US, more support for the insurgency, more instability in Iraq and in

the region, and prolonged civil war at a time when there is a general agreement

in the world community that the solution in Iraq must be political not military.

Iraq is now a training ground for insurgents who practice against our troops.

 

What is needed is a comprehensive political process. And the decision is not

President Bush's alone to make.

 

Congress, as a coequal branch of government has a responsibility to assist in

the initiation of this process. Congress, under Article 1, Section 8 of the US

Constitution has the war-making power. Congress appropriates funds for the war.

Congress does not dispense with its obligation to the American people simply by

opposing a troop surge in Iraq.

 

There are 140,000 troops remaining in Iraq right now. What about them? When will

they come home? Why would we leave those troops in Iraq when we have the money

to bring them home? Soon the President will ask for more money for the war. Why

would Congress appropriate more money to keep the troops in Iraq through the end

of President Bush's term, at a total cost of upwards of two trillion dollars and

thousands of more troop casualties, when military experts say there is no

military solution? Our soldiers stand for us in the field, we must to stand for

them in our legislature by bringing them home.

 

It is simply not credible to maintain that one opposes the war and yet continues

to fund it. This contradiction runs as a deep fault line through our politics,

undermining public trust in the political process and in those elected to

represent the people. If you oppose the war, then do not vote to fund it.

 

If you have money which can be used to bring the troops home or to prosecute the

war, do not say you want to bring the troops home while you appropriate money in

a supplemental to keep them in Iraq fighting a war that cannot be won

militarily. This is why the Administration should be notified now that Congress

will not approve of the appropriations request of up to $160 billion in the

spring for the purposes of continuing the occupation and the war. Continuing to

fund the war is not a plan. It would represent the continuation of disaster.

 

The US sent our troops into Iraq without a clear mission. We created a

financial, military and moral dilemma for our nation and now we are talking

about the Iraq war as our problem. The Iraqis are forgotten. Their country has

been destroyed: 650,000 casualties, [based on the Lancet Report which surveyed

casualties from March of 2003 to July of 2006] the shredding of the social

fabric of the nation, civil war, lack of access to food, shelter, electricity,

clean drinking water and health care because this Administration, with the

active participation of the Congress, authorized a war without reason, without

conscience, without international law.

 

The US thinks in terms of solving our own military, strategic, logistical, and

political problems. The US can determine how to solve our problems, but the

Iraqi people will have problems far into the future. This requires an intensive

focus on the processes needed to stabilize Iraq. If you solve the Iraqi problem

you solve the US problem. Any comprehensive plan for Iraq must take into account

as a primary matter the conditions and the needs of the Iraqi people, while

providing our nation with a means of righting grievous wrongs and taking steps

to regain US credibility and felicity within the world community.

 

I am offering such a plan today. This plan responds to the concerns of a

majority of Americans. On Tuesday, when Congress resumes its work, I will

present this plan to leadership and members as the only viable alternative to

the Bush Administration's policy of continued occupation and escalation.

Congress must know that it cannot and must not stand by and watch our troops and

innocent Iraqi civilians die.

 

These are the elements of the Kucinich Plan:

 

1. The US announces it will end the occupation, close military bases and

withdraw. The insurgency has been fueled by the occupation and the prospect of a

long-term presence as indicated by the building of permanent bases. A US

declaration of an intention to withdraw troops and close bases will help dampen

the insurgency which has been inspired to resist colonization and fight invaders

and those who have supported US policy. Furthermore this will provide an opening

where parties within Iraq and in the region can set the stage for negotiations

towards peaceful settlement.

 

2. US announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops and

necessary equipment home. Congress appropriated $70 billion in bridge funds on

October 1st for the war. Money from this and other DOD accounts can be used to

fund the troops in the field over the next few months, and to pay for the cost

of the return of the troops, (which has been estimated at between $5 and $7

billion dollars) while a political settlement is being negotiated and

preparations are made for a transition to an international security and

peacekeeping force.

 

3. Order a simultaneous return of all US contractors to the United States and

turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi government. The contracting process

has been rife with world-class corruption, with contractors stealing from the US

Government and cheating the Iraqi people, taking large contracts and giving 5%

or so to Iraqi subcontractors.

 

Reconstruction activities must be reorganized and closely monitored in Iraq by

the Iraqi government, with the assistance of the international community. The

massive corruption as it relates to US contractors, should be investigated by

congressional committees and federal grand juries. The lack of tangible

benefits, the lack of accountability for billions of dollars, while millions of

Iraqis do not have a means of financial support, nor substantive employment,

cries out for justice.

 

It is noteworthy that after the first Gulf War, Iraqis reestablished electricity

within three months, despite sanctions. Four years into the US occupation there

is no water, nor reliable electricity in Baghdad, despite massive funding from

the US and from the Madrid conference. The greatest mystery involves the

activities of private security companies who function as mercenaries. Reports of

false flag operations must be investigated by an international tribunal.

 

4. Convene a regional conference for the purpose of developing a security and

stabilization force for Iraq. The focus should be on a process which solves the

problems of Iraq. The US has told the international community, " This is our

policy and we want you to come and help us implement it. " The international

community may have an interest in helping Iraq, but has no interest in

participating in the implementation of failed US policy.

 

A shift in US policy away from unilateralism and toward cooperation will provide

new opportunities for exploring common concerns about the plight of Iraq. The UN

is the appropriate place to convene, through the office of the Secretary

General, all countries that have interests, concerns and influence, including

the five permanent members of the Security Council and the European community,

and all Arab nations.

 

The end of the US occupation and the closing of military bases are necessary

preconditions for such a conference. When the US creates a shift of policy and

announces it will focus on the concerns of the people of Iraq, it will provide a

powerful incentive for nations to participate.

 

It is well known that while some nations may see the instability in Iraq as an

opportunity, there is also an even-present danger that the civil war in Iraq

threatens the stability of nations throughout the region. The impending end of

the occupation will provide a breakthrough for the cooperation between the US

and the UN and the UN and countries of the region. The regional conference must

include Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

 

5. Prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to move in,

replacing US troops who then return home. The UN has an indispensable role to

play here, but cannot do it as long as the US is committed to an occupation. The

UN is the only international organization with the ability to mobilize and the

legitimacy to authorize troops.

 

The UN is the place to develop the process, to build the political consensus, to

craft a political agreement, to prepare the ground for the peacekeeping mission,

to implement the basis of an agreement that will end the occupation and begin

the transition to international peacekeepers. This process will take at least

three months from the time the US announces the intention to end the occupation.

 

The US will necessarily have to fund a peacekeeping mission, which, by

definition will not require as many troops. Fifty percent of the peacekeeping

troops must come from nations with large Muslim populations. The international

security force, under UN direction, will remain in place until the Iraqi

government is capable of handling its own security. The UN can field an

international security and peacekeeping mission, but such an initiative will not

take shape unless there is a peace to keep, and that will be dependent upon a

political process which reaches agreement between all the Iraqi parties. Such an

agreement means fewer troops will be needed.

 

According to UN sources, the UN the peacekeeping mission in the Congo, which is

four times larger in area than Iraq, required about twenty thousand troops.

Finally the UN does not mobilize quickly because they depend upon governments to

supply the troops, and governments are slow. The ambition of the UN is to deploy

in less than ninety days. However, without an agreement of parties the UN is not

likely to approve a mission to Iraq, because countries will not give them

troops.

 

6. Develop and fund a process of national reconciliation. The process of

reconciliation must begin with a national conference, organized with the

assistance of the UN and with the participation of parties who can create,

participate in and affect the process of reconciliation, defined as an airing of

all grievances and the creation of pathways toward open, transparent talks

producing truth and resolution of grievances. The Iraqi government has indicated

a desire for the process of reconciliation to take place around it, and that

those who were opposed to the government should give up and join the government.

Reconciliation must not be confused with capitulation, nor with realignments for

the purposes of protecting power relationships.

 

For example, Kurds need to be assured that their own autonomy will be regarded

and therefore obviate the need for the Kurds to align with religious Shia for

the purposes of self-protection. The problem in Iraq is that every community is

living in fear. The Shia, who are the majority fear they will not be allowed to

government even though they are a majority. The Kurds are afraid they will lose

the autonomy they have gained. The Sunnis think they will continue to be made to

pay for the sins of Saddam.

 

A reconciliation process which brings people together is the only way to

overcome their fears and reconcile their differences. It is essential to create

a minimum of understanding and mutual confidence between the Shiites, Sunnis and

Kurds.

 

But how can a reconciliation process be constructed in Iraq when there is such

mistrust: Ethnic cleansing is rampant. The police get their money from the US

and their ideas from Tehran. They function as religious militia, fighting for

supremacy, while the Interior Ministry collaborates. Two or three million people

have been displaced. When someone loses a family member, a loved one, a friend,

the first response is likely to be that there is no reconciliation.

 

It is also difficult to move toward reconciliation when one or several parties

engaged in the conflict think they can win outright. The Shia, some of whom are

out for revenge, think they can win because they have the defacto support of the

US. The end of the US occupation will enhance the opportunity for the Shia to

come to an accommodation with the Sunnis. They have the oil, the weapons, and

support from Iran. They have little interest in reconciling with those who are

seen as Baathists.

 

The Sunnis think they have experience, as the former army of Saddam, boasting

half a million people insurgents. The Sunnis have so much more experience and

motivation that as soon as the Americans leave they believe they can defeat the

Shia government. Any Sunni revenge impulses can be held in check by

international peacekeepers. The only sure path toward reconciliation is through

the political process. All factions and all insurgents not with al Queda must be

brought together in a relentless process which involves Saudis, Turks and

Iranians.

 

7. Reconstruction and Jobs. Restart the failed reconstruction program in Iraq.

Rebuild roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, and other public facilities, houses,

and factories with jobs and job training going to local Iraqis.

 

8. Reparations. The US and Great Britain have a high moral obligation to enable

a peace process by beginning a program of significant reparations to the people

of Iraq for the loss of lives, physical and emotional injuries, and damage to

property. There should be special programs to rescue the tens of thousands of

Iraqi orphans from lives of destitution. This is essential to enable

reconciliation.

 

9. Political Sovereignty. Put an end to suspicions that the US invasion and

occupation was influenced by a desire to gain control of Iraq's oil assets by A)

setting aside initiatives to privatize Iraqi oil interests or other national

assets, and B) by abandoning efforts to change Iraqi national law to facilitate

privatization.

 

Any attempt to sell Iraqi oil assets during the US occupation will be a

significant stumbling block to peaceful resolution. The current Iraqi

constitution gives oil proceeds to the regions and the central government gets

nothing. There must be fairness in the distribution of oil resources in Iraq. An

Iraqi National Oil Trust should be established to guarantee the oil assets will

be used to create a fully functioning infrastructure with financial mechanisms

established protect the oil wealth for the use of the people of Iraq.

 

10. Iraq Economy. Set forth a plan to stabilize Iraq's cost for food and energy,

on par to what the prices were before the US invasion and occupation. This would

block efforts underway to raise the price of food and energy at a time when most

Iraqis do not have the means to meet their own needs.

 

11. Economic Sovereignty. Work with the world community to restore Iraq's fiscal

integrity without structural readjustment measures of the IMF or the World Bank.

 

12. International Truth and Reconciliation. Establish a policy of truth and

reconciliation between the people of the United States and the people of Iraq.

In 2002, I led the effort in the House of Representatives challenging the Bush

Administration's plans to go to war in Iraq. I organized 125 Democrats to vote

against the Iraq war resolution. The analysis I offered at that time stands out

in bold relief for its foresight when compared to the assessments of many who

today aspire to national leadership. Just as the caution I urged four years ago

was well-placed, so the plan I am presenting today is workable, and it responds

to the will of the American people, expressed this past November. This is a

moment for clarity and foresight. This is a moment to take a new direction in

Iraq. One with honor and dignity. One which protects our troops and rescues

Iraqi civilians. One which repairs our relationship with Iraqis and with the

world.

 

 

What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure

that just ain't so.

- Mark Twain