Do the Democratic Party candidates have a plan to stabilize the Middle East after a withdrawal from Iraq?

Question

I support a continued US presence in Iraq to prevent genocide in that country and prevent Iran from gaining a foothold there. Before any of you criticize my stand be advised that I plan to enlist in the Army after graduation because I believe that if we leave Iraq than it will result in horrible consequences. What is their plan? Beg the UN to do something. Give billions of dollars to Iran in exchange for a promise that they will not destabilize Iraq. I think the only plan they have will be to blame Bush instead of taking responsibility for signing the paper withdrawing our presence from Iraq.

I found many answerers had interesting and good points to make. I am unable to choose which one is best so I'm going to do what women are good at, NOT CHOOSING. Ok, I'll let this question go to voting.

Answer 1

Of course the Democratic people have a plan. And it may not involve a complete withdrawal from that area. You and I do not know all the reasons why we are there. But I can say for certain it's centered around making money, or preventing other countries from making money. Our government is a big business and as for the threat of genocide, it would factor very little in the equation.
Money and Power are king and queen.

Answer 2

Before you join the army, there are a few things that you might want to consider:

Firstly, war is ALWAYS an economic event. ALWAYS! No nation ever went to war to make the world a better place or to "help" people.

Secondly, I recently read an article that stated that 1/3 of women in the army have been raped. I looked briefly for that story and couldn't find it, but I have included a link to another such story.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-02-05-our-view-usat_x.htm

Additionally, here is Major General Smedley Butler giving his analysis of the U.S. military in 1933 after many years of service:

----------------------------------------------

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I
believe, as something that is not what it seems to the
majority of people. Only a small inside group knows
what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of
the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and
nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight,
then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that
when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then
it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent.
Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers
follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect
some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only
two things we should fight for. One is the defense of
our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for
any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the
military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to
point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy
enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and
a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a
comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent
thirty- three years and four months in active military
service as a member of this country's most agile
military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all
commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to
Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of
my time being a high class muscle- man for Big
Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In
short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time.
Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the
military profession, I never had a thought of my own
until I left the service. My mental faculties remained
in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of
higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the
military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for
American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti
and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank
boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of
half a dozen Central American republics for the
benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is
long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international
banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I
brought light to the Dominican Republic for American
sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to
it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back
room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I
feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints.
The best he could do was to operate his racket in
three districts. I operated on three continents.”

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/major_general_smedley_butler_usm.htm

------------------------------------

And if you want to see more evidence that Iraq isn't an anomaly, check out the video Panama Deception which is available on Google Video. Here is the link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-446387292666223710

Answer 3

I don't think anybody have plans for Iraq, Middle East really. Either GOP or democrats. Think about how we entered. We didn't have any plan, 0 plan about how to bring Sunni, Shiites, Kurds together. You can ask all GOP, Dem law makers and they'll tell you nothing new, no real plan.

The US also installed Shiite gov in Iraq. Shiite is religion of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran. So there is no guarantee that Iraq won't become friendly towards our enemies in future. After all Iraq is now free country, free to make independent decisions. What if they in future side with terrorists organization like Hamas, Hezbollah...etc?

This growing Shiite power, or 'Shiite Crescent' is real problem. Could bring trouble for us in future. Yes there is al Quida, but there are lot of Shiite terrorists like Hamas, Hezbollah. Many worry about the fact that Iraq now have Shiite government.

The problem is that when we went to Iraq, instead of uniting the 3 sects, the US expelled Sunni Bath party from Iraqi government, disbanded old Iraqi army and did tramendous damage to relation between 3 sects in Iraq. We did everything to make these 3 sects hate each other.

The bottom line is that the problem is so immense that it's likely to make not a whole lot difference if we pull our troops out. It's problem for Iraqis to solve and we can only aid and encourage them. We can do that without putting our soldiers in Iraq. We can't do it for them.

If you have a buddy who is a drug addict you can only tell your buddy to stop, go to meetings...etc. You can't just make him stop. It's your buddy who will ultimately kick the drug habit. Not you.

That's why Iraq, Middle East is so frustrating. They're not robots. They don't just follow orders of some foreign troops. We're not the ones who'll solve the problem. Iraqis will solve their problems.

We can put billion US troops in Iraq, but if Iraqis don't have will to unite and come together they have no chance. Only so much we can do for them. Many seem to think the US is the one who'll solve Iraq problem, but they're dead wrong. We can only help.

It's extremely arrogant to think we can go to foreign coutry, democratize the nation and create peaceful utopida in matter of years. Iraq was huge miscalculation and it shows the most arrogant aspects of our foreign policy; our military can do anything. Our military can't do anything. Our soldiers aren't diplomats or supermen.

Answer 4

Do they have a positive plan for *anything*? Oh *yeah* - to turn America into a Third World nation!

On the other hand, John McCain *does* (sung to the tune of "Barbara Ann" by the Beach Boys): - Bomb, bomb Iran! Bomb, bomb Iran!

Answer 5

The demoncrats have no policy for the middle east after the RETREAT from Iraq.

Their only policy is to give in and hope a hug will make a terrorist like us.

Peace in our time....Peace in our time....

Answer 6

Did you watch the debate in South Carolina the other night?

Answer 7

Nah they just wanna argue. even though we're right and they know it

Answer 8

Democratic presidential candidates debate where to wage war next

By Jerry White
28 April 2007


In the first debate between candidates for the Democratic Party’s 2008 presidential nomination, the leading contenders made clear that whatever their differences with the Bush administration’s handling of the war in Iraq, they are all committed to maintaining the US occupation of the oil-rich country and that, if elected president, they would not hesitate to use US military power anywhere in the world to defend the geo-political interests of American imperialism.

The debate, which was broadcast by MSNBC television from South Carolina State University, included ostensible front runners New York Senator Hillary Clinton, Illinois Senator Barack Obama and former North Carolina senator and vice presidential candidate John Edwards, as well as Delaware Senator Joseph Biden, Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. Also included were Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska senator Mike Gravel.

The debate was overshadowed by the deep crisis over the war in Iraq and the growing popular hatred of for the war—particularly among Democrat voters, who according to a poll released this week are 78 percent in favor of total withdrawal and 54 percent in favor of immediate withdrawal.

While all of the candidates did their best to feign opposition to the war, the debate began just hours after the Senate approved a supplemental spending bill that will provide the White House with an additional $124 billion to continue the fighting and occupations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of those on the platform sought to cast the funding bill as an “antiwar” measure because of the toothless and non-binding timetable in the bill for the withdrawal of some troops from Iraq. “The Congress has voted, as of today, to end this war,” Clinton declared.

Echoing the comments of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid earlier in the week, Senators Clinton, Biden and Obama made it clear they were against “this” war—i.e., opposed to the way the Bush administration is conducting the occupation of Iraq, not “the” war itself. Clinton set the tone by claiming the US had done everything to help the Iraqi people to have “freedom” and “their own country” but now it was time for the Iraqis to decide whether they would “take that chance.” Blaming the Iraqi people for the devastating civil war that has resulted from the US invasion and the shattering of Iraqi society, Clinton said the Iraqi government had to provide “security and stability without our young men and women in the middle of their sectarian civil war.”

These comments parallel previous statements by Clinton who has indicated that if elected she would keep large numbers of US troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future—not to protect the civilian population against sectarian reprisals,but to defend America’s “vital national security interests”: first and foremost, oil.

In his remarks, Biden criticized Bush’s “fundamentally flawed policy” in Iraq, which he defined as the “notion of being able to set up a strong, central government in Baghdad that will be democratic.” The way forward, Biden said, was to “decentralize Iraq” and have a “limited central government” to “share their oil wealth.” Biden has been the most strident proponent of partitioning Iraq into ethno-religious statelets, dividing Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis. Such a proposal is a prescription for ethnic cleansing and mass killings on a scale not seen since the partitioning of India in the 1940s. Governor Richardson endorsed this reactionary proposal, calling for the US to establish a “political framework” to “divide oil revenues” and possibly “set up three separate entities.”

Illinois Senator Barack Obama said he had opposed the war from the start and then attempted to justify his repeated votes to fund it as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and more than 3,300 US soldiers have been killed. He claimed that the troops needed the best military hardware possible in order to “come home safely.” In reality, Congress has the power to assure the safe return of the troops by cutting off funding, something the Democratic leadership refuses to do.

Representative Dennis Kucinich pointed out this anomaly, saying every time the Democrats voted to fund the war they were “reauthorizing the war all over again.” The Democrats, he said, “have the power to end the war right now, and that’s what we should do.” Criticizing the Senate war-spending bill, Kucinich said he had proposed a bill that called for the United Nations to provide peacekeepers and security forces that “will move in as our troops leave.”

Gravel—a Vietnam-era senator who opposed the Nixon administration on the military draft and the war—also denounced the war-spending bill, saying he was “embarrassed” by what was going on in Congress. Because Bush is determined to continue the war, the Democrats should pass a law, he said, making it a “felony” to keep the troops in Iraq.

Neither Kucinich nor Gravel enjoys any support from the Democratic Party leadership, let alone from the Wall Street investors and other corporate backers who are pouring millions of dollars into the campaigns of the top contenders. Nevertheless, they play a central role in fostering illusions that the pro-war and pro-big business Democratic Party can be pressured to stop the war and defend the interests of working people. Kucinich in particular presents himself as the “voice of conscience” in the Democratic Party and living proof that there is an antiwar, progressive faction within it.

In the 2004 elections, the Ohio congressman also sought the party’s presidential nomination. After the Democratic Party leadership smothered the Howard Dean campaign—around which significant antiwar sentiment had gathered—it took measures to suppress antiwar opposition within the party and to make sure the elections were not turned into a referendum on Iraq. This campaign culminated in the nomination of a pro-war candidate—Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. Kucinich immediately dropped his campaign and called for “unity” behind Kerry, thus attempting to confine the opposition to the war tightly within the borders of a pro-war party.

Earlier this week Kucinich introduced three articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney for the campaign of lies about WMDs and Iraqi-al-Qaeda ties that was used to justify the war against Iraq, as well as similar fabrications used to prepare another war against Iran. These are indeed grounds for impeaching Cheney. However, there is zero support for this within the Democratic Party leadership, which is averse to any serious struggle that might bring masses of working people into a political confrontation with the Bush administration. For that reason, when the debate moderator asked for a show of hands from the Democratic candidates on who supported Kucinich’s action against Cheney, not one hand was raised.

In the end, Kucinich and Gravel functioned as foils during the debate so that the leading Democratic contenders could re-assert their commitment to defending the interests of corporate America with military force. This point was noted by the Washington Post, which said that Kucinich and Gravel “provided a counterpoint of left-wing ideas that drew rebukes for a lack of seriousness from Biden and Obama. The challenges from the liberal flank allowed almost all the others to assert that, despite their criticisms of President Bush’s Iraq policy, they are ready to use military force to retaliate against future terrorist attacks.”

Fully embracing the “global war on terrorism,” the leading Democratic candidates singled out as potential future targets of US military action not only Iran and North Korea, but also Russia and China. Biden also specifically raised the possibility of intervening in Darfur, which leading Democratic think tanks hope will be a launching point for defending US interest in Africa, while at the same time selling it to the American people as a “good, humanitarian” war.

Kucinich pointed out that Obama and Clinton had told pro-Israeli lobby groups that “all options were on the table with Iran” and that this was a thinly-veiled threat to use nuclear weapons. Obama justified his remarks by saying a nuclear-armed Iran “will be a major threat to us and to the region.” Calling Iran “the largest state sponsor of terrorism” because of its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, Obama repeated the same threats made by Bush and Cheney in the run-up to the war with Iraq, saying Iran could “place a nuclear weapon into the hands of terrorists,” posing a “profound security threat for America.”

Gravel pointed out that the US has carried out sanctions against Iran for 26 years, while constantly threatening the country with military strikes. “Tell me, Barack,” he said, “who do you want to nuke?” Obama shrugged the question off, responding, “I’m not planning to nuke anybody right now, Mike, I promise you.”

Biden was even more forceful, calling on Kucinich and Gravel to “stop all this happy talk here about the use of force doesn’t make sense. The use of force in Afghanistan is justified and necessary; in Darfur, justified and necessary; in the Balkans, justified and necessary. You guys can have your happy talk, there’s real life.”

The debate made clear that the Democrats’ chief criticism of the war in Iraq is that it has placed an enormous strain on the fighting capacity of the US military and diverted attention from other threats to US interests throughout the world. The plan for “strategic redeployment” advocated by the Democratic candidates is aimed at maintaining colonial control in Iraq—by waging a bloody counter-insurgency with fewer troops, primarily US Special Forces and the Air Force—and freeing up troops for Afghanistan and interventions in other global hot spots.

This support for militarism stems from the fact that the Democratic Party speaks for the same financial oligarchy as the Republicans. This truth was reiterated throughout the debate, as Clinton, Obama and Edwards went out of their way to praise the multi-millionaire and multi-billionaire hedge fund managers and Wall Street speculators who have enriched themselves at the expense of the great mass of working people. Clinton praised the people willing to invest their money in the “free market system” and the “entrepreneurial economy,” many of whom have poured some of that money into her multi-million-dollar campaign war chest.

After repeating his refrain about being brought up poor and humble in a South Carolina textile mill town for the one thousandth time, John Edwards responded to a question about being hired by the $30 billion hedge fund Fortress Investment Group with the absurd claim that “those people in New York who work in financial markets understand—in some ways, at least—what can be done and can play a significant role in trying to lift people who are struggling.”