John Kerry's stance on Iraq

Iraq: The current outlook in Iraq is not so good. A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report was recently released at the end of July, which is not as optimist as the president. It outlines three possible future scenarios, with the worst entailing a civil war. The civil war would destabilize the country and continue to be a place for terrorist operations. Even if it was contained in most areas, it would be unlikely to control it all, and the bordering countries could have influx of terrorists, potentially destabilizing the region. The most optimistic scenario would be a loose central government, and the security of the nation would depend solely on the leader. If the leader appeared weak, then there would still be the problem of insurgents and terrorism. If the leader is strong, then they could become another dictator. (NIE report findings reported by Scott Lilly, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, September 23, 2004.) Additionally, the U.S. has decided to scale down military operations until after the U.S. presidential elections. An anonymous senior official commented to the LA Times that " '[w]hen this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously […] Once you're past the election, it changes the political ramifications' of a large-scale offensive" (Mazzetti, 2004). While this may benefit either political candidate, it could seriously impact the security of Iraq, as well as potentially push back the timetable for Iraqi elections.

However, these deal with the future of the situation in Iraq. Current problems include: the number of insurgents has almost quadrupled, insurgent attacks have increased (including the use of car bombings, almost forty since the beginning of September (Khalil and Sanders, 2004)), insurgents control more areas in Iraq, reconstruction has fallen behind schedule, and the number of wounded and dead U.S. soldiers continues to rise. (Center for American Progress, September 22, 2004 link) As of October 7, 2004, 1,061 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq (Frenkel, 2004), and these figures do not include the soldiers which are so severely wounded that they cannot return to duty. Disputed figures exist about the cost of the war, but however one looks at it, the war will be expensive. With all of these current and mounting problems, both candidates have to address how to make the situation safer for the troops, the Iraqis, and the American public.

Senator John Kerry:

Description of candidate's position: Senator Kerry disagrees with the method and manner which with the U.S. went to war in Iraq. However, he has a plan to win the peace in Iraq, in order to change the direction in Iraq and prevent it from being a failed state. He has outlined the following steps: (1) internationalizing the burden, (2) training security forces, (3) design and implement reconstruction projects, and (4) ensure free, democratic elections. More specifically, with internationalizing the burden, Kerry intends to involve NATO troops, hold an international summit with the goal of obtaining more international troops and aid, and allow other countries to bid on oil contracts. For training, he intends to accelerate military training and recruitment as well as require on-field training to better train Iraqi forces. In terms of reconstruction and elections, Kerry will work with allies on debt-forgiveness, use Iraqi contractors and workers, invest in civil society groups, and establish a regional conference to help establish Iraq as a new state. Statement from campaign website: link link

Quotation from the candidate: "We still have an opportunity to prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state and a haven for global terrorists and Islamic extremists. We can still succeed in promoting stability, democracy, protection of minority and women's rights, and peace in the region, even at this late hour, if we construct and follow a realistic path. But if we are to reduce the overwhelming military and financial burden America is bearing and maximize the chances of success, we will need help from others. Getting that help will require not only convincing our friends and allies that we share an interest in preventing failure but also giving them a meaningful voice and role in Iraqi affairs. That is the only way to forge real cooperation, and it is long past time for this to be done." Kerry's Statement on "A Realistic Path in Iraq,"

Assessment of the proposal:

Positive: Jon Soltz, an army captain who served in Iraq during May to September of 2003 and Pennsylvania state co- coordinator for the group Veterans for Kerry, favors Kerry's new approach to Iraq, arguing that Kerry is key to create and expand allies: "Sen. Kerry is the only one of the two candidates who has the credibility to bring allies to our side. Our force levels in Iraq are so high that soldiers like myself, who spent, you know, an entire year... or some of them have spent entire years in Iraq, have come home for a year, and are now going back. 43 percent of Operation Iraqi Freedom Three is going to be guard and reserve forces. This president has broken this military. And John Kerry's the only one of the two who's given us any alternatives or any possibility of hope. He's the one who supports increasing the size of the army by 40,000 soldiers, not President Bush. He's the one who has the credibility to go back to the world, because let's be honest, the world isn't against the United States; they're against our president." September 16, 2004 Online News Hour with Margaret Warner Link

Negative: Stephen Zunes, professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco, is critical of how Kerry is trying to use his Vietnam experience to justify war expertise; Zunes argues that Kerry does not have a good strategy: "The nearest thing Kerry seems to offer in terms of a withdrawal strategy is the Iraqi equivalent of 'Vietnamization,' encouraging the government that Washington installed in Baghdad to train more Iraqis to kill Iraqis so as to minimize the number of American casualties. Kerry says it could take about four years to complete the process, which is the same amount of time between Richard Nixon's inauguration as president in January 1969 and the Paris Peace Agreement in January 1973, among the bloodiest years of the Vietnam War. Kerry, then, is essentially proposing four more years of war. One can only think of John Kerry as a young veteran in 1971 testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, asking 'How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?' " Foreign Policy in Focus, October 5, 2004 link

This is in line with the fact that the policy to continue the war in Iraq may be more costly than it is worth. Rajan Menon, fellow at the RAND Institute and professor of international relations, argues that continuing the war is problematic: It will "result in still more casualties among U.S. troops, more Iraqi civilians inadvertently killed during military operations in the Sunni Triangle and in Muqtada Sadr's Baghdad strongholds, more terrorist attacks and a continued influx of Muslim militants from beyond Iraq. Under these conditions, the elections planned for Iraq in January will either not be held or they will go forward but lack legitimacy because voting will not be able to take place in many Sunni areas in central Iraq, where it's just too dangerous. Either way, there will not be a government that commands sufficient loyalty from Iraqis for its leaders and troops to be accepted and the insurgents to be marginalized. And that means that the United States will continue bearing the brunt of the fighting for years." October 6, 2004 link

Comparison: Both President Bush and Senator Kerry support military action in Iraq. The main differences are how they view the president's actions in going to war, with Kerry arguing that this war should have been conducted differently. Kerry argues that he can bring a fresh start to an international collation to supply troops, supplies, and the support needed to win the peace in Iraq

Link to Bush's Iraq brief

Sources:

Frenkel, J. (2004, October 8). PM defiant amid damning WMD report. Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia). Retrieved October 12, 2004 from LexisNexis Academic Universe.

Khalil, A. and Sanders, E. (2004, October 5). The Conflict in Iraq; Four Car Bombs Kill 20 People, Hurt 113; Two of the attacks are in Baghdad, and two in the northern city of Mosul. In Samarra, residents and U.S. officials assess damage after offensive. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 12, 2004 from LexisNexis Academic Universe.

Mazzetti, M. (2004, October 11). THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ; Major Assaults on Hold Until After U.S. Vote; Attacks on Iraq's rebel-held cities will be delayed, officials say. But that could make it harder to allow wider, and more legitimate, Iraqi voting in January. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 12, 2004 from LexisNexis Academic Universe.