guess which dem candidate has an exit strategy for post-war Iraq?

Actually, none of them do as far as I can see.

I think this is critically important, and will become more so as the election approaches if the Bush* administration is still fumbling its way toward armageddon. If a democrat wins in O4 and inherits the mess Bush* has made in the middle east, and especially the occupation of Iraq in the face of stiff Iraqi resistance, that candidate is going to need a real plan for getting out. People will be continuing to die, and the money will continue whistling down the occupation hole instead of shoring up shakey domestic programs here at home-- a recipe for disaster for any democratic challanger without a clear Iraq exit plan to articulate in 2004 and implement in 2005.

Here's a roundup of positions from the dem candidates' official websites:

Mosley-Braun (http://www.carolforpresident.com): makes her opposition to the invasion of Iraq clear, but says that now that we're there we can't "cut and run." She has absolutely no exit strategy, or any other strategy for dealing with the future of Iraq.

Clark (http://www.clark04.com): No mention of Iraq, foreign policy, etc., on his official website, at least not on either his home page or his issues page. No exit strategy, no plan for dealing with the "Iraq problem."

Dean (http://www.deanforamerica.com): Although Dean also makes his opposition to the invasion clear, he presently has no plan for exiting from Iraq or dealing with its future in the event that he's elected.

Edwards (http://www.johnedwards2004.com): Edwards talks about our responsibility to support the troops and to rebuild Iraq in rather vague terms, but offers no clear plan for doing so or an exit strategy when the job is "complete."

Kerry (http://www.johnkerry.com): Kerry offers little more than rhetoric. He does outline a four-step plan for disengaging in Iraq, but it's essentially the same plan the Bush* administration is already offering, e.g., more U.N. involvement, but under absolute U.S. command, more money from the other member nations to support the occupation and rebuilding, and a gradual transfer of control to the Iraqi's when they're ready for it. Not an exit strategy at all, IMO, and Colin Powell's already staked that territory out.

Kucinich (http://www.kucinich.us): DK calls for immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops, U.N. oversight of transition to Iraqi rule, etc., but there is no mention of the Iraq occupation in his "10 Key Issues" statement, and unless you count simply ordering everyone onto the first plane home, he doesn't offer any real exit strategies either.

On edit: see #26 below, and http://www.kucinich.us/statements.htm#100903

Lieberman (http://www.joe2004.com): What can I say? Joe calls for the U.S. to commit more troops and resources to the occupation. He does say that he wants NATO to assume control of the occupation, but again, presumably under U.S. command. He expresses unswerving support for the invasion itself, and offers no real hope of an exit plan.

Sharpton (http://www.al2004.org): Al does not mention Iraq at all on his official presidential web site.

So it seems that all of the candidates are staying away from this essential question like it carries the plague. I, for one, am very disappointed about this. Memo to the candidates: a clear exit strategy from the Iraq occupation is likely to be one of my deal breaker issues in 2004!

We can't leave the country now, given the mess that exists there. Either way we suffer.

You've made it clear that you will only support the unelectable candidates.

Why don't you just admit that you are going to vote Green in any event next year?

Not. What can they do? Well, they can start by telling us what the plan to do. Do they plan to continue the occupation? For how long? Until what objectives are achieved? Do they plan to end the occupation? When? How will they do it? By going to the U.N. with hat in hand (my preferred solution, BTW), or do they have some other solution?

Which unelectable candidates are you referring to? I didn't express support for any of their positions.

This isn't going to go away Carlos. And whether or not I vote Green or Dem will depend, in part, on who looks this issue in the eye and deals with it, regardless of the party they represent. Personally, I'd rather it be a dem.

I am almost sure of it that next year you will be casting a Green ballot.

Really?

When someone acts like you are they are simply trying to discredit other candidates. Or all of them. Carlos is correct in that we can not just leave without getting some other troops there. That can be done if Bush gets off his high horse.

I'm not trying to discredit anyone-- I'm seeking the cnadidates' stance on an issue of some importance to me. I was rather surprised to find that we'll march in opposition to the occupation of Iraq but so few of the dem candidates have a clear plan for ending that occupation. As I asked below-- will we all be in the streets this time in 2005 still protesting the continued occupation of Iraq? The continued loss of life? The continued drain on our national resources? If not, what will have gotten us out?

What is the GOP crap we are staying

He is saying we need to replace US fighters with UN peacekeepers. The reason for most of the violence is that the US is an occupying army, and is perceived as one by most Iraqis.

What Kucinich is saying is that we go back to the UN and let them handle the peacekeeping-- which is exactly what they and most of the world are willing to do, if we let them take control of the situation.

But instead, BushCo and even some of the Dem candidates want the US to retain control of Iraq and its economy so that it can be sold of to the highest bidder-- namely American oil companies who'll privatize Iraq's resources and rob the people of their profits.

Kucinich does not advocate simply pulling up steaks and going home-- far from it. He advocates a true peacekeeping force in Iraq, run by the UN, in the interest of the Iraqi people.

As long as the US is in Iraq as an occupying force, we will not have peace. Remaining in Iraq will not stabilize the country, it will only make it worse and more dangerous for all.

from http://www.kucinich.us

Kucinich Supports Movement to Bring Troops Home

"Let me say it clearly: It is time to bring the troops home! It is time to get the UN in and the US out of Iraq...."

His ldots, not mine, from his home page. Again, no mention of an exit plan there or on his "10 Key Issues" page. I'm raising the candidates' positions, not their supporters' positions about their positions, if you know what I mean.

Can you provide a link clarifying DK's position (in his own words)? I would appreciate that.

... also from his web site.

http://www.kucinich.us/statements.htm#100903

I will post the link with no comments; I have commented on the plan elsewhere.

So I stand corrected-- DK does indeed have an exit plan already spelled out in some detail. Thanks for the link.

What do you say about Kucinich's?

Chill just a bit. I didn't start this thread to evaluate the candidates' Iraq exit strategies-- I started it to lament the dearth of them. I stand corrected with regard to DK. That's all for now. When other candidates articulate their plans I'll compare them to one another.

However, since you're clearly fishing for me to say something demonstrating bias, I will say that I'm happy that Kucinich has stepped up to the plate with this. I look forward to hearing from the other candidates.

See my message # 50.

Clark is wise and experienced enough to understand the enormous complexity of the task of evacuating Iraq. This put him at an enormous disadvantage with fools.

When people talk about UN "peacekeepers" they are talking about soldiers. The UN does not have an army of "peacekeepers" sitting around someplace ready to deploy. Instead, if the UN needs to send in a stabilization force to maintain order -- aka "peacekeeping" --they go about getting troops on loan from member nations, slap blue helmets on 'em, read 'em the rules of engagement (no firing unless fired upon!), and send 'em in.

Right now, the UN has pulled its people out of Iraq and isn't willing to send ANYBODY in there, because it's too dangerous.

As I recall, UN peacekeepers have a rather dismal track record at actually keeping the peace unless an area is already fairly pacified.

Most people who understand these things believe a NATO-led force is required for Iraq, not UN "peacekeepers."

... Clark is laying out his national security vision in a major policy speech. He has an opportunity here but the bar is high. He is running on his foriegn policy creds so we had better see some dazzle

in steps. The website will most likely include Iraqi exit strategy in a couple of weeks. I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that a Clark presidency would find ways to prevent this kind of cowboy bullshit from happening again too. By tweaking Presidential war powers to make sure the Congress is totally on board for the exact action, not the vauge compilation of crap that Bush shot through and then went crazy with.

Just one example:

http://clark04.com/articles/008/

Whoever said there was nothing about Iraq on his web site wasn't lookin' real hard. Go to the Clark web site

http://www.clark04.com/

And click on the links to "speeches" and "articles" under "Resources and Info" in the left-hand column.

I spent a chunk of yesterday going through candidates' web sites looking for their plans for Iraq, and SOMEHOW I found a great deal that you missed. Here is what I found, with links:

http://www.mahablog.com/2003.10.19_arch.html#1067101540679

Clark has the clearest and most detailed exit strategy, actually, of all the candidates. His web site has links to speeches and position papers that go into considerable detail. I can't believe you even TRIED to find out anything about Clark's Iraq plans. Here is just ONE link that you missed:

http://clark04.com/articles/008/

From the article you cite:

If we are successful, the cost of this mission will be measured in years, tens of billions of dollars and dozens more soldiers' lives lost. But failure will be more expensive, and a premature pullout will exacerbate regional conflict and undercut the War on Terror. So, we need to lock in a defined exit strategy, as we've done in Bosnia, to bring the British and American people and the international community on board: we need to create a matrix measuring progress in political development, economic reconstruction and security, and to announce the report card quarterly. But above all, honesty, and remember, when the Iraqis ask us to go, the mission is over.

--Wesley Clark

Clark alternately suggests that we need to be involved in Iraq for years and that we need a coherent exit strategy, but he doesn't really articulate one, as far as I can see. Vague rhetoric, like that last sentence, is not a plan. The Iraqi's have already asked us to go.

You didn't read the article very closely, but never mind. What you don't grasp is that the fine details of the exit strategy will depend a good deal on the Iraqis and on what multinational cooperation can be brought in. These details must be negotiated; they cannot be imposed.

Clark has the disadvantage of understanding how complicated and difficult it will be to retreat from Iraq in a way that will not do further harm to the Middle East. It's easy for someone with half a clue to come up with a specific plan that sounds wonderful to other people with half a clue. But the actual process will be extremely difficult, and whatever plans we start out with will probably have to be adjusted several times before we're out. This is how the Real World works.

...so he alone is justified for not really offering one. I did read the article closely. Perhaps you can find the part I missed with an actual description of Clark's exit from Iraq plan and post it-- not vague rhetoric, but a nuts and bolts plan. We go from A to B to C and etc., then we can withdraw American forces from the occupation of Iraq. I don't see it.

I'm not dissing Clark for this-- I'm saying that he (and the other candidates) are all going to have to face this issue sooner or later.

Only a fool thinks that a point by point, precise plan can be laid out right now without spending major time negotiating with the Iraqis and with whatever multinational forces can be brought in. The details depend on too many variables. And Clark is not a fool.

Excepting the true believers, of course.

I think there's a lot to go by here. Apparently you don't want to see it.

I believe that every candidate believes that he/she can undo the damage that * has done with the UN and our NATO allies. By working with the UN and Europe (instead of the 'chocolate maker' cracks and dismissing the UN as irrelevent) we might actually accomplish a truly international force and at least bring our troop committment down.

I think that's reasonable. No, we can't just walk out now and leave Iraq in chaos, but I think it's a very possible that with a regime change in the US we'll see far greater cooperation from our allies.

Most of the candidates could manage the Iraq situation, because, as you say, once Bush is gone more international cooperation will be possible.

All of the candidates have at least a better one than Bush, who has none. What, in your mind, has to be included for their positions to include "an exit strategy"?

For example: Kucinich (http://www.kucinich.us): DK calls for immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops, U.N. oversight of transition to Iraqi rule, etc., but there is no mention of the Iraq occupation in his "10 Key Issues" statement, and unless you count simply ordering everyone onto the first plane home, he doesn't offer any real exit strategies either.

What's missing in that?

Eloriel

...and a set of objectives to achieve in the process. DK doesn't actually say he plans an immediate and unconditional withdrawal-- the airplane comment was mine, not his-- but if that's his plan then he does indeed have an exit strategy. He does not make that clear, however, to someone researching his position.

The withdrawal is going to be extremely complicated and messy, and the details are going to have to be negotiated with the Iraqis and with whatever multinational forces can be brought in to help. So at this point any candidate who is not a dadblamed fool cannot say that he WILL take this and this and this step, and will leave when that objective is met, etc.

Beware of easy answers to difficult questions.

We can't bomb and run. Much as I hate to say it.

but we have to convince the public that we are pro-war. We didn't start this war but we are gonna come in and pitch a save here. Lets get real folks this is a quagmire and it is the entire fault of the current administration. The only viable exit strategy at this point is a victory! But it will be done on the terms of the American people, not a bunch of oil industry rejects with little to no military expreience.

What about 50 years of the Israeli experience does not make this clear? As repressive as they have been, they are still getting blown up.

There is 850 thousand tons of munitions laying about in unsecure locations that we know of in Iraq. That would be 1.7 billion pounds of high explosives.

At the rate we can destroy the stuff, it will take 18 years. That is just the stuff we know about. 18 years, if they do not bring more in.

We will be a magnet for terrorists in perpetuity or for as long as we are there. It is our choice.

We can stay there, kill and be killed, or we can give this country back to it's own people and get the hell out of dodge. There is no easily identifiable enemy, no massed formations to blow up, all of our high tech advantages are rendered moot in this kind of war.

Nothing breeds terrorists like the police state needed to attempt to control them. A man who will martyr himself for the cause is difficult to deter with harsh punishment.

This should never have been a war. It was a problem better approached by constructive engagement and economic empowerment plans.

The notion that we can impose our will on the middle east is insane. It will be our undoing, if pursued. We need to get out while we still can.

He wants the US to exit out of Iraq ASAP. Dennis has the only realistic plan that will actually save American and Iraqi lives.

"Peace with honor," a phrase coined by Nixon, did nothing but extent the Vietnam war and increase the body count.

...exit strategy. You're correct, of the candidates listed, Kucinich is the only one who has articulated a clear and unambiguous plan for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. I missed it because I thought it would be on his Issues page, but it wasn't. Here's the link again:

http://www.kucinich.us/statements.htm#100903

.

...I'm almost there.

I guess if you don't want to see an exit strategy, you won't. For example, where do you come up with the idea that Kerry wants to leave Iraq under absolute U.S. control? Baffling. He talks about turning over all control to the UN, except the military, in almost every speech he gives. And even military control he intends to share with other UN countries, only keeping military authority on OUR troops as we always do. Kucinich and Clark also have a very clear Iraq strategy. Just baffling what people hear and don't hear.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq_plan.html

What mikec doesn't get is that a great deal of the eventual plan will depend on variables that are not known at this time. The details cannot be worked out without consulting Iraqis, for example. The details will also depend a great deal upon what multinational forces can be brought in. The UN? How much? NATO? These people won't just march into Iraq if the U.S. orders them to; they will have to be persuaded. Assuming none of this will commence until 2005, all sorts of things might happen between now and then that would make any plan created now ineffective.

He's asking for details that only a fool would provide.

No dice! The best plan is to get the hell out of Iraq as soon as possible, let's not repeat the mistakes of Vietnam.

As Sharpton said, support the troops by bringing them home now.

Chalabi is one Iraqi. There are a lot of others.

The situation in Iraq is different from Vietnam in one critical way. When the U.S. got out of South Vietnam, the government of North Vietnam quickly took control. We didn't leave a power vacuum.

There is no government in place ready to step in when we leave Iraq. If we evacuate Iraq and leave a power vacuum, the country could easily slip into a very nasty civil war, which could eventually destabilize the entire Middle East.

Just a tad irresponsible.

We have to at least make an effort to be sure we don't leave a power vacuum. And don't assume the UN can take over by itself. The UN will need some muscle. It's not going to be easy.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq_vision.html

Real leadership demands that we take these four steps now:

1. Share the military risk and cost. Show leadership at the United Nations by leading the creation of a UN military force under U.S. Command. The U.S. Military will still be in charge, but other big nations will send troops – they've said so – to relieve our overstretched soldiers.

2. Share the cost and responsibility of reconstruction. Show that we understand real partnership by reaching out to our allies, rebuilding the good will we squandered, and asking the UN to do what it has done well from Kosovo to East Timor by putting Iraqi governance and reconstruction under UN authority. It's not necessary for the U.S. to go it alone on rebuilding Iraq's institutions and meeting humanitarian needs – and we shouldn't have to.

3. Get going to train and equip a serious Iraqi security force. Just recruiting untrained soldiers and police does not create security – in fact, it creates insecurity. Extensive training and monitoring is vital, just as they are for new officers in any city police force. And reliable Iraqi forces are the key to minimizing the risks to U.S. forces while allowing for the successful reconstruction of the country – there's no way around it. Again, we don't have to do this without help from our friends – but we do have to ask our friends for help.

4. Give a clear timetable of benchmarks for turning power back to Iraqis quickly. Like anyone else, Iraqis want to know what the future holds. Washington should tell them – with a phased transfer of responsibility as Iraqi leaders and institutions are ready for it. Those institutions may not be perfect, but Iraqis will own them – and thank America.

It sounds a whole lot like Colin Powell's plan, IMO. Worse, it calls for a plan, e.g. a clear time table-- it doesn't offer one.

All foreigners out of Iraq. Let the Iraqis rebuild their country in peace, and without any more interference from the West.

... you'd know that what you want would lead to the Mother of
All Civil Wars.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 26, 2003

Contact: Press Office, 802-651-3200

Dean Laid Out Multi-Lateral Iraq Plan Months Before Kerry

Senator Kerry today claimed that Governor Dean doesn't have an Iraq plan. In fact, Dean unveiled his seven-point Iraq Reconstruction plan on April 9--months before Kerry unveiled his on July 10, 2003. Governor Dean further elaborated on his plan on August 20, 2003. The press releases on Governor Dean's multi-lateral plan for reconstruction, and the governor's remarks at the time, follow:

Dean Presents 7-Point Plan for Multilateral Reconstruction in Iraq

Wednesday April 9, 2003

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Governor Howard Dean, M.D. called for United Nations cooperation in helping rebuild Iraq.

"We knew from the outset we could win this war without much help from others. But we cannot win the peace by continuing to go it alone," Governor Dean said. "Our goal should be what the Administration has promised-an Iraq that is stable, self-sufficient, whole and free. Our strategy to achieve that goal should be based on a partnership with three sides-U.S., international and Iraqi-and a program that begins with seven basic points."

Those points are:

* A NATO-led coalition should maintain order and guarantee disarmament.

* Civilian authority in Iraq should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N. Security Council.

* The U.N.'s Oil for Food program should be transformed into an Oil for Recovery program, to pay part of the costs of reconstruction and transition.

* The U.S. should convene an international donor's conference to help finance the financial burden of paying for Iraq's recovery.

* Women should participate in every aspect of the decision-making process.

* A means should be established to prosecute crimes committed against the Iraqi people by individuals associated with Saddam Hussein's regime.

* A democratic transition will take between 18 to 24 months, although troops should expect to be in Iraq for a longer period.

* "We must hold the Administration to its promises before the war, and create a world after the war that is safer, more democratic, and more united in winning the larger struggle against terrorism and the forces that breed it," Governor Dean said.

"That is, after all, now much more than a national security objective," he added. "It is a declaration of national purpose, written in the blood of our troops, and of the innocent on all sides who have perished."

* * *

DEAN SAYS 'WE CANNOT AFFORD TO FAIL' IN IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION

August 20, 2003

BURLINGTON--Governor Howard Dean issued this statement on Iraq:

"Since last April, I have been calling on President Bush to internationalize the reconstruction effort in Iraq. I repeat that call today.

"Expert after expert has returned from Iraq stating that the window of opportunity is closing faster than anyone expected and that our chance to successfully stabilize and rebuild the country is quickly passing. Despite this, the Bush Administration refuses to seek a UN mandate so that our historic allies and friends can join us in this effort and speed up the reconstruction process.

"I call on the Bush Administration to take the following steps to encourage our proven allies and friends, including France, Germany, India, and Turkey to join us in Iraq and to accelerate the reconstruction process. We must:

* Work with the UN to build the largest coalition possible to help us succeed in Iraq;

* Make clear our intention to share decision-making on security and reconstruction issues in Iraq with those countries and international institutions that join the international coalition;

* Prioritize restoring law and order and the resumption of electricity, water, and sanitation services -- they are fundamental to success in all other areas;

* Focus on developing Iraqi capacity to undertake key functions as soon as possible;

* Decentralize the operations of the Coalition Authority and make money more forthcoming and flexible;

* Employ the sizable number of available Iraqis with short term public works projects and get state-run enterprises up and running, even if they must be downsized and privatized later;

* Push for UN oversight of the successor to the Oil for Food program;

* Award reconstruction contracts to the best US or foreign bidder in a transparent and open process.

I've been trying to find Kerry's exact quote so that I could best disprove his statement. Dean has saved me the trouble.

I'm glad Dean mentions NATO. The smarter voices on this issue are asking for a NATO-led coalition, not UN peacekeepers. UN peacekeepers are not really good at keeping the peace unless a place is already pacified. I agree with civilian authority for the reconstruction period going to the UN.

Dean Presents 7-Point Plan for Multilateral Reconstruction in Iraq

Wednesday April 9, 2003

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Governor Howard Dean, M.D. called for United Nations cooperation in helping rebuild Iraq.

"We knew from the outset we could win this war without much help from others. But we cannot win the peace by continuing to go it alone," Governor Dean said. "Our goal should be what the Administration has promised-an Iraq that is stable, self- sufficient, whole and free. Our strategy to achieve that goal should be based on a partnership with three sides-U.S., international and Iraqi-and a program that begins with seven basic points."

Those points are:

* A NATO-led coalition should maintain order and guarantee disarmament.

* Civilian authority in Iraq should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N. Security Council.

* The U.N.'s Oil for Food program should be transformed into an Oil for Recovery program, to pay part of the costs of reconstruction and transition.

* The U.S. should convene an international donor's conference to help finance the financial burden of paying for Iraq's recovery.

* Women should participate in every aspect of the decision-making process.

* A means should be established to prosecute crimes committed against the Iraqi people by individuals associated with Saddam Hussein's regime.

* A democratic transition will take between 18 to 24 months, although troops should expect to be in Iraq for a longer period.

Amerikav60, this is worth a separate post. I was looking for the Kerry debate quote so that I could rebut but Dean's campaign beat me to it.

...although it contains elements of an exit strategy, e.g. points 1 and 2. See my reply to madfloridian, below.

The Iraq situation is changing by the minute. Clark's call for a matrix is sop. Decide what needs to be done...power on...water flowing...etc and create a time table with resources and begin the check off. Forget the zip code bullshit! Put a team in place which includes the highest levels of government (president) and work the problem at the international level. Control of oil goes to the UN who has been doing it. Ah_there's the rub!

The regime's plan calls for 3 permanent military bases and economic control. IOW, There is no plan to leave because we ain't leaving. Think India under the British.

...candidates offering clear exit strategies? Will the anti-war movement-- ourselves included-- be marching to protest the dem president's continued occupation of Iraq?

I'm opposed to a "stupid" exit strategy. A "stupid" strategy is one that the U.S. works out unilaterally without consulting anybody or making allowances for changing conditions.

The details of a "smart" strategy will depend on many variables we do not know right now. Only a fool would provide the kind of details you are seeking.

The Kucinich strategy is by far the most foolish; it certainly is clear, but it is based on colossal assumptions about what the UN can and/or will do. I personally think that if DK were to present that plan to the UN, they would tell him to kiss their multicolored butts. Some of it, such as the three-month switch from U.S. troops to UN peacekeepers, is not physically possible, IMO, and I don't think UN peacekeeprs could do the job there, anyway.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_foreign_iraq

Governor Dean's Plan for Iraq Reconstruction
"Restoring American Leadership: A New Direction for American Foreign Policy"
"Defending American Values - Protecting America's Interests"


The Dean Plan: As put forward by Kerry and Lieberman
The Bush Administration: Then and Now
The Bush Administration and WMD (pdf)
Assertions vs. Reality (pdf)
Uranium and Niger (pdf)
Sign the petition: Demand that Bush Answer the 16 questions

It only becomes more and more clear every day what a mistake this administration made in launching a preemptive war in Iraq. The evidence mounts that not only did the Administration mislead the American people and the world in making its case for war, but that it failed to plan adequately for the peace.

For your convenience, Dean for America has assembled all of Governor Dean’s Iraq-related speeches, statements, and background materials on a single webpage.
STATEMENT BY GOVERNOR HOWARD DEAN, M.D. ON TODAY'S REPORTS ON WILSON INVESTIGATION
"News today that the head of the Justice Department's criminal division admitted to the Senate that Attorney General Ashcroft is taking more of a hands-on role in the investigation of the Ambassador Wilson matter is a disturbing revelation."

Statement by Governor Dean on the $87 billion supplemental appropriation
'With Congressional approval, the President rushed these troops to war and now he and the Congress are rushing to approve another blank check'

The Anniversary of the Authorization of the Iraq War Resolution
'One year ago this weekend, Congress wrote President Bush a blank check for pre-emptive war in Iraq. As I made clear in last night's debate, that momentous decision was a turning point not only in this election but in the country's history.'

Governor Howard Dean Calls For Honor and Integrity in Investigation of Plame Affair
'Because Attorney General Ashcroft failed to appoint a special counsel, I fear that the investigation into this breach of national security will not be carried out free from political influence'

Statement from Governor Howard Dean
'It is time--once and for all--for those who have broken the law and jeopardized national security concerns to resign and face the legal consequences for their actions'

Governor Dean Calls For Accountability
'I applaud the CIA's request that the Justice Department investigate the Plame affair. I urge the Justice Department to investigate the matter swiftly and objectively, without the taint of partisan politics that have so plagued this Administration's conduct of foreign policy.'

Statement by Governor Howard Dean on President Bush's United Nations Speech
'Nearly six months into the war in Iraq, President Bush once again missed the opportunity to get our Iraq policy on track'

Statement by Governor Dean on Bush Administration's Opinion of Iraq link to Al-Qaeda
Who's Telling the Truth?

STATEMENT FROM GOVERNOR HOWARD DEAN
(September 7, 2003)

HOWARD DEAN BELIEVES IN AN INTERNATIONAL FORCE IN IRAQ
(September 4, 2003)

Governor Dean Criticizes Bush Administration For 'Foreign Policy Based On Petulance'
'Chocolate makers' comment inappropriate (September 3, 2003)

Governor Dean Says 'We Cannot Afford To Fail' In Iraq Reconstruction
Dean: We must 'internationalize the reconstruction effort'

DEAN SAYS 'WE CANNOT AFFORD TO FAIL' IN IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION
(August 20, 2003)

Governor Dean Condemns Proposed 'Victory Act'
Says Ashcroft 'must not be allowed to compromise our freedoms any further'

GOVERNOR DEAN CONDEMNS SUICIDE BOMBING IN JERUSALEM
(August 19, 2003)

U.S. Rep. Grijalva Endorses Howard Dean for America
Grijalva: Dean provides 'a sense of values that will benefit all Americans'

Governor Dean Unveils Plan To Restore Rural Communities
Governor Dean Unveils Agriculture and Rural Development Plan 'Restoring Rural Communities and Preserving the Family Farm'

Dean: Photo-Op Can't Hide Bush's Weak Environmental Record
(August 15, 2003)

Dean Calls For UN Role In Iraq
DEAN CRITICIZES BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S DECISION NOT TO GIVE UN GREATER ROLE IN IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION

DEAN CONDEMNS BUSH ADMINISTRATION DECISION TO CUT SOLDIERS' PAY
(August 14, 2003)

Dean Calls For UN Role In Iraq
DEAN CRITICIZES BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S DECISION NOT TO GIVE UN GREATER ROLE IN IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION

STATEMENT ON SPEECH BY FORMER VICE PRESIDENT GORE
(August 7, 2003)

DEAN FOR AMERICA ANNOUNCES NEW DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER
Long-time political strategist Andrea 'Andi' Pringle to join campaign (August 7, 2003)

DEAN OUTLINES STRATEGY FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB CREATION
Former governor blasts Bush administration's 'unfair, misguided' economic policy (July 30, 2003)

DEAN TO PRESIDENT BUSH: "IT'S TIME FOR THE TRUTH."
Former Vermont governor says American people should know the true intentions behind Bush administration's agenda (July 25, 2003)

GOVERNOR DEAN CALLS FOR RESIGNATIONS OF ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS WHO MISLED NATION
'Those who included this faulty information...know who they are' (July 23, 2003)

DEAN: "WHERE WAS THE LEADERSHIP?"
(July 22, 2003)

16 Questions for Bush
(July 18, 2003)

STATEMENT BY GOV. HOWARD DEAN, MD
(July 17, 2003)

AMERICANS DEMAND THE TRUTH
(July 11, 2003)

DEAN SAYS THOSE IN ADMINISTRATION WHO MISLED NATION SHOULD RESIGN
(July 10, 2003)

STATEMENT BY GOV. HOWARD DEAN ON "REVISIONIST HISTORIANS"
(June 17, 2003)

Bush: It's Not Just His Doctrine That's Wrong
Howard Dean, CommonDreams.org (April 17, 2003)

Dean Presents 7-Point Plan for Multilateral Reconstruction in Iraq
Washington, D.C. (April 9, 2003)

(All of the above are links to articles and issues.

Do you think this might be considered policy?

...and you're correct, there is lots of information, but I still can't find a clearly articulated exit plan. If Dean is elected, how will he get us out of Iraq? Here's the closest I could find:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8649&JServSessionIdr002=x8xlh18x61.app194a&news_iv_ctrl=1441

" I call on the Bush Administration to take the following steps to encourage our proven allies and friends, including France, Germany, India, and Turkey to join us in Iraq and to accelerate the reconstruction process. We must:

* Work with the UN to build the largest coalition possible to help us succeed in Iraq;
* Make clear our intention to share decision-making on security and reconstruction issues in Iraq with those countries and international institutions that join the international coalition;
* Prioritize restoring law and order and the resumption of electricity, water, and sanitation services -- they are fundamental to success in all other areas;
* Focus on developing Iraqi capacity to undertake key functions as soon as possible;
* Decentralize the operations of the Coalition Authority and make money more forthcoming and flexible;
* Employ the sizable number of available Iraqis with short term public works projects and get state-run enterprises up and running, even if they must be downsized and privatized later;
* Push for UN oversight of the successor to the Oil for Food program;
* Award reconstruction contracts to the best US or foreign bidder in a transparent and open process. "

From Governor Dean Says "We Cannot Afford to Fail" In Iraq Reconstruction

This certainly makes his opinions of the Bush* administration's fumbling clear, and it perhaps offers parts of a plan, e.g. # 2, but I'd really prefer that the Governor state his exit plan clearly, all in one place. Again, will we be marching in the street to protest Dean's continued occupation of Iraq? Why not?

it's hard to be too specific without access to classified information about what's going on in Iraq, and without knowing how hard it will be to fix the mess the Bush Admin has made of our relationships with France, Germany, Russia, etc.

The candidates can present plans, but they would need more specific data in order to be more specific.

I think Dean's stance is clear. He is saying the way he wants to work it. I think you really have to consider that a plan.

I agree that we can NOT just walk out. We broke something. We can not fix it alone, and if we don't swallow our pride and offer amends and goodies to other countries.....the whole world is in more peril.

You can fix a lot very quickly by getting back your friends.

I think we will have to face this issue sometime. Maybe you're correct and it's too early yet. The primaries are looming, however!

was a good way to get the most votes, how are any of them supposed to develop an exit strategy when they don't have access to the information? Seems to me the Fraudministration is holding all the cards on that exit strategy.

Then we have the question of Halliburton, Bechtel, and the other contractors who are in Iraq building God knows what - which gets to the real reason there's no exit strategy. Who's stupid enough to say the U.S. military should just pull out and leave them there, or they have to pack it up and go home? Yeah, that's the way to win an election.

Senator Kerry today claimed that Governor Dean doesn't have an Iraq plan. "Governor Dean has no policy on Iraq evidently, except 'no.' 'No' is not a policy." In fact, Dean unveiled his seven-point Iraq Reconstruction plan on April 9--months before Kerry unveiled his. The press release on Governor Dean's multi-lateral plan for reconstruction, and the governor's remarks at the time follow:

Dean Presents 7-Point Plan for Multilateral Reconstruction in Iraq

Wednesday April 9, 2003

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Governor Howard Dean, M.D. called for United Nations cooperation in helping rebuild Iraq.

"We knew from the outset we could win this war without much help from others. But we cannot win the peace by continuing to go it alone," Governor Dean said. "Our goal should be what the Administration has promised-an Iraq that is stable, self-sufficient, whole and free. Our strategy to achieve that goal should be based on a partnership with three sides-U.S., international and Iraqi-and a program that begins with seven basic points." Those points are:

* A NATO-led coalition should maintain order and guarantee disarmament.

* Civilian authority in Iraq should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N. Security Council.

* The U.N.'s Oil for Food program should be transformed into an Oil for Recovery program, to pay part of the costs of reconstruction and transition.

* The U.S. should convene an international donor's conference to help finance the financial burden of paying for Iraq's recovery.

* Women should participate in every aspect of the decision-making process.

* A means should be established to prosecute crimes committed against the Iraqi people by individuals associated with Saddam Hussein's regime.

* A democratic transition will take between 18 to 24 months, although troops should expect to be in Iraq for a longer period.

* "We must hold the Administration to its promises before the war, and create a world after the war that is safer, more democratic, and more united in winning the larger struggle against terrorism and the forces that breed it," Governor Dean said.

"That is, after all, now much more than a national security objective," he added. "It is a declaration of national purpose, written in the blood of our troops, and of the innocent on all sides who have perished."

Posted by Zephyr Teachout at 10:10 PM
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/001861.html

eom

Dean: We must 'internationalize the reconstruction effort'

Wednesday August 20, 2003
By: Press Office

(August 20, 2003)

BURLINGTON--Governor Howard Dean issued this statement on Iraq:

"Since last April, I have been calling on President Bush to internationalize the reconstruction effort in Iraq. I repeat that call today.

"Expert after expert has returned from Iraq stating that the window of opportunity is closing faster than anyone expected and that our chance to successfully stabilize and rebuild the country is quickly passing. Despite this, the Bush Administration refuses to seek a UN mandate so that our historic allies and friends can join us in this effort and speed up the reconstruction process.

"I call on the Bush Administration to take the following steps to encourage our proven allies and friends, including France, Germany, India, and Turkey to join us in Iraq and to accelerate the reconstruction process. We must:

• Work with the UN to build the largest coalition possible to help us succeed in Iraq;
• Make clear our intention to share decision-making on security and reconstruction issues in Iraq with those countries and international institutions that join the international coalition;
• Prioritize restoring law and order and the resumption of electricity, water, and sanitation services -- they are fundamental to success in all other areas;
• Focus on developing Iraqi capacity to undertake key functions as soon as possible;
• Decentralize the operations of the Coalition Authority and make money more forthcoming and flexible;
• Employ the sizable number of available Iraqis with short term public works projects and get state-run enterprises up and running, even if they must be downsized and privatized later;
• Push for UN oversight of the successor to the Oil for Food program;
• Award reconstruction contracts to the best US or foreign bidder in a transparent and open process.

"Yesterday's bombing of the UN headquarters in Iraq appears to have been an effort to dissuade other members of the international community from assisting us. It is vital to our chances of success that the Bush Administration redouble its efforts to internationalize the military and civilian presence and to speed up the stabilization and rebuilding process. We cannot afford to fail."
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8372&news_iv_ctrl=1441
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8649&news_iv_ctrl=1441

It's still a reconstruction plan, not a disengagement strategy. Will we be marching in the streets in 2005 to protest president Dean's occupation of Iraq?

#52: "This certainly makes his opinions of the Bush* administration's fumbling clear, and it perhaps offers parts of a plan, e.g. # 2, but I'd really prefer that the Governor state his exit plan clearly, all in one place. Again, will we be marching in the street to protest Dean's continued occupation of Iraq? Why not?"

I would say if there is a 'continued occupation' in the form we see now, yes there will be protests. But if a plan is enacted to resolve the situation, perhaps we should march in support.

Here's a little more information .. can't say if it's what you're looking for or not.


Let's check the transcript ( http://www.demog.berkeley.edu/~gabriel/dean2004blog/Dean_MTP_June_22_2003.htm ). Dean actually says

We need more troops in Afghanistan. We need more troops in Iraq now. I supported the president's invasion of Afghanistan for the obvious reasons, what had gone on and the murder of people. But I do not support what the president's doing there now. We need more people there. We cannot be making alliances with warlords in the hope that we're one day going to have the democracy in Afghanistan. And what I would do in Iraq now is bring in NATO and bring in the United Nations, because our troops on the ground deserve better support than they're getting. (Emphasis Added)

Dean is not calling for more American troops. He's calling for multilateralism. The Oskaloosa Herald ( http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=9903447&BRD=1623&PAG=461&dept_id=180614&rfi=6 ) aptly summarizes his position:

But now in Iraq, the U.S. is stuck there and must prevent a fundamentalist regime from taking power and harboring al-Qaeda or other such organizations, Dean said. But the U.S. needs to encourage more international peacekeeping in Iraq so some U.S. reserves can return home.

http://deandefense.org/archives/000502.html