Kerry Introduces “Strategy for Success in Iraq Act”

Kerry Introduces “Strategy for Success in Iraq Act” in United States Senate
November 10th, 2005

Speaking a a short time ago on the Senate Floor, John Kerry Introduced the “Strategy for Success in Iraq Act.”

The “Strategy for Success in Iraq Act” Would Bring Home 20,000 Troops After Iraq Elections and Demands Benchmarks for Success.

Washington, D.C. — This afternoon, Senator John Kerry introduced in the Senate his plan to succeed in Iraq and bring the vast majority of our combat troops home in a reasonable timeframe tied to specific, responsible benchmarks to transfer responsibility to Iraqis — beginning with the draw down of 20,000 U.S. troops after successful Iraqi elections in December. These additional troops are in Iraq only for the purpose of providing security for the upcoming elections. If they remain in Iraq after that benchmark is achieved, it only exacerbates the sense of American occupation.

“We are entering a make-or-break six month period in Iraq. We need to be taking action now if we are ever going to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that’s not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict,” Kerry said. “We cannot pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay ‘as long as it takes.’ There is a way forward that gives us the best chance both to salvage a difficult situation in Iraq, and to save American and Iraqi lives.”

Kerry’s legislation, the Strategy for Success in Iraq Act, lays out a comprehensive new strategy to complete the mission in Iraq and bring our troops home. Its goal is to undermine the insurgency by simultaneously pursing both a political settlement and the draw down of American forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. If followed, the process will be completed in 12-15 months.

Kerry’s plan calls for:

· The U.S. to begin a phased draw down of American troops as a series of military and political benchmarks is met, starting with a reduction of 20,000 troops over the holidays as the first benchmark -the successful completion of the December elections - is met.

· The U.S. to immediately make clear that we do not want permanent military bases in Iraq, or a large combat force on Iraqi soil indefinitely.

· The Administration to immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn — ideally by the end of next year.

· The Bush administration to prod the new Iraqi government to ask for a multinational force to help protect Iraq’s borders until a capable national army is formed. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations, could attract participation by Iraq’s neighbors and countries like India and would be a critical step in stemming the tide of insurgents and money into Iraq, especially from Syria.

· The Pentagon to alter the deployment of American troops, keeping Special Operations forces pursuing specific intelligence leads and putting the vast majority of U.S. troops in rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup. We do not need to send young Americans on search and destroy missions that invite alienation and deepen the risks they face.

· The President to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them.

· The Bush administration to accept long standing offers by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more training.

· The administration to immediately call a conference of Iraq’s neighbors, Britain, Turkey and other key NATO allies, and Russia to implement a strategy to bring the parties in Iraq to a sustainable political compromise that includes mutual security guarantees among Iraqis.

· Iraq’s Sunni neighbors to set up a reconstruction fund specifically for the majority Sunni areas to show them the benefits of participating in the political process.

· The President to appoint a special envoy to bolster America’s diplomatic efforts.

· The U.S. to commit to a new regional security structure that includes improved security assistance programs and joint exercises.

· The U.S. to jumpstart our lagging reconstruction efforts by providing the necessary civilian personnel to do the job, standing up civil-military reconstruction teams throughout the country, streamlining the disbursement of funds to the provinces, expanding job creation programs for Iraqis, and strengthening the capacity of government ministries.

“We must send this critical signal to the Iraqi people - that we do not desire permanent occupation - and that Iraqis themselves must fight for Iraq. History shows that guns alone do not end an insurgency,” Kerry added.

Senior American commanders and officials have said the large U.S. military presence in Iraq feeds the insurgency. General George Casey, the top American military commander in Iraq, recently told Congress that our large military presence “feeds the notion of occupation” and “extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.” Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, recently wrote, ‘’Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency.”

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1117

Go John! :toast:

could come up with such a awkwardly named piece of legislation.

"Strategy for Success in Iraq Act"

It's like one of those vocal exercises they make kids repeat to help get rid of speech impediments.

they want at least ONE strategy that has a chance to succeed.

Bush has been unable to present one, and that could be why Kerry is using this title as a political device. Not unlike the way the GOP does as SOP.

Wording has to work for them

Until they have the oil secured.

end of story.

home.

ie the Truth in Broadcasting Act, it got turned itno one of those awkwardly named things in the House. It passed out of committee, but it no longer "sings" if you know what I mean.

So maybe he's trying a different strategy this time. Start out ugly, and maybe it will get beautiful by the end.

for, well, you know...

If only he had presented this during the campaign, with smaller withdrawals starting a year ago.

One exception. At the time, he did not give a target date for a total withdrawal. Except for that, I think most of the rest was presented more than one year ago.

The difference is that he is presenting a bill now.

and perception as occupiers.

as it was only after two visits to Iraq AFTER the election that he seems to have come to this conclusion.

Perhaps by our standards here, he's late. But he's about third in line in the Senate. Kennedy, then Feingold, then Kerry. And I think we can call what Reid did a couple of weeks ago a related incident.

That was then. This is now. Now we kick some ass, ya?

Sure, let's run with this but is there a reason to have waited until now? *'s weakness? Not great leadership if that's the case.

UN officials and allied leaders were consulted. He spoke with many in Iraq's own parliament. He got a great overview of what would be DOABLE and preferred from all viewpoints.

He's been crafting it for the last two months to make sure it has the best chance of getting done.

With both antiwar Dems like Tom Hayden and hawkish Dems like Feinstein speaking supportively of his approach, I'd say his effort is off to a good start.

as hard as the "moral right" has been thumping their Bibles. Kerry would have had better support if he had this plan out there in force before the election.

to bad you weren't paying attention. Also it was pretty hard for him to know exactly what he would be up against in Iraq by the time he took office in January. I know he stated he wanted to start withdrawals by August of this year.

God I wish people would quit thinking that this is a quick fix, when Bush has screwed up so much.

how often you heard (yes by the MSM) that he didn't. I wish he had been shouting it out loud. He should have been putting it right in front of everyones face. He didn't do that.

.

to get more exposure he explained it as 4 bulletpoints in less than a minute on the Letterman show - I think on the same day.

Thanks for posting this.

Okay, so what will it take to see the Kerry plan put into action?

it.

I actually think Hagel will sign on at some point.

And push this in the blogosphere!

in 2003, but I think that Iraq is too far gone for this plan to work. Over 80% of Iraqis want the US out and the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds don't trust each other and have their own internal political agendas that will torpedo this plan.

speaking supportively of Kerry's plan....and that's only the ones I've heard so far.

In theory it looks good, but the reality on the ground will make it difficult to implement, especially, since we have Bush for 3 more years.

The Marshall Plan was implemented right after we defeated Germany and Japan and it had been in the planning stages for years prior to Allied Victory.

While Kerry's plan looks good on paper, I just don't see it being implemented successfully. We have no credibility with Iraqis and the longer our troops are there the more the Iraqis, especially the Sunnis, hate us. The Shiites, backed by Iran, have their own agenda that would add another wrench into implementing this plan. The Kurds also have their own agenda of pushing out the transplanted Arabs and forming a de-facto Kurdistan, which the Turks don't want. And I don't see the Kurds welcoming the Turks into their land.

or they haven't told Kerry about it. This document makes it appear that there is room for discussion.

Great timing!

:bounce:

Or so they keep telling us.

(On "Coast to Coast" today, the segment on Chimpy's poll numbers was a shriek-fest against Democrats for having no agenda, message, ideas, etc...)

by the media who kept repeating the Dems have no plans storyline they love to present.

Now that Kerry's submitted it as a bill, it will be harder for them to ignore. We just need a solid Dem team to push it through with him.

Send the Swift Boat Liars! Don't forget the band-aids, you motherfucking Republicans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kerry is an American Hero!!!

If only he was in the WH dammit!

Awesome speech - he was on fire!

You bet your bippy.

where he wrote an amendment to ensure the CIA let the Senate Intelligence Committee know about any "secret prisons"....love it!!

Kerry Rocks!
:yourock:

The Iraq bill is going to be a bit tougher with this group.

I read Mccain's speech and in it he misrepresents Kerry's plan as a dangerious pull out that will embolden the terrorists. That is just bullsh*t on McCain's part. I think we need to keep alert about these misrepresentations and defend Kerry's position when possible. Kerry's plan is the most thought out and comprehensive plan I have seen so far- no lie. McCain,well he just repeats the same old tired lines about the need to stay for however long it takes.

One thing did stick out about McCain's speech, he said that the insurgents will think we are weak if we pull out and are not willing to risk the casualties. Well, let me for one tell McCain- hell no I am not willing to risk more casualties without a more comprehensive plan to get out. Where is your plan McCain? We can not continue to afford all the terrible costs of this illegal war.

Jeebus, I thought they already were. 2,000 dead and 15,000 maimed American soldiers would suggest so.

Kerry should retire before he embarasses himself to death.

If the Iraqi's were themselves fighting for their country, then we wouldn't have so many soldiers maimed and dead.

that they did during the Vietnam war! Only Kerry is doing it this time because he still thinks he's a step or two away from being President Kerry.

Think, for Chrissakes! If we were invaded, conquered, and a puppet regime set up, would you identify with it?

The Iraqis ARE fighting for Iraq. And a helluva lot of them have already died for it.

Specifically the Sunnis are the major supporters of the insurgency but the Shiites and Kurds have their own militias and would launch their own insurgency or civil war against the Sunnis and each other.

Each ethnic group in Iraq is willing to fight. They are not willing to fight as Iraqis, but as Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Arabs, etc..

Perhaps you should work on getting rid of George Allen, and let Massachusetts worry about their own Senators.

Look. If I thought Kerry's "plan" could get us the hell out of Iraq I'd bite my tongue. Who knows? Maybe it can. I don't see it but maybe it can.

I VOTED for him in 2004. But this "success in Iraq" crap gives me chills!

God only knows how many dead and maimed IRAQIS (100,000 or more?) and John Kerry is going to turn it into a SUCCESS???

It's a clusterfuck. It's immoral. It's criminal.

It will NEVER be a success.

If I thought that calling it that (and continuing to talk about defeating the "insurgency") was necessary to sell the American public on the virtues of withdrawal, I'd go along. But already over 50% of the public views it as a mistake, if not a clusterfuck. People are starting to open their eyes and see that Bush lied about all of it.

I feel like we may not BE in Iraq now if Americans had learned the real lessons Vietnam should have taught them. And so I really don't want one of the vets who worked to stop that genocide to spin this one into some kind of humanitarian mission.

commenting on was just the idea of calling for someone else's Senator's retirement. I think Massholes would have something to say about that.

called what he may think it is - Least worse option for Bush's enormous mess? Don't judge a book by it's title.

and the immorality of this war...like he saw the Vietnam war...and was calling it something else to get us out of there...I'd feel a whole lot better about him and what he's saying. That's precisely what I thought during the 2004 campaign. But I expected his message to change after his defeat.

You can't be all things to all people. I think that was partially what contributed to his defeat.

For all of those who thought his message would change. This is what he thought in 2002, 2003, 2004 and now 2005. It is consistent, consistent, consistent. We shouldn't go into Iraq for regime change. Bush did that anyway. Since then he has consistently said we should stabilize the country and leave. He's still saying that. It's what every responsible politician has said, including Dennis Kucinich.

That is slamming Kerry's bring 20k troops home for Christmas?

Has McCain been studied for PTSD? Hey, I'm married to one from VN, denial is a major symptom. :shrug:

John Kerry Responds to Senator McCain’s Mischaracterization of His Iraq Plan
November 10th, 2005

A short time ago, John Kerry offered a plan for success in Iraq on the Senate Floor. In his Floor Speech, Kerry responded to Senator McCain’s mischaracterization of the Kerry Iraq plan earlier today. In his speech today, Senator McCain failed to recognize concerns previously raised by senior U.S. military commanders and officials as outlined in Kerry’s speech at Georgetown in late October. Kerry’s plan is the most comprehensive plan offered to date, on a withdrawal from Iraq. Support for the Kerry plan was noted here, following his speech at Georgetown.

Senator Kerry’s Iraq plan (as offered on the Senate floor today) lays out a comprehensive new strategy to complete the mission in Iraq and bring our troops home. Its goal is to undermine the insurgency by simultaneously pursing both a political settlement and the draw down of American forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks - beginning with the draw down of 20,000 troops after successful Iraqi elections in December. If followed, the process will be completed in 12-15 months.

“The path forward in Iraq must defeat the insurgency and keep faith with our troops, rather than be driven by the politics of the Republican base or rigid adherence to President Bush’s aimless course. The plan I have offered would correct our course. The speech Sen. McCain delivered does not,” Kerry said today.

MORE - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1119

Thanks for sharing :hi:

casualties as it takes -indefinitely -in order to continue to show we are not afraid of the terrorists and will stay as long as it takes to cover for the Iraqis.

With all due respect to another DU thread that wanted to take "cut and run" seriously, I'm still pissed about that. But it did save lives, and Reagan brought the troops home. My husband was one of them.

Thanks for letting me vent guys :hi:

Edit to clarify: Cutting and Running is not a bad thing, she selfishly said :)

.

Brazilian/USA Exchange Student Mormon Cheerleader Found SAFE. I'm glad about that, but now wondering what else I missed on MSM today :shrug:

Pack our shit up, march the troops onto the boats and planes, and get the fuck outta there, NOW.

I'm sorry, but this draw down gradual shit is wrong, flat out wrong. All we are going to continue to do is kill innocent Iraqis, do further damage to the country, and not prevent the shit storm that is going to happen when we leave. Our continuing presence, no matter what actions we take, will not prevent this. All our continuing presence does is exacerbate an already dire situation and kill more innocents.

Anything that is put in place by Americans is going to be considered illegit and illegal by the Iraqi people and it will be torn down the minute we leave. This includes any government that is set up and any Iraqi security force we train. In addition, no matter when we leave or what we do there is going to be a civil war when we leave, hell there is one simmering there now.

So rather than continuing to make matters worse by staying, either in force ala Bushco, or with a draw down program ala Kerry, let us just leave, now. Pay back reparations for the damage we've done, yes. Send as much aid as we can, yes. But get the hell out of there and bring the troops home NOW.

Thank you.

I am starting over on my saves. Big crash recently.

Apparently Tom Hayden is a warmonger though, seeing as he doesn't want to pull "OUT NOW".

Easy to say and repeat. But I think even Hayden sees this as a good step in the right direction.

I'm off to hunt for that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/support-for-kerry-speech_b_9632.html
Hayden supports Kerry's plan

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/kerry-and-mccain-get-into_b_10455.html
Hayden discusses the Kerry vs. McCain fracas from today

Hayden did a post on the HuffPO after Kerry's Georgetown speech, here's some quips from Hayden and what I wrote about Hayden's support -



Hayden clarifies Kerry’s proposals, and says “I believe the analysis should prepare the public for the failure of “Iraqization” instead of the Bush fantasty that the Iraqi “security forces” will have the committment and capability to fight the resistance any time soon, if ever.” He then goes on to make some suggestions where Kerry could elaborate in the future and closes with this support…



Kudos to Tom Hayden for standing up as an icon of the liberal left anti-war movement and supporting Kerry’s speech.


MORE & LINKS - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=970

missed it.

Having been around to see the wind-up of Vietnam I've seen this sort of thing happen before. And sadly, Iraq is going to wind up much like Vietnam did. That's why I think that the best thing we can do is leave immediately. Any other option simply prolongs the misery.

Kerry's plan calls for troop withdrawal sooner than the Kucinich plan. This is the best plan to end the war, we need to get behind it.

and what difference does it make? sometimes the people have to lead ...

but, since you asked the question, here you go ==>> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5284969

and since you seemed to make earlier withdrawal a positive thing by citing that Kerry's plan gets the troops out sooner than the one Kucinich proposed, perhaps you'll endorse the plan described in the link ... it's the best plan to end the war, we need to get behind it.

btw, Kucinich is a co-sponsor of the bill ...

Doesn't say when. Another omission of the little details.

the cut-off of funds for more war is not based on some future date ... it says to cut-off off funds and it means NOW as in IMMEDIATELY ...

here's an excerpt from McGovern's recent floor speech on Iraq:

Political grandstanding. He knows as well as any thinking person that you can't have "safe and orderly withdrawal" that begins at the drop of a hat. What happens when half the troops are withdrawn and the other half comes under increasing attack and can't defend themselves? What happens if there's a slaughter?? A rhetorical "today" doesn't mean anything. If he were serious, he'd lay out a withdrawal strategy with dates and benchmarks, like Kerry did.

BTW, you asked what the consequences to Bush inaction was? You saw it today, which he said in Georgetown. Congress takes control of the war away from George, that's what that bill today does.

This is, despite rumors to the contrary, still gov't of, by and for the people. Thus we need to get involved again and start putting pressure on the politicians.

The majority of the people in poll after poll have stated that the want the troops home now. Thus we need to pressure our politicians to bring the troops home now.

We can sit around playing word games or get behind a plan that brings troops home and is based on the premise that Iraq belongs to Iraq and the only way to get them to believe that is to remove our troops. A plan that doesn't address the strategy and timeframe to safely remove troops is no plan at all. If McGovern means land planes and load them up, then put it in his plan. If he's not willing to put it in writing, then he needs to shut the hell up.

Apparently someone forgot about the immutable laws of logistics. You gonna get 140,000 troops to the airport to board 1,500 C-141 transports and fly them out in a couple of days and leave all their equipment and vehicles behind? It took several months to get them and all of their stuff there, it's gonna take at least as long to get them all back.

Easy, logical, and the moral thing to do.

Remarks of Senator John Kerry Introducing the Kerry Iraq Bill
November 10th, 2005

The following is the text of John Kerry’s Floor Speech today introducing his amendment outlining withdrawal from Iraq:

Mr. President, later today my Democratic colleagues and I will offer a critical amendment on Iraq. I am pleased to have worked on this amendment and to be a cosponsor. I look forward to participating in the debate when the amendment comes up. But I have come here now to introduce a bill that lays out in greater detail the comprehensive new strategy that I believe the president must implement to complete the mission in Iraq and bring our troops home in a reasonable timeframe.

MORE - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1120

WHERE ARE YOU, DU? This plan will bring our soldiers home and eliminate all American prescence in Iraq by early 2007. LET'S KICK AND SUPPORT THIS!! :kick:

people were bitching about him not having a plan on Iraq.

You would have only heard it on Cspan or live, as corporate media did a great job editting his speeches down to fit Rove's storyline.

The media can just as easily ignore him & edit his CSPAN clips this time.

Maybe more major-op eds & TV interview show spots is the answer...

I'm not saying I'm 100% behind Kerry for the primaries this early on- but a rematch in 2008 would be fine with me. The great thing is Kerry is building up a solid record now- they can ignore his record now- but hard to spin it later.

appears that other Senators will get tough WITH HIM, now, and he's not going to be out there alone as he has for many of his toughest battles against BushInc.

Though the MSM covered it only in sound bites, Kerry spoke often of his plan for exiting Iraq. He didn't give THIS plan because the situation in Iraq at the time was not the same as it is now.

that speech made folks sit up and take notice. Well, some people anyway. I remember a Republican piping up here right after saying he was giving Kerry a good hard look because he made sense, and it was that speech and the bits that followed it that week that were changing his mind.

Hope it works:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35515-2004Sep20?language=printer

Excellent speech!

Thank you ProSense.

I printed out a lot of speeches, so it's easy to find them online when I need to.

confidence.... Truly the man who should be in the WH!! Intelligence, dignity and class... He may not have been my favorite Dem. but the shrub pales in comparison.

He's virtually invisible!

I haven't seen anyone else introduce a plan. And this one is good because it isn't linked to dates, but to goals. Good for him.. Now watch the media ignore it and the repubs put it down or ignore it entirely.

call it something else and take full credit for it. Of course there will be troops left to secure what the Bush Regime invaded Iraq for.

Tom Hayden pointed that out too. That's why we need to keep on this.

I love the fact that he is trying to accomplish the goals he set during his presidential campaign. Now that the Dems have found their 'nads, maybe this will actually get through. I know at least a few sensible Republicans will be on board.

and he's doing it. Good for him. I think it annoys the shit out of Bush. Bush sometimes seems to react as if he's still campaigning.

the region. The enemies' targets keep getting larger...because of our presence and our own acts of violence/torture to often innocent civilians, beget violence, which begets more... Like that bumper sticker about 'Fighting War to Bring Peace.'

Again (not in a JK "bashing" way), where's that PUBLIC statement about the 2004 Election being stolen? Why all the denial? The time is NOW. The world is ready for it. Speak up...speak up.

force and our intentions are to leave and allow the iraqi's to govern their own country.

Go Kerry and other Dems getting on board! :kick: