The SDMB mock election Debate #1: Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran & Pakistan.

Great Debates
1

Welcome to the fist SMDB multiparty 2008 campaign debate.

Today we will debate and discuss your policies concerning the Iraq & Afghanistan wars and the unrest in the region. This one should focus mainly on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran & Pakistan. Israel and other hot spots should largely be covered later in another debate on foreign policy. Please see the tentative list below.

We welcome the candidate to posts their positions & solutions and be prepared to defend them. We welcome posters to ask questions related to this debate and challenge listed methods.

**Candidates, what are your proposals concerning the Iraq & Afghan situation? **

**The Candidates and their parties so far: ** It *won’t be too late to announce until the last debate I guess. *
Liberal Libertarian Party
**Revenant Threshold ** Independence party of America
**Phlosphr ** Green Party USA
**Bricker ** Republican Party
Elendil’s Heir Democratic Party
Kythereia Green Party of Canada
Illuminatiprimus the Satanic States of America
Sam Stone Liberal Market
foolsguinea If you want it, the Socialist party appears to be open.
Sage Rat Scientific Results and Delegation Party

See here for the initial thread:
The tentative schedule of debates is:
Thread 1 Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran & Pakistan.
Thread 2 Economy, Healthcare, Social Security & Poverty
Thread 3 Global Warming, Energy Policy, Green Issues & Technology
Thread 4: Education & Science & Space
Thread 5: Military & Veteran’s affairs
Thread 6: Foreign policy, highlighting China, Russia, Cuba & Israel and whatever seems important to people.
Thread 7: Ethics & Campaign Reform
Thread 8: Homeland Security & Immigration

2

For the Libertarian Party

Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran & Pakistan.

In my view, those are four sovereign nations, against none of which Congress has issued a declaration of war. I would therefore order the Pentagon to cease all military operations in Iraq immediately other than self-defense as we withdraw, and I would make the withdrawal as swift as orderly logistics would allow. I would do the same in Afghanistan. I would stop the saber rattling at Iran, and I would ask Congress to stop propping up the dictatorship in Pakistan.

That said, I would renew the search for Osama Bin Laden and others responsible for the mass murders of Americans on September 11, 2001. Rather than conduct an unauthorized full-on war, I would seek the assistance of other nations who also lost citizens in those attacks and form teams of special forces to root out Bin Laden and bring him to justice. For what we’ve done in Iraq, we could have offered a $1 billion reward and still have come out a trillion dollars ahead.

3

A question for the libertarian candidate:

What distinguishes an authorization to use military force from a declaration of war? Is it simply a formalistic distinction between the words “we declare war” and “we authorize the use of force,” or is it something deeper?

In an era of non-state terrorism, how does Congress authorize the use of force against these groups when they reside in a broken nation-state if not in the style of the Sept. 18, 2001 AUMF?

4

For the Independence Party of America

Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan

I think the Iraq war was a mistake, and once we have bungled. But I believe that what we break, we are obligated to try and fix. This doesn’t necessarily mean more troops being sent in, but it doesn’t necessarily mean them being pulled out either. I would want to wait to see the continuing effects of the surge. If it has no effect, I would be all for a pullout, with unfortunetly many of the returning troops being sent to Afghanistan. I would however immediately stop the use of PMCs in Iraq, and ensure those of those groups who break the law do not get away with it.

As far as Iran goes, we’re now in a position where any actual evidence or action for which the reasonable reaction might be war is going to be looked on suspiciously by at least half the U.S… The current administration has painted us into a corner somewhat in that regard. I would guess that the Iranian response will be more Strait-style attempts; ways to try and make us look bad and them good. I do not think with our obligations elsewhere that a war we be at all a good idea - so it would be a war of propaganda, essentially, with them.

Pakistan is a dictatorship in all but name, and we will not support such a regime.

5

Question for both the libertarian candidate and the independent candidate, but perhaps mostly for the libertarian candidate: Do you feel that now that the US has toppled the regime in Iraq, that the US has any kind of responsibility for the future of that nation? If so, what practical forms should that responsibility take?

6

A good question, Richard, thank you.

The president is always authorized to use force. In fact, she is bound by oath to use force since force is necessary to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. She is authorized by Article II of the Constitution as Commander in Chief of the both federal and state military forces. But Article I clearly gives Congress the sole authority to declare war, a distinction that I believe is drawn on the basis of scope. The object of a war is to conquer a nation, while the object of a military strike is to achieve a lesser goal — for example, the capture of Osama Bin Laden.

With respect to non-state terrorism, wherever terrorists are hiding, they are under the jurisdiction of one state or another. When the states protecting terrorists who have committed crimes against US Citizens are unfriendly and uncooperative in rooting out the aggressors, I believe that the president should brief the Congressional leadership on her goal, time-frame, and general plan of action and ask for funds to conduct the operation. If the Congress refuses to fund it, then it will have exercized the will of the people, and the people will know. If it agrees to fund the operation, then it will be aware that a declaration of war may eventually be necessary to fight the hosting state while conducting counter-terrorism.

I believe that the standard traditional military is not the best way to fight against non-state terrorism. I believe that the use of fraud, bribary, deception, pinpoint force (both defensive and retaliatory) and other means better serve sound counter-terrorism tactics. I believe is it much like the British who faced Southern American forces in their native woods in the late 18th century, when traditional tactics of bunching together and marching forward with drums proved impractical. So likewise must we adjust to the guerilla style of our current enemies.

7

Thank you for your question, Priceguy. Yes, I do believe the United States is responsible for the future of Iraq, just as it is responsible for the past and present. I believe that we bear our responsibility in the form of shame, and that the only way to repair what we have already done is to change what we shall do in the future. The lost lives cannot be regained. There is no clear owner to whom we can pay damages for destroyed property. And there is no amount of money that can make whole the lives of people who have undergone torture, bombings, and unmitigate fear. What we must do to take responsibility is begin to behave responsibly, first and foremost by no longer propping up foreign regimes and bullying our friends. Leadership should be done by example.

8

What debate? Iran beats the other three hands down. Next!

9

The question asks about Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. I believe that each of these countries are sui generis, and require their own response. Here are two; the other two when time permits.

Afghanistan: Our military presence in Afghanistan was absolutely necessary. Although the terror attacks that have changed so much about how we view our own security were the result of a group, it was a group that sought and received refuge from the government of Afghanistan. In acting as they did, the then-existing Afghan government’s tacit approval and support of Al-Queda was sufficient cause for us to declare war. Our actions have been appropriate thus far, and we cannot now simply withdraw and leave the situation worse than we found it. With no stablizing influence, in a country already known for local “warlords” gaining and maintaining power, it would be not only irresponsible but utterly foolhardy to remove our presence. At the same time, we cannot continue to supply military resources - and military lives - with no end in sight. We need to work towards the end goal of a stable government to which we cna turn over the reins of reign, if you’ll pardon the pun.

Iraq: Much of what I said about Afghanistan applies here as well. Unlike Afghanistan, it is reasonably clear that Al-Queda had no particular ties with Iraq, other than a general antipathy towards the United States, and it’s clear that contrary to our initial intelligence estimates, Iraq was not an imminent deadly threat to our land. In the concern about post-9/11 security… we made assumptions in good faith that turned out to be wrong.

Yes, we made a mistake – but it was a mistake that removed from power a brutal, bloodthirsty dictator whose regime promised death for many and misery for many more. I cannot say I will weep for the removal of power of Saddam Husseineven though the premises of that removal were flawed; it was a mistake with a silver lining.

So – lacking a time machine to correct that error, what can we do now? Leaving compounds our earlier error; we must act as best we can to assist the Iraqi people in creating a stable government. We kicked over their sand castle; we must now get down in the dirt and sand and help them rebuild it.

10

A statement by Elendil’s Heir, a candidate for the Democratic Party’s nomination for President of the United States:

Iraq
I would confer with my Secretary of Defense and with the Joint Chiefs of Staff upon taking office, and begin immediate planning for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. I would then carry it out as soon as practicable, consistent with the safety of our men and women in uniform. The war has become unwinnable, due to egregious errors from the outset by President Bush and his inner circle, and no further purpose is served by keeping U.S. forces there. The country has become a training ground for Al Qaeda, our true enemy since 9-11, and is bleeding the U.S. Army and Marine Corps dry. The troop surge, now a year old, has brought about some reduction in violence, but is not indefinitely sustainable. Tragically, the Iraqi government and society are still so riven by ethnic hostilities and score-settling that there has been little progress towards the kind of political solution which is so badly needed there. We must also welcome to our own country far more of the Iraqis who have helped our forces - at great risk to themselves and their families - and now seek naturalization and citizenship here.

Afghanistan
I would give renewed emphasis to building civil society in Afghanistan and to fighting the resurgent Taliban. We must do both. The 9-11 attacks were launched by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda from sanctuaries in Afghanistan, and for that reason I supported the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Iraq was and has been a deadly diversion from the War on Terror; Afghanistan must now be the focus of our efforts.

Iran
Iran is not necessarily our enemy. Despite the oppressive theocratic regime which now holds supreme power there, Iran has a vibrant grassroots democracy and a long history of friendship with the U.S. Any military attack now would, I’m convinced, probably only strengthen the hardline mullahs and discredit the reformist and democratic elements within the country, who already are tarred as being pro-American. I would carefully monitor the Iranian nuclear program, bearing in mind the recent National Intelligence Estimate which suggested that Iran has given up a military nuclear program. But make no mistake: I would consider all options - including, reluctantly, all appropriate military options - if it appeared that Iran was going to actually develop nuclear weapons, or to provide them to terrorists. We should work more closely with the IAEA in this regard.

Pakistan
I mourn the death of Benazir Bhutto, for all her faults perhaps her country’s best hope for a return to democracy. I am unconvinced that President Pervez Musharraf shares my commitment to democracy, and I deplore the steps he has taken to suppress dissent, undermine the rule of law and hang on to power. I will consider any and all appropriate military options to attack terrorists within Pakistan when and if I become convinced that the Pakistani government is unwilling or unable to do so itself. I want to encourage Pakistan’s return to democracy, and to do all I can to ensure that India and Pakistan, both now nuclear-armed but frequent combatants in the past, live together peacefully. The lives of tens of millions may hang in the balance.

11

Yes, but not to the nation, to the people. I make the difference because keeping Iraq as a single nation may not be what’s best for the people living there.

How would this be done? I’d like to see the surge continue, and see the effects of that. If the apparent help it’s having doesn’t increase or continue, though, and barring alternative ideas from the Joint Chiefs, I think pulling out may be the best option for the people there (though obviously that’s going to be just as if not much worse over a period of time). I’ve got no problem with continuing to target specific cells or people with troops based elsewhere in the region, however, and I think that in and of itself would also be a help to Iraq.

12

I was actually hoping you might be willing to be the Socialist candidate in this debate. Have you given it any thought?

13

Speaking for the Satanic States of America party (and following the examples of others I will break down my positions by country):

Iraq

The situation in Iraq is practically that of civil war - that the US instigated this is regrettable notably as it has achieved nothing for us or them and has lowered the world’s view of the US’s actions and diplomatic position in general. Whilst Hussein was indeed a dictator it is not the job of any one country to go around knocking such people off their platforms of power for the sake of it, or to acquire a good guy badge. I am unconvinced that the former administration ever had any evidence that there was an imminent danger from Iraq (despite what others here have said) and therefore see no requirement to follow through with its original intentions. I would confer with the heads of the military on what they see as the most effective way forward - maintenance of a presence for a further set period or to begin immediate withdrawal. There is no winning in Iraq, simply degrees of losing, and it is my desire to end the US’s presence there with the least amount of further bloodshed whilst maintaining the integrity and fighting ability of the troops who remain.

Afghanistan

The situation in Afghanistan is similarly difficult, although I believe there is a clearer imperative to permanently breaking the Taliban given that it was clear they did indeed sponsor terrorism as a state. I would move some of the troops being withdrawn from Iraq into the Afghan theatre and continue to put down the Taliban and their supporters. I would simultaneously seek a UN-led package of rebuilding for the Afghan people in an attempt to invest in and rebuild that country so that it is a less fertile breeding place for extremists and less willing to descend into partisan anarchy.

Iran

The current president of Iran cannot be said to represent the whole of his country, and the thinly veiled threats by the US to “do something about Iran” are achieving nothing. Quite frankly I believe we should be unconcerned with Iran’s attempt to build a nuclear programme - short of instigating regime change in that country how are we supposed to stop them? And indeed, why shouldn’t Iran have a domestic nuclear capability? Clearly Russia is intent on supporting Iran in its efforts and currently the situation does not merit the amount of aggravation that is being generated by the US’s attempts to influence events there. The situation would be different if Iran was shown to be creating nuclear weapons or actively supporting terrorists with nuclear capabilities, but I’m not convinced that is happening currently.

Pakistan

Pakistan is a reprehensible theocracy and no friend of the west in any way. I would terminate all relations with Pakistan immediately and stop pretending that their success is to to benefit of anyone but themselves.

14

What a great idea for a set of threads - kudoes to What Exit for facilitating this.

To the distinguished representatives of the GOP and the Independence Party, (or others who do not advocate immediate withdrawal), what specifics would you require from the current Iraqi government before you would begin a withdrawal, and what would you do if those specifics are not met?

And to the representative of the Satanist party - you mention

The “most effective way” to do what? What is your goal, either of a further presence or of withdrawal?

Thanks to you all for your time.

Regards,
Shodan

15

My ultimate goal is withdrawal, my point was that I’d confer with the heads of the military on whether that would be best achieved by pulling out immediately or whether there would be a fixed point in the future that would be better (such as further training for the Iraqi security forces). I certainly wouldn’t commit to pulling out straight away because it sounds the most attractive, although that is what I’d prefer to do personally. As I said, it comes down to what would be most effective for the integrity of the military in the long run.

16

I’m going to lump all of these together then branch [bad pun] out from there.

I support multilateral approaches to conflicts through the UN and the International Criminal Court. I believe that such multilateral cooperation reflects both the unavoidable interdependence of Americans with people everywhere and the commonwealth of the earth’s limited natural resources.
Taking substantial steps to free US foreign policy from dependency on oil and other non-renewable energy sources; and to encourage investment in renewable energy sources and energy conservation. Shifting our major investment from military spending to meeting the basic needs of Americans and people everywhere with vast renewable resources.

Iraq - from a 2008 persepctive, we did it, now we need to systematically undo it without firing up more of a civil war than is already going on. Clean up on a massive scale, restructure our interests to protecting our own lands.

Afghanistan - renewed presence there to abate Taliban resurgence, calculated anti-terrorism units to stay and surgically surplant the resistance.

Pakistan - GUARD THE NUKES. And get out as soon as soon as possible.

Iran - stop rattling sabers and use the brilliant minds in tehran to come up with new renewable energy sources to become a regional leader in new sources of power. Odd but it may work.

17

To the GOP candidate:

If it should become clear that our current military resources are insufficient for their missions in both Iraq and Afghanistan, or if another conflict should arise, what would you do to increase the number of enlistees?

18

Thanks for your response, and I would like to ask a follow-up -

You mentioned that

If your military heads warn you that a pull out from Iraq is likely to trigger full-scale civil war and greatly increase bloodshed, would you then abandon your goal of minimizing bloodshed and pull out immediately anyways? And given the American experience after the fall of Saigon, how do you expect to deal with the effects on morale of the US military after we simply cut and run from Iraq, given that your remaining goal is to preserve the fighting ability of the US?

Regards,
Shodan

19

To the representative of the GOP: I would like you to elaborate on how exactly what you said about Afghanistan applies to Iraq. I think it is an important topic, because many Americans supported and continue to support our presence in Afghanistan, while a majority no longer support our presence in Iraq. To break down what you said about Afghanistan:

*Our military presence in Afghanistan was absolutely necessary. * Was our military presence in Iraq absolutely necessary?

*Although the terror attacks that have changed so much about how we view our own security were the result of a group, it was a group that sought and received refuge from the government of Afghanistan. In acting as they did, the then-existing Afghan government’s tacit approval and support of Al-Queda was sufficient cause for us to declare war. * Was the government of Iraq’s actions sufficient cause for us to declare war on Iraq?
*
Our actions have been appropriate thus far, and we cannot now simply withdraw and leave the situation worse than we found it. With no stablizing influence, in a country already known for local “warlords” gaining and maintaining power, it would be not only irresponsible but utterly foolhardy to remove our presence. * Iraq (as far as I know) is not a country known for local warlords gaining and maintaining power. Please explain how this applies to Iraq. And a supplemental question: Have our actions in Iraq been similarly “appropriate” as you believe they were in Afghanistan?

At the same time, we cannot continue to supply military resources - and military lives - with no end in sight. We need to work towards the end goal of a stable government to which we cna turn over the reins of reign, if you’ll pardon the pun. **Does this also apply to Iraq and, if so, does it mean that you support a timetable for the withdrawal of troops? (I refer specifically to the “no end in sight” section). If you do not support a timetable, how will we know when the end is in sight?
**

(Great thread!)

20

Scientific Results and Delegation Party

I’ve spent possibly 30 to 40% of my life abroad, living in different countries and seeing different people and what life is like in those places. And it is because of this that I often say that there is no such thing as “culture.”

Now I say this not because I don’t think that everyplace has its own customs, food, language, social ordering, and certain peculiar emphases. Certainly these exist. But people get too often trapped into the idea that people in another nation are inscrutable, can’t be understood, and operate on an entirely different principal from any other person from another country. While as, in my mind, every human that I’ve ever met on the planet was just like every other human–a slave to the particular history of his land and upbringing, to be sure, but no more strange or less, or more inscrutable than any other if you peek a bit into that history.

So while we may hear every day about terrorists, jihadists, and racist murderers, I would still say that it almost an absolute certainty that the overwhelming majority of citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan are principally concerned in their lives with getting food for their family, holding a regular job, and raising their children safely to be moral people. The so-called Silent Majority.

And ultimately, what one can hope to accomplish is limitted to what this group is willing to accomplish, and what they feel is in their best interest, for it is from the silent majority that the lesser officials and employees of the government will come, the police, the military, teachers, and all other key positions necessary to run, and I say run not rule, a country. If you can convert them to believe that dispelling terrorists is what is necessary to give their children bright futures, you will find yourself with lines of people willing to become policemen. But if you convince them that you are simply a threat to the peace of the land, then you will have no aid from them and you will lose.

At the moment, it would appear that the United States is indeed viewed more as a hindrance to order than as an aid. Or at least, it is not certain enough that we can expect any lasting support. And my fear would be that due to the methods employed by the current administration, making no attempt to win the support of the populace and instead simply viewing everything as an issue of “war”, their lack of belief in us is now potentially something that is beyond fixing.

And so, before I could make any decision on whether it is best to remove ourselves from these two nations, to present to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan the sort of future we seek to bring to them: Education, order, technology, plentiful food, and as much modernity as does not conflict with their customs–except racism, which would be the price for this. And I would do my bes to sell this future to them–not just sending a memo. :wink:

If the average Iraqi and the average Afghan was willing to work with us to create this future, then I would stay so long as feasibly possible. If not, then I don’t think there would be any choice but to leave to them what they think is their better course.

But, with the support of the people, I would hope that the nations of the UN would once again come to aid in this endevour. It would, after all, not be me who made the mess.

In regards to Iran and Pakistan:

I don’t believe that anything in particular is necessary in regards to Iran. If they misbehave, then its time to react. Until then, they are free to do as they will.

Pakistan, on the other hand, I think is in a prime position to become a bit more friendly with. I’d definitely try the carrot before the stick.