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

Great Debates
21

I’m not entirely sure we can treat the current government of Iraq as a partner in arbiting what happens. If the surge does continue to help matters, i’d want as well-trained a replacement in Iraqi personnel as is possible to do; I would require from them full co-operation in tracking down any specific people we believe have committed crimes against us, and the ability to try them in the U.S. (though if they’ve also committed crimes against Iraqis, then they should also face trial there). I’d want continued co-operation in intelligence matters. But if it comes to the point where the government is strong enough to survive without our presence (at least for a while, anyway), i’d very much want them to distance themselves from us as much as possible. They can’t be seen as just American puppets. If possible i’d even be happy to engineer a victory for them over us, in treaty or supplies or anything in general, so they can prove their worth to those who quite seriously hate us. In other words, i’d quite like them to make us look stupid - so that they may look good and so we are percieved as less of a threat.

If those specifics are not met, then they’re not going to be met with our assistance. That’s not a threat, just a statement of belief. As such I would pull out everyone immediately.

22

Pull out is inevitable - the question is whether it is immediate, short term or medium term (I wouldn’t back long term no matter what the advice, if I’m honest). I’m guessing the advice would be between immediate or short term. In terms of morale of the troops, it’s a damned if you do/damned if you don’t situation. Continued presence in a war that has become recognised as unwinnable isn’t helping morale, and if pull out means that Iraq implodes and the rank and file feel that a lot of people were killed for nothing then that’s unfortunate (but not in itself evidence that pulling out was wrong).

What I’m not willing to do is keep putting the lives of American troops in danger when they could be far better deployed elsewhere or contributing to security at home.

23

Wow. Are you talking about faking a battle of some kind, where we would let them win? What if American soldiers got killed in the process?

Or what do you mean by “treaty or supplies”? Like sign a treaty where we gave them stuff? Would this be something done in secret so as to be deniable, or would we make this victory public ahead of time?

If the distinguished candidate would care to expand on his answer…

Regards,
Shodan

24

No, i’m not. While i’d be willing in a sense lose something to them, lives are most certainly not among the things I would accept losing. I’m not talking a battle; the problem with this idea (and i’ll admit there are some) is that it’ll promote others attempting to do the same thing. If we had some kind of fake battle where the Majestic Iraqi Government sweep in to save the day, all it’ll do is make others think “hey, we can do that”. It would be a really bad idea even if it were acceptable.

I mean essentially a way for them to appear to have screwed us; a treaty where they clearly get the better end of a deal, perhaps an aid package that is larger than we’ve claimed due to some apparent “mistake” on our end. And yes, it could be deniable, but not believably so on the part of those who hate us. IT should appear as though the U.S. has been beaten on terms that don’t involve killing lots of people, because it’ll both increase support for that regime and also make people interested in those approaches rather than the killing lots of people.

25

For the Green Party of Canada:

Iraq: Canada has no military presence currently in Iraq, and that will be maintained. I do propose increasing our aid subsidies to the region, to support the civilian populace.

Afghanistan: I propose a cabinet meeting with the leaders of Afghanistan to establish a working infrastructure, and extend the tours of duty to another six months to protect that infrastructure. If at the end of six months the model of government is not working, I propose another roundtable meeting; if it is, I propose a full-scale withdrawal of the U.S.'s troops.

Iran: Until there is clear and credible intelligence of a threat arising from Iran, Canada will maintain its position as normal.

Pakistan: I call upon the U.S. and the United Nations to impose an embargo upon Pakistan until Pervez Musharraf steps down and allows free elections to take place, monitored by an independent international body.

26

This question is for the Libertarian candidate.

You stated that you would not support the dictatorship in Pakistan. Islamic militants have found safe haven in the tribal regions of Pakistan and the madrassas teach extreme ideology and hatred of the West, producing a never ending army of radical jihadists. Do you believe it is in the United States’ best interest to have direct involvement in future elections in Pakistan? Should the United States enlist the help of Pakistan to fight militants? If so, what is the best way to assure Pakistan’s cooperation?

27

Liberal Market Party:

Afghanistan
It is imperative that U.S., British, Canadian, and other troops be kept in the country to actively stabilize it, indefinitely if necessary. It is intolerable that it should fall back into chaos and the world see a resugence of the Taliban or al Qaida in Afghanistan. Not only would it give them a solid base of operations and funding, but it would probably destabilize Pakistan and act as a recruiting tool for Islamist warriors. The end result would simply be the U.S. being forced to re-invade some time in the future.

One specific policy change I would make immediately would be to leave the poppy farmers alone. My understanding is that the U.S. is meddling in poppy production because of the drug war, and this is destroying local economies and pushing people towards the Taliban. The U.S. should attempt to stabilize Afghanistan and befriend the population - not impose its drug values.
Iraq:
The U.S. should continue to work with the Iraqi people to help stabilize that country. Again, indefinitely if need be. If Iraq becomes a failed state, it will be disastrous for Iraq, for the middle east, and ultimately for the west as well. The stakes are far too high to simply withdraw and hope for the best.

The ‘Surge’ has made remarkably progress. Violence is sharply down. The Iraqi military is performing much, much better than it did two years ago. It has taken over control over 4 provinces, and is on track to take over control of all 18, at which point U.S. forces will only be providing a supporting role and be at even less risk. There is political progress as well, with a de-Baathification law being signed last week.

Ultimately, the U.S. maintaining a presence in Iraq is a good thing, so long as the Iraqis want them there. Regardless of all the screwups to date, there is a chance that the U.S could wind up with a reasonably good working relationship with Iraq, and that would be a huge benefit. It’s a goal worth working towards if it is achievable. I also believe the U.S. needs to commit itself to Iraq in the long term, much as it committed to the defense of South Korea and Taiwan. I expect there to be 50,000 American soldiers in Iraq 20 years from now - but they won’t be suffering casualties.

I would advocate withdrawing from Iraq if A) The Iraqi government asked the U.S. to leave, or B) a popular uprising indicated that the U.S. presence was doing more harm than good. Neither of those conditions are today in my opinion.

Iran
I wouldn’t do much else different with Iran than is currently being done, except that I would be more willing to negotiate with them, to have dialog with them, and to offer them some carrots in exchange for good behaviour. Failing that, I would try to do an end-around the nutbar president and attempt to appeal to the real people in power, or to the Iranian people themselves.

Pakistan
Pakistan is simply a situation that needs to be managed. If that means dealing with Musharref or anyone else, that’s what you have to do. There are no good choices in Pakistan, and yet the country simply can’t be left to its own devices. The risk of al-Qaida getting its hands on 60+ nuclear weapons is simply too great, and must be avoided at all costs.

I don’t have any particular proposals, other than to remain engaged and to do whatever is in the best interests of the U.S. A big focus would be on improved intelligence, and attempting to get some control over those nukes (which may have already happened).

28

A question for the GOP candidate:

You stated that Iraq was a mistake with a silver lining. Do you believe the United States is safer today than it was six years ago from a terrorist attack because of the forced removal of Saddam Hussein? If the United States stays the course in Iraq, do you believe the sectarian violence will give way to full unity among Iraqis? Will the predominantly Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia support a Shi‘ite government in Iraq or Iran support a Sunni government? Will the Shi‘ite and Sunni Muslims in Iraq unite in long term cooperation, something that is desperately needed for stability in Iraq and ultimately the region? How is the U.S. supporting and encouraging unity to end the sectarian violence.

29

In the case of Afganistan we did not invade a sovereign nation. We interceded in a civil war against the Taliban, which no civilized nation recognized as the legit government of Afganistan. We continue there by the invitation of the current legitimate government. You may put “” around “legitimate” in that last sentence if it makes you feel better. Whether or not we were right in going in (or continuing) are moral questions, but the facts are that we did not invade a soveriegn nation in this case.

30

Thank you for that excellent question, unconventional.

The only project that I care to work on with Pakistan at present, and as I said in cooperation with other nations aggressed by 9/11, is the uprooting and deportment of Osama Bin Laden. If Pakistan is willing to cooperate in that matter, so much the better. But if it is unwilling, then we would enact our plan to surgically remove him ourselves, using as I said combinations of ground intelligence, bribery, deceit, fraud, force, and all manner of serendipity — whatever is required. If Pakistan resists our forces directly, then I would ask Congress for a declaration of war in order to tie Pakistan’s hands while we carry out our work. I would have no interest in anything other than suppressing their resistance. I would not be there to establish a “presence”. When the work is done, we will leave.

Because the objective is clear and sensible — bringing Bin Laden to justice — I would expect Congressional support. But as I said, if that support is not forthcoming, then Congress will have expressed that the will of the people is to let Bin Laden go free, and I will make certain that the people understand that that is the message from Congress.

Outside that particular endeavor, I think it is best to leave Pakistan and all other nations alone to fight their internal battles and settle their thousand-year-old squabbles among themselves. I prefer to turn my attention to the United States and work to restore the peoples liberty. This is not a policy of isolationism because I would not suppress peaceful and honest trade between our citizens and any nation. In fact, I would step out of the way of trade, except for enforcing strict laws against fraudulent or coercive trading.

I believe that simply respecting other people’s cultures and religions will go a long way toward repairing the damage done by past decades of regime and nation building. I believe it would put a major dent in, if not disable altogether, the recruiting efforts of militants who presently are able to cite our interference and occupation of their sacred lands as motivation to fight against us. I believe that people of the world are not stupid just because they are not American, and that they can discern the difference between a nation that is defending itself and its people, and a nation that is building empires and coronating puppets.

31

Thank you for that thoughtful comment, DrDeth. I don’t believe that it is necessary to accept every invitation that is extended to us. And whether or not a nation is deemed to be sovereign, one thing is clear. Afghanistan is not a state of the United States, and our government has no business interfering in its internal affairs. Our business is to govern our own people — and by “govern” I mean “protect the rights and property of”.

32

Thanks for the straightforward answer.

How would you deal with the problem that, now that you have made this plan public, all sides in Iraq will push to screw us over on every deal, and assume that when we do get screwed, it was meaningless because it is a ploy by the US?

A clarification, if you will - was it a legitimate use of US power to invade Afghanistan to destroy the terrorist camps there and overthrow the Taliban? And having achieved that, we should withdraw now? Or was it wrong from the outset?

Regards,
Shodan

33

A question for the libertarian candidate: you have twice referred to formal declaration of war. Would it be fair to say that your attitude towards the fact that formal declaration of war went out of vogue after World War II is negative, and that you would restrict military action to those cases where Congress has in fact issued such a declaration, or the US had been already attacked?

34

I would say good, because if they’re focusing their time and planning on trying to screw us over deal-wise, then they’re going to spend less effort trying to kill Americans instead. As for them thinking it meaningless, you seem to be assuming that the Iraqi government won’t genuinly manage to beat us. They will be in (assuming the surge works) a pretty good position to have some kind of victory over us, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if we didn’t need to use this idea.

35

I’ll be happy to clarify that, Shodan. Inasmuch as the Taliban were complicit with Bin Laden, and especially were sheltering him from extradition as they had since the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, they were a legitimate target of attack. But for me, it is not an issue of overthrowing their government. It is an issue of cutting through the thicket to get at the fruit tree. It is none of our business who governs Afghanastan since it is not a protectorate of the United States.

36

A good question, Priceguy, and I appreciate the opportunity to repeat these important points. As I said before, I would restrict fighting wars to those declared by Congress, but I would not restrict all military action. I differentiate them, as I said before, by their scope and scale. When Congress declares war, to me it means that Congress wants a nation conquered, a government brought down, and a foreign military defeated. But precision military actions are at the president’s discretion in her defense of the Constitution, as I said.

You do raise one point that I have not yet commented on, though. I do not believe that formal declaration of war is “out of vogue”. Obeying the Constitution may be out of vogue, but Article I is still there, and the relevant section has not been amended.

37

Of course. I meant “out of vogue” in the sense that it’s not done anymore.

38

Ok, that’s fair. I don’t 100% agree, but the facts are right. You make your point well.

39

Thanks for all the thoughtful posts and replies so far, I think we are off to a good start. I will start the second debate on Monday, but that does not mean this one should end.

A few candidates have addressed it already, but how do the rest of you feel about the “Surge”?

40

Well, certainly if you’re undermanned, getting enough people to fill the roster is a good thing. But that’s assuming you have an overarching plan for those people. If the sole goal is to work as a police force until things fix themselves, then you’re hostage to whatever other people come up with as the fix–assuming they ever do.

It reminds me of a quote from–if I recall correctly–Japanese student protester during the 1970’s. He said something along the lines of, “We’re not trying to destroy the current system because we know what better answer there is. We just know that if we destroy it, there will be something new.” Correct, perhaps. But ultimately rather foolish.