I cannot imagine any country willing to ante up substantantial troops into the mess that Iraq has become. Kerry is not going to achieve that.

There is no easy way out of Iraq. The reason to vote for Kerry is not the hope that he will provide such a road, but to punish the Bush Administration for the appalling disaster it created in iraq.

The real challenge will be how to retain current troop comitments from existing coalition members. The small chance that Kerry could invigorate a greater international comitment is more than offset by the probability that Kerry's election would be interpreted as a lessening of American comitment and justification for troop withdrawals.

Kerry has admitted from the beginning... indeed, before he was running for President, that France and Germany could never be talked into supporting the US against the terror threat. He stated so plainly, in calling for unilateral action against Saddam.

That's right, I said unilateral action.

Kerry knows that what Mr. Bush has been doing is the right thing to do... he's known it all along.... which is exactly why he's not offered any real alternatives. IN the end, a kerry administration would bow to the 'cut and run' strategy offered by notjobs like Howard Dean.... policies which will endanger the US more than any terrorist could.

It would be diplomatically unthinkable for anyone in Europe to say they would do this or that if Kerry were elected. I personally think that Kerry has back channel communications that enable him to make these assertions, so I would take with a pinch of salt any public pronouncements at this point in the election. That said, it's still going to be a very hard sell to involve anyone else in Iraq at this point. Your assertion that Kerry would cut and run, Bithead, is entirely opposite to what Kerry is saying, so that's just your opinion, which you are entitled to, but it isn't backed up by fact.

Give me your reaction to this thesis.

Bush has tried to win the Iraq war on the cheap all along. If he were honest about the true costs of the war there would be real pressure for him to raise taxes.

Consequently, bush has a choice of losing the WoT
or raising taxes. Guess which one he selected.

Anyone have a single piece of evidence that this analysis is wrong?

I heard Mary Beth Cahill this AM on NPR saying that Kerry hoped to get France and Ireland involved in training Iraqi troops. She said they have some expertise in this area; I have no idea whether that's true or not.

Realistically, I have no expectation that Kerry will get substantial new help. In an ideal world, Kerry would specify a "Plan B." However, in an ideal world, Bush would specify a "Plan A." (Constantly claiming in public that things are hunky-dory when your _own Secretary of State_ says they're getting worse doesn't qualify as a plan; see www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52400-2004Sep26.html)

Advantage: Kerry.

I think an apology to the UN and to the Iraqi people would start things off nicely. Kerry should state that, though the US will always defend itself from threats, the "Bush Doctrine" is officially dead.

Not so nicely, and behind the scenes, Joe Biden recently said that he's posited to some of his EU counterparts that the US may have no choice but to withdraw unless their aid is forthcoming. Their schadenfreude will cease if its object declares victory and leaves the entire mess on their doorstep.

First Fred is right to say that this election is a referendum on Bush's actions to date. A vote for Kerry is a vote against returning the reins to a proven incompetent.

Inevitably after a campaign is over, the winner, if not the incumbent, upon coming into office, will break some promises. Almost always, the winner will give as an excuse, something to the effect that he "didn't know how bad things were".

Accordingly, Kerry's plan is... until election day, repeat that he will get other countries on board. After election day, he will say he didn't realize how badly Bush has affected our relations with Germany and France, so he can't fulfill his promise to increase foreign troop support. Finally, he'll say that, sorry, too bad that he couldn't get other countries on board as he promised, but he's going to withdraw our troops anyway.

I'd bet 10-1 on the foregoing scenario, should Kerry win.

First of all - the Rumsfeld post below is excellent. Secondly, this is good question on Kerry's Plan B for Iraq. But Kevin Drum asks a better question as to what is Bush's Plan E for Iraq.

I think Spencer is absolutely right. Bush thought he could fight a war and rebuild a nation and fight a so-called war on terror without spending any money. God forbid that we actually raise taxes for anything.

If he was honest, would there be a clamor to raise taxes or would there be a clamor to get out of Iraq?

Has anyone considered the premise that Republicans cannot competently do things like rebuild Afghanistan or Iraq because it runs so counter to their basic instincts to reduce government? If you hate government, how can you mobilize the necessary resources to accomplish nation building?

Oy, Dan!

You stole my line! I want a cut of all the money you're making off this posting.

Well, Dan Drezner's site sure has changed - as he gets ever more sour , the readers and commenters seem weighted toward his refexive anti-Bush stances. No one seems to want to give any credence to 1st Marine, the only one I've seen commenting who ACTUALLY IS THERE AND SEEING THINGS UNFILTERED THROUGH THE MEDIA. How open-minded, how fact-seeking of you all. I used to come here frequently and enjoyed the variety in posts and comments, now you're going on the list with Andrew Sullivan as unreadable and sadly no longer informative with regards to the war.

Priscilla~

"Informative" sometimes means finding out the truth, even when it is at odds with your received understanding of things. I too wish things were not as they are, but I am not going to assuage my conscience by pretending that the Bush "optimism" message is going to actually have any real effect on helping our troops do their job, clearly and securely. By the way, can you recommend the sites that still are informative?

Thanks.

The George "dubyah" Bush War in Iraq is and was illegal. George "dubyah" Bush is a little tyrant who was never requested to go into Iraq by the United Nations and through his unpresidential, inflated, go it alone ego actions, manufactured a terrorism war and chose to invade Iraq and his actions have caused too many American and Iraqi people to lose their lives or be disabled for life. Bush doesn't deserve to be president four more years. It would have been better for all concerned if Sadaam, who didn't attack the United States,had been left alone and the war against Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban had been continued. Sadaam would never have killed as many people as Bush has killed. If Bush gets in for another four years there's 1.8 BILLION Moslems that will unite to teach the United States to leave good enough alone and take care of their own problems. There is no continued war on terrorism. The terrorist were named. The only real war the United States has is against the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. What Bush did to Iraq is an illegal invasion and should face the World Court.

*-- in other words, it's partially the current administration's fault that Kerry's plan won't work.*

Partially?? If the uninvolved nations of the world didn't lend a hand towards messing up the situation, how is that mess only partially the current admin's fault (or more generously "responsibility")?

I thought Kerry's goal was to entice other nations with profit motive, allowing them to bid on rebuilding contracts; "share the gain along with the pain"?

And Kerry doesn't suffer from the global ill will many nations have towards Bush. His efforts may not automatically be dead-on-arrival.

*How open-minded, how fact-seeking of you all.*

Pricilla, what facts have either been ignored or close-mindedly unchallenged?

Funny!
Just last week I read in the influential German
weekly magazine "Der Spiegel" that people close to Kerry had talks with the German government.
When asked what Kerry would do different compared to Bush, he said that Kerry would consult with America´s longtime allies and would try to get them involved in Iraq. Pointing out that Iraq as a failed state wouldn´t be in European interest either. (Just a short summary.)

According to "Der Spiegel" the German senior administration official sighed and said:
"That´s what we were afraid of."

To me that indicates that the situation at least in Germany is more "fluid" than the FT article indicates. Notice too that the FT cites for France the foreign minister, for Germany only a member of parliament.

Now that certainly doesn´t mean that Germany would definitely send troops to Iraq if Kerry should become the next President!
Who today knows about the situation in Iraq in January 2005?
And the Iraq war is deeply unpopular in Germany.
President Bush and DoD secretary Rumsfeld are probably the most unliked Americans in Germany right now. :)

It simply means that in case of a Kerry presidency it would be much more difficult for a German government to avoid really "discussing" Iraq. And its implications on European security.

It´s an open secret right now in Germany that our government uses our involvement in Afghanistan as one excuse to "avoid" to even think about Iraq.
"We are totally involved in Afghanistan, we´ve got nothing to spare for Iraq."

Which - of course - is nonsense.
We couldn´t deploy 10.000s of troops to Iraq but we probably could deploy several thousand soldiers if we really wanted. Just my personal opinion of course. :)

Notice that in 2003 a German government member (Green party) said that she didn´t know how Germany could avoid helping if the UN asked for peace-keeping troops in Iraq.
Back then she was shot down. :)

But calls from a new US President, maybe coupled with calls from the UN, would place the German government in a difficult position. They aspire to a permanent UN security council seat after all.
And without the "unliked" Bush administration in power the "situation" becomes much more fluid.
(That might even be true for France depending on the circumstances. Iraq after all is a lot closer to Europe than to the USA.)

In short, it´s probably a safe bet that "Old Europe" won´t become involved in Iraq during a second Bush administration. Public opinion in Europe would be dead-set against it. They might, just might become involved working with a new American President.
It´s the difference between "dead-set against" and "maybe, might, perhaps".

Oh, and PD Shaw wrote:

The real challenge will be how to retain current troop comitments from existing coalition members. The small chance that Kerry could invigorate a greater international comitment is more than offset by the probability that Kerry's election would be interpreted as a lessening of American comitment and justification for troop withdrawals.

You did read that the Brits plan to reduce their combat troops in Iraq by a third in the next months? IIRC reported by "The Observer" last weekend.
And that Poland wants to reduce its troop numbers after the election in January 2005?

If I don´t count private security personal these two countries probably provide most of the solddiers from "existing coalition members".
(Except maybe Italy?)
And if they are planning to reduce the number of soldiers on the ground anyway in early 2005, I just fail to see what you will loose looking around for "greater international commitment"?

Odds are, the Iraq situation is only going to get worse no matter who is elected. Elect Bush and make him take his medicine. Don't give the GOP an opportunity to blame the debacle on the Dems in 2008.

"it's partially the current administration's fault that Kerry's plan won't work."

How about "almost entirely"?

Should Bush win the election, it is pretty clear what his strategy will be on Iraq. He will walk away. I don't mean he will pull troops out, but he will stop paying any attention. With the election over, and no need to prepare for another election, Iraq will become someone else's problem (actually the problem of 140,000 troops). It will be like Afghanistan and Osama. When asked, he will say, "Frankly, I don't think about Iraq very much, to be honest with you. Why should I waste my beautiful mind on that pile of sand?"

And as Bush stumbles from one crisis to the next, the media won't be able to pay much attention to Iraq either.

I should have added to the comment above that on Iraq, the choice is not about who has a better plan. Kerry will take responsibility for the mess he inherits and Bush won't. It is a clear choice between responsibility and irresponsibility.

If John Kerry has a Plan B, for sure it's a lousy one. There are no good ones.
What John Kerry will do is unknowable, as is what George Bush will do. One might suppose that Bush's course will lead straight to disaster because it's based on misapprehending the seriousness of the situation, but of course his sanguine talk is only politically expedient, bearing no relation to his real policy.
What is known is that John Kerry has about him two quite competent foreign policy advisers, Beers and Holbrooke, and that his own knowledge and concern roughly equals theirs.
We know also that Bush's knowledge is but a fraction of Kerry's And so minimal is his concern that in late 2002 and early 2003 he quite forgot to ask critical questions, like how can the occupation best be managed? and what effect might an invasion have on bin Laden's fortunes, and ours, elsewhere in the Islamic world, and in Iraq itself? and how might the Iraqi enterprise affect our ability to deal with nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran?
In other words, we know that Bush has been criminally negligent and exceedingly reckless.
The more persuasive theory of punishment is backward-looking and focused on concerns of desert-based justice. On this theory, Bush must be punished.

Yeah, it's basically a big lie on Kerry's part, but it's pretty much the only thing he can say.

"I think an apology to the UN and to the Iraqi people would start things off nicely"

And what about making Bush face the lash? And reinstalling Saddam? Kerry's going to get crushed so who cares if it's by 10 ppts or 40?

Jeepers. Isn't the left aware that the UN is the only institution less popular than 60 Minutes right now?

"Internationalizing" Iraq is a placeholder for Kerry. It's an answer to the question: what would you have done differently two years ago?

I'm not sure the percentage of people who are preoccupied with this question is quite as high in the general population as it is in the blogosphere. Offline, people seem more interested in what Kerry or Bush would do next. In any event, no European government without troops in Iraq is going to send them there, or anywhere else they might get shot at. That goes for Darfur too, incidentally.

This will be a major problem for whomever gets elected this November. It doesn't mean Kerry can't promise better relations with allies than we've had under Bush; with a few exceptions it would be hard to do worse. Those better relations just won't manifest themselves in areas that involve real political risk for continental European governments.

Jeepers, isn't the right aware that Bush is the only world leader less popular than Saddam Hussein right now?

It's pretty useless for Kerry to have a Plan B - one he can talk about, anyway.

For one thing, Kerry won't take office until January 21, 2005. A lot can happen between now and then, and no one can predict what.

Iraq at that point either will have had elections or won't have had elections.

Each outcome has its sequelae, ranging from a cleanly-elected new government, recognized as legitimate by all parties, capable of running the country (this one strikes me as highly unlikely) to a naked power grab by one group or other, complete with full-scale rebellion breaking out, the Kurds seceeding, Sistani telling his followers to rise up against the occupiers and usurpers, and a complete meltdown all over Iraq (also unlikely, but not as unlikely as a new government elected cleanly and openly).

Kerry has no control over any of these outcomes. How can he present a plan?

It's safe to assume Kerry is putting together a range of scenarios, from best-case to worst-case. He has good people in his foreign policy team to help him do that. It's safe to assume they're trying to be as accurate and realistic as they can, and not resorting to the fact-free wishful thinking that characterizes Bush policy planning.

It is also possible that Kerry is in contact with other world leaders - not giving or getting promises, but getting their thoughts, sounding them out, seeing what might fly and what won't.

The thing is, he *can't* say anything about any of this publically. Imagine the GOP-manufactured firestorm if it became known Kerry was making plans with other leaders.

In fact, you don't have to imagine it; all you have to do is remember the tempest in a teapot when Kerry was (mis)quoted as saying he's already heard from other world leaders who hoped he'd win in November. The punditocracy and RW echo chamber worked themselves into a fine little self-righteous swivet over that one.

Also, any plans he makes can be easily sabotaged by the Bush Admin. Say Kerry lets it be known he's in close contact with a candidate for Iraq Prime Minister. There's no way Allawi and BushCo will let that candidate win - and there is a LOT they can do to make sure he doesn't win; hell, there's a lot they can do to make sure he doesn't even survive. Anyone in Iraq who wants to negotiate or make plans with Kerry before January is essentially painting a big, fat target on their head.

And anyone with half a brain knows all of this.

Anyone with half a brain knows Kerry is better equipped then Bush - in integrity, intelligence, personal grit, the quality of his people, and the simple fact that he *hasn't* already presided over two monumental national security/foreign policy failures, *hasn't* already lied to and insulted most of the world - to be President, and to deal with Iraq.

"You did read that the Brits plan to reduce their combat troops in Iraq by a third in the next months?"

Which was my point. The real question may not be how to get more allies to contribute in Iraq, but how to maintain what we've got. I would like to hear how Kerry would be better able to keep the current coalition together. Um, what did he call that coalition?

I'd love to punish the Bush Administration for its mistakes, but my vote won't affect the last four years. Past performance is important mainly as a predictor of future performance. I wish it was the only such predictor. Then I wouldn't feel so conflicted. I'd simply vote to deny President Bush a second term.

However, there are other predictors of future performance. One of these is a Presidential candidate's rhetoric.

Senator Kerry's rhetoric indicates that he is absolutely committed to winning the war on al Qaeda terrorism. The ugly accusation that Senator Kerry doesn't want to win the war against al Qaeda terrorism is completely unfounded and extremely unfair.

However, Senator Kerry's rhetoric does little to dispel the suspicion that he is not interested in supporting Prime Minister Allawi, or in winning "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time" in Iraq.

It's as if we're trying to decide whether to change horses in midstream. We're riding a weak, slow, dumb horse. We've got a chance to switch to a stronger, faster, smarter horse. But we're two-thirds of the way across the stream, and the new horse is facing backwards! Isn't it better to stick with the weak, slow, dumb horse until we get across the stream?

Arjun: No.

The weak slow dumb horse won't get you across the stream.

The weak slow dumb horse will somehow find a waterwater rapid to fall into, because it sees the ripples and is so dumb it thinks they mean shallow water.

Dan,

Your reasoning leaves out two essential ingredients. How the foreign electorate views the task of helping the US, and money.

The quote you have in your post is this:
"That said, Mr Kerry seems genuinely committed to multilateralism and as president he would find it easier than Mr Bush to secure the German government's backing in other matters."

First of all, what Governments say today (under pressure from their voters who don't want to support U.S. efforts because Bush is at the helm) is not necessarily reflective of what they might say when the US efforts are being directed by a President who is dramatically more more popular and liked by their citizens. People and sentiments can change based on circumstance and changes in leadership. This is not new.

Secondly, money is as important as troops. If the Germans and others can pony up more funds, which will be far better managed under a Kerry administration, that saves us some taxpayer money - we have less financial pressures and tensions in managing this war and more flexibility in finding the bodies to do the job of securing Iraq.

It is a fatal mistake to assume that a bad situation under one CEO will somehow be a bad situation under another CEO even if both CEOs have "similar" ideas. Talk is cheap. Action differs from person to person - some CEOs can get results from what appeared out of reach for others. We all know this - so let's get more objective about these kind of superficial comparisons based on what Bush and Kerry have "said".

When it is pointed out that President Kerry won't get more help from France and Germany in Iraq, the Kerry campaign responds by saying that the French and German governments would never admit to a willingness to better cooperation with a Kerry Administration, because that would be considered interference in the U.S. election.

But Gert Weisskirchen, foreign policy expert for the SPD, wasn't listening to the Kerry campaign's argument! According to Gert Weisskirchen, "[President Kerry] would find it easier than Mr. Bush to secure the German government's backing in other matters."

So it appears that at least one prominent member of Germany's governing party is willing to suggest improved cooperation with a Kerry Administration.

Let us stop accusing the French and German governments of dishonesty. When they say quite clearly that they won't send any troops to Iraq, regardless of the occupant of the Oval Office, they are telling the truth.

So here are my preliminary suggestions for a Plan B for Mr. Kerry: 1) start showing a little sensitivity to our steadfast allies in Iraq, instead of calling them a "fraudulent coalition", or a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed", or "the phoniest thing you ever saw". 2) start showing a little sensitivity to our steadfast ally Prime Minister Allawi, instead of accusing him of contradicting himself, or allowing surrogates to ridicule him as a puppet. 3) start showing a little sensitivity to the Iraqi people, instead of allowing surrogates to ridicule the idea of elections in January 2005.

President Clinton was a very good "CEO", in my opinion, and a lot more popular in Europe than President Bush is now.

Yet President Chirac refused to participate in Desert Fox. He even refused to endorse Desert Fox.

(By the way, why is Desert Fox so little remembered? And when the protesters use the slogan, "When Clinton Lied, Nobody Died", are they therefore endorsing President Clinton's claims of Iraqi WMDs prior to Desert Fox?)

It's a little insulting to the Europeans to pretend that their decisions about U.S. policies are made solely based on an assessment of the U.S. President's popularity in Europe. Those decisions are mainly made based on an assessment of the policies themselves.

Is there truly a sentient person who seriously believes that on the basis of his charisma Kerry could persuade France and Germany to join us in this endeavor? Gosh. Raise your hands, there's an email here from a nice sounding Nigerian gentlman who needs a business partner.I'll forward it to you.

France would not do this before because it had the promise of very lucrative concessions as soon as sanctions were lifted. Both countries are up to their pupiks in the OFF scandal. And both are the leaders of Eurabia. Get real.

Is there truly a sentient person who seriously believes that on the basis of his charisma Kerry could persuade France and Germany to join us in this endeavor? Gosh. Raise your hands, there's an email here from a nice sounding Nigerian gentleman who needs a business partner.I'll forward it to you.

France would not do this before because it had the promise of very lucrative concessions as soon as sanctions were lifted. Both countries are up to their pupiks in the OFF scandal. And both are the leaders of Eurabia. Get real.

Is there truly a sentient person who seriously believes that on the basis of his charisma Kerry could persuade France and Germany to join us in this endeavor? Gosh. Raise your hands, there's an email here from a nice sounding Nigerian gentleman who needs a business partner.I'll forward it to you.

France would not do this before because it had the promise of very lucrative concessions as soon as sanctions were lifted. Both countries are up to their pupiks in the OFF scandal. And both are the leaders of Eurabia. Get real.

Clarice repeating jokes (ever if they are good) tends to undermine them!

The truth is that there is no plan that can make Iraq OK. The CIA has already said that the best we can hope for is tenuous stability.

I don't know why Kerry should be held to a higher standard than the president. Bush not only doesn't have a plan, but he continually ignores expert advice:

The estimate came in two classified reports prepared for President Bush in January 2003 by the National Intelligence Council.... The assessments predicted that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict.

This pattern has continued to the present day (e.g. Fallujah) and it can only lead us from disaster to disaster.

I see the issue differently. One wonders if there is so much disdain for Bush's policy in Europe that any progress, no matter how insignificant, attributed to a new Kerry administration would be seen as remarkable.

While I agree with Professor Drezner that Bush has made it worse for John Kerry to "internationalize" the Iraqi situation, expactations are so low that any progress Kerry might make would trump four years of a trans-Atlantic divide. Said differently, because expectations are so low, whatever legacy Bush leaves as a foreign policy figure can quickly be dismantled if Kerry makes even the slightest progress.

I will be concerned about Kerry's lack of a plausible plan for Iraq the moment the President Bush presents one. Or any plan at all for that matter. Until then, demanding Kerry produce such an impossibility is simply an attempt to stack the deck against him.

Comenius,
Yes, I can recommend some places to get what I call better information. They would be several of the many milblogs, maintained by soldiers currently serving, as well as blogs written by Iraqis themselves. Maybe even listening to the current Prime Minister of Iraq, who risks his life daily for his country, only to be insulted by John Kerry and his campaign directors. Ditto the foreign minister, etc. Maybe even Jose Maria Aznavar,whose country suffered a pretty major terrorist hit. Or Vladimir Putin, who seems to have changed his tune lately. First order sources are generally regarded as more reliable, in research as well in life. You can get a good start from perusing the blogroll at Michael Totten's site.
Nobody is saying that things aren't tough in Iraq, it's just that many of us with any military background (myself as a brat, not serving) know that wars aren't neat or pretty, that plans must be fluid and change as the situation on the ground changes, and that people get killed. Soldiers frequently say "Spend my life if you must, but don't waste it". Thus far, most of the military I know and read don't feel that their lives are being wasted. That ought to carry some water, even for you guys who can't see anything good in Bush.

I agree that this site is becoming a fever swamp. What's the matter? Are you tired of hanging out at Atrios? What a sad collection of cowards and losers.

Clarice,

there is no evidence at all that Germany or any Germans were involved in the oil-for-food-scandal, and so far only acouple of French individuals have been shown to be involved:

The list of the foreign companies approved by Saddam, obtained exclusively by FOX News, spells out that Russian and Saudi Arabian companies were the big winners in the scheme, which was beset by bribes and kickbacks:

— 109 Saudi Arabian companies are listed on a document titled Exempted Arab and Foreign Companies for importing all items. One Saudi company is described as a Mercedes-Benz dealership.

— 33 Russian companies are listed. One of those is further broken down into 250 company names, possibly subsidiaries.

MWS "Has anyone considered the premise that Republicans cannot competently do things like rebuild Afghanistan or Iraq because it runs so counter to their basic instincts to reduce government?

As opposed to what? The never ending, (whats the current meme.. oh yes "quagmire") quagmire that is Kosovo. It's evolution has followed Kerry's creed to the letter. Talk til your blue in the face. Start the war after thousands have been slaughtered, belatedly get a UN sanction, withdraw most US forces, turn the result over to the UN for "nation building," and a bit of election holding.

End result? The Democratic quagmire.

Mr. Kerry is quoted in today's NYT as saying, "Nobody's talking about cut-and-run." I think this is a very good statement, even if not technically true. (Not nobody!) As part of Plan B, I would like Mr. Kerry to publicly admit that his goal of beginning a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq within 6 months is only a goal, not a deadline. IF he makes such a statement, AND directs his subordinates to stop undermining Prime Minister Allawi and the plan for January elections, then I will gladly vote for Mr. Kerry.

Arjun,
It seems strange to me that you'd speak of Kerry undermining the democratic Mr. Allawi's plan for elections. What's undermining them is a vicious insurgency with widespread popular support, among both the Sunni and the dispossessed Shi'a (mis)led by Sadr, an insurgency that was no surprise to the CIA officials who wrote the memo whose substance is frontpaged by the New York Times today, and should have been no surprise to the Commander in Chief, but evidently was.
I understand that the Iraqi people are of two minds about the departure of American forces. But if the elections are fair and open, candidates like Allawi will be blown away, and candidates who take an anti-American line will win big. So the outcome of the elections for vice-chair of the National Council, where three quarters of the vote went to Communists, Islamists and Baathists, suggests. As do reports of the ease with which insurgents move among wide sectors of the population and even among members of the Iraqi police now being trained.
It seems to me a good guess that a fairly elected government would resolve its ambivalence about American troops by coming down hard for "Out now."
In which case the elections will determine that the U.S. cuts and runs.
And disaster may well ensue.
I hope this guess is proven incorrect. But it seems to me the likelihood of disaster is sufficiently great to suggest that the man who led America to the edge of this absyss has displayed such poor judgment his retention is a grave risk.

'Maybe even listening to the current Prime Minister of Iraq, who risks his life daily for his country, only to be insulted by John Kerry and his campaign directors. '

Perhaps if Allawi (whose focus and background seems to indicate that personal power is at least as important to him as his country) were not to get involved in what seem to be pretty baldly partisan events, then he would not get caught in the political fray. It need hardly be added that Allawi's number one concern should be getting the support of the Iraqi people, not the American President.

' Maybe even Jose Maria Aznavar,whose country suffered a pretty major terrorist hit. Or Vladimir Putin, who seems to have changed his tune lately. '

Putin has still not changed his opinion on Iraq. In any case, the vast majority of people in either country don't feel that Iraq was a necessary war.

'First order sources are generally regarded as more reliable, in research as well in life. You can get a good start from perusing the blogroll at Michael Totten's site.'

It should be added that Iraqi bloggers are a pretty diverse lot. Some are fanatically anti-American, others are ferociously pro-Ameriocan. Most seem to distrust Americans, even if they hate Saddam. If you're pointing to Iraqi bloggers as some clear sign that Iraqis love America or that things are going well, you're mistaken. It needs to be added too that blogs capture only a very small segment of Iraq (English educated computer literate Iraqis).

'directs his subordinates to stop undermining Prime Minister Allawi and the plan for January elections, then I will gladly vote for Mr. Kerry.'

If Prime Minister Allawi participates in what is a blatantly political sideshow, then his actions are legitimate topics for criticism when he's here. And Kerry's subordinates have a full right to criticize him when he's here. Not to harp on it all the time, but this once.

Besides, who knows if Allawi is going to last beyond the elections.

"If Prime Minister Allawi participates in a blatantly political sideshow then his actions are a legitimate topic for criticism..."

How can you possibly describe the current leader of Iraq's government visiting the current leader of our government (no John Kerry isn't President, no matter how much you wish he was) and Congress, to thank the American people and their leaders for their help and ask for it to continue in the future, as a blatant political sideshow? Was Hamid Karzai's visit also a "blatant political sideshow?

Should Allawi instead have visited with the Mayor of Cleveland, would that be more legitimate? Should he have snarled at Bush and berated the Congress? When some Americans are wondering whether the Iraq government and people are grateful at all and whether the war is worth it, how is it blatantly partisan to say "thank you" and seek to show the good that is happenning there as a counterweight to the constant negative carping by the media and not a few commenters here? Some of you should have the dignity, courage and forward thinking of Mr. Allawi, Oh no, that would make you "blatantly partisan" and power hungry.

Matthew seems to be correct - the Bush Admin continues to shit gold. Their campaign ads continuously play better than the daily news:

Tues/Wed Sept 7/8:
8 U.S. soldiers killed in Falluja offensive.
U.S. death toll tops 1000.
Cheney says voting Kerry will lead to another terrorist hit.
Bush moves ahead in the polls.

Thurs/Fri Sept. 23/24:
4 U.S. soldiers killed in Falluja by enemy fire.
2 British soldiers killed in Basra during convoy attack.
Republicans run ad ridiculing Kerry's windsurfing.
Bush moves ahead in the polls.

Mon/Tues Sept. 27/28:
2 U.S. 1st ID soldiers killed in attack in Balad.
2 British soldiers killed in Basra in an ambush.
Republicans report that Kerry suddenly has a deep tan.
Bush moves ahead in the polls.

As George Will said - "this grotesque presidential campaign everyday subtracts from the nation's understanding of its deepening dilemmas,"

So when Kerry says that we should have more patience in gathering allies, exactly who was he talking about? South Africa? Peru? Maybe Laos? Where are these other foreign leaders that have allied with him?

'How can you possibly describe the current leader of Iraq's government visiting the current leader of our government (no John Kerry isn't President, no matter how much you wish he was) and Congress, to thank the American people and their leaders for their help and ask for it to continue in the future, as a blatant political sideshow?'

How on Earth can one describe a man with almost no political backing inside Iraq, installed by America, whose term may not last beyond January as some sort of leader of IRaq ? This man sleeps in a building protected by American guns and Tanks and he is somehow an independent world leader ? Spare me.

'Was Hamid Karzai's visit also a "blatant political sideshow? '

No, because 1) Karzai had a base of support inside Afghanistan 2) Didn't have Allawi's chequered past 3) Had 2-3 years as a leader in Afghanistan behind him, not 3 months

Also, Afghanistan has 10K US troops, not 140 K. And those are mostly in the border areas. Afghanistan has its problems, but its much more stable than Iraq and Karzai has much more executive authority. PLus, he never brown-nosed as much as Allawi

'Should Allawi instead have visited with the Mayor of Cleveland, would that be more legitimate? '

Gosh, how about visiting the Mayor (Governor, rather) of Basra or Mosul ? This man's country has a full-scale nsurgency, a dozen car bombs a week, major ethnic tensions. He cannot control iraq, he cannot control Baghdad, he cannot control the Green Zone.

Wouldn't it be better for Alllawi wait till AFTER a legimtinate election if that happens, if he's still around rather than doing so when he's an appointtee ?

'Some of you should have the dignity, courage and forward thinking of Mr. Allawi, Oh no, that would make you "blatantly partisan" and power hungry.'

Well, most of us aren't ex-Baathist thugs, so we lack that invaluable patina of dignity, courage and forward thinking. Allawi may turn out to be our best hope in Iraq, but lets not paint him as some kind of Thomas Jefferson,

Ring,

Guess you missed the news reports about Saddam's assassins sent to murder Allawi in London - and who injured him so badly that he spent the next year in the hospital - not exactly looking like a Baathist in high standing with Saddam. He was apparently like many, who LEFT Iraq and the Baath party in order to stay alive and to work against the regime from abroad. Since we haven't been in Iraq 3 years, how could he have Karzai's time in service? I can't think of anyone I've read about yet who might be able to govern in Iraq who doesn't have some kind of history, Allawi's seems better than most.

And besides, I seem to remember Karzai coming to visit, and sitting in the gallery during a major Presidential speech, meeting with Congress etc - grandstanding? You say he isn't grandstanding, even though some of your ilk also accuse him of being a US installed puppet. He is still protected by Special Forces guards and in fact, last I heard, had not yet even brought his family back to Afganistan. He just avoided another assassination attempt recently. Being in danger seems to be inescapable for men trying to remake their countries in that part of the world. Even King Abdullah of Jordan has been threatened numerous times - so your statements in that area don't win you any points.

Nobody is saying Allawi is Thomas Jeferson (although Jefferson's reputation has also taken a beating in the last few years ) , just that he seems to be the best possibility at the moment. And Iraq can't afford to wait until January to answer the questions, complaints and pessimism of some Americans. 4 months is a long time in diplomacy and in war.

You'll have to do better than that.

'Guess you missed the news reports about Saddam's assassins sent to murder Allawi in London - and who injured him so badly that he spent the next year in the hospital - not exactly looking like a Baathist in high standing with Saddam. '

Thats why I said ex-Baathist thug. Obviously he was not in high standing with Saddam after he fell out.

'And besides, I seem to remember Karzai coming to visit, and sitting in the gallery during a major Presidential speech, meeting with Congress etc - grandstanding? You say he isn't grandstanding, even though some of your ilk also accuse him of being a US installed puppet.'

He certainly wasn't brown-nosing as much as Allawi. Karzai's actions are how a friendly leader might act. Allawi's are the way a puppet might act. If I were an Iraqi, I would find this sort of action pretty offensive, even if I despised Saddam.

'. He just avoided another assassination attempt recently. Being in danger seems to be inescapable for men trying to remake their countries in that part of the world. Even King Abdullah of Jordan has been threatened numerous times - so your statements in that area don't win you any points'

Being in danger is natural for most leaders. What is not natural is a "leader" who does not control his country, his capital or even his own compound. An occasional assasination attempt is vastly different from having mortars directed at you every day. And a man whose very existence depends on a huge contingent of American forces protecting him can hardly be called indepdendent or a leader.

'Nobody is saying Allawi is Thomas Jeferson '

My mistake. Your statement accusing us of lacking the intelligence, courage and far-sightedness of Allawi led me to believe that you considered him to be just one step remoed from God.

'And Iraq can't afford to wait until January to answer the questions, complaints and pessimism of some Americans. '

Bullshit. Certainly there is not likely to be any major change of US policy in the next few months, even if Congress and the President change, since the new Congress is sworn in only in late Jan. COngress and the President are out campaigning, who's going to change Iraq policy now ? Any questions, complaints, pessimism that Americans have need to be answered forcefully by our own leaders, not by a foreign leader. Indeed, a genuine foreign leader is unlikely to be concerned about that. A sock puppet who relies on America for legitimacy and power, by contrast, will do whatever is asked for. The only motivation for Allawi's trip was political, a quid pro quo.

Sorry, the Iraqi National Council elections don't worry me. Shi'a Islamists came in first place, followed by Communists. What's so bad about that? Who did you want the Iraqis to vote for? John Kerry?

What is the basis of the assumption that the Shi'a Islamists and the Communists are anti-American? Both groups favored the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime. I didn't like Paul Bremer much, but the Iraqi Governing Council was a good idea, and Mr. Bremer named several Shi'a Islamists, and at least one Communist, to the Iraqi Governing Council.

Ring,

My mama taught me long ago that people who can't make an argument without resorting to profanity just aren't very smart. Either you're an older dumb guy or a young, no-manners guy or perhaps even a young trying-to-be-tough girl. Either way, I'm off to take care of kids - whom I teach to speak better than you do.

Priscilla

The only profanity I used in my message was a single word -- Bullshit. BY most definitions, that would barely count as a swear word. If that offends you and makes you incapable of commenting on more substantitive issues -- tough luck.

'What is the basis of the assumption that the Shi'a Islamists and the Communists are anti-American? Both groups favored the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime'

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. I think its safe to assume that the Shia Islamists and the Communists are not likely to be pro-American, for historical reasons. I doubt they'll be openly anti-American -- at least not as long as they rely on American troops and money.

Still, there is some irony in America spending 100s of billions and thousands of lives to hand a country over to Islamists and COmmunists.

For decades in Italy, the largest political party was the Christian Democratic Party, and the second largest party was the Communist Party.

Did America spend billions and thousands of lives in order to "hand a country [i.e. Italy] over" to Christianists and Communists?

By all means, check out the purported Iraqi blogger Riverbend. He calls Allawi a liar. Judging from this first-hand blog, the situation in Baghdad is very bad. That may explain why over half of the so-called Iraqi Cabinet is outside the country.

Allawi? A replacement for Chalabi, our initial pick for pliant strongman. Democratic Iraq? No longer even of Team Bush's horizon (no Thomas Jefferson, as Priscilla says).

Incidentally, does anyone else note the irony that Team Bush protests any insults hurled at our very-new-found ally Allawi, elected to nothing, former Baathist (that first assassination attempt is best described as a falling out between thieves), but they are more than willing to insult the elected democratic leaders of France, Germany, Holland, etc. Frankly, I like our old friends much better.

I'm in favor of a more sensitive war on terror. That's why I WANTED to vote for John Kerry.

But John Kerry and his team have revealed themselves to possess the diplomatic skills of Donald Rumsfeld -- which is to say, none at all.

I didn't like it when Donald Rumsfeld talked about "Old Europe". Nor do I like it when John Kerry implicits describes Britain, Australia, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Japan, South Korea, and other allies as "the coalition of the coerced and the bribed", or as a "fraudulent coalition", or as the "phoniest thing you've ever seen". Nor do I like it when Joe Lockhart describes Prime Minister Allawi as a puppet.

I recommend that from now on, Donald Rumsfeld, John Kerry, and Joe Lockhart should try to THINK before they open their mouths.

'For decades in Italy, the largest political party was the Christian Democratic Party, and the second largest party was the Communist Party.

Did America spend billions and thousands of lives in order to "hand a country [i.e. Italy] over" to Christianists and Communists?'

I don't see that we would necessarily have any problems with the Christian Democratic party at all. Whereas we have had problems with Shia Islamist groups (Iran, Hezbollah, even Al Sadr's group). As far as the Communists go, they were never the ruling party in Italy.

Prime Minister Allawi is no Thomas Jefferson. But even Thomas Jefferson was no Thomas Jefferson, i.e., Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, which contradicted the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson's 1776 Declaration of Independence set forth wonderful American democratic ideals, but those ideals weren't implemented until around 1965. Iraq may be a mess right now, but we have every reason to believe that Iraq's journey to democracy will be faster than ours was.

"Priscilla" wrote, No one seems to want to give any credence to 1st Marine, the only one I've seen commenting who ACTUALLY IS THERE AND SEEING THINGS UNFILTERED THROUGH THE MEDIA.

Where do you think he is?

From what I've seen so far, that guy (assuming it's a guy) could easily be a random wingnut who thinks he's pretty good at faking being military. If he gets exposed then he'll just move to another board and post as 1stAirCav and nothing else will change except he'll have learned a little bit about how to fake it better.

But then, there's a strong chance that he's really US military. He doesn't have to be a random wingnut, maybe just as likely that he's psy ops. He's trying to help win a war, and american public opinion is the most important battlefield -- we can't lose militarily provided the public agrees to keep sending enough men and money. These guys are patriotic but they think patriotism means they should lie to us unless the truth works just as well. There's no reason to believe them.

But he might not be psy ops. Maybe he's in headquarters, looking at reports. That's where you get the big picture. In fact you probably get a better view of the big picture at USA headquarters than in iraq headquarters. Except -- there's a lot of misinformation there. It isn't that our guys try to lie to headquarters. Just, each officer's career does a lot better if it looks like his team is winning, and he has every reason to be optimistic and upbeat. The more levels the reports rise, the more optimistic they'll get. We saw that in vietnam, and we're seeing it here. After vietnam the idea was the Reserves would give us accurate reports because Reserve officers didn't have careers to threaten. It appears that strategy isn't working -- or maybe it is, and the assumption is that Reserve reports don't look as good because the Reserves aren't as good at being soldiers.

Well, but maybe he isn't stuck in headquarters where he just sees whitewashed reports. Maybe he's actually out in the field, seeing things unfiltered. Unfortunately, that's a blind-men-and-elephant thing. Guys in Mosul until recently have been having things smooth. Iraqis like them, iraqis let them do civic projects, nobody shoots at them except a few malcontents who die or get away. Guys in Samara thought the whole city was deadset against them. All of a sudden everybody would be off the streets and that was the sign their patrol was about to get hit. How come everybody knew it was coming and nobody told them? Sometimes they'd be going through mostly-deserted streets, and they'd see somebody whose body-language said he was about to attack so they'd kill him first. (Speaking for myself, if a foreign mostly-not-english-speaking army was patrolling the streets of Raleigh NC and they might kill me any time they didn't like my body language, I'd want them out of there. Insurgency or no insurgency.) None of these guys see the big picture.

It's bad enough deciding whether to trust the military spokesmen who have access to the whitewashed reports. How much should we trust anonymous posters on blogs who say they have secret data they can't tell us, that says everything's much better than we've heard?

Some months ago Kimmitt announced an airstrike against a site that was importing terrorists from syria. But the media had recordings of a wedding, and they got recordings from a bombed wedding afterward. Kimmitt said the after-mission guys didn't find anything from a wedding, they found terrorist stuff. The media published their data and Kimmitt said he'd stage an investigation, and that's the last I heard of it.

But now the western media mostly don't leave the Green Zone. And 1stMarine says the enemy is a genius at publicity, when the media does go investigate things like airstrike sites the enemy has eyewitnesses who'll lie about everything to make us look bad.

It's clear that things are a lot worse. Things are so bad the media mostly doesn't go out and look, and a few months ago they weren't that bad. That's pretty bad, and it got that bad pretty quick.

Enough about Germany and France, it is obvious where they stand. Kerry needs to name one country besides the two mentioned specifically, that would support America if he were elected. Just the name of one nation besides Germany and France.

Enough about Germany and France, it is obvious where they stand. Kerry needs to name one country besides the two mentioned specifically, that would support America if he were elected. Just the name of one nation besides Germany and France.

Enough about Germany and France, it is obvious where they stand. Kerry needs to name one country besides the two mentioned specifically, that would support America if he were elected. Just the name of one nation besides Germany and France.

Marco, I think you've missed the point. Iraq is sovereign. They can decide for themselves who to award contracts to. They can decide whether to invite foreign armies in, and which armies. I expect they won't want soldiers who don't speak arabic, and they won't want soldiers from any nation they share borders with. That would suggest egypt and points west as the primary candidates, if they want foreign soldiers at all. Not really our business though.

The USA and all the other countries in the world get to decide what support we'll offer to iraq in their troubles, and iraq will decide which support they'll accept. It isn't a matter of other nations supporting *america*. We don't need support. It's iraq that needs support. We're just one of the countries that offer them support.

HTH

Second guessing is easy but is still only "hindsight". I can say I have a plan, also, but without a blueprint a plan is nothing. I have neither heard of nor seen a blueprint. Just saying it doesn't make it so. Maybe he should join his other relations in France and run for office there. The French seem to relish waffles

Constance, you have missed the point.

Bush has declared iraq a sovereign nation.

Either we throw that away and ignore iraqi sovereignty, or we let them be sovereign.

If we let iraq be sovereign, we *can't* have a plan. Iraqis will have a plan and we can go along with it or leave. We don't know what the iraqi plan will be. Not unlikely one of the first things in the iraqi plan will be to tell us to go away. We don't know.

How can you plan when you have no way to know what the sovereign iraqi government will do? You can't.

Any US leader who says he has a plan is denying iraqi sovereignty, he is declaring that Allawi is a puppet and the elected government will be puppets.

Do you get it now? If the USA had any goals beyond an independent iraq, Bush ripped them to shreds when he gave sovereignty away. Unless he was lying.