What's the Dem's plan for the Middle East?

[adios]

From the 2004 Democratic Party Platform regarding Iraq:

As a first step, we must create a stable and secure environment in Iraq. To do this right, we must truly internationalize both politically and militarily: we cannot depend on a US-only presence. Other nations have a vital interest in the outcome, and we must bring them in to commit troops and resources. The Bush Administration has missed three great opportunities to do that. First, the President broke his promise to build a legitimate coalition in Iraq by exhausting diplomacy before resorting to the use of military force.

Second, when the statue fell in Baghdad, Kofi Annan invited the United States to come to the table to discuss international support – but we rejected his offer. Third, when the President addressed the United Nations last fall, he once again refused to acknowledge the difficulties we faced in Iraq and failed to elicit support from other nations.

The President has not given our troops the clarity of mission, the equipment or the international support they need and deserve. We have a different approach based on a simple commitment: Troops come first. Our helicopter pilots have flown battlefield missions without the best anti-missile systems. In a Democratic Administration, that will change. Too many of our nation's finest troops have died in attacks, because tens of thousands were deployed to Iraq without the best bulletproof vests, and there is a shortage of armored vehicles on the ground. In a Democratic Administration, that will change.

Thousands of National Guardsmen and reservists have been forced to leave their families and jobs for more than a year – with no end in sight – because this Administration ignored the pressing need for a true coalition. In a Democratic Administration, that will change.

To succeed, America must do the hard work of engaging the world's major political powers in this mission. We must build a coalition of countries, including the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, to share the political, economic, and military responsibilities of Iraq with the United States.

To win over allies, we must share responsibility with those nations that answer our call, and treat them with respect. We must lead, but we must listen. The rewards of respect are enormous. We must convince NATO to take on a more significant role and contribute additional military forces. As other countries, including Muslim majority countries, contribute troops, the United States will be able to reduce its military presence in Iraq, and we intend to do this when appropriate so that the military support needed by a sovereign Iraqi government will no longer be seen as the direct continuation of an American military presence.

Second, we need to create an international High Commissioner to serve as the senior international representative working with the Iraqi government. This Commissioner should be backed by a newly broadened security coalition and charged with overseeing elections, assisting with drafting a constitution, and coordinating reconstruction. The Commissioner should be highly regarded by the international community, have the credibility to talk to all the Iraqi people, and work directly with Iraq's
interim government, the new U.S. Ambassador, and the international community.

At the same time, U.S. and international policies must take into consideration the best interests of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people desperately need financial and technical assistance that is not swallowed up by bureaucracy and no-bid contracts, but instead goes directly into grassroots organizations. They need to see the tangible benefits of reconstruction: jobs, infrastructure, and services. They should also receive the full benefits of their own oil production as quickly as possible, so as to rebuild their country and help themselves as individuals, while also reducing the costs of security and reconstruction on the
American taxpayer and the cost of gasoline to American consumers. And they need to be able to communicate their concerns to international authorities without feeling they are being disrespected in their own country.

America also needs a massive training effort to build Iraqi security forces that can actually provide security for the Iraqi people. It must be done in the field and on the job as well as in the classroom. Units cannot be put on the street without backup from international security forces. This is a task we must do in partnership with other nations, not just on our own. And this is a task in which we must succeed. If we fail to create viable Iraqi security forces – military and police – there is no successful exit
for us and other nations.

Let's be honest here, the position of prominent Democrats today doesn't even come close to what they proposed in 2004.


Not much in the 2004 platform regarding Iran but IMO this is the post relevant portion:

Containing this massive threat requires American leadership of the highest order – leadership that brings our allies, friends, and partners to greater collaboration and participation – and compels problem states to join and comply with international agreements and abandon their weapons programs.

Unfortunately, this Administration's policies have moved America in the opposite direction. They have weakened international agreements and efforts to enforce non-proliferation instead of strengthening them. They have not done nearly enough to secure existing stockpiles and bomb-making materials.

They have failed to take effective steps to stop the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs. We must change course now.

BTW basically the Bush administration has changed course by seeking sanctions via the U.N. I think sanctions are useless and counter productive. I'm fairly certain, given the record of the Clinton administration and the votes of the Democrats in Congress, that the Democrats believe in the U.N. and the effectiveness of sanctions.

Leading international efforts to shut down nuclear efforts in North Korea, Iran, and elsewhere. We must show determined leadership to end the nuclear weapons program in North Korea and prevent the development of nuclear weapons in places like Iran. North Korea has sold ballistic
missiles and technology in the past. The North Koreans have made it clear to the world – and to the terrorists – that they are open for business and will sell to the highest bidder. But while this Administration has been fixated on Iraq, the nuclear dangers from North Korea have multiplied.

The North Koreans allegedly have made enough new fuel to make six to nine nuclear bombs. We should maintain the six-party talks, but we must also be prepared to talk directly with North Korea to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that addresses the full range of issues for ourselves and
our allies. But we should have no illusions about Kim Jong Il. Any agreement must have rigorous verification and lead to complete and irreversible elimination of North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

The failures of the Clinton administration's bilateral approach led the Bush administration to try the 6 party multilateral approach. This has failed as well and now the U.N. sanctions route is being pursued here as well.

Basically the Democrats support this approach is my take.

[andyfox]

Isn't the Kurdish portion already a separate country in everything but name only?

[bruceypants]

The Democrats won't have a vested interest in continuing the Iraq War ad infinitum. If Bush pulls out now, he loses any credibility he ever had. Once a Democratic president attains power in two years, he can start to plan a way to get our troops out of Iraq.

And, although you didn't bring it up, Democrats would engage in bi-lateral talks with North Korea. Bush keeps pushing for North Korea to engage in multi-lateral talks and North Korea keeps rejecting the multi-lateral talks. Bush won't engage in bilateral talks because he would lose face. Once Democrats re-gain control, the U.S. can start talking to North Korea directly again, which will make them more likely to give up thier nukes.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
And, although you didn't bring it up, Democrats would engage in bi-lateral talks with North Korea. Bush keeps pushing for North Korea to engage in multi-lateral talks and North Korea keeps rejecting the multi-lateral talks. Bush won't engage in bilateral talks because he would lose face. Once Democrats re-gain control, the U.S. can start talking to North Korea directly again, which will make them more likely to give up thier nukes.

[/ QUOTE ]

We tried, the bilateral talk thing didnt work, if you recall. The reason Bush is pushing multilateral talks is about one thing: China. China is currently the only country out there with any real sway over North Korea. The only thing more likely to cause NK to give up their nukes is a)heavy pressure from the Chinese, or b) direct military action from the US.

EDIT: BTW, looks like NK might not be so averse to returning to the multilateral talks as you think:

North Korea considering return to six-party talks: Russian envoy

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
We tried, the bilateral talk thing didnt work, if you recall. The reason Bush is pushing multilateral talks is about one thing: China. China is currently the only country out there with any real sway over North Korea. The only thing more likely to cause NK to give up their nukes is a)heavy pressure from the Chinese, or b) direct military action from the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is, IMO: part of NK's-nuclear-posturing-meta-strategy seems to be an attempt to keep the Chinese at bay. The Chinese have a strategic interest in NK -- namely North Korea's strategic position geographically in the region -- a strategic interest which is seemingly greater than the Chinese interest in making sure the North Korean state, or at least the Kim government, is viable in the long term.

I'm pulling this from what I think is a very good article in last month's Atlantic Monthly which suggests that the Kim government is much more interested in sabre-rattling as a dog-and-pony show for Beijing than they are in posing an actual threat to the rest of the world (because Kim knows that the Chinese have long-term strategic goals in NK that don't involve his regime -- and he wants to make sure the Chinese keep their distance and don't attempt to hasten his removal):

<font color="#666666">
"Kim Jong Il’s compulsion to demonstrate his missile prowess is a sign of his weakness. Contrary to popular perception in the United States, Kim doesn’t stay up at night worrying about what the Americans might do to him; it’s not North Korea’s weakness relative to the United States that preoccupies him. Rather, if he does stay up late worrying, it’s about China. He knows the Chinese have always had a greater interest in North Korea’s geography—with its additional outlets to the sea close to Russia—than they have in the long-term survival of his regime. (Like us, even as they want the regime to survive, the Chinese have plans for the northern half of the Korean peninsula that do not include the “Dear Leader.”) One of Kim’s main goals in so aggressively displaying North Korea’s missile capacity is to compel the United States to deal directly with him, thereby making his otherwise weakening state seem stronger. And the stronger Pyongyang appears to be, the better off it is in its crucial dealings with Beijing, which are what really matter to Kim." </font>

So if the author is correct, NK is attempting to engage the US so that it can hold China at bay -- i.e., NK hopes that if the China thinks the US is taking NK seriously, then perhaps Beijing will need to reassess whether or not they want to [censored] with the Kim regime either in the short or the long term.

My question then is this: if NK is truly posturing for China, could it be that Chinese pressure may exacerbate the problem of NK nuclear development and not alleviate it?

[vulturesrow]

I think NK doesnt want China involved because China holds all the cards, as far as pressure that can be applied. I think that it might exacerbate the situation in that NK will have less wiggle room and they obviously wouldnt be happy with that. Here is an interesting article as well on the China-NK dynamic:

China may back coup against Kim