- ‹ previous
- 2594 of 8794
- next ›
Partition in Iraq: A Serious Problem With Biden as VP?
The chattering classes are buzzing with the possibility of Barack Obama choosing Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), the six-term Senate veteran and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as his running mate. While the consensus seems to be that Biden would be a safe pick because of his foreign policy credentials and his long history of accomplishment, the question of whether or not he still supports the Biden Plan, a proposal for the partition of Iraq that was the centerpiece of Biden's presidential campaign and is at odds with Obama's withdrawal plan, is a potential stumbling block for the campaign.
When Biden, who initially supported the war, was running for president, he repeatedly insisted he was the only candidate with a workable plan for ending it. His campaign created a video, featured in the YouTube debate, that said, "Joe Biden is the only one with the experience and the plan to end this war responsibly so our children don't have to go back."
That plan was widely seen as calling for the partition of Iraq. It read, in part, "The United States should actively support a political settlement in Iraq based on the final provisions of the Constitution that create a federal system of government and allow for the creation of federal regions, consistent with the wishes of the Iraqi people and their leaders." Despite Biden's occasional objections, that wording was read by other politicians and the media as calling for the division of Iraq into three regions, one for Sunnis, one for Shiites, and one for Kurds. For that perception, Biden has himself to blame. An op-ed Biden wrote in 2006 described his plan this way:
The idea, as in Bosnia, is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group -- Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab -- room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests....
The first [point of the plan] is to establish three largely autonomous regions with a viable central government in Baghdad. The Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal security. The central government would control border defense, foreign affairs and oil revenues.
The Biden Plan, as it was called, proved remarkably popular in the Senate — in September 2007 it faced a Senate vote and passed with the support of 75 senators, including 26 Republicans. The non-binding measure did not compel the President to act, only expressed the will of the Senate. Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd voted with Biden; Obama and McCain did not vote at all.
The problem? Partition does not figure into Obama's Iraq plan, which calls for withdrawing one or two brigades a month until all have been removed in 16 months. Under his plan, a residual force would remain "to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel." A diplomatic effort bringing together all of Iraq's neighbors would seek to maintain stability in the region. Partition is not mentioned. Obama was ambivalent about the Biden Plan in the primaries before Biden dropped out, suggesting that any partition plan originating in the US would be viewed with suspicious by the Iraqis.
In a July 2007 town hall event, Obama said, "[Partition] may end up being the best solution, but here's the thing. We can't impose it on the Iraqis. The Iraqis have to make the decision themselves…. If the Iraqi government believes that it can form a unified government they should do that. If they want a soft partition, they should do that. If they want us simply to leave, we can do that too. But they have to make a series of decisions."
Biden seems to understands the conflict this situation could create. Speeches he gave on the Senate floor before his plan was put to a vote in September 2007 are not available on his website. The portion of the "Issues" page of Biden's website devoted to Iraq acknowledges that the plan existed and was approved by the Senate, but makes no mention of partition along sectarian lines. Biden's office did not immediately respond to questions about whether the senator still supports a partition approach. I will update this story if and when I hear back.
Evan Bayh, a Democratic senator from Indiana and the last VP option to experience a boomlet of expectations, was seen by many on the Left as an impermissible choice for Obama's VP because he choose the wrong position on the Iraq War — he supported it when Obama didn't. Biden seems to have the same problem and then some. He disagreed with Obama on going in, and may disagree with Obama on how to get out.
Update: Biden's office confirms that Biden still supports the plan outlined in the New York Times op-ed. They refuse to use the word "partition," however. If you like, you can read the op-ed and judge for yourself.
no there is no daylight here really...
Biden had a plan that would effectively split up the country...what we now have is a band aid that we will have to hold our hand over for a period of time and may never be able to be handled.
There is either stay in Iraq with a huge amount of force on the ground for decades (which is not feasible financially or militarily)...or trust it will hold as we had put our best foot forward and need to step out because we not only bought it and own it as the war...but we bought and have to own the surge)
Biden's plan was saying we can't hold on for ever and he did not want to risk the lives and money on a band-aid...which is what the surge and the "sons of Iraq" initiative was.
there is no conflict here.
To me, the upshot seems to be that we don't know exactly which criteria Obama and his advisors consider most important in the VP choice. So, we're not just guessing at whether people will be picked, we're guessing about the reasons why/not. The need for the news to talk about things with no basis in reality just to full air time...it's silly.
It's hard to imnagine the Obama campaign regularly consulting with Biden, if there wasn't alot of common ground and agreement on foreign relation matters. Additionally, Biden's proposal, was never going to be imposed on the Iraqi's, it was a framework with which to work from that was supported in their own constitution. Also, was to be transitional and provide for some breathing room, to that long term and or permanendt political reconcilitation might occur.
Although pundits and campaign reporters are just busying themselves with something that requires no actual knowledge or reporting and there's no repurcussions for being wrong, those of us who are politically active are hoping Obama is paying attention to public opinion. It's in the hope that I say Biden is just fine. Anyone but Bayh! At least Biden just got fooled and then wised up. Bayh pushed the policy and I can't tell that he's ever gotten smarter. He's usually one of those infuriating Democrats who votes with the Republicans on those votes where we wonder why the Democrats are so spineless. If the Senate had blue dogs, he'd be maybe the doggiest.
When the country of Iraq was first created, after WW1, it was formed by putting together 3 Ottoman Vilayets: Basrah, Baghdad, and Mosul, representing Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, repectively. The Sunni nationalists wanted an Arab kingdom. But the Shiites wanted an Islamic religious state, and the Kurds wanted an independent Kurdish state. The three provinces were put together, like it or not, as a kingdom at that time, and have been held together ever since, one way or another. Joe Biden's idea of a federal system seems like a good one to me in this situation. Of course, as they say, "The Devil is in the details." If Obama has any sort of "good judgement" he should at least explore the possibility of using it, should he be elected. I am not at all sure that Obama actually uses good judgement, though he does have quite a self-marketing plan.
1. Regarding the fabled 'surge': This has NOTHING to do with the present improving conditions on the ground in Iraq. The improving conditions are the result of election year in America. The Bush administration made a deal with Iran about 1 year ago whereby there would be no attack on their nuclear facilities and in return the Iranians have backed off their steady support for terrorism and insurgency in Iraq. Thus the seeming improvements.
2. The correct course of action from the beginning was to create three federal jurisdictions with a revenue sharing plan, which is actually more then the Shiites and Sunnis deserve. It is not their oil. The Kurdish oil rightfully belongs to the Kurdish people. However, in the interest of settlement, that should have been the solution, except that we have a corrupt and mentally- retarded president--who was appointed to the White House by the same judges who his father appointed to the Supreme Court.
As a matter of international Law, Kurdistan is a seperate nation--as mandated in the various treaties and agreements which ended WW1. It became part of Iraq the same way that the Jews were initially cheated out of their homeland. Unlawfully and through international politically bullying.
I agree with Mike. Nowhere did Biden say his plan would be "imposed" on Iraq. Obama's comments were in the heat of a primary campaign to show some distance on an issue he had trouble dealing with at the time, namely a plan for Iraq.
Biden may have a similar problem with Bayh as they both voted for the war, but remember it was Biden, along with Lugar, who put together a bipartisan war resolution that would have narrowed the President's ability to start a full on war with Iraq and only after diplomatic attempts failed. Thats a type of leadership and understanding of foreign policy that Obama would highlight when picking a VP.
I disagree with the assertion that Biden's plan is at odds with Obama's position. Both have advocated a withdrawal of US forces. Biden's plan just went one step further to outline a political framework for what to do next, with Iraqis ultimately choosing for themselves.
No plan will be pretty, but we have to ask ourselves what strategy will offer the best chance to leave something stable behind. In my mind, Biden's federalism proposal is the best option on the table.
The plan always was to split up Iraq. Splitting up countries makes them weaker, and more easily controllable. All US efforts have been the 'ethnicize" Iraq - from the lousy constitution, to the electoral rules, to the constant harping on religions, to the military actions in favor of 'ethnic cleansing'.
Biden just made it explicit. No one wants the truth teller at the party.
No plan will be pretty, but we have to ask ourselves what strategy will offer the best chance to leave something stable behind. In my mind, Biden's federalism proposal is the best option on the table.
dl, Mike, Eric, Tim J.,
Chuck Hagel, if he is willing to accept, should be Obama's pick for VP. He has the same level of foreign policy credentials as Joe Biden and a major plus for Senator Hagel is that he doesn't talk as much as Joe Biden. Having a Republican as a VP would seal John McCain's fate and stop a nuclear war with Russia that John McCain would gladly start.............
...and kudos to 'bamers for keeping it under wraps. Displays competence and control.
Bayh's a nonstarter (whew) - would lose Senate seat.
Biden brings too much disagreement (and himself) for VP. But he's perfect where he's at.
Sibelius is a lightweight.
Clinton(s) is(are) the unwieldy heavyweight(s).
Richardson might "crowd" the ticket with yet another minority. But he'd be perfect in cabinet.
Hey all, forget Hagel and Nunn. OK?
Kaine's time is passing - especially w/ Ossetia thingy.
So only Wes Clark is left standing?
Here we go...MoJo wastes yet more time whining about a perceived problem, yet offers no tangible solutions.
I guess it's just easier to just sit there and b****, rather than to give honest, serious thought to a situation.
The tenor of this article sounds like Republican strategizing. One of the reasons the Bush administration will go down in history as the worst ever is Bush's insistence on surrounding himself only with those who agree with him, and giving the boot to those who bothered to think for themselves (like Colin Powell). Why should it be such a negative factor that Obama's vice-presidential choice be in lock-step agreement with him on every issue? It is to Obama's credit that he consults with the likes of Joe Biden on issues as thorny as Iraq. Calling their different perspectives a "stumbling block" is tantamount to saying that voters want their next president to be as narrow minded and inflexible as the last one was. Those who think like that are already going to vote for McCain anyhow, so what difference does it make?
OOPs. I meant to say "Why should it be a negative factor that Obama's choice is not in lock-step agreement . . ."
When the U.S presidential candidates try to look for a running mate for a VP,they don't look for someone who'll serve America well in case he or she has to be a leader in a short notice,NO SIR ! they look for someone who can help them win the election & the HELL WITH THE PEOPLE !it's all about themselves & not the people. In America we'll never see a change until the power of LOVE overcome the LOVE of power. something for election time ( a politician is like a contraceptive: He givess you a reasonable feeling of security while YOU ARE BEING SCREWED! Joe Biden's plan is not new.
another surprise,Joe Biden is nothing but a tool to AIPAC because his plan is the same plan of Israel to breake up the Arab world to a small States in order to be easy to control.you wonder why his plan is supported by 75 senators so far! Most the politicians in America are working for AIPAC other wise they'll not have a chance to get elected or Re-elected to serve the American people instead of AIPAC..we have the best politicians the money can buy.and this plan will never work & the white house know it because if the Kurds in Iraq became independent State,the Kords of Turkey,Iran,and Syria will ask
for the same thing and if America supports the plan,it'll open the doors to other movements in Europe & around the world.Did Joe Biden knows about it ?
Here is the original Israeli plan to read it yourselves.
http://www.freearabvoice.org/ZionistConspiracy_DivideTheArabWorld.htm
Oh good, just when the discussion was looking a little too sensible, along comes the wacko Jew-hating Zionist conspiracy theory.
Massimo, thank you for a much-needed dose of craziness. You have ended my week with a laugh, and I appreciate it.
Elydog is right,it's a Zionist plan to braek up Iraq
and Joe Biden is AIPAC's man
Here's the original Israeli plan to divide Iraq.
http://www.freearabvoice.org/ZionistConspiracy_DivideTheArabWorld.htm
Great post, Trollstein.
Elydog's post made no mentions of massimo's cherished Zionists.
Conspiracy theories are cooked up and perpetuated by people who need to blame the rest of the world for their failures. The truly ignorant lash out at people whose only crime is that they dare to look or believe differently than their accusers.
As Reed Richards says,Chuck Hagel has foreign policy and Military credentiails and he'll save America from war mongering J.McCain who supported the Iraq war, pushing for another war with Iran,Syria & Lebanon and today he's calling believe it or not for regime change in RUSSIA ! Hagel will not be picked by anyone because he doesn't go well with the NEO=Cons the VP must be accepted by the big boys.
Massimo, as one of the Jews you hate and fear so much, I can tell you honestly: We're not secretly running the world.
If we were, the money would be much better managed. ;)
It's an Israeli plan Danny
And I didn't make it up & you have the link to read it yourself.don't be afraid it's the truth.By the way Danny,I noticed that the American Jewish community get mad when somebody mention the word Israel or Jewish..why ? the other day an Israeli newspaper
had a headline that says :
Two Jews & a Black Men wan
in the Olympic..what's your take,is it anti-semite to say 2 Jews instead of saying,
two Americans ?only in America
You silly little man...do you actually believe that something is true just because you read it on the internet? And let's be rational, if only for a moment: a website called "Free Arab Voice" is hardly impartial.
It might interest you to know that same website also hails the movie "Cloverfield" because it depicted a monster destroying the Statue of Liberty. Fun movie, but hardly something upon which to base an ideology.
Get educated.
Biden's plan is *not* partition. Partition is what happened in India-Pakistan: 2 separate states based on religion - and a disaster. Biden's plan is a Swiss style "confederation". He should use that world.
Carolyn my dear I DID NOT MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT THE JEWS.there's distinction between JUDAISM & ZIONISM and I wish if you can read the Israeli plan yourself & you don't have to take my words. Are you afraid to find out the truth ? DON'T be afraid,
I'm sure you better that knowledge is power !
Todah & Shalom.
I liked Ron Paul's plan much better.
Just bring 'em home, and let the Iraqis decide how to govern Iraq.
And while we're about it, bring 'em home from the 129 other countries where we have an apparently 'permanent' military presence.
I'm going to have to agree with Danny, 'massimo.' Jest cuz y'all read it on the internets, don't make it so.
Knowledge is indeed power; it would serve you well to have some.
Whoever Obama picks, it will be calibrated to the finest granularity possible to appeal to whatever demographic that Plouffe and Axelrod have calculated that they need. Say whatever you may about Obama, he's got a brilliant political team.
I wouldn't rule out Biden. The list of people who fits the above criteria is relatively short, and Biden is one of them. Other than his plagiarism albatross, he's relatively clean and more or less generally thought of as a "good guy" or at least a somewhat neutral unknown by most of the country. Yet he still has brand name recognition.
Personally, I'm voting for Nader. If Obama wants my vote he'd better pick Nader for his VP. If he picked Kucinch I'd have a real dilemma.
-Wexler
By what right does the U.S. or any other country have the right to partition another country?
Iraq's sacred soil is Iraq's sacred soil. Not the U.S. or Britain or any other country.
I think we would be better off minding our own business instead of toppling regimes and supporting tyrants which brought us 9/11.
Thomas Cresswell
You wrote:
"By what right does the U.S. or any other country have the right to partition another country?"
Under normal conditions, none whatsoever. But these are far from normal conditions. As earlier said, Kurdistan is already a separate nation as guaranteed by the Treaty of Versailles, Treaty of San Remo and various other international agreements which ended WW1.
You must understand and appreciate one important point: Before 1918, the Kurds, along with the Arab tribes were all under the joint leadership of the Turkish Sultans, who were not great guys but remarkably better in certain respects (as masters) then the Arabs. When that system was being dismantled and the various local tribes were being granted their independence and nation-hoods, each tribe wanted their own nation. Each felt equally entitled. Some groups had greater liability through not achieving independence as did others. For example, if the Kuwaitis and Saudis had been forced together, the result would have been less pleasant for the Kuwaitis because they wanted their own tribal leadership in place but they were both Arab tribes of quite similar traditions and so any resentment would have eventually faded out. Not so with Kurds, who are NOT Arabs at all and took a major political demotion when they lost their Turkish leaders (who are the same ethnicity) and acquired Arab Sunni masters. Thus, they (rightly) demanded and were (legally) granted their independence in the same legal treaty docs which ended WW1 and created all the independent Arab nations, such as United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qutar, Yemen, etc., etc.
This independence never came to fruition due to political bullying by the Arabs. In the 20th century, the Kurds had the piss kicked out of them numerous times by their Arab masters and had their oil stolen.
"Iraq's sacred soil is Iraq's sacred soil"
Iraq has no "sacred soil" and if they did, it would be exclusive of Kurdistans "sacred soil".
Lastly, during the final decade of Saddam's murderous and tyrannical rule over the Kurds, he used pretty much exactly the same tactic which the Arabs had successfully done to injure the Jewish nation. Namely, he began mass relocation of Arabs into Kurdish neighborhoods. We always seem to hear the hysteria generated when people are evicted from their towns but we never ever hear the outrage which should be associated with the defacto rape of a neighborhood, through the ethnic stacking of the population ratio with outsiders for political leverage.
"I think we would be better off minding our own business instead of toppling regimes and supporting tyrants which brought us 9/11."
Terrorism should never be blamed on the victim. Ever. As soon as one allots blame for the attempted murder of 250,000 American civilians on America, the terrorists have won and a new world order (with them as masters) will have taken hold.
Maybe the USA should NOT be the world's police force.
But don't confuse us with the criminal master-minds or the street-thugs. You have NO IDEA how good you still have it, compared with what would be with the Taliban in charge. And we can never know what the 20th century would have ended like with the USA not taking charge for the protection of the world. We have made some mistakes, both dumb and corrupt. But global anarchy would have been no day-at-the-beach either.
The Gelb-Biden plan is no impediment to Biden as VP. Obama's discusssion of troop withdrawal is a military consideration. The federalism of Iraq into three states with a central government is a political consideration. They can easily and ought to co-exist.
On another note - why is it so difficult to understand this concept of federalism. They don't want to use the word partition because it isn't a partition, it is a group of states under a central government. Sheesh.
Dividing Iraq into three parts will bring about another middle east disaster, one far more deadly than the establishment of Israel---Turkey!!
It is criminal to even suggest such a plan. The people of Iraq have suffered enough.
LEAVE THEM ALONE TO SETTLE THEIR PROBLEM AND WE SHOULD CONCENTRATE ON OUR OWN.
The different Iraqi ethnicities are already secretly working on the the 3 different areas. I think the Biden plan is workable and I especially support the formation of a Khurdish state. I don't think that this will create the problems that Turkey and Syria claim it will.
Actually, folks, there is a lot of similarity between Biden's partition plan and the "creation" of Israel. When the Zionists decided in the early 20th century to take advantage of a weak Ottoman government and to finally turn Palestine into a Jewish state, a cat named Chaim Weitzmann, a very powerful man who was owed a lot of money by the British government, managed to persuade the Brits to volunteer their army to facilitate the ethnic cleansing, eh, I mean, "partition" the land. The Balfour Declaration called for no displacement of the Palestinians, but it took about ten minutes to render this idealism irrelevant. The point is, the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds stand about as much chance of sharing the land voluntarily, without a Saddam-like character in charge as the Palestinians stand of being given back the land that was stolen from them, i.e. ZERO.
The Biden Plan is also good for Africa.
I think the Biden plan is workable and I especially support the formation of a Khurdish state. I don't think that this will create the problems that Turkey and Syria claim it will.
Gee, maybe in the mid 19th Century, we should have asked the folks in Iraq whether newly admitted States in the USofA ought to be slave-holding States or not. And to hell with whatever Canada & Mexico might have thought about it.
Might have saved us a whole lot of problems, and a bloody (un)Civil War, if we'd just let people half-way around the globe decide what was in our best interest.
Ya' think???
Or, just maybe..., the best thing the people of Iraq could have done for America in 1860 was to mind their own business, and let Americans be the determiners of what was to be America.
Yeah, egotistical America has made one huge mistake by stepping into a more-or-less stable country, deposing it's government and turning it's people inside out.
Where is the logic that says stupid, egotistical America has suddenly gained the wisdom necessary to put it back together correctly?
The best thing we ever did for Vietnam, after we made the mistake of stepping in, was to simply step back out, and leave it to the Vietnamese.
Is there anything we're smart enough to learn from such a recent chapter in our own history???
Actually Dave:
Your history is grossly distorted.
" . . . take advantage of a weak Ottoman government . . "
Rediculous and wrong.
The Turkish-Ottomans had been defeated in WW1. As loosers, they were given a choice of cooperation or further beating. The arrangement involved granting independance to ALL their ethnic subjects, including the Arabs, the Armenians, the Kurds and the Jews. What made the Jews different then the other groups is that the Jews had been dispersed across many other newly founded national M.E. borders and required reconstitution in one place. If not, they would have been left out of the independance.
" . . . managed to persuade the Brits to volunteer their army to facilitate the ethnic cleansing, eh, I mean, "partition" the land. The Balfour Declaration called for no displacement of the Palestinians, but it took about ten minutes to render this idealism irrelevant. . . "
I bet you learned that in college, didn't ya?
In point of historical fact, no "partition" took place for 27 years but what DID take place was the mass immigration of assorted Arabs into the Jerusalem area--in contravention of the various treaties on the subject.
The Brits were NO friends of the Jews. They did everything they possibly could to frustrate the creation of the legally mandated "Jewish National Homeland". The legal language stated that " . . .nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of EXISTING non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country . . "
{emphasis added by capitols}
It does NOT mention "Palestinians" or Arabs or Muslims. And for good reason. In 1917, there were not that many in the area. The word "existing" means existing AS OF THE DATE OF THE DECLARATION, namely, 1917.
One more Jew-hating Bozo heard from and once again on a completely unrelated subject.
PS>
The only equitable thing to do is to offer your parents a cash rebate on the tuition they paid for your "higher" education.
Biden's proposal for Iraq is insane. It would never have worked. It will be best for the US troops and mercinaries to leave Iraq immediately and let the ancient people of Iraq show the US government how they will put their war raveged nation back on track withing a year or two. The root cause of all Iraq's problems is the invasion and the brutal and tremendously expenssive, immoral, illegal and corrupt occupation. We should pay them war crimes reperations and help them rebuild their lives again.
"We should pay them war crimes reperations and help them rebuild their lives again."
The new Iraqi government has been playing the USA for chumps. Bush-W and crew went along because:
1. They are stupid and are chump-like, and:
2. Because their own inner circle has been getting extremely rich on US taxpayer money.
When the average Iraqi hears such statements they bust-a-gut laughing. Us pay them . . .
They should hve been paying US to clean their streets.
"ancient people of Iraq show the US government how they will put their war raveged nation back on track withing a year or two."
The "Ancient People" are exactly 90 years of age, since three incompatible tribes were stuck together in a bad confederation where 20% of the population (one tribe) had absolute uncontested tyranical rule. In WW2, this "ancient people" sided with the Nazis. When it appeared that Hitler was not in hiding in Argentina and WAS NOT going to be back, Saddam (himself an Arab Nazi) converted to the next best thing, Stalinism.
"war raveged"
They are NOT "war raveged".
They are peace ravaged. 95% of the casualties and 99% of the civilian casulaties is the result of internal terrorism and mercinary terrorism exported from Iran. Had the USA done the smart thing to begin with, namely, to side with the Kurds and put our troops behind their border (where we are definately appreciated) and tell the Shiites and Sunnis to play nice or they won't get any oil money, we would today be $$-hundreds of billions less in debt and a few thousand service personel still living.
actually if we had supported the kurds after pa bush and the cia promised them we would help them, none of this bull s...war would have been necessary.but as always we did not f9ollow through with our promises, as someone who was associated with the different intelligence agencies, i feel it is our fault that saddam was left in power, he did a mass execution of the kurds and others we were supposed to have given support to.. our government is crooked as hell when it comes to telling the truth, example pres nixon said we had no espionage units in europe, bs, i was there and i could tell you how many there were only i got threatened under the espionage acts i would be charged if i said anything, i still have to wait before i can write anything about this.
biden has a good idea that needs to be looked out and discussed with parties concerned and let them decide.i have two sons over there and hope our government and iraq can come up with something compattible to all concerned. god bless america qand it troops.
excuse my big fingers
i am mad at the war , bush and all his croonies
John Carter wrote: "i am mad at the war..."
Just what kind of Warlord are you, John Carter??
How's the Princess, btw?
Sorry..., just had to do it.
I know..., people have been doing that to your whole life.., no?
I cut my "reading teeth" on E.R.B.
tarkus I am the type of warlord who believes use whatever force is necessary to accomplish the end.
I read the Biden Plan in the Original at least eight months ago. I have studied the history of Iraq. Sectarian groups already have been migrating out of mixed region/neighborhoods almost since the immediate aftermath of the occupation. The management of the oil revenues, a sticking point with the Iraqi goverment, is brilliantly structured by Biden. The Brookings Institute has gone to great lengths to explain and support his plan. Biden's Plan is a 'Federalist Nation' with 'States' like the US. The implementaion is like the classical US business management approach called Management by Objectives and incorporates features of the Truman "Marshall Plan".
At last reading, the Iraqi government wants US troops out of a Iraq. It appears that they intend to create and govern their own country. It is Bush and company who keep insisting that we have a role to play, aside from the invasion, occupation, and continued funding of same. Of course, do you remember John McCain being interviewed and saying that PM Malaki (spelling ?)is just "faking" it about us leaving because an election is near. McCain insisted that he knew Malaki and stated vehemently that we will not be required to leave. Gosh, someone needs to find that clip and make an ad - its priceless.
In any event, I sense that Obama is the type of person who will seek many view points. Its called keeping an open mind. All voices will be heard. Not to worry. After 8 years of George Bush and binary thinking (right/wrong, either/or) we just don't seem to be able to wrap our minds around really smart people engaging in nuanced thought and collaborative decision-making. Have faith - intelligence may once again gain ascendency in politics.
I think Big Joe is Over-the-Moon now that he has been propelled onto center stage and into the history books.
Senator Amtrak has given speeches, written a book, campaigned for president, taught Constitutional law, and it must be bittersweet for him to watch Obama glide through it all with such ease. The daring young man on the flying trapeze...
Obama was raised,often, as a fatherless child, and his mother died too young. At 47, he is about to take the weight of the world onto his thin shoulders. But he's not alone anymore. Now Big Joe's got his back.
Here's an interesting aside: Joe Biden was born in 1942, the same year as Obama's beloved mother Ann.
How you combine all of these usuful information in a unique web page? Than you because of all the information that i interest , together.
we have the best politicians the money can buy.and this plan will never work & the white house know it because if the Kurds in Iraq became independent State,the Kords of Turkey,Iran,and Syria will ask
for the same thing ....
have a look at them