The Obama Phenomenon and the 2008 Presidential Campaign

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Actually, Joe Biden proposed a pretty developed long-term plan for Iraq back in October, before the last election. Here is the press release that he put out then:

Iraq: A Way Forward

President Bush does not have a strategy for victory in Iraq. His strategy is to prevent defeat and to hand the problem off to his successor. As a result, more and more Americans understandably want a rapid withdrawal, even at the risk of trading a dictator for chaos and a civil war that could become a regional war. Both are bad alternatives.

There is a third way that can achieve the two objectives most Americans share: to bring our troops home without leaving chaos behind. The idea is to maintain a unified Iraq by federalizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis control over their daily lives in their own regions.

The central government would be responsible for common interests, like border security and the distribution of oil revenues. The plan would bind the Sunnis - who have no oil -- by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of oil revenues. It would convene an international conference to secure support for the power sharing arrangement and produce a regional nonaggression pact, enforced by an Oversight Group of the U.N. and major powers. It would call on the U.S. military to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by 2008, with a residual force to take on terrorists and train Iraqis. It would increase economic aid but tie it to the protection of minority rights and the creation of a jobs program and seek funding from the oil-rich Gulf Arab states.

The central reality in Iraq is deep and growing sectarian violence between the Shiites and Sunnis. . Ethnic militias increasingly are the law in Iraq. They have infiltrated the official security forces. Massive unemployment is feeding the sectarian militia. Sectarian cleansing has forced more than 2 million Iraqis to flee their homes. At the same time, Al Qaeda is now so firmly entrenched in Western Iraq that it has morphed into an indigenous jihadist threat. As a result, Iraq risks becoming what it was not before the war: a haven for radical fundamentalists.

There is no purely military solution to the sectarian civil war. The only way to break the vicious cycle of violence - and to create the conditions for our armed forces to responsibly withdraw -- is to give Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds incentives to pursue their interests peacefully. That requires an equitable and viable power sharing arrangement. That's where my plan comes in. This plan is not partition - in fact, it may be the only way to prevent violent partition and preserve a unified Iraq. This plan is consistent with Iraq's constitution, which provides for Iraq's 18 provinces to join together in regions, with their own security forces, and control over most day-to-day issues. This plan is the only idea on the table for dealing with the militia, which are likely to retreat to their respective regions. This plan is consistent with a strong central government, with clearly defined responsibilities. Indeed, it provides an agenda for that government, whose mere existence will not end sectarian violence.

The example of Bosnia is illustrative. Ten years ago, Bosnia was being torn apart by ethnic cleansing. The United States stepped in decisively with the Dayton Accords to keep the country whole by, paradoxically, dividing it into ethnic federations. We even allowed Muslims, Croats and Serbs to retain separate armies. With the help of U.S. troops and others, Bosnians have lived a decade in peace. Now, they are strengthening their central government, and disbanding their separate armies. The Bush administration continues to hope that Iraqis will rally behind a strong central government that keeps the country together and protects the rights of all citizens equally. But that vision has been engulfed by the flames of sectarian hatred. There is no trust within the central government, no trust of the government by the people, no capacity by the government to deliver security and services - and no evidence that we can build that trust and capacity any time soon. There are two other ways to govern Iraq from the center: a foreign occupation that the United States cannot sustain or the return of a dictator like Saddam Hussein, who is no on the horizon.

That leaves federalism as Iraq's best possible future. But unless we help make it work for all Iraqis, it won't stop the violence. We should start with a major diplomatic offensive to convince the major powers and Iraq's neighbors that a federal Iraq is the best possible outcome for them, too. Then, together, we should convene a Dayton-like conference to move all the Iraqi parties from civil war to the negotiating table. Through a combination of pressure and reassurance, we would persuade the Sunnis to accept federalism and press the Shiites and Kurds to give the Sunnis a bigger piece of the pie.

The course we're on leads to a terrible civil war and possibly a regional war. This plan is designed to head that off. It offers the possibility - not the guarantee - of producing a soft landing for Iraq. I believe it is the best way to bring our troops home, protect our fundamental security interests, and preserve Iraq as a unified country.

The question I have for those who reject this plan is simple: what is your alternative?

Joe Biden

A Five Point Plan for Iraq

1. Keep Iraq Together Through Federalism and Local Control
• Federalize Iraq in accordance with its constitution by establishing three or more regions - Shiite, Sunni and Kurd -- with a strong but limited central government in Baghdad
• Put the central government in charge of truly common interests: border defense, foreign policy, oil production and revenues
• Form regional and local governments that give Kurds, Sunni and Shiites control over the fabric of their daily lives: security, education, marriage, social services.

2. Secure Support from the Sunnis
• Gain agreement for the federal solution from the Sunni Arabs by guaranteeing them 20 percent of all present and future oil revenues -- an amount roughly proportional to their size -- which would make their region economically viable
• Empower the central government to set national oil policy and distribute the revenues, to attract needed foreign investment and reinforce each community's interest in keeping Iraq intact and protecting the oil infrastructure. Provide for an international oversight group to guarantee a fair distribution of oil revenues.
• Allow former Baath Party members to go back to work and reintegrate Sunnis with no blood on their hands.

3. Enlist Help from the Major Powers and Iraq's Neighbors
• Initiate a major diplomatic offensive to secure the support of the major powers and Iraq's neighbors for federalism in Iraq.
• Convene with the U.N. a regional security conference where Iraq's neighbors, including Iran, pledge to support Iraq's power sharing agreement and respect Iraq's borders
• Engage Iraq's neighbors directly to overcome their suspicions and focus their efforts on stabilizing Iraq, not undermining it
• Create a standing Oversight Group, to include the major powers, that would engage Iraq's neighbors and enforce their commitments

4. Responsibly Drawdown US Troops
• Direct U.S. military commanders to develop a plan to withdraw and re-deploy almost all U.S. forces from Iraq by 2008
• Maintain in or near Iraq a small residual force -- perhaps 20,000 troops -- to strike any concentration of terrorists, help keep Iraq's neighbors honest and train its security forces

5. Increase Reconstruction Assistance and Create a Jobs Program
• Provide more reconstruction assistance, conditioned on the protection of minority and women's rights and the establishment of a jobs program to give Iraqi youth an alternative to the militia and criminal gangs
• Insist that other countries take the lead in funding reconstruction by making good on old commitments and providing new ones -- especially the oil-rich Arab Gulf countries

http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=264509

[Padme]

Ok I definately do not want to see Guilini as pres. His solution is to make the US go on the offense more, not defense.

I would think most of the Dems have a plan. Hasn't Obama said something about a plan?

[axordil]

The main sticking point for any partition of Iraq is going to be the status of Baghdad itself. Neither the Shia nor the Sunnis are going to want the capital of a federal government to be in "enemy" territory. The Kurds probably don't care as much.

[Cerin]

A bit of trouble ahead for Rudy? At least some unwelcome publicity, although some say no publicity is bad publicity. The key point seems to be the impression of an attempt to influence the investigation.

OxyContin: The Giuliani Connection

Rudolph Giuliani and his consulting company, Giuliani Partners, have served as key advisors for the last five years to the pharmaceutical company that pled guilty today to charges it misled doctors and patients about the addiction risks of the powerful narcotic painkiller OxyContin.
Federal officials say the company, Purdue Frederick, helped to trigger a nationwide epidemic of addiction to the time-release painkiller by failing to give early warnings that it could be abused.

Prosecutors say "in the process scores died."

Drug Enforcement Administration officials tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com Giuliani personally met with the head of the DEA when the DEA's drug diversion office began a criminal investigation into the company.

According to the book "Painkiller," by New York Times reporter Barry Meier, both Giuliani and his then-partner Bernard Kerik "were in direct contact with Asa Hutchinson, the administrator of DEA."

Hutchinson told the Blotter on ABCNews.com today that Giuliani asked for a meeting, "and we gave him a meeting." Hutchinson says he was aware the company was under investigation at the time, and "any time a company is under investigation I like to give them a chance to make their case."

Kerik told New York Magazine at the time that Giuliani had raised $15,000 in donations for a "traveling museum operated by the DEA."

Some officials told ABC News there were questions inside the agency of whether the donations were an attempt to influence the DEA.

Meier wrote that "with Giuliani now in the mix, the pace of DEA's investigation into Purdue's OxyContin plant in New Jersey slowed as Hutchinson repeatedly summoned division officials to his office to explain themselves and their reasons for continuing the inquiry."

Giuliani publicly praised the company, Purdue Frederick, when it hired him in May 2002 for an undisclosed amount. "Purdue has demonstrated its commitment to fighting this problem," he said, referring to the issue of drug addiction.

According to Giuliani Partners, Kerik, a New York City police commissioner under Giuliani, was in charge of helping Purdue improve security at the New Jersey plant.

Kerik left Giuliani Partners after disclosures he was under criminal investigation.

In hiring Giuliani, Purdue said, "Giuliani Partners is uniquely qualified" to address the issue of preventing drug abuse.

The Web site for Giuliani Partners lists Purdue Pharma as one of its current clients.

A spokeswoman for Giuliani Partners told ABC News today, "The proceeding speaks for itself, and beyond that we're not going to comment."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/200 ... the_g.html

[Túrin Turambar]

I would think most of the Dems have a plan. Hasn't Obama said something about a plan?

As I suggested upthread (?), releasing detailed policy before you get elected can be unwise.

The main sticking point for any partition of Iraq is going to be the status of Baghdad itself. Neither the Shia nor the Sunnis are going to want the capital of a federal government to be in "enemy" territory. The Kurds probably don't care as much.

Agreed, it's a huge problem.

[solicitr]

Well, detailing policy during a campaign is *generally* unwise- but Obama is I think an exceptional case, bacause he has no track record. He's a blank slate, experience-wise. Many project onto that slate their own hopes and desires, and I expect a few their fears: personally I don't want to project anything. I want Barack to fill it in himself before he gets my vote. He's an appealing guy- but at this point, a pig in a poke.

Now Biden- Biden has almost too much record. A very bright guy who has trouble shutting up. The major problem I have with Biden's plan is that it rather blithely assumes that we can divide up Iraq for our own convenience, notwithstanding whatever the Iraqis might want. Shades of the old British Empire (remember how well the creation of Pakistan went?)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It is interesting that one of the first comprehensive policy statements that Obama has put out relates to universal health care - precisely the issue that got Hillary Clinton in such trouble during her husband's presidency.

Obama Offers Universal Health Care Plan

[Primula Baggins]

Meh. He leaves the health insurers in place. They are the source of most of the waste in the system.

He also doesn't require everyone to carry health insurance, which means there will still be uninsured people the rest of us must pay for because they choose not to go to the expense.

And it still ties most insurance to outside employment. I don't see any provision for the self-employed, and there are more of us every year.

It's better—uninsured people who want insurance would be able to get it—but it's not enough.

[axordil]

uninsured people who want insurance would be able to get it

That in itself is going to require moving heaven and earth.

Here's the skinny: we won't have single-payer universal health insurance in the US unless the economy, government and society all collapse and then are rebuilt with it. That's how powerful the forces against it are.

Don't let the phantom perfect keep the good from happening.

[solicitr]

Well, I dunno about the 'perfect.'

The current system is an abomination.

I'm not sure if single-payer universal is the answer.

When you're dealing with negative population growth and increasing life expectancy, as most of the West is, and the US too if you exclude immigration, you have to be very, very careful about establishing universal entitlements, lest they become The Blob That Ate The Economy. France is already coming up against that wall, as shown in the debates during this last election, and most of Europe will shortly be there too. We have a bit more time, but the eventual insolvency of Social Security and Medicare are already looming on the horizon. Sooner or later we will have to reduce benefits or raise taxes- and one estimate is that by 2100, at current benefit rates, the average taxpayer will have to pay 70% of his income in FICA alone.

I don't know what the solution is. But I'm really, really nervous about putting the entire population on the public teat.

[axordil]

Does the Obama plan integrate with Medicare or leave it as is? It would seem silly to have two such umbrellas, and probably too pricey to maintain two separate bureaucracies.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

A potentially interesting wild card may be emerging. Current New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a lifelong Democrat who switched to the GOP before running for his first term (he replaced Guilliani) has switched again, to Independent. This has fueled speculation that he is planning to mount an Independant campaign for president. With a fortune estimated at $5 billion he could easily finance such a campaign, a la Ross Perot. It is unclear what effect he would have on the campaign, although it is likely that he would siphon off more votes from the Democratic candidate, because he is fairly moderate (pro-choice, pro-same-sex Marriage, raised property taxes to help finance recovery from 9/11, opposes the Iraq war). It's unlikely that he would win, of course, but he could approach (or exceed) the 19% that Perot got in 1992.

This could set up the bizarre possibility of a three-way race between the current mayor of New York, his immediate predecessor, and a New York senator.

[solicitr]

But a decent third-party run takes more than just money: a necessary but not a sufficient condition. One also needs to find a wedge issue to identify with, and something like Perot's quirky charisma, which Bloomberg most emphatically doesn't have. It's a decided plus, if not a downright requirement, to position oneself as some sort of populist who'll give the voters 'straight talk' (hah!) that the major parties won't- but "Wall Street billionaire" isn't exactly a populist CV.* It's also a decided detriment that Bloomberg's natural base- New York- isn't even safe turf for him, given Rudy and Hillary.

*Perot was a billionaire, of course, but he could play the Horatio Alger country-boy-made-good entrepeneur card.

[yovargas]

I'd be tempted to vote for any 3rd party with any chance of getting a few percentage points just for the hope that someday we'll move away from the entrenched two-party system. It boggles my mind that so many people are fed up with both parties and yet the idea of a 3rd party having a chance is still considered a pipe dream. I don't get it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But a decent third-party run takes more than just money: a necessary but not a sufficient condition. One also needs to find a wedge issue to identify with, and something like Perot's quirky charisma, which Bloomberg most emphatically doesn't have. It's a decided plus, if not a downright requirement, to position oneself as some sort of populist who'll give the voters 'straight talk' (hah!) that the major parties won't- but "Wall Street billionaire" isn't exactly a populist CV.* It's also a decided detriment that Bloomberg's natural base- New York- isn't even safe turf for him, given Rudy and Hillary.

*Perot was a billionaire, of course, but he could play the Horatio Alger country-boy-made-good entrepeneur card.

Yes, I agree completely (including regarding Bloomberg's lack of charisma). But I think that what Bloomberg would have going for him is the point that yov brings up - an increasing general dissatisfaction with the two major parties. And, perhaps, a desire to find a candidate that is as close to the middle as possible. Despite the fact that he is the current Republican front-runner, I don't see Rudy being the eventual nominee, because I just don't see the Republicans nominating a pro-choice candidate with a particularly ugly marital history. I would actually put my money on Fred Thompson on the Republican side. And he is very conservative. On the Democratic side, it will almost certainly be either Clinton or Obama, with Clinton being by far the more likely at this point. And, despite her attempts to move towards the center, she will always be considered a poster-child for the left (and Obama is also perceived as very liberal). Thus, I think that Bloomberg, even without Perot's quirky charisma, could attract a large percentage of the centrist vote.

Meanwhile, I have comment on what a canny campaign Clinton is running. One her biggest liabilities is the perception that she is stiff and humourless. So her campaign is making every effort to counter that perception, including having her poke fun at herself. And I think it is having an effect. Not only has she solidified her lead against Obama, she is now leading Rudy and other Republicans in head to head polls, whereas just a couple of months ago she was behind in those polls, at least against Rudy.

I think there is a darn good chance that we are going to go Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton after all. And I don't think that is necessarily such a bad thing.

[elfshadow]

yov, I think it's partly because those who are disillusioned with the two current parties just couldn't begin to agree on what the platforms of a third (or fourth, or fifth) party should be. Or the existing third parties aren't appealing enough to garner enough votes. In other countries with multiparty systems, there have been big movements that have spawned third parties--like the Labour party in the UK, or the Socialist parties in many other European countries. Now most of the big movements in the US are swallowed into the platforms of either the Dems or the GOP. The GOP took the Religious Right, for example, and the Dems took most of the environmental movement. There just isn't enough inertia to create separate viable parties. Most of the existing third parties are just too extreme for the average person. I just can't really think of a solid enough platform on which to create a third party that could challenge the Dems and the GOP, unless both parties nominate really shoddy candidates--and there is enough outcry to cause someone else to run against them.

[nerdanel]

I think there is a darn good chance that we are going to go Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton after all. And I don't think that is necessarily such a bad thing.

Seconded - and at this point in time, that is the result I am hoping for.

[solicitr]

And I don't think that is necessarily such a bad thing.

Yes it is. It's just less bad than the other options.

(Still wishing Pat Moynihan had run for President.....)

[Jnyusa]

Still wishing Pat Moynihan had run for President

Me too. And Sam Nunn.

[nerdanel]

Bloomberg insists that he will not be running for President.

FWIW.