A CLEAR CONCISE PLAN FOR U.S. WITHDRAWAL is NOW AVAILABLE, please get your congressmen to follow up on it starting TODAY
A CLEAR CONCISE PLAN FOR U.S. WITHDRAWAL is NOW AVAILABLE, please get your congressmen to follow up on it starting TODAY
By Kevin A. Stoda in Kuwait
On September 4, 2007, “The Declaration for Peace” presented to the world, and especially to U.S. citizens and congressmen a 9-Point plan[1] for getting out of Iraq and finally leaving the world and a region with a more peaceful and progressive future than the country Iraq or the region around it has experienced in a long time.
The 9-Point plan [2] focuses on stopping the funding for the war and creating a permanent peace plan for Iraq peoples, its regions and its neighbors.
The 9-Points are as follows:
(1) An end to all funding for U.S. military operations in Iraq.
(2) Safe and rapid withdrawal of all U.S. troops and coalition forces from Iraq, with no future deployments.
(3) No permanent U.S. military bases or installations in Iraq.
(4) Support for an Iraqi-led Peace process, including a Peace conference to shape a post-occupation transition.
(5) Return control of Iraqi oil to the people of Iraq, as well as complete sovereignty in their economic and political affairs.
(6) Support for reparations and reconstruction to address the destruction caused by the U.S. invasion, military occupation, and 13 years of economic sanctions.
(7) Establish a U.S. “peace dividend” for job creation, health care, education, housing, and other vital social needs at home.
(8) Increased support for U.S. veterans of the Iraq war.
(9) No war against Iran or any other nation.
The only controversial part of the plan may be in finding out how to implement points #1, #2, and #3 above.
PULLOUTS & NO PERMANENT U.S. BASES IN IRAQ
As currently, certain regions and peoples appear to need U.S military presence, the procedures involving the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd points of the plan need to be clarified. However, withdrawing troops from particular regions should start, immediately, even before each of the final application of the planned withdrawal are clearly identified.
(1) Which regions should be cleared of U.S. occupying forces and military bases first?
(2)Which areas or bases should be the last ones that the U.S. leaves?
I would advocate that two paths be followed simultaneously. The areas which will be the most controversial areas to be cleared of U.S. forces should be identified immediately. In these areas, it might be necessary to conduct local plebiscites or referenda to identify when the Iraqi citizens desire the U.S. troops to pull out—or how fast that pullout is to be
At another level, it could be acknowledged that certain areas will indeed become unoccupied by the U.S forces by the end of this year, 2007. For example, territory near the Iraq, Saudi, and Kuwaiti [3] borders and the Iraq &Turkish borders could be cleared of U.S. forces first, i.e. starting in 2007.
On the other hand, I would say that in the wake of the long-term mutual assurances and blossoming positive relationships between the U.S. and the Kurdish military forces in the Northern region of Iraq, it is important that permanent military forces leave what is now known as central and southern Kuridistan at a slower pace than those U.S. troops leaving the northern border with Turkey.
Similarly, the dismantling of parts of the U.S. Green Zone and military facility in Baghdad [4] begin to be undertaken immediately. I would suggest that some of these forces from Baghdad be dispatched to either the Shia East or Sunni West or both—on a march of sorts to being rotated out of the country.
The objective of this two-directional leaving of the capital will assure Iraqis that the U.S. is as concerned as they are about last minute power plays from either pro-Syrian or pro-Iraqi militias or parties.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has to take control over its own borders with Iraq in a much more adequate manner than it has shown as of late. That is, far too many potential terrorists and terrorist-support personnel and funds are arriving from Saudi Arabia on an annual basis. The U.S. cannot finance a delay in Saudi establishing control any longer! The former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations noted this last summer that Saudi needs to do more. [5]
Now the U.S. needs to put its money where its mouth is and follow thourhg on pressure to get the KSA to pick up the slack. If Saudi Arabia cannot get its own citizens in line by January 2008, all sales of military weapons to Saudi Arabia should immediately be frozen.
PETROLEUM DEPENDENCE
Finally, a tenth point is essential. This point is that the U.S.A. and the rest of the planet must shed their dependence on petroleum, especially petroleum leading to war. [6]
This means that in the short term , the U.S. should support Venezuela and other countries who are willing to sell petroleum to us at discounted rates—especially to our poorest citizens.
On the other handed, the wealthiest companies must make up for years of neglect by replacing our overall dependence on petroleum fuels—otherwise, all businesses and high income wage earners will need to be required to pay a luxury tax related to any goods involving the transport or usage of petroleum products—including cars and about anything else one can think of.
Further, the U.S. should charge an exit tax to companies, like Halliburton [8], which leave the U.S. to make further profit on petroleum and war.
NOTES
[1] The Goal of the Declaration of Peace: http://declarationofpeace.org/goal
[2] A more complete document is available linked to that page. http://declarationofpeace.org/files/Comprehensive_Peace_Plan_for_Iraq.doc
[3] In prior years, I had taught students here in Kuwait who were National Guardsmen. They indicated that they had expected the U.S.A. to pull out by 2006. So, in Kuwait’s case they seem to have been ready for a U.S. pull-out for some time.
[4] The writers for Declaration for peace say that the only apparent reason to have such a large base in Baghdad is to cause a backlash in neighboring countries and around Iraq at the U.S.’s audacity to build such a behemoth in one of the great historical cities of Islamic and Arab history.
[5] “US Ambassador to U.N. Criticizes Saudi Arabia for Undermining Iraq Effort”,
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/29/america/NA-GEN-US-Saudi-Arabia.php
[6] One of many examples is California Strategy to Reduce Dependence on Petroleum, http://www.energy.ca.gov/fuels/petroleum_dependence/documents/2001-12-19_PROGRAM_PLAN.PDF
[7] “Beyond Transition”, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTTRANSITION/Newsletters/20998879/AprilJune2006.pdf
[8] “Halliburton Watch”, http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/
By Kevin A. Stoda in Kuwait
On September 4, 2007, “The Declaration for Peace” presented to the world, and especially to U.S. citizens and congressmen a 9-Point plan[1] for getting out of Iraq and finally leaving the world and a region with a more peaceful and progressive future than the country Iraq or the region around it has experienced in a long time.
The 9-Point plan [2] focuses on stopping the funding for the war and creating a permanent peace plan for Iraq peoples, its regions and its neighbors.
The 9-Points are as follows:
(1) An end to all funding for U.S. military operations in Iraq.
(2) Safe and rapid withdrawal of all U.S. troops and coalition forces from Iraq, with no future deployments.
(3) No permanent U.S. military bases or installations in Iraq.
(4) Support for an Iraqi-led Peace process, including a Peace conference to shape a post-occupation transition.
(5) Return control of Iraqi oil to the people of Iraq, as well as complete sovereignty in their economic and political affairs.
(6) Support for reparations and reconstruction to address the destruction caused by the U.S. invasion, military occupation, and 13 years of economic sanctions.
(7) Establish a U.S. “peace dividend” for job creation, health care, education, housing, and other vital social needs at home.
(8) Increased support for U.S. veterans of the Iraq war.
(9) No war against Iran or any other nation.
The only controversial part of the plan may be in finding out how to implement points #1, #2, and #3 above.
PULLOUTS & NO PERMANENT U.S. BASES IN IRAQ
As currently, certain regions and peoples appear to need U.S military presence, the procedures involving the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd points of the plan need to be clarified. However, withdrawing troops from particular regions should start, immediately, even before each of the final application of the planned withdrawal are clearly identified.
(1) Which regions should be cleared of U.S. occupying forces and military bases first?
(2)Which areas or bases should be the last ones that the U.S. leaves?
I would advocate that two paths be followed simultaneously. The areas which will be the most controversial areas to be cleared of U.S. forces should be identified immediately. In these areas, it might be necessary to conduct local plebiscites or referenda to identify when the Iraqi citizens desire the U.S. troops to pull out—or how fast that pullout is to be
At another level, it could be acknowledged that certain areas will indeed become unoccupied by the U.S forces by the end of this year, 2007. For example, territory near the Iraq, Saudi, and Kuwaiti [3] borders and the Iraq &Turkish borders could be cleared of U.S. forces first, i.e. starting in 2007.
On the other hand, I would say that in the wake of the long-term mutual assurances and blossoming positive relationships between the U.S. and the Kurdish military forces in the Northern region of Iraq, it is important that permanent military forces leave what is now known as central and southern Kuridistan at a slower pace than those U.S. troops leaving the northern border with Turkey.
Similarly, the dismantling of parts of the U.S. Green Zone and military facility in Baghdad [4] begin to be undertaken immediately. I would suggest that some of these forces from Baghdad be dispatched to either the Shia East or Sunni West or both—on a march of sorts to being rotated out of the country.
The objective of this two-directional leaving of the capital will assure Iraqis that the U.S. is as concerned as they are about last minute power plays from either pro-Syrian or pro-Iraqi militias or parties.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has to take control over its own borders with Iraq in a much more adequate manner than it has shown as of late. That is, far too many potential terrorists and terrorist-support personnel and funds are arriving from Saudi Arabia on an annual basis. The U.S. cannot finance a delay in Saudi establishing control any longer! The former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations noted this last summer that Saudi needs to do more. [5]
Now the U.S. needs to put its money where its mouth is and follow thourhg on pressure to get the KSA to pick up the slack. If Saudi Arabia cannot get its own citizens in line by January 2008, all sales of military weapons to Saudi Arabia should immediately be frozen.
PETROLEUM DEPENDENCE
Finally, a tenth point is essential. This point is that the U.S.A. and the rest of the planet must shed their dependence on petroleum, especially petroleum leading to war. [6]
This means that in the short term , the U.S. should support Venezuela and other countries who are willing to sell petroleum to us at discounted rates—especially to our poorest citizens.
On the other handed, the wealthiest companies must make up for years of neglect by replacing our overall dependence on petroleum fuels—otherwise, all businesses and high income wage earners will need to be required to pay a luxury tax related to any goods involving the transport or usage of petroleum products—including cars and about anything else one can think of.
Further, the U.S. should charge an exit tax to companies, like Halliburton [8], which leave the U.S. to make further profit on petroleum and war.
NOTES
[1] The Goal of the Declaration of Peace: http://declarationofpeace.org/goal
[2] A more complete document is available linked to that page. http://declarationofpeace.org/files/Comprehensive_Peace_Plan_for_Iraq.doc
[3] In prior years, I had taught students here in Kuwait who were National Guardsmen. They indicated that they had expected the U.S.A. to pull out by 2006. So, in Kuwait’s case they seem to have been ready for a U.S. pull-out for some time.
[4] The writers for Declaration for peace say that the only apparent reason to have such a large base in Baghdad is to cause a backlash in neighboring countries and around Iraq at the U.S.’s audacity to build such a behemoth in one of the great historical cities of Islamic and Arab history.
[5] “US Ambassador to U.N. Criticizes Saudi Arabia for Undermining Iraq Effort”,
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/29/america/NA-GEN-US-Saudi-Arabia.php
[6] One of many examples is California Strategy to Reduce Dependence on Petroleum, http://www.energy.ca.gov/fuels/petroleum_dependence/documents/2001-12-19_PROGRAM_PLAN.PDF
[7] “Beyond Transition”, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTTRANSITION/Newsletters/20998879/AprilJune2006.pdf
[8] “Halliburton Watch”, http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/
posted by Kevin Anthony Stoda at 7:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home