Bill Richardson, Iraq withdrawl, and the Cambodia factor
The affable New Mexico governor and second-tier (so far) Democratic presidential hopeful stopped by our Editorial Board Wednesday for an on-the-record chat with both Ed Board members and some news-side reporters. Early on, he mentioned he was going to get U.S. troops out of Iraq. So by and by, we asked about how. Here's a transcription of the extended exchange:
How are you going to get us out of Iraq?
This is what I would do. It's clear, but it'll take a little while.
1) I would get us out of Iraq this calendar year. Without fail. When, I would let our military people decide that. But I would set a deadline determined by our military.
Number two, I would at the same time put it to the Maliki government that you've got to do three things: 1) You've got to convene a reconciliation conference of the three ethnic groups -- the Shia, the Sunni, Kurds -- and you develop a power transition of cabinet ministries, civil administration, and you use the leverage of a withdrawl to achieve that.
I would then convene a Persian Gulf Middle East peace conference that would deal with providing Iraq security, reconstruction, and their own transition.
More Richardson discussion of the peace conference, the Israeli-Palestine dispute, the Maliki government, Plan B, and the Cambodia option, all after the jump.
The interview continues:
Who would be invited?
Moslem countries, Arab countries, NATO--
A Syria, Iran?
Absolutely. I would talk to Iran directly, and I would talk to Syria. I would say to Iran: We need to negotiate your not messing around in Iraq, we need to negotiation your not building nuclear weapons, and you tie that to an overall Persian Gulf settlement. You'll also try to deal with Syria, with Hezbollah, Israeli-Palestinian issue -- try to bring a process together.
I think the best we can do on the Israeli-Palestinian issue is set up what we used to have, what every Republican president had, is an envoy! You know, a process where you got somebody there permanently -- Dennis Ross, or whoever! Holbrooke, or you know, a Republican; James Baker would have been great. I mean James Baker went to Syria 11 times before he got Syria's support in the first Gulf War. Why don't we do this now?
So -- and then what would I do with those troops?... I would redeploy those troops in two main areas: 1) Afghanistan. The Taliban, the terrorism is gaining strength; we need more troops there. American troops, NATO troops. I worry that that will fall part.
And in the second area, I would let our force commanders in the Middle East determine, based on terrorism threats, where to deploy the rest of the American troops. To possibly Bahrain; that's probably logistically the most effective place.
And I would do it this year. And it takes diplomacy to do it. It takes a Dayton-type process to do this reconciliation process. The Maliki government right now is not pushing for a reconciliation, but they say they are. They are not helping us, when we tried to get some Iran[ian] -- not terrorists, but elements out of the country -- the Maliki government wanted them there. I mean heck, Maliki even told Bush he wouldn't meet with him! I mean, here we're paying for everything, and they met in Istanbul, they were supposed to have a meeting and then he snubbed him. That's a problem.
Are we backing the wrong horse with Maliki?
Well, we're betting on a weak horse. I don't know if there's any other horse. He got elected, you gotta respect that. I know he's been in office eight months but he seems to get worse, he was supposed to get better, if you're a leader.
Would you tie the redeployment of the troops to the Gulf peace conference, in other words, does the peace conference have to be up and going and real before you redeploy the troops?
There has to be a connection, there has to be a linkage, but eventually if that linkage didn't work, Plan B would be to withdraw.
So Plan B is, Maliki doesn't do what you want, he says "I don't really care what you do"; the Mideast peace conference, everyone says, you know, "America's sort of a weak giant, on the run, and we actually don't like each other, we don't want to sit around and talk about it"; we just leave and the place descends into utter, horrible chaos?
No, no, no. You link it to reconciliation talks, but Plan B has to be a diplomatic process that involves other nations sharing the load. I mean, if Saudi Arabia is saying "this is the worst thing in the world for the U.S. to leave," you know, what are you going to do about it? You gotta finance troops.
But I think eventually the best situation is a linkage. But if the linkage is not there, you know, the phased withdrawl, it has to happen. Because right now, it can't be any worse. There's a civil war going on. The Iraqi people want us to leave. So, you cut your losses.
The can't-be-any-worse argument was also very popular in 1975 in Vietnam, and Cambodians found out that it could actually get quite a good deal worse. Is that something that worries you? What do you build into that process?
Yeah. It worries me, but how worse can it get?
Two million people killed in a genocide?
Well, but you're assuming that our presence there has prevented that from happening. Our presence there has caused, I think, the civil war to accelerate. [...] Is our presence preventing this genocide? I'm not sure.
Thanks,(I hoped), for the verbatim with Secretary and Governor Richardson. I admired him until reading this report of your conversation with him.
I expected a more sophisticated and appropriately limited response to your questions. Who reads your web page, middle-schoolers? That was the level of his answers. There are other religious minorities living in Iraq who have traditions more than a thousand years old; e.g. Zorastorians, followers of John the Baptist, and Christians. He, like all American politicians have said nothing about the Turkish military along the border of "Kurdistan". I am disappointed.
Posted by: Craig | January 26, 2007 at 06:47 PM
I think we should just walk away from Iraq, let it blow up, and then, the minute it or Iran or Syria threaten us Nuke them off the planet along with afghanistan. but pull out our troops now and try the entire Bush Administration for war crimes and treason.
I too was dissapointed with the governors repsonse as indicated by the prior post.
Peter
Posted by: Peter | January 26, 2007 at 07:06 PM
Some adult needs to tell the Gov of New Mexico the story behind the phrase, "peace in our time".
As late as this week, the nut running Iran swore to destroy Israel and the United States. This guy is going to be believed in any talks?
Posted by: Carl Nassif | January 26, 2007 at 07:57 PM
Often, when I hear people talk about negotiating with Iran, they speak as though Iran were afraid of us. ...and perhaps it is, to some extent, but given the situation in Iraq, the way things are now, whether we stay or leave, I don't see how Iran loses.
If we left, I have little doubt that much of Iraq would come under Iran's influence. Is anyone arguing otherwise?
When I hear people talk about staying, they often talk about putting pressure on the elected Iraqi government, and when I hear people talk about putting pressure on the elected government of Iraq, they seem to assume the government there speaks from a bully pulpit, as if the government's concerns were taken seriously somewhere inside Iraq and outside the Green Zone. ...but I'm not so sure that's the case.
So many seem to assume the Iraqi election bestowed legitimacy on those beholden to people like Sistani and Sadr, but it seems to me that much of whatever legitimacy the elected government of Iraq enjoys was lent to it by Sistani and Sadr, et. al. Sistani and Sadr certainly didn't need elections for legitimacy--but would the government of Iraq exist without their blessing?
...and Sadr promised to attack the United States if the United States attacked Iran.
Apart from the parties affiliated with various militias, some of whom are pro-Iranian, does the Iraqi government have any real power? ...to do anything we put pressure on them to do?
I don't know. But it seems to me that if we were to negotiate with Iran, we have very little pressure to put on them, rather it seems like we're more or less at Iran's mercy so long as we stay bogged down in Iraq. I find myself wondering, in fact, if Iran isn't flaunting its nuclear program because we're so vulnerable to Iran and those that are beholden to them.
If that's the way it really is, then it's hard to take anybody seriously if they're just tellin' us what they think we want to hear. ...not that we should expect anything more from somebody running for President.
Posted by: Ken Shultz | January 26, 2007 at 09:00 PM
"Well, but you're assuming that our presence there has prevented that from happening. Our presence there has caused, I think, the civil war to accelerate. [...] Is our presence preventing this genocide? I'm not sure."
Iraqi government troops, some of which are also in some Shiite militia or other, may commit atrocities on a regular basis, but the scale they can operate on is limited, to some extent, by our presence. Anyone who doesn't understand that the Mahdi Army, and other groups like it, would probably scale up their operations without competition from the armed forces of the United States, probably isn't qualified to be President.
Posted by: Ken Shultz | January 26, 2007 at 09:16 PM
I agree that his proposals were a bit simplistic. I'd have hoped he'd seem to have given these important issues more thought, if he's going to run for POTUS.
I agree heartily about talks with Iran. And we have SO much leverage with them. The U.S. has almost single-handedly prevented them from upgrading their oil fields, which is one of the reasons they so desperately need nuclear power. For every concession we could hand them the wherewithal to make improvements in their oil-extraction infrastructure. Anyway, I'm not running for POTUS, but that one seems obvious. And Richardson sounded like the governor of a poor, rural state and that's probably what he should remain.
Posted by: JimBob | January 27, 2007 at 08:42 AM
Could someone please explain to me the following: (1) When politicians talk of negotiating with Iran and Syria, what exactly does the US have to negotiate with if we declare ahead of time that we desire to leave? In other words, what leverage do we have if we concede in advance the very thing they desire? (2) In order for the Iraqi forces to "stand-up," they are going to need heavy armor, yet we have been -- for obvious reasons -- reluctant to hand such over. The folks who are demanding we immediately begin a retreat should be asked, point-blank, "Are you willing, right now, to hand over heavy armor and attack helos to the Iraqi military?" And if not, when? And, how are they going to be able to stand-up without such? and (3) What the heck does redeploy to other areas really mean? Are we going to ask first? And again, what are we going to use to negotiate doing this? ...I simply do not understand how anti-war politicians are getting away with making these stupid arguments.
Posted by: TStreet_Blogger | January 27, 2007 at 08:48 AM
You who are among the 28% of those "sheep" who wish to follow your IDIO-SAVANT Bush over the cliff, are welcome to it. However, here are these FEW impeachable offenses you MIGHT want to take into account [before you take that DIVE]:
President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:
1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.
2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.
3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.
4) Instituting a secret and illegal wiretapping and spying operation against the people of the United States through the National Security Agency.
5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.
6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
7) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.
8) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.
9) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."
10) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.
11) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.
12) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.
13) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.
14) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.
15) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.
16) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."
17) Engaging in criminal neglect in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, depriving thousands of people in Louisiana, Mississippi and other Gulf States of urgently needed support, causing mass suffering and unnecessary loss of life.
18) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.
19) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.
20) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.
WERE YOU AWARE that if EVEN ONE of the above is deemed legitimate, Bush, Cheney, Rice and Gonzalez are subject to impeachment? Following that for MANY of the above, since they are also CRIMES, THIS GANG CAN BE INDICTED, CONVICTED AND IMPRISONED.
Posted by: Vince Williams | January 27, 2007 at 09:11 AM
"When politicians talk of negotiating with Iran and Syria, what exactly does the US have to negotiate with if we declare ahead of time that we desire to leave? In other words, what leverage do we have if we concede in advance the very thing they desire?"
Once again, while I have little doubt that Iran would benefit if we left, I'm not so sure they're dead set against us staying for the time being either.
We're working hard to legitimize a government, popularly elected mind you, that's largely controlled by militias/Iraqi political parties beholden to Iran.
...If staying is the worst case scenario for Iran, I'm not sure their worst case scenario, from their perspective, is all that bad, but then I remain highly skeptical that Iraq will blossom into a legitimate, western style democracy anytime in the near future.
I think the suggestion that someone like al-Sadr will ever, come some future, hypothetical electoral defeat, take his place with the loyal opposition...um...laughable. And among Sunnis, in some provinces, please correct me if I'm wrong, 97% of the people voted against the Iraqi Constitution.
If Iran's nuclear program is our primary concern (and I'm not saying it is or should be), then it seems to me that if we want to negotiate with Iran, then we might do better, we might present a greater threat, that is, if we weren't bogged down in Iraq. ...seemingly promoting their interests.
Posted by: Ken Shultz | January 27, 2007 at 12:59 PM
in response to t street blogger.
you mentioned retreat. You retreat from a war not an occupation. The war is over, now it's an occupation. The words victory and retreat do not apply.
With an occupation you either leave with all of your objectives met or you don't. But whenever you leave it is not a retreat.
Posted by: Bandini | January 27, 2007 at 03:41 PM
Vince Williams wrote 20 items when I knew he was an uniformed blow hard after reading the 1st item. Bush Hate is all consuming and makes people make up claims and lie when they say Bush lied. Vince there was a Congressional Resolution and a UN Resolution. Did you miss those? The Congressional Resolution authorized the war and the UN Resolution was the last of many the UN voted on giving Saddam an ultimatum to comply with the articles ending the war after the 1st President Bush kicked his butt. Did you miss the 21 Articles in the Congressional Resolution authorizing the war? Did you miss President Clinton's speech from December 18,1998 where he said Iraq's weapons of mass destruction threaten the world? If President Bush was lying was President Clinton lying and should he be prosecuted? www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.Iraq.speech/
Did Clinton's speech influence Congress that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? What about all those speeches given by democrat Senators after Clinton gave his speech. Did they influence the current President?
Vince the UN has no power over the US when we act in our interests. Our Constitution and our elected federal government are the only institutions that govern the US. There are some parts of international law that apply to us but we are not signatories to most articles of International Law. The UN needs us but we do not need them and while we are gracious to the UN we owe them nothing when it comes to our security. Vince maybe you should move to France with the other surrender monkies.
Posted by: Tony Raguso | January 27, 2007 at 04:09 PM
"Bush Hate is all consuming and makes people make up claims and lie when they say Bush lied."
Yeah, I think assuming that the Bush Administration willfully misled us into war probably goes too far--only God knows what's in people's hearts. However, the photographs of mobile WMD labs that Colin Powell presented, they did turn out to be bogus. And the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, in retrospect, they didn't live up to billing either. ...not to mention a story you may have heard about yellow cake, blah, blah, blah.
Personally, I try not to attribute to malice what can easily be explained by simple incompetence. Regardless, it is possible to despise the President on a perfectly rational basis. There's nothing inherently unreasonable about despising a President, not to the point where we should disregard something somebody says just because of that. I mean, if we disregarded the views of everyone who doesn't like the President, we'd have a very narrow view of the world, wouldn't we?
Posted by: Ken Shultz | January 27, 2007 at 10:09 PM
I like Rixcchardson's understanding of persistance when he streesed it tool 11 talks with Syria form them to apporve Golf War. He is a good negotiator, he went to meet an old aquantance from his UN days, anAfrican nation's (Sudan? leader and succeeded in gaining the release of a veteran Chicago Tribune reporter beingheld hostage. The reportor had entered illegally to search a story. The idiot Jon Stewart thought Richardson saying he freed hostages was a joke, it's tur. I'm in Chicago and it was leading news for days. He is "buddies" with leaders of all kinds around the globe. he has that kind of personality. He says "hey how are you " establishes a personal repport and gets what he wants.Reprtedly the leader owed Bill for something in past. He has a nack for this kind of thing. Being a poplulist, gaining personal popularity in the middle east is a whole lot better than being hated as Bush is. Plus he is brown, no typically how anti-Americans view us, can throw them off a bit. Plus he is not ivory tower, not a theorist as Rice, or niave as Obma would be, even Clinton may be niave. In sum negotiation/discussions with hostiles can work, it has in past, worth a try for sure. They hate us becuase they think we are power mongers and self centered. Just listening to them will give clues on how to proceed.
Posted by: Sue | January 29, 2007 at 11:05 PM