<html>
<body>
<br>
Below is a message sent to me from a professor at a university I am
affiliated with. I have not read the letter yet, but if anyone
wants to dig in and take a look to see if there is a substantial resolve
to Iraq, please do. I'll be reading it today as well. (I have
no prior knowledge of Dennis Kucinich
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich" eudora="autourl">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich</a> )<br><br>
As you know, my goal is to discover effective future oriented ways to
deal with issues outside political party lines in a more heterarchical
stigmergic system. <br><br>
If you find any points in the letter below to be substantive, let's
discuss.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dl>
<dd>Dear Friends,<br><br>
<dd>In November of 2006, after an October upsurge in violence in Iraq,
<br>
<dd>the American people moved decisively to reject Republican rule, <br>
<dd>principally because of the conduct of the war. Democratic leaders
<br>
<dd>well understand we regained control of the Congress because of the
<br>
<dd>situation in Iraq. However, two months later, the Congress is still
<br>
<dd>searching for a plan around which it can unite to hasten the end of
<br>
<dd>US involvement in Iraq and the return home of 140,000 US
troops.<br><br>
<dd>There is a compelling need for a new direction in Iraq, one that
<br>
<dd>recognizes the plight of the people of Iraq, the false and illegal
<br>
<dd>basis of the United States war against Iraq, the realities on the
<br>
<dd>ground which make a military resolution of the conflict unrealistic
<br>
<dd>and the urgent responsibility of the United States, which caused the
<br>
<dd>chaos, to use the process of diplomacy and international law to <br>
<dd>achieve stability in Iraq, a process which will establish peace and
<br>
<dd>stability in Iraq allow our troops to return home with dignity.
<br><br>
<dd>The Administration is preparing to escalate the conflict. They intend
<br>
<dd>to increase troop numbers to unprecedented levels, without <br>
<dd>establishing an ending date for the so-called troop surge. By <br>
<dd>definition, this escalation means a continuation of the occupation,
<br>
<dd>more troop and civilian casualties, more anger toward the US, more
<br>
<dd>support for the insurgency, more instability in Iraq and in the <br>
<dd>region, and prolonged civil war at a time when there is a general
<br>
<dd>agreement in the world community that the solution in Iraq must be
<br>
<dd>political not military. Iraq is now a training ground for insurgents
<br>
<dd>who practice against our troops.<br><br>
<dd>What is needed is a comprehensive political process. And the decision
<br>
<dd>is not President Bush's alone to make.<br><br>
<dd>Congress, as a coequal branch of government has a responsibility to
<br>
<dd>assist in the initiation of this process. Congress, under Article 1,
<br>
<dd>Section 8 of the US Constitution has the war-making power. Congress
<br>
<dd>appropriates funds for the war. Congress does not dispense with its
<br>
<dd>obligation to the American people simply by opposing a troop surge in
<br>
<dd>Iraq. <br><br>
<dd>There are 140,000 troops remaining in Iraq right now. What about
<br>
<dd>them? When will they come home? Why would we leave those troops in
<br>
<dd>Iraq when we have the money to bring them home? Soon the President
<br>
<dd>will ask for more money for the war. Why would Congress appropriate
<br>
<dd>more money to keep the troops in Iraq through the end of President
<br>
<dd>Bush's term, at a total cost of upwards of two trillion dollars and
<br>
<dd>thousands of more troop casualties, when military experts say there
<br>
<dd>is no military solution? Our soldiers stand for us in the field, we
<br>
<dd>must to stand for them in our legislature by bringing them
home.<br><br>
<dd>It is simply not credible to maintain that one opposes the war and
<br>
<dd>yet continues to fund it. This contradiction runs as a deep fault
<br>
<dd>line through our politics, undermining public trust in the political
<br>
<dd>process and in those elected to represent the people. If you oppose
<br>
<dd>the war, then do not vote to fund it.<br><br>
<dd>If you have money which can be used to bring the troops home or to
<br>
<dd>prosecute the war, do not say you want to bring the troops home while
<br>
<dd>you appropriate money in a supplemental to keep them in Iraq fighting
<br>
<dd>a war that cannot be won militarily. This is why the Administration
<br>
<dd>should be notified now that Congress will not approve of the <br>
<dd>appropriations request of up to $160 billion in the spring for the
<br>
<dd>purposes of continuing the occupation and the war. Continuing to fund
<br>
<dd>the war is not a plan. It would represent the continuation of <br>
<dd>disaster.<br><br>
<dd>The US sent our troops into Iraq without a clear mission. We created
<br>
<dd>a financial, military and moral dilemma for our nation and now we are
<br>
<dd>talking about the Iraq war as our problem. The Iraqis are forgotten.
<br>
<dd>Their country has been destroyed: 650,000 casualties, [based on the
<br>
<dd>Lancet Report which surveyed casualties from March of 2003 to July of
<br>
<dd>2006] the shredding of the social fabric of the nation, civil war,
<br>
<dd>lack of access to food, shelter, electricity, clean drinking water
<br>
<dd>and health care because this Administration, with the active <br>
<dd>participation of the Congress, authorized a war without reason, <br>
<dd>without conscience, without international law.<br><br>
<dd>The US thinks in terms of solving our own military, strategic, <br>
<dd>logistical, and political problems. The US can determine how to solve
<br>
<dd>our problems, but the Iraqi people will have problems far into the
<br>
<dd>future. This requires an intensive focus on the processes needed to
<br>
<dd>stabilize Iraq. If you solve the Iraqi problem you solve the US <br>
<dd>problem. Any comprehensive plan for Iraq must take into account as a
<br>
<dd>primary matter the conditions and the needs of the Iraqi people,
<br>
<dd>while providing our nation with a means of righting grievous wrongs
<br>
<dd>and taking steps to regain US credibility and felicity within the
<br>
<dd>world community.<br><br>
<dd>I am offering such a plan today. This plan responds to the concerns
<br>
<dd>of a majority of Americans. On Tuesday, when Congress resumes its
<br>
<dd>work, I will present this plan to leadership and members as the only
<br>
<dd>viable alternative to the Bush Administration's policy of continued
<br>
<dd>occupation and escalation. Congress must know that it cannot and must
<br>
<dd>not stand by and watch our troops and innocent Iraqi civilians
die.<br><br>
<dd>These are the elements of the Kucinich Plan: <br><br>
<dd>1. The US announces it will end the occupation, close military bases
<br>
<dd>and withdraw. The insurgency has been fueled by the occupation and
<br>
<dd>the prospect of a long-term presence as indicated by the building of
<br>
<dd>permanent bases. A US declaration of an intention to withdraw troops
<br>
<dd>and close bases will help dampen the insurgency which has been <br>
<dd>inspired to resist colonization and fight invaders and those who have
<br>
<dd>supported US policy. Furthermore this will provide an opening where
<br>
<dd>parties within Iraq and in the region can set the stage for <br>
<dd>negotiations towards peaceful settlement. <br><br>
<dd>2. US announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops
<br>
<dd>and necessary equipment home. Congress appropriated $70 billion in
<br>
<dd>bridge funds on October 1st for the war. Money from this and other
<br>
<dd>DOD accounts can be used to fund the troops in the field over the
<br>
<dd>next few months, and to pay for the cost of the return of the troops,
<br>
<dd>(which has been estimated at between $5 and $7 billion dollars) while
<br>
<dd>a political settlement is being negotiated and preparations are made
<br>
<dd>for a transition to an international security and peacekeeping force.
<br><br>
<dd>3. Order a simultaneous return of all US contractors to the United
<br>
<dd>States and turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi government.
<br>
<dd>The contracting process has been rife with world-class corruption,
<br>
<dd>with contractors stealing from the US Government and cheating the
<br>
<dd>Iraqi people, taking large contracts and giving 5% or so to Iraqi
<br>
<dd>subcontractors. <br><br>
<dd>Reconstruction activities must be reorganized and closely monitored
<br>
<dd>in Iraq by the Iraqi government, with the assistance of the <br>
<dd>international community. The massive corruption as it relates to US
<br>
<dd>contractors, should be investigated by congressional committees and
<br>
<dd>federal grand juries. The lack of tangible benefits, the lack of
<br>
<dd>accountability for billions of dollars, while millions of Iraqis do
<br>
<dd>not have a means of financial support, nor substantive employment,
<br>
<dd>cries out for justice. <br><br>
<dd>It is noteworthy that after the first Gulf War, Iraqis reestablished
<br>
<dd>electricity within three months, despite sanctions. Four years into
<br>
<dd>the US occupation there is no water, nor reliable electricity in
<br>
<dd>Baghdad, despite massive funding from the US and from the Madrid
<br>
<dd>conference. The greatest mystery involves the activities of private
<br>
<dd>security companies who function as mercenaries. Reports of false flag
<br>
<dd>operations must be investigated by an international tribunal.<br>
<br>
<dd>4. Convene a regional conference for the purpose of developing a
<br>
<dd>security and stabilization force for Iraq. The focus should be on a
<br>
<dd>process which solves the problems of Iraq. The US has told the <br>
<dd>international community, "This is our policy and we want you to
come <br>
<dd>and help us implement it." The international community may have
an <br>
<dd>interest in helping Iraq, but has no interest in participating in the
<br>
<dd>implementation of failed US policy.<br><br>
<dd>A shift in US policy away from unilateralism and toward cooperation
<br>
<dd>will provide new opportunities for exploring common concerns about
<br>
<dd>the plight of Iraq. The UN is the appropriate place to convene, <br>
<dd>through the office of the Secretary General, all countries that have
<br>
<dd>interests, concerns and influence, including the five permanent <br>
<dd>members of the Security Council and the European community, and all
<br>
<dd>Arab nations.<br><br>
<dd>The end of the US occupation and the closing of military bases are
<br>
<dd>necessary preconditions for such a conference. When the US creates a
<br>
<dd>shift of policy and announces it will focus on the concerns of the
<br>
<dd>people of Iraq, it will provide a powerful incentive for nations to
<br>
<dd>participate. <br><br>
<dd>It is well known that while some nations may see the instability in
<br>
<dd>Iraq as an opportunity, there is also an even-present danger that the
<br>
<dd>civil war in Iraq threatens the stability of nations throughout the
<br>
<dd>region. The impending end of the occupation will provide a <br>
<dd>breakthrough for the cooperation between the US and the UN and the UN
<br>
<dd>and countries of the region. The regional conference must include
<br>
<dd>Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. <br><br>
<dd>5. Prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to move
<br>
<dd>in, replacing US troops who then return home. The UN has an <br>
<dd>indispensable role to play here, but cannot do it as long as the US
<br>
<dd>is committed to an occupation. The UN is the only international <br>
<dd>organization with the ability to mobilize and the legitimacy to <br>
<dd>authorize troops.<br><br>
<dd>The UN is the place to develop the process, to build the political
<br>
<dd>consensus, to craft a political agreement, to prepare the ground for
<br>
<dd>the peacekeeping mission, to implement the basis of an agreement that
<br>
<dd>will end the occupation and begin the transition to international
<br>
<dd>peacekeepers. This process will take at least three months from the
<br>
<dd>time the US announces the intention to end the occupation. <br><br>
<dd>The US will necessarily have to fund a peacekeeping mission, which,
<br>
<dd>by definition will not require as many troops. Fifty percent of the
<br>
<dd>peacekeeping troops must come from nations with large Muslim <br>
<dd>populations. The international security force, under UN direction,
<br>
<dd>will remain in place until the Iraqi government is capable of <br>
<dd>handling its own security. The UN can field an international security
<br>
<dd>and peacekeeping mission, but such an initiative will not take shape
<br>
<dd>unless there is a peace to keep, and that will be dependent upon a
<br>
<dd>political process which reaches agreement between all the Iraqi <br>
<dd>parties. Such an agreement means fewer troops will be needed.
<br><br>
<dd>According to UN sources, the UN the peacekeeping mission in the <br>
<dd>Congo, which is four times larger in area than Iraq, required about
<br>
<dd>twenty thousand troops. Finally the UN does not mobilize quickly
<br>
<dd>because they depend upon governments to supply the troops, and <br>
<dd>governments are slow. The ambition of the UN is to deploy in less
<br>
<dd>than ninety days. However, without an agreement of parties the UN is
<br>
<dd>not likely to approve a mission to Iraq, because countries will not
<br>
<dd>give them troops. <br><br>
<dd>6. Develop and fund a process of national reconciliation. The process
<br>
<dd>of reconciliation must begin with a national conference, organized
<br>
<dd>with the assistance of the UN and with the participation of parties
<br>
<dd>who can create, participate in and affect the process of <br>
<dd>reconciliation, defined as an airing of all grievances and the <br>
<dd>creation of pathways toward open, transparent talks producing truth
<br>
<dd>and resolution of grievances. The Iraqi government has indicated a
<br>
<dd>desire for the process of reconciliation to take place around it, and
<br>
<dd>that those who were opposed to the government should give up and join
<br>
<dd>the government. Reconciliation must not be confused with <br>
<dd>capitulation, nor with realignments for the purposes of protecting
<br>
<dd>power relationships. <br><br>
<dd>For example, Kurds need to be assured that their own autonomy will be
<br>
<dd>regarded and therefore obviate the need for the Kurds to align with
<br>
<dd>religious Shia for the purposes of self-protection. The problem in
<br>
<dd>Iraq is that every community is living in fear. The Shia, who are the
<br>
<dd>majority fear they will not be allowed to government even though they
<br>
<dd>are a majority. The Kurds are afraid they will lose the autonomy they
<br>
<dd>have gained. The Sunnis think they will continue to be made to pay
<br>
<dd>for the sins of Saddam.<br><br>
<dd>A reconciliation process which brings people together is the only way
<br>
<dd>to overcome their fears and reconcile their differences. It is <br>
<dd>essential to create a minimum of understanding and mutual confidence
<br>
<dd>between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. <br><br>
<dd>But how can a reconciliation process be constructed in Iraq when
<br>
<dd>there is such mistrust: Ethnic cleansing is rampant. The police get
<br>
<dd>their money from the US and their ideas from Tehran. They function as
<br>
<dd>religious militia, fighting for supremacy, while the Interior <br>
<dd>Ministry collaborates. Two or three million people have been <br>
<dd>displaced. When someone loses a family member, a loved one, a friend,
<br>
<dd>the first response is likely to be that there is no
reconciliation.<br><br>
<dd>It is also difficult to move toward reconciliation when one or <br>
<dd>several parties engaged in the conflict think they can win outright.
<br>
<dd>The Shia, some of whom are out for revenge, think they can win <br>
<dd>because they have the defacto support of the US. The end of the US
<br>
<dd>occupation will enhance the opportunity for the Shia to come to an
<br>
<dd>accommodation with the Sunnis. They have the oil, the weapons, and
<br>
<dd>support from Iran. They have little interest in reconciling with
<br>
<dd>those who are seen as Baathists. <br><br>
<dd>The Sunnis think they have experience, as the former army of Saddam,
<br>
<dd>boasting half a million people insurgents. The Sunnis have so much
<br>
<dd>more experience and motivation that as soon as the Americans leave
<br>
<dd>they believe they can defeat the Shia government. Any Sunni revenge
<br>
<dd>impulses can be held in check by international peacekeepers. The only
<br>
<dd>sure path toward reconciliation is through the political process. All
<br>
<dd>factions and all insurgents not with al Queda must be brought <br>
<dd>together in a relentless process which involves Saudis, Turks and
<br>
<dd>Iranians. <br><br>
<dd>7. Reconstruction and Jobs. Restart the failed reconstruction program
<br>
<dd>in Iraq. Rebuild roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, and other public
<br>
<dd>facilities, houses, and factories with jobs and job training going to
<br>
<dd>local Iraqis. <br><br>
<dd>8. Reparations. The US and Great Britain have a high moral obligation
<br>
<dd>to enable a peace process by beginning a program of significant <br>
<dd>reparations to the people of Iraq for the loss of lives, physical and
<br>
<dd>emotional injuries, and damage to property. There should be special
<br>
<dd>programs to rescue the tens of thousands of Iraqi orphans from lives
<br>
<dd>of destitution. This is essential to enable reconciliation.<br><br>
<dd>9. Political Sovereignty. Put an end to suspicions that the US <br>
<dd>invasion and occupation was influenced by a desire to gain control of
<br>
<dd>Iraq's oil assets by A) setting aside initiatives to privatize Iraqi
<br>
<dd>oil interests or other national assets, and B) by abandoning efforts
<br>
<dd>to change Iraqi national law to facilitate privatization. <br><br>
<dd>Any attempt to sell Iraqi oil assets during the US occupation will be
<br>
<dd>a significant stumbling block to peaceful resolution. The current
<br>
<dd>Iraqi constitution gives oil proceeds to the regions and the central
<br>
<dd>government gets nothing. There must be fairness in the distribution
<br>
<dd>of oil resources in Iraq. An Iraqi National Oil Trust should be <br>
<dd>established to guarantee the oil assets will be used to create a
<br>
<dd>fully functioning infrastructure with financial mechanisms <br>
<dd>established protect the oil wealth for the use of the people of
Iraq.<br><br>
<dd>10. Iraq Economy. Set forth a plan to stabilize Iraq's cost for food
<br>
<dd>and energy, on par to what the prices were before the US invasion and
<br>
<dd>occupation. This would block efforts underway to raise the price of
<br>
<dd>food and energy at a time when most Iraqis do not have the means to
<br>
<dd>meet their own needs.<br><br>
<dd>11. Economic Sovereignty. Work with the world community to restore
<br>
<dd>Iraq's fiscal integrity without structural readjustment measures of
<br>
<dd>the IMF or the World Bank. <br><br>
<dd>12. International Truth and Reconciliation. Establish a policy of
<br>
<dd>truth and reconciliation between the people of the United States and
<br>
<dd>the people of Iraq. In 2002, I led the effort in the House of <br>
<dd>Representatives challenging the Bush Administration's plans to go to
<br>
<dd>war in Iraq. I organized 125 Democrats to vote against the Iraq war
<br>
<dd>resolution. The analysis I offered at that time stands out in bold
<br>
<dd>relief for its foresight when compared to the assessments of many who
<br>
<dd>today aspire to national leadership. Just as the caution I urged four
<br>
<dd>years ago was well-placed, so the plan I am presenting today is <br>
<dd>workable, and it responds to the will of the American people, <br>
<dd>expressed this past November. This is a moment for clarity and <br>
<dd>foresight. This is a moment to take a new direction in Iraq. One with
<br>
<dd>honor and dignity. One which protects our troops and rescues Iraqi
<br>
<dd>civilians. One which repairs our relationship with Iraqis and with
<br>
<dd>the world.<br>
<br>
<dd>Thank you,<br><br>
<dd>Dennis J Kucinich<br><br>
</dl><br><br>
------ End of Forwarded Message</blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<dl>
<dd><font size=2><a href="http://www.natasha.cc/">Natasha
</a><a href="http://www.natasha.cc/">Vita-More</a>
<dd>Design Media Artist - Futurist
<dd>PhD Candidate,
<a href="http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/researchcover/rcp.asp?pagetype=G&page=273">
Planetary Collegium </a>
<dd>Proactionary Principle Core Group,
<a href="http://www.extropy.org/">Extropy
</a><a href="http://www.extropy.org/">Institute</a>
<dd>Member, <a href="http://www.profuturists.com/">Association of
Professional Futurists</a>
<dd>Founder, <a href="http://www.transhumanist.biz/">Transhumanist Arts
& Culture</a> <br><br>
</font>
<dd><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><i>If you draw a circle in the
sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a
closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and
everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. -
</i>Buckminster Fuller<br>
<br><br></font>
</dl></body>
</html>