What would you suggest the next Dem Pres do in this circumstance?

[dd123]

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/
The Mess
Jack Balkin speaks the truth:

If Friedman is correct, by the time the Democrats regain the White House (if they do!) it may well be too late. Bush may have ruined the possiblity of a democratic Iraq for years to come. And Democrats will be left to clean up the mess created by this most unwise adventure in world domination. What infuriates many people on the left, I would suggest, is that given Bush's track record so far, they do not believe that he is really serious about making the tough choices necessary to democratize Iraq, particularly with an election coming up in less than a year. For Bush is above all a political animal, who will do what it takes to win reelection. Even if he is defeated in 2004, Democrats will inherit a much more dangerous world and a financially strapped government as a result of his bad policies. The Bush Administration has not only misplayed its hand, it has created a mess that will be very difficult to clean up no matter who is in office.

Yep. There was a time a little while back when I thought that if a wiser person took over the reigns of government that everything could be made right again, but I think that any policies a Democrat would be in a position to implement in January 2005 will be limited to a kind of damage control. On an emotional level, I sort of want to see Bush get reelected, since I resent the idea that the Democrats would have to figure out ways to clean up the mess he's made. Sort of.

--What would be our options here? I see only one: Turn it over lock stock and barrel to the UN. What are our candidates take on that?

[gristy]

1. Yes, I agree

We should definitely turn the U.S. over to the U.N. :D

[mikehiggins]

2. Well, if Clark wins

I think he could surround himself with Balkan Muslims and go to Iraq to talk with the clerics. In person. (Maybe we should have Edwards as VP just in case)

That would do a lot to undermine the "crusader" argument in the mid east, IMHO, and make it easier for him to get a fair hearing AND for him to convince these people that, under his administration, we would not be trying to rip them off for their oil. Moreover, we would abandon the neocon plans to use Iraq as a forward staging area for our military to use for force projection in the region.

Just as only Nixon could go to China (hey, I heard that in a Star Trek movie so it must be true), it may be that only a general can successfully wage the peace in Iraq. It's worth a shot and I don't doubt for a second that Clark would go if he thought it worth it.

It might actually be possible to forge the basis of a legitimate democratic government there, and get our troops out sometime before their kids forget what daddy and mommy look like.

A sensible, reasoned approach would also do a lot towards making it possible for our "allies" to lend a hand. Clearly, except for the embarrassingly supine Brits, most EU members are willing to wait and see who is in the WHite House before making any commitments to Iraq, and who can blame them? Clark is known to most of the ruling circles in Europe, which may be good or not, but at least makes it possible to talk with them on a level of shared experiences instead of preaching to them from on high.

It would certainly reassure a lot of nations to have someone in the WHite House who not only can read the papers, but does read the papers and has his own opinions and views, instead of having them spoonfed to him by ideologues.

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking with it.