Gen Clark's Promise on Iraq

(CBS) CBS News Reporter Bonney Kapp is traveling with the Clark campaign.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/07/politics/main582459.shtml
On the way to his fourth and final major policy speech, retired Gen. Wesley Clark and his entourage made use of an extra 15 minutes to pay a visit to the mother of a soldier who lost his life in Iraq this week. The press was not invited, but the general did mention the soldier, Darius Jennings, by name in his speech on Iraq Thursday, saying, "We are all grateful for his service and we should honor it today."
snip
The crowd of about 300 mostly African American students gave Clark a standing ovation upon his entrance and listened intently during his speech. While applause often seemed to originate from the same area of the auditorium, there were a few lines that got good responses, including when he mentioned feuds within the Bush administration. Clark made clear that his military background would come in handy, saying, "In a Clark administration, there won't be any question about whether the State Department drives policy, or the Pentagon drives policy, or the national security adviser drives policy. In a Clark administration, the president will drive the policy."
snip

The hit of the day occurred when Clark offered a guarantee that if elected president, "I'll make sure we never get in a mess like this again." More

...the mess we're already in, i.e. out of Iraq. Is he hewing to the repig line-- "we'll leave Iraq when we've installed a working, stable democracy"-- or does he yet have any better suggestions? I don't want to hear bluster and rhetoric-- I want to hear a PLAN!

how he'd get us out of Iraq.... it was just on CSPAN and reported widely on DU yesterday.

Jeebus :eyes:

Speech:
http://www.clark04.com/speeches/009/
Plan:
http://www.clark04.com/issues/nationalsecurity/
The plan that travels well:
http://www.clark04.com/issues/natsecpol.pdf

All found at: http://www.clark04.com/issues/

I can't wait to here what you think about the details.

And it won't cut it.

All Clark is doing is repeating the same neoliberal line anyone can find in The American Prospect or The New Republic: a) Make our allies support our invasions with troops, money and NATO; b) Go ahead with Iraqization. Even Paul Wolfowitz could live with that. So could most neocons - they'd merely balk at the part about trading compromises with the world on other issues. (The neoliberal vision of multilateralism: Fight our wars, and we'll pollute you less).

Nice ideas. Except that the world ain't having it.

What are the problems? A tacit, pro-war acceptance of the invasion. A fundamental misunderstanding of the UN's role in managing crises. A refusal to see that some allies don't feel compelled to save the US from its own blunders when vast majorities of their citizens correctly opposed the war. And an astonishing belief - entirely ahistorical - that Iraqis, if given Wes Clark's kinder, gentler blueprint for colonial occupation, will suddenly warm to western infidels teaching them democracy.

Perhaps the worst line in this war plan - for it is a plan for more, not less, war - is this: "Give the Iraqis a rising stake in our success." Yet how sentimental and patronizing that sounds, and how dishonest it is. The war is a grave failure of moral and practical imagination as well as of cultural and historical ignorance, built on a tower of lies. And here comes Wesley Clark, as women and children are being murdered, sounding like an Amway salesman.

Face facts, Clark supporters. The war was wrong because it is:

1) a violation of international norms that has imperilled our relationship with allies and neutral parties alike;
2) unnecessary for our security;
3) and a catalyst for more terror.

The occupation weakens America's long-term security and economic interests every hour it continues. Inevitably, it will end shamefully no matter who becomes the next US president, but it is within America's power to see that it ends less expensively and less evilly.

I don't know who this plan is supposed to impress - it certainly won't impress our allies or progressives here at home. They and we know that the UN is the proper authority for cleaning up this mess - the best trained, the most experienced. The US could leave by Christmas. That's what Wesley Clark should be calling for and would be calling for if he weren't implicitly part of the problem rather than the solution.

how about that one:

http://www.kucinich.us/statements.htm#100903

Some of Kucinich's points seem to coincide with what Dean says, particularly those with reference to the UN.

Maybe one of those Clark supporters out there can comment as to why Clark's non-exit plan is preferable?

If you read what Clark has to say, the UN is neither able or willing to take over as an overseer for Iraq.

How long to get out is the question, not if. It would depend on transfering the security for the inner parts of Iraq to their own police and security forces. That can only be done if the US is no longer seen as in charge, because otherwise any Iraqis working with us are dead. (A key element that can never, ever, happen under the regime) Also, the plan makes accomodations with Syria and Iran who currently have no desire for a peaceful Iraq. Getting someone in office who wants to take the target off of those two countries would speed that process. I heard him say in one townhall meeting that US troops would be stationed in the North and the South. That is good news. Given all fits all the components can be made to work, and if we started tomorrow, I would suggest the US troop levels would drop dramatically in a year.


There are other options. We could just leave and let the place turn into a burning shit hole for ten years.

Any other plans?

I'm really interested in what you think.

I bet someone is feeling a little silly right now. Way to jump all over a candidate, accusing him of having no plan, while a very viable plan sits right there on his website, waiting to be read.


Muhahahaha

on edit-- sorry, I hit the Post Message button by mistake-- I'm still working on this and will update in a few minutes.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, the link in the original post didn't give any real information. Thanks to all who have posted links to additional info.

Italicized passages are from WC's speech:

"we must be honest with the American people. That's something that President Bush hasn't done. There is no silver bullet - no magic solution in Iraq. There is no easy way out.

Every American should understand: early exit means retreat or defeat. There can be neither. We need a success strategy -for it is only success that can honor the sacrifice of so many American men and women; it is only success that will allow Iraq to stand on its own; and it is only success that will allow our soldiers to come home.

What does success mean?

Success means that Iraq is strong enough to sustain itself without substantial outside forces, but not so strong as to threaten its neighbors.

Success means that representative government has taken root, so that it can be a model for the future in the Middle East."

OK, this does not sound like a plan for disengagement to me-- it sounds like a paraphrase of the Bush* administrations' attempts to define an exit strategy that ultimately only prolongs our involvement and gives them and their cronies more time to rape and pillage. The only aspect of that "plan" that I partially agree with is that "we broke it, so we're responsible for fixing it." However, I don't think we can do so while we still have troops on the ground or administrative toadies running the show in Iraq. We should pay for it, but not run the show.

Back to WC:

"From the beginning, the Administration has insisted on exclusive control of the reconstruction and occupation of Iraq. This has cost us the support of other nations and made America a bigger target for terrorists. We must end this American monopoly. "

This is the best statement that WC has made about Iraq to date, IMO. I agree wholeheartedly. However, it stops short of saying that we must end the American occupation. I find that a bit troubling.

"Instead we must create a new international structure - the Iraqi Reconstruction and Democracy Council -- similar to the one we created in Bosnia with representatives from Europe, the United States, Iraq's neighbors, and other countries that will support our effort.

...We would still have a leading role - but you can't be a leader if no one comes along - you're not a leader if you're all alone."

Again, this sounds more like a plan for gaining legitimacy for continued occupation than a plan for disengagement.

"We must also transform the military operation - turning it into a NATO enterprise."

I disagree with this strongly, primarily because the U.S. still remains largely in control of NATO. NATO control of the Iraq occupation is a smokescreen to hide U.S. involvement behind a facade of compliant "multilateralism."

"First off, we want to distribute our resources properly. This requires US forces to run an agile, intelligence-driven counter-insurgency campaign, while Iraqi forces and our allies perform other necessary tasks. When it comes to our force levels, it's possible that some may need to be added initially to create the right mix of capabilities. You cannot measure success by a reduction in forces, and you can't declare failure by an increase in forces. It's better to do the job right so we can succeed and then bring our troops home."

Code speak for escalation. I think WC will get us in deeper. Where else have you heard talk about the need for effective "counter-insurgency forces" during the last half of the twentieth century? Will we NEVER learn the lessons of Vietnam?

"One mistake in Vietnam was trying to use conventional forces to fight an unconventional war. The more conventional forces we have in Iraq, the more logistics we need. The more unarmored humvees and trucks we have, the greater our vulnerability to roadside bombs. Most of our losses are being taken in routine patrolling and transit - not in active counter-insurgency efforts. The right mix of forces -- more special forces and other lighter units -- will reduce our "footprint," logistics tail and vulnerability, while increasing our ability to strike hard."

Sorry, I don't want us to "increase our ability to strike hard" in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter. Using the military as the primary instrument of American foreign policy is wrong, IMO.

"Today Iraq is a magnet for every jihadist in the Middle East who wants to take a free shot at an American soldier. We have to stop outside infiltration or intervention. Closing the borders will require real cooperation from the countries bordering Iraq."

More parroting of the BFEE line.

"Unfortunately, this administration has made the region wary of working with us. We must convince them otherwise to show them that cooperation with us is in their interest and will help their region, not with more wars but with more progress.

In both Bosnia and Afghanistan, we recognized that you cannot put a country back together if its neighbors are committed to tearing it apart. In both those cases, we engaged all of the neighbors, no matter how objectionable we found their policies or regimes, in our effort to stabilize those societies. We have yet to initiate such a regional dialogue with Iraq's neighbors."

I agree with this. But will the U.S. be able to meaningfully engage Iraq's neighbors if it continues it's policy of complete and unquestioning support for Israel and strong-arm tactics eleswhere in the ME? I don't think so.

"The French are wrong: we cannot transfer full authority to Iraqis before they are ready. But the administration is also wrong: we can give the Iraqis a much bigger sense of ownership over their country and move more quickly towards a government that answers to its people. Until Iraqis believe that they can control their future, they will huddle in fear and watch others attack - rather than stand with pride, expose the guerrillas and stop the violence."

The first line of this is a BFEE canard, plain and simple. Until we invaded and overthrew their government, the Iraqi's were quite capable of governing themselves. They remain so. It is a singular mark of U.S. arrogance to suggest that Iraqis have suddenly become children unable to handle their own affairs. Again, it's a smoke screen to obscure the real reason-- WE want to handle their affairs for as long as it is profitable to do so.

The last bit is essentially correct, but in the end replays the BFEE line that only a small proportion of the Iraqi people oppose our military occupation of their country, and that most of them huddle in fear-- not of their occupiers, but of the "lawless element" and a few "guerrillas."

"We should help the Iraqis move immediately to establish their own government, a government to replace the existing council. Because that council was chosen by Americans, it is not seen as legitimate in the eyes of too many Iraqis. But right now, there are 50 city and regional councils in Iraq - elected by the Iraqi people. Just as the State Legislatures used to elect members to our Senate in our own country, these councils should select new members of an interim government drawing from the existing governing council."

YES. I agree. This is the correct position, but I'd go further and say that the U.S. should NOT be a partner in this process.

"Finally, we should open the West to Iraq with exchange programs in multiple fields so that Iraqis who have been isolated for years can see the rest of the world -- what we are doing with our economy, schooling, health care, local media, how we run our government and take community action. Then they can return to their country to help guide the growth of the new Iraq."

I think this is a good idea in principle, but it's hard to see it working in practice-- we can't even get other countries to send armed troops to Iraq, let alone the kind of free exchange of citizenry that this plan presumes. Still, I think it is far better diplomacy than gunboat diplomacy.

OK, I've updated this now. Thanks for being patient. I still don't see much of a plan for getting us OUT of Iraq. Clark supporters don't seem to be able to distinguish between a disengagement plan and a plan for "winning the war." I don't think we should win this one-- I believe we should admit our mistake and find another international agency-- which we don't control-- to pick up th pieces in exchange for major mea culpas.

I watched most of Clarks speech on C-Span and completely agree with your critical assessment of his alleged "exit" strategy. What he did lay out was rather an advertisement of himself as the better abled executioner of the PNAC agenda, it seemed to me. He even mentioned his expertise and experience with "guerilla war" tactics as something that would recommend him for the job of a president!

It would be a perfect joke, of course, to see an actual general run against Bush. But without a serious and convincing commitment to get out of Iraq NOW, the last laugh will be with those who profit from this and other wars that might follow.

Another observation -- since most of Clark's charm seems to flow from the perception of his electability -- I think his performance as a public speaker is rather poor. He comes across as a bore, almost as sleepy as Lieberman. At least in this respect, Dean seems much more a "winning" candidate (and no, I'm not a Dean supporter - just watching this from outside - and having more sympathies for Kucinich and Sharpton).

Post a link puhleez

Dean makes a vague commitment to transfer civilian authority to a UN approved body and hopes a "democratic transition" will be achieved within 18-24 months, "although troops should expect to be in Iraq for a longer period" here. Whether troops should expect to stay one more year, or maybe 50 and more is anybody's guess.

I find no references whatsoever with respect to a time frame on the cited Clark web page. In addition, Clark proposes to engage MORE US troops, not less, and makes specific tactical proposals how to CONTINUE with the war in Iraq. The most worrying part from my point of view is that he intends to rewrite the NATO charter, presumably in order to make it easier to use NATO troops from other countries for up-coming and continuing imperial wars.

comprhensive and detailed to date. Do some homework, read the damn speech. You might actually be pleasantly surprised.

MzPip
:dem:

but I keep trying. I still think it's intellectually lazy to make negative proclamations about a candidate without doing your homework, but even the supposedly enlightened members of DU slip up on that one.

Oh well.

MzPip
:dem:

eom

eom

A very good article.

Clark's a class act, anyway you cut it.