Clark's logic for America not relinquishing political influence in Iraq:

General Clark: We do have to plan on leaving Iraq. How we leave is important. An exit that leaves behind violence, chaos, and civil war will be viewed as a clear American defeat. And, it will supercharge terrorists recruiting, increase problems for American diplomacy elsewhere in the region, and increase the danger closer to home. So, we have to do the best we can to help the Iraqis construct a state that can provide for its people, secure its borders, and rejoin the world community. I would guess that if we can do this, then we will have a supporting relationship to Iraq for a long time, whether or not there are troops on the ground.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/08/25/DI2005082501346.html

Clark's argument is that if America is seen to have lost in Iraq, it will encourage countries to stand up to America elsewhere, so we have to stay until there's no chance of chaos and violence when we do leave.

I'm curious whether DU'ers agree with this?

Can America win by remaining heavily involved in Iraq of does America lose either way? America will seem weak if it pulls out and leaves a mess. But if it succeeds, it will be seen as a threat to other countries because they will be afraid that America will see success in Iraq as a mandate to continue to invade and "fix" broken countries. No?

has to include transfering reconstruction contracts and oil to Iraqi companies, and allowing Iraq to nationalize the oil if they so desire.

Chaos will be less if there is not 65% unemployment in Iraq, and there is (I think, but I may be naive) a better chance of uniting everyone if they become responsible for rebuilding the infrastructure like they did after 1991.

As for returning the oil to the Iraqi people, dream on...

America also has to pay reparations to Iraq, withdraw the troops completely, and support the UN 100% in the creation of a non-invested, multinational peacekeeping force.

Chaos and violence are there already, and US presence and war profiteering makes it worse. America wins by being generous and true to its word: give the Iraqi people back what is theirs.
America wins by admitting that invading sovereign nations is illegal and should not happen anymore.

As you might guess, I'm not holding my breath...

"Success" at this point (ie., ending up with a better situation than we had before we invaded) is politically and mathematically impossible.

The rest of the world already sees that we lost in Iraq -- they are just wondering how long it will take us to realize it. The longer we persist in the illusion that we can just fix this and go on like we did before, the weaker we will ultimately be in the multipolar world that's already emerging.

So no, I don't agree with General Clark on this.

It's like picking a fight and then when the kid you picked on is giving you a rough time, stopping the fight and running away.

The kids that will figure that you were wrong and should just stop will think it was the right thing to do, and find solace in what is right finally winning out.

The kids that believe that you may have acted wrongly, but running is shameful will think it was the wrong thing to do, and lose what begrudging respect a bully can get.

The kids that think that passive resistance or teacher enforcement of the rules would have been appropriate will loathe the kid that fought back, and hate the teachers that didn't intervene.

Those that were hoping to do the bully some dirt will be encouraged.

Those that want to seek reassurance from having the little kid kick the big kid's ass will also receive reassurance. And might join up with the immediately preceeding group.

There are no simple answers in a multi-cultural world.

are grounded in quantifiable material considerations more than in psychology.

if the US "succeeds" and turns Iraq into a country that makes Wall St and Halliburton and Bechtel very rich, other interests (regardless whether it's a competing islamo-imperialism, or liberals interested in autonomy and self-determination) are going to be more freaked out and intent on stopping the steamroller of American empire through means ranging from violence to, say, switching to buying oil in Euros. That could be a more unfortuante consequence than displaying "weakness" that other countries might want to take advantage of.

I think Clark's prescription relies on an escalating threat of military or economic domination -- you have to scare other countries into not challenging you. I don't think that can go on forever.

I guess the schoolyard analogy is the bully that nobody challenges when he beats kids up at school. His domination appears to be success that scares everyone from challenging him. But, behind his back, they're all plotting to isolate him. They don't gang up and physically assault him, but they might not invite him to birthday parties, and girls don't date him. School becomes an isolating experience, and next thing you know, he drops out and has a bad job, etc.

See, you have to play with other countries not like you want to dominate them with your values about capitalism or whatever. You have to let them succeed on their own terms and let them follow their own paths, so long as their path doesn't involve destroying you. You can set examples, but you can't impose those examples on people through threat or through economic coerscioun.

If you aren't a bully nation or a manipulative nation, then everyone helps everyone else succeed and we're all better off.

Clark's prescription does not rely on an escalating threat of military or economic domination. No where has he said that. He has called for removing corporate America from the equation as the previous post has suggested. Diplomacy is manipulation but to be successful it must leave everyone feeling they were treated as fairly as possible.

The US is strong. It is not weak. We can go into a country, change it into something we think is appropriated, and that is that.

What is implied in that message? Don't go against us because we can do this.

It relies on other countries to be so awed by what America can do that they fall in line.

Quote him, fine. Link to his articles, fine. Your re-interpretations of what he said and what he "THINKS" are erroneous, misleading, and inflammatory.

Politicians say things. Citizens interpret their meaning.

You didn't ask others to "intepret his meaning." You could do that with a quote and a link. You "interpreted his meaning" in a flawed way, omitted key points and reading others in, and phrased it as a question. Clever, and wrong.

He understands leadership and recognizes the ability of the US to be a world leader. It is not "Don't go against us because we can do this", it is go with us because you can see you will be better off by doing it. Leadership is making you want to do something because you realize it is what you want for yourself.

Do you agree with that sentiment?

"Don't go against us because we can do this" Sorry, don't see that.

Not pulling out and whatever success actually happens will also be viewed through cultural prisms.

And, to be sure, there are many, many more ways of dealing with a bully. But there's only limited space on the DU server.

If you aren't a bully, and without an image projecting sufficient power, but with wealth and resources, that creates a different set of problems. But problems, nonetheless.

The trick is to find a way of working things out so that the problems are easily dealt with, the threats minimized.

But very few people are worried about this: everybody has the same cultural perspectives I do, so if what I want happens, everybody will, of course, be happy as clams. One big happy multicultural, diverse paradise with everybody sharing the same views and attitudes.

This guy knows what he's talking about. How I wish he was in the White House right now!

I'm really disarmed by that argument.

What more is there to add to his statement?

"whatever he says, sigh"

"He said less, or he said more, or he didn't mean what he said, or what he really meant was something else..."

If Wes is to be criticized, I'd rather have it be for what he said in his own words than what a detractor says he said. If he is to be praised, it should be for his own words and ideas, too. Here are some Q & A's that might actually answer some of you questions, and at least they are in Wes's own words:

Columbus, Ohio: Hello, General Clark. I served under you when you were the 3rd Brigade commander at Fort Carson and I was in the 1/8 Inf. What I would like to know is how we can possibly succeed in stopping the tide of Islamic terrorism and radical Islamic movements to subjugate the West and liberal democracies without waging offensive warfare against Islamic states and non-state entities that sponsor or perpetrate terrorism against the US and the West in general? We have to take the long view, just as our enemies do and continue to be willing to dissuade them from believing that we will quit and go home just as we did in Vietnam.

General Clark: Hi, thanks for your note and your service. I think we have to be very careful in how we think about who we are opposed to. Many of the Islamic states in the region are struggling against terrorists themselves. And while we may need to use force to arrest or take out any terrorist who is actually planning an attack against us. Our first principle should be to win people to our point of view if possible. This means winning an ideological struggle against militant Islamists. We do this by encouraging moderate Islam. By respecting human rights, by treating others with dignity even if they don't share our religious convictions, democratic heritage, or geo-strategic outlook. Force has to be used as a last resort only.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/08/25/DI2005082501346.html

Belmont, Ca.: General Clark, I agree with most everything in your-op-ed, except the part about flat out disbanding private militias. I agree the militias have to be tamed in some way, but couldn't trying to completely eliminate the militias stir up a real hornet's nest?

General Clark: Almost everything we stand for in Iraq will ultimately be controversial. The fighting associated with the efforts to craft the constitution demonstrate the strong feelings there. But the definition of a state is that it has the monopoly on the use of force within its borders. So long as there are private militias armed and trained in Iraq, there will be threats to the security and stability of the country. Of course, disbanding these militias can't be done without a lot of preparatory work. But, it can be done.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/08/25/DI2005082501346.html

Washington, D.C.: It's hard for me to envision anytime when even a small US troop presence in Iraq could be anything but a magnet for terrorism and destabilization of the Iraqi government. How can we ever get to the point, as in Korea or the Balkans, where a US troop presence is a force for stability and progress, not the other way around?

General Clark: Great question, and that's why I believe we should say we don't want permanent bases in Iraq. But, if the Iraqi government really gains legitimacy and if we provide the leadership in generating regional cooperation, then I suppose we could be asked to stay, and we would seriously have to consider this. For now, that seems a long time away.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/08/25/DI2005082501346.html

Falls Church, Va.: General Clark, I feel that we actually had more going for us in the way of local support in Vietnam than we do in Iraq, so I am not optimistic about a successful outcome from the current occupation. My question is about the fear of the consequences of withdrawal. Is it possible that we might actually be safer by getting out now and cutting what fuels much of the hatred of potential terrorists?

General Clark: We do have to plan on leaving Iraq. How we leave is important. An exit that leaves behind violence, chaos, and civil war will be viewed as a clear American defeat. And, it will supercharge terrorists recruiting, increase problems for American diplomacy elsewhere in the region, and increase the danger closer to home. So, we have to do the best we can to help the Iraqis construct a state that can provide for its people, secure its borders, and rejoin the world community. I would guess that if we can do this, then we will have a supporting relationship to Iraq for a long time, whether or not there are troops on the ground.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/08/25/DI2005082501346.html

Houston, Tex..: How would you respond to Cindy Sheehan and the other family members who believe their children have been sacrificed for a lie?

General Clark: I have the deepest sympathy and empathy with Cindy Sheehan. My son served in the Armed Forces and I worried about him every day. And, I carried a burden of guilt about his service, as I am sure most mothers and fathers do. Because, after all, we either encourage them, supported them, or sustained them in making this commitment to their country. My prayers and condolences are with every family who has lost a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan, or seen him or her come home forever scarred or crippled. And I thank them for their loved ones' service and for their sacrifice. And I understand the depth of their feelings I believe, because every American trusts our leaders to use our men and women in combat only, only, only as a last resort. And in Iraq, this wasn't the case. And we will probably never learn the full array of motives that lead our nation's leaders to take us to this war. I warned at the time that it was "elective"--we didn't have to do it. There wasn't an eminent threat. So why did we? Cindy Sheehan, every mother and father of our service members, and every American has a right to know. It was a strategic blunder to go there. Now America sees it in hindsight. But those in power have responsibilities to do the right thing, and when they don't they should be held accountable. Cindy is doing everything she can to hold them accountable. President Bush should talk to her and tell her the truth.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/08/25/DI2005082501346.html

Atlanta, Ga.: General Clark, I am a huge admirer of your career and your intelligent thinking about conflict. However, you just indicated that the president should be willing to put as many civilian and military personnel into Iraq as it takes, and that we shouldn't do it "on the cheap." The conflict in Iraq is already being compared to Vietnam, so without learning from that war's lessons on dumping more and more troops into a situation, what is to prevent it from spiraling even more out of control?

General Clark: As I tried to say in this morning's op-ed, we have got to have a winning strategy. We didn't have one in Vietnam. Neither Johnson nor Nixon were willing to face the implications of Soviet and Chinese support for North Vietnam. And today in Iraq, we don't have a winning strategy for the same reasons: that the Administration won't deal with the regional context of the conflict. Or put in the necessary resources.

Thanks to all of you that asked questions and I am sorry I could not get to all of them. But this dialogue is really important. Our policies are at a turning point in Iraq. And, if we can't construct a strategy for success, then we are going to have to lower our sights even further and that won't be pleasant. Our country needs the understanding of our electorate and the guidance you can give to our elected officials in this time of peril for America.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/08/25/DI2005082501346.html

It is what he said. I'm asking people whether they agree.

And your statement adds and subtracts to distort what he actually said.

The neo-con policy is a failed policy.

What they have done will cause problems for America for years to come whatever we do now.

"Cutting our losses," (and that includes Iraqi as well as American loses) isn't as simple as leaving tomorrow. The web is too tangled.

There are no easy answers to making the best of the perilous situation we and the Iraqis are in together. And like it or not, we are in it together. We have to deal with the political reality today, not the reality as we would like it before we became so periously entwined in the future of Iraq and indeed the entire region.

Yeah, I believe you. Really I do.:eyes:

Here I was thinking I was the only one that got that vibe! Great minds.... :hug:

TC

and asked people what they think.

Just leave the quote, and ask what people think.

I am interested in other people's honest opinions.

Had I done that, eventually, I would have given my opinon, however.

Not to misleading people about somebody else's opinion.

I'm fixated on the implications of American Empire, virtual or otherwise.

The quote is fine; your interpretation of it is absurd.

He did not say "we just have to stay there."
He did not say anything about "no CHANCE of chaos and violence."
He did not say we should just "remain heavily involved in Iraq."
And his point about Iran and Syria seeing success in Iraq as a threat to them was in relation to BUSHCO's threats to them! He was not advocating that as a policy -- quite the contrary.
He did NOT say anything about a need to "fix broken countries."

How about just linking to Clark's article with a quote or comment or question without all the omissions and editorial additions to what he said?!?

He says leaving Iraq in chaos will signal defeat, which will lead to three things. Those things are, generally speaking, other countries won't take us seriously and will try to harm our interests in the belief that we don't have the power to retaliate.

I'm curious what other people think of that. I'm curious whether they agree. It seems like some people don't agree.

I also volunteer my opinion: "Succeeding" will harm our intersts just as much as defeat. It will freak other countries out if America invading another country works out well. Other countries will think that we'll consider it carte blanche to do it again.

The nature of imperialism is that it just doesn't work. All empires come to a messy end because they are inherently unjust. The problems with what we did in Iraq can't be undone by staying and making a success of it. The best we can do is let another coalitiion of nations take responsiblity for a transition to autonomy, and make sure that we have no say in that process and that no single country or group of countries has control other than to provide Iraq the room to rule itself.

Vietnam was never going to work out well. There was no winning strategy in Vietnam. Even Panama is going to get back on the trajectory it was on before Torrijo's murder and then Noriega's arrest. The US dominating the process in Iraq is not going work either.

That's just my opinon.

He is "saying" more than what you paraphrase, and he's NOT "saying" things you say he is. Volunteer your opinion on a direct quote -- fine. Quote him with editorial misleading commentary in the form of a question -- wrong.

Would you do that in your Clark threads? Would you quote something without saying what you you think of it?

I doubt it.

You only want to handicap the criticisms.

Disagreement is fine. Misleading is NOT.

In "MY Clark threads" :eyes: I see no problem stating an opinion on what somebody said or wrote. But there's a difference between that and MISstating what somebody said or wrote. ("What he thinks is," "What he means is," "His logic is," "In other words," "He sees this as," etc...)

Even if my interpretation were intentionally and maliciously off-base, Clark's own words are right there for anyone to read and contrast unfavorably to my spin.

If I wanted to misrepresent, I certainly wouldn't provide Clark's full quote.

Again:
He did not say "we just have to stay there."
He did not say anything about "no CHANCE of chaos and violence."
He did not say we should just "remain heavily involved in Iraq."
He did NOT say anything about a need to "fix broken countries."
And his point about Iran and Syria seeing success in Iraq as a threat to them was in relation to BUSHCO's threats to them! He was not advocating that as a policy -- quite the contrary.

Removing all that, do you still have a question? Is it "Do you agree with General Clark?"

I actually don't think you need my interpretation to understand the quote. I think it's pretty clear what he is saying.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I have just read his Op-Ed too.

I have to agree with others who suggest that you simply present Wes's words, since your interpretation is not even close to what he said.

From your summary, "...we have to stay until there's no chance of chaos and violence when we do leave..."

Excerpts in Wes Clark's words from the Op-Ed:

"...From the outset of the U.S. post-invasion efforts, we needed a three-pronged strategy: diplomatic, political and military. Iraq sits geographically on the fault line between Shiite and Sunni Islam; for the mission to succeed we will have to be the catalyst for regional cooperation, not regional conflict...

With each passing month the difficulties are compounded and the chances for a successful outcome are reduced. Urgent modification of the strategy is required before it is too late to do anything other than simply withdraw our forces..."

What do you think about the idea that we have to appear strong and successful so that other countries don't think they can ignore or try to undermine our authority?

Do you think that's what will happen if the US returns Iraq to the community of nations?

"ignore or try to undermine our authority?"

I think Clark is saying that if certain countries see us as weak, we will not have bargaining strength with them. We'll have to give more than want to give and get less than we want to get in our diplomatic efforts. That's the "ignore our authority" part.

In the next sentence he says they migth threaten us with violence. That was the "undermine our authority" part.

How does walking away and leaving a vacuum in which civil war and invasion by neighboring countries equate with returning Iraq to the community of nations? His point is that we should leave Iraq secure within its borders. He has said that all along.

it was the "you break it, you buy it" rule.

Sadly, it is difficult for me to imagine Bushco taking the necessary steps to fix it, thus leading to ongoing conflict and less and less support at home for the Iraq war.

And ultimate withdrawal, having robbed the place, broken the place, mugged the place...and as always with Bushco having taken zilch responsibility for their actions.

And the perverse logic of that is that if you go around breaking every country in the world, you end up owning the world.

That mantra doesn't describe a burden America must bear. It describes a strategy for world domination.

accurately.

"Other countries" aren't the major concern. Terrorism isn't a country, we're not talking countries.

"appear strong and successful" He doesn't say that either

"Other countries don't think they can ignore or try to undermine our authority." He doesn't say that.

I won't comment on what you say he says, since again your interpretation is very loose.

moral obligation to put that country back together, however,I would think that the sooner we leave the better. I don't understand his thinking pertaining to if we leave them in a mess, it will assist them in their recruiting efforts. I would think, if we aren't there, they would lose a valuable recruiting tool.

The jihadists will gain great credibility in the Arab world. We are actually dealing with two groups, the nationalist insurgents, who just want us out of their country, and the jihadists, who want us out of their world.

You beat them bare-knuckle. They get brass-knuckles. Then you get a knife. They get a pistol. You get a rifle. They get an uzi. You get a tank. They get a bomb.

Or, as Sean Connery's character says in The Untouchables (IIRC): "He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way."

When your authority is based on unequal bargaining powers and force, you just encourage an arms race.

Furthermore, they're not going to care if we win or lose. They're going to care if we keep trying to extend empire. And we'll have two sets of enemies: we'll have legitimate, liberal, non-violent people who will be the Iraqi equivalent of MLK and Gandhi, and we will have the fascists who want concentrated power in their own hands. Will be fighting on two fronts, and we won't have the moral uper-hand in one of the two cases.

America isn't trying to create FDR's visision of democray in Iraq (which you could never achieve through imperialism). We're trying to create the Ayn Rand version of society -- one that is going to be unfair to anyone who isn't at the very top. We're deluded if we think that isn't going to result in problems.

opinions are based on.

In a hearing not too long ago in which he and Richard Perle testified, members of Congress pointed out that one of the 2 had accurately predicted what would happen with regard to the Iraq war, and it weren't Perle.

General Clark has a track record of being able to size up a situation and comment and predict, and usually be pretty much on target.

Of course one has to first try to understand what he is saying rather than putting words in his mouth and imperialism in his heart. Only then can you see what he is really saying.

abstract notion of character, especially when I don't know the guy personally at all.

Clark may have experience and character, but he's also written two very long books which express the exact same opinions that he reveals in this quote and which I think are not going to work.

that you read his words, and in your mind transform them into something that fit into some context you are comfortable with, but which have little relationship to the context in which he is writing, speaking.

Thus the ideas are lost somewhere between the printed page and your interpretation, IMHO.

are thinking critically and honestly about what he is saying.

I think Clark couldn't be more clear in his books and his statements, and often it surprises me how the characterization of him at DU doesn't match what he actually says.

I think the quote above is a good example.

For what reason would so many of us be deluded in the same way, according to you?

I think if we leave at this point, it would be a defeat. I also don't know if we can do anything to avoid the problems he wants to avoid. Clark might be able to do it. Bush cannot and doesn't care to.

But the MSM isn't calling on Bush to do anything. They are calling on the Dems to offer an alternative. The points Clark makes is that it is not an alternative because you can't have an alternative to nothing, and here is a solution that is limited due to the rapidly deteriorating situation which has developed because there is no plan.

quite frankly i believe we already lost. best to cut our losses and go, IMHO.

Come home and sit in our bunkers and wait out the world. That's a plan.

there was more money for them in the US if Europe were in shambles (and in the case of WW2, if there were fascists who would destroy labor unions in control of Europe).

Isolationists of that kind and imperialists have one thing in common: they want to make the corporatocracy wealthy.

That was the strategy of post-colonialism. Leave countries with divided societies (on racial or religious lines) and the exiting colonial power could still dominate the country from their European capitals, without a single troop in the country.

The only thing we can do is make sure that Iraq is democratic country run by and for Iraqis without any taint of American will being imposed on the country.

I think the only way to do that is with a broad coalition of countries involved in a transition with no single country or region in control of the transition. I think the UN is the body that should do that.

I also think that that would be a great precendent. Who in the future will invade a country if they knew that the UN were going to be the organization that took over after the invasion? Only countries that have very humanitarian reasons for invading.

The US invaded Panama not to take out Noriega, but to take control of the Canal. What if precedent required that the UN took over the canal zone after the invasion with the goal of transferring the canal back to Panama's control? The US wouldn't have invaded Panama.

and there are no 'visible' Americans to attack?,

but shrub keeps 10,000 US in Iraq as sorta
a 'palace guard'.

what would Clark suggest?