NYTimes Op/Ed - Wes Clark challenges us to "change the course"

Wes Clark is proposing a real plan for success, and even as a Democrat, Clark argues that it must be a bipartisan offensive that directly challenges the politicking of war under the Bush Plan that only leads us to disaster.

Clark's plan may not be popular for many here who are "against the war" and believe that a pull out now is the only option. However, Clark challenges us and our leaders to do what's best for the country and challenge the incompetencies of this President, by doing what's best for our national seurity interests. He's challenging us to critically address our own perspectives on Iraq, to consider the whole picture relative to regional security and its geopolitical consequences. This is a different "offensive" that doesn't rely on slogans. The offiensive is not necessarily reliant on the belief that American military might is right, but on a plan that relies on our values that "doing it right" is our might.

He fought so strenuously against Bush's policies in Iraq because he did not want the U.S., and that region, to end up in this position, Clark has been warning since 2002 about the destabalizing effects that would be set in play if the United States entered the region militarily, especially without strong international support. I'm sure Clark would rather advise that we use a time machine to undo prior policies instead, if one were available.

Clark talks about pulling some troops out, and changing how others are used, with many being held back in reserve. It seems Clark thinks the insurgents have some valid concerns regarding Iranian influence with the Shiites, which have to be addressed to prevent Iraq from flying apart.

Gen Clark...does not want this to happen to our troops or Iraqi people! Posted on www.securingamerica.com


Sept 2005

".... And I want you to picture what would happen if we announced we're coming out. Now just imagine it, OK. The president, right after Labor Day, you know they always say never announce anything new before Labor Day, the president comes on national TV and says, "I've heard your thoughts, my fellow countrymen, we've lost 2,000 American's, spent 200 billion dollars and we're coming out. We're coming home."

Well the men and women in the armed forces can do it. It will be a fighting withdrawal because the insurgents will be on the heels of the American columns as they come out. I can picture our men and women in those humvees and the dump trucks. You can see them taking fire and asking, "Should I shoot back, if I shoot back who's in that building?" I can see a long and bloody retreat. It will take several weeks to get out of there, four or five weeks. Or if you stage it, it will be bloodier and more difficult for longer. The insurgents will claim they won. But that claim will be disputed by Al Qaeda. They'll say that they drove us out.

And the people who helped us in Iraq will be targeted. They already are targeted but they've got some assistance and support. That will go away quickly. These people will be running for their lives. 200, 300, 500, 800,000, a million. Everybody who ever talked to an American. We don't know where the boundary will be. But it won't be pretty.


And when it's said that we are coming out, the political process that we've put in place will start to come apart, naturally. People are already preparing. There's plenty of private militias there. They've got scores to settle, territory to gain, cleansing to do, resources to capture and I'm sure the Kurds will decide, you know they aren't Arabs anyway, they'll go their own way. So I would expect a pretty rapid recourse not only to civil war but regional conflict, if we were to pull out and say 'we're coming home.' Now, that's my scenario. It reduces American prestige, influence and power all around the world.



Q: These things have happened already, sir.

General Clark: Well, not to the extent I think I've sketched it out. So what I'd say is, that there is a middle ground or a better ground, than staying the course or announcing a withdrawal. We need to change that course and use America's leadership and power not only militarily but diplomatically and politically in the region to become a focus for regional cooperation. It is not yet too late."

The current strategy of clearing areas near Syria of insurgents and then posting Iraqi troops, backed up by mobile American units, has had success. But it needs to be expanded, especially in the heavily Shiite regions in the southeast, where there has been continuing cross-border traffic from Iran and where the loyalties of the Iraqi troops will be especially tested.

With what? - Wal-Mart workers?
What part of Murtha's speech didn't these people get.
Our military is in crisis.

I am not a military man but obviously Clark is. He sketeched out some differing priorities for uses of U.S. forces in that piece, and I know him well enough to know that he must have thought that part through with more detail than an Op-Ed piece allows. Clark does call for retaining 130,000 troops in Iraq, though it seems some would be in a quick response reserve, rather than assigned front line duty on a continuing basis.

Do you know if he addressed that?

Murtha was pretty clear on the crisis of a standing military without adequate body armor, vehicles and equipment.

What a clusterfuck this Oil War has become!

He knew where the pork was. Have you looked at a map of the Persian Gulf? I vaguely remembered how it was situated but I looked it up again. Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are very close neighbors. I think Clark believes the problems in the region will overall end up being less costly to deal with if we face up to them now rather than wait until they spiral further out of control later.

Here is a map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2293220

The good news is that reporters working for the mainstream media have caught on -- in part. They understand that Randy "Duke" Cunningham is hardly the only Republican politician to receive economic "assistance" from Brent Wilkes, head of the Poway-based "defense" firm ADCS -- a.k.a. the Wilkes Corporation, a.k.a. Group W Advisors, a.k.a. lots of other names.

But they still treat this company as though it were something real. Not a single mainstream reporter has scrutinized those web sites and reported on the obvious signs of fakery.

No reporters -- and, for that matter, no procurement officers at the Pentagon -- bothered to do any checking at the patent office. If they had, they would have found that there are no patents covering the "proprietary" designs and innovative equipment advertised by the many ADCS subsidiary firms.

The truth: Wilkes was a mechanism by which public funds earmarked for national defense were funneled to G.O.P. candidates and causes.

the built in systematic Pentagon variety that pushes the Pentagon in the direction of the 'Defense Contractors' (like those that had such an 'influence' on Duke Cunningham)and those less blatant but every bit as much costly.

IMHO Wes know the score from top to bottom on spending, PLUS this guy has front line command experience. IF he's not our candidate in the next Presidential, nobody could possibly be better as Sec of Def.

Incompetent is describing his abilities with generousity.

Rumsfeld must be held accountable for the military failures in Iraq. He refused to implement the advise of our best military experts. In truth, he actively sought to impede it under a policy of cronism by focussing on the security interests for those in the oil and defense industries.

Clark states, this is not a reason to pullout until the job is done:

"Yes, our military forces are dangerously overstretched. Recruiting and retention are suffering; among retired officers, there is deep concern that the Bush administration's attitude on the treatment of detainees has jeopardized not only the safety of our troops but the moral purpose of our effort.

Still, none of this necessitates a pullout until the job is done. After the elections, we should be able to draw down by 30,000 troops from the 160,000 now there. Don't bet against our troops"

Doesn't surprise me the least.

That's politicians for ya'.

Edit: This is the most detailed, thoughtful, comprehensive strategic plan for dealing with the Iraq situation today that I have seen put forward by anyone. It is clear that Clark isn't in this for himself: he's criticizing both Democratic and Republican approaches. He's seeking a bipartisan effort that will keep Iran, now ruled by a fanatic seeking nuclear weapons, from threatening the security of the region and the world.

Bush has done more to endanger the national security interests of the U.S. and the world than any president in American history. We can only hope that the politicians seek what is best for the country, not next week's poll numbers.

at least implicitly say their plan is the right one. You say:
"It is clear that Clark isn't in this for himself: he's criticizing both Democratic and Republican approaches. "

What of Murtha, the same thing could be said.
What of Kerry, the same thing could be said
What of Biden, the same thing could be said
What of McCain - he criticises Bush and the Democrats

Each of these people have offered plans - because they thought they had something to offer. Clark's motives are exactly the same. All of them have put their ideas out into the marketplace of ideas. Only Bush can directly change policy by implamenting any of these ideas.

You may not agree with them, but both Kerry and McCain have equally detailed strategic plans. Each of these people have come at the problem in different ways and in the best of all world the Democrats who are moving in somewhat the same direction would create a plan with the better elements of each.

...but it's hard for anyone to argue that the Supreme Allied Commander--whose "insights into the nature of alliance warfare deserve wide readership on both sides of the Atlantic," according to John McCain--isn't the guy who most knows what he's talking about...and also already has the relationships with said allies to back it up.

....and Dems didn't make him the nominee because ...?

he entered very late, made several faux pas possibly because he never ran for anything before.

He spent a huge amount of time in NH but didn't do all that well there.

Will he be better in 2008 - we'll see.

obviously the points you mention were part of the problem. I'm just saying that they shouldn't have been and wouldn't have been if people actually just did their homework and/or used some common sense.

seems to have marginalized him. I'm so glad he's taking both Bushco AND the Democrats to task.
They are not addressing the wider issues at all...it is truly pathetic to see them all out there tossing off comments without helping the country understand what is going on with Iran and Iraq....PATHETIC

but my short story on what a mistake it was not to run him is about to get published. And, as Marty McFly said: "History is gonna change." :)

...leave me your email and I'll be happy to forward it to you.

...right?

they plan another reactor, to be built in the tense southern province where Arabs have been getting antsy, thinking the gov. wants to disperse them so as to minimize their strength there.
And what is in that province?? Iran's largest oil reserves....

You bomb there, you bomb the oil...

2//The Turkish Daily News, Turkey Tuesday, December 6, 2005

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=30031



IRAN PLANS ATOMIC REACTOR IN RESTIVE OIL STATE
Khuzestan is home to the biggest oilfields of the world's fourth biggest crude producer. The province is also home to most of Iran's Arab minority.

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's Cabinet on Sunday decided to build a new nuclear power station in the restive southwestern oil province of Khuzestan, state television said.



Washington accuses Tehran of seeking to produce nuclear fuel for use in warheads whereas Tehran insists its atomic scientists are only striving to meet booming domestic demand for electricity.



"The Cabinet in its meeting this afternoon agreed to construct an atomic power station in Khuzestan using local technology," a state television report said.


(SNIP)



Khuzestan is home to the biggest oilfields of the world's fourth biggest crude producer. The province is also home to most of Iran's Arab minority who complain of discrimination from non-Arab Iranians.



Iran's Arab south has simmered with ethnic unrest since April, when five people died in anti-government protests.



These were sparked by rumors that the government was considering re-locating more non-Arabs to Khuzestan to water down Arab influence there.

MORE

in the long run isn't either of the 2 basic tactics of stay the course or pull out fast.

Wes Clark has a way of sizing up a situation and accurately predicting what comes next.

I say this not to praise General Clark, but because I believe it.

Believing it to be so and witnessing the tenacity with which he continues to argue for what he believes is the better strategy, I can't help but think that a time will come when we might all wish we had listened and taken his suggestions.

That is, if we don't listen and heed his words now.

1. More effective use of the military than is currently with the understanding that 30 troops can come home soon after the 12/15 elections. He seems to be very specific. I wonder how many US flag officers he got an opportunity to talk to while he was in Quatar? While I have all the respect in the world for Murtha for his courage in speaking up, I'm not sure his information is better than what he's been told directly. Clark has always had the uncanny ability to take information offered by tacticians, synthesize it and see beyond "today's problems" to connect all the dots, military, political and diplomatic.

2. Recognition of and identifying Iraqi political goals -- good and bad. Clark's always been a realist (how could he not be). The motives of some (ala Chalabi) are not pristine. Each faction's needs and wants is going to have to be calculated in the balance of power. Currently and (for many of us, Clark included) the US is the referee. If there is not a stable political balance in place (or at least proceeding in development) by the time we call the end of the game, a lot of people are going to die. I'm not talking about 10,000 or even 100,000. It's possible for one faction (perhaps the Shia at the urging of Iran) to institute a pogram against the Sunnis. The Kurds split off to begin building their dream state, Turkey declares war. Turkey is a NATO ally... will Bush choose to stay out of it? Without a real political solution that includes all sides, the potential civil war in Iraq turns into murder in the streets, a real civil war, then regional war. These private militias in the south are not 'personal security forces' for day-to-day security. They are war camps and military forces not loyal to the Iraq "government', but rather loyal to their factional/tribal heads.

3. Diplomacy involving nation states in the region, most particularly Syria and Iran. With the weakening of the Syrian government, Iran remains the biggest threat to the region. By doing a little research, there's a distinct uneasiness about Iran from all of the countries around Iraq. It doesn't have to be. The Bush administration has so turned up the rhetorical heat on Iran that Iran's (somewhat understandable) reaction is to say virtually, "bring it on".

Iran is the biggest baddest wildcard in the area. Clark is right to (I can hear it in his voice) DEMAND that the Bush admin sit down and talk to them in an honest way (yah, yeah, I know..... it's impossible for Bush to be honest about anything). That doesn't keep him from trying to convince them.

If it wasn't such a serious matter, you could liken this whole situation to the 'smartest kid in the class' (Clark) trying to school the slowest kid in the class (guess who). After all the frustration I know that he must feel that Bush is too lazy/stupid/mindless/uncaring/feckless to learn, Clark's now resorting to giving Bush the answers to the test. Question 1, the answer is A. Question 2, the answer is C.

No matter the personal cost, Wesley Clark is going to speak the truth. No matter how hard it may be to hear. After all is said and done, I'd rather hear the hard truth than platitudes that promote the 'easy answer'.

Isn't taking the easy answer for truth what got us into this mess in the first place?

As usual, from Gen. Clark.

I opposed this war with all my heart, because I knew the Bush Cabal knew nothing, nada, zilch, about what it would take for the long haul.

Before the war, I listened to the military, retired mostly, who thought the notion of going into Itaq would produce the exact situation we are now in.

But the politicians, enjoying the sound of their own voices, talked & talked, & talked, & in the end put their fingers in the wind, & said the polls look good for this war.

Now the pols put their fingers in the wind & say, we must withdraw...the polls don't look good.

Wes Clark is a leader, not a poll taker. It was a disaster to start this war, & it will be a disaster if we pull out, without trying to stabilize the area.

Pretty clear what is shows....

... the ship wouldn't have sunk. Right?

There's really no 'new strategy' presented here. These suggestions represent minor and predictable modifications in a program which is still fundamentally delusional and hopeless. There's nothing here which the Bush administration would reject outright as an adjustment of their present strategy.

What Clark is basically proposing here is to strengthen the military presence at the borders, go after Sunni strongholds, and win over some of the insurgents with offers of amnesty. Lots of luck. If they've made a life-or-death commitment to opposing a foreign occupier, one which has shown utter disregard for the lives of Iraqis in the course of trying to secure its rule, and which is clearly faltering and losing its grip now, why would they turn around and become collaborators? As Gen. William Odom has said, the issue is NOT one of training collaborationist Iraqi forces, it's one of gaining their allegiance, and there's no reason for any faction in this conflict to have allegiance to the US, except as a temporary tactical measure.

Clark does make one reference here which deals with a a key issue of the occupation which the US media and many US politicians want to keep behind the curtain: the control of the oil resources. He says that "oil revenues should be declared the property of the central government, not the provinces." That's because, in an underreported development last week or the week before, the Kurds made an exploration deal with a western oil company without consulting the 'federal government' in Baghdad. The real question is what real power that 'federal government' has to enforce their authority (Hey, I know! How about deployments of US troops?...)

The bottom line: the US is a foreign occupying power which does not have the support of the Iraq people in general, and it never will. We invaded Iraq on a pretext of lies, which masked an imperialist goal of conquest. The longer we pretend that we can 'turn around' this situation and achieve corrupt goals through supposed 'good intentions,' the more Iraqis and US service members will die.

The Iraq mission is a hopeless failure. We have to deal with that failure and repair the damage to the extent that we can, NOT try to make the failure a success. Right now, we need brave, honest politicians in this country who'll speak the truth against a drumbeat of dangerous lies. Gen. Clark apparently doesn't qualify for that job.

Your last two paragraphs totally summed it up for me.
:yourock:

I have found that when people say they want honesty and truth from their political figures, what that most times mean is that they want someone who will tell them what they want to hear....Unfortunately, there is no shortage of politicians more than willing to do so.

Perhaps that is why Mario Cuomo had this to say of Wes Clark:
"Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn."

faith in individuals.

Gov. Cuomo's comments on Gen. Clark's impeccable honesty aside, the fact remains that the general's stated position on Iraq is fundamentally similar to that of the present administration, and is based in assumptions which we have good reason to regard as dubious.

Testimonials about a given person's integrity can't serve to dismiss a reasonable consideration of facts at issue. Looking at the unfolding catastrophe in Iraq, and then at Gen. Clark's suggestions, I don't believe that he's being realistic or straightforward. As with several other prominent politicians of both parties, his position appears to be shaped by political rather than military considerations. Coming from Gen. Clark, this is really disappointing.

IMO, there currently IS a shortage of politicians who are willing to speak plainly about the realistic prospects of the Iraq mission, in a political milieu in which any admission that its propagated goals might be unachievable is smeared as cowardly 'cutting and running.' Judging the situation as cold-bloodedly as I can, I believe that Rep. Jack Murtha and Sen. Russ Feingold are being far more responsible than Gen. Clark and a lot of other prominent politicians.

I think any proposals involving further efforts in Iraq are viewed as "fundamentally similar to that of the present administration," and are politically unpopular. It's far more politically advantageous to say what people would like to hear.

General Clark raises detailed points about political strategy as well as military deployment. But all these nuances are lost in the black/white, stay/go dichotomy. I think ALL leaders, including Murtha, are being "responsible" as long as they are speaking the truth of what they believe. And General Clark's view of the various hard facts involved is far, far from a politically expedient stance.

that would be the preponderant stand taken among prominent US politicians. It's not, at all. Though the American public is rightly skeptical about continuing the Iraq mission, powerful special interests demand that it continue. Those interests rule money-driven politics, not the voters, whose views can usually be manipulated enough through mass media propaganda to suit what powerful interests want. So, most politicians support continuing the war, and try to finesse that support before the American public. The propaganda game, however, may be nearing a breakdown point in this case.

It's one thing to claim that a stance is "nuanced" and another to spell out what those nuances amount to and why they matter. My reading of Gen. Clark's set of proposals is that there's nothing really new or innovative in them, and that they avoid facing the grim realities of the situation -- and in that respect, are deeply irresponsible.

For instance, in his op-ed piece, Clark advocates making a priority out of guarding the border area with Iran, out of concern over a militant Shiite insurgency becoming even stronger. But the population of Iraq itself is 60% Shiite, and the political culture which has emerged from that strata already resembles the fundamentalist Muslim milieu which exists in Iran. Closing the borders won't scuttle that -- the real problem comes from within Iraq. Also, he calls for the Iraqi Parliament to make changes in their Constitution which would undermine sectarian power interests, especially regarding control of the oil. Why would the various sides agree to do that? In order to create a nice 'unified' Iraqi government whose reason for existence is to serve US interests? They're virtually in a civil war now, with worse looming ahead. The sides all distrust each other, and with good reason. They aren't going to sacrifice their authority.

As long as this posturing by key US politicians goes on, as long as they fail to face basic realities, people will be dying like flies in this war, both Iraqis and Americans, and US national security will continue to be gravely endangered. We know, we've been told by every research project and agency which analyses threats, that the prospect of major terrorist attacks on this country, comparable to 9/11 or worse, not only still exists but has unquestionably been made much worse by the Iraq misadventure.

In fact, the proposals made by those who suggest that it is -- or may soon be -- time to pull ourselves out of the Iraq quagmire, such as Rep. Murtha, Sen. Feingold and Gen. Odom, are not at all identical, and don't amount to simplistic calls for withdrawal with no plan for dealing with the aftermath of such a move. What those proposals do have in common is a recognition that the imminent prospect of failure in this misbegotten mission must be faced.

Although I don't think that's the only possible answer. Some really do see a possibility for mitigating the disaster to end up with a relatively stable state.

I don't believe for one second any Democrats are "avoiding the grim realities of the situation," but it's the aftermath that must be considered, as well -- the future as well as the present.

I think you're confusing separate issues in your reading. To the three points you raised:

1. You say General Clark's call for guarding the border with Iran won't help change the political culture in Iraq. But that's not the point -- it's about stemming Iranian influence.

2. Making the oil revenues the property of the central government rather than provinces is important because the oil isn't equally spread across various regions; anything else motivates people to fight. The government needs to do that for unity among factions to even have a chance. So no, the "nice 'unified' Iraqi government" where all the people share in their oil revenues is not just about "serving US interests" at this point, it's about security, growth and peace within Iraq.

3. General Clark wrote: "Also, a broad initiative to reduce sectarian influence within government institutions is long overdue. The elections, in which Sunnis will participate, will help; but the government must do more to ensure that all ethnic and religious groups are represented within ministries, police forces, the army, the judiciary and other overarching federal institutions." You ask why they'd do that. Same reasons as above, plus the need to integrate all factions including minorities, and plus the obvious fact that the Sunnis in particular will continue to rebel with violence unless they are represented.

General Clark also wrote about reassimilating insurgents, regional concerns about Iran's influence in Iraq, diplomatic opportunities with Syria in particular, disarming militias, providing amnesty, visible dialogue with Iran, etc... And while this didn't involve terrorism when BushCo invaded, there's no escaping the fact that it does involve terrorism now, including Al Qaeda.

Huh?

Yes, I know that some make the claim that we may yet "end up with a relatively stable state" in Iraq. In fact, a lot of inspiringly optimistic claims have been made, by both Democrats and Republicans, since the Iraq mission began. It was claimed, in some cases by Democrats, that Bush and Co. might not have decided whether to really go to war or not when the IWR was voted through, though the groundwork for the attack was being laid even then. It was claimed, sometimes by Democrats, that the war would be a cakewalk, and that we would be welcomed with flowers by the grateful Iraqs for freeing them from Saddam Hussein. It was claimed that when Saddam's sons were killed, the insurgency would end. It was claimed, when Saddam Hussein was captured, that the insurgency would REALLY end. It was claimed that after the parliament was set up, that the insurgency would REALLY, REALLY end... "Stability" has been right around the corner for some time -- a long sequence of corners, in fact.

You'll forgive my skepticism. The notion that "a relatively stable government" is a likelihood in Iraq flies in the face of the plain fact that the country has slipped deeper and deeper into deadly chaos in all the time we've been occupying it. In this context, your references to "security, growth and peace" fostered by the wise guidance of Iraq's big buddy the U.S.A. sound more than a little Orwellian.

So Gen. Clark's proposed military venture to seal the border between Iran and Iraq is about "stemming Iranian influence"? I thought closing borders militarily was about keeping insurgents from crossing the border. I'm afraid that Iranian 'influence' among the Iraqi Shiites is more extensive then that.

I'm disappointed that Gen. Clark is still speaking, in effect, about winning the Iraqis' hearts and minds. This certainly seems to be the presumption behind his avowed notion that sectarian representatives in a supposedly democratic government in Iraq can be persuaded that it's really in their best interests for them to adopt measures that involve giving up their own sources of advantage in a situation of civil war.

The Kurds have already made a deal with a western oil company to develop oilfields in the Kurdish sector. They say that the constitution allows them to do this. There's a whole lot of potential profit involved here. Meanwhile, the Oil Ministry of the federal government in Iraq, for a time (and perhaps still today, really) headed by our friend Ahmed Chalabi, has been making deals with other western oil companies which, through provisions of that same constitution, can legally remain clandestine, and can be binding for decades. This, as so much else that's happening now in Iraq, is a cutthroat struggle for wealth and power.

Let's try to be straightforward and realistic about what's going on over there. Happytalk proposals about "a broad initiative to reduce sectarian influence" are just not going to get anywhere. We don't have the legal power to enforce the adoption of any such measure -- and if such an item was adopted, it wouldn't be implemented anyway.

Yes, al-Qaeda is now in Iraq. That's because the continued U.S. occupation in Iraq provides grand opportunities for al-Qaeda to injure the United States and to attract and train recruits. Following Gen. Clark's timid variation on 'staying the course' in Iraq will only make al-Qaeda fatter and happier.

that you cited. That, plus the fact that Clark already helped negotiate the end to one "civil war" (among many other factors), gives Clark a little more credibility in my eyes than some of the shills you've mentioned, and more experience than you.

The odds may not favor any outcome in Iraq and the region more positive than the absolute disaster it is steadily sliding deeper toward, but the magnitude of that probable disaster argues in favor of exhausting the last window of opportunity open to mitigate it.

The reason why it is not impossible that factions in Iraq may yet pull back is simple though by no means certain to occur. Most people, most human beings, hate living with escalating violence that increasingly threatens to kill their own children. The Kurds have backed down before when pressure was put on their initial plans to simply overwhelm all opposition as they moved south during the American invasion with the initial intent to simply seize Kirkuk and Mosul. Grand Ayatollah Sistani has repeatedly shown flexibility in the past in seeking achievable ends for the Shiites in Iraq that would not pull apart the nation. Recently he called for Shiites to vote in the upcoming elections while withholding an endorsement for the ruling Shiite coalition, a coalition he did endorse last time.

One of the major Sunni political parties endorsed the Iraq Constitution during the last vote in return for the concession that it can be changed by simple majority vote during the first four months after the upcoming ne Iraq elections. Sunni insurgents have come to public meetings called by American forces to discuss their agenda with the Americans. The Arab League recently hosted a meeting where almost all Iraq factions (Al Quada was not invited) including the current government there agreed to a series of resolutions that were passed concerning the direction forward for Iraq.

What Clark is proposing involves drawing down American troops and redeploying most of those that remain, with a substantial number of them kept in a quick action response force that is not continually engaged. When Clark speaks of a window of opportunity he is talking about the next four months during which whatever accommodations that can be made inside Iraq between the major factions can most easily be hammered out using the political process set out to do so. If that breaks down the jig is pretty much up for Iraq, and withdrawal becomes the only real American option.

No shit! Really?

I must ask: WHAT is the problem with some of you people on this damn forum, that you make such childish arguments as this? Yes, Clark has 'more experience' than me, alrighty, especially since I'm not any sort of diplomat and have none. So do, say, Henry Kissinger and Condoleezza Rice. Does that mean that whatever they advocate must be correct, and I (and you, and everyone else here) has no business differing with their judgment?

Yes, of course there's political maneuvering being engaged in by Sistani and other players in Iraq. Note that those maneuvers do not really lessen sectarian power. But Gen. Clark is suggesting, as rosily as can be, that agreements aimed at doing just that be made by the Iraqis themselves, with no explanation of how 'WE' can engineer or encourage those agreements, or how they might come about otherwise in such a deadly scenario. No thank you, I don't want another slice of pie-in-the-sky.

There's no real reason to think that there's any 'window of opportunity' over the next four months. All Clark has accomplished in this foolish piece is to give the advocates of eventual military action against Iran an 8x10 glossy of himself to hold up on future hot air shows. "General Wesley Clark, in an article published last December, warned that Iran was gaining influence in Iraq and advocated" etc, etc.

P.S.: Please don't write back with a list of reasons why we wouldn't 'invade' Iran, because I didn't say we would 'invade' them.

When it comes to assessing the present situation and predicting outcomes from various actions and inactions, General Clark is experienced and trustworthy. BushCo is NOT. And there's no question we are all amateurs, which doesn't mean we can't form our own conclusions; but as we look at facts and arguments and proposals and predictions, some carry more credibility than others. And that does have to do with the experiences of the person offering them.

(If I had a physical ailment, I'd take the advice of a doctor who's treated similar conditions and kept up with current research over a layman who told me the doctor was wrong and the condition is terminal.)

General Clark knows about "engineering or encouraging agreements." I think much of it comes from something so simple it's often overlooked: talking. Yup, talking. Persuasion often involves carrots and sticks. The carrots may be economic support, military training, guarding borders, disarming militias, etc.; the sticks are already there -- continued insurgency, civil war, conflict with other countries in the region, economic problems, territorial battles among warlords, the threat of destabilized government and growing terrorist networks, etc.

As for the notion that facing the reality of Iran's influence is support for "eventual military action," Clark is hardly alone in recognizing Iran's involvement. Nor does it seem right to recognize it and ignore it for the sake of what somebody else might say about it later. He's talking about a "public dialogue," guarding borders, and strengthening cohesion in Iraq to help it maintain independence.

Finally, I don't see Clark offering anything "rosily as can be." It seems to me he's talking about last-ditch efforts "before it's too late."

with, like I said, virtually none of the experience he has. That is why I had the reaction that I did. Of course there is an unfair aspect to having most any of us compared to life long professionals; head to head, their experience against our own, I will grant that. But you throwing out such emphatic and definitive conclusive comments like "pie in the sky" and "timid version of Bush's Stay the Course" to counter the thoughts of someone who has spent a lifetime dealing with these types of situations was just a little too over the top for me, sorry.

In my opinion Kissinger Powell and Clark are heavy weights, which doesn't by itself make any of them always or even usually right. Rice however is a light weight, essentially 'nuff said about her. She's not literally stupid, she may yet learn a few things. But when I argue against the views of a heavy weight, even a Kissinger say, I do so knowing that there are undoubtedly important aspects of current international realities that I just am not in a position to fully weigh, and I factor that into how arrogant in tone my comments become, unless those people have a well proven track record of failure. That's just me, a lot of people don't relate to these type discussions the way I do.

Others have already reinforced the most substantive comment. Clark has consistently been right about Iraq. Bush and Powell and Rice have consistently been wrong. It lends credence to a conclusion that Clark has drawn valuable lessons from his experience, and that he draws well from the accumulated experiences of his diverse high level international contacts.

Since the public wants out of Iraq asap, it'd be politically expedient for someone like Clark to call for immediate withdrawal. You asked why politicians don't do so, and answered that there's money involved. I won't argue whether that's true among politicians in Congress or other halls of government, but General Clark isn't one of those politicians.

I know about the lies going into the war, the stupid predictions and blundering 'strategies.' I, too, am skeptical of anything BushCo says about it. So is General Clark.

Let's see where we actually disagree. We still have influence in Iraq, AND in the broader region, not only militarily but also politically and economically. Do you disagree?

And with that influence, there's still a chance for taking steps to help integrate minority sects in the Iraqi government, with proportionate representation and economic benefit. Do you disagree?

If there's something we are able to do to mitigate the motivations (and weapons) for civil war and stem Iranian meddling, we ought to do it. Do you disagree?

Or, do you think it's best to say, "Sorry, it's your war now," and nevermind what happens from there? If so, what do you think WOULD happen?

And luckily for you, I guess, the "far more responsible" ones just happen to be saying what you want to hear....Not that I'm saying that Rep. Murtha or Sen. Feingold are just saying what they think people want to hear, not by a long shot. I have high regard for both of these men and I trust that they are giving us the truth as they see it.

I can’t know who you are...Maybe you do spend all of the time that you don’t spend posting on this board, traveling around the ME and meeting its people and its leaders, maybe you have the experience of helping to broker a peace agreement among seemingly irreconcilable parties, and so maybe you can judge the situation cold-bloodedly with knowledge and experience comparable to General Clark's but I know for certain that I can't and, considering that he's spent his life standing up for things he believed were right even when it wasn't the popular or safe thing to do, even when he knew it might harm him personally, I've got to think that he's giving us the truth that he's gleaned through all his years of experience and all of his recent contacts in the region...even though it would not seem to be the "truth" that most people are prepared to hear right now.

The Iraq mission is a hopeless failure. We have to deal with that failure and repair the damage to the extent that we can, NOT try to make the failure a success.

Okay, I agree with that statement, but I don't see Clark's op-ed as a formula for achieving success. Isn't he just saying that Bush's war of lies has made Iran the most powerful state in the Middle East, and that we have to address that in some way before we leave?

In lieu of Clark's suggestions, who is speaking the truth and offering a strategy to "repair the damage," in your opinion? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I think you should speak to the preferred alternatives in order to strengthen your position.

I think the you-broke-it-you-own-it philosophy sucks eggs in the sense that HalliBush is using it to keep us indefinitely enmired, but it seems reasonable to consider that, in a vacuum, Iran will be able to do pretty much whatever it wants in Iraq. I think Clark just wants to alert us to that as we tussle over the details of minimizing further damage and extracting ourselves from Bush's quagmire.

My best judgment is that Gen. William Odom's analysis is pretty convincing. From two opinion pieces he's written:

'What's wrong with cutting and running?' August 03, 2005

Everything that opponents of a pullout say would happen if the U.S. left Iraq is happening already, says retired Gen. William E. Odom, the head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration. So why stay?

By William E. Odom

If I were a journalist, I would list all the arguments that you hear against pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, the horrible things that people say would happen, and then ask: Aren¡¯t they happening already? Would a pullout really make things worse? Maybe it would make things better (...)
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129

'Odom: Want stability in the Middle East? Get out of Iraq!'
COMMENTARY | November 11, 2005

In his last piece for NiemanWatchdog.org, retired Gen. William Odom argued that all the terrible things the Bush administration says would happen if we pulled our troops out of Iraq are happening already. In a new postscript, Odom writes that the converse is true as well: Bush says he wants to bring democracy and stability to the greater Middle East -- but in fact the only way to achieve that goal is to get out of Iraq now.

By William E. Odom

As I have watched the reactions to my earlier piece on NiemanWatchdog.org, "What¡¯s wrong with cutting and running?¡±, I recognize that one critical point does not come through to many readers. The problem may stem from the words "cut and run" in the title. In the minds of some, that seems to imply leaving the region for good. My argument is fundamentally different (...)
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=0063

when it smacks you up-side the head.

:eyes:

You'll never find anyone more honest than Wes Clark. Sorry.

... from since before day one, and my gut says - get out now.

But I cannot dismiss Clark. He's one of the few out there who impresses me every time I see/hear him.

I'm not sure if this plan would in fact solve anything, but since I'm only a civilian with an opinion, I have to assume Clark has some idea what he is talking about.

is to leverage the power of the Sunni neighbors. The Arab League did make a statement that talked of a political solution to insure the Sunnis in Iraq have some leverage. (Clearly not dominating - but also not without power.) The article said the statement was designed to put this issue on the table for the February meetings. They demanded that the US leave in a year.

There plan is not identical to any American plan. But, it seems that it is consistent with Kerry's comments that we need to get the Sunni neighbors involved in helping with a political solution. (The Shitites who are a majority in Iraq and Iran are a minority in the entire Middle East.)

One difference I see between Kerry and Clark - is that Clark is still convinced that the US should have a major say in what happens in Iraq. Kerry seems to want to help bring Arabs together to develop a political solution - pushing them mainly on the issue of respecting minority rights. (With 60% Shiites - pure democracy would likely lead to an Iranian dominated government.) Both seem to see the same problem - but different solutions. (With the Arab League stepping up to this - Kerry's solution may be the better - it's not clear that the US has moral claim for why it should be further involved.)

... one thing is for sure - Kerry's plan, Clark's plan, Murtha's plan - all are vastly superior to the water-treading we are doing right now.

Clark has not only been pushing to bring Arabs together he has been over there talking to the Arabs about how to make it happen. This Op-Ed that Clark came back with reflects the thinking of leaders of the Gulf States who he was meeting with over there last week. They are very concerned about the lack of any checks on the expansion of Iranian influence in Iraq and the region. Look at this map if you don't have a clear visual sense of who is most directly effected by the trend of developments inside Iraq:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf

Clark isn't trying to impose American influence on the Arabs, they want American influence to be redirected inside of Iraq, for what that is worth.

op-ed as the complete plan. I also realized I overstated it because as head of Nato, Clark could not have been as US centric as that implied. Clrak does see us there for 2 years versus Kerry's one. I think part of it is that they have emphasized different points - Kerry seems most concerned with removing the American face from the war, which Clark also agrees with. As Kerry has said, there is less difference between the various Democratic plans than between them and Bush's plan.

He said that rather than a timeline, we need to think of it as getting the work done: integrating the Sunnis, limiting the ability of Iran to wreck havoc in the South, and containing the insurgency, changes and enforcement of the Constitution.

I also asked him about the exact number of troops: 20,000 can be drawn down after the elections with others been removed as the "work is done." Setting a timetable seems of less value to Clark than getting the work done by changing the policy. So, it could be 6 months or any months, leaving Iraq to Iran is a big mistake.

I can't get the site to come up.

...read my e-mail on the air. I was busy trying to figure out what he saw as the needed troop strength. Basically, yes, he's moving them out of the high density population centers a la Murtha. He took the advice of his friend to heart: the people must be won over, brought into the fold, not killed.

He is very concerned that Iran is taking over Iraq; we all should be. I'll bet the Iraqi women are. Talking to the Sunni insurgent factions is not that difficult; many of their leadership are sitting at hotels in Amman.

It was just too bad he wasn't on for a much longer segment.

is that the country is finally beginning to debate what to do instead of just sitting back and blindly bowing to Bush's ineptness. As far as I can see, John Murtha is the only politician who has put the country totally above politics--the rest are playing balancing acts of various sorts--but it does seem that we have turned an important corner in recognizing the need to explore alternative solutions.

But you would have to be blind to think that Clark is writing this out of a sense of politics. To say so is the equivelent of thinking a Doctor who tells a patient that he has an aggresive case of Cancer is doing so in order to solicit new patients with his brilliance. Clark's comments here do not help him politcally. Quite the oppsite inside the Democratic Party. But they represent what he thinks our nation needs to know.

it would be a lot easier for him to go along with all of the get out now stuff but he cannot seem to "go along" when he believes that "going along" is not the right thing to do...It is jarring sometimes...

at least Clark, Kerry and McCain are all giving their best ideas on what should be done. They have political motivations, but if they believe their plan is best defending it is at the same time the best thing to do.

I have a very hard time understanding what Biden is saying. Hillary seems to believe that saying as little as possible as vaguely as possible so she can choose the best plan based on where we are in 2007. Smart politics, possibly, but it means she is not pushing a solution. Edwards just seemed to repeat the 2004 plan slightly updated - I really don't think this is an area where he has much expertise. Warner seems likewise not on steady ground here.

FAITH and TRUST in anything Clark says that I can say I believe what he believes. You're right. I couldn't have that faith in what Edwards, or Warner etc believe. They just don't have the experience and knowledge. Kerry's too wishy washy and political and Clinton is just plain too political. Clark is the only one I trust to make a rational decision...no matter who he turns off. He needs to be our President! I think a lot of rethugs would vote for him too, especially after he has been on Fox for so long. What a great way to get his message to the Rethugs. They probably think he is one of them.

Even though I want our troops out...I have personally been worried about the Iranians. We are training troops who will someday use those skills on us and we're turning that country into a Theocracy.
blah, blah, blah. In other words...I agree with Clark!!!! That man thinks and knows history. Can't say that for our blundering idiot President.

in this piece AND he did it again today on FAUX...telling that audience that if we continue to "stay the course" we're on, we're going to be handing Iraq to Iran.

Americans need to understand that Iraq is, indeed, a very big picture that encompasses the entire region instead of daily bombings in Iraq on TV.

Today he was also on Diane Rehm's show and archives will be up in an hour. A very good interview indeed....

Says he hopes the Dems come up with a unified voice.....(his, I bet...LOL....hopefully!! OK, I'm a Clark fan, I will inform the reading public of that)

I'm at work and so was only able to listen to this in bits and pieces but it did sound really good. I would suggest that anyone looking for more elaboration on what Clark wrote in this op-ed and what he feels about this whole mess take the time to listen to the archived show here:
http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/

Gen Clark was on in the last 20 minutes....

minute 33:30 of hour 1 (10 am segment)

...for anyone who already knew that or now realizes it:

I've got a short story (26 pages) that's about what a mistake Kerry was. Some say that it's not good sportsmanship to put Kerry down, but, a) it's just the truth, and, b) if this country is ever going to come together, we need to have some egg on our own face to help the Bush supporters save face.
if you're a regular on securingamerica.com you may know of Noel Schutz; he's read it and loved it. A woman whose son is in Iraq told me: "I was honored to have read it."
my mom recently gave it to the former manager for BB King and she called yesterday and said, "I just finished reading page 1 and I'm blown away." ...so it should be in the public domain really soon now.

leave me your email and I'll forward it to you. just cut and paste it into word perfect. ...it's as funny as it is intense.

Kerry quite nearly won - given how Clark performed in the primary debates, the primaries thenselves and in answering questions, I really doubt he would have come close. He was in and out so quickly that he got almost no flack from competitors, where Kerry took an unprecedented attack.

first of all, Kerry did win Ohio; not "quite nearly." Second, I thought Clark did quite well in primary debates. I even read an op-ed at the time that said of one that Clark clearly gave the most substantive, cogent responses. It was just that one time where Peter Jennings put him on the spot about Michael's "desserter" comment that screwed the pooch for the whole planet.
I always get so flabergasted when anyone could actually think that a swing voter would look at a poised, articulately, West Point valedictorian Supreme Allied Commander who was endorsed by 55 ambassadors...and then think, yeah, I'll go with Bush over that guy. ...it's not like people had national security on their minds or anything.

I am not denying Clark the right to say that other Democrats may be wrong. I am just wondering why it is wrong when others do the same thing?

...so ANY Democrat who comes out with a plan is not only making a critique of the * "plan" but of other Dem plans.

There MAY be others in the party as knowledgeable about these matters as Wes Clark. I certainly don't think there are others who are clearly MORE knowledgeable. My personal belief is that he doesn't say these things for any sort of cynical personal gain. So, any plan he presents is what, based on considerable knowledge and experience, he thinks has the best chance of working in this situation fraught with risks. If that differs from others, he's not afraid to say it, anyway.

He did paraphrase Arab leaders as saying some Dem responses "dangerously miss the point," as, he points out, does the * "plan". It's a little strong, but my feeling is that he wants to drive home what high stakes are being played for, and how terrible the consequences may be of getting it wrong.

Many times in the recent past, General Clark has shown an unusual willingness to come to the public defense of Democrats and Democratic ideals, including when those people or ideals may be politically unpopular. And, for the record, I don't think it IS wrong to say that others might be wrong, if it's done with respect and reason.

on other Democratic plans. I know this is true for Feingold, Kerry, Edwards, and Biden. At later times WHEN ASKED they have commented - Feingold to say that he, Kerry, Kennedy, Levin and Byrd? are the Senators in the forefront on creating an exit plan. Kerry, when asked, praised Murtha, but said he favors his own plan (note: he did not detail any cons to Murthas plan).

Clark is the only one who on his own said there were things he didn't like in other Democratic plans.

As to experience, the civilian leadership sets policy. Biden's 20+ years on the Foreign Relations committee and Kerry's 22+ years plus his own insight into war are relevent too. Clark is VERY good in this area - but there is no reason to think that he wouldn't gain through working with the others.

manner which is generic to ALL parties concerned, and he qualifies his approach by clearly stating that it is the Arab leaders who have stated an opinion/critique and which he feels "may" be correct.

Wes Clark is not "attacking" anyone here.....just stating his opinion on Bush's New Strategy and the general Democratic responses to it, and the fact that Arab leaders don't really see the answers in any of the approaches thus far.

"I was able to see the issue through the eyes of America's friends in the Persian Gulf region. The Arab states agree on one thing: Iran is emerging as the big winner of the American invasion, and both President Bush's new strategy and the Democratic responses to it dangerously miss the point. It's a devastating critique. And, unfortunately, it is correct."

He then goes on to stating why this may be the case.

All in all, if you are going to disagree with others, this would be the way to do it. He offers a concrete and very specific plan....and in so doing does balances out his critique in a way that's pretty effective in reference to the stay/out argument....

Clark has stated many times that dissent is patriotic. His dissent here is with all parties.....He's not just pointing fingers or making baseless critiques without backing it up or offering a detailed alternative. It may also be that he feels that Arab Leaders see and understand much more about the current situation and have a better grasp as to what "Their" world could tolerate as a workable solution to this Pandora's Box scenario.

In addition, Clark has stood up many times for others when the rest of the pack were running away....so maybe, just maybe.....Wes is given more room to criticize in particular when it's not personal, and based more on strategic delicate Foreign policy matters than on political drivel.

...he doesn't bash anyother Democratic plan or any Democrat, he says that their generic critique of bush's plan misses the point.

I would guess after reading the op ed and his other writing and ideas about Iraq, he is firmly convinced of our need to push for regional dialogue. On Rehm's show he filled out those thoughts a bit. He said that this diplomacy must be transparent and sustained. The backroom is only producing rumors about what is going on, and the Arab streets aren't getting the news.

He has been worried about Iran since the beginning. There was no emphasis on this that I heard in the Democratic responses. I might have missed this.

(based on an increasingly frequent past result):

In the coming months (and years), others on both sides of the aisle will borrow largely from this plan, either to implement it or to recommend it as an alternative to what else is being implemented. Some of them will present these ideas as if they themselves have just created them, after much consideration. Some of them will be given credit for that creation, too (so bookmark Clark's editorial now and the date it was published, to refer back to later).

By that time, of course, in response to evolving conditions, General Clark will have made new sets of predictions which will also be largely borne out by events, and new policy recommendations which will also be appropriated by others when they catch up with the curve.

his listeners to go to his site to hear yesterday's Clark interview because he thinks what Gen. Clark said was so right. It's here if you want to hear it...but I think the NYTimes piece is more expansive.

I only caught part of her show but it seemed like her thoughts were based on today's op-ed by Clark. That is a major point in the difference between Clark's plan and those of others. It is even different than where he seemed headed just recently. I think his ME visit and discussions with those nations leaders made him realize that this had already gone beyond just Iraq and that his earlier fears of regional strife were well under way. As a matter of fact I wonder if his earlier indications of time running out were not as we suspected, meaning withdrawal was near, but actually an enlarging of the mission. From his view, he may have seen this mission creep developing. Randi felt that this was Bushco's goal all along. The establishment of an enlarged Islamic fundamentalist state to ensure an even larger war. That would explain Clark's bafflement that our diplomatic meetings with Iran have been so erratic and no real effort to take advantage of Assad's weakened state in Syria.

I love these guys:

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002173.php

In fact, I started two threads on DU today promoting their very fine study on immediate withdrawl and supporting Murtha :)

I believe the site is bipartisan ? Along with Clark's, and other liberals', plan(s) and more support from more brave "warriors" speaking out, I think we really could shake down the administration, and knock off the politics ?

Let's hear it for the Generals Bard and Johns too :hi:

THAT is very cool....

vice versa, a situation that wouldn't have come about without U.S. intervention, is MORE U.S. intervention?

And yes, I did read the whole editorial at the coffee shop this morning.

The U.S. has blown whatever credibility it ever had in this region. I don't want another young American dying for an illegal, immoral, and cynically planned invasion of a sovereign state, because no matter how much handsome, articulate, hero-worshipped generals try to rearrange the situation to salvage it, our troops still don't belong there and no amount of mission creep is going to change that.

:grr:

Not every problem can be solved with military force, especially not by the particular military force that created the problem in the first place.

Your last sentence is what he has said from the beginning. Without Iraqi political solutions the military force would be a meaningless waste. That is why we cannot stay the course. Our present strategy is enabling the Iranians because we are serving their purpose by supporting the Shiite militias and attacking the Sunnis. It seems that the Bushco goal is further destabilization.

You talk just like the General when you said...."Not every problem can be solved with military force, especially not by the particular military force that created the problem in the first place."

He's been stating this since before the Iraq Invasion.

Also remember.....It's Bush who can do something about this....Clark just cares enough about the global situation to not be as naive as to thinking that we can just put the Genie back into the bottle....or slam shut Pandora's box...cause the shit is already fanning out there. Far as he's concerned, jumping into the fire from the frying pan really isn't gonna make us or Iraqis better off. Remember those Iraqi secular women when they are forced to veil themselves or are stoned for adultery...or much worse. I hope progressive Americans give a damn about more than only the lives of our soldiers....like the lives of the Iraqi folks who breath and feel just like we do. The small picture is getting our troups home. The larger picture is much more complex.

This is one thing that bugs be too...this seeming total disregard for what happens to the lives of the Iraqis, this seeming concentration only on what it means for the US soldiers....I'd hoped that the Americans-are-the-only-ones-that-really-matter attitude was the domain of the right. Apparently, not so much. :(

disastrous.

Our troops provide a focus for the Iraqi guerillas to fight against, and that won't change.

It's quite ingenuous to bring out the image of the secular Iraqi women when it's U.S. intervention that allowed the Shiites to come to into power. Saddam Hussein for all his faults was a secularist and allowed Iraq to develop intellectually and economically into one of the more advanced Arab countries.

Iraq is an artificial country, created by the Europeans drawing lines in the sand. It would not be a disaster if it simply split up into its natural components of Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish republics.

Only a dictatorship was able to keep them together.

He has stated so repeatedly.

So, we are in agreement there.

just rearranging them and changing their mission.

So despite his words, he does seem to believe that military force can solve the problem--whatever the problem is, which is hard to tell, because it seems to change from day to day.

Our troops are like home invaders who finally realize that they're antagonizing the occupants of the home but are under the delusion that ANYTHING they do besides leaving the house is going to be helpful.

You mentioned that, "he does seem to believe that military force can solve the problem"...

However, it's important to understand that the military option ALONE is not part of the "winning strategy". Clark has always argued that this is why we have not "succeeded" in Iraq. Instead, he argued that we needed an equivalent engagement at the political and diplomatic fronts, particularly, greater dialogue between Iraq's various sects (Shia, Kurds, Sunni) and her regional neighbors (Syrians and Iranians), respectively.

Unfortunately, under the Neocon Principle (PNAC), American military force was mostly their only option. In my opinion, their strategy was mostly focussed on securing the "economic/business' interests of American contractors under Paul Bremer, rather than supportive of Iraq's overall political and economic interests for the region.

Why not admit failure, apologize profusely to the world, hold a plebiscite on splitting the country into its three natural components, accept the outcome, LEAVE, and use the money to solve our multitude of domestic problems.

And no, I'm not an isolationist.

The real "isolationists" are the ones who think that the U.S. knows what's best for the world and that U.S. involvement is necessary for an (undefined) "successful" outcome for the Iraq mess. They're intellectual isolationists, arrogantly secure in their "Uncle Sam knows best" assurance, and don't listen to anyone.

there must be security first. But, this will involve more intensive cooperation and diplomacy in the region and by the international community. However, that cannot occur, realistically, without a high level of security within the country and the region, and without the UN or multinational force, like NATO.

For example, Syria, Iran and Turkey (a NATO ally) have a military alliance to prevent any efforts of independence by the 2 major Kurdish powers in the north. Geopolitically, Turkey will not allow that to happen, since these groups, via the PKK, have waged terrorist bombings inside Turkey. They have been kept in check the US from invading northern Iraq. Yet, Greece (another NATO ally) has been very supportive of the Kurds becuase of national interest, and they only add to the tension against the Turks. Unfortunately, it's even more complex than that when you consider the Shia and Iranians role in this equation.

If this gravitates to civil war or worse yet, regional war or world war (ie. per NATO agreement), one thing is for sure, this will not be percieved as a "success." As Clark said in '03, Bush committed a "strategic blunder". It presented us with a "serious dilemma", when Bush failed to prepare an exit strategy. But I believe that his strategy deserves serious consideration.

I pasted Clarks responses that may be relevant to your concerns,.. however others are available at
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/2934#new


Excerpt

1. There were no terrorists in Iraq before the U.S. invasion, and while our troops are there, we are providing a target for them. If the people blowing up Iraqi civilians are indeed "terrorists" (strange terrorists, with no consistent target) or whether they're black ops on the part of U.S. and British intelligence services, our leaving will make them lose focus and eventually disperse, as all terrorist movements in history have.

2. Which friends? Bush and his war have turned public opinion throughout the world against the U.S.

3. Who says we have to deal with North Korea and Iran? They wouldn't be half the trouble they are if Bush didn't keep poking at them. North Korea is reconciling with South Korea in a way not seen since the Korean War, and Iran has an active youth movement for liberalization.

4. Impact us economically? Hell, yeah! It would free up some money to do the things that need to be done domestically. (Or is Clark afraid that discharging all the Reserves and National Guard people would show the unemployment rate at its true level?)

5. Strategy makes no difference if your goal is misguided.

1. We know there were no terrosits in Iraq before the US invasion. We know our troops are a target. But the "people blowing up Iraqi civilians" are NOT "black ops" nor would they stand down if we leave, as you suggest -- most are themselves Iraqi civilians. They are fighting each other. This is much more complex than you seem to realize.

2. Our "friends" are primarily the nations with which we have diplomatic relations, and with which we collaborate in the UN. We have alliances with them, trade partnerships, and political relationships. Yes, BushCo has turned their people against the US under BushCo, which puts their leaders in a very difficult position politically. But that doesn't mean their leaders couldn't be persuaded that it's in their nation's best interest to participate in an effort to assure Iraq's independence, and to persuade their people in turn.

3. No doubt they'd be less "trouble" if BushCo hadn't acted and spoken as they have, but here we are. We still have to deal with them. You suggest there's some optimism there, but there's also alot of danger that needs to be recognized realistically, particularly concerning nukes. These are not friendly, happy, let alone benign countries.

4. I think as Americans, we're a bit spoiled in our views of what economic impact could mean. No, it's not just about "freeing up money" for domestic needs -- it could easily, overnight, become LACK of money for things we take for granted. I'm no expert, but it's my understanding that if oil became traded in Euros, our economy would become irrelevant; and if China ever decided to call in its debts, we'd be done for. People in other countries look at us as spoiled, greedy hogs in many ways. We are already in over our heads in debt. If our economy were severely impacted, you would see suffering not among the Bushes and Cheneys, not among the Ken Lays and Tom DeLays, but among women, children, and minorities first. NO Lydia, it's not about "showing unemployment" from the National Guard and Reserves; it's about things at least three generations of Americans can't even fathom.

5. "Strategy makes no difference if your goal is misguided." Who could disagree with that? I doubt anyone does.

1. If Iraqi civilians are blowing up Iraqi civilians, is that our problem?

2. "Ensure Iraq's independence" by occupying it?

3. Never said that North Korea and Iran were nice, friendly countries. They clearly aren't. But if I were ANY country and a nuclear power invaded my next door neighbor, which it had classified in the same breath as me, I might feel like developing nukes, too.

4. So all this talk about "democracy" and "unseating a dictator is all nonsense? This whole bloody, immoral, corrupt war is justified all because Saddam Hussein threatened to require euros for oil? Now the truth comes out!

Hmm, I could see a scenario in which the rest of the Arab world began demanding euros for oil and the Asians began calling in their debts. But I fail to see how our troops being in Iraq could stop that. In fact, the longer the war drags on, the more other countries are going to get pissed off at us and retaliate economically as the only way to stop a superpower gone mad.

1. "If Iraqi civilians are blowing up Iraqi civilians, is that our problem?"Yes, Lydia, it is our problem. On a very fundamental moral level, it is our problem.

2. "Ensure Iraq's independence" by occupying it? You've changed the subject. You were asking about our "friends." It is VERY important for Iraq to establish independence, and it's also important to get our allies engaged. No, this isn't an argument for occupation. General Clark has said that it's critically important for the US to assert unequivocally that we do NOT intend to occupy Iraq nor to establish any permanent bases there. But you asked "which friends," and I told you "which friends."

3. Never said that North Korea and Iran were nice, friendly countries. They clearly aren't. But if I were ANY country and a nuclear power invaded my next door neighbor, which it had classified in the same breath as me, I might feel like developing nukes, too. Again, you're preaching to the choir about BushCo policy. No doubt it's fueled the threats from Iran and North Korea. You pointed to some optimistic signs in your previous post, and I'm saying they are still dangerous (let alone oppressive) countries and that still needs to be recognized and dealt with -- even MORE so after BushCo.

4. So all this talk about "democracy" and "unseating a dictator is all nonsense? This whole bloody, immoral, corrupt war is justified all because Saddam Hussein threatened to require euros for oil? Now the truth comes out! Oh for cryin' out loud. Again, you're shifting the topic. You asked about "economic impact," and implied that'd just be about rolling back the Guard and Reserves and focusing on domestic priorities (like, Hallelujah! and "Hell yeah!"). I'm saying "economic impact" involves things far beyond that. I'm saying our dollar is already weak, our economy could cease to be the international standard, our debt is a serious liability -- and if you think the only result of economic collapse is, as you said, "Hell, yeah! It would free up some money to do the things that need to be done domestically" -- you are wrong. As I said, it would impact the poorest first -- and hit women, children, and minorities hard. Not Bush, not Cheney, not Rumsfeld, not Lay, not Delay....

Hmm, I could see a scenario in which the rest of the Arab world began demanding euros for oil and the Asians began calling in their debts. But I fail to see how our troops being in Iraq could stop that. In fact, the longer the war drags on, the more other countries are going to get pissed off at us and retaliate economically as the only way to stop a superpower gone mad.

It's not about the "rest of the Arab world" in terms of the standard for trading oil. And it's not about "Asians" calling in debts. It's not "Arabs" and "Asians" in such simplistic terms -- it's far more complicated than that. General Clark has explained in very specific detail the issues involved, and I've tried to explain them here. If you still think it's about "other countries getting pissed off" and "retaliating economically," I'm really done with this discussion.

:yawn:

I'm done, too.

What we have here is an irreconcilable difference between someone who thinks that the U.S. can "fix things" and someone who has seen every U.S. attempt to "fix things" since World War II get the country into more and more trouble.

What BushCo has done is irreparable.

To me, this is a difference between someone who thinks there's nothing we can to do mitigate the plight of the least empowered, most destitute and desperate people in Iraq, and must leave them to warlords, violence in the streets, economic devastation, and a future of government oppression at best -- someone who thinks we should say "It's their problem now" and find their conscience relieved that it's not our problem anymore... vs. someone who thinks that if there's any chance to forge unity in the country we've destroyed, assimilate insurgents, disarm militias, create peaceful resolution among sects, then we should try.

but thinking that the U.S. military is the one to do the job is like thinking that the illiterate vandals who trashed a historic house and terrorized the inhabitants are going to do a good job of repairing their own damage.

In a real criminal case of vandalism and home invasion, a judge would force the perpetrators to pay for the damage and apologize to the owners of the house before going to prison. No judge would tell the home invaders to stay in the house until they themselves had repaired the damage and the residents stopped being angry at them.

It may seem harsh to compare U.S. forces to vandals, but the invasion was completely illegal, and the Bushies are war criminals by the standards set at Nuremberg. The invasion of Iraq was no more legal or justified than the German invasion of Poland in 1939.

As an artificially created country (the colonial powers drew arbitrary lines in the sand) full of groups hostile to one another, Iraq could be held together only by a dictator (cf. Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union).

As long as the U.S. forces are there, "the warlords, violence in the streets, economic devastation, and...government oppression" are absolutely guaranteed to continue. A situation in which a bunch of naive, under-educated, probably xenophobic youth are plunked down in a starkly alien and hostile culture with too little cultural training and too much weaponry is a recipe for disaster. And it's the government that the U.S. forces sponsored that is continuing with the torture and oppression.

Every "cure" that the military tries for the warlords and violence and terrorism only alienates more Iraqis, because terrorism isn't a war issue, it's a police issue and a social issue. Will we have to be like the British in Northern Ireland, occupying a population that is 2/3 hostile for 30 years? That's my nightmare scenario, the children of today's soldiers being sent to continue the occupation that their parents started.

I'd say get the hell out of there and turn the country over to a multinational force (from the Arab League and/or the UN) until a plebiscite establishes the will of the Iraqi people, whether to remain united or to split up. The U.S. should supply big bucks to the NGOs and subsidize the military forces that are keeping things calm, but we have to grow up and accept the fact that sometimes we are the problem and not the solution.

I don't think there are any internationals willing to go into Iraq right now. And counter intuitive as this may seem, many Iraqi's who do NOT trust American troops have even less trust for alternative sources of security forces. That can change if a backing off from civil war occurs and if Iraq's neighbors, including the Arab League and Iran, clearly signal to their allies within Iraq that they are committed to reestablishing an independent Iraq State, but as matters stand no outside forces are trusted. Probably forces from most Western European nations would be accepted as preferable to Americans, because they would not be seen as having direct interests inside Iraq the same way Jordanians or Syrians would be, and they don't carry the baggage that say Indians would. But Europe is unwilling. They dragged their feet on Rwanda, they dragged their feet in Bosnia, they dragged their feet in Afghanistan and now use their limited deployments there as a reason for why they can not do more in Iraq.

and there are good reasons why other countries are reluctant to get involved, especially as long as the U.S. military is in there supposedly trying to fix things.

Every conceivable path leads to more death and destruction for Iraq. I'd prefer that this country not continue to be part of it. The longer our forces stay, the worse the violence gets, and the "nation building" that the Bushies envision is the worst sort of free-market fundamentalism.

If you don't subscribe to Harper's, read Susan Jacoby's article in the September 2004 issue, as well as another article in some other issue (which one, I don't recall) in which a Canadian journalist lived among the "insurgents."

The Iraqis of whatever faction are on their home turf and have huge extended families to support them, and more importantly, in the "honor"-based culture of the Middle East, to avenge their deaths or mistreatment. They can continue harassing U.S. forces indefinitely.

Every Iraqi who gets killed or tortured or humiliated generates more "insurgents" who will not rest until the U.S. military is gone.

It is a great artical. Nothing I didn't already know in general but having all the details neatly laid out about the Neo Cons grand economic experiments in their new Iraq playground is truly sickening. Have I ever mentioned how much I absolutely loathe this Administration?

Harpers charges to read it but Common Dreams (which is not always my favorite new source) does come through here with a reprint: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0924-13.htm

You must not be talking to the same generals in the Pentagon as Murtha.

Clark warned against going into Iraq because there was no imminent threat to the U.S., and because going into Iraq would most likely create a real mess. Every step of the way since Bush went into Iraq anyway, Clark has accurately predicted the next increasingly disastrous stage of the Iraq mess, and he's suggested the best ways to minimize that disaster under the then current circumstances.

And that is still what he is doing. I see no change in direction. Clark was just over in the Mid East region talking with leaders of the Gulf States about Iraq. This is a message that he carries back from those talks. Some people believe the crisis in Iraq and the surrounding region will just go away if the U.S. just goes away. Clark doesn't believe that, and neither do those who he has been talking to over there. Clark thinks there is what he has called a window of opportunity to help bring about a more positive result inside of Iraq during the 4 months following the election of Iraq's permanent government during which a simple majority of Parliament can approve changes in the Iraq Constitution in keeping with ongoing negotiated efforts to end the insurgency there. If that bears some fruit, Clark believes the absolute worst can still be averted inside of Iraq and throughout the region. And the absolute worst is a very sobering and frightening scenario.

He's been talking to folks in the Persian Gulf...

He's been talking to leaders in the region.

Clark doesn't want to stay in Iraq. Murtha wants to draw back troops to the borders. Clark wants to draw back troops to the borders. Murtha wants an air campaign of bombing the Iraqis if they get uppity. I admit, I'm not sure that the General would advocate that part.

Murtha hasn't spoken about Iran and the problem that a nuclear Iran causes for the region. Clark has been speaking about this for some time.

Clark sees 3 things that we must do: Use transparent regional diplomacy, close the borders especially the neglected situation along the Iranian border where cash and guns are pouring in (see Assassins' Gate) use our remaining leverage politically to enact changes in the Constitution to bring the Sunnis a fair playing field.

With all due respect, General Clark has been talking about all of those issues for a long time. You may see this as a change, I'm just not sure how.

He talks to everybody and then makes his own judgment.

Michael Ware from Australia!!!

I was TOTALLY against EVER going into IRAQ, even told many many people to just sit down and imagine a desert full of fire ant hills and we roll in. Out come those ants in a frenzy and you can't kill them all, it was going to be chaos!

And so it is! However, right now The Idiot Broke it, He needs to fix it! Don't know how, because there IS NO GOOD ANSWER!!

If anyone didn't see him earlier on Tweety's Show, check him out later tonight! If he's still on later tonight! I've seen Ware reporting from Iraq for some time now, and he seems to know what he's talking about. We DO need to get out, but we have made such a mess that the WORLD should be REALLY REALLY Scared!!!

Personally, I think The Idiot should be in that little cubicle with Saddam right about NOW! And all his henchmen too!

He is the former CIA agent who opposed going in to Iraq also. He is the person "Syriana" is based on. He described the exact scenario that Clark is writing about. He was in Tehran last year and the Ayatollahs said they would support the Shiites in the Civil War that is taking place.

I got to see a snippet of the Movie Syriana a couple of days ago!

I understand it's NOT playing in the US, but Dish TV did have some info! A "must see" movie!

Between him, Larry Johnson and Ware it's hard for me to comprehend just HOW anyone can't see the "writing on the wall!"

Also saw Clark several times talking about his "fictional" book! Loved his tongue in cheek terse comments! Especially on The Daily Show!

Las Cruces, NM. We only got "Good Night and Good Luck" a few weeks ago, but it seems Syriana is getting here quickly...

thanks for the info!!!

The British decided that they would just look the other way. And Bremer didn't even notice. On three different occassions, Bremer talked about disarming the private militias, but never did anything. Now those same militias are part of what bush is touting as the Iraqi Army, except that are not loyal to the government at all. Their loyality belongs to the various mullas and war lords. When you look at what bush has done, he needs to in prison. Seriously.

There are buildings in Southern Iraq flying the Iranian flag.

Clark recieved a lot of our responses, and will post online this afternoon at CCN:

The Next Iraq Offensive
www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/2914



(Note: If your interested in leaving your opinions/comments, you will need to register with the site)

then gone. I think he had that radio thing at 2:35 central....

He answered your question...I liked what he said too...He was there until about 4:15...Then he said goodbye and thanks....

to read a well thought out plan.

Clark must be brilliant or something. Any difference in what Clark said today versus this op-ed?

Clark used his time to HAMMER his idea that the Iraqi constitution must be changed within these four months. That is our quickest way out of Iraq IMHO.

Oh yeah, at the end he, much to the consternation of the interviewer, he said that the resident must answer the question of why bush failed to protect our Constitutional rights.

I guess one could sum it up by saying that it was all constitutions all the time.