Gen. Clark was LIVE today (12/11) on Fox....my report

Gen. Clark was LIVE today on FOX (12/11 )and was excellent!

He appeared live on Fox today a few minutes later than the scheduled :20 after the hour...it was NOT a BBC interview.

Right off the bat, he was asked by Eric about Gen. Casey's earlier comments "optimistic but realistic" on the show about the elections, Sunnis wanting to vote, and fewer suicide bombings....vs Dean's comments about how "we're not going to win." Wisely, he didn't take the bait about Dean ("I can't explain Howard Dean") and praised Casey for doing a good job over there.

He pointed out that we had had elections before and it didn't stop the insurgents and that the Sunnis recognize the Iranians are taking contol via the Shias. The Administration has to work to lessen the sectarian nature of the situation, to change the constitution to try to make the army reflect the population of Iraq, not a Shia and Kurdish army. If we don't do that, we will not be able to undercut the insurgency.

Eric stated that the Sunni clerics were urging their followers to go out and vote...how can the Sunnis translate that into a better representation in the military, etc.?

Clark said it's up to the U.S. to use it's influence. Clark said we still have the "trump hand"-- the Iraqi Shias can't ask us to leave until we finish off the insurgency or until we finish training the troops. We've got to translate our military strength and capabiltites into political influence to open the doors for Sunni participation and influence in that government.

On Al-Zawahari's (sp?) new tape (AQ no. 2 man) ....Clark said Karzai and Afghanistan are in danger because we have been slipping and sliding in terms of security but the broader message about Al-Qaeda is a weak message. He's talking about defeats. He's trying to rally his troops. ... we are succeeding in putting pressure on Al-Qaeda, and the broader question is, can we handle the regional dynamics of the Persian Gulf? Can we bring the fighting in Iraq to a conclusion that not only gives the semblance of democracy through voting...remember, in Iran they have votes...but we want real democracy, that brings the country together, not that hands it over to the Iranian-oriented clerics in Iraq.

Eric: You've posed the question, how would you answer your own question?

Clark said it's really requires the Admin. to be very, very nimble and quick in linking our military capabilities to the political outcomes we want right now. We've got a window of about 4 months after this election try to get that constitution re-jiggered so that so that it cuts off the Iranians access and the Shias control over the oil in that south and denies Iran the opportunity to create a Shia-dominated buffer state in the south..about a 4 month window.

He then stated that "After that, we're going to leave because we've done our work there and the Shias will want us to leave because we've handed over to them what they're most interested in. It won't be a victory that we'll be proud of ultimately unless we take advantage right now of our military capabilities."

*****

A couple of things jumped out at me...first, the very crisp summary message about the overall situation, both in Iraq and the implications for the region.

Second, the statement (as he predicted MONTHS ago) that Bushco will be leaving Iraq. (Interestingly, Rep. Pascrell was on just before Clark, stating that in Bush's next speech we would be hearing about pulling out, while a Republican Rep. named Rogers was vehemently disagreeing, talking about staying the course and erroneously talking about Al-Qaeda in Iraq as if it were the main problem.)

In talking about the Bush pullout, Clark moved the discussion into the next phase again--the consequences to the region and how the "victory" will not really be a victory for the Iraqi people nor the US.

It seems to me that this is what the Democrats need to be doing--broadening the picture and pounding against the upcoming propaganda we will be hearing about "victory" while the stage is set for the next mess in the region. Of course, Bushco may WANT this mess so it can trot out its nuclear weapons on Iran....we shall see.

.. The media treat Dean like a voodoo doll.

Stick him, poke him, scorch him...

I like Dean, but those relentless media attacks have gotta hurt.

I guess they're hard to withstand, so I'll stick up FOR Dean.

No, Clark and everyone, this war cannot be won. Period.

the present "stay the course" path...he's saying that Bushco will declare victory, while all the while, it's Iran that's the big winner.

We all know that Dean is right, and always has been. Yet no-one wants to tell the awful truth.

I am confused. How do we do that. I thought the Iraqis were most of the insurgency.

"Clark said it's up to the U.S. to use it's influence. Clark said we still have the "trump hand"-- the Iraqi Shias can't ask us to leave until we finish off the insurgency or until we finish training the troops"

The Kurds are the most tolerant of an American presence of the major Iraq groupings. The vast majority of the Shia want us to leave also, though they split between leaving right now or a little bit later. Much of the Shia leadership want Americans to stick around long enough to either kill off most of their Sunni enemies for them, or failing at that, to finish training and equipping enough of their own forces so they can do that job on their own. At that point, they too will have no further use of the Americans.

Hussein was a Sunni who ruled harshly over a Shiite majority partially by winning the loyalty of many in the Sunni minority through special treatment granted them through his Baathist Party and in the military.

I know that on TV I saw Wolf question a Kurdish rep if they were already,...exact words escape me...but the gist was are you Kurds killings the Sunnis already.

How in the world can you say that the insurgency needs to be "finished off."?

They will be, they are be...but we are NOT just killing insurgents, Tom. Be honest.

You can not just say finish off the insurgents so lightly. That is a whole lot of people to kill.

I never said here or anywhere else that U.S. forces are just killing insurgents. It may be their intent to only do so, but of course non insurgents die also.

It can be a perfectly valid argument to make that the "insurgency can not be finished off", but Clark's definition of "finishing the insurgency" means simply ending it's effectiveness. It isn't fair to say that anyone here is supporting killing all Sunnis. Practically speaking "finishing the insurgency" means lowering it's ability to seriously disrupt affairs inside of Iraq. The Philippines has had an active insurgency for decades, but it operates at a relatively low level.

But more to the point, what Clark is describing is isolating out the Al Quada element from the insurgency by giving the other major players in the insurgency a sufficient stake inside of a new Iraq, so that they would voluntarily suspend their insurgency. I understand that many think that is simply not going to happen. But that is what is being talked about here, not killing everyone who doesn't want Americans in their country. And Clark thinks the four month aftermath of next weeks elections (the legally proscribed period during which Parliament can change the Iraq Constitution by simple majority vote) is the time period during which any agreement that can be made with current insurgents will need to be made, before a full scale civil war is virtually inevitable.

But in effect we have created a new Iran, a theocracy. Iran was starting to come more aboard with some pro-western views...but that is over now.

As was said a week or so ago by Dean...we won for Iran what they could not win for themselves.

We can not finish off anyone without finishing off ourselves. I don't think Clark meant it so heartlessly, but we can't just keep finishing off people.

regarding Iran and a theocracy. Clark still has some hope that some positive adjustments are possible during the next few months in that regard. Dean may also, if you take his modified statement at face value about not being able to win the war the way it is being pursued. But even if he doesn't, at this point the real dispute among Democrats in my opinion, leaving Lieberman out of this, is what course of action will result in the least permanent damage. "Defeat" is a hot button word and politicians tend to not want to be too closely identified with it, but I don't think there are too many Democrats around who honestly think there is anything in Iraq for the U.S. to actually "win". At least I hope not. It is so God Damn bleak.

He said the war in Iraq was not winnable. He did not qualify that. He did add since he was pummeled and NOT defended by anyone...that the "war on terror" was winnnable another way.

It is bleak, it is hopeless, and we need to get out as soon as we can.

It is bankrupting us, financially, morally, and emotionally.

He knows the "war on terror" is nothing but a farce and has spoken to that effect; however, his audience on Faux doesn't understand that. So, in an effort to get the audience to understand what he's saying, he has to use words they would understand.

He's just framing the issue around something the Faux News viewers can grasp. That's all.

that we cannot beat the insurgency simply by killing people. He is very much aware of the fact, and has said so, most recently in his NYT op-ed, that we need to put the focus on reintegrating most of the insurgents back into society, involving them in the political process, and giving them a real stake in a stable Iraq. He has also pointed out that we create more enemies every time we kill an insurgent, since he has relatives who will want to avenge him.

Clark has not been taking such a heartless position, and I wish you would educate yourself more.

What Clark seems to be doing is setting up a nice little trap for Bush, so that he will be able to say "I told you so". Realistically, I don't think Clark believes that Bush is going to get his act together in Iraq any more than you or I believe it. I think his strategy though is to lay out what Bush would need to do to secure victory, while defining what victory would actually mean, (which Bush has repeatedly failed to do), so that when Bush fails to do it, and we end up with an Iran aligned Shia theocracy, Clark will be able to lay it all in Bush's lap and point out exactly how his failures have brought Iraq to this pass.

I think that Dean and Clark are pretty much on the same page as far as the big winners in this war being the Iranian Mullahs. In fact, I don't see much of anything that I disagree with you on, other than that I think you're misreading some of what Clark has been saying.

It just alarmed me. I saw that one phrase although it was not highlighted.

I know I will be jumped upon as cherry-picking...I am now the official "cherry-picker" at DU.

But that phrase scares me. How many insurgency do we have to kill before we win, before we prove we are masters, how many?

If he did not say that or if I misunderstood, let me know.

political process is paramount. He does not mean that he wants to KILL all the insurgents when he says "finish off" the insurgency. In fact, Clark has always said that you can't kill all your enemies and has always espoused diplomacy,negotiation, etc. as part of his approach not just military action. He wants the constitution to be amended after the election so that Sunnis are better represented and can become a real part of the political process, instead of being dominated by Shia and Kurds. It is the sense that they are being dominated by these groups that is part of the driving force behind the insurgency, as he has explained elsewhere.

He wants the US to apply pressure to getting the Shia and Kurds to make the appropriate changes to the constitution immediately after the election...if they don't, the trouble will continue with the largely Sunni insurgency and Iran's influence will grow stronger because, in effect, having Iranian influence take over Iraq.

After hearing Wolf question the Kurdish rep today I was sort of sick inside. I think they are already slaughtering them.

That term jumped out at me.

It sounded so cold, and the Kurdish rep's eyes looked cold.

"BLITZER: Well, if that happens, you know you're going to anger the Shia in the south. You're going to anger the Sunnis who used to control all of Iraq. In effect, you might be setting the stage for a -- not only a civil war but maybe independent states. Let me read to you from a CSIS report that came out only the other day, December 9th -- the Center for Strategic and International Studies here in Washington, a think tank: "The Kurds are exploiting their control of the three provinces that made up the Kurdish enclave under Saddam Hussein in ways that gave them advantages over other ethnic groups in the region and present the threat of soft ethnic cleansing in the area of Kirkuk.

"The inclusiveness of the national government is at risk, as is the effort to create truly national Iraqi forces."

First of all, is there a, quote, "ethnic cleansing" going on by the Kurds in Kirkuk -- trying to remove Iraqi Sunnis, in effect, from that oil-rich area?

TALABANI: No, there is no ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing was carried out against the Kurds in Kirkuk and in Hanakhim (ph) and other cities in Iraq. Saddam forcibly evicted Kurds and Turkomans from Kurdistan cities like Kirkuk because of the ethnicities.

BLITZER: But are you now trying to remove some of those Iraqi Sunnis who came in?

TALABANI: We're trying to find a legal process. And this is something that we've been calling for for two years now, to have a legal process where people that have been evicted from their homes and their lands have the right to return to their homes and properties. There has been very little progress on this.

Unfortunately, there have been some instances where people have taken it upon themselves to reclaim their homes and territories, which is why we're urging the multinational forces, the United States government, to take this matter very, very seriously. We need to find a just resolution to the genocide that was committed against the people of Kurdistan."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/11/le.01.html

No doubt it's a major mess there right now....

I strongly recommend you read the transcript, or better yet, listen tot he audio, of this interview General Clark did with KTAR radio last week....It might make you feel better about Clark's position...

Here's an excerpt:

Ted Simons: Okay, what would you like to see the administration do. There are a number of things you mentioned in the article. I was interested in when you talked about assimilating the enemy as one Kuwaiti academic talked to you. Is that something we could actually do with these people?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, we can’t do it, the Iraqis have to do it. Look, assume that there was something like this happening in the United States and for some reason someone in Virginia decided that he would be opposed to the United States government. I mean, you could hunt this guy down with a vengeance and kill him and then have his brothers come after and try to kill you or you could go after him, make it uncomfortable for him to be in opposition, at the same time be out talking to him and say “c’mon back in here.” I mean, there are ways to do these things. The Iraqis know it, it’s part of the culture. That’s what they’re worried about. I mean, you cannot carry out a war of extermination against these people and be successful. All you do it make more enemies. And, in the process, you do things that are totally un-American, like some of the ways in which we’ve treated some of these Iraqis.

http://securingamerica.com/node/376

He means that the Sunnis must be incorporated into Iraqi politics.

When de-baathification first began under Bremer/Garner, it was set at level one, meaning that only the highest ranking baathists surrounding Saddam were blacklisted. When Bremer changed the policy to level four de-baathification, the ban included many Sunnis including teachers, accountants...everyone. The only sin these folks had commited was knowing someone who knew someone who could get them a job under Saddam. In one fell swoop, Bremer fired thousands. And, tracking back, that is when most of the trouble broke out.

Clark points to two changes that must be made in the constitution to bring the Sunnis back into the mix: 1) end the absurd level of de-baathification, and 2) change the policy on oil revenue sharing. The Sunni leaders are ready to talk. Once most of the ordinary citizens have to reincorporated with some dignity, the Sunnis themselves will want to end the violence. Really. Some will remain, but not for long.

Not all Shia want Iran to control their futures, and certainly the Kurds will balk. Bringing the Sunnis on board will counter the prevailing move toward Tehran.

Mostly militant Sunnis.

Edit: and Clark wants to bring them into the political process, not kill them (that just creates more enemies).

"out of Iraq" is a mistake.

Clark had an excellent op/ed this week, and it sounds like he elaborated on it.

"It seems to me that this is what the Democrats need to be doing--broadening the picture and pounding against the upcoming propaganda we will be hearing about "victory" while the stage is set for the next mess in the region."
Agreed.

a crisis (a mess) then exploit that crisis to their advantage. Eg: underfund education, scores fall, blame the schools and teachers, financially punish failing schools, deepening the crisis, then ride in on your steed with your free market "solution" to the problem.

stable government which represents all of them, not just our favorite groups. He doesn't want permanent US bases in Iraq, either, correct me if I'm wrong on that. He also doesn't want Bushco to use nukes in the Middle East.

Correct. In his WaPo op/ed back in August, or maybe it was the live Q&A he did right after, he called on the Bush administration to state publicly that they have no intentions to base forces permanently in Iraq.

of their choosing, that would be terrific. We must ask, if the ends justifies the means. Was it worth all the death and misery. Was there a less violent solution? Was that solution dismissed out of hand because our original goal had nothing to do with democracy and independence for the Iraqi people?

In order to your questions: No, No, Yes, Yes. And regardless of the final outcome, yes we must ask.

any questioning as unpatriotic or harmful to our troops.

Anything questions we ask are nothing the troops in the field haven't asked themselves. They know the successes and failures first hand.

give FAUX the pitch.

on the most-watched cable network is a bad thing?

Particularly the folks that watch FAUX have the I.Q. of...... a

His contract is for one year, so I don't know what he'll do when the time comes. He has also said that going on faux is like going to war. He laughs that he loves going into the "Lion's Den."

When I traveling in the South this summer, I met lots of people who had seen Clark on faux. For them, it gave him street creds...they believed what he was saying. One guy told me that he was a republican but if anyone said anything about Clark, he would personally punch them out.

I don't get faux so I don't get to see him. Still, considering how faux (and CNN) twist the truth, I guess I'm glad his voice is out there. I'm just sorry that he has to do this.

he doesn't take their bait and just delivers his message. He's gotten very good at being succinct and VERY CLEAR.

He's probably the best equipped of all Democrats at this point to go on FAUX and deliver a message which they and their viewers don't always want to hear. And, since no one else is interested in hearing what he has to say--including much of the Democratic leadership, I'm afraid--it's about the only place that we Clark watchers can see him develop his message.

The last time he was on the bimbo tried to make it sound like he agreed with Bush's policies and he quickly batted her down and delivered his message perfectly. It was a beatuiful sight to behold.

Clark is smart. Fucking get us out of there witha shred of dignity.

Impressive as usual.

:kick:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x178817


SNIP

Indeed, the most effective Democratic criticism of the
> President's "victory" offensive came from two West Point graduates
> who had opposed the war, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island and
> General Wesley Clark, and both took Bush to task for the skimpiness
> of the Iraq effort. Clark wrote a New York Times Op-Ed piece offering
> a thoughtful list of suggestions for a more successful prosecution of
> the war that he had opposed, including the deployment of more troops
> (which he would transfer from other regions). Reed pointed out that
> the President, despite his talk of limited success in the
> reconstruction of the cities of Najaf and Mosul, "didn't tell the
> American people how we're going to replicate that success in other
> parts of Iraq ... how many more teams of Americans, both military and
> civilian, need to go into these communities (and) what it will cost
> us." Most important was Reed's tone—quiet, humble, dispassionate,
> substantive.
>
> Such sobriety seems beyond the reach of most Democrats. They make
> fools of themselves even when they speak the truth. The party
> chairman, Howard Dean, was not inaccurate when he said, "The idea
> that we are going to win this war ... is just plain wrong." If Dean
> had added the word militarily, most generals would agree with him.
> The trouble is, Dean—as always—seemed downright gleeful about the bad
> news. He seemed to be rooting for defeat. More subtle but no less
> feckless is the curious case of John Kerry, who has been calling for
> the withdrawal of 20,000 American troops as soon as the Iraqi
> elections are completed on Dec. 15. He has said this knowing full
> well that the Pentagon is planning to reduce the force by 20,000
> after Dec. 15 as part of its normal troop-rotation schedule. One
> hopes he won't be so crass as to take credit for the drawdown when it
> occurs. But then Kerry—and many other Democrats—have been calling for
> a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops, based on progress in Iraq, as if
> that were some sort of bold and different idea. It isn't. It is
> precisely what the President has said he will do.
>
> And now the Republicans are preparing to retaliate by running a
> vomitous television ad portraying Dean, Kerry and others as "retreat
> and defeat" Democrats, waving the white flag of surrender. In this
> holiday season, out of respect for the dead and wounded, and the
> enormity of the tragedy, wouldn't it be nice if all those rabid
> partisans—on both sides—just gave it a rest for a while?
>
>
> www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1139778,00.html

at TMP Cafe:

http://houseoflabor.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/11/213044/97

Defeatism vs. Withdrawalism

...it's really excellent in terms of recounting how Bush and Brenner screwed up "democracy". (It's evident that Clark gets to essence beautifully when he explains it for general consumption on FAUX...)

http://www.mahablog.com/2005/12/11/hopeless-and-getting-worse/

at this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2308255