W. Clark -- U.S. Troops really need to be in Iraq right now.

Wes Clark was on Fox News this morning telling folks it was important what troops were doing, and latest evaluation of how effective the latest anti-insurgent campaign is going.

While you can agree with Clark, many of us feel that the only thing to be said is not how "to win" in Iraq, but to call for an immediate withdraw. The United States military are the foreign troops in Iraq, the United States military is the aggressor in Iraq, it is the U.S. presence in Iraq which is leading to even more bloodshed and sectarian violence. That is not to say that after US forces are withdrawn that all will be well in Iraq. It is to say that as long as the military continues to intervene, it will not be able to stop the insurgency, becuase the number one reason for the insurgency is to resist an unlawful occupation by US troops, sent there by the men who criminally occupy the White House.

It will help the Dem Party tremendously if there were unity in regards to a immediate withdraw from Iraq, and from the Middle East. We do not need plans to "win" or "success" in building a compliant Iraqi regime, because such a regime will not be democratic. We need to get the hell out.

Clark is out to lunch, totally out of the loop. The latest "anti-insurgent" campaign is a disaster.

done done done.
What a turd.

but it certainly looks that way

We need Gore.

And I don't mean watch FOX, you don't have to fear giving them your personal ratings blip. Vid casts of virtually if not all of Clark's FOX appearances are available here (on Clark's own web site). This is a direct link to the video archive:

http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/23

There is your unedited evidence. There are the facts. People should view them yourselves or read the transcripts if your computer is too slow. I hold that Clark has consistently been the most powerful advocate of Democratic positions that FOX viewers have ever seen. Clark continually masters the FOX shock hosts at their own game and cuts through their spin to the facts. It is fun to watch.

So I challenge everyone to see for yourself before you fall for another anti Democrat spin job, which too many activists seem to be sitting Ducks for. Watch Clark do his commentary on FOX. Pick three appearances at random, any there, then come back here and report on which ones you watched, and tell us whether you thought Clark sold us out or whether you were cheering him on. My money is strongly on the latter. We complain about right wing control of the media and then we stab in the back a person who is out there fighting it. Over 20% of FOX's viewers define themselves as Democrats in case you didn't know. Then there are the spouses and children of Republicans who insist on watching FOX on TV. Then there are the public TV's set to FOX in waiting rooms. And of course there are the Republicans who watch FOX who are starting to see through George W. Bush, helped in large part by Wesley Clark.

I can comment on Clark's position based on all of the prior public comments he has made on Iraq. For one thing, unlike some other Democrats, Clark always emphasizes that this war has been a mistake from the moment it was conceived, and Clark has always been on record clearly stating that Bush was looking for a war with Iraq from moments after 9/11 if not before. And Clark still pushes for Congressional investigations of how the United States was misled into this war.

Second, Clark believes no overall good can come from this war, very much unlike Bush's view where he still tries to frame the Iraq war as a noble undertaking that enhances America's security. When Clark talks about the range of possible outcomes from America's invasion of Iraq starting with this moment looking forward, he describes the scenarios as ranging from a "C minus" outcome to an "F" outcome.

Third, Clark does not embrace a military solution, he is instead perhaps the strongest advocate for a diplomatic solution. Clark has a complex read on the situation which takes into account information he receives from his sources in the Arab Gulf States. Clark argues that announcing a U.S. pull out now undermines U.S. leverage with Iran and Syria to help broker a regional agreement that will provide Iraq with stability and security and which will give Iran and Syria sufficient assurances that their own security needs will not threatened by a stable Iraq. In fact direct negotiations between Iran and the U.S. regarding Iraq have just been agreed upon, something Clark has been pushing for years.

Further Clark argues that the only chance to avoid a deepening civil war in Iraq (he already calls it a civil war) is the creation of a government of national unity, which will require the Shiites to make some concessions to the Sunni. It is the Shiite majority in the Iraq Assembly currently who want the U.S. to keep troops inside Iraq to provide security for their government and to train their troops. Clark argues that this provides the U.S. with the only diplomatic leverage we have to pressure the Shiites in government to make concessions to the Sunnis that can avoid all out civil war and regional destability. As long as they are asking for us to keep our troops inside Iraq we can demand certain political flexibility from them in return. Announcing a timetable for pulling out now undercuts that leverage. Clark is not advocating keeping American troops inside Iraq until the job is done. He advocates not announcing withdrawals now while their presence inside Iraq still has a chance of helping enable political changes needed to turn Iraq away from civil war.

Clark openly acknowledges that if the political process in Iraq breaks down this year over efforts to create an Iraq unity government, that withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq is likely the only recourse left to America. Bush will never admit that.

Clark's specific comments today should not be discussed as heresy. I will be interested in reading and discussing them when we actually know what he actually said and what the context for his comments was.

currently who want the U.S. to keep troops inside Iraq to provide security for their government and to train their troops."

The Shiite majority in the Iraq Assembly has zero sway over the Shia majority in the Iraq population, who by a huge majority want the US out now.

Though Clark has been a voice of moderation at Fox, he is dead wrong on this and has been wrong in the past (he predicted one year ago that a strengthening security situation would permit the US to draw back troop levels by last fall).

Although the situations are not identical, our reason for staying in Iraq is exactly the same as the one we stayed in Vietnam: pride. The political process has broken down, the only question is how long it will take us to admit it.

That's an oversimplification. I agree that Shisa general opinion on U.S. quick withdrawal is much stronger in favor of it than that of the Assembly, but the Assembly factions are not as disconnected from Shia thinking as I think your statement implies. Leading members of Iraq's Shia led assembly confer with Grand Ayatollah Sistani on a regular basis, and he is the most influential Shiite in Iraq currently, for one thing. Actually the strongest opposition to the U.S. in Iraq still comes from the Sunni community.

But even accepting your statement on face value, the Americans are unpopular inside of Iraq with many for legitimate nationalistic reasons, but that doesn't mean that most in Iraq wouldn't welcome the results that American diplomacy is now trying to bring about inside Iraq, even if America gets zero credit for it. The U.S. leverage may be confined to the Shiite majority in the Assembly, because they are the ones with their asses on the line needing the U.S. to secure the Green Zone, but if that Shiite Majority in the Assembly cuts the right deal with the Sunni minority in the Assembly, rejoicing still might break out across Iraq. Sunni's who have been supporting the insurgency voted in large numbers in the last Iraq elections hoping to win a big enough block in the Assembly to change the Iraq Constitution and give the Sunni minority an adequate voice in Iraq's future. If Shiite politicians in the Assembly would now agree to that, even if it is only to save their own hides, it would be a significant break through toward averting an all out full scale military civil war inside of Iraq.

He keeps setting up benchmarks as to when we should give up and then changing them when they're accomplished. His last set was "if a civil war erupts"

Well, Wes, it has. What now?

The solution to Iraq is not a military one and our troops being there in the midst of a civil war is not the answer. Clark should know this - we are OCCUPIERS. Certainly provide Iraqis with diplomatic guidance if they want it, but that won't work because the WH is incompetent.

Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds must WANT to work together to form a democratic country, they have to decide that for themselves. If they choose not to, so be it. It's their decision not ours - time to go.

and it ain't good

...to form a democratic country, they have to decide that for themselves."

Clark agrees with that statement. He thinks the rubber is hitting the road on that very point RIGHT NOW. Some of them do want to work together for that purpose. Some of been trying hard to do that all along. Some have even been assassinated for trying that. Others are willing to move in that direction provided they see more willingness from others in groups other than their own to meet them half way. In some cases each side is waiting for evidence from another side of their sincerity before they are willing to move forward on their own.

I think most of us who abhor war believe in diplomatic efforts to resolve conflicts. Often the direct parties to a dispute themselves are unable to move the diplomatic process forward on their own without the help of other parties helping broker discussions. Even though the United States was closely identified with Israel, Jimmy Carter played a critical role in helping bring Sadat together with Begin for the Egyptian Israel Peace Treaty.

It seems difficult for many of us at DU to think that the United States can possibly place any positive role in peace discussions inside Iraq, but many facts on the ground suggest otherwise. The Shiite majority government currently in place in Iraq still wants assurances that the United States will continue to prop up their security against insurgents, they are still asking for the United States to retain troops inside of Iraq. The Kurds tend to be Pro-American because of American help in protecting the Kurd enclave against Hussein prior to his overthrowal. Many Sunni's actually fear the Americans less than they fear the Shiite militias. Elements representing parts of the Sunni Insurgency have repeatedly negotiated directly with American military forces in the past. Currently it is some hard line Shiite elements who are complaining about American influence attempting to reign in Shiite extremist death squads, and to broker greater Sunni influence inside Iraq's government.

Iran's Supreme leader just gave his approval for an Iranian delegation to enter into talks with America about the future of Iraq,. Iraq's current President gives his blessing to these talks also. Obviously Clark thinks the United States should follow through on our ongoing diplomatic efforts it is involved in to help Iraq's major communities form a stable national government that can help reduce the fighting there. Our military presence inside Iraq is currently a chip in those discussions because it is the only leverage we really have with Iraq's current government to show flexibility with Sunni and Kurdish political parties, BECAUSE THE SHIITE POLITICAL FACTIONS DON'T WANT US TO WITHDRAW YET.

we need to leave NOW!!!

Clark criticises the rationale for the invasion of Iraq, but in the end he's too much of a military man to even entertain the notion that it's UNPATRIOTIC to continue fighting the war itself. He views withdrawal as ignominous defeat-- which it essentially is, but like many who want to "support the troops" Clark cannot face the truth that they are dying and being maimed utterly in vain, to no good purpose whatsoever, and that their very presence in Iraq is a war crime.

Astute, experienced, but 100% military. You get your orders and you go. Never let your soldiers down.

A wonderful mindset for a commander, and a lousy one for anyone who shapes policy.

From what I've read, I think that a withdrawal would probably take a minimum of 3 to 6 months. I absolutely support a safe and measured withdrawal. I disagree with Clark that troops need to be there. It's hard to escape the conclusion that we're making things worse on a daily basis. However, I'm not sanguine about things improving after we leave. We've started a chain of events that will play itself out violently one way or another.

and their military hardware. Maybe it would take a few months.

"It's hard to escape the conclusion that we're making things worse on a daily basis. " Exactly. I don't know why all the Dems aren't saying that, it is so obvious. Murtha is saying this (although i think we really should withdraw over the horizon... as long as that horizon is defined as Kansas or Iowa), James McGovern is saying this... wish they would all get on board!

"However, I'm not sanguine about things improving after we leave. We've started a chain of events that will play itself out violently one way or another." I agree with you here, also. Getting out now is the better option, and will likely lead to less violence than staying in, and will at least end US involvement in a war of aggression against the people of Iraq...

And never be so mercurial a supporter of anyone that your choices can be so easily swayed by reading what someone else said that someone else said. We all have to become more politically sophisticated than that.

And insinuate I am politicaly unsophisticated. Who are you.

The flaw in the policy, as I see it, in your #20, is waiting to see if the political process breaks down. The political process will succeed or fail regardless.

I reacted quickly to the only text your wrote. "Tell me I didn't read that, My favorite first choice is now out".

My comment was to you, true, and that is why I apologize, but I was reacting to a larger dynamic. From everything I've read Clark did not break any new ground today or change a position that he has not previously long held. Sometimes people intentionally spin words out of context, sometimes it is unintentional. Sometimes people get quotes completely wrong, intentionally or unintentionally. Mostly my point was that all of us should withhold changing a positive judgment that we may have about a Democratic Party leader based only on a fragmentary report of what he or she supposedly said somewhere, which is provided by someone else devoid of the full real context.

If you disagree with Wesley Clark based on this comment of yours:"The flaw in the policy, as I see it, in your #20, is waiting to see if the political process breaks down. The political process will succeed or fail regardless."

...that's not in any way politically unsophisticated, it is as valid an opinion as mine or anyone else's. That is the basis of an important discussion. I'm sorry that I offended you and that I seemed to insinuate any unsophistication on your part.

can be successfully amended through a DIPLOMATIC effort backed up by military presence -- please see this very informative article so that you get a better feel for what Clark has been preaching about nonstop :: namely, the amendment of their constitution timeframe consisting of 4 months -- and we are nearly at the end of month 3, when all out diplomatic pressure SHOULD BE PUT IN PLACE and NOT allow this window of opportunity to pass on more and inevitable violence ...

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3146

oh, yea, but this WH wants continued chaos - I forgot - my bad!!!

to the problem, let alone the "root." It seems like the root of the violence goes quite a bit deeper than a process the Bushists started just a couple of years ago.

If the troops left it would be all out civil war. You simply cannot say "Ooops, sorry we broke your country" and then bugger off. There needs to be a MASSIVE display of force, with MASSIVE amounts of troops to secure whatever peace can be mustered, training of Iraqi forces must go into top gear, and when those guys can actually do the job of soldiering, then, and ONLY then can we pull the troops out.

The Iraqi population deserves and requires some semblance of law and order before they can make any headway to self-determination and self rule. If that is not realized it will not be possible to achieve ANY sort of peace or democracy.

This was a botched plan from the start from the top down, and due to MASSIVE mis-calculations and overly optimistic end-game scenarios we are now confronted with this God-awful mess. Simply withdrawing is not a realistic option, regardless of how appealing it may seem. The long-term consequences of doing that could be devastating to the region and to the world.

Just curious.

Don

1975 - 1968 (Tet) = 7

2003 + 7 = 2010

..that are there now, and focus on training, training, training...

Finding "insurgents", and fighting the "war on terror" would have to take an immediate back seat to the number one goal, getting Iraqi forces up to speed, trained and ready to replace the Allied troops.

They don't want us there, we don't want to be there, but we can't simply get up and leave after smashing the infrastructure to tiny pieces.

we are walking target practice for these guys who don't like us. I can't say I blame them when we put over 15,000 people through prisons to determine if they are indeed a threat or not. This includes women and children too so they are not just limiting it to young men. If my wife or child were taken to some prison to determine if she was a danger to the country or not...yeah I might have a few issues with that and I might want to take a few shots and the people's heads who took her.

This is not about a democracy...this is not about preventing civil war...this is about protecting our troops and bringing them home so they are not in harms way unnecessarily.

There was, but we wasted it

Now is the time!