(Wes) Clark calls for `dialogue` in Mideast

[sabra]

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1044395.php/Clark_calls_for_%60dialogue%60_in_Mideast

Clark calls for `dialogue` in Mideast


WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- The United States needs to engage diplomatically with Iraq`s neighbors to help stabilize the region, retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Sunday.

Appearing alongside retired Gens. Barry McCaffrey, Montgomery Meigs and Wayne Downing on NBC`s "Meet the Press," Clark said a "regional dialogue" was needed to work with the political growth of a democratic Iraq.

"Without (a dialogue), then it`s in the interest of every one of those states to fight inside Iraq for their own interests," Clark said. "So the Iranians pull their faction in Iraq one way; the Syrians and the Saudis work on the Sunnis to do what they want; and this state is getting ripped apart from the outside."

Clark said a lack of widespread diplomacy could mean that Iran and a Shiite-dominated Iraq could be at long-term odds with Sunni-controlled Islamic republics to the west.

[BlueJac]

1. He confuses me...........

His stand is ?????

[bahrbearian]

2. He wants to bring the Iranians , Syrias, Turks, and Saudis to the

Table to talk about the Situation in Iraq ,Instead of having them work on the outside to stake out their own interests. He seems to be the only General that wants any diplomacy. He wants Iraq to become part of the "neighborhood".

[Crunchy Frog]

5. His stand is that we need to use diplomacy in the region.

He doesn't want to see the whole thing turn into a regional conflagration. Right now he sees that Bush has given Iraq's neighbors no incentives to work towards stability in Iraq and every incentive to work against it, since the neocons have made it pretty clear that they've got their eye on invading other countries once we're "finished" with Iraq.

Wes Clark wants to change that dynamic by giving those countries a genuine stake in having a stable Iraq. That's what Clark's position is with respect to using diplomacy in the region.

I hope I answered your question.

[bpilgrim]

3. so, by keeping our troops THERE, we can avoid a broader war in the region?

"we can at least avoid a regional war if we work the right way now...so I don't favor a pullout, an announcement of a pull-out, or a time-line for exiting yet"

source...
Wes Clark says,.. "Clock is Ticking..."

i don't follow that... the region is already destabilized so can we MOVE ON from that straw-man?

we need to be NEGOTIATING a TIMELINE for withdraw with the REGION & the WORLD, through the U.N. period

anything short of that is simply extending the neoCONs DISASTER and simply ERODING our credibility and goodwill FURTHER to make our last rational hope NEGOTIATION even MORE difficult and thereby making ALL our futures MORE DANGEROUS - not to mention the PRESENT :argh:


http://media.globalfreepress.com

peace

[Crunchy Frog]

7. It seems that some people in the Middle East

are taking an interest in what Clark has to say.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2041847&mesg_id=2042342

[bpilgrim]

9. Stagger on, weary Titan

The US is reeling, like imperial Britain after the Boer war - but don't gloat

Timothy Garton Ash in Stanford
Thursday August 25, 2005
The Guardian

...

So this is no time for schadenfreude. It's a time for critical solidarity. A few far-sighted people in Washington are beginning to formulate a long-term American strategy of trying to create an international order that would protect the interests of liberal democracies even when American hyperpower has faded; and to encourage rising powers such as India and China to sign up to such an order. That is exactly what today's weary Titan should be doing, and we should help him do it.

source...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1555819,00.html

supporting keeping our troops there LONGER is not the answer to the many very large problems facing the U.S.

we need a timetable, now

peace

[IndianaGreen]

32. Clark should read the news coming out of Iraq

Sunnis and the Shias of central Iraq have denounced the new constitution referring to it as "the Jewish constitution."

Sheik Yahya Ibrahim Al-Batawi, an organizer of the protest, read a statement denouncing the “Jewish constitution,” saying its goal was to divide Iraq along sectarian and ethnic lines.

Sunni negotiators delivered their rejection in a joint statement Sunday shortly after the draft was submitted to parliament. They branded the final version as “illegitimate” and asked the Arab League and the United Nations to intervene.

“I think if this constitution passes as it is, it will worsen everything in the country,” said Saleh al-Mutlaq, a Sunni negotiator.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9084376/

I hope the neocons are happy with their Frankenstein!

[The Stranger]

38. One Nation, Under PNAC, With Illegal War and Injustice for All.

It is clear that part of the PNAC/Neocon plan was to divide Iraq into three separate, internally warring states.

[FloridaPat]

4. Except Syria & Iran are on the "invasion" list and know it.

[Crunchy Frog]

6. Clark has mentioned that fact frequently.

His position is that we have to change that attitude because it is the main incentive those countries have for wanting Iraq to remain unstable. He believes that if those countries feel they have a genuine stake in a stable Iraq, that they can become positive partners in improving the situation.

[NNN0LHI]

8. Clark is trying to play the "good cop" character in this CSI: Iraq segment

Not going to work.

Don

[dogman]

10. Clark is not playing.

This isn't a tv show of no consequence. He's trying to offer a solution and show that Dems can produce a cogent plan.

[bpilgrim]

11. keeping our troops there is not a 'cogent plan'

imho

peace

[dogman]

12. Preventing WWIII is.

imho
As you say, PEACE

[bpilgrim]

13. and keeping or WORSE, escalating our ME troops, only makes it more likely

imho

peace

[dogman]

14. It would seem less likely if a regional resolution could be achieved.

A power vacuum was predicted with the removal of Saddam. It has reached that point if we can not establish a regional consensus. Of course there are no guarantees, but Clark is making the effort and proposing a plan which Bushco has failed to do and which the Dems are accused of not doing either. Pull-out is a plan for our troops but not for the region.

[bpilgrim]

15. this is a global crisis

and i am not disagreeing that getting regional support would be a good thing but that you can't get it with military troops there with no timetable or plan for withdraw.

peace

[beetbox]

16. When one says something

that can mean anything at any given time what one has said is nothing.

This is the primary logic of the professional politician. The endless obfuscations can cause one to tear out ones hair. Is it true that the only way up is down?

Plain Speak is better.

Out Now!

What is predictable in Clark's comments into the ether of nothingness is that culpability of a somewhat major player in this tragedy goes pretty much unnoticed. That would be the US Corporate Machine that he so dutifully represents.

Oh and by the way-They're killing people.

[dogman]

18. Talk about meaningless.

If all America is to you is a US Corporate Machine, what difference does it make? You would likely see a lot more death if we are Out Now. Just because we were not responsible for this mess doesn't relieve us of a moral obligation to bring about a better solution.

[dogman]

17. Yes

That's why I have a serious concern about WWIII. You are not likely to get a regional solution without providing security for the country of Iraq. If Bushco had planned properly, that might have been possible without US forces. Now we can't even buy the support of the supposed coalition. That is why Clark has pointed out that the clock is ticking. Without rapid development of a workable plan using diplomacy to work the political side of this he has said pulling out the troops will be the only option. He is pointing out that it was ill conceived in the first place, it was mishandled in the second place, and will be a regretable defeat in the end. He is laying all this in Bush's lap where it belongs. The price should then be paid at the ballot box in '06 whem America should hold these inept fucks responsible for the damage they have done. We here know that. He is trying to lay this out for the people who have the power to change things if they can cast an honest ballot.

[bpilgrim]

20. "providing security for the country of Iraq" we have FAILED that mission

and are now only adding FUEL to the FIRE that continues to worsen daily.

we need a PLAN, an exit strategy, a TIMETABLE for withdraw, NOW.

i disagree with his strategy for winning support without a plan for withdraw of our troops.

peace

[dogman]

21. And have you seen any leader propose that strategy?

We have to save as many lives as we can but if we don't change this regime at home, this is just the first adventure of many. it is unlikely this WH and the GOPers are going to do what Clark recommends. We have to show the American people where the failures of this admin lie and convince them that the Dems are capable of doing things right in order for them to trust us with their vote. We can sit here and decry the actions of Bushco all day but as long as they are in power they will follow the PNAC agenda if they have to destroy this country to do it. they have proved that already.

[bpilgrim]

23. too few, but times are changing...

look at the polls.

a smart politician would capitalize on those numbers and call the neoCONs out and not endorse their current policy (no timetable, no withdraw) especially if they KNOW the neoCONs are going to maintain the course despite what americans want.

we must have an EXIT-STRATEGY with TIME TABLES, period.

this USED to be 'conventional wisdom' not long ago... wtf happened with that :shrug:

peace

[1932]

24. I haven't listened to this yet, but this interview might help inform

the discussion here:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2632

[1932]

25. The interviewee authored this article:

(which I think is the real reason the US continuing in Iraq is going to be ultimately incredibly destabilizing, as empire always is)

Economic Invasion
U.s. Corporations March Into Baghdad, At The Expense Of Self-determination

by Antonia Juhasz
August 15, 2005
latimes.com

ON MONDAY, Iraq's National Assembly will release a draft constitution to be voted on by the people in two months. Since February, vital issues have been debated and discussed by the drafting committee: the role of Islamic law, the rights of women, the autonomy of the Kurds and the participation of the minority Sunnis.

But what hasn't been on the table is at least as important to the formation of a new Iraq: the country's economic structure. The Bush administration has succeeded in maintaining a stranglehold on issues such as public versus private ownership of resources, foreign access to Iraqi oil and U.S. control of the reconstruction effort -- all of which are still governed by administration policies put into place immediately after the invasion. The Bush economic agenda favors foreign interests -- American interests
-- over Iraqi self-determination.

Over a year ago, orders were put in place by L. Paul Bremer III, then the U.S. administrator of Iraq, that were designed to "transition from a ... centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat. Those orders were also incorporated into the transitional administrative law -- Iraq's interim constitution -- and the economic restructuring they mandate is well underway.

Laws governing banking, investment, patents, copyrights, business ownership, taxes, the media and trade have all been changed according to U.S. goals, with little real participation from the Iraqi people. (The TAL can be changed, but only with a two-thirds majority vote in the National Assembly, and with the approval of the prime minister, the president and both vice presidents.) The constitutional drafting committee has, in turn, left each of these laws in place.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=8508

[1932]

28. Another thing surely to result in instability,

regardless of timetables, etc, (from the same article):

Finally, consider Iraq's reconstruction, which also remains firmly under U.S. control. One of Bremer's orders denied the Iraqi government the ability to give preference to Iraqis in the reconstruction effort. Instead, more than 150 U.S. companies were awarded contracts totaling more than $50 billion, more than twice the GDP of Iraq. Halliburton has the largest, worth more than $11 billion, while 13 other U.S. companies are earning more than $1.5 billion each.

This is why you don't hear the generals on Meet the Press talk about anythign that would involve the US giving up control. And this is why things are ultimately not going to work out.

Don't you see this ending in a big Boston-style Tea Party?

[dogman]

26. A time table is not effective.

It sets no standard for success. No one is willing to be the last sacrifice if it has no meaning and we are pulling out no matter what happens. That is not a strategy. The last polls I heard cited today is that most Americans think Bushco is inept but think an immediate withdrawal is not an answer.

[bpilgrim]

29. so say the neoCONs and political elite but i disagree

for the reasons stated above.

"It sets no standard for success."

when everyone is out, we're successful, right now our military presence is just making it worse and besides the american people will see this as a done deal once the constitution is passed and when they find out we've created an islamic state they will demand our troops come home YESTERDAY.

peace

[1932]

30. Forget what Americans think.

When the Iraqis realize that the US has created a nation that exports all their wealth to the US, they'll be pissed.

See the article above.

Empires don't fall apart because the citizens get wise. They fall apart because the subjugated demand justice. Damn, this is what part of America's founding ethos. We've had two and quarter centuries of watching other countries demand the same. We've spen the last fifty years behaving like the country that colonized. Why are there like only three people in America willing to talk about this? Why does nobody on DU talk about this?

It so obvious where all this is headed.

[dogman]

31. There in lies the main problem now.

This administration has not defined success. They have given no standard to measure. A reasonable person might well consider an Iraqi nation secure within its' own border a good solution. Right now there is no end in sight and that coincides with the PNAC vision of world domination. One problem is that those that want withdrawal may get their wish in time for the '06 elections, at which time the Bushies will say they have given the people what they demand. Using this to win the election and hold the power they now exercise, they may well be geared up to start round two.

[1932]

36. Whatever the US defines as success, you can bet the US media will present

to the pulic as having been achieved. I suspect that no domestice media in a half-millenium of imperialism has presented the imperial efforts of its nation as having failed.

Bush does not need to worry about defining success viz the American public. (Nixon, by the way, didn't lose any elections because of the public perception of Vietnam).

The problem is whether Iraq is content with the government the US creates for them. And do you see the two-fold problem that's partly revealed just by that sentence? No country the US creates will be seen as legitimate by Iraqis. And if you read that LA Times article above you can see that we're on the road to creating a country that will be guaranteed to be rejected by Iraqis and therefore will be instable.

[goclark]

37. I agree dogman

At least Clark is saying that we can not keep being the bully.

It is NOT working.
It is certainly a start.

The problewm is who would be leading the effort for TALKS?

Certainly not Condi LIAR.

It should be someone like President Cartewr, but of course that would never happen. It must be a NeoCon.

Maybe Bolton will do it ---sarcasm!!!!

[The_Casual_Observer]

19. THe US has done enough damage in the ME

Things can only get worse there now.

[dogman]

22. Without change it will get worse.

That is why Clark is proposing solutions. If we don't get a change in leadership this is likely just the beginning.

[The_Casual_Observer]

27. It's doubtful that anything will be resolved there in the next

several generations, or until the oil is gone. Then, nobody will care what happens in the middle east anymore.

[MadeinOhio]

33. Yeah you are good at pointing that out....

These oil wars are and have been going on for centuries, and now we have faux-fake christians advocating everything. It's the nightmare brainwashing creates.

[goforit]

34. Hmmm....the Peace maker shows up 2.5 yrs after the mess?

Please spare me.

[LeftyElvis]

35. I don't know about this

I think Iran is licking their chops to expand their influence and eventually to have a country almost identical to theirs right next door. The civil war going on right now will almost certainly benefit Iran.

[The Stranger]

39. One Nation, Under PNAC, With Illegal War and Injustice for All.

But if you talk to the A-Rabs, Clark, then how can you continue to demonize them in the media and churches? And you have to do that to hate them, continue to bomb, torture and murder them, and take their oil!

Get with the program, Clark.