WaPo: Before It's Too Late in Iraq-Wes Clark

[FrenchieCat]

From the morning paper:

But go to the link and read his actual plan...cause it's there....clearly weaved into Clark's critique.

In the old, familiar fashion, mounting U.S. casualties in Iraq have mobilized increasing public doubts about the war. More than half the American people now believe that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. They're right.....

Adding a diplomatic track to the strategy is a must. The United States should form a standing conference of Iraq's neighbors, complete with committees dealing with all the regional economic and political issues, including trade, travel, cross-border infrastructure projects and, of course, cutting off the infiltration of jihadists. The United States should tone down its raw rhetoric and instead listen more carefully to the many voices within the region. In addition, a public U.S. declaration forswearing permanent bases in Iraq would be a helpful step in engaging both regional and Iraqi support as we implement our plans.


The growing chorus of voices demanding a pullout should seriously alarm the Bush administration, because President Bush and his team are repeating the failure of Vietnam: failing to craft a realistic and effective policy and instead simply demanding that the American people show resolve. Resolve isn't enough to mend a flawed approach -- or to save the lives of our troops. If the administration won't adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that it bring our troops home.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/25/AR2005082501623.html

General Wes Clark will answer questions today at 2 p.m. at http://www.washingtonpost.com.

[eridani]

1. Glad to see that "no permanent bases" meme again

All Dems in the public eye need to be shouting this from the rooftops.

[jmatthan]

2. Totally disagree with General Wes Clark

General Wes Clark expounds a policy which continues the physical presence of the US army as he cannot accept that it has been defeated, in fact - routed.

What he says may sound nice to fellow Americans, especially Democrats who do not want to now the truth, but his assumption that there has been no diplomatic approach is wrong.

What have three US Ambassadors to Iraq (including John Negroponte) been doing? John Bolton type diplomacy is in place everywhere.

When one accepts that the presence of US troops in Iraq IS the problem, that there is absolute Chaos presently, that the country in the midst of a Civil war, that the US has and is using mercenaries to protect its interests, that the prison scandal at Abu Ghraib is one which originates at the top of the US military ladder, that the story on the ground in the locality (all Middle East and Asia where there is a free press, unlike the US) is nearer to the truth than what Gen Wes Clark hears in US, then one can understand why his reasoning is wrong, wrong and wrong - just as Paul Hackett was wrong, wrong wrong.

I suggest Gen Wes Clark appear before the World Tribunal on Iraq and face the tribunal and hear the evidence that was presented to them.

I am absolutely sure he will not want to hear that as the truth always hurts.

Then he may change his tune. Presently he stands out as a Bush apologist!!

Jacob Matthan
http://jmpolitics.blogspot.com
Oulu, Finland

[Adelante]

5. You certainly have a right to disagree

Clark has absolutely no problem hearing the truth. He is one of the most honest men in politics today. He is not afraid to take an unpopular stand, when he believes it is the right stand. So disagree all you want, but do not call him a "Bush apologist," when he is no such thing and never has been.

Disagreement is fine; intellectual dishonesty is not fine.

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

Unfortunately, the administration didn't see the need for a diplomatic track, and its scattershot diplomacy in the region -- threats, grandiose pronouncements and truncated communications -- has been ill-advised and counterproductive. The U.S. diplomatic failure has magnified the difficulties facing the political and military elements of strategy by contributing to the increasing infiltration of jihadists and the surprising resiliency of the insurgency.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/25/AR2005082501623.html

Is that what Bush apologists commonly say in the Washington Post?

You may not know it, but this Op-Ed was first submitted to the Bush apologist Wall Street Journal in response to an editorial in late June -- they refused to print it.

[jmatthan]

10. Staying in Iraq

is a Bush-apologist strategy. It refuses to accept reality.

There are many Democrat leaders like Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden who keep pushing this as the strategy to follow.

I am for immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the defeated US forces from Iraq as only that will bring te violence under control.

Let us agree to disagree.

[deacon2]

15. Bullshit

Wes Clark is a brilliant man who has actually won a war. Whether you disagree with him or not, you have no right to call him a Bush apologist. He has been exceedingly vocal against the bullshit of this administration. Why saddle him with yours?

[Barrett808]

8. US troop death graph and trend line - trend is continuously up:

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html

[Adelante]

9. I suggest you rethink this

"the prison scandal at Abu Ghraib is one which originates at the top of the US military ladder"

It originates at the top of the BUSH ADMINISTRATION. Do not let them off the hook.

[jmatthan]

11. That is the problem

Your top military brass are no longer competent military men. They are part sycophants of the Bush malAdministration.

No competent military man would have followed these illegal orders of the Bush regime.

They are all war criminals and should be tried aloong with the members of this dishonest criminal regime.

[Brotherjohn]

3. I think Clark actually wants the troops out now. Here's my thinking...

The MSM is constantly saying the Dems need to propose their own plan for Iraq. So Clark is proposing a plan. His plan says that we can't just pull the troops... that certain things need to be done first. He says:
"Urgent modification of the strategy is required before it is too late to do anything other than simply withdraw our forces."

He proposes several things that should be done (should have been done in the first place if in fact the war had even been justified, which it wasn't). These things include:
- "The United States should form a standing conference of Iraq's neighbors"
- "The United States should tone down its raw rhetoric"
- "A public U.S. declaration forswearing permanent bases in Iraq"
- "Ten thousand Arab Americans with full language proficiency should be recruited to assist as interpreters"
- "Canada, France and Germany should be engaged to assist"

That last one especially did it for me. I know Wesley Clark is a smart guy. I know he knows that the Bush administration would laugh at every single word of his suggested plan, and he knows that NONE of it will be implemented in at least 3 years and 4 months. Of course, NO sensible plan would be implemented by Bush Co., and he knows it. But he is going to publicly propose one anyway.

Then he closes with:
"If the administration won't adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that it bring our troops home."

He's setting the stage for saying, in a few months "We should bring the troops home... now". When they hit him with "You can't just say we should cut and run! What's YOUR plan?!" He'll say, "I published it, a long time ago! The Bush administration refused to listen to sense. Now it's too late!"

[Adelante]

4. That's the saddest part

He published it two years ago and has talked it ever since. I wonder how many deaths could have been avoided, both Iraqi and American. It's heartbreaking.

[Brotherjohn]

6. Two years ago? I had no idea. How little the MSM listens.

I bet he's only just added the parts about "if we don't do these things, the people will be justified in asking that we pull our troops out".

He's getting ready to throw his hat into the "troops out now" ring. And I don't mean to imply he's doing it to follow polls. He seriously believes it wasn't the only option early on, but that it's becoming the only option as more time passes with nothing sensible being done.

He also knows that, with Bush in power, by the time he's running in 2008, it WILL be the only option. This allows his to campaign full-force urging "Troops out now!". He'll have the backing of having had a plan in place for years, and public warnings that if this plan were ignored, pulling the troops out would become the ONLY option. It will also be backed by the weight of his being a 4-star general.

[Adelante]

7. That's right

He's always said there was a "window" and if we didn't take it, this is where we'd end up. He still does believe, and he told us only yesterday, that it's possible, just barely, to stave off not only civil war in Iraq, but full-scale regional war in the ME, which is what he sees on the horizon. "Troops out now" is actually not what he wants, but he sees a tipping point very soon, where it will be the unavoidable conclusion. It is not what he thinks is best, not at all. He is more of a Marshall Plan-type internationalist. The whole world should be helping the whole world resolve conflicts and threats, from war to genocide, hunger, civil rights, health care, justice, environment. It's what he believes in. I believe in it, too, and this is why he holds his supporters, whether he's running for office or not. His worldview is toward global stability and humanitarianism. He could never conceive of abandoning Iraq to chaos and more war, especially after we went in there and destroyed their country. He would never be that irresponsible. So, this is not pragmatic, I don't think; this is genuine. It doesn't mean the Democratic Party can't make hay on it.

[jmatthan]

12. Abandoning to chaos

You wrote:

"He could never conceive of abandoning Iraq to chaos and more war, especially after we went in there and destroyed their country."

What does he think is the situation in Iraq presently?

A beautiful summer's day walk in the park?

Get out now and pay through the nose for rebuilding that country.

There are many more competent who can do this without being THE PROBLEM!!

Certainly not Germany, etc. The answer lies in Muslim nations. Certainly not Arab Americans!! Ahmed Chalbi?

[FrenchieCat]

13. Clark answering questions now.....via blogging at WAPO

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

He is framing and setting up the GOP for 2006. In his op-ed, he says that IF the Bush administration doesn't change its strategy quickly,
then a pull out recourse will be the only solution left. As Clark said....the clock is ticking. Soon the clock will stop ticking and we will be out of time.

As we are all quite aware that Bush ain't about to pull-out.....with Clark offering a rational plan short of pulling out that the Bush admin will be ignoring, then very soon a Pull-out will be the only alternative plan left to be offered. But when it is, Bush and the media cannot say that Democrats did not offer alternative plans short of pulling out.

I think it's the way to get us to the Pull-out position while having covered all bases via constructive debate.

Framing is key to providing the 2006 congressional candidates with something to campaign on. Screaming pull-out can only be effective if it is clearly understood that BushCO kept screwing everything up and listened to no one.

The strategy is brilliant and is clearly a "set up" of the Bush admin.

[FrenchieCat]

14. Opinions from prom. bloggers on Clark's OP-Ed

The Corporate media can't say that the Democrats have not plan.

Scott Shields on MyDD 8/26/05
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/8/26/143249/029#readmore
Clark Lays Out Plan For Iraq
by Scott Shields

Mazer Rackam on Dilatory Action 8/26/05
http://dilatoryaction.blogspot.com/2005/08/workable-plan-for-iraq.html

Matthew Yglesias on TAPPED 8/26/05
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/08/index.html#007521
CLARK ON WITHDRAWAL.
Wesley Clark's gone and done what needs to be done if you're going to argue against withdrawing from Iraq -- outline some alternatives. It seems to me that if the things Clark wants to be done can, in fact, be done, then they might work.

Armando on Daily Kos 8/26/05
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/26/53325/3578
Gen. Clark Merges Politics and Policy