Clark: US must stay in Iraq

[lillilbigone]

I was shocked to read this morning that Wesley Clark is opposed to withdrawing US troops from Iraq:

Clark said Iraq will be a focus of the 2008 campaign. He disagreed with suggestions by some members of Congress that more U.S. troops should be sent to help stabilize Iraq. Neither would he begin reducing U.S. forces in Iraq within the next six months, as others have suggested.

“It's not a matter of fiddling with troop levels,” Clark said. “It's a matter of politics inside Iraq and diplomacy in the region. ... You can lose what's going on militarily inside Iraq, but you can't win it militarily, either by putting more forces in or by pulling them out.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/28/politics/main2213548.shtml

We can't win, but our troops have to keep dying over there anyway?

What is he thinking?

[MindPilot]

1. So is Wes Clark's position on Iraq "stay the course"?

Please tell me that's not what I'm reading here.

[tishaLA]

7. He's never been "stay the course"

He has always advocated working diplomatically, especially with Iran and Syria, as a way of helping create regional stability. He has said that this is not a military issue but a diplomatic one.

[lillilbigone]

8. Bush: US must stay in Iraq

President Bush, under pressure to change direction in Iraq, said Tuesday he will not be persuaded by any calls to withdraw American troops before the country is stabilized.

"There's one thing I'm not going to do, I'm not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete," he said in a speech setting the stage for high-stakes meetings with the Iraqi prime minister later this week. "We can accept nothing less than victory for our children and our grandchildren."
http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2006/11/28/ap3208970.html

[tishaLA]

17. The approaches are almost polar opposites

Bush's is almost exclusively, if not exclusively, military. Clark's is not. Clark's is mostly diplomatic....

[lillilbigone]

19. Except under both approaches, our troops stay in Iraq.

Till we 'win'.

[PeaceProgProsp]

82. How can you keep TROOPS in a foreign country and call

it "diplomatic"?

If North Korean troops were occupying LA, would you call that a diplomatic presence?

[jwirr]

36. Mission accomplished = stabilized. Are you sure?

[Texas_Kat]

37. Oh for cripes sake....read his Iraq Op-Ed

and don't depend on simple sound bites.

http://securingamerica.com/node/1961

[lillilbigone]

43. In which he says the exact same thing: don't withdraw troops.

A precipitous troop reduction could have far-reaching effects: emboldening Iran, weakening U.S. security promises to friendly states, and even sparking military initiatives by other powers — Turkey or Iran — to deal with the resulting security vacuum. Our weakened position in Iraq also could undercut our leverage in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
http://securingamerica.com/node/1961

It's one thing to argue that his view is correct; it's a different thing altogether to argue that he didn't say what he said.

[Texas_Kat]

44. You didn't read the whole thing

He has always been against mandatory timetables and since every other politician that has proposed such a timetable has admitted that it might/probably would have to be changed to meet changing circumstances, none of the proposed 'timetables' is really a 'timetable'. Even Feingold and Kerry's timetables keep slipping the dates.

An artificial "Washington driven" timetable is a strawman.

From the Q&A at Brown on Tuesday

http://securingamerica.com/node/1972

On Monday, NBC News called the conflict in Iraq a "civil war." Do you agree with that assessment?
Yes.

You have said you oppose setting a timetable for American troop withdrawal from Iraq.
I oppose Washington setting a Washington-driven timetable.

Do you support an increase in American troop levels?
Not per se, but what I do support is a full kit bag of carrots and sticks when and if we send a negotiating team into the Middle East to work these issues.

If Washington doesn't set a deadline for troop withdrawal, what incentive does Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have to develop a legitimate military force?
Well, let me answer that question with another question: Do you think al-Maliki right now is happy in his position in Iraq? Do you think he feels comfortable and secure knowing that there are Americans there? Do you think he believes that he can just cruise on this way and earn a fat pension as a retired head of state? I don't. I think al-Maliki knows that he's on a wild ride on a bucking bronco. And whether America sets a deadline or not, he knows the current situation is unsustainable. The question is, can anyone pull together enough common interests among the Iraqi politicians and the neighboring countries to dampen the fight and to give people a reason to work together rather than to work against each other?

[lillilbigone]

48. Yes I read the whole thing.

Please stop being condescending. If you want to have a respectful discussion, I'm ready. I promise not to accuse of you 'not reading', 'not understanding' -- in fact I promise to refrain from making any personal comments about you - I will limit my comments to the topic at hand - could you please afford me the same respect?


Let's see if I can state Clark's position on troop levels in Iraq and you can tell me where I am wrong.

He is against a timetable for withdraw.
He is against beginning to withdraw US troops within the next 6 months.
He has not said when we should begin to withdraw US troops.
He believes we can 'win' through diplomacy, but our troop levels in Iraq should remain the same during that process.

[Texas_Kat]

65. Only #1 is correct (and then a "Washington determined" timetable)

Everything else is just your take on what he said -- which I will say again misreads his position

Edited to add: You are arguing for an arbitrary "regardless of what else happen" time table. No one in DC is arguing that position-- regardless of the rhetoric. Examining the other guys' statements makes that very clear.

The OpEd and Q&A articles are clear.

[lillilbigone]

69. please elucidate

* He is against beginning to withdraw US troops within the next 6 months.

I'm wrong about that? He is actually in favor of that? The article does say explicitly that he rejects that option, but perhaps the reporter published an outright lie. Could you please reference Clark saying that he is in favor of beginning to withdraw troops within the next six months?

* He has not said when we should begin to withdraw US troops.

I'm wrong about that? Ok, when does Clark say we should begin to withdraw US troops. Please inform me.


* He believes we can 'win' through diplomacy, but our troop levels in Iraq should remain the same during that process.

I'm wrong about that?

“It's not a matter of fiddling with troop levels,” Clark said. “It's a matter of politics inside Iraq and diplomacy in the region. ... You can lose what's going on militarily inside Iraq, but you can't win it militarily, either by putting more forces in or by pulling them out.”

not putting more forces in and not pulling them out seems to me to indicate that the troop levels should not change. Perhaps you could explain how you could not put in more forces and not pull out forces and yet have the troop levels not remain the same.

Thanks in advance for your detailed and respectful reply.

[Texas_Kat]

186. Simple language

Your statement "He is against beginning to withdraw US troops within the next 6 months." is false.

He has never said anything about 6 months at all. In fact, he's said that it might be possible to begin reducing troop levels earlier if some real diplomacy occurs and Iran and Syria were persuaded that their efforts were valued. The article doesn't say anything about 6 months except in the reporters words (not Clark's). You seem to miss that what he said is that adding or reducing troop levels is virtually meaningless without substantial progress in diplomacy.

Your statement "He has not said when we should begin to withdraw US troops." is ambiguous.

If you are looking for a 'next Tuesday" date to begin redeploying (not the same as 'withdrawing') troops, you are bound to be disappointed. I caution you to begin to understand that 'redeploying'and 'withdrawing' are not the same thing. Murtha's proposals have always been for 'redeploying' -- not withdrawing -- for instance. As in any negotiation, removing foreign troops (ours) from specific areas is one of the negotiating points. We will not likely pick up everyone in helicopters and fly them to Germany. Likely they would be re-based in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or another ally in the region. So Clark's position has always been that 'redeploying' troops needs to be part of the entire regional strategy. Setting a "washington-based' timeline is simplistic -- because any such 'timeline' is not realistic. No matter what Washington decides, the others in any negotiation (read "diplomacy") have as much impact as we do. To undertake such negotiations with the assumption that we hold the cards (and the other side doesn't) is a Bush-like attitude. Having been a diplomat and having negotiated peace previously, Clark knows this.

Assuming that we can walk away unscathed (the 'to hell with them' strategy) assumes that what happens in Iraq stays in Iraq. Not likely. Clark has long talked of the danger of sparking a wider regional war. Now that may not mean anything to you, but I would hate to see a widespread Middle Eastern War with Turkey, Saudi, Jordan, Syria and Egypt bombing or being bombed. Not to mention Iran provoking as much hell as possible. Of course, something is going to go 'astray' either by mistake or 'by design' and Israel will get in the middle of it all. The US will wind up going to Israel's aid.

This is the rosy scenario. It assumes Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India (who never stay out of anything if Pakistan gets involved) don't choose to participate. It also assumes that China and Russia play 'hands off'. (also not likely)

Iraq is more than a stick of dynamite, but we have an idiot holding a match to the fuse. Bush in his childlike manner - wants it 'his way or no way'. Don't fall into the same trap of seeing things only in black and white. The 'cut and run' vs 'stay the course' choice is a false one and Clark has been advocating 'change the course' far longer than you seem to think.

And by the way, I have 'skin in the game' as they say .... do you?

Mother of a troop

[nodular]

231. please explain

"I caution you to begin to understand that 'redeploying'and 'withdrawing' are not the same thing. Murtha's proposals have always been for 'redeploying' -- not withdrawing -- for instance."

I thought "redeploying" was a euphemism for "withdrawing." Either a person is advocating redeploying troops from one place in Iraq to another, which Murtha has never done, or they are advocating redeploying troops from Iraq to someplace outside Iraq---which is the same thing as withdrawing, as far as I can see.

(By the way, I appreciate your son's service to our country.)

[mom cat]

204. How does our keeping the troops there help? We are the problem!.

How can anyone possibly believe that we can be the source of stability in a country where we have destroyed the country and slaughtered two thirds of a million people? And all this after years of bombing and brutal sanctions that killed a million more. And this was after we got rid of Mosedek, their duly elected democratic leader!

We are certainly not the ones who can
"pull together enough common interests among the Iraqi politicians and the neighboring countries to dampen the fight and to give people a reason to work together rather than to work against each other?"

How the hell can we positively affect the neighboring countries of Iran and Syria who we have publicly threatened with the same kind of destruction that we inflicted on Iraq and Afghanistan and also Lebanon through our proxy? Do you think Iran will just shrug off our threat to nuke them?

How can we "dampen the fighting" while we are still bombing, shooting and imprisoning innocent civilians in greater numbers than Saddam?Haven't the Iraqis suffered enough of our reasoned diplomacy? The Iraqis want us out and there will be no chance of peace till we get out and abandon our 14 "enduring bases"!

[lillilbigone]

208. Yes. Simply saying that we don't want permanent bases is not enough.

We have to actually leave them.

[mom cat]

221. Absolytely. Other nations are not as stupid as we seem to believe.

Oh, just ignore those 14 bases. There is nothing behind the curtain.

[Bucky]

162. That's not what you're reading here. The Bush course is don't talk to anyone.

Clark's course is to sit down with the key regional players and start cutting deals (of course he says "start having frank discussions about our mutual interests in stablizing the region" but it's distinction without a difference). Talking is the only exit strategy that will get our troops out without leaving ten of thousands of Iraqis slaughtered and the United States permanently disgraced in the eyes of the world.

I don't like it, but it's the only morally justifiable choice. We as a nation chose this war; Iraqis so far are paying 90% of the human costs.

[mconvente]

2. oh boy...

here comes the :popcorn:

[savemefromdumbya]

3. what happened when we withdrew from Vietnam?

soembody refresh my memory pls?

[FiveGoodMen]

119. What would have happened if we had stayed?

[partylessinOhio]

4. Too many ringers and not enough Murthas and Kucinichs.

[Dhalgren]

5. He's trying to take the long term view. He is trying to outline a plan

to salvage American interests and standing. He thinks that simply pulling out or drawing down would not address the serious damage that the Bush mis-administration has inflicted on this country. I disagree with him on this, but I don't suspect his motives. He is trying to arrive at a solution to the untenable position Bush has placed us in. Again, I disagree with him. I think that the only thing we do with any scrap of conscience or dignity is to withdraw completely, right now. Too much has gone too far and even though Clark is trying very hard, you just can't get there from here. Withdraw all US/British troops immediately!

[nolabels]

14. The do-nothing approach to life's matters just about guarantees failure

I disagree with you only on point of suspecting the motives. To the person that only carries a hammer in his toolbox all the problems they eventually encounter starts to look more just like more nails.

The Beltway and the crowd that think that the Beltway is the end all to all that there is have no idea how diplomacy works. They also will never be able to take hat in hand as long as they vie for the next POTUS seating. Admitting the failure, weakness and the need of help from others is not what the macho man does.

Getting U.S. troops killed in an attempt protect an already tarnished U.S. image is winning solution only for U.S. arms merchants. Crap or get off the pot

The loss of credibility occurred when * invaded Iraq and nothing is going to change that now.

[Canuckistanian]

165. I agree with YOU

Every second American troops spend in Iraq diminishes the possibility for a solution.

There's too much hatred, for not only between the warring factions, but the presence of an insensitive, overbearing foreign presence that Iraqis almost universally hate.

Clark is WRONG about a continued US presence. It's an impediment, rather than a solution, given the credibility of the administration that commands them.

[mom cat]

205. I agree. After all that we have done to the nations in the region, how could we ever be seen as an

honest broker for peace? We are still bombing Iraq and Iran ans still seriously threatening Iran and Syria.

[niyad]

6. well, there went the last shred of respect I had for him.

[Clark2008]

9. I don't see where he said what was paraphrased - at all.

[lillilbigone]

10. He said he is opposed to withdrawing troops.

In what way is that unclear to you?

[Clark2008]

11. No - he did not. The interviewer said that in a "paraphrase."

Clark said fiddling with troop levels won't help either way because there's not non-military, or political, action in effect to make a difference.

[lillilbigone]

12. OK, saying 'don't withdraw troops' doesn't mean 'keep the troops there'

if you say so. :eyes:


When Clark says 'black' it really means 'white', as well, I suppose.

[Clark2008]

13. No - I didn't say so AND NEITHER DID HE.

He said you can't win MILITARILY by fiddling with troop numbers. Did he say his goal was to win militarily? No. He made a statement of fact.

He's much to nuanced for the stupid corporate media - you should know that by now.

BTW, no viable candidate for president is saying pull them out now, anyway - you can't do it and keep it the region stable. I curse Bush for getting us there, but we can't just jump out like we didn't wreck the fucking place.

Oh - and its a WAR CRIME to wreck the place and not take responsibility for it. Or didn't you arm-chair generals KNOW that?

[Dhalgren]

15. Yes we can "jump out". And that is exactly what we aught to do.

The myth that US presence creates something called "stability" is being shown the lie every day in the blood flowing in the streets and rivers of Iraq. Stability? Yes, in that a graveyard is "stable"...

[Clark2008]

23. No - we can't.

I know Bush doesn't hold much toward the Geneva Conventions, but, guess what - they are the reason Gen. Colin Powell evoked the "Pottery Barn" rule: if you break it, you own it.

They state nearly as such. We broke and we can't leave it destablized.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

And this:

It will not be enough for the United States to comply with the letter of humanitarian law when it comes to minimizing harm to civilians and captured combatants in the course of military operations in Iraq. If the war is to achieve the political aims that the Bush Administration is apparently pursuing, it must leave the Iraqi people a good deal better off than they were under Saddam Hussein. Given the degraded state of Iraq as a consequence of gross misrule and international sanctions and isolation, that will be a tall order indeed.

It is worth noting that Article 54 of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions states: “It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for the sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.” Even if all parties were to scrupulously comply with this humanitarian law requirement in the course of armed conflict in Iraq, a war there is likely to unleash exorbitant hardship against the unarmed population.

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5313

Now, does it make sense to some of you when we can't just pull out and why NO VIABLE candidate for president is saying that we can?

[Dhalgren]

45. Nothing in that says that we have to have a military presence.

Of course we owe the Iraqi people a great deal and we should pay for it until the debt is done, but this was a illegal invasion and occupation. We cannot render it "legal" by remaining. In order to begin to set this mess right, we must first withdraw our forces. The Iraqis are quite capable of defending themselves, note the drubbing they have given the US military. The fact that they do not wish to live together in some form of harmony CANNOT be addressed while foreign troops are on their territory, killing their civilians. We can argue this till kingdom come, but US troops in Iraq cannot and will never bring stability, unless you want to kill off the entire Iraqi nation - hence the stability of the graveyard...

Oh, and by the way, "You break it you own it" is bullshit. We do not now, nor have we, nor will we ever "own" Iraq. Iraq is owned by the Iraqis....

[lillilbigone]

18. You can twist his words all you want, but he said what he said.

also:

BTW, no viable candidate for president is saying pull them out now, anyway

I guess I'll just have to reserve my support for an unviable candidate, then.

[Clark2008]

24. Go ahead and voted for Mr. Uniformed.

Because, if we pull them out now without a political plan, then we're in violation of the Geneva Convention.

Poor, misguided people.

[Nashyra]

20. At least he has the courage

to try and make a horrific situation better than a worst case situation. He put his face to a powerful commercial from VotVets that effectively drew the conclusion that Iraq was creating terrorism and not helping contain it. I did not see anyone else brave enough to do that. There is nothing General Clark (retired) would not do to help the military men and women. How many other presidential candidates will be in Dubai for the Arab Summitt.

[KansDem]

60. It's was a war crime when Bush attacked without provocation...

Oh - and its a WAR CRIME to wreck the place and not take responsibility for it.

...so what's another war crime added to the war crimes Bush has committed already?

Let's see:
1) Bush lied us into this war.
2) Bush tortured POWs
3) Bush has murdered civilians in the 100s of thousands

So why the sudden adherence to "wrecking the place and not taking responsibility for it?"

I suggest the US jam all its vehicles in "R" and stomp on the accelerator. We can get out just as fast as we got in...

[sallyseven]

16. Cut Clark some slack

Wait until you get the full statement and not some media ho's opinion of what he said. Be careful folks because that is how they get us mad.

[Jai4WKC08]

120. "Media Ho" is right!

Or as my sister Frenchie calls 'em, presstitutes. ;)

Everyone should read the whole article, not just the short excerpt in the OP above. Almost every single sentence from Clark is a quotation, EXCEPT the one that says he doesn't want to pull the troops out for 6 months. Then the author goes right back to quotes, and Clark says something about how it's not about fiddling with troop numbers.

I have read WAY too much from Clark, and heard him with my own ears, on TV, radio, and in person, to think he said anything at all about not withdrawing troops by a certain date. He just doesn't commit that way because he knows DAMN well that only Bush is not going to make any significant changes anytime soon, and that if he, Clark, ever gets a chance at it, who the hell knows what the situation on the ground will be by then.

Besides, in the USA Today Op/Ed that Clark wrote himself, just th'other day, he said the time to start withdrawal is NOW.

Sorry, but I'll have to hear it from the man himself, or at least a direct quote, before I believe he said anything of the sort.

[seabeyond]

21. i need to wait to clearly hear what clark is saying before deciding

he IS good militarily and knows what he is talking about. this article is not a good representation of what he may be suggesting. i hope to hear more clearly what clark is proposing in the near future

[Pithy Cherub]

22. As an OUT NOW person and from a family of Marines

and my lone Navy brother, I ran this by them. They wholeheartedly agree with Clark because of the way the troops are withdrawn is what will leave a lasting and enduring image of the US. Geopolitically, America squandered so much blood and treasure that having Honor in dismantling in a way that allows America to have/rebuild some alliances in the region is paramount to national security. That was the prevailing view. They are more upset about the diminishing of the Geneva Conventions and America being pro-torture. That perception will linger for any other military engagements about how the troops are used. They come after me for being an OUT NOW person because they see the value in how it is done and point to the lasting pictures of Vietnam and helicopters in retreat being a morale destroying thing that affects national security.

Personally, the value is in strategy because if a new president has to clean up this Devil awful mess and resend troops to the region for a host of reasons, it will be horrific. Genocide is already happening and a humanitarian crisis like Darfur commands attention. The same levels are happening in Iraq which affects the quality of life for all of us because of our dependence on oil. In concert with that we have to be thoughtful (and I am an adamant out now person) about the future. Strategy indicates that every single option will lead to severe blowback (think bin laden) and this option considers that and is positioning the US to get at least a modicum of human intelligence that saves future lives all around the world be it economically by not letting the price of oil get to $200 per barrel, by warding off China buying all contracts, by diplomatically in ensuring diplomacy is now officially the foreign policy of the US. I may not like it in my heart, but on an intellectual level I get it, I painfully really get it.

[Clark2008]

25. Not to mention, as I stated above, pulling out without a political

plan for the welfare of the people is a violation of the Geneva Convention, which I'm sure Clark is fully aware - but which I'm sure some other candidates are not aware - but will be made to be aware by advisors should they win.

[lillilbigone]

26. So are you now admitting that 'not withdrawing' means 'staying'?

:eyes:

[Clark2008]

27. No - you're admitting that you don't understand what Clark said -

and still don't.

Clark says we need a political plan in place so we can get out; fooling with troop numbers, either increasing or decreasing them, won't matter until we do. That's all he said - in a nutshell. And I rather suspect he said so because of the Geneva Conventions, of which you clearly don't have a clue.

P.S. Clark never said "not withdrawing," the interviewer did - he paraphrased it, so we don't know what Clark's actual wording was. How many times do I have to point this out to you?

[lillilbigone]

31. He did say he is opposed to pulling out troops. It's quoted not paraphrased.

I'm sorry you don't want to admit that's what he said, but it doesn't change the fact that he said it:

Clark said Iraq will be a focus of the 2008 campaign. He disagreed with suggestions by some members of Congress that more U.S. troops should be sent to help stabilize Iraq. Neither would he begin reducing U.S. forces in Iraq within the next six months, as others have suggested.

“It's not a matter of fiddling with troop levels,” Clark said. “It's a matter of politics inside Iraq and diplomacy in the region. ... You can lose what's going on militarily inside Iraq, but you can't win it militarily, either by putting more forces in or by pulling them out.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/28/politics/main2213548.shtml

Clark still thinks we can 'win' in Iraq. And he says the troop levels should not be fiddled with. Which means the troops stay.

[Clark2008]

33. You need reading comprehension courses, I believe.

Where does he said "not withdrawing?" No where.

What he clearly says - and I'll repeat it again - is that fooling with troop numbers makes no difference without a political plan of action in place. That is ALL he said. Period. He didn't say he wouldn't leave. He didn't say he need to win militarily. He didn't say we should stay. ALL he said was that fiddling with troop numbers WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE.

You put your emphasis on the wrong part of the sentence. Try reading it this way:

“It's not a matter of fiddling with troop levels,” Clark said.“It's a matter of politics inside Iraq and diplomacy in the region. ... You can lose what's going on militarily inside Iraq, but you can't win it militarily, either by putting more forces in or by pulling them out.”

[Sparkly]

118. You're reading his words, but you're reading INto them.

"You can lose what's going on militarily inside Iraq, but you can't win it militarily, either by putting more forces in or by pulling them out."

He says (and has said before): You can lose it militarily, but you CAN'T WIN it militarily.

It's a very smart statement.

It does not mean "Clark thinks we can win," or "Clark thinks we should stay the course," or any of the other things that have been suggested here.

It means there needs to be a POLITICAL solution before peace can become possible. Do you understand?

[lillilbigone]

131. Do you understand

what this means:

"Timetables a bad idea

What about a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals? Today, setting a rigid, Washington-driven timetable is an option, but a bad one. A precipitous troop reduction could have far-reaching effects: emboldening Iran, weakening U.S. security promises to friendly states, and even sparking military initiatives by other powers — Turkey or Iran — to deal with the resulting security vacuum. Our weakened position in Iraq also could undercut our leverage in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute." http://securingamerica.com/node/1961

how about:

"Regional dialogue needed.... there are no guarantees, but from such a dialogue should emerge a prescription for U.S. troop levels and activities consistent with our larger interests. Carrots and sticks could be employed. For instance, the factions could vow certain actions in return for U.S. assistance or troop deployments, or redeployments, and possible assistance from neighboring states." http://securingamerica.com/node/1961

Do you understand that?

I think I do. I think what Clark is saying is: "the factions could vow certain actions in return for U.S. assistance or troop deployments, or redeployments". Which certainly seems to imply that the troops would not be redeployed except as a result of some unspecified promises by 'the factions'. And what if those promises are not forthcoming? What then? Do our troops just stay indefinitely? Clark doesn't say, at least not in this op-ed.

[Sparkly]

143. I think I do.

You ask good questions.

You wrote: "Which certainly seems to imply that the troops would not be redeployed except as a result of some unspecified promises by 'the factions'."

As I just posted above, it doesn't preclude other reasons for redeployment but it DOES put it on the table as strategic leverage toward peace. If there's a territorial battle going on and both sides agree to disarm on the condition that the US leaves, then troops are pulled from that area, and redeployed. If there's another battle going on, say between sects or rival families or economic foes or whatever, and the side with the lesser arsenal or money refuses to compromise unless their families' safety is assured, then we promise to *deploy* there to enforce the agreement.

(And at this point, it's VERY complicated -- I don't think our troops know who's fighting who or why much of the time, they're basically just left to try to quell violence with more violence.)

You wrote: "And what if those promises are not forthcoming? What then? Do our troops just stay indefinitely? Clark doesn't say, at least not in this op-ed."

Here's another question: Will this "end" as a result of dialogue, so that the most vulnerable people in Iraq are protected?

Will this "end" as a result of violence, so that whichever sects, factions, warlords have the deadliest weapons prevail?

Will this even "end" at all, in Iraq, or will it spread to other countries, with Turkey 'cleansing' Kurds, Iran fighting Sunnis, Syria getting more involved, and yet more countries jumping in? (And there is no comparison with Vietnam in this regard.)

Will the "end" come as a result of dialogue, or violence? Do we as a nation have ANY responsibility for the answer to that question???

If "promises are not forthcoming," keep negotiating. Give all sides an ear, some stake, something to take and something to give. Use one consensus to build others; persuade by 'carrots and sticks' that agreement is better than disagreement; TALK and LISTEN and LISTEN and TALK.

YES, our military is a "stick." And basically, that's all it is -- it's not a diplomatic entity, a political force, an economic power, a legal agency, etc. Used well, it's the "big stick" that goes with "walk softly;" it can hold ground, temporarily, while political deals are worked out; and, it can pave paths for humanitarian aid, enable arrests, and beat back genocidal forces. That's NOT, however, what's going on in Iraq right now.

The real question at the moment is what BushCo will/won't, can/can't do; and related to that is the question of what our new Democratic majority will/won't, can/can't do. BushCo is not only incompetent, they've also squandered every ounce of US credibility worldwide. So the options are few, and the outlook is poor. Someone like General Clark has the ability to carry forward diplomacy, dialogue, and peace-keeping that utilizes our military in the RIGHT ways.

Have to run, will check back later.

[Tom Rinaldo]

154. Bravo Sparkly!

Wonderful post, a lot of hard work and thinking obviously went into this. I wonder how many people ever consider taking a look at a thread like this as a microcosm? It is so much easier to pose a question than answer it fully. It is so much easier to throw stones than construct something substantitive. It is so much easier to say we have a real mess here than it is to clean up that mess. It is so much easier to say this is a problem than to actually propose a solution to that problem that at least restores some semblence of a better time before the problem existed.

It is easy to critize someone's best efforts, it is harder to better them oneself. Not when slogans will not suffice and simple solutions run a risk of creating bigger problems.

[Sparkly]

158. Thanks, Tom!

That's high praise, coming from you!!

The post was off the top of my head -- no hard work! (Long listening, learning and thinking, though!)

I agree it's easy to imagine things on superficial levels. If it were that simple ("withdraw all troops" = "minimize bloodshed") there'd be no debate at all.

I've always thought wars can be reduced to "sandbox mentality." ("I was here first!" "Keep out!" "That's mine, not yours!" etc.) In this case, we instigated kids fighting each other; the longer it goes on, the more join in and get hurt. Simply fighting doesn't make fighting stop; simply walking away doesn't make fighting stop (and leaves the little kids hurt the most).

What's needed is an adult to come in with authority and say, "Everybody listen up! Things are going to be different, starting right NOW! You with the rock, hitting that guy who's only got a stick -- you can put down that rock or get hit with a brick, your choice. Now you with the stick, fighting the guy with the rock -- put down the stick and I'll make sure the rock guy doesn't hurt you...." etc.

Obviously I'm oversimplifying, but it boils down to that rather than boiling down to, "I'll leave, you guys work it out, good luck."

[Pithy Cherub]

30. It does not mean staying.

The word stay implies permanence. The SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement)is really key and one of the things we out now people have not paid attention to as to what they entail, because we want the troops out of harm's way now.

This plan is a way to get out and preserve influence over the long term. That's very important too and may be the singularly lonely Noble thing left for the US to do. The US military won what they were supposed to. as a major lefty, and I mean major, a humanitarian crisis precipitated by a willy-nilly pullout would haunt me no less because someone was abandoned when foresight about how to do it was plentiful. More foresight and strategic thinking need to be on the withdrawal that the rush to go in. that is the last chance for Honor and Respect to be paid for those troops are being killed today. It galls me to know that a fleet of C-130's isn't on the tarmac now. But then I look at what I call my baby Marines and know they will be called to fix the aftermath, I would appreciate a huge heap of foresight about this now. So for that, I am truly grateful to Clark.

[noamnety]

255. There is no honor in staying, from an Arab perspective

Perceiving "honor" in continuing to occupy their country is a uniquely American viewpoint.

What we've done is not honorable, and it never will be honorable.

How long's it been since Europeans invaded this country? Do the Native Americans view that as honorable yet?

There's no way to make genocide honorable. Not even if you are really really nice afterwards.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. You left out the "within the next six months" part in your subject header.

That really really really effects the entire texture of his remarks. Elsewhere on this thread Bush is quoted saying that U.S. forces will not be pulled out of Iraq "until Iraq is stabalized" and that is not what Clark said here at all. If people actually read Clark's full plan as described in an Op-Ed that he wrote in USA Today (available to read at www.securingamerica.com ) for one thing Clark says that the United States needs to absoulely swear off of any intention to maintain any permanent bases inside Iraq, he says that the United States should clearly act with the understanding that the Iraqi people are the sole deciders of who gets Iraq's Oil revenues and how they are divided up and used. In other words Clark is saying that the United States has to be absolutely clear that we renounce any imperial ambitions inside of Iraq. I could just as easily take Clark's full statement and attempt to summarize it as: Clark says that U.S. must not stay in Iraq". This is not George Bush's "stay the course" policy.

What this says is that Clark right now doesn't advocate drawing down American troops during the next six months. People may have strong opinions about what Clark does say, but it should not be misconstrued into something he did not say. Clark did not say that the U.S. must stay in Iraq. The implications of that misleading summary phrase are far more sweeping than saying we shouldn't begin a withdrawal of troops during the next six months, while we among other things use those six months to conduct regional diplomacy that would include providing reasonable security guarentees for all of Iraq's neighbors. Not exclusively, but first and foremost that phrase should be read to emphasize two nations that the Bush regime has continually threatened to attack and/or overthrow in the past; Iran and Syria.

What Clark literally seems to have said is that this is not the right moment to fiddle with troop strength, to decrease OR increase it. It is the right moment to launch a major regional diplomatic effort. That is not the same as saying that the United States MUST STAY in Iraq, though obviously it would mean having the United States stay in Iraq for more than six months.

edited to add a few comments to the first paragragh.

[Clark2008]

29. Thank you.

When you read the entire article and couple that with other articles Clark wrote himself, your statements of Clark's thinking become abundantly clear.

What the OP pulled out wasn't exactly the "gist" of anything Clark was pointing out.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. Clark: U.S. must NOT stay in Iraq

I am drawing attention to part of my comments in post #28 that I just added through an edit. It explains why the above summary of Clark's position on Iraq is more accurate as a stand alone phrase than the title for the subject header of this thread.

[lillilbigone]

34. According to this, he thinks we can't withdraw till we 'win'

which won't be achieved on the battle field.

What does 'winning' entail?

How many American troops will die before we win?

Is it worth it?

Clark doesn't address those questions.

I respect the fact that unlike others in this thread, you aren't pretending he didn't say what he said. Reasonable people can disagree about whether we should begin withdrawing troops, whether we should have a timetable for withdrawal, and so on. I don't think any American soldiers life is worth whatever might be gained by not withdrawing as soon as possible. General Clark obviously disagrees.

[Pithy Cherub]

35. Could you live with the fact

that a quick withdrawal kills more troops in other battles now and in the future than if we had an opportunity to do it thoughtfully over six month or just be happy we did it today? My conscience would kill me. I have skin in the game and I can't bear the thought that speed trumps a humanitarian good when how we do it saves lives. And I am right along side you and will cheer you to the heavens if out now guarantees me not having to send yours or mine back three years from now under a new president.

[lillilbigone]

39. That's not a fact, it's speculation.

Furthermore, Clark is not proposing "do(ing) it thoughtfully over six months", he is rejecting the option of even beginning to reduce forces within the next six months.

He disagreed with suggestions by some members of Congress that more U.S. troops should be sent to help stabilize Iraq. Neither would he begin reducing U.S. forces in Iraq within the next six months, as others have suggested.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/28/politics/main2213548.shtml

[Pithy Cherub]

40. No its a fact.

Leaving in a hurry means logistics and supply. The civilian Americans on the ground would be fair game for kidnapping and torture because the troops would be focused on packing not protecting in the midst of a Civil war. Speed induces accidents and not enough time to move equipment. The equipment is key because it belongs to the states that the National Guard units came form and we're too broke as a nation to replace it. It takes just as long to move a military force out as it does to move them in. So yes, a slaughter of Americans would ensue because the mission focus changed. Are you at all familiar with how the military functions? I am, still out now, but I had my perception of Goodness upended when considering what needs to happen. A military move precipitously telegraphs to both sides where they will be as well making them big targets because they can't leave one by one. That's many planes in the sky and many Stingers on the ground. So no it's a fact - check any military exit or withdrawal. Again, can you live with your conscience - I can not, so as unhappy as I am I want this done right the first time. Do overs cost more lives.

[lillilbigone]

41. Sorry, events that have not yet happened are not facts.

[Pithy Cherub]

42. But you're still cheerleading to make nightmares come true.

[Jai4WKC08]

124. If I propose a plan to drop a hammer thru the air

Is it only opinion that it will hit the floor?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

172. Yes.

Is there anything between the floor and the hammer? (E.g., a table, a chair, a rug)

Is there a giant magnet in the room? :D

[lillilbigone]

180. What if someone catches it?

Surely you aren't arguing that the future can be predicted with 100% certainty? Are you really trying to suggest that future events can be referred to as facts and not speculation? Your hammer example - how do you know for sure that if you drop a hammer it will hit the floor? It seems you've dropped this one on your foot.

[Jai4WKC08]

230. You two think you're so smart, but you're just quibbling

I think my meaning was clear enough that I could take some "poetic license" to KISS. But maybe not. Ok, let me be more explicit.

Let's say I hold a hammer two inches above a table, with nothing in between my hand and the table, then I drop it with no intent to grab it again, and there's no one in the room to intervene, or move the table, and I've only got one arm so I'm not likely to allow the other hand to get in the way, and the world is rotating on its axis normally, and all magnetic fields remain relatively constant, and there are no aliens in the neighborhood... have I forgotten anything. Oh yeah, God doesn't cause a miracle to keep the hammer suspended in mid-air. Happy?

Hopefully, you get the idea. At some point, the probability of an event comes so close to 1.0 certainty that it ceases to be opinion and can be considered fact.

Perhaps the situation in question (the results of troops being withdrawn precipitously) is not certain enough to be considered fact as Pithy Cherub asserts. But I think that it could be a lot closer to fact than speculation if made by a man of Clark's military expertise. In matters like this, knowledge counts. Your "opinion" is just not worth as much as Clark's. That may not seem very democratic, but it's nevertheless true. You wouldnt' value my opinion as much as one from a cardiologist if you were having a heart attack.

[lillilbigone]

232. Your contention that you can predict the future with 100% accuracy is ludicrous

There is no more point in trying to convince you that future events can not properly be characterized as facts than there is in trying to convince you that that earth is not flat.

[Jai4WKC08]

244. Don't put words in my mouth

You're quick to "interpret" Clark's words, and now you're trying to do that to me.

I never said anything about 100% accuracy.

What I said was that probability can come close enough to certainty to be same for all practical purposes.

You, on the other hand, seem to think that predictions about the future are merely speculation. When someone has no prior learning, whether thru experience or study, upon which to base the prediction, that may be true. But when someone with some degree of knowledge, intelligence and judgment concludes that something is going to happen, based on some previous history, it becomes more than simple speculation or opinion.

Otherwise, what's the point of any discussion or analysis? Let's just do everything "faith-based."

[Solon]

116. Why the hell should we care about some American Opportunists in Iraq?

Start a timeline for withdrawal tomorrow, and the troops should concentrate on protecting THEMSELVES while they gradually withdraw. They shouldn't worry about some damned Mercs. Some of those civilians will return to the US as Mafia Hitmen, or work in Africa raping and pillaging villages, to be honest, they can all suck on lead, to be blunt about it.

[Pithy Cherub]

117. American Aid workers, UN personnel, civillian contractors,

media, civilians attached to the base are no less in need of leaving and that has to be arranged. There are not regular flights and their only hope is the US military. Those people are also assisting innocent Iraqis caught in the crossfire.

That said, I find the sentiments expressed about even those whose roles are held in low esteem greatly demeans you. You are better than that and mostly I understand the righteous anger. Liberal or not, if that was your family there would you enjoy others saying it about them? Human dignity first and we can argue their merits when back on American soil.

[Solon]

174. Mercs are mercs, and if one was a member of my family...

I would call him or her worst than I already expressed in this thread, and they would be no family of mine. A buddy of mine is USMC(or was, blown kneecaps) back in the 1990s, anyways, he remembers being under the fire of mercs, you really don't want to know his opinion of these soldiers of fortune. As far as their merits while returning to the states, they should then be thrown in jail, I still don't understand WHY the FUCK people can KILL for money legally, period. Its fucking atrocious, and really, they are no better than hitmen for hire.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. Actually he did not say this either

Here is the ONLY use of the word "win" in the quotes attributed to Clark:

“It's not a matter of fiddling with troop levels,” Clark said. “It's a matter of politics inside Iraq and diplomacy in the region. ... You can lose what's going on militarily inside Iraq, but you can't win it militarily, either by putting more forces in or by pulling them out.”

So Clark says we can't win anything in Iraq militarily. I think that is a more accurate summary of his remakes as quoted than saying "we can't withdraw till we win".

I'm not tryng to be coy, I know there is an honest issue to discuss here, but we need to start out such a discussion with an accurate understanding of what Clark did and did not say. Words can be slippery little mothers some times, they all carry their own emotional charges: win, loose, success, failure, stabalize, deteriorate, minimize, reduce, influence, achieve, etc. etc. but words are all we have to use. At root, after hearing and reading Clark address the question of Iraq many many times, this is a key part of the understanding I come away with of his meaning when he uses any of these words in the context of Iraq.

Simply put, Clark believes that the situation inside of Iraq as well as the entire surrounding region can still get a whole lot worse than it is now by almost any indicater used, including ones that put a premium on American interests and ones that put a premium on the needs of the people who actually live there. He sometimes refers to having the worst case scenario actually happen as "The F solution". Somehow finding a way to turn around the violent spiral of descent into chaos and death that threatens to engulf millions of more lives, and achieving some semblance of basic peace and security inside Iraq and within the region is what Clark sometimes refers to as "The D Minus solution". I think that is the most accurate way he has found to describe what he thinks is a potentially still reachable goal with Iraq, but it is a clumsy formulation of words to rattle off in an interview, and most jounalists will substitute their own phrases even when Clark speaks in those terms.

For Clark "The F solution" translates roughly into "losing", and "the D Plus solution" translates roughly into "winning". He intentionally pegs what he sees as the best case scenario left in a terrible situation, no matter how you look at it, as a "D" because no one thinks of that as an acceptable grade, there is no victory in achieving a D grade for a crisis of your own making. Clark admits that what he still holds out some hope of achieving is overall still a loss from what would have been had we never invaded Iraq in the first place. He has a VERY different read on this than George Bush, he has very different objectives than George Bush, he does not see any chance that a pro western democracy will emerge in Iraq, and frankly that's the least of his concerns. That makes Wes Clark far more realistic than George Bush about what there is any hope of still "achieving" out of the mess he got us into in Iraq. When George Bush talks about staying in Iraq until we "win", that is a very frightening thought, given how we know George Bush defines "winning".

Yes, in a truly non abstract sense, Wes Clark acknowledges that there are times when American soldiers lives will be lost in some action, sometimes noble, sometimes less so, when that loss of life could obviously have been prevented by simply pulling all of them out of harms way. I say non abstract because, unlike Bush and Cheney, it isn't an abstraction for Clark. He put his own life on the line due to his committment to serve his nation. Once upon a time American patriots said things like "give me liberty or give me death". When those are the choices the gamble made becomes relatively understandale, frequently the equation is murkier than that. Clark does not believe in risking anyone's live in combat, on our side or "theirs", when that combat can be avoided by pursuing other means.

Keeping in mind what Clark means when he uses the word "win" in the context of Iraq, I heard him say this in NH before the midterms, while he was campaigning for Democratics for Congress there (they won!):

"I don't think without a strategy to win we ought to be asking one more American soldier to die in Iraq, and that's the way I feel about it."

What Wes Clark has done is propose that strategy. You can read it in his Op-Ed. You can also read that he has grave doubts whether or not the Bush Administration has the capacity to adapt such a strategy. However it is his responsibility, in his mind, consistent with the oath he made to serve this country, to put forth the best possible plan to deal with a crisis that still threatens to spin further out of control, and do what he can to push our government in the direction of following it. It is what Clark actually can do. None of us have the means right now, other than George Bush himself, to actually get our troops home from Iraq during the next 6 months regardless of how we view that conflict.

[Clark2008]

50. Thank you, again, for trying to explain it, again.

I can't understand why people aren't understanding this, Tom. It seems so clear to me.

You're a fantastic trooper for continuing this. I'm going to go back to Googling what a 12-week-old fetus looks like since I'm having nuchal translucency screening done tomorrow.

:hi:

[lillilbigone]

62. According to Clark, when should we begin withdrawing troops?

You seem to be one of the more reasonable posters in this thread so perhaps you could do me the favor of explaining this nuance of Clark's position on Iraq. He's against beginning to withdraw troops in the next six months. He's against setting a timetable for withdrawing. He is in favor of maintaining our current troop levels while we:

# Establish an effective, sustained shuttle diplomacy within the region.

# Form a high-level interagency diplomatic team, representing the White House and secretaries of State and Defense and led by an experienced, respected diplomat.

# Begin talks within Iraq, and with all its neighbors, based on a clear set of principles outlined by the team. The goal would be to seek the commitments necessary to achieve our aims inside Iraq and also advance U.S. interests in the region.
http://securingamerica.com/node/1961

So my question is, when, according to Clark, should we begin to withdraw? What will be the signal, what will be the tipping point that will change his position from "don't begin to withdraw troops" to "begin to withdraw troops"? And what do we do if we never see that signal? What do we do if diplomacy does not achieve the desired objectives? And when do we decide we've reached that point?



tia

[Tom Rinaldo]

130. I'll try my best, given this is complex stuff and I'm not Clark

I obviously wrote a very long post. You can skip to the bottom for the very fast and dirty and vague version of my answer if you want.

By the way that is a pretty good outline of his main points that you made, except I think you lost the sense of balence in the last bullet. The clear set of principles that Clark thinks diplomacy should be based on does not begin and end with our aims in Iraq and U.S. interests in the region. The aspect of it that diverges so sharply from Bush Administration policy up to now is that Clark recgnizes that our legitimate interests in the region will never be met unless we also acknowledge and meet the legitimate interests of the other nations in that region of the world. That means dealing with people that "we don't like" and recognizing that not only do they have influence inside Iraq, but they have identified security and other needs of their own that have to be sufficiently addressed before we can ever expect any degree of real cooperation from those nations or stability in that region. It is virtually a complete reversal of the PNAC driven previous Bush Administration approach to the Middle East.

OK, the first fundemental thing to say is that Clark has always opposed fixed calender driven timelines as the organizing principle for decision making in this conflict. He has always openly stated his view that they are inherently arbitrary, in the sense that either it makes sense or it doesn't for something to happen, including withdrawing our soldiers, and that what makes sense is based on the situation we are confronted with, which to an extent is subject to numerous variables playing out in real time that most likely can not be determined in advance by a legislators debating a resolution in Congress with a degree of precision suggested by rigid timelines. If I try to simplify his thinking (to the best of my ability to understand it and no one ever totally understands another person's thinking, agreed?) I think it is more likely that Wes Clark would come home from a trip to the middle east four months from now, after consulting with a number of leaders there who trust him enough to be candid with him, and announce that the situation in the region had reached a point where there was no longer any constructive contribution American forces could make inside Iraq so we should start removing them now consistent with all safety concerns, then there is of Clark today supporting an arbitrary plan to begin withdrawing all Americas forces from Iraq twelve months from now.

The question of when to begin withdrawing forces remains a crucial one, because Clark knows that American forces can not indefinately remain inside Iraq without a point being passed when matters are deteriorating quicker inside the region because Americans are stationed there, than can be offset by whatever limited constructive role those forces might still be able to play in Iraq. Some possible off the top of my head examples of the latter for sake of discussion: Providing continued security for Iraq's seat of government if the factions in that goverment are starting to make progress toward a national understanding but not enough yet that they don't remain targets for assasination; partnering up American units with newly recruited Iraq police in an intensive training program to restore professionalism to the Iraq police, helping seal the border with Syria against infiltrating foreign jihadist suicide bombers aided by the use of American advanced technology that we can't simply turn over to Iraq forces because we can't be sure where it would later end up if we did; these are my own off the cuff examples, they don't come from Clark, and I am not a military specialist so these examples might actually be way off base.

That's part of it though, looking at that balence, asking how much more will many Iraqi's hate Americans, and what will the consequences of that be, if Americans stay inside Iraq for 13 months to complete an intensive training program for every Iraq police battalion, compared to leaving 6 months earlier with that project not near completed? Which overall will have the greatest positive impact, getting out sooner or completing that training before leaving? Again I'm just making these examples up, I'm no expert, but real experts think about things like that. And though an expert can predict that achieving a limited goal that has been determined to be important and doable should take 9 months, what do you do at the seven month mark if substantial progress has in fact been made (and yes I know the Bush Administration tries to lie about this - that's part of why it was so important for Democrats to retake Congress to provide real oversight), but it now realistically seems that four more months are needed to finish it? It is part of reason for not embracing a fixed timeline.

There's another part which Clark describes as leveraging our military presence in support of diplomacy, and this stuff gets complex to understand let alone describe. I have a shaky handle on it, but not anywhere near a mastery of how it works. But you know what, I can say the same about the practice of medicine. There are things I grasp in part that Doctors who spend a lifetime practicing medicine simply understand much better than I do. Clark has some significant hands on experience with this though from working the Dayton Peace accords for Bosnia and a life time spent studying the dynamics and complexity of national security issues. So for me to describe this stuff is really winging it. Here is my wild crack at giving some sense of it. For an example then, both the Sunnis and the Shiites obviously want us out of Iraq, and soon, it serves the interests of all of them for us to leave. But many Sunnis would secretly admit that they could put up with us staying in Iraq for a few extra months if we would use that time to disarm a Shiite militia or two on the way out the door.

The majority Shiites, though they too have their splits, want to get on with more or less ruling Iraq, and they certainly don't want us in the way second guessing their every move. But Iraq is still too chaotic for them to safely rule, there are too many Sunni insurgents opposing their idea of governance, and they fear that they themselves may get swept away in a tidal wave of chaos and blood if Amreicans leave without sufficiently bolstering the Iraqi security forces before we completely exit. So everyone wants us to leave but there still are a few things they would like us to quickly accomplish before we do. That makes us temporarily still a player inside Iraq with some ability, at least theoretically, to talk with almost all sides in the conflict.

There is a similar equation that Clark makes reference to regarding the larger region. Syria, for example, in an odd way likes us being inside Iraq, and not just because they will feel more directly threatened by our military if we leave. As long as we have a very large stake in what happens inside Iraq, represented in the literal blood of our sons and daughters stationed there, then we have a huge incentive to seek their cooperation in reducing security threats inside Iraq. If we want their cooperation badly enough, maybe we will give them something in return, like some diplomatic support for making Israel return the Golan Heights to them. And maybe if we offer to help them somewhat with that, they will throw in trying to chill the violence inside Lebanon if that is the deal that ends up on the table, and so on. Again I am not a senior fellow at any think tank. I can't plot out all the ins and outs of how this stuff works, I can be way off in my examples, but the bottom line is that the fact that the U.S. physically has troops inside Iraq can be leveraged in ways that supports a larger diplomatic process. And Clark is convinced that without a larger diplomatic process the middle east will remain a powder keg with a smoldering fuse.

It's all interlinked; Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Isreal, Palestein, Iraq, the Gulf States. Everything is in play right now, and all the parties currently recognize the United States as a deeply involved player, partially because we obviously are. Of course so does Al Quada and others of that ilk, which is why if the United States is going to press a diplomatic initiative focused on agreements between the nation states in the region, it is crucial that we do it sooner rather than later, because our continuing occupation of Iraq obviously also strengthens Al Quada, and Al Quada and others like them are begining to undercut the stability of the governments of those nations by appealing directly to the citizens of those states. If nothing else, the conflict with Israel can always become a flash point for radical sentiments to spread. We are not as far away as some may think from acutally having a war of civilizations. The total failure of sane diplomacy had a lot to do with World War One where tens of millions died. Over what? Yes there were issues at play then also but no one wanted World War One to unfold the way it did then, it almost took on a life of it's own.

Clark believes the United States needs to pursue diplomacy now at least as agressively as we pursued war before. I also think he believes that announcing to everyone in advance the exact details of how when and where our troops will go takes away some creative ambiguity that actually is an important part of the nitty gritty substance of the negotiating process, which therefor makes little sense to him. Clark is comfortable with the whole world knowing that the United States is planning to exit Iraq, even without "winning" if need be, but specifying all of the exact details regarding that in a published advance timeline can subtly undermine the diplomatic process. Lame ducks are always taken less seriously. It is prefable to simply announce that we are leaving Iraq and then do so once we determin nothing can be achieved by staying any longer. No point then in dragging anything out with a timeline. Remember, these are all my words being used here, not quotes from Clark, and again I am only sharing my own thoughts on what his proposal means in light of your question.

While Clark has not issued timelines, he hasn't been silent in the face of questions like the ones you are asking. He supports the general Democratic position that it is essential for Iraq to know that, unlike what Bush says, time is running out on America being in Iraq. He will never give the type of open ended assurances to Iraqi leaders that Bush does, that Americans will stay there until the job is done. He says the opposite, the clock is ticking on an American withdrawal, Iraq has to get it's own house in order, and America is neither interested in nor able to stay in Iraq long term. That is why in good faith Clark was able to campaign for Ned Lamont. He agrees that we need a plan that will get us out of Iraq. He agrees that we need to have clear benchmarks for achieving progress toward leaving Iraq, hopefully somewhat more stabalized than it is now, so that there is an accurate way to assess whether whatever policy we are pursuing is in fact making any progress. If not it is a failed policy and has to be changed or abandoned.

Clark's current suggestion, to roughly maintain current U.S. troop levels in Iraq for the next six months, is not a stand alone propostion. It is part of his overall proposal for preventing an even deeper humanitarian and security nightmare inside Iraq while taking the steps needed to regionalize diplomacy and give all players in the region sufficient incentive to work together for increased regional stability, which Clark knows ultimately can not be achieved if Americans dig in inside Iraq, which in large part is why he rejects any call for increasing our troops there.


Clark's proposal is a plan for getting the U.S. out of Iraq without leaving widening regional conflict in our wake. He believes if all aspects of his proposal are pursued, there is a chance that it can work to achieve that limited objective, which would be to the long term benefit of Iraq's people as well as our own. I think, for Clark, the tipping point to abandoning any hope of preventing escalating instability in the region, partially through leveraging a temporary American military presense inside Iraq, would likely be one of these three things:

1) A failure by the United States, even with a new Seretary Of Defense, even with the Baker Report coming out, even with Tony Blair and others calling for negotiations with Iran and Syria, even with new Democratic majorities in Congress, even with Republicans in Congress begining to ask for the same revision of policy, to embrace and seriously pursue a major new regional diplomatic initiative along the lines that Clark proposes. Without it Clark knows there can be no military solution and therefor no real purpose for our military to remain inside Iraq, beyond perhaps achieving some closure of an ongoing training initiative perhaps, and allowing for some negotiation on the exact timing of our exit if, for example, a short delay would facilitate a smoother hand over of present American functions to Iraqi security forces.

2) The failure of such a diplomatic initiative as described above to produce promising initial results in dealings with the major regional players in relatively short order. Without that it is unlikely that there would be a basis for continuing and deepening that intitiative into more sensitive areas where conflicts had previously hardened. Those will take more time to make progress on, and failing to achieve some confidence building measures early would likely halt any positive momentum. Without steady diplomatic progress there is no reason to think the situation inside Iraq will improve. Since the United States can not maintain stability inside Iraq with our current forces under the current circumstances, and since an American occupation inflames nationalist sentiments and acts as a magnet for foreign fighters, our continuing presense at that point offers no upside to anyone.

3) A more total implosion of Iraqi society with the civil war exploding into ongoing open full military battles between large opposing forces attempting to decisevely conquor territory from each other with a resulting near total collapse of any semblance of cross sectarian dialog seeking peaceful co-existance inside of Iraq. If that happens at any time the jig is up. Maybe some muslim states would decide to cooperate in sending in forces to attempt to stop an Iraqi civil war, though I seriously doubt it, but Judea-Christian Americans certainly would be worse than useless inside Iraq in that event.

[lillilbigone]

136. Good post, I urge everyone to read it.

I do believe that Clark 'wants' us out of Iraq, but I just don't see any specific benchmarks -- neither in his words, nor in yours -- that say when we could begin the process. You say: "He agrees that we need to have clear benchmarks for achieving progress toward leaving Iraq, hopefully somewhat more stabalized than it is now, so that there is an accurate way to assess whether whatever policy we are pursuing is in fact making any progress." -- but what are those benchmarks? It certainly isn't clear at this point from the USA Today op-ed.

I just don't happen to agree with his premise that our staying in Iraq in the short term is to our benefit. Neither do I have any faith that a regional diplomatic dialogue would result in "a prescription for U.S. troop levels and activities consistent with our larger interests".

Yes, the title of the thread: "Clark: US must stay in Iraq" does not convey the nuances of Clark's policy. But I still think it is an accurate summation of, at the very least, his view of troop levels in the short-term.

Thank you for your respectful dialogue, this is how it should be.

[Tom Rinaldo]

139. In the past Clark participated in helping develop a Party unity position

Essentially it was a least common denominator statement of principles that 90% of the party could agree on, and it I believe talked about benchmarks I think in more detail than just using the word. It may have also been incorporated into legislation that actually passed the U.S. Senate over a year ago. But that indeed was a while ago, Iraq is a fluid situation so an old list of possibly appropriate benchmarks to use then is outdated now. I think I remember back then Clark suggesting that perhaps a certain number of Americans could be withdrawn every time another number of Iraq security forces were fully trained, as one example.

I suspect at this point Clark might think it would be most helpful to develop bench marks that incorporated measurable goals to be sought through regional dialog and diplomacy, and that, to an extent, makes the establishment of those benchmarks a subject that others beyond America might need some input into, it could be part of the confidence building stage of diplomacy to go through that process.

And/or it could just be that Clark didn't want to lose even more people with fine details than he probably already lost with the amount of detail he already went into. Hopefully suffice it to say for now that identifying useful benchmarks is something that Clark believes in, if that is the way we move, others can have a hand in developing them also, like members of Congress. Once the concept is agreed upon there is no reason to think that some other people might not come up with a few quality benchmarks that Clark might not have come up with first.

But give the guy a break. He at least is out there making clear statements about what he thinks should be and shouldn't be done now that others, like us, can react to. Some details can be filled in if this plan gains any traction.

[Cameron27]

38. You're absolutely right Tom.

Clark is worried about the future of the Mideast. Bush's criminal and ignorant interference has disrupted the entire region to an alarming degree. He's not talking about just saving face, or even "fixing" Iraq now that it's broken, and this is nothing like Vietnam. We do need international cooperation, and he's calling for that, we do need diplomacy, and he's calling for that. He has a better grasp than most about the serious consequences of Bush's war, and it will take more than a simplistic solution to address the problem.

No matter what any "potential" candidate's strategy may be, it will take longer than a few months just to get our troops out. Clark has been warning us for a long time what's at stake, and has come up with a good solutions. I trust his knowledge and experience.

[BluegrassDem]

47. It's funny to see the Clarkites in arms!

They're trying to excuse what he said. LOL Sounds to me that he doesn't want troops to like the other Dems. Period! If Hillary said what he just said, this board would be going ballistic and blasting her!

[Cameron27]

53. Instead of being condescending, please put the plan of the

candidate of your choice on the table and we can debate it.

I'm sure that you've considered the situation in depth and can tell us why you support the strategy that has captured your favor.

[lillilbigone]

58. Iraq War Withdrawal and Exit Plans

Here are several: http://www.comw.org/pda/0512exitplans.html

also: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15430.htm

[Cameron27]

76. A brief sentence describing the

exit plans that you're linking to would have been helpful. I only had time to read through two of them.


http://rempost.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-to-get-out-of-iraq.html

Peter Galbraith is proposing a break-up of Iraq into three states, and that's close to Biden's plan. It’s not clear who would have the authority to initiate such an action, nor does it take into account the possibility of genocide being committed by any of the various factions.

In USA today, Richard Clark is in agreement with much of what Wes Clark is proposing.

"...we should say now of our residual involvement that we will remain actively engaged diplomatically and in other ways in Iraq. Our military training will continue, as will our reconstruction assistance. If a terrorist sanctuary were to develop in Anbar province or elsewhere, we would reserve the right to act in our own security interests, as we would do anywhere in the world. We will continue a robust Army and Air Force presence in nearby Kuwait. If the integrity of Iraq were thrown into question in a way that threatened regional stability, we would consult with other concerned nations and act appropriately.

“…Such an Iraq strategy might gain a consensus in the USA because it makes clear that we do not have an open-ended commitment of U.S. combat forces and that we do have realistic expectations about what the United States' interests are in Iraq. Those interests would be best served if we start to leave soon and do so over 12 to 18 months, as part of a coherent strategy.”

R. Clark has provided a general summary, but his idea of a “coherent stategy” needs to be fleshed out.

He’s not saying leave tomorrow, and although he doesn’t feel that a severe disruption in Iraq should be a consideration in American troop withdrawal, he really hasn’t discussed the repercussions for all the countries in the ME.

I continue to feel that Wes Clark has the "coherent strategy" that R.Clark recommends.

Edited to add: Among all the plans that you've linked to, which one do you support?

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. Aside from sparring over the meaning of words with you

To be blunt, I have far less trust in Hillary Clinton's judgement, and in some cases even motives, than I do in Wes Clark's. Don't get me wrong, I think Hillary is bright and I think she wants what is best for America and women and children everywhere and so forth. However from my perspective, I have seen her judgement clouded by political realities in the past, and I am not saying that in a cynical way, perhaps she could not even recognize how her judgment was clouded, or perhaps she didn't have a sufficient base of experiences to draw on for a more full perspective. To be very blunt, I see Hillary still speaking out on the middle east with one eye on Israel's lobbyists. I don't see that with Wes Clark. I think Clark has a much better grasp of the implications, on the middle eastern ground, of the various choices we have left at this point.

I don't think Hillary is willing to make the statements that Clark is continuing to make about how the United States needs to relate to Iran right now. Statements that Clark incorporates with substance into the specifics of his plan for middle eastern stability.

[Pithy Cherub]

56. Obama has his version too of not leaving right now.

[Eurobabe]

67. I'ts Clarkies to you toots

[FrenchieCat]

106. Where?

:shrug:

I'm looking and don't see Clarkies in arms. I do see Clarkies being patient with a .......

Never mind.

Good day! :hi:

[Tom Rinaldo]

202. Just wanted to clear up something about my parent post here

I realized after the edit widow for the above post had ended that I too slipped into accepting as an almost literal quote, based on the news story featured, that Clark clearly outlined an inverse timeline for troop levels inside Iraq: "Don't change them for six months", when in reality no where does he literally say that. Of course I should have known better, that is not the way Clark thinks, and one should never trust a paraphrase as a substitute for an actual quote presented in an accurate context. In reality Clark is on record saying that under some circumstances consistent with productive diplomacy, reducing troop levels in Iraq could begin in less than six months. It is obviously best to read Clark's full Op-Ed rather than anyone else's summary of it, including mine.

[DaveinMD]

49. that's not what he said

he was talking about a political solution, not about keeping troops indefinitely.

[lillilbigone]

54. And I never said

that he was for keeping troops indefinitely.

I am curious though -- when does he think we should begin withdrawing troops? He's rejected doing it within the next six months. He's rejected setting a timetable. What, according to Clark, will be the signal that we should begin to withdraw troops? Please inform me.

[DaveinMD]

57. I think

that he wants to use diplomacy to get us out very soon. He wants to let that diplomacy set the timetable.

[lillilbigone]

59. What if diplomacy doesn't work? When will we know if diplomacy will work?

What are the benchmarks that will tell us it is finally time to begin withdrawing troops? How many American troops lives are you willing to sacrifice between now and then?

[DaveinMD]

72. its not me

its him. I assume he thinks that if he was President he could make it happen. If it were me, I'd start a redeployment of troops tomorrow.

[lillilbigone]

74. The voice of reason

thank you.

[FrenchieCat]

81. What if Diplomacy doesn't work, you ask?

I ask you, What if we didn't even try? In other words, why not try? The Bush gang never wanted to "negotiate". Why would you think not trying would be a good thing?

[lillilbigone]

84. Yeah that's my question, what is Clark's answer?

No one on this board is saying not to use diplomacy so your erection of this strawman is probably transparent to everyone reading this.

[FrenchieCat]

98. You are not stating that we should use diplomacy.....

and if so, tell me how you would use it. What is your plan?

[lillilbigone]

102. True. Since we are all in favor of diplomacy. I'm asking what Clark would do if

diplomacy fails to achieve the conditions necessary for him to support beginning to withdraw troops from Iraq. Btw, what are those conditions? What would need to happen for Clark to support beginning to withdraw troops from Iraq?

I don't have a plan: good thing I'm not running for President, huh? However I think Feingold and McGovern have both put forth good plans.

[Tom Rinaldo]

132. I just took a crack at your question in post #130 above

Please understand that I am only talking as one individual, it's not like I've had conversations with him about this or anything.

[Bombtrack]

51. You don't feel any shame about making up a quote for Clark and putting in the headline

if you don't think nuance fucking matters, join the GOP

[lillilbigone]

52. Perhaps you could tell me in what way I am wrong about Clark's position.

Let's see if I can state Clark's position on troop levels in Iraq and you can tell me where I am wrong.

He is against a timetable for withdraw.
He is against beginning to withdraw US troops within the next 6 months.
He has not said when we should begin to withdraw US troops.
He believes we can 'win' through diplomacy, but our troop levels in Iraq should remain the same during that process.


(I posed this to another poster, but I'll give you a shot at it as well.


PS: "this is a quote" - this isn't

[FrenchieCat]

68. Clark believes that we have not credible bargaining power except

for when and how our troops are pulled out. He does not believe that Permanent bases or oil contracts are negotiable. Those issues should not be.

Clark wants to sit at a regional table with Iraq and its neighbors and iron out an agreement. Part of the agreement would be the pull out of our troops.

I believe that is what Clark is referring to when he states that the military represents "stick leverage" and the only leverage that we have as we get out while negotiating a peace in a reasonably honorable manner. It is to do what's right; renounce any economic interest, make sure that the Iran, Syria and others will "give" something like making sure that they will do what is required not to encourage a broader larger conflict.

[lillilbigone]

71. So I'm correct? Since you didn't say any way in which I've misrepresented

his positions.

Thank you for not descending to the level of some others in this thread.

[Hippo_Tron]

225. FrenchieCat, let me ask you a question about this

I get Clark's plan and personally I think it's a wonderful well thought out idea. Now here's my problem...

General Clark knows as well as any of us that Bush would not do this even if he is able to. This is an administration that shuns diplomacy completely and has ruined all of their credibility whatsoever overseas. I simply don't see Iran coming to the table after Bush referred to them as part of the "Axis of evil". Clark's plan would work great if he were in the White House or if he were advising someone like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, or even Bush senior. Clark's plan would be a miserable failure under Bush because Bush is a complete failure.

So here is what I want to know. Lets say that Clark is elected President. Lets also say that Bush just continues to stay the course for the next 2 years and makes no considerable changes in Iraq. Is Clark going to implement this plan in January 2009 or at that point will he say it is too late for this plan and pull the troops out. Because from my perspective, Clark's plan is a good idea in November 2006. If we are still in Iraq by January 2009, anything short of immediately bringing the troops home is a bad idea.

Clark needs to distinguish the difference between what we should be doing now and what he will do as President in January 2009 if we are still in Iraq.

[FrenchieCat]

247. Well I'm not sure, but Clark has proposed a lot of things in the past...

that he has adapted based on the changing facts on the ground.

I believe Clark to be mentally nimble and agile enough to adjust his position based on exactly that...facts on the ground. When one comes from the army culture, one learns that facts on the ground are much more important than just about anything.

In terms of what we "should" be doing now, that's exactly what Clark proposes. He can't sculpt a plan for those who don't want a plan...which in essence is what you are saying he should do. If folks don't want to negotiate, but that's the sanest way out, Clark can't necessarily come up with a plan where there is no negotiations. Plus, why should he? It's not like they would take him up on that either. So you see, it's a catch 22. They say Democrats have no plans...and then when one comes up with a plan...then it's "But they will never use that plan". So it would seem that everyone should be quiet then...cause Bush ain't gonna do anything other than what he wants to do....with some wee variations based on some pressure from his daddy and his daddy's friends. But what is most important is that Clark has come up with a plan that even a fool like Bush "could" implement if he really wanted to. That's the most that Wes Clark or any other Democrat can do.

Analogy:
You hate to get to your job in 10 minutes or you'll be fired, but the only way you can do that is if you have a car, but you're walking. So I come and offer you a ride in my car. But then you say you don't need a ride....but you still need to get to your job in 10 minutes. What should I do? I can either drive away from you because you don't get it as to what you need to accomplish your goal....or I can keep coaxing you to get in the car over and over again....all the while you are ignoring me and walking slower. At some point even if you do get in the car, I won't be able to get you there in time, cause now, you now only have 5 minutes, cause 5 minutes were used up talking about it all.... So now you need race car or a police car with sirens and an airplane! Pretty soon, I decide I'll just go there without you and just take your job....and your family will starve....but at least I tried, and the only person you can blame is yourself. LOL!

[FrenchieCat]

61. Reading comprehension should be employed by all of us.....

as the issue of Iraq is too fucked up and too complex to boil it down to soundbytes, and do the "Gotcha" dance that seems the rage currently.

The choices offered are....
Pull out now! No politician is going there as this is aka cut and run aka political suicide aka is just as fucked up and reckless as let's go and invade--2 wrongs don't make a right

next...

Pull out on this specific timetable! Sure, like those politicians really have control over this! That one is almost laughable and is really there for voter consumption.

next....

Stay the course! Ain't no politician for that at this point, not even Bush (although he's been pushed)!

next....

Put more troops in and go for the gusto! That would be McCain and Rumsfeld.

next....

Thoughtful realistic plan that doesn't only take the lives of the troops into consideration, but also takes into consideration the future of Iraq with its neighbors, the lives of Iraqis who may be murdered for working with us as soon as we leave, a modicum of integrity (Humpty Dumpty may not be able to be put back whole, but it is our duty to at least pick it up off the floor and set it back on the wall....and stomping one's foot impatiently doesn't really do that).--Wes Clark's plan.

-------------

It is ironic how the ones who are saying "leave everything now and save our troops" are really no wiser than the ones that said, "let's invade, bring it on!"-- The "got to have it now" generation really shouldn't be in the business of Foreign policy. Both are dangerous; both care very little about lives (troops lives are not worth anymore than Iraqi lives, IMO), and neither has really thought about the long term implication to any serious degree beyond thinking that it will be a "cakewalk" going out just like those who thought that going in, aka the folks with the perfect simple solution. Well life ain't that simple, and when things can go wrong, they may. Not to plan with the worse scenario in mind is folly......whether we are talking about "in" or "out".

If we don't keep our heads about us and come up with something that deals with negotiating peace as we are getting out in a systematically smooth transitional way, we haven't learned anything. Many point to Vietnam to say...."see, nothing bad happened there"....but the problem is that history doesn't always repeat itself as ordered. The question is not what if everything goes according to plan, but rather what if the shit does totally blow up into a regional crisis of a larger magnitude if we pull out without putting together the right plan? What then? Who will be responsible and accountable? How will those who were saying "fuck it; out now" rectify the situation? Or will they just ignore it, shrug their shoulders and say, "not my problem, I never wanted to go in in the first place!"... How will that answer help?

It's fine to "care" about the volunteer troops and their lives.....but to use that concern as an end all and pretend that this is the only concern we should have in reference to this mess is really not too bright, IMO. Once we are out, we must stay out.....so rushing out, and then saying...."wait, I forgot something" because of not having really thought this whole thing through is not a possibility.

We should have not attacked.......that is the only "should" that means anything. How it will end up depends on how wise we act. I prefer that we do it deliberately and calmly....cause haste and panic may cause greater pain than some have actually imagined. Let's do it right and not think they'll be "do overs".

[lillilbigone]

64. Here is what I comprehend about Clark's position on US troop levels in Iraq.

He is against a timetable for withdrawal.
He is against beginning to withdraw US troops within the next 6 months.
He has not said when we should begin to withdraw US troops.
He believes we need to engage in diplomacy, but our troop levels in Iraq should remain the same during that process.


Am I comprehending this correctly or not? Let me know what I've gotten wrong, please.

[BrotherBuzz]

75. Clark: US must stay in Iraq - your OP subject line

Am I comprehending this correctly or not? Let me know what I've gotten wrong, please. :shrug:

[lillilbigone]

78. Yep, that's right.

To me, it sounds like Clark is saying that we should not withdraw any troops until some unspecified future date, after some unspecified diplomatic achievements. I haven't heard him say when we should begin withdrawal, but he has said when not to begin to withdraw (now, within 6 months, or according to some timetable). I haven't heard him spell out under what conditions he would support beginning a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Do you know? Tell me. Under what conditions would Clark support beginning a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq? And what if those conditions never come about?

[FrenchieCat]

80. Being simple isn't being right....since you don't understand what

leverage to negotiate means, this is gonna be tough for you to understand.

As an accountant, many times on my CPA letters, I write; "Accordingly, this information is not designed for those who are not informed about such matters."

Clark as a General understands how long it would take to deploy 150,000 troops and their equipment. Do you?

Clark who has previously negotiated a peace treaty (Dayton Peace Accords) knows how long it might take to bring various antagonist factions together at a table to iron out differences. Do you?

Clark was in Vietnam and understands what happened in that conflict as well. He wrote his master thesis on the subject. Did you?

Clark was the Director of Strategic Planning under the Clinton Administration and understands military and diplomatic strategy. Do you?

Clark was endorsed by 55 embassadors during his run for office.

Clark ain't no fool, but Clark ain't gonna say what the voters want to hear in order to pander to their wish nothwithstanding the realities on the ground and the long term solution. It would be very easy for Clark to say Get out now.....or be out within the next six months....let's pull out 25,000 per month till then....but he obviously thinks that ain't gonna quite work in getting the best results for all of those involved. In reading what he has layed out, his plan is reasonable, well thought out, and actually brilliant considering the mess. You can give him credit by opening your mind to stray beyond you foot stomping demands, or you can go and support someone else....someone who might not know as well what they are talking about.....but who says what you want to hear. In the end, it's your choice.....but that's not to say that it will solve the real issues at hand...which in my opinion, Clark's plan does.

[lillilbigone]

83. Under what conditions would Clark support beginning a withdrawal? Do you know?

What if those conditions never come about?

Please stop telling me what I do and do not understand and try to address my questions instead. Thank you.

[FrenchieCat]

92. You must be from the "Don't cross the street cause a bus might hit you"

school!

Funny though, you are not willing to ask the "what ifs" that should also be under consideration...like "what if when we pull out, a war breaks out between Iran, Syria, Turkey and Iraq"...what then?

In terms of "how" I communicate, get over it. I ain't your kid!

[lillilbigone]

94. Under what conditions would Clark support beginning a withdrawal? Do you know?

[FrenchieCat]

97. If it isn't clear by now, it never will be. Might be too complex for you?

as is the situation that is faced in the ME.......

That's what George Bush and his minions did with their simpleton asses. Gave us a complex pandora's puzzle to solve. Now, we see more simpletons lined up one after the other with more simple ideas, for what remains a delicate situation.

Clark understands the issue here. You are selling him short, and therefore selling your power to comprehend even shorter.

[Cameron27]

100. self-delete

probably inappropriate.

[lillilbigone]

104. If I you'd TRY to answer, perhaps I would see the light, lol.

Under what conditions would Clark support beginning a withdrawal?

[BrotherBuzz]

87. That's you take

Diplomacy is the route Clark is proposing, something of a weak suite with the Bush* administration. Diplomacy involves all sides participating equally. Diplomacy and negotiations will determine the conditions for withdraw.

“To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.”

[lillilbigone]

95. When does Clark think we should withdraw troops? Under what conditions?

According to Clark, how will we know the time is ripe to bring our troops home?

[BrotherBuzz]

99. Clark doesn't employ a Magic 8-Ball™

Honest diplomacy and negotiations with ALL parties involved will determine the time and conditions for withdraw.

[lillilbigone]

103. IOW: an, open-ended commmitment to stay in Iraq.

Till we 'win'.

[FrenchieCat]

107. Why do you think that we should stay in Iraq till we win?

Since it is clear that is not what Clark thinks.

[lillilbigone]

108. I don't. That's what I understand as Clark's view based on his op-ed in USAToday

He talks about why not to get out now, but I don't see anything about when to get out other than until after we 'achieve our aims through a diplomatic process. Nor does he say anything about what to do if the diplomatic process fails to 'achieve our aims'. http://securingamerica.com/node/1961


Our aims? What were we aiming for when we went into Iraq? What did Clark think back then?
I guess we'd have to look at what he said at the time to find out.

[Tom Rinaldo]

137. You will eventually find my answer to you above. Now, about this smear

First let me preface this by saying that I am generally very positive about FAIR. I have a personal friend who does work for them. FAIR founder Jeff Cohen comes up to my part of the woods with some regularity, I've been at several meetings with him and a I have a personally autographed copy from him of "Cable News Confidential", which is a great book. Having said that, no one gets it completely right all of the time, and they didn't with Clark this time.

The surest sign of an attempt to smear General Wesley Clark "from the left" is the painstakingly cut up and reassembled way in which some of his critics attempt to present the comments Wes Clark made in the London Times on April 10th 2003. The fact that every comment that Clark made in that Op-Ed that points out the problems with Bush's Iraq policy are surgically removed, often to the ludicrous extent of joining together phrases seperated by 13 paragraphs of text through the magic of three dots (such as... this) should be all the evidence needed to make anyone suspicious that the material being quoted from is being manipulated to fit someone's covert agenda. FAIR wasn't the source for the Frankenstein's monster version of Clark's Op-Ed, but they obviously ran with it here.

This comment is simply a flat out wrong assertion of an opinion:

"After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate"

And my above assertion is easily backed up simply by reading from the full source material that allegedly shows that Clark lost all qualms about the wisdom of the war. It is the absolutely most simple fact check one should always do if one is seeking Fairness and Accuracy In the Media, but F.A.I.R. didn't even bother to do that simplest of steps here.

First they extracted and commented on this from Clark:

"Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."

Let me point out for starters that Clark's qualms never included any doubt that the U.S. military could invade and depose Hussein, that was never in question for Clark. What was in question for him was the wisdom of doing so, not our ability to do so. That is a classic bait and switch against Clark, implying his praise of a military strategy somehow shows he wavored on his opinion of going to war in the first place. Whether or not Clark had earlier expressed doubt about a certain military tactic is not the point to FAIR's piece and they know it. The point of the artical was to question whether Clark opposed invading Iraq when we did, not to go over Clark's expressed opinions on how such an invasion would best be managed if launched.

But that is the least of FAIR's inaccuracy here. What follows is a horrible job of cut and paste editing to create a wildly distorted image. Let's look at what FAIR chose not to quote, shall we? Like the sentance immediately following "Already the scent of victory is in the air" which just so happens to be "Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph." What's that? Do I detect an unreported qualm? In fact FAIR chose to look right past the next two paragraphs (numbers two and three of Clark's Op-Ed, which go on to detail with amazing foresight the problems that lay ahead for Bush's occupation of Iraq:

"In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured. Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad. The regime’s last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight. And to the north, the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul are still occupied by forces that once were loyal to the regime. It may take some armed persuasion for them to lay down their arms. And finally, the Baath party and other security services remain to be identified and disarmed.

Then there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people."

How does FAIR square those concerns from Clark with the subjective bias of their reporting? How do those statements support their assertion that "After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate"? They simply don't, that's how. They obvioulsy assume that the reader doesn't have access to the full original piece. Maybe they never looked at the full original piece themselves, which really would be unforgivable from an organization like FAIR that prides itself on accuracy and fairness.

FAIR fast forwards through Clark's Op-Ed piece to next cite this quote from it:

"Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights."

OK, lets rewind their tape a bit. What did they skip right over that directly preceded that comment by Clark? Here it is in it's full original context:

"As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn’t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome.

Now the bills must be paid, amid the hostile image created in many areas by the allied action. Surely the balm of military success will impact on the diplomacy to come — effective power so clearly displayed always shocks and stuns. Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights."

How can anyone defend such clearly biased selective editing as "fair"? Remember all of these quotes from F.A.I.R were stitched together to support their bold assertion that Clark lost all qualms about the Iraq invasion. So of course they had to ignore the part of Clark's Op-Ed where he said the folowing, becauase they disprove the contention that they were making:

"The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. This could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West.

But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns."

Clark's Op-Ed was full of dire warnings about what could easily go wrong, and Clark was saying this at at time when other leading Democrats inside the United States, like John Edwards, were still saying that the United States was right to invade Iraq, and were still viewing it as a total victory; Mission Accomplished.

And nothing could be more blatently intentionally misleading than F.A.I.R. making this claim:

"Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."

It nicely helped F.A.I.R. make its intended point to say Clark closed his piece that way, the only problem though is that it isn't true. Here is how Clark actually closed his Op-Ed:

"Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats."

Clark closed his piece by saying "Mission Not Accomplished" after presenting a two page shopping list of qualms about the Bush invasion of Iraq. FAIR's piece was nothing more than a subjective opinion piece using the tools of progaganda. They should be embarassed by it.

Clark is right about U.S. military power in a straight out simple war where the objective is to defeat an enemy in battle. But Clark was never warning about a U.S. lack of military superiority. He was warning about the lack of a sane U.S. foreign policy, and the dangers that presents America with in the world, where the objective can't simply be deposing a foreign head of state and calling that a mission accomplished.



Actually I've written a lot more to refute attacks like this one, but this should be a sufficient start.

[lillilbigone]

151. Here is a link to the full text of the London Times piece

I won't post it here because of DU fair use policy, but if you follow this link, and scroll down to comment 16, you'll find the full text http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2005/04/27/wesley-clark-2008/


I'd encourage everyone to read it in it's entirety for themselves, without any in-line commentary from anyone, and make their own judgements.

[Tom Rinaldo]

156. I know that full text, and I agree with you

People should read it in it's entirety before making judgements. If that was the norm concerning that Op-Ed I would be thrilled. I did a point by point rebuttle in my other post because I felt that was needed considering the source. All I would ask of anyone who reads the full Op-Ed now is that they look at it in the light of when it was literally written, fair enough? I don't think I'm "leading the witness" with that broad a suggestion.

[FrenchieCat]

77. Your problem is that you are operating via soundbytes....

which is why you keep listing soundbytes of what your understanding is.

Soundbyte for those thinking inside of a box already drawn:
He is against a timetable for withdrawal.
He is against beginning to withdraw US troops within the next 6 months.
He has not said when we should begin to withdraw US troops.
He believes we need to engage in diplomacy, but our troop levels in Iraq should remain the same during that process.


This is my understanding of Clark's approach which is not the "in the box" soundbyte friendly:

Timetable for withdrawal? to be negotiated, and not artificially imposed by Washington.

Withdrawal of US troops? Withdrawal of troops should be done as part of the diplomatic agreement based on a negotiated timetable set by the groups involved (Iraq, neigbors, U.S and possible U.N)--

Withdraw US troops within the next 6 months? Logistically and strategically it will take most likely 6 month to negotiate while preparing for orderly exit. Is there someone stating that it can be done in less time? If so, how more quickly? Six month prior to withdrawal is reasonable considering what others are advocating.

When we should begin to withdraw? after Negotiations have ironed out a agreement after not more than a six month window.


our troop levels in Iraq should remain the same during that process? Clark says that this part is neither here nor there. Prior to negotiations being hammered out, increasing or decreasing troops may send a mixed message. If troops levels and timetables are the leverage, then those issues shouldn't drive the peace process....the peace process should drive what will be the timetables and what will the withdrawal process be in terms of numbers.

[lillilbigone]

79. Let's skip talking about what my problem or yours might be

and stick to talking about the topic, ok?

This is my understanding of Clark's approach which is not the "in the box" soundbyte friendly:

Timetable for withdrawal? to be negotiated, and not artificially imposed by Washington.

Actually he says plainly in his USAToday op-ed: "Timetables a bad idea". He then goes on to argue against the strawman of 'A precipitous troop reduction' http://securingamerica.com/node/1961

Withdrawal of US troops? Withdrawal of troops should be done as part of the diplomatic agreement based on a negotiated timetable set by the groups involved (Iraq, neigbors, U.S and possible U.N)--

Exactly -- an unspecified date after unspecified things happen - things which may never happen. However, he does specifically reject a timetable, so you are wrong about that.

Withdraw US troops within the next 6 months? Logistically and strategically it will take most likely 6 month to negotiate while preparing for orderly exit. Is there someone stating that it can be done in less time? If so, how more quickly? Six month prior to withdrawal is reasonable considering what others are advocating.

Actually, the topic is beginning a withdrawal within six months, not completing one.

When we should begin to withdraw? after Negotiations have ironed out a agreement after not more than a six month window.

When and where did he say anything about "after not more than a six month window"? Please provide a reference.

tia

[FrenchieCat]

89. I'd prefer if you didn't try to control my responses...I talk the way that

I talk, and I'm not going to change that to make you feel better.

You come across in a particular manner as well, but its not for me to comment on. So please, save the "say it like this" requests.

Clark is against a Quick withdrawal done in a vaccum, but doesn't want to "stay in Iraq"... So yes, your headline is wrong, misleading, disingeneous and intellectually dishonest.

Clark clearly states in his Oped"it is time for us to begin to redeploy."
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/11/illustration_by_2.html

He goes on..."setting a rigid, Washington-driven timetable is an option, but a bad one. A precipitous troop reduction could have far-reaching effects: emboldening Iran, weakening U.S. security promises to friendly states, and even sparking military initiatives by other powers — Turkey or Iran — to deal with the resulting security vacuum. Our weakened position in Iraq also could undercut our leverage in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute."

Clark believes that the redeployment of troops should be part of the negotiation, not a stand alone project done based on Washington unilateral decision....

"In terms of diplomacy, our team would engage each state and party, solicit its views and challenge it to participate in moving forward, just as U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke did in the Balkans a decade ago. Next steps might include confidence-building measures, hosted discussions between factions, and perhaps one or more larger meetings to conclude firm commitments, timetables or sequence of events.

the factions could vow certain actions in return for U.S. assistance or troop deployments, or redeployments, and possible assistance from neighboring states.

Reaching an understanding on Iraq need not be a lengthy process, but the dialogue must be broadened in scope and participation to be effective. The aim would be a consensual solution underwritten by outside guarantors, not an imposed solution. And finally, military power would have a subordinated and supporting role.

Q&A - Brown University... http://www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2006/11/28/CampusNews/Q.A-With.Clark.i.Havent.Said.I.Wont.Run.For.President-2509968.shtml?norewrite200611291635&sourcedomain=www.browndailyherald.com

You have said you oppose setting a timetable for American troop withdrawal from Iraq.
"I oppose Washington setting a Washington-driven timetable."

Do you support an increase in American troop levels?
"Not per se, but what I do support is a full kit bag of carrots and sticks when and if we send a negotiating team into the Middle East to work these issues."

If Washington doesn't set a deadline for troop withdrawal, what incentive does Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have to develop a legitimate military force?
"I think al-Maliki knows that he's on a wild ride on a bucking bronco. And whether America sets a deadline or not, he knows the current situation is unsustainable. The question is, can anyone pull together enough common interests among the Iraqi politicians and the neighboring countries to dampen the fight and to give people a reason to work together rather than to work against each other?"

You've suggested that the United States engage Iran and Syria in a dialogue with Iraq. How will the involvement of those two fundamentalist countries facilitate the development of democracy in Iraq?
"Well, you have to be careful what you're trying to achieve in Iraq. I think what we're looking for in Iraq is three things - first, an end to the violence; secondly, a government of some type that more or less meets the needs of the people in Iraq; and third, a country that doesn't become a threat to its neighbors, either explicitly or by virtue of its own internal conditions."

[lillilbigone]

96. When does Clark think we should withdraw troops? Under what conditions?

[FrenchieCat]

109. The beauty about consistency is no matter how you ask, you

aren't gonna get a different answer.

Now, one might ask why you keep asking the same question when it is clear that folks have responded???


So it appears that you are intellectually dishonest and are only attempting to encourage a flamebait thread. The titled should have tipped us off, but we were hoping to be discussing the issue in good faith. Obviously that's not the case, and I can only hope that the Iranians and the Syrians and the Iraqis are not gonna act as you are acting during negotiation to set timetables to redeploy American forces as Gen. Wes Clark is advocating. Because if they have the same mentality as you do, we are truly fucked....

I would have preferred having this discussion with a wall....cause at least in doing that, I wouldn't have to felt pity for it.

Carry on as you were!

Ciao! :hi:

[lillilbigone]

122. won't get an answer.

Under what conditions would Clark support beginning a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq?

If this question has been answered in a previous post, please direct me to that post. Or you could just answer the question. If you know the answer.

[Sparkly]

126. Please read.

http://securingamerica.com/node/1961

[lillilbigone]

129. I've read that at least twenty times today. Where in it does Clark say

Under what conditions would he support beginning a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq?

He does say:

Timetables a bad idea

What about a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals? Today, setting a rigid, Washington-driven timetable is an option, but a bad one. A precipitous troop reduction could have far-reaching effects: emboldening Iran, weakening U.S. security promises to friendly states, and even sparking military initiatives by other powers — Turkey or Iran — to deal with the resulting security vacuum. Our weakened position in Iraq also could undercut our leverage in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

What about imposing a tripartite division of Iraq? That would merely feed ethnic cleansing and likely lead to a wider, more intense conflict.

The right approach is a coordinated diplomatic, legal, economic and security campaign drawing upon broader dialogue in the region and intensified political work inside Iraq.

Here is how to do this:

* Establish an effective, sustained shuttle diplomacy within the region.

* Form a high-level interagency diplomatic team, representing the White House and secretaries of State and Defense and led by an experienced, respected diplomat.

* Begin talks within Iraq, and with all its neighbors, based on a clear set of principles outlined by the team. The goal would be to seek the commitments necessary to achieve our aims inside Iraq and also advance U.S. interests in the region.

These principles could include: Iraq would remain whole; oil revenue would go to the Iraqi people based on a formula they determine; the rights and security of individuals must be protected; the United States would have no permanent bases in Iraq; the covert flow of military arms and equipment into Iraq would be halted; and the security needs of all states would be respected.
http://securingamerica.com/node/1961

He also says:

In terms of diplomacy, our team would engage each state and party, solicit its views and challenge it to participate in moving forward, just as U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke did in the Balkans a decade ago. Next steps might include confidence-building measures, hosted discussions between factions, and perhaps one or more larger meetings to conclude firm commitments, timetables or sequence of events.

Of course there are no guarantees, but from such a dialogue should emerge a prescription for U.S. troop levels and activities consistent with our larger interests. Carrots and sticks could be employed. For instance, the factions could vow certain actions in return for U.S. assistance or troop deployments, or redeployments, and possible assistance from neighboring states.
http://securingamerica.com/node/1961

"from such a dialogue should emerge a prescription for U.S. troop levels and activities consistent with our larger interests" seems to me to indicate that he doesn't have an answer to the question: "when should US troops begin to withdraw from Iraq" but that rather, he believes they should stay until "a prescription for U.S. troop levels" emerges from that diplomatic dialogue.

I do give him credit for saying "there are no guarantees", as it seems to be an honest admission that the possibility exists that no such prescription will emerge. He simply says that it "should".

[Sparkly]

135. Political solution, peace agreements, mutual interests, "buying in"

If he laid out a specific form for it to take, he'd be lying and/or stupid, and he's neither.

I know it's harder to grasp than short black/white right/wrong stances. But I believe he's right that there can be no peace without bringing all to the table, LISTENing to them, and basically closing a deal, if you will. There also needs to be enforcement of any agreement, security on the streets, and all means of quelling the fires so that the Iraq fiasco doesn't inflame other countries in the region and broaden even further.

Without starting the process, it's impossible to say what those "conditions" would look like; but it's about MINIMIZING the damage. Redeployments could happen quickly; he puts them on the table in a smart way. As leverage, some factions might agree to things (e.g. disarming) in exchange for troop *presence* to secure their safety.

General Clark has said, for quite some time now, that there is no "A" grade solution; long ago, he said the best we could do was "C-minus." Now it's much worse. So he has no illusions of "winning victory" in the sense of a grand outcome from all this. If we can win basic stability for the people who are most vulnerable in Iraq, that's something, at least. If we can salvage some shred of respect for our own country after the damage we've done, by leaving Iraq's children with some level of hope and security, that's something, too.

One thing you'll never find from General Clark: simple platitudes, EASY answers, or slogans in lieu of the truth.

He knows a whole lot more about all this than any of us do; and none of us cares about it more than he does.

[lillilbigone]

138. OK, as long as we are clear about what Clark is saying.

And what he is saying is: no troop withdrawal until those things happen. (Political solution, peace agreements, mutual interests, "buying in")

However, I have no faith that those things happen, so I respectfully must disagree with the General's viewpoint.

[Tom Rinaldo]

148. Actually I think Clark is saying this

IF the part about holding steady for 6 months is an accurate summary by the reporter of what Clark actually said, which, as was pointed out above, we really don't know since that was the Reporter making his own summary of what Clark sait in that part, not direct quotes as were featured elswhere. And we have all seen how distorted a summary of Clark's position written by someone else can be. So again, if that 6 month phrase accurately reflects Clark's thinking, then all I see that implying is:

No immediate troop withdrawal until either

1) These things (Political solution, peace agreements, mutual interests, "buying in")
are attempted or

2) It seems clear that they will not be attempted any time soon or

3) It is apparent that insufficient will exists in the region and in the U.S. to engage in the type of trust building measures needed for this type of framework to move forward.

Nowhere do I see Clark say: No troop withdrawal until these things happen, nowhere. All I saw him alleged to say say was: leave the troop levels where they are for 6 months while an effort like this gets off the ground.

In fact I am not certain that Clark would hold to that advice (assuming he gave that) if it became clear before six months that the Bush Administration would not agree to and commence this type of diplomatic process. Clark has a set of proposals, without the whole package it isn't clear whether he would stand by a 6 month freeze recommendation.

Also Clark doesn't believe in fixed timelines, remember? This is based on conditions as they exist now. If the civil war escalates to non stop full militia against militia frontal battles, if the current Iraq government totally implodes and fragments into a dozen seperate pieces that will not even talk to each other, there is nothing to say Clark wouldn't seriously revise his thinking on this.

[lillilbigone]

161. I want to be clear. I posted this thread because when I read that this morning, I was surprised.

I didn't read Clark's USA Today op-ed till I was pointed to it in this thread. I knew Clark campaigned for Lamont and I guess I just assumed he was for what seems to me to be emerging as the consensus among Democrats, phased withdrawal of US troops from inside Iraq, sooner rather than later, based on the simple propositions that they (a) don't belong there in the first place and (b) are hurting, rather than helping the situation. Yes, I remember Clark talking about Iraq back during the campaign - but as a good surrogate, once he conceded, he espoused Kerry's view at the time. So I have come to this discussion today fresh. The questions I've asked, (What specifically needs to happen before Clark thinks we should start withdrawing? and What if those things never happen?) I've asked sincerely, and frankly, I haven't been happy with the answers.

I think most of the people on DU are actually capable of reading the news article in the original post, and http://securingamerica.com/node/1961">the USA Today op-ed and understanding for themselves wht Clark's position is without having it explained to them by you or me. Clark does speak and write pretty coherently.

[Tom Rinaldo]

178. I fully agree with your last few sentances - more for you to think about

The problem is, that is not the foot that you started this discussion off on with the subject header that you chose for it. I can accept that your earliest comments might have been somewhat different had you read Clark's full Op-Ed rather than the news article first, but the format you chose for your OP title was a conscious choice. You could have said something like "I don't like what Clark is saying about Iraq" rather than framing your title in a way that mimiced it being a direct quote from Clark. You could have said "Clark says keep all our troops in Iraq for next Six months", which would have sort of approximate what the author of that article summerized his position to be. Whether or not you think it was your specific intent originally to do so, I think in fact you defacto launched this thread with your own "explanation" of the meaning of Clark's comments, which led to the chain reaction we all later experienced here.

As to your questions, it is very easy to give you a very short answer to the second one, which is: Very bad things for Americans, and for Iraqis, and likely for people of at least several other nations also. I believe not to make the diplomatic efforts that Clark is here proposing will, not far down the road, result in an American attack on Iran, and from hearing Clark speak on this extensively in person, I think that is exactly what he thinks would relatively soon result from a failure to seriously pursue this line of diplomacy.

Elsewhere I took a stab on speculating scenarios for you for your first question, as well as pointing out Clark's standing preference for Congress establishing clear benchmarks for measuring progress in Iraq to fascillitate Congress effectively performing it's oversight function regarding professed reasons for continuing a troop deployment there. But it really scares me that while so much heat and light continues to erupt (understandably) over current American involvement in the present Iraq nightmare, there is so little attention being paid to our pending military war on Iran.

To be perfectly honest with you, in my opinion the spiral of violence that an American attack on Iran would bring will make the tragedy of Iraq seem pale by comparison. Furthermore I believe a grave concern over pending conflict with Iran underlies the intensity of Clark's focus on pushing hard for regional diplomacy now as the best and perhaps only way to head off another ultimately devestating war.

[lillilbigone]

206. To be more specific

As to your questions, it is very easy to give you a very short answer to the second one, which is: Very bad things for Americans, and for Iraqis, and likely for people of at least several other nations also. I believe not to make the diplomatic efforts that Clark is here proposing will, not far down the road, result in an American attack on Iran, and from hearing Clark speak on this extensively in person, I think that is exactly what he thinks would relatively soon result from a failure to seriously pursue this line of diplomacy.

Actually, when I ask What if those things never happen?, I mean, when should the troops come home in that happenstance? This is why it is two questions. What specifically needs to happen before Clark thinks we should start withdrawing? being the first one, the answer to which is referred to as 'those things' in the second, and perhaps the second question would have been clearer if phrased: If those things never happen, when do we start withdrawing?

[Tom Rinaldo]

214. Root of our problem, for all of us as citizens

Trust. We have so little reason to trust our government. For some of us that is predominantly because we believe the system works to insure that those who govern can not or will not do so in the interests of average Americans. Others seem to assume the Peter principle; that our leaders rise to the level at which they become incompetent. And part of it of course, is simply the result of so many of us having been burnt badly before, if we thought we could trust our government to do the right thing in one or more important instances, or at least trusted that it wouldn't do the very worst thing. I'm not arguing against any of these reasons for not trusting our government. We can all find evidence enough to back any of those reasons for not having trust in our elected leaders once installed.

The problem is though, when there is little or no trust present, not only is it impossible to feel assured that they will act in a manner worthy of trust, it is almost impossible not to assume that they won't, and at that point it becomes increasingly impossible to come up with any safeguards against their predicted poor behavior that can suffice. If for example, one believes that our leaders will lie to us, the question "How can I be sure that you are telling me the full truth now?" asked of them becomes almost impossible to answer adaquately, even if in that instance a leader was in fact telling you the full truth. It is almost as if the only answer to that question that could ever work would be the euivelent of "Come with me and I'll show you." If the suspicion is deep enough, the next question becomes, "How do I know that you didn't just show me the part that you want me to see?"

Taken to the extreme the only reply that might work is "You can remain by my side at all times, being witness to all I see, being present for all I do." Except that isn't possible to arrnage for all of us. We can't all fit into the room listening in on a speaker phone each time our President consults with the King of Jordon, nor would the King of Jordon be willing to consult with our President if somehow magically we could all be made to fit into that room. When there is no trust, what people often seek instead is a rigid set of agreements spelled out in advance in minute detail, so that there is a prior agreement already governing behavior for all instances, with near constant concrete monitoring of that agreement. It's almost like a parent telling a teenager "You can leave the presence of my watchful eye, but only if you can tell me in advance exactly where you intend to be for every hour you will be away, and tell me now exactly who you will be with during the entire time you are away, all subject to my ability to check up on of course, and God forbid I find you anywhere or with anyone that you did not get my agreement for in advance."

That in a limited way might work for the parent of a "wild teenager", but not without a real price. For one thing certain activities, those that are intrinsically too difficult to predict how they might play out over the course of a day or evening, those that can't be defined in advance with precision, those that might take a teen outside of range of easy monitoring, or put them in too close contact with random strangers that they are likely to then spend time with, begin to be forbidden. Some parents might say that is still a workable solution, under the circumstances, to a lack of trust, but no one can pretend that it is a good solution.

You ask: "If those things never happen, when do we start withdrawing?" Clark says that a continuing American presence inside Iraq has an inherently destabalizing effect on that nation and in that region. The longer it is prolonged, the more destabalizing that effect becomes. It is like the force of gravity, the destabalizing effect can not be turned off. It can perhaps be countervailed for a while, just like a man stong muscles can hang onto the edge of a cliff for a time before finally he will fall down that cliff, but the outcome of a continued presence in that situation is inevitable. The outcome of not "changing that course" is certain. It is only a matter of time, and that time is not unlimited. For that reason, if you believe him, Clark would not leave us hanging in that position too long, becasue doing so would inevitably be fatal.

This analogy breaks down as inevitably all analogies do. Of course Clark would never have taken us to that Cliff, but more to the point, the analogy would have to become pretty tortured if I tried to invent, inside of that cartoon like analogy, an equivelant set of complexities that could be used to argue against simply walking away from that cliff immediately, but the temptation to see the fiasco that Bush has brought us to inside Iraq is tempting to view in such simple terms. Why not just walk away from that cliff now? Less soldiers will die now, if we walk away from that cliff now. If the crisis we now find ourselves in the Middle East is looked at in that two dimensional a way, sure, why not walk away from the cliff? I know that many do see it pretty much that way, for them it is that black and white. Leave the cliff now, go home now. Obviously Clark doesn't think it is that simple, and he openly and patiently explains his reasons for believing it is not that simple. But for those who are convinced that it is that simple, all such explanations sound like madness I know. Especially when there is no trust.

Regarding someone I think all of us believe is untrustworthy, George Bush, even a completely untrustworthy person in certain circumstances can be moved to make the better of two choices, if the poorer of those choices is clearly shaping up to be a total disaster. I am thinking of the full use of regional diplomacy now as I write this, and whether George Bush is capable of committing to it.

I'll be frank, I do have some trust in General Clark's ability to best weigh all of the factors currently in play in the middle east. He is infinately more of an expert on this than I am, and he knows many of the players and the terrain first hand, which I obviously don't. We all have our opinions, but his opinions aremuch better informed than mine, even though I go to great lengths to keep myself informed. So I think General Clark has the best plan for moving forward right now, and ultimately that is all he has the ability to do right now, present the best plan possible. And as much as I might prefer it to be otherwise, not all plans can be precisely scripted in advance. I am told that in war it is said, even the best plan become outdated as soon as the first shot is fired. Because he doesn't sit in the White House, Clark can't single handedly implement anything right now. Neither can any of us.

[lillilbigone]

223. I'm sorry, I think we have to go with Clark says about his plans, not what you say.

Clark says that a continuing American presence inside Iraq has an inherently destabalizing effect on that nation and in that region. The longer it is prolonged, the more destabalizing that effect becomes.

Where does he say that? Not in the USA Today Op-Ed. In fact he says the exact opposite, that pulling out would cause instability:

What about a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals? Today, setting a rigid, Washington-driven timetable is an option, but a bad one. A precipitous troop reduction could have far-reaching effects: emboldening Iran, weakening U.S. security promises to friendly states, and even sparking military initiatives by other powers — Turkey or Iran — to deal with the resulting security vacuum. Our weakened position in Iraq also could undercut our leverage in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

If Clark believed, as the majority of Americans believe, that a continuing American presence inside Iraq has an inherently destabilizing effect on that nation and in that region, why isn't he calling for withdrawal?

With all due respect, you seem to be ascribing views to Clark that he himself does not hold.

[Sparkly]

153. More leaps of logic.

First, separate "troop withdrawal" from "troop redeployment." Few are really talking about "withdrawal."

Second, why do you have no faith those things will happen? Do you mean under BushCo, or ever at all?

Third, do you think YOUR view -- that it's impossible to wage peace -- should be the one that prevails in Pentagon/State Dept. policy as more insightful, more informed, more carefully weighed than those of experienced experts?

Fourth, if the answer to that is "yes," how do you intend to make your view into policy?

[lillilbigone]

235. ...

First, separate "troop withdrawal" from "troop redeployment." Few are really talking about "withdrawal."

More should be talking about it, then.

Second, why do you have no faith those things will happen? Do you mean under BushCo, or ever at all?

I think faith is something that should inform religious decisions, not military or political ones.

Third, do you think YOUR view -- that it's impossible to wage peace

When did I ever say that was my view?

Fourth, if the answer to that is "yes," how do you intend to make your view into policy?

The policy choice we are talking about in this thread is whether to, and when to, withdraw our troops from Iraq.

[Eurobabe]

70. Since few of us have taken Logic 101

it's easy to see why misused sound-bytes are the most effective tool to rile up hoi polloi, especially employed by people who have under 200 posts.

Same shit, different pile.

[janx]

73. YEP. n/t

[Texas_Kat]

93. Thanks Frenchie for your work...

Today I had neither the time nor the patience to reply to something a high school student could understand.

As a test, I had one read WKC's statements and tell me what Clark 'said'. He got it dead on with nary a misconstrued soundbite.

Thanks again.

[janx]

63. The way I read it (the article is convoluted),

Clark is downplaying any military solution in the region and stressing diplomacy at this point. I may disagree with him about keeping the troop levels static for the next six months, but his overall meaning is clear. :shrug:

[Sparkly]

66. "You can lose what's going on militarily inside Iraq, but you can't win it militarily"

"either by putting more forces in or by pulling them out."

That's a far cry from "US must stay in Iraq." Clark has advocated a clearly stated policy of NOT having permanent bases there.

[AtomicKitten]

85. I wouldn't be too critical of those trying to deal with this mess.

In fact, they have more credibility than those that voted yes on the IWR that put us in Iraq in the first place and now are trying to solicit applause for changing their minds.

I admire those that give thoughtful consideration to the consequences that too many disregarded when they voted yes.

Just keep in mind this war is not of their doing.

[lillilbigone]

86. He's certainly entitled to his view, but people should know what it is.

Many in this thread don't want to admit the simple fact that Clark is opposed to a timetable for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and opposed to beginning a withdrawal in the next six months.

[FrenchieCat]

90. Unfortunately, your title doesn't provide Clark's "View"....and in fact,

it misrepresents it, which is something you have yet to admit. So who is the one in denial is debatable.

It is also unfortunate that you talk about what Clark does NOT want and conveniently leave out what Clark DOES want to happen....which again makes your comments intellectually dishonest.

Based on my discussion with you thus far, it appears that Many more know what Clark's view on Iraq than you do.

However, to some degree, I am glad that you put up your uninformed OP....as long as folks read the content.

Ever thought of getting a job as a headline writer for Drudge? I think you both compliment each other on tactics used to gain attention.

[Cameron27]

91. self-delete

[Pithy Cherub]

88. Amen!

That is the only avenue forward! :)

[Thrill]

101. Officially off his bandwagon

[FrenchieCat]

110. Because?

[Bucky]

163. Because the wind blows

Clark is speaking strategy, serious strategy, that will move us toward solutions and a resolution of this occupation. Such talk will cost him votes. The gamble is that it will win him more votes than it will cost him, as people start to argue less about whether we should pull out, but how we should pull out without getting more people killed than necessary.

[Tom Rinaldo]

182. That is the gamble for us who want to see him elected President

I see that, but it isn't Clark's gamble. The stakes of war and peace are more important to him than the stakes of a possible Presidential run. I have no doubt he would trade away any chance to become President in the blink of an eye if by so doing he could bring any remote semblance of a just resolution to this war, and help prevent a new one with Iran through doing so.

[Bucky]

191. The war with Iran...

... will never happen. That door closed around November 2003.

[Tom Rinaldo]

196. I know that we've disagreed about this before

and we still do now. There is much more that we do agree on. I have to drive to Boston in about six hours so unfortunately I can't revisit this matter with you in any length now. One thing that Clark said about North Korea recently, comes to mind for me now quickly in this regard:

War can come to the Korean Peninsular by accident or miscalculation.

If nothing else I think it unwise to rule out the possibility of that happening with Iran in such emphatic terms. Israal remains a very real wild card in this equation also. Surgical strikes against specific targets don't always fail to trigger off a massive escalation of violence in waves of mutual retaliatory rounds. It isn't always like American airstrikes against Libyas capital, or Israel planes taking out Husseins nukes, or American cruise missiles taking out chemical factories in the Sudan. Sometimes warning shots aren't seen as warning shots.

Clark says Cheney is pushing for this hard.

[madfloridian]

105. Here's part of what he advised the Senate leadership...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/29/112724/212

Someone posted what was said by his communications director on Kos and at his blog. It was deleted from his blog, it was locked here when posted, but it is still at Kos.

It is not a lot, but read it carefully. I have a fear our Dem leaders are being advised not to leave. As a Democrat I think that is wrong. But everyone keeps denying it and getting mad at me over it.

[FrenchieCat]

111. Ooooh....sounded like a plan THAT WORKED! Kewl! Kudos to the General!

:patriot:

As poster at kos said...

Wes Clark Advising the Senate by dburro, Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 11:11:19 AM PST (1+ / 0-)
Very Interesting..... (0 / 0)
An Iraq platform that allows Democrats from all over the country to unite, no matter their district?

That's a wise move!

Much better than coming out with a position that some Democrats will back and others won't depending on the region they are contesting!

Well, I hope they listen to the General! Because I believe him to be a great strategist! And election 2006 will be nothing short of a war for our democracy!

At least Mr. Clooney finally heard him...and put some of that good celebrity leverage to good use in reference to the Darfur Issue (that the General has been talking about for at least 2 years).

by ZootSuitGringo on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 01:10:05 PM PST

[janx]

113. ??

That person can't even spell.

How do we find out what his actual advice was? :shrug:

[madfloridian]

121. Actually it is supposed to be secret, I guess.

Here is what I got from that paragraph.

"Moreover, it should be United States policy to divide Syria and Iran; weaken Hezzbollah; reassure the Gulf States by tamping down "come home fever". Blocking Russia from continueing it's quest for power and prestige in the region and persuing for the people of the region economic rights before human rights to ensure western style democracy takes root."

Now that is what Erick said Clark said. I will get blasted from here to yonder, but that is what was posted.

[janx]

125. Who is Erick, why can't he spell, and where did he get this

information?

This is bizarre.

[madfloridian]

127. He was with Clark at the Senate Leadership retreat...

in Philly, I think. I know some things have to be conducted in private, I understand that. But this seems odd.

[janx]

128. Well if he's part of Clark's organization, he should at least learn

how to spell, and he probably shouldn't post private things on Kos. I'm curious as to whether or not there's anything else available on this subject. You're right. It seems very odd.

[Clark2008]

115. How do you get "advising them not to leave" out of:

It's a five part approach:

1. Responsible redeployment in Iraq

2. Strengthen our homeland security operations

3. Hunt down Osama Bin Laden and ramp up counterterror operations

4. Energy independence

5. Reinforce friends and allies



Because I get no such thing, particularly when the first sentence contains the word "redeployment" (That means "out of" for those of you who don't understand military terms).

[madfloridian]

123. That's not exactly what I said...

I said I feared our Democrats had been getting advised not to leave. Actually I got more from this paragraph that the other part:

"Moreover, it should be United States policy to divide Syria and Iran; weaken Hezzbollah; reassure the Gulf States by tamping down "come home fever". Blocking Russia from continueing it's quest for power and prestige in the region and persuing for the people of the region economic rights before human rights to ensure western style democracy takes root."

Now about that western style Democracy...:shrug:

I wish people would not condemn me for posting the words Erick said he said.

[janx]

142. "redeployment in Iraq" does not mean OUT of Iraq.

It means redeployment within Iraq.

[Texas_Kat]

112. Clark will be on Cspan tomorrow

Maybe you should call in ...

General Wesley Clark will appear on Thursday, November 30th on WASHINGTON JOURNAL LIVE on C-SPAN and C-SPAN Radio (Call in)
8:00 AM EST | 7:00 AM CST | 6:00 AM MST | 5:00 AM PST
General Wesley Clark (Ret.) talks about U.S. policy toward Iraq, including President Bush’s scheduled meeting with Prime Minister al-Maliki in Jordan and use of the phrase “civil war” to describe violence in Iraq.

[Pithy Cherub]

114. Ha! Do you know how early that is here on the Left coast?

For Clark, I'll roll out of bed and get my oatmeal early, really really early! :P

Thanks

[thatsrightimirish]

133. What Clark said made a lot of sense

and the headline is misleading.

[Buck Rabbit]

134. I have read Clark's website and his plan scares the crap out of me.

I have not chosen a favorite candidate yet. I thought it would be Clark but reading his website scared the crap out of me.

What is so scary?

To me he has clearly stated we cannot "lose" in Iraq and that he is committed to using occupation as our primary if not only bargaining chip towards achieving a diplomatic solution. To me this is setting a trap for yourself for an unintentional semi-permanent occupation.

Why? Because his three part plan has little chance for success when applied against Iraq's very recent history. Shuttle diplomacy with bit players like Iran and Syria and SA and Jordan? A promise to give Iraq what is already rightfully theirs?

Anyone who followed the weeks long efforts of the Shiites trying to form a government within their own alliance after their elections has to shake their heads at the thought the US of all people on earth could negotiate a lasting agreement among even the Shiites let alone the Sunnis, the foreign fighters, the Kurds, the tribal warlords and then throw in the neighboring despots to boot. Negotiating a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians would take less time, as there are fewer players and fewer sub-agendas.

When you state it is unacceptable to lose and your plan to win has little chance of succeeding you have set yourself to the high probability of being as stuck in the quagmire as Bush is.

How many years do we give a diplomacy experiment a try before we give up? 2 years, 10 years? How many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis should die before we listen to the people who were right in the first place, that American occupation is the fuel for insurgency not the solution to it?

Now I will concede I am a dumb bunny and now you can all tell me how I mis-read his USA Op-ED. I will listen but not to mind readers interpretations of what you think he meant, I want to be shown in his own words where he has an exit strategy to the very likely possibility of not being able to negotiate a win errr not a lose. He didn't say we had to win he just said it was unacceptable to lose, so I guess that leaves win or tie.

[FrenchieCat]

140. Have you read this thread in full?

In his OpEd, Clark only uses the word "win" when talking about our fight against AlQeada in general, not in Iraq.
When using the words "lose" in the same OPed, Clark uses the word when referring to what voters don't want for us to do even though they want out of Iraq. He comments only that this is a tall order.

more information required in understanding that OpEd?

maybe this will assist you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2991884&mesg_id=2992587

[lillilbigone]

141. Because someone disagrees with you does not mean they didn't read

It doesn't mean they are ignorant.

It doesn't mean they are stupid.

It means they disagree with you.

[FrenchieCat]

145. Sorry, Poster already conceded....

as he stated..."Now I will concede I am a dumb bunny" :shrug:

But kidding aside....

Poster asked a question and I responded. I didn't realize that responding meant those phrases you just listed.
Have you been elevated to thread police in the last few moments are something? My, oh my! :wow:

As well, (not talking about that poster but another) sometimes folks are too stupid to know they are ignorant. And sometimes folks who aren't ignorant at all just like to play dumb for effect.

One who disagree and is rational and sane doesn't keep asking the same question over and over again and act as though they never got an answer. Doing that actually is what insults the intelligence of others.....:spank:

[Buck Rabbit]

167. Ok, I read post 130

I can support Tom Rinaldo, but almost all the stuff Tom posts are his opinions of what should be done not Wes Clark's. I have looked for the kinds of things Tom has faith that Clark believes, but I haven't really found where Clark actually believes in what Tom does.

I will also concede that the OpED is cleverly crafted. While in my initial readings I was left with a clear impression that Clark was adopting a a "we can't afford to lose" position, a more careful reading shows he really isn't committing to much of anything. He disses cut and run and stay the course, but puts out a plan that is basically just "trust me". No stated bench marks, no time tables, just trust that he would do the right thing.

Anyway, I am not as afraid of Clark as I was as he has not committed to a we can't lose at all costs position, stay until I negotiate a non loss or until hell freezes over.

But I am going to pass on Clark as my first choice in favor of a candidate who is more willing to rule out years and years of pointless negotiations and circle jerk diplomacy leading to no where. Nixon's negotiated "peace with honor" in Viet Nam involved accepting the terms the North had offered 2 years and tens of thousands of lifes earlier. Not too excited to see that again.

So anyway, Tom Rinaldo for President!

[lillilbigone]

176. What you said

especially the Tom Rinaldo for President part!

[Tom Rinaldo]

184. Fat chance. Cut to the chase: "If elected I will not serve" eom

[Tom Rinaldo]

187. So now you can read #178

The part about Iran. The rest can be thrown away. This time it is short though not at all sweet. Don't have time to do a transcription now from a tape, but I recorded Clark saying some pretty damn chilling stuff about the likely prospects for conflict there. People seem not to want to believe Clark about this, in this one case only they actually prefer to think, "Oh George Bush can't actually do that now, we're broke, we're overextended, people won't put up with it blah blah blah.

But I ask you these two questions: When have you ever seen George Bush not be able to do something because it is unthinkably outrageous? When have you seen Clark be proven wrong in his predictions about what was likely to happen next in the Middle East, or Bush Administration plans regarding it?

[Tom Rinaldo]

216. P.S.

I've read, listened to, and watched Wes Clark discuss his views on the situation in Iraq and the Middle East for more hours than I can begin to remember. If I didn't honestly believe that the comments I made regarding his views, in my opinion, reflected at least the basic thrust of his thinking on the matter, I would not have suggested that they did.

[Jai4WKC08]

245. Could I make a suggestion

Could it not be that you only see "circle jerk diplomacy leading to no where" when it doesn't work? And when it does work, such as the Dayton peace accords for Bosnia, it quickly fades from mind, assuming it ever broke into the news cycle in the first place?

I don't think Clark is saying "trust me." I think he's saying, I would do in Iraq what we did in Bosnia. At least, that's what I'm hearing from him. A contact team that shuttles around the region, and eventually brings ALL of the players to the table to work out some sort of solution, with provisions that enforce the agreement. It can work, with right people working it. Bush and his team aren't "the right people" but they're not likely to try anyway. I think Clark knows that.

[bj2110]

144. Finally!! Someone understands that fucking force won't win this war!!

It's about the culture of the people, it's about their history. We pull out now, the civil war will continue. The war, that we caused, will extend for a generation. At this point, we must fix what we fucked up. And the only way to do it is with diplomacy, finding a new leader, one that unifies the people. No one wants our citizens there, no one want Americans to die. Problem is, though, that many more Iraqis and nativemiddle easterners are dying. We must care about them. Pulling out isn't the answer, neither is raising levels. We need a gradual troop withdrawal as we raise our efforts to give Iraq a leader it truly needs. The US will not be the leader.

[lillilbigone]

146. It can be won? What will constitute victory?

[bj2110]

147. Who said anything about winning? You're right, it can't be won. It can be stabilized, though.

[lillilbigone]

149. The poster I responded to.

Also, I don't agree that Iraq can be stabilized by US troops or US diplomacy.

[bj2110]

152. Um... I'm the poster. And I never said the war could be won....

It can only be reduced and marginalized so that much, much less innocent people die.

[Clarkie1]

150. Please read this recent OP-Ed by Clark in USA today for the full picture of Clark's views.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20061121/oplede15.art.htm

Let me know after you've read it and what you think.

[lillilbigone]

155. We've been discussing that Op-Ed all through this thread. See posts 43, 46, 79, 108, 129, 131 nt

[Clarkie1]

159. O.K...I'll check back when I have some time.

Off to eat dinner and grade some papers.

[IndyOp]

169. I can now say that I disagree with Clark...

I know that Clark has insights that I appreciate. He has been critical of PNAC and has been wonderfully, accurately critical of all of the current administration's policies in the MidEast. Nonetheless, I disagree with him in terms of the role that the US can/must play in Iraq.

"A precipitous troop reduction could have far-reaching effects: emboldening Iran, weakening U.S. security promises to friendly states, and even sparking military initiatives by other powers — Turkey or Iran — to deal with the resulting security vacuum. Our weakened position in Iraq also could undercut our leverage in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute."

The region will collapse - same sort of thing we were told about Vietnam. If we leave Vietnam *all* of the surrounding counties will go communist. They didn't. The horrors in Laos and Cambodia did, indeed, begin as a result of our actions in Vietnam, but not as a result of our pulling out.

Our "leverage" in the Israeli=Palestinian dispute - want to end that? Stop sending $$ for weapons.

These principles could include: Iraq would remain whole; oil revenue would go to the Iraqi people based on a formula they determine; the rights and security of individuals must be protected; the United States would have no permanent bases in Iraq; the covert flow of military arms and equipment into Iraq would be halted; and the security needs of all states would be respected.

This is all good - but we can "have no permanent bases and end the covert flow of military arms and equipment" without staying in Iraq.

"U.S. interests include dissuading Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons and its hegemonic aspirations, providing security assurances for the rapidly developing Arab Gulf states and working with our friends in the Middle East to ensure access to oil resources and regional stability."

U.S. interests must *not* be part of the equation. U.S. interests got us into this hellhole - now let's get out to serve the interests of the Iraqis.

Iran has hegemonic aspirations? They do? Sounds like George H.W. Bush -- sounds like every U.S. imperialist who has ever spoken - we can't have any other countries wanting to have power -- they would become 'uppity' and we have to keep them weak.

[Pithy Cherub]

171. Vietnam didn't have oil

which is vital interest to the entire world.

Breaking News on CNN: The Iraq Study Group is in alignment with Clark and they are discussing it right now. Pull back the troops - redeploy thoughtfully and strategically.

[FrenchieCat]

183. Are you saying that the US is to never deal with the ME again?

You're saying that we can't any any "interest" over there at all?

Now, I'm no imperialist...but if I were you, I be careful of what I wish for. There is a balance attainable.....because whether you like it or not, we do have some interest in the middle east...it's just that we have to buy those interest as opposed to attempting to snatch them and call them ours. there is a difference....but I think you are going a bit to the extreme.

[IndyOp]

222. The U.S. - people who represent us - cannot be trusted to

be "fair brokers" to "help" any nations anywhere. After a while the decent nations of the world MUST kick the overbearing, power-grubbing, self-centered BULLY out of the room.

I pray that the US loses virtually ALL of it's power in this world. I see no other way to lasting world peace.

We are *not* the 'savior' of the world -- without us the other nations *will* succeed (and occasionally) fail just fine.

Post-WWII, the U.S. has virtually always brought *only* pain and suffering to the other nations of the world. Our "help" makes big profits for the industries of death and KILLS HOPE world-wide.

Wouldn't it be amazing to see the U.S. deal with other nations as if it was just one nation among other nations? Just one nation - with LESS THAN 5% of the world's population.

We don't need to worry so much about how other nations will effect ours in future - we are doing an excellent job destroying ourselves. I see us now as being in a similar place as the U.S.S.R. just months before it's collapse. The USSR destroyed themselves by overspending on military. Gorbachev, in a moment of great insight, commented that the US won the cold war when the USSR destroyed itself via military spending. But, he continued, the US is likely to lose even bigger -- because the so-called winner of the Cold War will fall harder as a result of extending ourselves for military, imperialistic ventures for decades longer than the USSR.

We simply must flush this toilet in which we are swirling. We must rid ourselves of the imperialists who've been running the nation and the military into the ground. We've got to see the world and our place in it anew. I admire Clark - I do. He's not yet shown me that he realizes the full extent to which the military has served as the paid lackeys of the corporate elite.

Major General Smedley Butler got it. He understood. He recommended that we pull our entire military back inside our own borders.

When General Clark recommends that we clear out from all 700+ bases we have around the world, pull our military back inside our own borders, do by choice what was done to Germany post World War II - where the military could only be used to protect against immediate attack inside our nation's borders -- when General Clark does that, then I will be with him 1000%. He hasn't yet made that profound shift in thinking. I pray that he does. He is powerful now. He could become THE central figure of the modern era if he would "pull a Smedley Butler"...

WWI was supposed to be the war to end all wars. There will never be any war that ends all wars, unless that war kills us all. To end all wars we have to defy the corporate elite who want the wars.

General Clark? What say you Sir?

[political_outcast]

157. Gomer Pyle sez "SURPRISE! SURPRISE!SURPRISE!"

I think everyone who voted for the war (both Dems and GOP) should be tried for murder, personally. But at this point, anyone who is running for President in 08 is probably going to be reticent to say "cut and run" because they know that anyone who wants to beat them in a race will be able to demonize them for that cut and running because so many Americans base their personal esteem so closely on the Americans power and might as expressed by our military.

And what is really sad is that this is probably the first time that has ever been stated on DU.

[Gregorian]

160. It's time to engage the international community.

We don't have to stay in Iraq. Not the way we are.

Look, this is about oil. And the world is going to be using this oil. There is incentive for the international community to get involved. Yes, George screwed it up. But the way it stands, only Halliburton and the US are going to get anything out of this. Take that last sentence with a grain of salt. I think that was the goal. But the world takes what it needs.

We need to get the nations on board with this mess and work together. It's time to start working together, now, if never before.

I don't see where Wes Clark has mentioned anything but a US run cleanup.

Of course we can't cut and run. But we can cut and revise and rebuild. A group of willing international groups of all kinds can rehabilitate the country. I don't think that's too far fetched.

[sampsonblk]

164. He knows what he's talking about-nt

nt

[Cascadian]

166. What is Clark's view on PNAC?

Has anybody did any searches about this? I have found nothing so far. If Clark wants to continue PNAC and keep the troops in Iraq then he better not get the nomination.


John

[TwilightZone]

173. He's been one of the most vocal opponents of PNAC

In fact, he's one of the few who has discussed it at length publicly.

On several occasions, he's discussed (and warned the public about) the fact that Iraq is only the beginning of the PNAC plan.

[FrenchieCat]

250. Clark's views on PNAC....

General Wesley Clark, the late entry into the race for the Democratic nomination for president, is making what critics called a “bizarre,” “crackpot” attack on a small Washington policy organization and on a citizens group that helped America win the Cold War.

In a Tuesday interview with Joshua Micah Marshall posted yesterday on the Web site talkingpointsmemo.com, General Clark gave his evaluation of the Clinton presidency. He said that the Clinton administration,“in an odd replay of the Carter administration, found itself chained to the Iraqi policy — promoted by the Project for a New American Century— much the same way that in the Carter administration some of the same people formed the Committee on the Present Danger which cut out from the Carter administration the ability to move forward on SALT II.”
http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2003/10/02&ID=Ar00100

Wesley Clark's Conspiracy Theory
The general tells Wolf Blitzer about the neoconservative master plan.
by Matthew Continetti
12/01/2003 2:00:00 PM

Yesterday on CNN's "Late Edition," for example, Clark said--not for the first time--that the Bush administration's war plans extend far beyond Iraq.

"I do know this," Clark told Wolf Blitzer. "In the gossip circles in Washington, among the neoconservative press, and in some of the statements that Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Wolfowitz have made, there is an inclination to extend this into Syria and maybe Lebanon." What's more, Clark added, "the administration's never disavowed this intent."

Clark has made his charge a central plank of his presidential campaign. Clark writes in his book, "Winning Modern Wars," that in November 2001, during a visit to the Pentagon, he spoke with "a man with three stars who used to work for me," who told him a "five-year plan" existed for military action against not only Afghanistan and Iraq, but also "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan." Clark has embellished this story on the campaign trail, going so far as to say, "There's a list of countries."

Clark's proof? None. He never saw the list. But, the general recently told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "You only have to listen to the gossip around Washington and to hear what the neoconservatives are saying, and you will get the flavor of this."

You probably get the flavor of what Wesley Clark is saying, too. It tastes, as THE SCRAPBOOK pointed out three weeks ago, like baloney. And sometimes, as in the case of yesterday's interview with Blitzer, it tastes like three-week-old baloney.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/445cqeal.asp

Bush used 9/11 as a pretext to implement Iraq invasion plan
Clark told me how he learned of a secret war scheme within the Bush Administration, of which Iraq was just one piece. Shortly after 9/11, Clark visited the Pentagon, where a 3-star general confided that Rumsfeld's team planned to use the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for going to war against Iraq. Clark said, "Rather than searching for a solution to a problem, they had the solution, and their difficulty was to make it appear as though it were in response to the problem." Clark was told that the Bush team, unable or unwilling to fight the actual terrorists responsible for 9/11, had devised a 5-year plan to topple the regimes in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Iran, and Sudan.

Clark's central contention-that Bush used 9/11 as a pretext to attack Saddam-has been part of the public debate since well before the Iraq war. It is rooted in the advocacy of the Project for the New American Century, a neo-conservative think tank that had been openly arguing for regime change in Iraq since 1998.
Source: The New Yorker magazine, "Gen. Clark's Battles" Nov 17, 2003

Gen. Wes Clark layed out the PNAC mentality in a long article.

Here's some excerpts from Clark's article, "Broken Engagement"

During 2002 and early 2003, Bush administration officials put forth a shifting series of arguments for why we needed to invade Iraq. Nearly every one of these has been belied by subsequent events.
snip
Advocates of the invasion are now down to their last argument: that transforming Iraq from brutal tyranny to stable democracy will spark a wave of democratic reform throughout the Middle East, thereby alleviating the conditions that give rise to terrorism. This argument is still standing because not enough time has elapsed to test it definitively--though events in the year since Baghdad's fall do not inspire confidence.
snip
Just as they counseled President Bush to take on the tyrannies of the Middle East, so the neoconservatives in the 1980s and early 1990s advised Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush to confront the Soviet Union and more aggressively deploy America's military might to challenge the enemy.....
snip
As has been well documented, even before September 11, going after Saddam had become a central issue for them. Their "Project for a New American Century" seemed intent on doing to President Clinton what the Committee on the Present Danger had done to President Carter: push the president to take a more aggressive stand against an enemy, while at the same time painting him as weak.
snip
September 11 gave the neoconservatives the opportunity to mobilize against Iraq, and to wrap the mobilization up in the same moral imperatives which they believed had achieved success against the Soviet Union. Many of them made the comparison direct, in speeches and essays explicitly and approvingly compared the Bush administration's stance towards terrorists and rogue regimes to the Reagan administration's posture towards the Soviet Union.

And the neoconservative goal was more ambitious than merely toppling dictators: By creating a democracy in Iraq, our success would, in the president's words, "send forth the news from Damascus to Tehran--that freedom can be the future of every nation," and Iraq's democracy would serve as a beacon that would ignite liberation movements and a "forward strategy of freedom" around the Middle East.

This rhetoric is undeniably inspiring. We should have pride in our history, confidence in our principles, and take security in the knowledge that we are at the epicenter of a 228-year revolution in the transformation of political systems. But recognizing the power of our values also means understanding their meaning. Freedom and dignity spring from within the human heart. They are not imposed. And inside the human heart is where the impetus for political change must be generated.

The neoconservative rhetoric glosses over this truth and much else. Even aside from the administration's obvious preference for confronting terrorism's alleged host states rather than the terrorists themselves, it was a huge leap to believe that establishing democracies by force of Western arms in old Soviet surrogate states like Syria and Iraq would really affect a terrorist movement drawing support from anti-Western sentiment in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and elsewhere.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.clark.html

Apparently for the neoconservative civilians who are running the Iraq campaign, 9-11 was that catalyzing event—for they are now operating at full speed toward multiple, simultaneous wars. The PNAC documents can be found online at newamericancentury.org.

his new book, Winning Modern Wars, retired general Wesley Clarkcandidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, offered a window into the Bush serial-war planning. He writes that serious planning for the Iraq war had already begun only two months after the 9-11 attack, and adds:

I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan. . . . I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned."

A five-year military campaign. Seven countries. How far has the White House taken this plan? And how long can the president keep the nation in the dark, emerging from his White House cocoon only to speak to us in slogans and the sterile language of pep rallies?
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0342,schanberg,47830,1.html

Was David Brooks “careful not to say that Bush or neocon critics are anti-Semitic?” David Brooks was careful, all right. You can see how “careful” he was in the passage which slimed Wesley Clark:

BROOKS: The full-mooners fixated on a think tank called the Project for the New American Century, which has a staff of five and issues memos on foreign policy. To hear these people describe it, PNAC is sort of a Yiddish Trilateral Commission, the nexus of the sprawling neocon tentacles.
We’d sit around the magazine guffawing at the ludicrous stories that kept sprouting, but belief in shadowy neocon influence has now hardened into common knowledge. Wesley Clark, among others, cannot go a week without bringing it up.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh010904.shtml

There are many legitimate reasons to criticize the foreign and defense policies of the Bush administration, but Winning Modern Wars would have us believe that the president dangerously derailed the nation’s security policy and diverted resources from the war on terrorism to the dead-end enterprise in Iraq. He blames Bush for everything he believes has gone wrong, and gives him no credit for anything that has gone right, including major steps toward transforming the US military from a Cold War force to one more suited to the current and likely future security environment.

In Clark’s world, vulnerability to terrorism is all George Bush’s fault. Of course, Bush had only been in office for eight months when Al Qaida struck on 9/11. The threat had been incubating during the Clinton years, but that administration had done little or nothing to address it. The most Clark can say about the Clinton administration’s inattention to the emerging terrorist threat is that "in retrospect, it clear that he could have done more."

Clark is a member in good standing of the "Bush lied" school - an outlook based on the claim that the president and his advisers had intended to invade Iraq from the very beginning, and knowingly deceived Congress and the American people in order to drag them into this unnecessary war. As evidence for this, he cites a 1998 letter from an organization called the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) calling on president Clinton to remove Saddam from power. Those who signed the letter included Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/owens/04/clark.html

EXCERPTS FROM HARDBALL INTERVIEW 12/17/04

CLARK: ...I think, you know, a guy like Bill Kristol, what he sees is that Secretary Rumsfeld‘s plan is not unfolding the way that the neocons thought it should unfold in the Middle East. This was supposed to be like a scaffold. You know, you just go in there and carve out Saddam Hussein, boom, the people are liberated. And they‘re all democratic. And then the Syrians jump on board and say, hey, by golly, come and save us too. And then the Iranians and the Lebanese.

It hasn‘t worked that way, because what the neocons didn‘t understand is, that you don‘t get the kind of Democratic reform you want in the Middle East at the barrel of a gun. And they‘re holding Rumsfeld responsible for that. But really, it‘s a flawed conception.

MATTHEWS: That‘s interesting. You‘re the first person I‘ve heard say that, general. Because a lot of people look at it much more narrowly and they say the reason we‘re getting criticism of the general is there aren‘t enough troops there. He said he had enough troops, when really in reality, it was the conception that justified the low troop level. Is that your point? That you did not need a lot of troops, because you weren‘t going to face much of an insurgency.

CLARK: .....One is the point of the neocons, which is not military at all. It is the point of the operation and the fact that you could sort of go in there and lance the boil of Saddam Hussein, get him out of there and everything would turn out OK. And it hasn‘t.
http://securingamerica.com/node/60

More Wesley Clark speaking up about the PNAC plan being reported here...
http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve03/1160usplans.html

Wes Clark really is the man for the job to clean up the shitstorm we are now facing. He knows where all of the bodies are buried. Only Nixon could go to China....and so, it goes!

[TheModernTerrorist]

168. cmon people

This isn't one of those situations where "everything is black or white". Clark, who has had expreience commanding and leading these types of things is not just going to say "keep them in" or "pull them out" because both are fucking terrible ideas. I don't like having our citizens in the line of fire (especially since a few are good friends of mine) but let's get real. This isn't some fucking either/or situation, and our actions need to be considered carefully. If we HAD real diplomats in places of power right now, our troops wouldn't be getting killed everyday, Iraqis wouldn't be getting slaughtered by us and each other. We didn't intervene soon enough in Kosovo or Rwanda, and people were killed off in the MILLIONS. By the time we got involved in those situations, it was already tragic. I don't want to wake up one day and read that my friends over there are all dead, but I know that Clark has been in a position of power to deal with situations like this, and considering he would have no benefit in prolonging the war, I strongly believe that either his message isn't getting through to people, or he's not articulating his plan well enough.
The one fact that I can be sure of, is that if we had DIPLOMATS in government, not warmongers and profiteers, we wouldn't have this mess that we do now. But don't just sit and label it as "stay the course" or "cut and run", because that's where they want you; in that 2-second soundbyte that dumbs down the discussion.

this isn't meant for the poster, but everyone reading this. Let's not dumb down the discourse of this nation anymore, and actually discuss the underlying events and actions. Nothing is as simple as a soundbyte. We all know that. :-)

[LittleClarkie]

170. Why are you only focussing on half his statement

We can't win militarily. It will have to be a diplomatic solution, he's saying. It sounds like he wants the troops in a holding pattern until the diplomatic solution can be worked out.

There was a general on talk radio who, despite being on Rush's program (I wish the sub would have STFU and just let the dude talk instead of blathering on as if he knew what it was like in Iraq, even though the sub insisted that's why he was having a general from Iraq on the show in the first place. But I digress)

He seemed to be saying too that the answer was not to focus on the troop level at all, that this was the wrong emphasis. This general talked more about stepping back as the Iraqi forces stepped forward. His focus was on the Iraqis stepping up.

[lillilbigone]

175. Because I think we need to get out of Iraq yesterday.

Realistically though, McGovern has a very detailed plan for doing so fairly quickly (links: 1, 2), the Kerry Feingold plan is another (link).

Our troops don't belong in Iraq, and they aren't helping the situation by being there. They need to come home now.

[LittleClarkie]

177. That's no reason to misquote the man, or take what he said out of context

He didn't say what you said he said. He didn't say we couldn't win.

[FrenchieCat]

188. Issues with McGovern's plan....

as part one is to get some kind of "international" force to replace American Soldiers. Who will be volunteering to be sitting ducks, please let me know?

Here's critique of the McGovern plan which I more or less agree with. It's a grand scheme, but is a bit shaky in the reality department. But I think it's good for plans to be offered. Nothing wrong with that. We'll see what Bush does....cause at the end, he's the decider.


Harper's Way Out of War: The Unworkable Iraq Blueprint of George McGovern and William Polk
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2006%20Opinion%20Editorials/November/16%20o/Harper's%20Way%20Out%20of%20War%20The%20Unworkable%20Iraq%20Blueprint%20of%20George%20McGovern%20and%20William%20Polk%20By%20Thomas%20Riggins.htm

The author of this piece calls Bush a criminal and likes Hugo Chavez, so he's not a right wing hack.....just so you know

[janx]

179. But the focus has always been on the Iraqis stepping up--

and they never do. Their new government has been imposed on them, so they have to real reason to step up.

[LittleClarkie]

189. What more reason do they need than to get us the fuck out

Step up and we get the fuck out. That should do it.

[janx]

194. Chicken/egg

Do they step up and we get out, or do we get out and they step up?

Or will they not step up at all, in any case? :shrug:

[lillilbigone]

209. All those different factions in Iraq are trying to step up.

There is no unified 'Iraq' at this point. Just a puppet government installed by an occupying army, and a variety of militias, etc. many of which also have positions in the puppet government. When you hear about death squads 'dressed in police uniforms'... they didn't steal those uniforms.. those are the police.... we destroyed the country, now our troops are stuck in the middle of a civil war. They aren't a stabilizing factor. They aren't doing anything that is making the US safer, or Iraq safer. They are just targets.

Yes, we broke it, but we can't fix it, anymore than the bull in the china shop can fix what he broke.

[here_is_to_hope]

181. I have no support for any

candidate not willing to get us out now.
Never mind that he assumes we will still be there in 08.

[windbreeze]

185. I really wish that Clark would quit talking about Iraq...

I mean, let's be real....It IS his fault we are fighting this war, right???....

He didn't spend any time in the military, in a "war" zone being shot at, was never wounded, and never had anything to do with any peace accords...Right??? right....The man knows nothing about war or peace...and I wish he would just realize that...

Why on earth he keeps trying to come up with a solution to a problem that is not of his fucking making, and never was, is beyond me...Especially when everyone is so determined to rake him over the coals for just about everything he says on the subject...I mean, we all know so much more than he does, right??? and I know we all have way more practical experience in these types of matters...

BUSH, CHENEY, POWELL, RICE are the ones that got us into this....HOW ABOUT WE FUCKING LET THEM FIGURE OUT how to get us out???? After all, they still have TWO years to get it right...(and wasn't MISSION ACCOMPLISHED declared over 3 years ago?) Maybe we should just let Gen.Clark know we only want him to figure out how he's going to handle the miriad of domestic issues we have to face after these criminals leave office...and that the war is not his problem??

No matter how Iraq is handled...and don't be mistaken....it is not isolated to Iraq(I wonder if it's possible Gen.Clark understands that??)...the whole ME is involved in this fray one way or another, and all the countries in that region are at risk, which in turn puts us at bigger risk.....so let's remember to thank the real AWOL Armchair General, G.W.Bush...(who just had to have his war by god, for oil, he tried to kill my daddy, to liberate those poor Iraqi's, or just because)....for this mess...

I assure you that if General Clark WERE president of this country...there would be NO MORE Unnecessary WARS...why??? because he's been out there, where the bullets being fired at you are real, (unlike the toy soldier in the WH)....and because of that, he understands "war" should always, always be...the VERY LAST RESORT...Diplomacy IS first and foremost...but hey...who cares???

Sarcasm IS heavy in this post...cause I am sickened to see all the unloading on Gen.Clark for his efforts...the easiest thing to do...is NOT historically or necessarily the right thing to do...and I believe he does understand that...

Everyone needs to make sure that THEIR chosen candidate, HAS taken the time to figure out, exactly how to extract us from Iraq, and that each of them DOES have a plan...because we shall accept NO excuses from any of them for not doing so, right?...and perhaps we need to realize that all ANY of them can do at this point, including Gen.Clark...is OFFER SUGGESTIONS because the people who took us there...ARE STILL IN CHARGE!!...
windbreeze

[FrenchieCat]

190. Clark should do what he is doing. He ain't pandering, and that's important

Folks can go with the OP Author's cliff notes' and conclude incorrectly what Clark's plan is. It's what happens when a leader takes a stand on an important issue. Some have the courage to do it.....while others are more interested in getting into office rather than solving tragic and complicated problems. The future will show us the way......and Clark thus far, has been on target with all that he has predicted for the most part.....so let the others follow those who were too blind to see what was up and I'll continue to listen to what Clark is offering...cause at least, he has a track record. In the end, it's about doing what good for this country and for the situation in Iraq. Winning elections may have to wait.

Amazing how many "experts" on Iraq we have these days. It's a virtually growing cottage industry.

So many untrained experts, so little careful humility!

[windbreeze]

203. I.....

agree...and I WAS feeling a mite bejabbled after reading posts in this thread...

windbreeze...

[Morgana LaFey]

192. This is one of the problems I had with him as a candidate

And that is that "when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

He's a military man and he favors military "solutions" and actions more than some people might because he's ultra-comfortable with them. Sometimes it's the wrong thing. I don't know what he means or if he's right on this issue, and I'm not going to try to study the matter to figure it out. But he can't be right all the times I've seen him suggest military solutions.

[FrenchieCat]

193. Who are you talking about? Wes Clark?

Where did you read that he was advocating a military solution? Could you please point it out to me?

Even in joining the choir on this, you must at least make sense....and from what you've written so far, you don't.

Maybe you can come again?

[Texas_Kat]

195. You should re-read some of the previous posts

Clark has been advocating diplomacy all along and adamant that there is NO military solution.

Kinda turns the world upside down, doesn't it?

[The Count]

198. Funny, how you use the phrase he used for Bush, PNAC...against Clark

who was one of the first and most vocal denouncers of preemptive action and conquest plans of PNAC. The turning around of the facts is almost freeperish in the length and audacity of its distortion.....
It was Clark who introduced the notion of polotical over military solution concept in the discussion about the war - none of the other 2004 candidates were using that language.

[NCarolinawoman]

201. Uh, Clark used that hammer and nail analogy to describe the Bush regime.

Where are you coming from?

[LittleClarkie]

211. I thought the point was that he said we CAN'T win militarily, that we must win diplomatically

Which would be the opposite of what you're saying.

[lillilbigone]

212. Except the troops stay while that happens.. but what if the diplomatic victory doesn't happen?

When do the troops get to go home then?

[Tom Rinaldo]

217. My reply is essentially in post 214 above.

I am about to leave town for a few days, so regrettably, I can no longer add more to this discussion.

[xkenx]

238. Clark DID say "When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail," BUT

HE SAID THAT AFTER URGING DIPLOMATIC AND POLITICAL SOLUTIONS FIRST, WAR AS A LAST RESORT. HE SAID THAT THOSE WHO WANT WAR FIRST ARE THE ONES WITH THE HAMMER, AND WANTING TO USE IT. CLARK WAS A MILITARY MAN WHO LEARNED THE HORRORS OF WAR FIRSTHAND. CLARK IS ADAMANTLY ANTI-WAR. HAVE YOU BEEN AWAY LIKE RIP VAN WINKLE, AND ARE JUST NOTICING CLARK, OR ARE YOU JUST GRATUITOUSLY SLIMEING CLARK?

[CJCRANE]

262. Um...

you seem to have things exactly upside down.

The "hammer...nail" quote applies to Bushco not Clark.

[ecstatic]

197. Damned if we leave, damned if we stay QUAGMIRE MESS

It's late and I'm sleepy and I may be way off... But everyone who took part in initiating this war should be executed or jailed for life. They all need to pay for this. None of their kids were at stake so they didn't fight to stop this from happening.

So many lives have been lost and we have no way of fixing this mess. Whether we leave today or 30 years from now... No matter when we leave, its going to end up being a 'cut and run' scenario because there is no way to clean this up.

[janx]

199. I came to the same conclusion today.

And the events of the past couple of days have made the situation appear to be worsening exponentially.

[Texas_Kat]

200. Yah, exactly why Clark tried to stop it in 2002

He managed to persuade some like Wellstone and Kennedy, but not enough.

The hearings from the 2005 House Armed Services committee resulted in almost all of the Congresspeople (Democrats AND Republicans) admitting they should have listened to him.

http://securingamerica.com/articles/washingtonpost/2005-04-07

Article: Same Committee, Same Combatants, Different Tune
At the September 2002 hearing, GOP lawmakers joined in Perle's dismissal of Clark's argument that "time is on our side" in Iraq and that force should be used only as a "last resort."

Perle said Clark was "wildly optimistic" and called it "one of the dumber cliches, frankly, to say that force must always be a last resort." While Clark fiddled, "Saddam Hussein is busy perfecting those weapons of mass destruction that he already has."

In retrospect, Clark's forecasts proved more accurate than Perle's, and even Republicans on the committee made little effort yesterday to defend Perle or to undermine Clark. The exception was Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who pressed Clark to acknowledge that the Iraq invasion should get some credit for signs of democracy in the region.

"We've got to do a lot less crowing about the sunrise," Clark rejoined.

When Hunter's GOP colleagues didn't join his line of questioning, he took another turn grilling Clark. The chairman likened President Bush's Middle East policies to those of President Ronald Reagan in Eastern Europe.

"Reagan never invaded Eastern Europe," Clark retorted.

In another try, Hunter said Clark was "overstating" the risk in challenging other countries in the Middle East. Clark smiled and showed his trump card -- reminding Hunter of their exchange at the 2002 hearing. "I kept saying time was on our side," Clark said. "I could never quite satisfy you."

[lillilbigone]

226. Clark, 1/21/03: "I think that the president is going to have to move ahead"

Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."
link

[Texas_Kat]

228. ... and I'd say that the members of the HASC knew what they heard

in October 2002 ... and admitted they were sorry they didn't listen to Wes Clark.

Of course, you can listen (and read transcripts) from the entire 2005 HASC testimony if you'd like

http://securingamerica.com/hasc1

I will say that Wes Clark's CCN commentary in the months prior (and during) his stint on CNN inspired me to join the Draft Clark movement. His was the only voice that was coming through loud and clear as being critical of the (lack of) international diplomacy in the run-up to the war and his was the only voice cautioning that it wasn't going to be as easy as it looked.

I remember those nights (particularly Aaron Brown's show) extremely well.

I have a personal stake in a commander in chief not wasting American soldier's lives.... what about you?

....Mother of a troop

[ecstatic]

252. Thanks. And now Clark has been removed from my favorites list

I had really warmed up to him, but for him to advocate going into war because our "credibility was on the line?" R U SERIES? Is that some macho man jargon? It would have been OK to back down, take a deep breath, and reanalyze the situation. None of that happened! No planning whatsoever... and why? So we wouldn't look weak???? The only people who would have viewed caution as a sign of weakness were the brain dead repugnican Bush bots, and, apparently, a career militarist.

[Clarkie1]

207. All Clark is saying

is give peace a chance.

[Sparkly]

210. Yup -- waging peace!

Imagine that!!

[Norrin Radd]

213. I'm concerned that Clark says we must stay in Iraq.

Really concerned...

[Tom Rinaldo]

215. There is much to be concerned about regarding Iraq

I trust that you actually read Clark's plan in his own words, and are not just reacting to the way the original poster for this tread framed what Clark has to say by using words that Clark never said.

[venable]

218. I wish he hadn't taken this position

because however complex it is - and it's obvious to all that there are no simple answers (how to exit with optimal safety for troops, and for Iraqis, reducing as much as possible the inevitable explosion in violence - if that can be imagined, retaining diplomatic leverage, and on and on ), but one of the answers that is simply wrong, is to tie any exit to diplomatic or governmental or military markers. That way lies greater, and possibly extended tragedy.

In my opinion, he's right to allow that there can never be a military victory, but he is wrong in removing purely calendrical timetables from the equation.

I also think lillilbigone is being 'intellectually honest', and not deserving of insults. I think his questions are honest, and his reading is not a prejudgement. He/she believes, as do many, that 'out now' is not something negotiable. Out now is the only given, what can be negotiated is the best complex of military/diplomatic/governmental/economic/regional inititiatives to accompany the exit.

Peace.

[Tom Rinaldo]

220. His questions are legitimate

It was only how he chose to frame Clark's views that was ever called into question.

Peace returned.

[venable]

219. good point, Tom R

you wrote:

I believe not to make the diplomatic efforts that Clark is here proposing will, not far down the road, result in an American attack on Iran, and from hearing Clark speak on this extensively in person, I think that is exactly what he thinks would relatively soon result from a failure to seriously pursue this line of diplomacy.


I don't know for certain that Clark's strategy can stop this administration's sick juggernaut, but you are right to observe that such a halting effect should be, to the extent possible, part of the ongoing decision-making. Iraq and w's are or should be, you rightly note, linked.


Just turned on the TV to hear that Baker's group apparently is asking for gradual withdrawal with no timetable. I think this is a mistake.

[Norrin Radd]

253. I'm implying something about the nature of the swarm against Clark

on this thread and elsewhere lately by using the word "concern." ;)

[lillilbigone]

254. Why not just say it?

:eyes:

[Norrin Radd]

260. It's more amusing my way. n/t

:eyes: :eyes:

[Clarkie1]

246. Uh...exactly WHERE does he say that? nt

[lillilbigone]

248. Here

“It's not a matter of fiddling with troop levels,” Clark said. “It's a matter of politics inside Iraq and diplomacy in the region. ... You can lose what's going on militarily inside Iraq, but you can't win it militarily, either by putting more forces in or by pulling them out.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/28/politics/main2213548.shtml

And here:

Timetables a bad idea

What about a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals? Today, setting a rigid, Washington-driven timetable is an option, but a bad one. A precipitous troop reduction could have far-reaching effects: emboldening Iran, weakening U.S. security promises to friendly states, and even sparking military initiatives by other powers — Turkey or Iran — to deal with the resulting security vacuum. Our weakened position in Iraq also could undercut our leverage in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

...

Of course there are no guarantees, but from such a dialogue should emerge a prescription for U.S. troop levels and activities consistent with our larger interests. Carrots and sticks could be employed. For instance, the factions could vow certain actions in return for U.S. assistance or troop deployments, or redeployments, and possible assistance from neighboring states.
http://securingamerica.com/node/1961

And here:

"it would be a lot better to have a timeline come out of the dialogue. So that you've got -- when you go into this regional dialogue you need a bag of carrot and sticks. And part of that bag of options is what you do with your troops. So I wouldn't want to see us get pinned down in advance of the diplomatic discussion. I think there has to be an event-based scenario that we're working on in the region, there should be some notional timelines to it, but, uh, and it's fine to draw those out internally, but to release those and commit to those, before we've done the diplomatic discussions in the region, I think it puts the cart before the horse."
Transcribed from: http://www.ptnine.com/113006.WMV

[Hippo_Tron]

224. Here's the problem with Clark's plan, the man currently in the White House

Negotiating with Iran and Syria sounds like a wonderful idea except that I don't see how chimp co could possibly be willing or even able to pull that off. If it were Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, or hell even Bush I in the White House I would say give it a try. But Bush has so little diplomatic ability and no patience whatsoever so I honestly don't see how it could possibly be pulled off.

Clark's plan realistically requires us to wait until January 2009 to implement it.

[Jai4WKC08]

229. That's a good point, but...

Don't you think Clark knows that?

I have felt ever since Nov 04 (in other words, once it became clear Kerry would not be president) that Clark has looked at what Bush is doing, what he's likely to do until his term is over, regardless of what he or any Democrat might say, and then tried to figure out what is the best position for Democrats to take, both for the good of the nation and the troops, but for the good of Democratic politics as well.

I'm not saying Clark is being dishonest. Not at all. But I also know he feels strongly that when we withdrew from Vietnam, the GOP succeeded in making it all the Democrat's fault that we lost (nevermind the reality of what happened and what had to happen) and that Democrats have been paying for it every since.

So I think Clark is trying to be very cautious in how he presents Democratic positions and plans, and I think he has worked very hard to advise other Democrats on how to present their positions as well. And personally, I think he's played a big role in the fact that more people no longer trust the Repubs more than us to handle the war in Iraq and the war on terror as well.

I also think Clark thinks in terms of having a Democrat in the White House in 2009, whether it's him or someone else (but especially it's him) and having to clean up the mess than Bush will leave. It will mean having as many options open as possible, and all tools available.

[Hippo_Tron]

249. I think that Clark will be accused of having two positions by the media

One will of course be for what we should be doing and one will be for when he is President starting in 2009. Of course the media will spin this as flip-flopping and not distinguishing.

[Jai4WKC08]

251. You may be right about that

But otoh, it might be worse the other way. You know, if he were calling for all our forces out as quickly as possible. And then sometime before Nov 08 (assuming he gets the nomination), something happens where he has to campaign on the idea that at least some forces stay.

I might be wrong about this, but as screwed up as this whole operation has been, I think maybe it's gonna be a LOT harder for a future president, especially a Democrat, to send forces back in once they're out.

This is all just speculation. I don't know all that Clark foresees for the region. I know that just a couple months ago, he said that even if the Bush administration did everything just right according to what he has been recommending, he still only saw about a 30% chance of success, with the odds going down with every passing day. But he has also said the potential for a blood bath is so great, and so widespread, he feels there is a vital necessity to try to salvage something so long as theres some reasonable possibility that there's something to salvage.

It's kind of my gut feeling, not based on any one thing he's said but kind of a gestalt of all I've heard him say over the last 3 years, that he still thinks he could make it all work, and that Bush probably cannot, but that doesn't change his obligation to tell it the way he sees it, both as it is and as it ought to be.

But then, there is that Vietnam factor -- Clark is adamant that we the Democratic party can NOT afford to let the Republican pin the failure on us like they did last time.

[Megahurtz]

227. Oh Shit! I thought I liked Clark,

but I don't like this!:wtf:

[Clarkie1]

234. The assertion in the OP is BS. Watch today's Washington Journal episode and read the OP-Ed yourself

http://www.ptnine.com/113006.WMV

http://www.ptnine.com/113006.WMV

[lillilbigone]

237. Yes, read the Op-Ed and watch the video. And ask yourself the following questions:

1. Is Clark in favor of beginning to withdraw troops in the next six months?

2. Is Clark in favor of a timeline for withdrawal, or does he say that certain unnamed 'events' must take place first?

3. According to Clark what specific events must take place before withdrawal should happen? Does he even say?

4. If those events (whatever they are) do not occur as he hopes they will, what is Clark's plan for withdrawal?

http://www.ptnine.com/113006.WMV
http://securingamerica.com/node/1961

[Clarkie1]

239. great questions

1. Possibly...depends on what is negotiated and the dynamic on the ground. Clark favors a negotiated timeline so we can use our leverage.

2. Yes, but ideally the timeline should be negotiated without showing our hand first by publically announcing a set date before the hard diplomacy.

3. If they ask us to leave, if it is determined we do not have the potential to leverage the negotiations, or when a political settlement has been reached and the government is able to handle security on their own.

4. Let's take one thing at a time...it's enough to deal with the present moment. Any plan for withdrawl will be contingent on the situation then, not now. Obviously, any military commander knows the nuts and bolts should be in place for that option. Clark is talking about larger issues, not the nuts and bolts of withdrawing as soon as physically possible if we ever approached a point where that was the best option.

[lillilbigone]

241. Which people should answer for themselves, rather than listen to you or me.

Make your own judgements people.

[Clarkie1]

243. I agree with you there.

:toast:

[Clarkie1]

233. Watch this video.

30-minute Clark interview/call-in on Washinton Journal today.

"Iraq's not a war you can fight to win."

http://www.ptnine.com/113006.WMV

[lillilbigone]

236. In which Clark talks out of both sides of his mouth.

Right up front he says he agrees with the ISG recommendation of a timeline, within a few minutes he's saying we need an 'event based scenario' and that a timeline would 'put the cart before the horse'.

[Clarkie1]

240. Listen closer, he's quite consistent.

There is no contradiction. Clark is speaking as one who has been involved in high-level negotiations. There's a difference between a publically announced timeline and one that is understood by the parties doing the talking.

"General Clark, your thoughts on the IRG recommendation for pullback"

"I think they're pretty common sense, There's no other way to proceed than to have a regional diplomatic dialogue. And I agree there should be a fixed timeline in front of that dialogue...it's fine to draw those (timelines) out internally, but to release those and commit to those before we've done the diplomatic discussions in the region, I think it puts the cart before the horse."

[xkenx]

256. Since you've distorted Clark's words on this and other threads,

I suspect that you may be a member of the swift boat crowd trying to take down Clark. Members who read posts here should understand lillibigone's agenda. This is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty. When I post this, I am certain that lillibigone will answer it with yet another distortion. I guess the theory is that if you repeat something often enough, some people will believe it, as in WMD,WMD,WMD,WMD,WMD.

[jonnyblitz]

257. i think you need to put down the crack pipe and realize that

not everybody is going to be head over heels in love with Wes fucking Clark and those of us who don't care for him are NOT part of some nefarious swiftboat crew with an agenda. "Intense" supporters like you are doing far more damage to Clark's reputation than people like Lillibigone or me or others.

[xkenx]

258. No one is expecting everyone to love Wes Clark, but

lying and distorting is lying and distorting. And THAT smacks of swiftboating. Or else, it reflects support for some other candidate that such a poster is too cowardly to come out with directly. Such a poster without a moral compass then manufactures quotes and positions for Clark which are untrue.
I forget the psychological term for people who have to tear down others in order to feel good about themselves, but I think it applies here.

[xkenx]

259. I'll be as "intense" as necessary to respond to swiftboating.

If we had more Dems. and Dem. candidates stand up to swiftboaters, Rethugs, and Rethug enablers, we wouldn't be perceived as weak and would win more elections. You want to support another candidate, fine. You want to point out where Clark might not be our strongest candidate, fine. Lying, distorting, misrepresenting, not fine. And MOST Clark supporters' level of support runs deep. If Clark is our nominee in '08, this dedication will be good for Dems. and may gain us the White House.
I think "intense" is a good thing, 'cause you'd better be intense to go up against the Rethug slime machine. Thank you for the backhanded complement.

[nickshepDEM]

242. Spin, spin, spin your boat....

[clarquistador]

261. I want to thank you for this gross mischaracterization......

I don't see anywhere in the OP where Clark said "US must stay in Iraq". I know he doesn't want to leave tomorrow, but I think he is just asking for some time to do a couple rounds of diplomacy and negotiation. Diplomacy is necessary because all the parties involved in Iraq have something the other wants. The Iranians control the Shiites, the Syrians back the Sunnis, but the Americans also have serious leverage over the Kurds (who the Iranians are really worried about).

If I had to guess, I would envision it being something along the lines of leaving Iraq in the timeframe of 6 months to 1 year. Clark has publicly stated time and again that no permanent military bases should be established there and you should accept that at face value.

And if you're harping away on Clark being timid on an immediate withdrawal, mind you, had this party nominated Clark in 2004 we would have had a President Clark by now who would've at least initiated a process of ending American involvement in Iraq. Had we nominated him, we'd be seeing our troops coming home by now. BUT.....we chose not to because "He wore a cardigan in New Hampshire" and because "He voted for one or two Republicans 20-30 years ago".

[xkenx]

263. Welcome to DU

Clarkies need all the help we can get to fend off Democrat terrorists (unless they are freepers pretending to be Dems.)