Clark favors a timeline that gives us the most flexibility and political leverage.

[Clarkie1]

Clark shows experience as one who has been involved in high-level negotiation by underscoring the 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."

From today's Washington Journal (first 5 minutes or so)

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

[mike_c]

1. what does that MEAN...?

Timeline or no timeline? Withdrawal or no withdrawal?

[Clarkie1]

2. It means a timeline made clear during the negotiations as they unfold.

Not one announced pubically ahead of time that does nothing but handicap our power of negotiation and leverage. I don't know by what you mean by "withdrawl or no withdrawl"....obvioulsly, we are going to withdraw from Iraq. The question is in what manner, and over what period of time. That needs to be negotiated internally among those parties involved (ideally).

[Nite Owl]

3. I still don't get this

How long does this negotiating go on? We have been negotiating with the Palestinians and Israeli's for decades trying to get some agreement. There has to be some date certain, some goals that have to met and a time to say enough. I like Clark but this seems very open ended.

[Clarkie1]

5. Here's your answer.

"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."

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

[Nite Owl]

12. Still, not lengthy means what

a month, three months? And who is going to do this? If he is thinking that this administration will negotiate anything it's a fantasy. Would this administration let an outside body try to negotiate for them? I really doubt it. So we are talking about maybe the next President in '09 and that is too long to consider keeping the troops there to be killed off day by day.

I'm not saying he doesn't have valid points but the implemetation of them in this undiplomatic, unwilling and uncapable administration is not likely. If he were President I believe he could do this but that isn't what we are dealing with.

[Clarkie1]

19. Here's your answer

admittedly, in the form of a question (perhaps rhetorical?)

"Of course there are no guarantees...The outline of what needs to be done is clear. But does the administration have the courage and foresight to do it, or will it continue to march into profound failure?"

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

[Nite Owl]

22. As I said maybe he could do this

if he were President but he isn't therefore it's just ideas that will not be able to see fruition. We need a solution for now, it can't go on for two more years until we get a dem in the WH who would be capable. It just isn't a real solution for the time we are in.

[Clarkie1]

24. Well, yes, unfortunately the jackass in the WH is still the "deciderer"

So, unfortunately, it (this is painful to type) can go on for two more years, if the jackass keeps taking us over the cliff.

Congress can't impose timelines. The only power Congress really ultimately has over this is investigations and the draconian move of cutting off funding (which I suppose is possible, but hard even with the current situation to contemplate a majority doing).

[Schema Thing]

6. We have Absolutely NOT been negotiating with the Palestinians

and Israelis for decades.

If an American leader (a rare thing, like a Clark or Carter) had been working that issue, it would be either solved or on it's way to being solved by now, most likely.

I have in fact, heard both Clark and Carter lament that fact several times in the past few years.

[Clarkie1]

17. Excellent point. Thanks for posting in the thread. nt

[mike_c]

4. so Clark wants a secret timeline...?

If the American people don't know what the timeline is, how can they ever know whether their government is honoring it's committment?

[Clarkie1]

7. No need for it to be secret, just not announced before the negotiated solution.

Clark's view as I read it is that a negotiated solution needs to be in place before a publically announced timeline, otherwise, the negotiators' hands are tied.

Edit: As I see it, this problem can't be solved most effectively by senators imposing timelines over here (although the political pressure coming from said senators and congresspeople can certainly give the administration a needed kick in the ass to get real negotiations going); it has to be solved by high-level, ongoing (not overly lengthy) negotiatons over there, with all the parties involved.

[mike_c]

8. good god the way Clark supporters parse his statements is maddening....

Not secret, just not announced?! :rofl:

[Clarkie1]

10. O.K., secret timeline then if you like that phrase better.

Clark used the term internal (to the negotiations) which I think is more accurate. But, whatever.

[mike_c]

18. then how will Americans know whether the gov't is living up to it...?

???

[Clarkie1]

23. Because they would know what the timeframe is after it has been hashed out in negotiations. nt

[lillilbigone]

26. Parsing

Here, I'll do some parsing.

"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."

it would be a lot better to have a timeline come out of the dialogue.

No withdrawal of troops until a diplomatic solution.

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.

Yep... can't bring the troops home, because they are your bargaining chips in the regional discussion.

I think there has to be an event-based scenario that we're working on in the region,

We can't withdraw our troops until certain things happen - Clark isn't saying what.

there should be some notional timelines to it, but, uh, and it's fine to draw those out internally,

Bush and his crew - the ones who will be doing the negotiating - can have their own ideas of when to withdraw, but they shouldn't make them public

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.

Again he re-iterates his belief that we can't withdraw our troops until AFTER a diplomatic solution.

[nealmhughes]

9. I think he very diplomatically saying "The odds are great of negotiations breaking down,

but we are going to have a huge carrot and a great big ole' stick and try not to let that happen. We won't want to go on record until we have signatures dry...since there is no telling what may happen in ________(insert name of city here)."

[Clarkie1]

14. Yes. Our chances of getting what we want (peace, stability) is better if we don't prematurely

announce our fixed intentions publically to withdraw all troops at a date certain even before the real regional diplomacy begins.

Clark's about waging peace, which means be actively involved in the process, not simply pretending we have no influence over events and walking away before we've done all we can.

[PeaceProgProsp]

11. I feel like I'm being hypnotized!

Yes master. I will obey.

[Clarkie1]

16. Huh? nt

[lillilbigone]

13. Incredible. He actually comes out for and against a timeline in the same sentence.

[Clarkie1]

15. It's not the same sentence...and he does not come out for and against.

He discusses the pros and cons of a publically announced timeline approach. Clark favors a negotiated timeline with the parties involved, what part of that are you unclear about?

[lillilbigone]

20. Here it is with the part you didn't include:

"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."


No interpretation from me necessary for anyone who can read English and has an open mind.

[Clarkie1]

21. Thanks for taking the time to transcribe that.

I think what Clark is saying here makes a lot of sense.

[FrenchieCat]

25. What part isn't clear to you?

I just sent that snip to my daugther who's over at Cambridge attending Harvard. She just wrote back that both she and her boyfriend currently at the law school there understood it just fine.

Why didn't you?

[1932]

30. At 2 am? Really? Or are you just college name dropping?

[mike_c]

27. there is nothing to negotiate-- the war is a crime against humanity....

Our "negotiating" is like a bankrobber with hostages "negotiating." We are committing an ongoing crime in Iraq. What's to negotiate? Ten million dollars and a ride to the airport?

[Clarkie1]

28. If our presence there now is a crime against humanity why don't they ask us to leave?

Why do the majority of the Iraqi people not want us to leave "too soon?"

Certainly, war crimes have been committed by U.S. forces in Iraq...Abu Ghraib (sp?), etc. But if you think Iraq is now a "war," in the conventional sense you are mistaken. That war ended in a few weeks, years ago. We are not attempting to conquer the Iraqi people. The challenge now is to leave without causing more death and destruction to transpire in our wake.

[lillilbigone]

29. 'They' being Bush's puppet government? The people feel otherwise.

Why do the majority of the Iraqi people not want us to leave "too soon?"

What is your source for that assertion?

In a September poll by the University of Maryland, 78 percent of Iraqis said that the US military is "provoking more conflict than it is preventing"; 71 percent, including 74 percent of Shiites and 91 percent of Sunnis, want US soldiers out within a year or less; and 61 percent of Iraqis favor attacks on American troops.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061218/editors

[mike_c]

31. they have, overwhelmingly....

The puppet Al-Maliki gov't doesn't want the U.S. to leave because their lives depend upon U.S. protection. But the Iraqi people want the U.S. to leave. That is ultimately what the insurgency is about-- a struggle against foreign occupation.

But that isn't the point. Even if the Iraqi people wanted the U.S. to stay, our presence there would be a crime. It's a crime because we violated the Nuremburg Principles and the U.N. Charter by launching a war of aggression against a country that was no threat to us or to international peace. Manipulating the circumstances after the fact can never change the essential criminal nature of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Anyone who argues in favor of continuing it is advocating war crimes.