General Wesley Clark on NPR Yesterday. Full text of Clark's remarks.

[Clarkie1]

Diane Rehm: General Clark, what did the President hear yesterday from the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think he heard their concerns that this is not simply a military problem, that it is at heart a political problem. It can be lost militarily. It can't be won militarily. There are not enough forces to try to go in there and post a platoon at every street corner in Baghdad, and if you could, it wouldn't solve the problem anyway. And I hope he heard the cry from the military to put the whole weight of all the power of the United States - our diplomatic power, international law, our alliances, our economic strength, everything behind this, the, the mission to create a strategy within which our troops are expected to perform.

<snip>

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But Iraq is a political problem. It's being wrestled by military means through the militias. The idea that no one can stop the militias is simply wrong. Those militias take orders. They work for people. They're advancing political agendas, and we need a full court press to work the political agendas. So, when people say, 'The focus has to be on security,' I guess that means there's only one focus. If there's only one focus and it's on security, then we're going to fail, because the fundamental problem is that the security is a dependent variable. It depend on people's comfort with the overall political direction. They're using the militias to compete politically, because the mechanism doesn't resolve the depth of the, of the animosities between the factors.

<snip>

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think he's waiting for the political tempest over the elections and the Iraqi Study Group to clear away. I think he's giving it some time for the military to work through the problems. He's-

Diane Rehm: Is that going to happen? Is the tempest going to clear away. I'm looking at poll numbers.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, it's a function of casualty rates on the ground in Iraq. It's also a function of the output of new ideas and initiatives from the various parties. I think the President's calculations would be that over the Christmas holidays, provided there's no disaster on the ground in Iraq, he's got a breathing spell, and he can put some of the animus behind him. And so, he'll hold and he'll try to recapture the initiative. Rather than appearing defensive by, by offering a policy now, he wants to wait, let the dust settle and then appear to take charge again by announcing a new policy.

<sni>

Diane Rehm: How would you react to that, General Clark, increasing troops now?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think, I think first of all, it's a temporary measure. Secondly, I think you'll probably get some results on the ground.

Diane Rehm: What would it accomplish?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think you'll get more patrols on the streets of Baghdad. I think you'll get more snipers on rooftops. I think you'll get more roadblocks. I think it'll be more difficult for militias to move. I think you'll be able to occupy certain areas for longer without having to pull the troops back. In other words, I think you'll get some marginal military advantages. If the major problem is political not military, the question is: What is the President going to do to gain the political initiative? He's met with Maliki. He's met with Hakim. He's now meeting with the Sunni leader. What's going to emerge from that? Is there going to be a political strategic consensus? That's what's going to determine our success or failure in Iraq.

<snip>

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Certainly, and Generals can usually need- use more troops, and you know, this mission in Iraq has been woefully short from the beginning, not to take out Saddam's military, but to do the follow-on job of taking care of the country and establishing authority and preventing civil disturbances and other things. From the beginning we've been short troops. I've, I, I've, I like Jack Keane. He's a great guy. I welcome his proposal. I, I can't, I want, I want to see it, but all that said and done, we must not forget we're dealing with opposing forces. It's not that the United States is modeling clay, and somebody says, 'Well, let's just put a little more, one more pound of clay, and I, I'm sure we can build this statue the right height.' There are other people out there who don't want us to build that statue. When we add clay, they take away clay. When we form it one way, they pull it out another way. I'm talking about Iran and Syria and other forces. We're operating against resistance. That resistance takes many forms. It takes the forms of blackmail, threat, intimidation, education, money, weapons, technology, and if you stand back and look at the mission thus far, what's, what stands out is a persistent underestimation of the opposition - their resourcefulness, their dedication, their ability to mobilize and embed in the population. And so, what my concern is not the troop level, but what is the program-

Diane Rehm: Mm hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -the administration's going to undertake-

Diane Rehm: Mm hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -to bring this to a successful conclusion.

<snip>

Diane Rehm: Do you agree with that, General Clark, breaking up the Maliki government?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Yes, there's, there, there's been talk about that, but, Diane, we, we've got to talk about the bigger regional picture. We've got to talk about Iran and Syria and the neighbors, and what the President is doing by focusing on the troops strength is he's putting his head down and not seeing the big picture here. There are reasons for that. This is a very painful set of discussions, and what we're doing is we're moving more and more sharply into opposition to Iran. Iran is the neighbor. Iran has 70, 75 million people. They're strong, and they've got a grip on our interests in places like Lebanon and on the borders with Israel. So, this is going to come out in many other ways. You cannot answer a strategic political problem simply by a temporary increase of troops on the ground in Iraq.

<snip>

Diane Rehm: But it sounds, General Clark, as though Robert Kagan is talking about a huge surge of military. Where does that huge surge of military personnel come from?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, that's, that's-

Robert Kagan: Can I just jump in before we talk about-

Diane Rehm: Sure.

Robert Kagan: -those numbers that I'm talking about-

Diane Rehm: Sure.

Robert Kagan: -because we're talking about numbers in the range of 20 to 30 and possibly 40 thousand, and just, just, I know General Clark knows this stuff very well, better than I do, but in the short term at least those, those numbers can be achieved by stretching out rotations, which is very, which is a real hardship for the soldiers-

Diane Rehm: Sure is.

Robert Kagan: -which is one reason why we have to move very quickly to expand the overall size of the Army and Marines.

Diane Rehm: And before you respond, General Clark, let me just remind our listeners at :27 before the hour, you're listening to the Diane Rehm Show. Go right ahead.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, you know, I think it's possibly on a short-term basis to surge 20 or 30 thousand. It's a question of the level of pain you're willing to inflict on the rest of force, the people who are back here preparing, the people who are in the Guard and Reserve. That can be done. That, that's mechanically possible. The question is: What do you gain from it? As Robert said, we don't have any leverage against Iran. So, we're going to put these troops in there to try to stabilize the situation. Are we likely to succeed by increasing 20 or 30 thousand troops. Temporarily, I think you'll probably suppress some of the violence. They'll have more difficulty moving and so forth, but within six weeks, eight weeks, six months, if Iran wants to crank up the heat on the United States forces, they'll find a way to do this. So, how are we going to come back and deal with Iran? That's the question.

Diane Rehm: Hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: We're moving into tighter and tighter confrontation with them. Just as Yochi said, there were many people who said, 'Ah, Iraq, then Syria, then Lebanon, then Iran. We'll clean up the whole mess over there.' These countries are reacting against that. They want to make sure we don't succeed, and one of the things the administration hasn't done is come to grips with the implications of its overall policy. If we favor regime change in Iran, then they're not likely to want to assist us.

<snip>

Steve: Good morning. I'm really upset about the delay that President Bush is putting on putting out policy, a change in policy. He's had several months that he's announced that policy was changing, and I believe that this is because of one of the features that's not getting enough coverage from the Iraqi Study Group. They've discussed how this administration has not been honest about funding. We are not telling the American people how much this war is costing us at the present level, and if they want to talk about going for a strategy for victory, they need to start talking about how much it's going to cost to increase troop levels. We need to start talking about repairs to the equipment. We have an Army and Marine Corps that are badly depleted.

Diane Rehm: General Clark.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely right. We've got to put the full resources in. You, you need to understand the full cost of this. It's a lot more than the 300 billion dollars that, the figure that's sited.

Diane Rehm: How would you estimate? How much more?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: Maybe, long-term costs laid out over 30, 40 years of the United States budget, maybe a trillion dollars in terms of veterans expenses, healthcare, recovery for the Armed Forces and the tail-off. Even if you started to withdraw, as the Democrats have wanted to do this year, you'll have forces in there for a long time. So, this is a very, very expensive commitment, but fundamentally, it's not about money. It's about the safety of the American people. It's about our national security, our purpose in the world. We're involved in something here that's, that's very, very central to who we are as Americans.

Diane Rehm: So, as I understand it, you're saying that we need to stay there until the job gets done, but I still don't understand what getting the job done means.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think we've put ourselves in a position where if you pull the plug- We took out the stopper in the bottle at the top of the Persian Gulf when we got rid of Saddam Hussein. We're now the stopper in the bottle. All of our friends in the region say, 'Don't leave.' We don't have a political answer. So, we're now talking about military answers, but they're insufficient.

<snip>

Diane Rehm: Here's an e-mail from a Marine whose name is James. He says, "I've served two tours in Iraq, have seen nothing that would make me believe there is not an underlying hatred between Shia and Sunni. It may be different in other Arab countries, but with such resentment at street level, I foresee a civil war on a level much greater than we are seeing now. Having sparked this conflict, I don't see how we can get out." General Clark.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, he puts it very well. I mean, I think there are a lot of problems there. I don't know that there's an intense Sunni-Shia conflict everywhere in Iraq. I mean, there are, there were some tribes in Iraq that were mixed Sunni and Shia, and people got along just fine, and it can happen again. In some places, the hatred's been fanned. Obviously that was Al Qaeda's strategy, but James is right that I think for us to just pull the plug, pull our forces out of there and let it rip, I think we'd be, I think it'd be a disaster for the United States and our friends and our posture in the world.

<snip>

Diane Rehm: And here's an e-mail from Helsinki, Finland from K.P., who says, "Would it not be polite if your panelists had at least a word for all the people who are going to be slaughtered over the holidays while the President, quote, 'thinks it over'." General Clark.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well yes, it's an unfolding tragedy, and every single day over there more and more people die. We know that. This is a problem that has seized the United States of America. It was the dominant issue in the election. The question is, now that the Democrats have at least one House of Congress, maybe two, what actually dif- what difference will it make, because the reality of the situation is, as Yochi just described, our friends in the region believe that we do have an obligation to be there. They don't know what the answers are. I just came back from the Arab Strategy Forum in Dubai. I, I couldn't believe how many people came to me and said, 'You've got to put more troops in.' I said, 'What is it you want these troops to do?' They said, 'We don't know, but you just got to put those troops in there,' because they don't have a political answer. They don't have a diplomatic or strategic answer, and troops are like, they're like black magic in the civilian world. People don't quite understand what they do, but they must be part of the solution. So, let's have more of them.

<snip>

Diane Rehm: General Clark, here's an e-mail from Dallas, Texas. Theeshall says, "Could it be possible that President Bush's decision to speak about Iraq after the holidays is because he intends to reinstitute the draft?" That question becomes particularly relevant when we think about sustainability. If you're talking about staying in Iraq, perhaps ten, 15, 20 years.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think that, I think that's a, certainly a consideration. I think there's no doubt about it, that if you want to increase the size of the Armed Forces substantially during an unpopular war, it's very difficult to do it in a volunteer force. That's what we found out, and we do need more troops in our, especially in the Army and Marine Corps. I'd be very surprised if President Bush ever institutes the draft. That truly would provoke a political outcry in this country, which would certainly make whatever strategy he picks unsustainable. I think instead I think this idea of the 20, 30 thousand, 40 thousand bump-up, if you could get some temporary relief from the casualties, if you can show a strategy, this President's looking at two years left in office. There are no more elections. I can't help but, but suspect that there are those in the White House who have worked this problem politically-

Diane Rehm: Hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -all along and that that factors into their solution.

<snip>

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think one of the major efforts that the opponents of the Iraq Study Group have, have worked on is to discredit the idea of dialog in the region. I think this is really unfortunate. It's the United States strategy posture before we went in there that created a lot of resistance on the ground to us in Iraq, and whether we agree with the Iranians or the Syrians or not, we ought to be talking to them, and we ought to be talking to them without preconditions. We may not be asking them for help, and I wouldn't ask them for help, and they're not going to offer help, but what I do think is important is to set Iraq inside the regional context. There's no advantage to anybody in moving toward a war with Iran. We're not going to occupy Iran. It's too large. We're not going to change its culture. It's too diverse. We're not going to democratize it. It is not going to be, after a war, converted to a Western-style Democracy. So, therefore why are we moving in this direction? We need a dialog first, and bring all of the other instruments of U.S. power to bear though that dialog.

Diane Rehm: So, you would take Iran's proposed or purported development of nuclear weapons off the table?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Oh, I'd say that's one of the things we're going to talk about directly.

Diane Rehm: But would you talk about that first?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: No, I'd talk first about-

Diane Rehm: Would that be a precondition?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No, I'd go in with a set of principles that we agree, in the region, that we want for the region that borders should be respected, security needs should be respected, that the Iraqi people should have a right to determine their own future, and have that dialog with Iraqi and Syrian and Turkish leaders - all the people who are effected by it-

Diane Rehm: Gen-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -and see what comes from it.

http://securingamerica.com/node/2030

[Ilsa]

1. Clarkie1, Thank you for posting the interview! I missed it

when it aired, nor did I have a chance to look it up or go to the Securing America site. I am on their email list, too.

I wish Clark would declare! I want him to start campaigning!

[Adelante]

4. I feel your pain

:D

[Jimmy52]

30. Clark could have beaten

Clark could have beaten Bush in 04. The GOP used scare tactics to push Bush as the "great defender." Clark was a Military man that would have negated that advantage. How could a draft dodging part time reservist have beaten a former NATO chief? But I suppose Rove would have dug up some mud even on Clark. That's his job.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Artfully said-- (pun intended!)

It's not that the United States is modeling clay, and somebody says, 'Well, let's just put a little more, one more pound of clay, and I, I'm sure we can build this statue the right height.' There are other people out there who don't want us to build that statue. When we add clay, they take away clay. When we form it one way, they pull it out another way. I'm talking about Iran and Syria and other forces. We're operating against resistance. That resistance takes many forms. It takes the forms of blackmail, threat, intimidation, education, money, weapons, technology, and if you stand back and look at the mission thus far, what's, what stands out is a persistent underestimation of the opposition - their resourcefulness, their dedication, their ability to mobilize and embed in the population. And so, what my concern is not the troop level, but what is the program-

[madfloridian]

3. He's made this pretty clear he agrees with building up troops....and winning.

"Diane Rehm: How would you react to that, General Clark, increasing troops now?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think, I think first of all, it's a temporary measure. Secondly, I think you'll probably get some results on the ground.

Diane Rehm: What would it accomplish?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think you'll get more patrols on the streets of Baghdad. I think you'll get more snipers on rooftops. I think you'll get more roadblocks. I think it'll be more difficult for militias to move. I think you'll be able to occupy certain areas for longer without having to pull the troops back. In other words, I think you'll get some marginal military advantages

...."GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: Maybe, long-term costs laid out over 30, 40 years of the United States budget, maybe a trillion dollars in terms of veterans expenses, healthcare, recovery for the Armed Forces and the tail-off. Even if you started to withdraw, as the Democrats have wanted to do this year, you'll have forces in there for a long time. So, this is a very, very expensive commitment, but fundamentally, it's not about money. It's about the safety of the American people. It's about our national security, our purpose in the world. We're involved in something here that's, that's very, very central to who we are as Americans.

Diane Rehm: So, as I understand it, you're saying that we need to stay there until the job gets done, but I still don't understand what getting the job done means. ( Me, either Ms Rehm, I don't understand either.)

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think we've put ourselves in a position where if you pull the plug- We took out the stopper in the bottle at the top of the Persian Gulf when we got rid of Saddam Hussein. We're now the stopper in the bottle. All of our friends in the region say, 'Don't leave.' We don't have a political answer. So, we're now talking about military answers, but they're insufficient."

[Tom Joad]

5. Yeah, absolutely insane.

What part of get the hell out of Iraq doesn't Clark understand?

I understand, from his perspective, that he wants a successful invasion of Iraq. It won't work, and it shouldn't work.

[Adelante]

6. Actually that's not what he wants

He wants a successful exit from Iraq, which means not quite leaving that region in flames as we go. Not, as you say, a successful invasion.

[Tom Joad]

13. The US is fuel for the flames. More troops, more fuel.

A successful exit from iraq would take a few months.

Martin Luther King called the United States "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."
It is true 38 years later too.

[Clarkie1]

14. Can we agree that sending more troops will not solve the problem, then? nt

[Sparkly]

16. Sending more won't solve it, withdrawing them all won't solve it.

Because it's not fundamentally about the military!!

[Tom Joad]

21. But the people of Iraq will solve it. The US should concentrate on

prosecuting its war criminals, or turning them over for trial.

[Sparkly]

24. "prosecuting its war criminals"

Whose war criminals -- theirs or ours? I'm not sure what you mean.

And, how will Iraq solve it, in your view?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

27. Ours. Bush, cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.

I think the people of Iraq need some assistance, but not from its enemies, and the US has proven to be one of its worst enemies, and an enemy of the Arab/Muslim people. I wish that were not the case, but it is.

If the Iraqi people want some other multinational force, then they can ask for one. But it should not include the US military.

[FrenchieCat]

48. Yeah...like other countries want their soldiers blown up, killed and maimed

for some shit we started. Keep dreamin'! :eyes:

[Tom Joad]

18. Yes, i agree with that. Tell Wes.

[Adelante]

23. I don't argue what MLK said, either

But if a few months to find a political solution will prevent a wider regional conflagration, not to mention a genocide in Iraq itself, I say we should take the few months and make a respectable exit. Nobody's talking about winning here, obviously, just not being entirely irresponsible about losing.

[Tom Joad]

28. Genocide, its already happened. the u.s. has been the instigator.

[1932]

29. This part sounds like he's describing why there's a political problem:

Diane Rehm: How would you react to that, General Clark, increasing troops now?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think, I think first of all, it's a temporary measure. Secondly, I think you'll probably get some results on the ground.

Diane Rehm: What would it accomplish?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think you'll get more patrols on the streets of Baghdad. I think you'll get more snipers on rooftops. I think you'll get more roadblocks. I think it'll be more difficult for militias to move. I think you'll be able to occupy certain areas for longer without having to pull the troops back. In other words, I think you'll get some marginal military advantages. If the major problem is political not military, the question is: What is the President going to do to gain the political initiative? He's met with Maliki. He's met with Hakim. He's now meeting with the Sunni leader. What's going to emerge from that? Is there going to be a political strategic consensus? That's what's going to determine our success or failure in Iraq.

[Clarkie1]

8. Actually, Clark wants the most successful exit possible.

Which means leaving as little chaos and war in our wake as possible.

It really doesn't advance the discussion to simply post whatever thoughts pop into your head without posting any evidence to back up your outrageous assertions.

[Clarkie1]

7. He says building up the troops is a temporary measure that won't solve the problem

Do you even read what you post?

Edit: You sure are selective in what you post, Mad. Why did you cut this part off? Doesn't fit in with your anti-Clark propaganda?

"If the major problem is political not military, the question is: What is the President going to do to gain the political initiative? He's met with Maliki. He's met with Hakim. He's now meeting with the Sunni leader. What's going to emerge from that? Is there going to be a political strategic consensus? That's what's going to determine our success or failure in Iraq."

[madfloridian]

12. And what the hell does he mean by "very central to who we are" as Americans

"Even if you started to withdraw, as the Democrats have wanted to do this year(He speaks of the Democrats in the third person), you'll have forces in there for a long time. So, this is a very, very expensive commitment, but fundamentally, it's not about money. It's about the safety of the American people. It's about our national security, our purpose in the world. We're involved in something here that's, that's very, very central to who we are as Americans."

"Central to who we are as Americans?" WTF does that mean?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clarkie1]

25. Clark is, of course, a Democrat.

You are now on ignore, as you have proven you have nothing significant to say.

[BeFree]

32. Well

That about does it for me. Thanks Clarkie, for educating us about Clark's military positions. Not surprised, just about what one can expect from a general.

He actually seems to be saying it is better to fight them over there rather than here. What bullshit. Clark's done for. Thank you!

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

45. Don't get hot under the collar Clarkie1.....just know that anytime you

post intelligent conversation from Wes Clark at this site, you will awaken those who force themselves to believe that Clark is "for" staying in Iraq, is a military thug, etc.... That's the only way they can justify the non support of Wes Clark. :shrug:

Personally, I get a kick out of it....cause the shit is soooo see through except to those that would clearly qualified as simply dense....and fortunately, most people are thoughful and educated enough to take the entire meaning of what is provided rather than to chop it up in little piece and scream "Gotcha!".

[AtomicKitten]

75. hey lookie what I found on Google

Researching Wes Clark, I found this cutie-pie.

[FrenchieCat]

46. Hey befree, Clark is actually very close to Al Gore in his views

see! This is the last from Gore on Iraq:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Gore_Maybe_troops_should_pullout_from_0604.html

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: How about the broader issue? It's no secret you were against the war early and strongly. What would you do now? Right now?

MR. GORE: Well, I would pursue the twin objectives of trying to withdraw our forces as quickly as we possibly can, while at the same time minimizing the risk that will make the mess over there even worse and raise even higher the danger of civil war and/or anarchy.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: John Kerry says there should be a complete pull-out by the end of this year. Do you agree with that?

MR. GORE: Well, not necessarily. Maybe it could come sooner than that.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Sooner?

MR. GORE: Well, maybe. Maybe sometime after that. I think that we need to pursue these twin objectives.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Without a deadline, though?

MR. GORE: Probably without a deadline. I think the setting of the deadline is intended to -- sometimes it's described as a way to set in motion forces that will make -- improve our options and improve the situation on the ground. It's possible that setting a deadline could set in place, in motion, forces that would make it even worse. I think that we should analyze that very carefully. My guess is that a deadline is probably not the right approach. But again, you have to weigh that question in the context of how the political decisions are made between the Congress and the Executive Branch. Sometimes the Congress itself has blunt instruments and limited options to play a role in matters like this. But --

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Like cutting off funding?

MR. GORE: Well, I don't think anybody will be talking about that ever. But in terms of meeting these twin objectives, getting our troops home as quickly as possible without making the moral mistake of worsening an already bad situation, that's delicate, it's difficult.

[Clarkie1]

19. It is very central to who we are as Americans. He means exactly what he says.

What kind of a people are we? Are we a people that will invade a country, ingnite a civil war, and leave the region in bloody chaos? Or are we a people that will take responsibility on the world stage for our actions-whatever the intended or unintended consequences of our actions-and do the best we can to prevent war not just for ourselves, but for the world?

Our actions in Iraq and in the broader Middle East will determine how America is thought of for decades to come.

[windbreeze]

39. and you can explain this a million times but

there are those who have this vision of military men...and that's all there is to it...nothing you say will change it...there are also those who WILL misunderstand anything he says....why?....because they want to, and they have to...and because for some reason, they need too...understanding that a military man, who has seen combat, has been wounded, and WOULD NEVER HAVE GOTTEN US INTO IRAQ in the first place....means nothing...that the man has the guts to say what needs to be said, means nothing...why??? because some can't allow him to make sense...because if they do, it ruins their argument against him...

We ALL know Bush never went to war...while Clark was serving and being shot at, and wounded...Bush was being wounded by cocaine and booze, which is, after all, not quite the same...The rich man's kid who escaped the disaster that WAS Vietnam...so now he's fucked up big time in Iraq, because he had NO experience, at anything but playing big man on campus..and now no one wants to take the word of a man who's been there, and done that, as to how to fix it...because Bush has caused so much death and destruction to our own forces, and Iraqi's, that we are tired and want our troops home right now, damn it, right now...walk out, forget we caused that mess..but what DOES it say about us, as Americans, if we just walk away, after CAUSING this human disaster that is Iraq???

Then I suppose the next thing to remember, is that Clark puts his ass on the line all the time, to try to find a solution to the problem, which is a hell of a lot more than some of those who helped create the problem are doing...so I guess it's normal, that he will take some criticism for it...I just get tired of listening to the sos all the time...

wb

[Clarkie1]

40. I am making more use of the ignore feature on DU.

There is no point in carrying on a discussion with those who simply will not see things for how they are, no matter what the evidence.

[FrenchieCat]

51. What he means is that we can't go run and hide.....we've got to deal

with our mess. That is an American value we are supposed to represent.

Some call it morals.....others just don't give a fuck as long as they feel right.

[lillilbigone]

59. It sounds to me like Clark means what he says: the Iraq war is not a mistake, so we cant withdraw.

I think he's probably decided not to run for President, otherwise I doubt he'd be being so candid about his real views.

[xkenx]

69. Here's the mendacious lillibigone again,

claiming that Clark said the Iraq war is not a mistake, when Clark has said innumerable times before and during that the war IS A MISTAKE, that we went after the wrong people, that war is only as a last resort. YOU ARE FLAT OUT LYING HERE. Once again, I ask you to tell us the deep down reason why you dislike Clark to the point where you are willing to flat out lie in public. Then we can examine your psyche which compels you to do this. Preferring another candidate is okay here.
Disagreeing with Clark's positions is okay here. Outright twisting, distorting, lying, taking-out-of-context is not okay. It is immoral. You can use some integrity lessons from Wes Clark, who has more of it than most of us.

[Leilani]

60. Since you are so intelligent & well educated

as you constantly remind us, think about it.

We have caused a conflagration in the Middle East.

Many who supported Bush on the IWR are now calling for quick withdrawl or foolishly urging defunding the troops. They helped start this fire, but now they're saying, "Sorry," um, it was a mistake, um, let's just bring the troops home & forget about it.

Wes Clark testified against this war, but we're there now. He is trying to get us out by using all solutions possible.

The situation is complex & Clark will not use sound bite answers to score political points. And that's why I respect the man; he's telling the truth, rather than making you happy.

And running from our obligations is not "Central to who we are as Americans."

Iraq was never a threat to our security before the war. Guess what? It is now.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. On building up troops

Good reading skills here are helpful. Clark always gives factual answers. He explained what could be accomplished with 30,000 troops. A little. Temporarily. But read the whole interview. He is describing a technical feasibility as in "that's mechanically possible". The full context is this:

"I think it's possibly on a short-term basis to surge 20 or 30 thousand. It's a question of the level of pain you're willing to inflict on the rest of force, the people who are back here preparing, the people who are in the Guard and Reserve. That can be done. That, that's mechanically possible. The question is: What do you gain from it? As Robert said, we don't have any leverage against Iran. So, we're going to put these troops in there to try to stabilize the situation. Are we likely to succeed by increasing 20 or 30 thousand troops. Temporarily, I think you'll probably suppress some of the violence. They'll have more difficulty moving and so forth, but within six weeks, eight weeks, six months, if Iran wants to crank up the heat on the United States forces, they'll find a way to do this. So, how are we going to come back and deal with Iran? That's the question."

Clark nails why the temporary gains would ultimately be futile: "but within six weeks, eight weeks, six months (Iran could crank up trouble again)" if Iraq is dealt with as a military problem.

[Tom Joad]

20. What he should be saying is that the only feasible answer is for Congress to end the funding for

fucking war.

2. He should encourage active duty military to refuse orders to go to Iraq.

[neverforget]

43. The only way the active duty military would refuse orders would be if

this were a draft army and even then, it would be a big IF.

[Cameron27]

11. It does sound that way,

but I think he's talking about the situation the troops are facing now, with bush in control, and no political strategy in place, and of course with no prospect of troop withdrawals for the next two years. Will it save more lives to have more patrols etc.? I don't know, I have to think more about what he's saying.

I'm interested in what he means when he talks about the politics of bush knowing there are only two years left. I wonder if he's saying that all this is going to be put on hold and dumped on the Democrats in 08.

[Clarkie1]

17. It does not sound that way; it doesn't read that way!

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think, I think first of all, it's a TEMPORARY measure. Secondly, I think you'll probably get some results on the ground.

Diane Rehm: What would it accomplish?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think you'll get more patrols on the streets of Baghdad. I think you'll get more snipers on rooftops. I think you'll get more roadblocks. I think it'll be more difficult for militias to move. I think you'll be able to occupy certain areas for longer without having to pull the troops back. In other words, I think you'll get some MARGINAL military advantages. If THE MAJOR PROBLEM IS POLITICAL, NOT MILITARY, the question is: What is the President going to do to gain the political initiative? He's met with Maliki. He's met with Hakim. He's now meeting with the Sunni leader. What's going to emerge from that? Is there going to be a political strategic consensus? That's what's going to determine our success or failure in Iraq.


Clark is saying what he believe the results of a temporary increase in troops would be, truthfully. He also says it won't solve the problem, and never endorses an increase in troops...he is explaining what the temporary "marginal" results would be, and reiterates that there is no military solution.

[Cameron27]

22. Yes I did understand the total idea he's presenting,

and he's balancing the short term positive with the not so long term (six weeks) negative. I'm sure I read more into the beginning than was there.

[Sparkly]

31. CNN Syndrome

Remember when he was a commentator on CNN? When asked WHAT the military strategy might be for toppling Baghdad, for example, he explained WHAT the military strategy might be for toppling Baghdad. Somehow that's been misinterpreted as advocacy FOR toppling Baghdad.

I don't understand what people don't understand about answering a question, vs. taking a stand on the topic!! It was clear to me, as well, that he answered by describing a temporary, limited effect that wouldn't solve the problem.

[jen4clark]

34. It's sad, isn't it Sparkly.

I believe because of the 24/7 infotainment television, politicians who specilize in sound bites, and the increasingly fast pace of everything, people just don't get it when someone offers too much information -- answers a question fully.

Anyone who believes General Clark LIKES war has obviously not spent any time reading his articles, op-eds, speeches, etc. He is literally torn up by what this administration has done and is doing to the troops, but as a military strategist also knows that for us to drop the ball and go home after we've torn that country into utter chaos would be way way worse in the long run than trying to patch things up to a point that the entire region doesn't explode once we leave.

I'm so thankful that there are some who understand and go out of their way to try and spell it out for those who use the sound bite method of hearing certain key words that set them off and ignore the rest. It's so obvious to me that General is saying what "could" happen or what "would" happen, and not what he thinks "should" happen. There's a huge difference there.

[Texas_Kat]

47. I've heard Clark call McCain "a damned fool" for wanting to increase troops

There is no question what he thinks on this issue.

I was just over at Securing America.... guess what's on top of their Blog Buzz list?

Jon Stoltz's article at Huff Post called "Is the President the New OJ?"

Maybe one day, George W. Bush will release a book, "If I Wanted to Mess Up Iraq and America's Security Even More." In that book, he can detail all the ways he "would have" made the situation in Iraq worse. One chapter would have to be devoted to the idea that came up this week, that the administration is preparing to send 40,000 additional troops into the warzone. That's assuming, of course, that the President is serious about our troops and security and never would propose such a thing!

I'll be blunt: an increase of 40,000 troops would be a joke, if it didn't mean the needless deaths of Americans at a greater clip than we're seeing now.

Yet, the President will tell the nation next month that this increase will allow US forces to launch an offensive against the insurgency and offer greater security to hot spots in the country. There's a possibility that in the very short term some areas might be slightly more secure, but in the long term, a force increase this small will do nothing to secure Iraq or wipe out insurgents. Thus, what we're left with are those that will certainly die or be injured in this influx of forces.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/is-the-president-the-new-_b_36368.html

If Clark didn't absolutely agree with Jon's post, it certainly wouldn't be featured there. Wes may not be as blunt on National Public Radio, but he's certainly been as blunt in person.

[jen4clark]

53. Excellent TexasKat.

I've already used your observation on another thread where the "misunderstanding" spread... Thank you. ;)

[cadmium]

71. You are right. Clark is really averse to this whole disaster. He is

talking honestly and practically about how best to manage the withdrawal.

Now you guys know how us Kerry supporters feel when his statements are taken out of context to paint him as a war-monger.

We should all be on the same side despite some disagreements on specific tactics. When I hear about plans to get out I think about the Kerry-Feingold ammendment allowing for an over the horizon force.

I could be wrong --- I have misread politicians before---but I dont see any evidence (when I have heard or read the whole of Clark's statements) that he want to do anything but get us out of their as humanely as possible.

[Clarkie1]

35. There are a lot of small-minded people here that will twist anything to suit their own agenda

or preconceived notions. Either that or they don't know how to read. There is no point in carrying on a discussion with such folks, because it's impossible to have a discusssion with them...they simple won't accept what they read; they see just what they want to see.

[madfloridian]

36. I don't consider myself small-minded. I hope that is not who you were referring to.

I consider myself pretty intelligent and educated.

Too many times we hear Clark sounding like he says we have to win. If he says it so often, maybe he feels that way.

Or is Diane Rehm small-minded also.

We are not going to win there. We have already lost, and our military is in danger.

[Clarkie1]

37. No, you are very clever in how you avoid evidence that doesn't jive with your prejudices

and take things out of context and twist them to fit your own agenda. Actually, frankly...not that clever.

It's been a couple of hours, and you still haven't been able to respond directly to my post #7 on this thread responding to your small-mindedness re: Clark....


My post #7 responding to madfloridian:



Do you even read what you post?

Edit: You sure are selective in what you post, Mad. Why did you cut this part off? Doesn't fit in with your anti-Clark propaganda?

"If the major problem is political not military, the question is: What is the President going to do to gain the political initiative? He's met with Maliki. He's met with Hakim. He's now meeting with the Sunni leader. What's going to emerge from that? Is there going to be a political strategic consensus? That's what's going to determine our success or failure in Iraq."

[lillilbigone]

61. Clearly, Clark thinks we can 'succeed' in Iraq, and thinks we need to keep troops there till we do

Which happens to be the current policy in place.

[FrenchieCat]

44. You may be intelligent and educated but you are not fair minded

Madfloridian. You've always had an agenda in reference to Clark, and nothing has changed. I don't really care that there a some on this thread who are unable to read except for literally...and to be honest, they really WANT to read it that way. So for those, I say go ahead......make your day.

[madfloridian]

49. He is most likely advising our Democrats...we need to watch his words carefully.

I nearly got blasted out of the water for posting his own words via his communications director about tamping down the come home fever.

Yet, he was advising our Senate leaders at their retreat.

I am sorry you interpret my concerns as an "agenda." It is really true concern that we are never going to leave Iraq. That we never intended to do so.

[Clarkie1]

54. "He" IS "one of our Democrats." nt

[AtomicKitten]

74. aaarrrgggghhhhhh!!!!!!

[FrenchieCat]

55. You mean providing Dems with a strategy to win the 2006 election

on the issue of Iraq? You mean when some Dems were hollering "Home Now" while others advocated other various views....and in so doing all Dems were being accused of cutting and running and were being played one against the other? Howard Dean seemed to have approved of the approach that Wes Clark recommended. If I remember correctly, Howard Dean, who also realized how important it was, also said the same....that the Dem platform was Transition in Iraq starting 2006. We won Madfloridian! Get over it!

In responding to your "true concerns", we may not leave Iraq as long as bush is in charge, but Clark nor anyone else couldn't affect that unless the Dems in congress, in the majority, would vote to cut off funding and that ain't gonna happen....and Clark ain't in congress. So it ain't Wes Clark's fault that we are in Iraq, and it ain't his fault that the shit is fucked up over there. It ain't his fault that Bush doesn't listen. so really Mad, I'm not sure why you are in this tread crying as though it's Clark's fault. CAUSE IT JUST AIN'T!

[madfloridian]

56. So we must never question what he advises.

Dean is the party chairman, he has pretty much followed the line the others have. What Clark says often is sounding more like he thinks we have to stay.

I questioned what Clark said on the basis of his advice in this post. I will continue to do so. I don't always agree with Dean on it either, but he is more and more often on TV just saying we need to get out as soon as we can. He is for the Korb plan basically. But his tune is changing.

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

You always bring Dean in when the discussion is nothing to do with him at all. If Clark is advising Democrats, then we have a right to question. The link above was a private session, my post was deleted. It was deleted from the CCN site.

Attacking me on this is not solving anything.

[Clark2008]

57. I don't see anyone bringing Dean into this except you.

[madfloridian]

68. Someone else did,...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3017963&mesg_id=3018355

I was not even thinking in those terms.

I was responding to this post I am linking to. And yes, they did make it about him. When it is not.

This is about a general who is advising our Democrats.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/29/112724/212

If Diane Rehm was wondering what he meant, then I guess it is ok for me to wonder also.

[lillilbigone]

62. I guess if you just want to believe in him, you must convince yourself he doesnt mean what he says

but I think he does

[Clark2008]

67. Not at all.

If I were to ask you what would happen if we put in more troops, you would either provide an answer or you wouldn't. That doesn't mean you believe that we should provide more troops, it simply means that you answered the question put to you.

Honestly, how difficult is this to understand?

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lillilbigone]

58. A pro-occupation candidate will never win the Democratic nomination.

Could you see us running in 2008 on a platform of: "We need to stay in Iraq till we have a 'political answer'" ?

[Tom Rinaldo]

65. He doesn't say that. He never said that.

That is YOUR interpretation of what the implications of what he does say might be. You have a right to your own interpretation of course, but not one to put false words into another persons mouth.

[madrchsod]

9. obama-clark

that`s who i`d vote for

[snowbear]

38. Or vice-versa..?

[vikegirl]

41. AMEN! larissa

!!!!!

[madrchsod]

52. yes that would also be very good

[BikeWriter]

42. What qualifications does Obama have that exceeds Wes Clark?

Not one that I can see! :shrug: Clark is the man.

[SmellsLikeDeanSpirit]

50. He has none. He is a better speaker, but that don't mean jack.

[BikeWriter]

63. Yep, and Clark has a square foot of medals that can beat the GOP.

[cali]

64. The republican meme that Obama has no

qualifications is bullshit. Obama served seven years in the Illinois legislature and has served two in the U.S. Senate. He taught Con law for 13 years. He is more qualified than Clark on domestic issues. Should he be elected President he will have 4 years in the Senate under his belt. He's as qualified as one of our greatest nominees- Adlai Stevenson, who in 1952 had served one term as Illinois Governor. Granted Stevenson never won the Presidency, but no one questioned his qualifications.

BTW, I thought Clarks's comments were intelligent and nuanced, even if I don't fully agree with them.

[tblue37]

66. This is what an *intelligent* person sounds like.

Can the American people tolerate it?

I am hoping for Gore/Clark or Clark/Edwards in '08.

[jcrew2001]

72. hillary

I don't think Clark would run against hillary. Wasn't all his campaign comprised of Clinton people...who would be left to work for his campaign?

[NV1962]

73. Why, his real supporters of course! (n/t)