How Gen. Clark differs with Obama, Edwards & Hillary on getting out of Iraq!

Hello Everyone:

I think that it is very important to see specifically where Gen. Clark differs with Edwards, Obama, and Hillary about the key issue of how to get out of Iraq in a responsible manner!

Gen. Clark understands that it is the right kind of regional diplomacy which will give us the best possible chance to get out of Iraq in a responsible manner as opposed to focusing mostly on timetables and troop levels for withdrawing from Iraq. He has also has a specific diplomatic plan that he has been talking about for years now:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/11/illustration_by_2.html

Next move in Iraq?

"Americans want a new approach. Withdrawal? A bad idea. Partitioning? Won't work. The right approach is one that addresses U.S. interests in the entire region.

By Wesley Clark

The mission in Iraq is spiraling into failure. American voters have sent a clear message: Bring our troops home, but don't lose. That's a tall order both for resurgent Democrats, some of whom are calling for a quick withdrawal, and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which is presumably crafting new options...

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..."

http://securingamerica.com/node/1998

General Wesley Clark on C-SPAN's Washington Journal

November 30, 2006

Pedro Echavarria: "What are the benefits of a fixed time-back, and what are the liabilities?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, the benefits are that I guess you have clearly indicated your pressure on Maliki, that you're not going to stay there, and you've- it has political ramifications in the United States. So, it looks like a simple, clear-cut answer to the American people to the problem of casualties in Iraq. The, the drawbacks of the fixed timeline are that you might need that flexibility when you're doing the diplomatic discussions as to where your troops go, how many are there, when do they leave and so forth. It'd be a lot better to have the timeline come out of the dialog so that you've got- When you go into this regional dialog, you need a bag of carrots and sticks, and part of that bag of options is what you do with your troops. And so, I wouldn't want to see us get pinned down in advance of the diplomatic discussions. I think there have to be some events, an event-based scenario that we're working on in the region. There should be some notional timelines to it, but, 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 don't think, I think it puts the, the, the cart before the horse."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15939225/

Clark wants to avoid late campaign start

Still hasn't set a deadline for making a decision on the 2008 race

"Retired General Wesley Clark, a late entry into the 2004 presidential race, says he won't make that sort of timing mistake again, if he decides to enter the 2008 contest.

Updated: 3:47 p.m. CT Nov 28, 2006

Iraq factor
Clark says he believes his military background has special resonance during this campaign because of the national security issues that face the country, including the war in Iraq.

"I think that it's more clear than ever before that the country is an era of profound national security challenges," Clark said.

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..."

So we can very clearly see that the best answer for us to get out of Iraq according to Gen. Clark is to specifically focus on the right kind of regional diplomacy as opposed to focusing mainly on timetables and troop levels for withdrawal!

Here are the Iraq policies that I could find on the official websites of Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton. Outside of just a few very general statements about engaging in some kind of diplomacy or diplomatic efforts with no specific plans about how to do it, the vast majority of what you will see below coming directly from Obama, Edwards, and Hillary deals mostly with timetables for withdrawal and specific troop levels in Iraq!

Look right below to see how Obama has set a specific date of March 31, 2008 to remove all combat brigades from Iraq. Below that John Edwards wants to immediately withdraw 40,000 to 50,000 troops from Iraq. Finally below that Hillary is calling for a cap on troop levels in Iraq:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

At the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations in November 2005, Senator Obama called for: (1) a reduction in the number of U.S. troops; (2) a time frame for a phased withdrawal; (3) the Iraqi government to make progress on forming a political solution; (4) improved reconstruction efforts to restore basic services in Iraq; and (5) engaging the international community, particularly key neighboring states and Arab nations, to become more involved in Iraq. In January 2006 he traveled to Iraq and met with senior U.S. military commanders, Iraqi officials and U.S. troops in Baghdad and Fallujah.

Senator Obama introduced legislation in January 2007 to offer a responsible alternative to President Bush's failed escalation policy. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's expectations. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the 13 benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met.

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

http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/

Restoring America's Moral Leadership in the World
America's leadership role in the world has grown out of our compassion and moral strength, as well as our unparalleled economic and military strength. We can be proud of our long history of using our strength to fight for the freedom of others, but our standing in the world has been badly tarnished. America can once again be looked up to and respected around the world. The first step is by immediately withdrawing 40,000-50,000 troops from Iraq, with the complete withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq within 12-18 months -- allowing the Iraqis to assume greater responsibility for rebuilding their own country. It also means working to restore our legitimacy by leading on the great challenges before us like the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the genocide in Darfur, extreme poverty, and living up to our ideals in the fight against terrorism.

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

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1321

2/13/2007

Fact Check: Hillary Has Long Supported Phased Redeployment

"Senator Obama is mistaken. Senator Clinton has long been on record in favor of a phased redeployment of our troops. In fact both she and Senator Obama voted in 2005 to begin such a withdrawal." -- Howard Wolfson

CLAIM

YESTERDAY, SEN. OBAMA CLAIMED HILLARY DOES NOT SUPPORT PHASED REDEPLOYMENT FROM IRAQ: "I think the difference is -- and now again, I don't want to speak for her or her bill -- my understanding is that she calls for a cap on troops levels but does not begin a phased redeployment. And so that's a pretty substantial difference." [Barack Obama, 2/12/07]

FACT

IN NOVEMBER 2005, HILLARY AND SEN. OBAMA VOTED FOR PHASED REDEPLOYMENT: "A campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased redeployment of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq as each condition is met, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise." [Vote #322, To clarify and recommend changes to the policy of the United States on Iraq and to require reports on certain matters relating to Iraq, 11/15/05]

IN JUNE 2006, HILLARY AND SEN. OBAMA VOTED FOR PHASED REDEPLOYMENT: "The amendment calls for the beginning of a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of the year. Senators Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, and Ken Salazar, D-CO, are cosponsors of the amendment." [Vote #182, To state the sense of Congress on United States policy on Iraq, 6/22/06]

IN SPEECH TO COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, HILLARY CALLED FOR PHASED REDEPLOYMENT: "And thirdly, we do need to begin, I had hoped by the end of this year, a phased redeployment. I joined Senators Levin and Reed, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate and House, in proposing a phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq during this year, 2006." [Council on Foreign Relations, 10/31/06]

IN RESPONSE TO IRAQ STUDY GROUP, HILLARY CALLED FOR PHASED REDEPLOYMENT: "Today’s report from the Iraq Study Group shows the growing bipartisan consensus that we need a dramatic change of course in Iraq, including a redeployment of American troops." [Statement, 12/6/06]

IN RESPONSE TO BUSH IRAQ SPEECH, HILLARY CALLED FOR PHASED REDEPLOYMENT: "I continue to urge a strategy that places pressure on the Iraqi government to resolve the political crisis through phased redeployment of U.S. troops, establishes an Iraqi Oil Trust to end the stalemate over oil, and pursues an aggressive diplomatic strategy including an international conference of the regional parties to further the task of Iraq’s stability." [Statement, 1/10/07]

ON TODAY SHOW, HILLARY CALLED FOR BILL THAT CAPS TROOPS AND BEGINS PHASED REDEPLOYMENT: "I support putting a cap on the number of American troops as of January 1st. I support the beginning of a phased redeployment out of Baghdad and eventually out of Iraq completely." [Today Show, 1/17/07]

IN PRESS CONFERENCE AFTER VISIT TO IRAQ, HILLARY CALLED FOR PHASED REDEPLOYMENT: "In Iraq, the prescription is the opposite. Rather than an escalation of U.S. troops, which I do not believe will contribute to long-term success in Iraq, we should be beginning a phased redeployment of U.S. troops as a way to put pressure on the Iraqi government to take responsibility for its own security and future." [Press Conference, 1/17/07]

Obama, Edwards, and Hillary are overall talking much more about domestic issues rather than about Iraq in their speeches because that is more in their comfort zone and when they do talk about Iraq, the vast majority of what they are talking about is focusing on timetables and troop levels as opposed to a specific plan for regional diplomacy which Gen. Clark is always talking about!

The bottom line in my opinion is that Gen. Clark can easily match or beat Obama, Edwards, and Hillary on ANY economic or domestic issue while none of them can even come close to Gen. Clark's foreign policy, national security, and military experience when so much will be on the line in the 2008 election. I do not think that most "media pundits" have any clue about this at all!

When the next President takes office on 1/20/09 and inherits the foreign policy mess that Bush will leave behind, there will probably be very very little to no room for any error in judgment which is why I think that we need Gen. Clark to be our next President!

I think that we can see a world of difference from the documentation above about what Gen. Clark would do differently to fix Bush's foreign policy mess if he were to inherit it on 1/20/09 compared to Obama, Edwards, and Hillary!

This is what I strongly recommend that Clark supporters talk about now as much as possible to other Democrats, to Independent voters as well as to disillusioned Republicans, and especially to the media!

Mitch Dworkin

http://www.securingamerica.com/

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10756
StopIranWar.com: "War is not the answer"
Submitted by Wes Clark on February 21, 2007 - 11:40am.

http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!

Secondary links

Comment viewing options

Recommended posts

General Discussion

Hot Topics 2

Recent blog posts

Recent comments

Who's online

Welcome to the Clark Community Network

User login

Navigation

My comments

Blogroll