These folks were the first to add comments at the Cafe!
ChargingRINO, Reg NYC, AnitaInTX, icantbelieveimvotingforageneral, and fourstardeminla. A solid start for the week. Thanks!

Am I missing it?

Wes Clark just did his first post for the week over at TPMCafe on Iraq, Darfur and presidential leadership. He hopped on a plane after posting apparently. But he says he'll be responding to questions and comments down in the comments section later today after he lands. Check it out.
-- Josh Marshall

http://tinyurl.com/9ro5p

A long engagement blogging like this is really great. I discovered I hadn't joined yet and am waiting for my confirmation.

Where was Wes catching a plane for?

Noel

see http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/29/94325/1284

HE ANSWERED MY QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!
I'm so happy I'm going to go hand out a bunch of 5s.
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_______________________________________________________________

Re: Changing course in Iraq requires leadership (3.00 / 0) (#19)
by Paulie on Aug 29, 2005 -- 11:12:58 AM EST
Welcome General Clark,

Four Generals on Meet The Press discuss Iraq. You sir, seem to be the one General who understands Iraq is one of several countries who need to work together to reach some common ground to stabalize Iraq. How much do we really know about permanent US military bases in Iraq? Are permanent bases a helpful idea for peace in the Middle East?

I urge you to continue to speak out because I believe you have the character and experience to lead our country in 2008. I also believe you have a deep understanding of large organizations given your diplomatic skills while leading NATO. Thank you for joining TPMCafe. I am eager to read your thoughts.

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

[new] Re: Changing course in Iraq requires leadership (3.00 / 0) (#43)
by wclark on Aug 29, 2005 -- 12:19:24 PM EST
Paulie,

As I wrote in my op-ed, "a public US declaration forswearing permanent bases in Iraq would also be helpful in engaging both regional and Iraqi support at this point." So no, I don't think permanent bases are a good idea.

On speaking out, I will continue to do so, and I encourage you to remain active in the public dialogue, as well.

Wes
WesPAC -- Securing America's Future

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Re: Changing course in Iraq requires leadership (4.00 / 1) (#12)
by Manndibles on Aug 29, 2005 -- 10:49:10 AM EST

The same gentlemen who are running this war are the same types that would tell a heat casualty to change his socks. They simply cannot understand the problem.

I suspect that you and General Zinni are the only two bold enough to voice a critical and accurate outlook of the way this campaign has been conducted. How can any higher-echelon officer with experience in Vietnam, betray their own generation and first-hand experience by participating in something as poor and mismanaged as that war was? Why are so many of our top brass spineless nowadays? And they FORCED LTC Keirsey to retire.

Our best bet is to keep 'their feet to the fire', and remain vocal in our criticism. They may not like it, but who cares? They need to be reminded that their presence in Washington is on our behalf, and not solely for themselves. So I applaud you, General. Keep fighting the good fight. It needs to be said. RLTW.

Served under you in the Balkans w/ 10th MTN Division, and I have been a fan since. Much thanks!

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

Re: Changing course in Iraq requires leadership (3.00 / 0) (#33)
by wclark on Aug 29, 2005 -- 12:01:26 PM EST
Manndibles,

Thank you for joining me here and serving your country. Please contact my staff at info at securingamerica.com with your contact information.

Wes

Wes
WesPAC -- Securing America's Future
_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Re: Changing course in Iraq requires leadership (4.25 / 4) (#11)
by Deborah White on Aug 29, 2005 -- 10:41:27 AM EST

Welcome, General Clark.

Your WaPo editorial gave me a great sense of relief that a US leader.....regardless sof political party......has a credible, rational plan, honed on experience, of how to handle and resolve the Iraq War. (Sadly, it almost feels odd in this era to hear a leader even suggesting diplomacy. Whatever happened to diplomacy?)

And your Meet the Press appearance was also reassuring. I appreciate your willingness to admit that this war was a terrible mistake. One of your most appealing attributes as a presidential candidate is your willingness to be outspoken and speak the truth that others finesse.

I admit...I and many of my readers just want to leave Iraq now. It was started on lies, is presently deadly and directionless. and seems to be accompishing nothing positive. You make the case palatable that we can't now "cut and run." Palatable, but still very hard to swallow. No one wants their loved one to die for a meaningless conflict.

General Clark, included on the last Bush administraton spending request for Iraq were billions for "permanent" bases for US armed forces, as well as billions more for the world's largest embassy. It would be a virtual fortress, owned and staffed by the US, with state-of-the-art technology for surveillance, etc. Once built....f not already built.....the US embassy and camps would costs US taxpayers billions more to maintain.

The assumption by most is that these constructions are to give the US a permanent presence in Iraq and the Middle East...to control oil and political affairs and to conduct surreptitious surveillance.

Do you approve of a permanent significant US presence in Iraq?
If yes, why and for what purpose? If not, what do we do with these constructions?

Again, welcome to the blogosphere. Would love to interview you sometime for my site at US Liberals at About.com.

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

[new] Re: Changing course in Iraq requires leadership (3.00 / 0) (#44)
by wclark on Aug 29, 2005 -- 12:19:27 PM EST

The truth is that our soldiers are under attack in Iraq. The fact that these are listed as permanent bases is probably an indication that they'll be constructed to provide better protection for our soldiers. They don't necessarily mean that we'll stay there indefinitely. I would certainly not want us to stay there indefinitely, but we do need to do everything we can to protect our troops.

I believe that we should be out of Iraq as soon as possible, but to come out, we need to do the work that will promote our interests in the region to the best of our ability. This means setting up an Iraqi state and working with Iraq's neighbors to defuse further conflicts and strife in the region.

If in that process the Iraqi government asks us to stay there for another year or two at a reduced level, it would be hard to say no. But I think our overall interests are best served by removing our forces from Iraq over the longer-term.

Wes
WesPAC -- Securing America's Future _____________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Changing course in Iraq requires leadership (4.50 / 4) (#6)
by fourstardeminla on Aug 29, 2005 -- 10:18:00 AM EST

Thank you for your leadership on this, General Clark.

What do you believe are the most effective actions grassroots activists can take to alter this administration's trajectory with Iraq?

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

Re: Changing course in Iraq requires leadership (3.00 / 0) (#40)
by wclark on Aug 29, 2005 -- 12:15:33 PM EST

I think this public dialog and the work by Cindy Sheehan to get the media to focus on Iraq are very effective.

But in addition, we must protect the men and women in uniform and the armed forces from the fallout of Iraq. And we must never believe that America can truly become "anti-war" because in the conduct of foreign affairs, sometimes military force has to be on the table and used, if only as a last resort.

Wes
WesPAC -- Securing America's Future
________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Changing course in Iraq requires leadership (4.50 / 4) (#1)
by LiberalVoice on Aug 29, 2005 -- 09:53:43 AM EST

Hello General,

I attended a Democratic Town meeting in CT that featured a Trinity College student who represnted your campaign. He and your materials were very impressive and well presented.

One of my reasons to back Kerry, however, was that he had voted against the H-1B visa provisions in Congress. These provisions, largely intended to ease the health care professional shortage in remote areas of the country soon became a floodgate for hiring inexpensive and (despite claims to the contrary) dubiously qualified foreign workers. American independent contract software engineers have seen their job security eliminated in the private sector and their wages slashed by a third (and I am not exagerrating). Unfair labor legislation, IMO. What do you think?

Secondly, how would you feel about legislation mandating that the National Guard never be deployed off American soil. This would create an avenue for even conscientious objectors to serve in case of emergencies like these hurricanes yet be ensured that their goodwill will not be held hostage to a madman in the White House.

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

Re: Changing course in Iraq requires leadership (3.00 / 0) (#34)
by wclark on Aug 29, 2005 -- 12:01:52 PM EST

Let me take the National Guard part of your question, and hopefully we'll have some time to talk about labor issues later this week.

A legislative mandate to prohibit the National Guard from serving abroad would not be a good idea. It's difficult to predict the contingencies that might face the United States in the future, and we wouldn't want to constrict the National Guard.

Some states have additional organizations known as the state militia which are purely state government organizations, but by U.S. law the federal government funds most, if not all, of the national guard expenditure and has the right to call up these troops. The smart approach is to ensure that the national guard troops can be called up when there is a foreign contingency operation so there is no question whether public support is needed for a military operation.

Wes
WesPAC -- Securing America's Future
________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________
A brief question (4.00 / 3) (#16)
by Angryman on Aug 29, 2005 -- 11:01:41 AM EST

General,

This is a simple question but it's one I've wanted answered for a while now.

How do we know when to give up? At what point will those who continue to support fighting this war admit failure?

This is an important question. It's important to know when one has succeeded. It's also important to know when one has failed.

So what constitutes failure?

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

[new] Re: A brief question (3.00 / 0) (#73)
by wclark on Aug 29, 2005 -- 02:59:32 PM EST

We shouldn't get out yet. There's still an opportunity to establish an Iraqi government that is supportive of America's principles and interests in the region. If the government is established and can stand on its own two feet, that's the time when we should get out.

If it turns out that we can't help in the formation of the Iraqi government, then we would have to come out when our continued presence does more harm than good. But we aren't at that point yet, despite all of the downsides and difficulties of the current mission.

In the near term, failure would be defined by failure in the formation of an Iraqi government and failure in the training of an Iraqi security force. In the longer term, failure would be defined as inability to curtail the violence, the emergence of civil war, or the emergence of an Iraqi government which is hostile to American principles.

Wes
WesPAC -- Securing America's Future

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________
Re: Changing course in Iraq requires leadership (4.50 / 2) (#8)
by abburdlen on Aug 29, 2005 -- 10:32:54 AM EST

General Clark,

Thank you for continuing to share your thoughts on this and so many other important issues. I agree with your assessment that while we didn't need to send troops into Iraq, leaving now could prove even worse. I do hope the President will listen to your ideas and the other wise voices out there and I'll be letting my Senators and Congressman know I expect them to also pressure the President to provide a working solution to the problem Iraq has become rather than repeat the same mistakes he's made for the past two years.

That said, I don't realistically think this administration will offer the American people a reasonable plan. Would you describe what the Middle East might look like in one, five and ten years if we 'stay the course' as the President asks

Also as we all watch the tragedy unfolding along the Gulf Coast, this seems a good time to remember your words, ".. when you can do good, you should."

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

[new] Re: Changing course in Iraq requires leadership (3.00 / 0) (#67)
by wclark on Aug 29, 2005 -- 02:45:06 PM EST

If we continue without diplomatic engagement and attention to differing regional perspectives, we risk first, a long-term and costly military involvement; second, continuing conflict in the region; and third, the erosion of U.S. leadership and influence in the region.

Already major economic alignments are working between oil-rich nations in the Middle East and China and India. If the United States continues on its current course in the region, it risks being increasingly shut out of the most important commercial and economic development activity as well.

Wes
WesPAC -- Securing America's Future
_______________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

Re: Changing course in Iraq requires leadership (4.00 / 2) (#59)
by Dustin Reed DeMoss on Aug 29, 2005 -- 01:51:27 PM EST

Furthermore General Wesley Clark, I'd like to know if you can give us a hinting of your future political aspirations. As others have stated, we would like to find ways to support you in your endeavors.

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

[new] Re: Changing course in Iraq requires leadership (3.00 / 0) (#72)
by wclark on Aug 29, 2005 -- 02:56:18 PM EST

Hi Dustin--

At this point, I'm focused on speaking out on the issues and helping to develop solutions to the security challenges that face us as a nation, both at home and abroad.

I hope that you and everyone you know will join WesPAC -- Securing America's Future, the organization we've developed to help push these ideas forward and support candidates who share our views.

Thanks so much for your interest and support.

Wes
WesPAC -- Securing America's Future
________________________________________________________________

Someone posted this remark at the end of their questions. It touched my heart. I hope Gen. Clark will be able to reply to it.

I am amazed and honored to have this opporunity to address you directly.

Wow, as of about now, there are 105 posts over there. Popular guy! :)

Someone posted:

...I'm interested to know if you have considered making a visit to Iraq or possibly a neighboring country. It would be wonderful to have you go there and report back what you witnessed firsthand.

NOOOOO. I cannot tell you how much I do not want Gen. Clark going over there. Maybe if he is provided his own gear, preferably a tank, his own AK47, etc., but no, probably not even then!

Re: Changing course in Iraq requires leadership (3.00 / 0) (#29)
by Greg Priddy on Aug 29, 2005 -- 11:52:19 AM EST
General Clark,

I'm curious to hear your current views on American grand strategy in the Middle East -- apart from the specific issue of how we stabilize Iraq. The neoconservative faction in the Bush administration has a vision for sweeping change in the Middle East -- to be driven by U.S. policy -- and I've always believed that the desire to try out this idea of a "transformation of the Middle East" was a large part of the region we rushed into Iraq. Even if it turned out that the WMD issue was overblown, they believed everyone would thank them when American-style liberal democracy swept across the region.

Things haven't played out that way in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, and the fact that we're implying to Iran and Syria that "you're next" has given them a strong incentive, as you've pointed out in your piece in the Post, to try to keep us from succeeding in Iraq. To encourage states like Syria to cooperate with us vis-a-vis Iraq, we would have to give them some assurance that we're not trying to cause their governments to collapse, and that would run counter to what the Bush administration is saying about undermining authoritarian regimes region-wide.

F. Gregory Gause had a good critique, I thought, of the "Middle East transformation strategy" in the issue of Foreign Affairs that came out last week, arguing that we should back off from pushing rapid political change in the region, as such rapid change would likely lead to radical Islamist governments hostile to our interests. As we've seen in Iraq, the system of values which dominates the Arab world is very different from ours, and assuming that "Western style democracy" would take root rapidly seems to have been rather naive.

So I guess my question is, what do you think about the broader "transformation strategy"? And should U.S. policy toward the region focus primarily on relations between states, or on changing how states govern themselves internally? Must democracy come from within, or can the U.S. force such a transition?

Again, thanks for guest-blogging on TPMCafe, and I'm looking forward to hearing you speak at the conference sponsored by the New America Foundation next week.

Re: Changing course in Iraq requires leadership (3.00 / 0) (#103)
by wclark on Aug 29, 2005 -- 05:24:50 PM EST

Here are my thoughts on what America's strategy in the Middle East should be built upon:

(1) We've got to actively participate in resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians

(2) We've got to encourage the engagement by moderate Islam in the ideological struggle within Islam

(3) We've got to use U.S. power (broadly defined, not just military power) as a catalyst for regional cooperation, even with regimes we may not like

We should always try to support our allies and help those countries whose values we share. We do believe that the values of freedom, self-government, and human rights are values which every human being can and should share. And through a variety of means we should be encouraging those values.

But democracy cannot be imposed -- it has to emerge for successful transformation. So there's much work to be done to act on our values, teach them abroad, and encourage the development of social structures which are compatible with those values.

Wes
WesPAC -- Securing America's Future

Nothing is more American; nothing is more patriotic than speaking out, questioning authority and holding your leaders accountable. Wes Clark

Re: Changing course in Iraq requires leadership (4.00 / 1) (#87)
by BBochove on Aug 29, 2005 -- 03:59:50 PM EST

General Clark, thank you for this opportunity to talk directly to a national leader; there has been a paucity of such opportunities under the Bush regime. I am one of those who favors withdrawal (immediate or at least very soon). I have read your comments carefully; they make a lot more sense than anything coming out of BushCo; but they do not address the major criticisms levelled by those like me who want an American withdrawal.

First: the American presence is NOT stabilizing the situation in Iraq it is exacerbating the situation. It also prevents DIPLOMACY. No other nation WITH CREDIBILITY can offer their services in the current situation without compromising their credibility and appearing as an American puppet. You have suggested the US foreswear any permanent bases in Iraq. This is essential to mollify the nationalist fires our intervention and occupation has ignited. On the other hand it eliminates one of the main security goals (unstated by Bush et.al) for the entire enterprise, and diminishes your "too much is at stake" opposition to withdrawal.

Second: many of the Bush goals for the intervention, invasion, and occupation are not honorable and should not be the American goals. It is clear after we brush aside some of the boilerplate rhetoric of BushInc, we have the neocon Realpolitik point of view. The desire to project American power into the middle East, dominate oil supplies, and counterweight Arab militant opposition to Israel in the Arab-Israeli dispute. (As a Jew with relatives in Israel, and a desire to see Israel survive, it is nevertheless clear even to me that American policy in this conflict has caused some of its intensity and destruction. I do not think it is necessary to arm Israel to the teeth to demand a fair outcome of the Arab-Israeli conflict..)

Re: Changing course in Iraq requires leadership (3.00 / 0) (#109)
by wclark on Aug 29, 2005 -- 06:12:33 PM EST

It's true that some are reacting against the U.S. presence, but it's also true that millions of Iraqis have put their trust and hope in U.S. actions to help promote a new Iraqi government. So we have to recognize all sides of the Iraqi issue. Were we to leave prematurely, we would have exposed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have been involved with the U.S. presence to retribution -- and worse.

Wes
WesPAC -- Securing America's Futur

Nothing is more American; nothing is more patriotic than speaking out, questioning authority and holding your leaders accountable. Wes Clark

Re: Changing course in Iraq requires leadership (4.00 / 1) (#86)
by nokona13 on Aug 29, 2005 -- 03:47:09 PM EST

General Clark, I strongly fear that the time has long passed when the very insightful plan you've outlined over the past few weeks in the press could have made any positive difference. You seem to think that time has not yet passed. I'd be very interested to hear what it is that you see that leads you believe this is true? With two years of chaos creating much suspicion and lawlessness on the streets, and a now deeply entrenched collection of jihadist and both Sunni and Shia natiionalist insurgents, along with the current breakdown of talks over the consititution with the Sunni leadership, I haven't been able to find much in current press accounts that lends much hope...

Re: Changing course in Iraq requires leadership (3.00 / 0) (#110)
by wclark on Aug 29, 2005 -- 06:14:00 PM EST

I believe that the nations in the region still have interests that can be worked if America provides the proper platform to encourage regional cooperation. I also believe that this process would both facilitate the emergence of a state in Iraq more compatible with our interests and values, and would facilitate a U.S. exit under acceptable circumstances. That's why I believe that the time has not yet passed, but the clock is certainly ticking.

Wes
WesPAC -- Securing America's Future

Nothing is more American; nothing is more patriotic than speaking out, questioning authority and holding your leaders accountable. Wes Clark

Re: Changing course in Iraq requires leadership (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by hf jai on Aug 29, 2005 -- 04:34:49 PM EST

Greetings General! Thank you for taking the time during your trip to answer our questions. Those of us who have been members of your blog at http://securingamerica.com/ccn used to having your direct and honest feedback on the issues of the day, but your continued efforts to reach out to a larger community are appreciated as well.

Considering how accurate your predictions on this war have been to date, you could please elaborate on what you think will happen in Iraq and and among its neighbors if we pull our troops out too soon or the wrong way? It often seems to me that members of the "Get out now" crowd sincerely believe that if we go away, the Iraqis will be able to settle everything for themselves, that the insurgency is directed solely at us and would disappear. What do you see as the potential for civil war, how and why do you think it could expand into the region, and, most importantly, do you think it's possible that the U.S. might be obligated to go back in to relieve the human suffering that could result from either?

[ Reply to This | Help Other Readers by Rating Comments ]
[new] Re: Changing course in Iraq requires leadership (5.00 / 1) (#108)
by wclark on Aug 29, 2005 -- 06:10:08 PM EST

Hi Jai--

Potential for civil war would be high were we to leave before there's an agreement and the militias disarm. But it might just not be civil war, because if that breaks out the Kurds would have to declare independence, which would likely bring in the Turks and Iranians as well.

The situation is fraught with problems. Not just the situation in Iraq, but the broader impact on U.S. prestige influence and power worldwide.

Wes
WesPAC -- Securing America's Future

Nothing is more American; nothing is more patriotic than speaking out, questioning authority and holding your leaders accountable. Wes Clark

It is so great to hear from you.

Don't you think it would be a good idea to return the reservists and national guardsmen to the USA? They have full time jobs and families. Do you think it would be preferable just to leave the regular military in Iraq? As you know, there is a shortage of national guardsmen to help people with Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana. I heard on the radio that about 1500 of them are in Iraq and that is a shame since they should be here helping us out. What are your thoughts about this?

Cloudy over there is full of wind, and foggy to boot. He is asking questions that Wes has answered again and again. Cloudy obviously has not read Clark's statements. His basic complaint is people who want to remain in Iraq but did not warn us in advance that it was a mistake. Despite posts to correct him, he continues the same rant without reading up anything. I get sick of people, right or left, who only spout the ideological line without knowing what the person they attack has said. Such ideological "purity" is seriously contaminated by setting up straw men rather than dealing with the actual facts.

Coudy should be foggy -- in the brain.

TPMCafe refuses to send me an email for my pasword and when I reregister I get nothing. It is a bummer. I want to give this head in the clouds cloudy a good trouncing. Oh, of course, others are doing a good job of it. But I want to get my licks in, too, by golly!

I don't know in the scheme of things where this post will appear, but I wonder: do y'all think a lot of peeps don't read or understand General Clark's premise, i.e., this is what SHOULD be done, and if not, peeps justified in seeking out of Iraq? Its called hypothetical!

Too many, IMO, say that Wes has missed the boat, etc., while he's done a great thing stating a suggested policy (to answer those, of course, who say critics/complainers/Dems have proposed nothing.

By one of the TMP Cafe front-page bloggers that might be worth you folks' time to comment on.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/30/0281/95654

******************
The General and the Critics
By Amileoj

Wesley Clark's first Table For One post elicited, as expected, a lot of commentary from Cafe denizens, much of it setting forth various questions and criticisms about his view that it is not too late for a "success strategy" in Iraq. Most of the questions and criticisms so far fall into three broad categories, two of which are, in my view, best left in the Cafe archives, but one of which clearly deserves more discussion.

Aug 30, 2005 -- 12:28:01 AM EST

In the first category are criticisms of the form: Your plan might be a good one, but there is no chance the Bush administration will implement anything like it. This is most likely true, but completely beside the point. Democrats are the opposition party. As such, our job is to demonstrate to our persuadable or non-aligned fellow and sister citizens that we stand ready to assume power, and the responsibilities that come with power. The best way to do this is to argue policy as if our voice will be decisive in the argument. Especially regarding foreign affairs, good politics and good policy are one and the same. Trying to spin our way into being trusted with the country's security is a fool's errand.

The next category of criticisms comprises those that are just plain wrong. We heard for instance from several commentors who insisted that the unwillingness to renounce permanent military bases in Iraq is a major political liability. This is an excellent point, but it is hardly a criticism of Gen. Clark's plan, since he explicitly endorsed the public foreswearing of permanent bases in his Washington Post Op-Ed. Some also charged the General with not defining what he means by "success" in Iraq. But he long ago stated his success criteria quite plainly:

Success means that Iraq is strong enough to sustain itself without outside forces but is no longer a threat to its neighbors; that representative government has taken root so Iraq can be a model for democratic hope in the Middle East; and that Iraqi society and the Iraqi economy are healthy enough so that Al Qaeda cannot recruit there.

One can obviously dispute that these are the right criteria, or how they should be measured and applied, but not that they add up to a tolerably explicit standard of success.

This leaves the third category of criticisms/questions -- the substantive ones that fully merit more discussion. There were several of these, but for me two stand out:

1. Several Cafe denizens asked some version of the question: How do we know (and do we know) that it is not too late for a success strategy in Iraq? Or, in a more pessimistic vein: How will we know when it has become too late? Is there some objective or empirical basis for thinking that the time for us to make a positive difference hasn't run out in Iraq and, if so, what is it? In providing assurance that there is still time for success, is Gen. Clark going on something other than the blind faith offered up by the administration? This is an especially acute question for those who have lost all (or never had any) patience with the administration's incantations about maintaining our will and resolve--a numerous class here at the Cafe.

2. A number of commentors (as previously several bloggers, notably Kevin Drum and Matthew Yglesias) in effect endorsed the soundness of the General's plan in principle, but then questioned its realism. Their point is not simply that George Bush won't voluntarily do any of the things that need to be done, but that these things are in fact beyond our present capabilities altogether--political, military and diplomatic: 10,000 Arab-American translators would be swell, but the volunteers are unlikely to be forthcoming; disarming the militias is a consummation devoutly to be wished, but there is no way to get there from here; enrolling Iraq's neighbors in a framework for regional cooperation, security and Iraqi reconstruction sounds great, but what could persuade them to sign on the dotted line at this late date? And so on.

I suspect that a large part of the General's answer here would come down to one word: leadership. And it could well be that what looks insuperably difficult to those of us grown inured to being led by the inept and the reckless, seems more tractable to one who knows from first-hand experience what real leadership looks like, and what it can do. But "leadership" remains a pretty ephemeral quality on which to hang one's support for a controversial policy, and I believe it would help alleviate the skepticism of many in the Cafe if Gen. Clark could speak to how some of the things he recommends could practically get done--perhaps by describing how similar things have gotten done in the past, in similarly challenging circumstances.

And that mention of the past brings me at last to my own question, which I didn't add to the comments thread of Gen. Clark's first post because it is a bit less directly driven by current affairs, and maybe a bit less immediately urgent than the issues that were on the table. But I would find it illuminating nonetheless to hear the General's views on it. It is this: What would a success strategy have looked like for Vietnam in, say, 1965? And as a corrollary: Was it ever too late for a success strategy there and, if not, what would one have looked like after 1968?

"Never underestimate what a determined soldier can accomplish when he's fighting for his country." -- General Wesley Clark