http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33857660/ns/msnbc_tv-the_ed_show/

'The Ed Show' for Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Read the transcript to the Tuesday show

Guests: Eric Massa, Clint Van Zandt, Jack Jacobs, Peter Orszag, Rep. John Garamendi, Ernest Istook, Laura Flanders, Gen. Wesley Clark, Roy Sekoff

ED SCHULTZ, HOST:  "In my playbook tonight, yesterday, there were reports that President Obama had finally made a decision on Afghanistan.  But the White House insists they‘re not true.  The president has another meeting with military and civilian advisers tomorrow. 

Joining me now is General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander and senior fellow at the UCLA Berkeley Center for International Relations.  General, good to see you again.  Good to have you with us. 

GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET), FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER:  Thanks, Ed.  Good to be with you. 

SCHULTZ:  If the report was true and if it‘s in the neighborhood of 40,000 troops, what does that mean outside of the fact that it‘s a major commitment?  How would you view that? 

CLARK:  It‘s already a major commitment.  The real problem, Ed, is everybody is talking about troop numbers and what we should be talking about is what‘s the mission and then what‘s the strategy to get there?  We really are not quite clear on the mission. 

It‘s pretty clear we can‘t make Afghanistan the 51st state.  So what‘s the mission there?  I thought the mission was to go after al Qaeda, but al Qaeda is in Pakistan.  We keep talking about Afghanistan.  I keep asking, what‘s going on in Pakistan?  They say the Pakistanis are committed to this offensive.  There‘s 38,000 Pakistani troops.  That‘s great. 

They have an army of 400,000 people and they are not about to be attacked by India.  We already have 68,000 Americans in Afghanistan.  Why can‘t they do the same thing in their own country?  It‘s their country.  I‘m worried about Pakistan. 

SCHULTZ:  Based on what you know about Afghanistan, no one militarily has had any measurable success there for a long, long time.  How big a gamble is this, in your professional opinion? 

CLARK:  I‘m very concerned about it because I see a lot of similarities to Vietnam.  There are ways you can win in a counter-insurgency.  We concentrated those troops in Baghdad and that‘s where the surge was.  It was small enough.  We had enough force dominance there, with the intelligence and so forth, and a lot of the fighting had been done. 

But Afghanistan‘s totally different.  And we don‘t—I haven‘t been on the inside to ask all the tough questions I‘d like to ask to the generals and to the diplomats and to the economists.  But you have to succeed in this by diplomacy, by economics, by politics, and by the military. 

What we know is that this is a very big country.  The Taliban is all through it.  So 40,000 troops represents, even though a bigger investment, still a compromise.  I mean, this country‘s three times larger than Vietnam.  It‘s got twice the population.  And we had 550,000 Americans in Vietnam at the height of the commitment there. 

So this does not seem like a big troop commitment compared to the size of the country and the task.  The real question is, what‘s the mission and what‘s the strategy? 

SCHULTZ:  General Wesley Clark, always a pleasure.  Great to have you with us tonight. 

CLARK:  Thank you.

SCHULTZ:  You bet..."

*sigh* I miss the '04 days. Clark in '12!

"Just so we're reminded of the ones who are held back, up front there ought to be a Man In Black."
-Johnny Cash