I'm sure alot of you have all seen the early version of the slam against Clarks editorial on Iraq. They seem to be somewhat coordinated from somewhere as they generally list the same talking points. I will list them and what I have come up with so far as responses to them point by point. If anyone has any better ideas please let me know.

Their talking points followed by my response

1)Work with Iraq's neighbors- How is this possible, when the neighborhood consists of varying motives, each of which has a bias for/against the various factions. Sounds good, but history is showing that wishful.

Just this sunday Kuwait and Iran met together looking at how to releave tensions in Iraq. So even though Bush doesn't want Iran involved, Iran is showing that they are interested in solving the problem. It's not complex to see how all the parties have an interest on keeping things in Iraq from spilling over into their own countries.

Iran and Turkey have no desire for an independent Kurdish state, as it would spark revolts in their border provinces.

Kuwait has no desire to have its virtually non existant military overwhelmed by militants just across the border.

Saudi Arabia's new king is still worrying about gaining complete control over his own country and doesn't need the local Sunni's rising up in support of the Iraqi Sunnis.

Jordan has no Oil and has always relied on cheap oil from it's neighbour Iraq.

Syria has no desire to see the Sunnis in western Iraq dominated by an Iranian puppet state.

They all have a desires to see an Iraq more favourable to them. However they all probably understand how Iraq could be a place very detrimental to their own rule at home. This is how you get them to sit down and work on a solution.

2)Clark wants a legal mandate from the government to legitimize American forces- I can't think of a better way to embolden the insurgents and further cement the imperalist cries.

I don't understand how being their legally by international law would some how illicit more ill will against us than being their by default.

3)Military support from Canada, France, Germany- What in the last 30 months makes anyone see the realism in this proposal?

Clark is talking about other countries being involved with training of the Iraqi police and military forces. This can be done without puting one single Canadian, German or French solidier on the ground in Iraq, How you ask? Well the same way we have already been doing it ourselves with a small number of iraqis, by bringing them to our or their country.

4)Reduce the jihadist infiltration by using technology and heightened patrols along the border- Has he been to the Mexico border lately? Is this a practical reality?

Do you realize we currently have very small numbers of soldiers responsible for hundreds of miles of borders in Iraq? Sure it's hard to keep a 100% lockdown but currently they could drive a convoy of trucks across the border and unless the americans happened to be in that area that day no one would know about it. NPR has a story on this recently with an interview with an officer. Basically the unit he had (~100) he felt were incapable of covering the area (100+ miles) he was responsible for effectively.

5)Turnover peacekeeping to the Iraqis and have Americans in a supporting role only- This is the same line Rummy and Bushco have been sending the last two years. Obviously, the Iraqis are not in a position to secure the country, otherwise we might actually be in the midst of withdrawal. Nothing on the horizon suggest this proposal is realistic.

Where do you find this in his proposal? He states it as a long term goal. But a cut and run strategy by default states that in it's goals.

My answers are based on my interpretation of what I have seen Clark write here and at other sites. If you think I'm wrong on something please point that out as well.
I've seen a few versions of this floating around for a couple of days and I think it would be good to build up a response to them.