Clark speaks...eventually they listen
Submitted by Melange on November 28, 2005 - 8:34pm.
News and Links
From the Diaries -- Brent
We've all heard Clark stress the need for the US to engage Iraq's neighbors...to make them part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
Iraq's neighbors have an interest in meddling. Both Syria and Iran want to effect the outcome in Iraq and they want to effect the success of the American forces there.
Iran wants a buffer state, and Syria is basically playing a game against the United States. It's a serious tit-for-tat to get back at Washington's pressure and also to speak up on behalf of some of the Sunnis, because the Syrians, although they're allied in one way with Iran, they don't want Iran to take over Iraq. So, it's a regional competition. One of the things we have to avoid is the sort of tunnel vision focus on just the military and just Iraq, because it is a regional problem.
What we really need to do is work with the nations in the region, the other nations: Jordan, Syria and Iran, and convince them that they don't need to support the infiltration.
When Clark was on MTP, the other Generals claimed that we were already engaging Iran diplomatically...if so, then why is this news [snippets]:
U.S. President George W. Bush has authorized the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad to meet Iranian officials to help secure Iraq after the Pentagon starts withdrawing troops, Newsweek reported on Monday.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack confirmed the United States wanted to meet the Iranians to discuss issues related to Iraq but said discussions would not extend beyond that topic.
"I know that we have said in the past that we believe Iran and Iraq should have the kind of good relations that most neighbors enjoy, that those relations be governed by mutual respect and by transparency," McCormack said. "So we would expect nothing less from Iran with respect to Iraq.
Asked what prompted the "departure" from previous U.S. policy that Khalilzad mentioned, McCormack cited border control issues and "other things you might expect between" the Iraqi and Iranian governments.
He stressed that any meetings would not address other concerns the United States has with Iran.
Of course, I expect them to wholly mis-manage this diplomatic effort....they've already started off wrong (engaging only Iran, not Syria, Jordan, etc.) but hey, it's a start. If Clark keeps speaking out, maybe they'll (much belatedly) get on the right course.
but I'm afraid you can count on them buggering it up!
Wouldn't we all be better off if they'd just listen to Clark from the get-go?
the General means, let alone execute at that level is impossible for the admin yahoos, IMHO. And God forbid they should seek help fom the one source who can give this the best chance of working.
The General gets it right. Competence--What a concept!
...there is only one who has actually done it!
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
have blown window of opportunity
hands off/delegate it-------you do it rummy & condi---------has its limitations
(this presumes bush knew how important diplomacy was in the region---a doubtful proposition.)
WORST PRES. IN HISTORY
I agree that this administration should have listened to Clark since the get-go, but what about the Democratic party? Who's listening? Why won't they listen to a four-star general who knows what he is talking about? Instead, there are a bunch of Democrats out there with different plans, making a lot of noise and getting a lot of press coverage. I haven't heard many give Clark any credit. I think that's stupid and arrogant.
I listen to a lot of cable news, and over and over the hosts say the same thing - the Democrats don't have a voice or a cohesive strategy. Neither the press nor the Democrats themselves give Clark the credit he deserves. Meanwhile, the Republicans spin the "cut and run" strategy which Clark warned the Democrats about because of the perception of weakness which came from Vietnam. Clark speaks with conviction, and he would negotiate with a position of strength. But he can't get the recognition as long as the individual Democrats want to get their own plan out there, and the pundits won't even acknowledge that anything he says could possibly be a part of the Democratic strategy.
It's been frustrating for me to watch.
I've been listening to Air America and I can't stand the Jerry Springer commercial that basically taunts those who say we can't pull out immediately....and I like to read Kos, but they don't get it either - yesterday a poster who suggested (in a well-reasoned 3-page diary) that we need to stay in Iraq but change course got slaughtered. There were all sorts of flames demanding that s/he enlist or volunteer family members to enlist. Then, Kos put up a parsed (and thoroughly misconstrued) excerpt of each Dem "candidate's" position on Iraq. Basically, they're all saying the same thing - some more coherently than others....ALL saying what Clark has said all along. But, these armchair politicos/pundits think they know better how to wage war & conduct diplomacy better than the most decorated officer since Eisenhower and the only person to have waged war without the loss of a single American life in combat.
Ugh! It's incredibly frustrating.
But, these armchair politicos/pundits think they know better how to wage war & conduct diplomacy better than the most decorated officer since Eisenhower and the only person to have waged war without the loss of a single American life in combat.
I hear you loud and clear.
The tragedy is that some of the "politicos/pundits" you describe are running the country.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
to promote General Clark...he might just 'clean house' if elected.
Where in the world is Kevin Shelley?!?
That's exactly the reason some don't support him. They want to maintain their little fiefdoms at all cost
George Bush has had his day and he's bollixed it up.
they don't discredit the idea by screwing it up.