...that if nothing has changed in about six months, the American people will be justified in demanding that the troops come home.

That was a couple of months ago...maybe three.

If we're still "staying the course" without a new strategy, maybe we SHOULD get the hell out of Iraq if the lack of a new strategy leaves the situation hopeless.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?

I think I agree.

He should say, "Here's what we should do. But if we're not going to do those things, then this is what we should do."

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?

Wes said even longer ago this adm would start pulling troops out before 06 elections.  After Dec 15 I think we will see the adm tiptoeing them out ever so quietly, I also think some are leaving now, not to be replaced, and no one knows about it.  The reasons have been put in place by the adm to get out as many troops as possible and declare victory.  "They" have been dribbling them out over the past few weeks.  When they do, Iraq will fall, fall into the hands of Iran.  Civil war, ethnic cleansing, regional war.  Wes is warning the country what is going to happen just like he did before these a-holes went in. 

He has given us a tough job convincing the "get out now" crowd, that's for sure.  I had just gotten the ones I talk to convinced why we couldn't cut and run.  Looking for something to explain why Wes is right in this OP Ed is difficult.  It's because most don't understand what we created and the ramifications of leaving.  But then....maybe we don't have to.  The adm is going to do what it is going to do regardless.......and a long way down the road sometime we'll hear the words somewhat like what  Bill Hemmer(?) uttered a couple weeks ago about Wes' testimony in front of Congress before the "strategic blunder" only it will be, "General Wes you were right about pulling out of Iraq".

Anyway, that's my view after a strong cup of tea this AM. 

I'm one of those 'liberals' except I'm generally on Wes's side.  And, heck, I'll just say it--so are many others on here, at least if you go by the full spectrum of varied stated political and policy positions on the board.  I realize that "liberal" has become something of a dirty word, but I have refused to give it up because progressives and populists are generally further out there on the left than I am.  And I've been looking back at old discussions and until very recently (until they got a hint that he wouldn't) most on here took the approach that Wes was likely to and needed to come up with a Plan B sometime soon.

Every word he says is gold--if only he--not Bush--were in charge.  I've been among those "liberals" who thought we should attempt to live up to our responsibilities as a country and try to get some good for everyone out of Bush's worst stupid mistake. 

But that commitment is not, nor should it be, I feel, absolutely limitless as to time.  We are doing too much damage to ourselves and to Iraqis for this to be true.  I cannot support years and years of bloodshed and years and years of deficit spending while ignoring domestic concerns.  I can support a gradual withdrawal designed to protect Iraq from falling into civil war.  I can support every tiny advance we make diplomatically or politically --even if--indeed especially if--it has to be done in an extragovernmental manner--such as Wes's trip to Qatar.

Wes himself said a couple of years ago that this effort had, at best, only a 50-50 chance of having a good outcome in our terms, and in my opinion, those chances have lessened dramatically in the last year and a half.  I think the Bush administration has screwed things up so totally that the chances have gone way way down.  If we could roll back time and implement Wes's plan from the beginning (asumming for the sake of argument only that there would even be a begnning) all would likely be well.  But we cannot, I think, just wait 'till 2008 to get Wes or another Democrat in charge.  Implementing Wes's plan after years of Bush bumbling and and our troops being the long-term irritant embedded under the skin of Iraqis just won't work at that late date.

When you factor in the small likelihood of a good outcome with the bloodshed I mention above, with the deficit spending, and with the harm to our military, I don't think this effort is worth an unlimited commitment.  And so far Wes has not disassociated himself from an unlimited commitment. 

I don't care so much about a timeline as I do 1.) some immediate if small movement towards getting us out of there and 2.) some acknowledgement of the fact that the probabilites are not on our side as to an outright win and thus the acknowledgement also that a Plan B is needed.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/2906

All one can ever do in any situation is minimize the negative and maximize the positive.  I don't know nearly enough to judge Clark' plan, but assume it is reasonable.  But what everyone seems to miss is Clark's plan involes pulling troops out of Iraq.  He only allocates 50,000 troops and specifically points out 30,000 can leave very soon.  The plan seems to agree largely with the plan Juan Cole suggested a month or so ago.
But I really agree with your complaint of liberals saying none of this matters as long as Bush is in charge so we should just bring the troops home.  I'm not sure if the assumption is we can get Bush to pull out the troops but not something complex, or if we shouldn't suggest anything that takes more than four words to explain.

There is no chance that Bush will adopt Clark's strategy or something similar.

Nor is there a chance that we will withdraw our troops in a meaningful way. (He'll bring a token number back for the elections, but after November, he will find an excuse to continue.)

So I think we're stuck.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?

Preface – I’m 55, male, and actively campaigned for WC in the Dem Primary.

General Clark, you are focusing on valid assessments, such as an emergent and aggressive Iran, but you continue to miss the point on how to re-deploy US troops from Iraq. In essence you are suggesting only a variation on the President’s “mission”, which continues to be undefined.  You do provide some specifics, which have been offered for much of the occupation (such as securing borders), but your argument still requires a cohesive central government that can enforce its authority prior to our leaving.  Further, you view the limiting of Islamic influences over the government as something WE can achieve, which we cannot do.  

You seem to stand with prevailing Washington rhetoric which uses the meaningless phrase “we will not cut and run”. What exactly would we be cutting? Is the expectation that our troops will not leave Iraq until we can parade out with cheering Iraqis on both sides of the column from Mosul to Basra?  As Congressman Murtha pointed out, 80% of Iraqis want us out. They neither like us nor trust us, but neither have they understood what is happening around them. To think that in the end we will do anything other than skulk out the back door is like expecting bread to rise without yeast.  Further, it is gross speculation to assume that we will be able to control the internal dynamics of Iraq after we leave by what we do before we leave.  It is easier to argue that we are the catalyst against our own best interest.  

The only plan that can work is the one that states that the “mission” is for all US troops to be re-deployed out of Iraq. Therein policy can be created, compromises hammered out, and support secured. The Iraqi people will never support the American occupation in any fashion, but more importantly they will never support any government created under US control.  Only the clearly defined disengagement of US troops will provide a degree of independence for any fledgling government that may allow it to survive, and might break the impasse the United States has built with the international community.

yeah, wes did leave the "option" that the problem possibly cannot be fixed in his statements...but the bailout option was never the "focus" of those statements, and that was obviously wise given his can-do stance...

although it seems possible that wes' plan for US troop deployment on the iranian border will end up alienating our opportunist allies, iraqi-shiites...there is no doubt that oil revenues, dispersed evenly, could unite the factions in iraq under one (disparate) flag. the iraqi shiites are arab, different ethnically fron iranian shiites, and if they owned their share of oil revenues, iran wouldnt have any pull on them. as far as theocracies go, forget it, thats what will emerge no matter what democratic overlay is placed on-top of the indigenous system. one note: its almost as if wes avoids mention of bosnia/herzegovina, and he has expertise there, because there are definately ethnic parallels in Bosnia, with the influencial border states, ethnic groups, religion, broken systems, etc.

I'm really having a problem with this. Wes is brilliant, don't get me wrong. But there's no way in hell Bush will change the course and do anything right, because the whole reason for us being in Iraq is wrong. There's nothing for us to win there. We need to stop the slaughter of American soldiers.

Southwest jet skidded off Midway runway, into an intersection, hitting a car. Looks like REAL snow, there.

Wes getting even more front and center on this issue.  The New York Times op-ed is a great start, and Wes will likely earn some kudos from the center, and even the left, for not simply following political fashion and doing the obvious thing here.  BUT...I think it would be terribly valuable here if Wes did whatever he could to grab the spotlight now, and raise these questions now before things deteriorate further.

There has been a lot of press about the need for Democrats to come up with visible leadership on issues.  These are unfortunately predicated on the assumption that unified leadership is possible in a party that is completely out of power.  Leaders EMERGE in such an environment.  And I honestly believe that this issue, and Wes' proposal, would be a great addition to the ongoing discussion--a "middle way" out of this mess tha Bush has made.

However, the truth is that such a proposal is unlikely to be taken seriously by Bush, who is stubborn and sticks to his circle of idiots for advice.  The gains of agressively advancing this strategy would be:

1. The outside chance that it is heeded.

2. Giving notice that something else COULD have been done, but not relying on hindsight the way the Democrats in Congress are disengenuously doing now.

Specifically, I think that Wes should really stick this plan out there now.  He should meet with Murtha and discuss his plan, and see if he can get him on board--THAT would instantly bring attention to Wes' plan.  I can't imagine that Murtha wouldn't give him an ear.  In doing so, Wes would IMMEDIATELY raise his public visibility, and would have a fighting chance to force the Bush Administration to consider his proposals. 

At worst Wes would be inoculating himself against being blamed for the likely debacle of a rushed withdrawal from Iraq as well.  It may well be a lost cause, but the rush for withdrawal by the Dems has some political risk as well if a full-blown civil war results.  It could get pretty ugly--the least we can do is our best.