www.clarkbuttons.com (did I mention they're free?)

bush has FUBRred the mission. it will take proper re-definition and execution to get the troops home as soon as possible.

sadly, bush got us into a mess, based on lies, which he hasn't a clue what to do with. to take all troops out now may create a power vacuum  which may draw many more US forces into the region in the future. we just don't know. and bush SURELY doesn't know.

sadly, bush does not have the intellectual honesty to listen to the General, and will most likey screw things up.

I feel the way you do, but General Clark is trying to best advise based on the given situation. (I wrote bush and senators before the war to defer military action. sen chaffee and senator reed voted against it. you know what bush did)

my comments all the way through.  I confirmed what you posted.   

But you have summed it up pretty well. Part of my discomfort with today's op ed springs from my memory of Vietnam when one plan after another failed to "change the course" or even point in a sure direction. That said: I agree with him that turning Iraq over to Iran is just plain stupid beyond belief. The militias must be disarmed because that is intrinsically tied to the Iranian problem. Which in turn leads to the Sunni/Shia tensions. 
There is something that gives me hope; the Shia are not a united force, either for religious rule or behind any one religious leader. Some do want to ally with Iran, but others don't. It will come down to the Iraqi government, the Iraqi people, and how much they want to remain a country. 
Someone on another forum has said that General Clark is behind the curve, that the American people have left him in his thinking. Who knows? I do know that many a supporter, some of them from the early draft, are either quite confused today or announcing their departure. 
I'll stay in your camp...I'm still here.

You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley 

I read his op-ed and thought it refreshing. I knew the "out of Iraq now" folks wouldn't like it, but the numbers he's talking about for troops staying in Iraq are a reduction. He's talking about Iraqis doing their own policing and military with our support, which is a no brainer...people in Iraq need to see Iraqi and perferably their neigbors faces on these forces to build trust with them. The big point is about containing Iran. The rest of it is about tweaking. Granted, it's volitile difficult tweaking, but it's still tweaking.

My feelings exactly.

George Bush has had his day and he's bollixed it up.

that the plight of innocent Iraqi civilians is heartwrenching.  I can barely stand the thought of what is going on over there.  But the most pressing issue Americans have to deal with right now, and have always had a problem dealing with, is wanting a quick fix.  I'm among them.  Where I'm not among them is with their intolerance of ambiguity.  In that they're just like Bush.  The world's just too complex to be reduced to black and white.  But I know a lot of us are agonizing over what is the best course to support.  Since I don't know the answer, I'll listen to Clark.

I like your first post, mgm.   I get the general sense that we're all conflicted with our  notion of "war",  because we innately know, it's wrong. When exercised as a policy first resort , Bush projects its morbid reality --- the  failures of humanity, diplomacy and leadership in a modern civilzation.  Unfortunately, Bush has waged a war against the values that we honor, as a nation; and why his strategy leads to greater civil conflicts.

In contrast, I believe that Clark distinguishes himself in this debate. 

Truthfully, Clark articulates why we wage war for the values that we honor and defend, as a nation; and why his strategy leads to civil order and peace.   Even with some reservation and apprehension, it's why I trust Clark's strategy to change course; and particularly, why I'm confident of his abilities to restore our mission and our image abroad.

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

"Debate, Dialogue, Discussion, Disagreement - that's not wrong -that's not unpatriotic, that's one of the highest forms of patriotism and love of country, and we need to say it!" - Gen. Wesley Clark (US Ret.)

I wrote to Clark in another thread and said it is a good plan, but, who's going to execute it properly?  Also, it may be too late already.

Related threads:

• http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/2903
• http://securingamerica.com/ccn/blog/175

...when bush first announce that he didn't need a new resolution from the UN; that existing one granted him the right to go to war, I was then posting at the now defunct American Prospect forum. We started a thread to collect all clues (articles buried on page 23--down in the lower corner--ya hnow) that kept us informed about what the simian was up to. It must have around April or March that the pieces started arriving. Anyway, we named the thread: "The Forever War." We knew then, and I still believe, that blowing up a hornets nest in a votile region sitting on top half the world's oil supply, was not a situation that could be turned around with "oops" as you walked away. There is no walking away from this mess for so many reasons, all of which should have been considered before the IWR vote. 
That said, I have no faith--none what so ever--that bush will take any heed of Clark's words. 

You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley 

Yes, and I think others have said, too, that he needs to repeat in stark terms what will happen if we pull out too soon.  That's what's missing here, since his warning about Iran may not be loud enough for most to hear.  I just wish I didn't have such vivid memories of Viet Nam, which is really my only frame of reference.  My brother served there and came back drastically changed.  And he's never really recovered.

For many months you have been saying that the "window of opportunity" is still open in Iraq.

You have repeatedly given sound advice (that has, of course, been ignored by the Bumbler in Chief and his henchmen) as to what needs be done to hold that window open for just a little longer. but you have not defined the indicators that will proceed the deafening crash that will occur when it slams shut.

Week after week the violence escalates.

Day after day coalition troops and innocent Iraqis are killed and maimed in the name of George Bush's War on Terror...a war built on lies and duplicity...a war the PNACers have licked their chops over for years...all they needed was that "Pearl Harbor Moment".

General Clark, I know you are so much wiser than me in the ways of the world of politics and war. I supported your run for Commander In Chief...heck I was a draft member...so I want with all my heart to understand your reasons for saying,"Still, none of this necessitates a pullout until the job is done."

Exactly what is "the job" General Clark? Have we ever really known?

Your op ed is peppered with "Iraq needs tos" and "the administration shoulds". And I agree, in a perfect world those things you talk about would most likely lead to peace and tranquility all around eventually.

Alas, the world is not perfect...and George Bush is the "leader" of the free world.

Help me to understand why the window you speak of is still open...help me understand that your reasoning is more than that of a career military man who never wants to leave a mission unfinished.

When does the window close?

I'm so happy to read this blog, as I expect that this is one of the reasons for our newly modified format. You've taken mgm's letter as a jumping-off point, and when General Clark reads it all he'll have great info about responses to his current thinking.

The American people (and the dim bulb Dems) need to be told what the ramifications are of pulling out of Iraq now, in six months, in a year(?).........they do not understand what is at stake.  From the way General Wes sounds and as hard as he is working to give "them" a strategy, it must be unthinkable.  Worse than what is happening now.  Much worse.

And....I'd say that window is going to close sometime right around December 15.  Just a guess. 

for people's comments and agonizing about Wes's position and plan for Iraq, I would like to ask, "how many of you were in Qatar recently, talking and discussing Iraq and the Middle East with experts - and residents -  from that very same region? How many of you have consistently won awards and recognition for strategic planning at the highest levels of the military? How many of you have spent a lifetime devoted to the protection of this country?"  I think Wes Clark is more than qualified to present the changes that are necessary to bring a reasonable conclusion to something that belies all attempts at sensible reasoning. A helluva lot more qualifed that than this know-nothing schnook (me) from the middle of the country, that's for sure. As a long-time supporter since the Draft Clark movement, he certainly speaks for me.

In spite of all our doubts and worries about Iraq we, to a person, wish this nightmare hadn't happened. Unfortunately, it did - and now we have to suffer the consequences.  Wes points out with remarkable clarity what those consequences will be and how difficult it will be to manage a " happy face" on those results. Thanks to the blindness and greed of BushCo, we are truly in that fearsome place, "caught between a rock and a hard place; damned if you do and damned if you don't" and all those familiar similar cliches.

I, as much as anyone, want all our troops home now, but that's a dream unlikely to happen. For one thing, it would take months (years?) to dismantle and remove all the supplies and equipment. So, if we start now, or in six months or a year, our departure from Iraq will, under any circumstances, be several years away. In the meantime, Wes has described what should be happening to insure some semblance of balance of power and security in that entire region. It's not just about Iraq; that's what people have to realize.

 If I could change or add one thing to his op-ed, I would say the "mission," whatever it was originally - and that's still a mystery - has to be clarified and changed to something relevant to the times. I would suggest something like, Rebuild Iraq, Resurrect Iraq, Iraq for Iraqis or whatever, to suggest that our goal now is truly to get this browbeaten country safe, secure, and INDEPENDENT of our troops and the greedy Halliburtons and Bush's of the world. And this can't be done by kicking down doors, harassing and killing innocent civilians, and torturing those in our custody. As Wes has said, "you don't win friends by killing their relatives."

It's sort of like, this is a whole new ball game. We definitely need new players.

Why?

My cynical side says it is too late. My cynical side says, just like in Vietnam, we cannot get people to accept democracy when every surrounding nation has rejected the notion. My cynical side says we should just bring them home. So it's not pleasant to hear otherwise. But, like you, I am coming to grips with the fact that we own this problem and that we should exhaust every possible solution before giving up. The question is, is our leadership open to a Plan B? Let's hope so.

In the meantime, I'll continue to hope that we bring our troops home in speedy fashion. But with a happier ending for the Iraqi people than they now face.

Well said, mgm.  I had the same reaction to the op-ed piece.  I know in my heart that leaving will be worse than staying now that we are in this mess, but where do we go from here, when is it hopeless?  What the he$$ is the "mission" and how do we accomplish it?  Sadly, General Clark cannot answer any of these questions-if they were answered by these Dim Wits, then he could help put a decent success strategy in place.  We have opened Pandora's box and now have no clue what to do.  It does feel like Vietnam--only MUCH worse.

"I would like to ask, "how many of you were in Qatar recently, talking and discussing Iraq and the Middle East with experts - and residents -  from that very same region?"

It may be of interest that I asked much that same question at dKos last night, and I quoted some of the Qatar article.  My point was that there is no one else in the Democratic party who is qualified to discuss Iraq with the authority of General Clark.  I, like most Clark supporters, am quick to correct and defend when I read something on other sites about Clark that is untrue.  I think the most important thing we can do now, in terms of his possible '08 candidacy, is to keep the record straight and his positions clear.  And I hoped for feedback such as yours when I posted this blog.    

My summary on dKos. What do we say to folks?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/6/18292/1716#13

Wes Blogging on CCN - or was until a bit ago.

See what Wes answered to questions about his OpEd here:

http://securingamerica.com/...

I will try to summarize what he said.

He said the window of opportunity is not quite closed. We have committments in the Middle East that go beyond Iraq but which can be undermined by failure there.

Negatively stated, there are two windows of opportunity left.

1. As long as we can influence the political process. He put this window at about 4 months after the election.

2. As long as the Iraqis do not ask us to leave. If they do we have no legitimate interest there under any circumstances and staying would be occupation.

As long as these windows are open we have 3 military objectives which were stated in the OpEd.

However, if the windows close, then "draw back" is necessary. He gives us about 4 months after the election. A draw back would take at a minumum 4 months logistically (citing our draw back from the first Gulf War).

So there is a time table of a sorts:

If after 4 months the political situation is untenable and we are asked to leave, this would put us at late summer in the run up to the election. I would suspect that after about 4 months from the election Wes would then articulate the pull back position, say late Spring or early summer - in time for the election.
====
Two points I would make:

1. First, Wes says it like he sees it. Political ambition aside since he well knows the feelings of a potencial constituency run counter to what he is saying. Yet he speaks from his knowledge and sense of strategic aims in the Middle East of which he is a master.

2. Secondly, we know Bush will not follow Wes's advice and so by late Spring Wes will be telling us how to "pull back". Again, this is his strategic estimation not a political ploy -- yet it shows us that impatient as we are, he will set it straight well before the election.

He is worth listening to and he knows of what he speaks. And we will hear him articulate his pull back plan when the window closes in a few months.

Noel

So far Democrats seem to be headed toward the Murtha Strategy, which I admit at first sounded great, but I've been thinking about it, a lot, and the more I think about it the more potential problems I see, not with Murtha, but with the strategy. Namely the Fallujah factor.

When the contractors were killed in Fallujah last Spring the military moved to take down the terrorists who did it. But the attack was halted mainly due to political concerns. 7 months later once Bush was reelected the attack was restarted, but the insurgents had months to fortify. We paid the price for that delay in American lives, and that's my fear with the Murtha plan. Nothing against Murtha, but I have almost no doubt this will be a repeat of Fullujah on a much larger scale if we follow the Murtha plan. The insurgents know our weaknesses now, they have had time to figure out what works *IEDs* and what doesn't *hand held anti tank weapons*.

We all know that if we do go before the government is ready Iraq will implode shortly there after, there aren't 40 battalions of Iraqi security forces who can fight the insurgents without American support, more like 4 if that. When we go back in with the rapid responce force we will be facing an enemy that is fortified and knows our strengths and weaknesses. I don't know if we'd make it to Najaf let alone Baghdad with 20,000 troops, even if we did it would certainly be a bloody mess.

There are two possible outcomes as I see it now, we change the course and an Iraqi state is built, or we withdraw and the Iranians get a territorial extension, and we have to come back later. My first instinct is I want to jump on board and support the Murtha strategy, but as a practical function I have my doubts, I can forsee a lot of bloodshed, and I haven't been this dubious since this whole mess got started.

I think in the end any option at this point isn't going to be perfect, it was an imperfect situation to begin with. We made a lot of mistakes along the way, and now our options are limited because of waiting so long. I personally think Wes is making the right call on this one in terms of strategy, somehow I feel it will cost him dearly politically at least in the short term, but it is the right thing to do.

In the long term if they do listen Wes will come of looking like the hero he is, and if they don't listen we'll remind everyone that Wes said this is excatly what would happen. The last big thing everyone was jumping on board for was the invasion, and that didn't turn out so well, and Wes didn't buy into that. I have faith that Wes is right this time as well, I just hope for the troops sake that someone in power will listen to him.

I do need to know though at this point what the back up plan is, things have been messed up so badly that if things do go downhill in a hurry we need a strategy to handle that. If that window snaps shut it's going to shut with a bang, either in civil war or the Iraqi's decide they want us out in a hurry following the next elections. It may happen given the widespread corruption in the police forces, there are reports of Iranian inflitration into the police forces and I expect there to be election tampering. And if the Iranian do it get Iraq how do we keep them from spreading further?

I won't second guess the General if he says otherwise, but I would certainly feel more comfortable knowing there is a back up strategy and knowing what it is, and it will certainly help on Kos to have that to remind people that he is aware of how dire the situation is and has a plan should Bush fail to enact his plan.

Politically, I think the NYT op-ed was brilliant.  The Repubs and the MSM say that Democrats don't have a strategy?  Well, here's one--and one that in no way can be characterized as cut-and-run.  And, when Bush does none of the things called for, the Repubs can be called to task for not changing to what could, perhaps, have been a last-chance strategy for success.
Strategically, I have more misgivings.  I'll freely concede everything that Wes says about Iran, plus their new President is a real piece of work.  And I'm incompetent to even think about the force levels described.  And let's stipulate that, against all odds, Bush makes every change on our side that the op-ed calls for. Two and a half years ago, this really could have been the makings of a strategy for success.  
Now?  I have to say I'm more than dubious.  By now, willingly or not, any attentive person has learned a lot about Iraqi realities--the foremost of which is that we have already and decisively lost the battle for hearts and minds.  But beyond that, consider Wes' recommendations for Iraqi action: Enforce the ban on armed militias?  The militias, already the Praetorian Guard for each faction, are morphing into the army, the Interior forces and the police.  Oil revenues back to the center?  Why--and in exchange for what?  Modification of the federal concept?  When it was a sine qua non for the Kurds and then, once invented, it was attractive to Hakim, the head of SCIRI and one of the largest factions with in the United Iraqi Alliance?  Only Sistani himself could stop the segmentation of Iraq at this point.  Reduce sectarian influence?  When religious parties are going to be dominant in the new Parliament, and Sadr is on-board within the UIA?  Representation of all ethnicities?  When they're increasingly not just distrusted, but loathed?
And finally, where's the wisdom--in this administration?  Where's the bipartisan leadership--particularly in the House?  Where are the elected leaders who percieve any need to change course?  And is it not already too late?