The Next Iraq Offensive
Submitted by Wes Clark on December 6, 2005 - 4:59pm.
Reprinted with permission.
By Gen. (ret.) Wesley Clark
New York Times
December 6, 2005
Doha, Qatar
While the Bush administration and its critics escalated the debate last week over how long our troops should stay in Iraq, I was able to see the issue through the eyes of America's friends in the Persian Gulf region. The Arab states agree on one thing: Iran is emerging as the big winner of the American invasion, and both President Bush's new strategy and the Democratic responses to it dangerously miss the point. It's a devastating critique. And, unfortunately, it is correct.
While American troops have been fighting, and dying, against the Sunni rebels and foreign jihadists, the Shiite clerics in Iraq have achieved fundamental political goals: capturing oil revenues, strengthening the role of Islam in the state, and building up formidable militias that will defend their gains and advance their causes as the Americans draw down and leave. Iraq's neighbors, then, see it evolving into a Shiite-dominated, Iranian buffer state that will strengthen Tehran's power in the Persian Gulf just as it is seeks nuclear weapons and intensifies its rhetoric against Israel.
The American approach shows little sense of Middle Eastern history and politics. As one prominent Kuwaiti academic explained to me, in the Muslim world the best way to deal with your enemies has always been to assimilate them - you never succeed in killing them all, and by trying to do so you just make more enemies. Instead, you must woo them to rejoin society and the government. Military pressure should be used in a calibrated way, to help in the wooing.
If this critique is correct - and it is difficult to argue against it - then we must face its implications. "Staying the course" risks a slow and costly departure of American forces with Iraq increasingly factionalized and aligned with Iran. Yet a more rapid departure of American troops along a timeline, as some Democrats are calling for, simply reduces our ability to affect the outcome and risks broader regional conflict.
We need to keep our troops in Iraq, but we need to modify the strategy far more drastically than anything President Bush called for last week.
On the military side, American and Iraqi forces must take greater control of the country's borders, not only on the Syrian side but also in the east, on the Iranian side. The current strategy of clearing areas near Syria of insurgents and then posting Iraqi troops, backed up by mobile American units, has had success. But it needs to be expanded, especially in the heavily Shiite regions in the southeast, where there has been continuing cross-border traffic from Iran and where the loyalties of the Iraqi troops will be especially tested.
We need to deploy three or four American brigades, some 20,000 troops, with adequate aerial reconnaissance, to provide training, supervision and backup along Iraq's several thousand miles of vulnerable border. And even then, the borders won't be "sealed"; they'll just be more challenging to penetrate.
We must also continue military efforts against insurgent strongholds and bases in the Sunni areas, in conjunction with Iraqi forces. Over the next year or so, this will probably require four to six brigade combat teams, plus an operational reserve, maybe 30,000 troops.
But these efforts must go hand-in-glove with intensified outreach to Iraqi insurgents, to seek their reassimilation into society and their assistance in wiping out residual foreign jihadists. Iraqi and American officials have had sporadic communications with insurgent leaders, but these must lead to deeper discussions on issues like amnesty for insurgents who lay down their arms and opportunities for their further participation in public and private life.
Iraq, for its part, must begin to enforce the ban on armed militias that was enshrined in the new Constitution, especially in the south. Ideally, this should be achieved voluntarily, through political means. But American muscle will have to be made available as a last resort. The Iraqi government should request that for the next two years, six to eight American brigades serve as a backup, available as a last resort if there is trouble in cities with large militia factions like Baghdad, Basra and Najaf. And it is vital that the Pentagon provide our forces with better crowd-control training and many more translators than they have now.
As important as these military changes are, they won't matter at all unless our political strategy is rethought. First, the Iraqis must change the Constitution as quickly as possible after next week's parliamentary elections. Most important, oil revenues should be declared the property of the central government, not the provinces. And the federal concept must be modified to preclude the creation of a Shiite autonomous region in the south.
Also, a broad initiative to reduce sectarian influence within government institutions is long overdue. The elections, in which Sunnis will participate, will help; but the government must do more to ensure that all ethnic and religious groups are represented within ministries, police forces, the army, the judiciary and other overarching federal institutions.
And we must start using America's diplomatic strength with Syria and Iran. The political weakness of Bashar al-Assad opens the door for significant Syrian concessions on controlling the border and cutting support for the jihadists. We also have to stop ignoring Tehran's meddling and begin a public dialogue on respecting Iraqi independence, which will make it far easier to get international support against the Iranians if (and when) they break their word.
Yes, our military forces are dangerously overstretched. Recruiting and retention are suffering; among retired officers, there is deep concern that the Bush administration's attitude on the treatment of detainees has jeopardized not only the safety of our troops but the moral purpose of our effort.
Still, none of this necessitates a pullout until the job is done. After the elections, we should be able to draw down by 30,000 troops from the 160,000 now there. Don't bet against our troops.
What a disaster it would be if the real winner in Iraq turned out to be Iran, a country that supports terrorism and opposes most of what we stand for. Surely, we can summon the wisdom, resources and bipartisan leadership to change the American course before it is too late.
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?
cross posted from mgm's blog
Here's my thinking. This is really the first time I have tried to formulate this, so consider this as a draft that I may have to come back and amend somewhat. But let me put the bottom line up front: No, it's not yet too late to try to straighten out the policy and strategies in Iraq and the region.
The first window closes when we've lost the ability to influence the Iraqis politically. Because you really can't win militarily. So, the trick is to use the military presence and the economic asssitance to create the political leverage on the Iraqis to change the constitution, reduce the sectarianism, readmit the insurgents, etc....when there's no ability left to influence them, then the first window has closed....(for example, there's a four month window after the election when the consitution can be changed by majority vote, which may be one of the key factors driving the timing)...at that point, we have to look at our other interests in the region, and assess whether staying in Iraq helps or harms them...those other interests include the terrorists, (Al Qaeda), and Iran's nuclear and hegemonic ambitions, and whether our presence there is overall doing us more harm than good. The second window closes if they tell us to leave. At that point, staying is tantamount to invading.
and , unfortunately, I suspect there's a descent chance of that, how do we open another?
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
over just about anyone else's finished product.
I'll keep my eye out for the refinements as they arrive LOL.
Just so there's no doubt...you still have my full support in your effort to turn this country around.
Hi General Clark,
>"The first window closes when we've lost the ability to influence the
>Iraqis politically. Because you really can't win militarily."
>"The second window closes if they tell us to leave. At that point,
>staying is tantamount to invading."
The Iraqis have asked us for a timetable for withdrawing our
troops.. and american politicians are arguing about whether
or not we should declare one.. as if this current Iraqi Government
of our creation, is not a Sovereign Power within its rights to make
such a demand.
We've already lost all leverage with them. They've been visiting
with the Iranians, who've doubtless promised full support for
whatever actions the Iraqi Shias want to take against the Sunnis
once we're out of the way.
If we had had any leverage with them this year.. their 'Constitution' wouldn't be stating baldly that all Iraqi Laws will be based on the Quran.. thereby pushing women's rights back to the Dark Ages.. a thing that hadn't happened even under Saddam's rule.
80% of Iraqis polled say that they want the foreign troops out of Iraq.
45% say that they feel that Insurgent force used against foreign troops is justified..
We have no leverage.
We have no such bodies of troops as you suggest are needed.. that do not, first, need extensive R&R as well as psychological counselling to begin mitigating the effects of widespread stress disorders caused by this incredible abuse of forcing units into a never ending series of deployments into the worst of all possible military campaigns.. the occupation of a hostile country.
>We need to deploy three or four American brigades, some
>20,000 troops, with adequate aerial reconnaissance, to provide
>training, supervision and backup along Iraq's several thousand
>miles of vulnerable border. And even then, the borders won't
>be "sealed"; they'll just be more challenging to penetrate.
>We must also continue military efforts against insurgent strongholds
>and bases in the Sunni areas, in conjunction with Iraqi forces.
>Over the next year or so, this will probably require four to six
>brigade combat teams, plus an operational reserve,
>maybe 30,000 troops.
>But these efforts must go hand-in-glove with intensified
>outreach to Iraqi insurgents, to seek their reassimilation
>into society and their assistance in wiping out residual foreign
>jihadists. Iraqi and American officials have had sporadic
>communications with insurgent leaders, but these must lead
>to deeper discussions on issues like amnesty for insurgents
>who lay down their arms and opportunities for their further
>participation in public and private life.
I think you probably meant to say something different in these last two sentences above.. but it does bring up a point.
The Sunnis have absolutely nothing to gain by joining the political discussion right now. At the first opportunity, the Shias plan to kill the Sunni men and assimilate the women (and hopefully, the children).
The recent revelation of the Shia prisons that were housing captured Sunni men, where they were torturing and starving them.. should be indication enough of their plans.
As an american military man, Iraq and Afghanistan must seem like the last chance to take an active role in a theater of war.. but a political leader must be interested in things different from this.. and with all of the enemies the current administration has manufactured for us, I'm afraid these won't be the last opportunities for military action in this decade.
In the eyes of the world, Iran and any other country interested, will have an obvious right.. almost an obligation really, to seek nuclear weapons as a defense against a reckless, nuclear armed super power that not only has a frightening new doctrine of 'Pre-Emptive War' but also doesn't feel the need to justify its actions when its been proved to have Illegally Invaded a Sovereign State on the opposite side of the world from them.. by Mistake.
And its Leadership has been proven to Lie to its own populace about this and many other things.
The Leaders of the World demanded Evidence prior to the Invasion and the Bush Administration said that it had it but that it couldn't provide it due to National Security reasons.
What credibility do you suppose they will have with the world now that they've been caught crying wolf?
I think it was barely possible for Iraq to have turned out much better than it has.. IF we had done things with that thought firmly in mind from Day One.
But we didn't, because that was never the goal.
The State Department's step by step Plan, created at great cost in tax payer money by experts.. for what to do AFTER the initial invasion, was ORDERED to be ignored.
They allowed looting not only of the museums and stores but also of the many Armories.. and brought in american contractors for the 'reconstruction', rather than hire Iraqi's.. which would have given them something to do and jumpstart their economy..
They built 14-17 FORTRESSES that can EACH house tens of THOUSANDS of troops and their equipment.. but noone in authority wants to discuss why they were built or who authorized their construction..
Rumor has it that the Saudi Royal Family wants to appease their anti-american populace by having a little drama in which they 'throw out' the american forces stationed there..
Are they supposed to be re-deployed to these Bases in Iraq? Thereby maintaining control of Oil resources in the middle east for "American" Oil Companies?
Whatever the case, the intent was always to create chaos in Iraq in order to claim to have reason for keeping American Forces there.
===
Iraqi leaders demand timetable for troop withdrawal
By Agence France Presse
Iraqi leaders reached a tentative agreement Monday to demand a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops from their war-torn country during talks ahead of a reconciliation conference to be held next year.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11102.htm
===
Thank you for continuing to lead on the issue of Iraq. I agree with you that we have to do the mission much smarter than we have been. Your plan is well thought out and articulated and I hope it will get some attention by both parties. I am not sure there is a clear win in Iraq, but like you say, we can influence the regions politics in a positive way. I believe we should continue to pressure the current US administration to change tactics by offering strong alternative plans.
You essentially argued that there is still have a "window of opportunity" for a success strategy in Iraq and called for a greater commitment by the US to engage. However, John Murtha has argued that a military victory simply does not exist, since our military presence is feeding the insurgency movement.
He recently argued on MsNBC that almost 95% of insurgents are Iraqis, who mostly attack our military because of our occupation. If the US military withdraws, he argued that Iraqis would instead direct their political and security efforts against al'Qaeda and foreign elements within its country, thus restricting Iraq as a base for AQs terrorist activity. Can you offer have any comments to Murtha's position and comments regarding al'Qaeda, in particular?
Military Victory. This can't be won by guns & steel. Much of the military involvement in Clark's strategy is using the military as an asset to a different strategy. Bush uses the military as the primary stategy. That said, I'm skeptical about the window of opportunity only because I don't believe the Administration has it in them, to make the changes necessary.
I'm mostly asking how can we best eliminate AQ in Iraq that's comprised mostly of foriegn nationals, when there's an insurgency movement that's comprised mostly by Iraqis (Sunnis) who directly opposed to our "occupation."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"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.)
appreciate you checking in
gives me encouragement during these dark bush days
maybe Charlie Rangell and others can help push your ideas and Plan; Pres. Bush's failed policies and poor execution have invited the re-assertion of the Legislative Branch but no consensus is emerging.
(I know you could have said a lot more; but the piece was brilliant in not only what it said, but what it didn't say. If I may, articulate, succinct & convincing. well done, Sir. Pentagon and Pres. Bush may have to take notice---his policy and lack of plan are heading the mission towards defeat.)
thank you again.
General Clark, I think you need to lay out your fallback position. The liberals aren't buying this. They think you're too optimistic.
I think you are right. But what if you're wrong? What if it is too late? Do you have a plan to fail more gracefully than a fighting withdrawal? What signs would make you think that the window for success has closed? Or what if you got in there to execute your plan and it didn't work? How would you know? What would you do?
We all want this to work. And we all believe that you are one of the only, or possibly THE only, person in the world who can pull it off. But what if you can't? We need to hear about that scenerio. The world needs to hear it. They need to be convinced that you're fighting to make this work because the alternatives are dreadful and not because you're stubborn. And they need to believe that you're advice is still going to carry them through even if everything doesn't go as well as you hope it will.
www.clarkbuttons.com (did I mention they're free?)
As for a fallback position, what I've laid out are three sets of military tasks that must be accomplished in order to get this right. As the tasks are done, it is possible to draw down troops...but if the Iraqis ask us to leave, then we would simply execute a phased withdrawal, absent other compelling reaons to stay and recognizing that to remain inside a sovereign state against its will is tantamount to a continuing invasion and unsuported by law.
To remove 160,000 troops and alll the millions of tons of stuff will take months, by the way. Our retrograde from Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War took three or four months for the troops and more than a year for the equipment. And although we had three times as many troops there, we probably didnt have as much "stuff" Soldiers are living in barracks, and they have PX's and dining facilities, and some have stuff in their rooms...and units have tons of logistics like spares and tools that have to go along. Pulling back won't be that easy....
Please tell me how I should answer critics on other blogs who say that all of this is moot because we all know GWB is going to 'stay the course' come hell or high water.
We are up against a pretty strong 'bring'em home' contingent on the blogospere.
George Bush has had his day and he's bollixed it up.
Someone lower down the ladder than you sir, but what do I say when I'm on Kos and they say, "Just leave the stuff and get the f*** out?"
And when they say none of your three tasks can be accomplished? What do we say then?
www.clarkbuttons.com (did I mention they're free?)
I don't think you're here live anymore, but if you happen to stop in. Can you elaborate on the "bloody retreat" propect that you raised a while back? I've been an ardent defender of the 'can't pull out now' crowd, but the justification as I lay it out doesn't seem to be gaining any traction. I've read/heard a couple of different positions on the perils of a quick withdrawl - 1) what a regional war will do to US gas prices (virtually plunge us into another Great Depression) and 2) that we don't want Iraq to become what Afghanistan became with the Russians pulled out. Both of these, however, are less immediate than the satisfaction that no more American troops are in the crosshairs. Can you speak some more about why you think a quick withdrawal is so dangerous?
Thanks for stopping by and talking to us.
Your Op Ed has caused quite a stir, sir!
Wes, we are all your supporters here. We trust your judgment and and know that if you were in charge any plan you implemented would be a course we would all support.
The problem some of us are having is that you are not in charge and neither is the party. We are all on the outside looking in, commenting from the sidelines. Given that Bush does not seem at all responsive to any alternative to whatever "plan" he imagines he has going, it is understandable that the Democrats are putting forward the idea of timetables and pullouts.
Not long ago you said that there was a limit to how long the window would be open in Iraq. That there would be a point when Americans would have the right to demand that the troops be brought home. For many, especially in our party, that time is fast approaching.
When does the window close?
The window hasn't closed yet. It closes when we've lost the ability to influence the Iraqis politically, or when they ask us to leave. Remember, we have interests in the region besides Iraqi democracy, including how we go after the terrorists, and what the impact of our pullback might be on them, and also the impact of US presence and actions on Iran.
I know people are getting impatient, but, we have to drive the policy by our needs and capabilities in the region, not by domestic US concerns....and there is still the opportunity to achieve something more positive than could be accomplished by simply withdrawing.
What evidence do you see that the current administration is doing any of what you suggest, as far as the situation within Iraq and with it's neighbors? Is there any hope that your ideas will be acted upon in time? I ask this because the main criticism that we as your supporters in the blogshpere face is that such alternative plans and ideas are pointless given the current administration and that therefore the only "realistic" alternative is to offer timetables for a withdrawal.
General Clark, I have always appreciated your comprehensive way of looking at all issues. You always see the total picture and know how to address all necessities involved. I agree with you that we have more at stake in the region than just Iraq and that geo-political, not just military strategies, are necessary.
As a person who was in college in the 1960's, I favored an immediate withdrawal of the troops in Vietnam because I did not accept the validity of the "domino theory" as a be-all-and-end-all rationale for the war. However, the situation in Iraq is more complex for a variety of reasons, including Iran, Al Qaeda's ability to infiltrate more easily now, oil, etc. By this I do not mean that I have ever been in agreement with the Bush administration over this war. I just hope Democrats will see the big picture as you do. I hope you can use your influence as an advisor to members of Congress to have as many of your ideas implemented as possible, in whatever ways are open to Democrats to still have some influence.
Thomas Paine would agree - "What a disaster it would be if the real winner in Iraq turned out to be Iran, a country that supports terrorism and opposes most of what we stand for. Surely, we can summon the wisdom, resources and bipartisan leadership to change the American course before it is too late."
Blue State of Mind
The current adminstration is more stubborn than wise, in my opinion, they seem to have put the war on autopilot with a destination no one can understand.
How do we, the little people, influence the decision makers now? We can't wait until after 2006 elections and a possible seachange in Congress?
What do we do beyond sending those letters to local papers and writing our representatives? (I admit to not even trying with Mr. Santorum...)
Blue State of Mind
Thank you for your OpEd today. Not quite what I was wanting to hear, but you told the hard truth of the situation. Sometimes the truth can be ugly. How long should we wait on Bush and Co to do the right thing before we demand that the troops be brought home? Do you think there is any reasonable chance that the Admin will change course? I don't feel optimistic about the situation and think that maybe we should leave instead of having our troops killed and maimed for a failed strategy (or NO strategy) in Iraq.
"...the measure of success is...'Can you get your ideas adopted?' " ~ Wes Clark
If Rumsfeld is replaced by Lieberman, do you think that will have a positive influence on the strategy for Iraq? Or will it have any influence?
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
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 the post-WWII Marshall Plan; 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.
(reposted from another blog)
Why?
to spearhead diplomacy and in charge of an international equivalent of the Marshall Plan; get the whole Region and the international community involved because they are already invested, like it or not, and given the choice, with the right approach, would rather be involved.
great idea. maybe this mission can be re-defined (or defined in the first instance) and something long-term positive can come from it.
General Clark,
Thank you for your courageous and articulate PLAN to try to salvage the mess in Iraq. I expect to be arguing ferociously with Dems to my left over this but I really think that even though we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, we must try to help pick up the pieces.
I called my Congressman - Rob Andrews today - and told him to endorse your plan. He is trying to position himself to be appointed to Corzine's Senate seat - and hasn't said anything about the War yet. I would like him to come out in support of your plan. I strongly suggest that other members of the Clark Community do the same.
Thank you for all that you are doing and will do for the United States and the world.
drsusan
and meanwhile, how can we get prominent Dems out front & center aggressively to combat this false notion/thoughtless knee-jerk mantra repeated over & over by the vast majority of talking heads that the Dems are either nowhere to be seen on this issue or divided among themselves? So sick of hearing this from people who cannot & will not do simple preliminary research!!!!
Wes Clark: American Eagle
Dear General:
Thank you for your editorial today. I agree with you that having a timetable for withdrawal without having a series of specific objectives that need to occur is disingenuous, at best, and represents a massive world security threat. I also agree wholeheartedly that this administration has never bothered to understand the culture, history or mindset of the region, nor the permanent harm it has inflicted, on so many levels.
Do you have any thoughts for how we can help your strategy gain traction, either in the mainstream media or with congressional leadership, or both? I'm concerned that Democrats are failing to capitalize on the current Republican disarray, and are, once again, coming across as weak and ineffectual. I have received e-mailings from MoveOn and TrueMajority, who have seemed to drink the "immediate timetable" Kool-Aid - any thoughts for how to advocate for a more sensible approach, without fracturing our party further?
Thank you so much, General. It's great to "see" you putting your expertise to use and getting back into the public eye.
Sincerely,
LSophia (Lynne)
...the problem I'm struggling with (even as one of your supporters) is the same problems facing the majority of Americans, GOP and Dems alike. I think you've outlined our best shot at "victory" in Iraq, but I worry that we're losing the battle at home. What can you say to Americans to help them steel their resolve? If the support for the war continues to wane at home, I'm certain that the White House will begin the drawdown in time for the '06 elections. How can you/we encourage America to stay strong?
Thanks for posting.
but when I hear the we have to get out now argument, I always say, it was a blunder to get in there, but now we have a moral obligation to fix Iraq before we leave. And, in a self fulfilling prophecy, Iraq is now the central front in the fight against terrorism, so pulling out would embolden the terrorists.
But we must implement what the General said. We need more troops in there and we need to ensure the borders are more secure.
General Clark, I do have a question. In another post on this site, someone asked for suggestions on how to fight the insurgents. I mentioned that I thought quick strike special forces teams needed to be an integral part of the fight. These teams would move in quickly against insurgent cells, take out those cells, and disappear before anyone knew what happened.
You mentioned ramping up the number of troops in Iraq. Would you want to see these types of teams deployed there?
...but it doesn't address the cynicism of Americans who've grown hopeless. Moral obligations only go so far. I think morality has sustained American hope so far, but I fear we're running short. Plus, that's the same sales pitch that BushCo. has delivered for nearly 3 years. Clearly, that argument has lost its steam. To restore support for the cause, someone needs to step forward and reframe the debate.
So who's it going to be and what are they going to say?
we have a moral obligation to fix Iraq.
I think that the Bush administration kept on talking about WMDs and imminent threats and mushroom clouds.
Nobody's ever made the moral obligation part of their rationale yet, and we should claim it.
If you break it, you own it. I think it would be difficult to recycle that message -- or anything close to it.
Since posting my previous comment, I've put some thought into this and I might have a two-birds-with-one-stone solution. I'm going to suggest it to the General tomorrow. The basic premise borrows from...[gulp]...Joe Lieberman's suggestion from today -- convincing the administration to form a special war cabinet (only with real heavyweights, not people like Lieberman.)
The cabinet would include the country's preeminent experts in military, diplomacy, Middle East studies, intelligence, terrorism, domestic policy and others, including at least one marketing expert and maybe even envoys to regions of interest (Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, etc.) Think the anti-WHIG. I envision Wes serving on this cabinet as the lead military expert, from which point he could deploy either HIS plan or a version that had been compromised among the members of the cabinet.
This new cabinet would provide tremendous gravitas and a fresh, nonpartisan, credible voice with one goal -- serving the best interest of America by serving the best interest of Iraq. The marketing experts/speechwriters would need to position this as a clear departure from "staying the course." Instead, they would be charting a new course. An intelligent course that takes into account every party that has a stake in Iraq.
Of course, this is entirely dependent on the administration's willingness to turn the reigns over to outsiders. I don't think the cabinet could have any credibility otherwise. This may not be far-fetched. With talk of Rummy on his way out, Bush may feel his ship sinking and dragging his legacy down with it. This could be sold to him as his last, best shot.
Maybe. What do you think?
I have an incredible faith in this President's blind stubbornness, I don't know who he is listening to at this point, rumor has it Cheney has had a major falling out, at this point it is probably Rove and Condi giving advice, and neither of them would be too keen on letting a group of outsiders in, it would promote the appearance of total failure, not something they would be willing to risk.
Second Bush has a well known disdain for intellectuals, I don't think even if he were desperate he'd welcome Wes or an outside Iraq qroup at all.
This administration getting something right requires them to get out of the way.
Will they let it happen? That's the $300 billion question. The idea might have a chance if Wes let them take credit for it upfront. He could propose it to the administration through private backchannels first. That would allow them to announce it as their own new bold idea for victory.
One thing is clear. We need a new strategy. The only way we're going to get that strategy is if these guys move out of the way and let somebody smart take over. We have to try.
...of this line, which I first learned in the Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) literature:
When what you're doing isn't working, do ANYTHING else.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
But the thing is, nobody made that argument. Think back to the runup to war. It was all WMDs, all the time. If it wasn't Saddam giving WMDs to al Qaeda, it was UAVs that would drop bioagents (never mind that OUR UAVs do not have that capability from what I understand, much less Iraq's) or it was the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud over an American city.
Bush has not use the moral obligation argument, he's still stuck on the "terra" message. I think we can take that argument away and also eliminate the moral values weapon from the right wing nut arsenal if we adopt it.
But I'm more cynical than that. I think most people would roll their eyes and ask, "Haven't we heard this before?"
I'd like to know, have you talked to Rep. Murtha about your plan?
"...the measure of success is...'Can you get your ideas adopted?' " ~ Wes Clark
Wes,
Thanks for giving us some details on how to make some sort of success out of Iraq. I like your plan and who cares if most dems want us to leave now. They have no clue about the region besides the knowledge that Bush messed it up. We can't just run now and hand Iraq over to Iran. We need new leadership. Bush is a terrible speaker and is incompetent. We need to kick him out and get support behind the new plan for dealing with Iraq. After all, there has been some success...Saddam on trial and elections so we should be able to get the American people on board. The only thing is….patience is not a virtue many Americans have....we have ADD. We need a new teacher to calm us down. That or mass Ritalin injections.
Great article, General Clark! However I was a bit perplexed by this statement:
"First, the Iraqis must change the Constitution as quickly as possible after next week's parliamentary elections."
What do they specifically need to change in their constitution? How oil revenue is shared? How Sharia law should NOT be the legal framework "law of the land"? Voting/election procedures?
I admit I haven't read their new constitution (anybody got a link to it? Is it translated on-line?) but I am curious how you'd want their constitution changed. I'd agree the interim one as described in Baghdad: Year Zero had significant problems, especially the privatizing of the Iraq oil industry.
I'll hang up and listen to your response "on-air"! ;-)
Got Vote?
The way I'm seeing things right now is Republicans are pretty much going to stick with the "stay the course" strategy if one can call it that though I'll keep writing in anyway. And some Democrats appear to be moving toward a start bringing them home now regardless of the conditions strategy. Which as you point out could be equally dangerous.
Is it even possible to force our Government to take the steps required to win, given the status quo on the hill and in the White House? I have no doubt there are plenty of open ears at the State Department, CIA and the Pentagon, but without Congressional or Presidential support it seems impossible to enact such a sweeping change of our strategy, and it seems the Congress and the White House have cotton in their ears when it comes to listening to our concerns and adopting a real success strategy.
One of the main criticism’s I’ve heard from other bloggers about your strategy, and one that warrants some merit is that Bush and the other politicians in Washington are not going to listen to your plan, just like they didn‘t listen in the lead up to the war to you or General Shinseki and others. They contend that Bush and the other corrupt Washington politicians in general are too stubborn to be made to change their ways and the best thing we can hope for is a fighting retreat since they will never change course. I disagree but the question is the how, how do we force them to change their ways, what's their Achilles heel?
How do we force them to change the course and follow your plan when our leadership has gone deaf to our concerns? I don’t think they really listen anymore which is a sad thing to say about our democracy but it seems more true everyday.
There is no doubt that you are right on the how to fix this mess and end this without leaving behind a ticking time bomb. My only concern is how do we give your strategy the traction it needs in Washington to go from paper to action? What do you think the best strategy is to break the status quo in Washington?
Thank you for speaking the truth instead of the politically expedient, and for listening.
Thank you for always trying to speak the truth as you know it even when that truth is unpopular. Thank you also for pointing out that there will be a 4 month period after the Iraq elections during which a majority vote by their new parliment can change the Constitution that was passed there.
I believe some of the same American activists who focus on how difficult it is to persuade the Bush Administration to change course fail to realize that it is possibly more important to assist people of predominantly good will in virtually every current Iraq faction to change their own course and step away from the brink of an escalating civil war. If a true workable accomadation can be achieved inside of Iraq, with at least partial support by Iraq's neighbors, then I believe the Bush Administration can be dragged along. How do you see it? What makes you think that the United States can still influence events inside of Iraq? Many American activists assume we are simply hated there and can only inflame matters worse with our continuing presense. Can we dialog with multiple factions inside Iraq?
I have so many questions, and questions are so much easier than answers. General, do you think the current Shiite militias, poltical parties, and religious movements are still sufficiently open to stepping back from demanding essentially autonomy for the oil rich southern region of Iraq. or will they fight against a roll back of their power and a stronger central government in Iraq? What can we do to increase the liklyhood of cooperation from them in achieving a stabel more or less unified Iraq? Is Sistani still an overall positive influence on the situation?
What role do you think institutions outside of America and Iraq can play in reversing a drift toward greater crisis in Iraq? What about the Arab League, N.A.T.O. the Europeon Union and the United Nations? Who still has leverage, and what incentive if any can we offer Iran to cooperate more in achieving regional stability vs making an overt grab at increasing their power in the region? Is there an Iran containment policy? Do we need one?
Thank you for always doing what is right for our nation, and for taking time to blog with us here.
Tom Rinaldo
I too worry that the window is rapidly closing because of the diplomatic inaction of the Bush administration. You articulated this so well before that we cannot win this with the military alone. But when we have a president who "phones in" his work and takes month long vacations, what more is to be expected. Our only hope is for more public outcry, a major governmental shift with the 2006 elections, and with your election as President in 2008.
One of the issues that few civilian Americans understand, and that needs to be addressed in stark terms, is what will happen to the Middle East region and to our standing in the world community, should our military precipitously withdraw from Iraq. I'm asking for something specific with which to answer the "pull-the-troops-out-now sentiment. Ambiguity is not something most Americans can tolerate for long.
Personally, I found your op-ed in the NYT's refreshing. It was great to finally see someone say something that sounds like a plan and a plan with good ideas!! Please give General Pace a call. I've been watching him since he became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He seems like someone who will listen to you. And the thing about Iran in you article, spot on with that one. Having read James Fallows article in Atlantic Monthly, we can't have Iraq be a war about losing with consequences. The consequences are worrisome.
Do you agree with Seymour Hersh's analysis that if American troops are quickly pulled out by the Bush Administration, the plan is to have the American Air Force start to play a major role giving Iraqis air cover? Seymour Hersh says that U.S. Air Force Generals and Commanders are terrified that they will be given their targets by one side in a brutal civil war against targets that are political/tribal rivals and that we will be blindly drawn to support one faction against another.
Is that what's next? And if so is that why you feel it is necessary to engage the countries in the region so that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld mismanagement doesn't ignite the region as different countries get drawn into the conflict to support one segment or another in a developing civil conflict in Iraq?
Morning here in Taiwan. Kid off to school, back to the keyboard.
But what a delight to find you here, Sir! (Although by now I suspect you are gone. Sigh!)
Your sight is clear. Two windows and we stay as long as they are open because we have other interests in the Middle East besides Iraq that would be affected.:
1. Lose control over the political process.
2. The absolute of the above is if they ask us to leave. Then we have no legitimate reason to stay.
Given these windows are open, we have three military tasks which you have outlined so well in your OpEd.
There does seem to be a timetable.
Fallback position then is the pull back.
We give the political process some 4 months max to work out, if that fails, all fails. Then we have to pull back. Pulling back would take a minimum of, say, 4 months and a complete pull back up to a year.
So at a minimum 8 months from the election in December which puts us running right up to the election in 06.
I would then see you articulating what next this coming late Spring or early Summer our status and what we must do.
Is this more or less correct?\
Noel
Thank you for the great questions. I will be back tomorrow at 2pm CT.
...hopefully my fingers won't be 'tongue-tied' at that point.
Clarksters ask good questions tho...several of mine were asked and answered. Thank you Clarksters! 
Where in the world is Kevin Shelley?!?
General - On the phone with Maria and she just made an #47666Posted by kaflinn on December 6, 2005 - 7:41pm.
excellent point relative to defending your plan, on the various blogs:
She made the comment that many who are arguing against what you're saying, are probably gravely concerned this will become Vietnam revisited.
I added, to make it a little more complicated - many of those on the blogs these days are too young to fully remember Vietnam - but what they do remember are all the horror stories they've heard, accurate or not, and that terrifies them. This makes it easier for many to imagine - in the absence of both accurate history and current facts - that the only way to prevent a repeat of Vietnam is to pull out now.
People may need a little refresher course on Vietnam, to understand Iraq is not the same. There may be some similarities, but the two wars are vastly different. Because you were there, you can best explain this in the context of your plan, and that might go a long way in allowing the post-Baby Boomer generations to better understand why you're saying what you're saying.
(Sorry about the duplication - Maddy alerted me I'd put this on the wrong thread) - Kelly
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
I sent a short three-sentence thank you to the NYTimes this morning for publishing your reasoned assessment in their op-eds.
Leadership means lifting people up. --Wes Clark
Greetings from the outer fringes of the lunatic center.
I've been silently following the goings on here for the past 6 months, and here I jump in with you.
You clarksters are bright knowledgable people looking for competance in world full of dumb asses.
Wes Clark is so freakin' smart that it is hard not to pay attention.
Thank you General for your thoughts and the dialogue that you are creating... Wow, dialogue, ain't it grand.
What makes it even better is that the General is listening.
I missed him here, and am eager to read y'all's dialogue, but I'm just sop excited to see that he visited!
How we value eachother!
(((((CLARKIES)))))
Do you think they will start a new thread for that tomorrow, or continue here?
"...the measure of success is...'Can you get your ideas adopted?' " ~ Wes Clark
And I'll be carpooling, Pam; hope he's on for a while!
Isn't this 'hands-on' stuff great?
Gotta go now. CIC on at 9:00 est.
Seymour Hersh thinks the troop draw down will happen in time for 2006 elections and be replaced by increased air war. Read his article here:http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051205fa_fact
It seems to me that this administration is incapable of implementing the strategies General Clark puts forth on a regualr basis. Why isn't anyone talking about the air campaign General Clark?
I was lucky to hear Richard Clarke speak at a book signing last night. When asked the question, "When will we be out of Iraq?", his response was much the same as Hersch, although he did not bring up the spectre of air war. (I believe the questioner was prompting him for a repeat of his now infamous line, but we got the somewhat cynical answer instead.) In any case, he also timetabled it to the 06 elections, and also stated that it is his belief that we will be asked to leave shortly after the next round with the Iraq Constitution. Apparently, there was a meeting last week (and I'm trying to remember this correctly) under the umbrella of the Arab League of Nations that included all the factions currently making up the political landscape - such as it is - of Iraq. Somewhere along this line, the edict that the [a] nation may act to defend itself from illegal occupation - or something along that line, wish I'd brought a pen and paper! - is going to be a catalyst in the next round of Constitution building. And will most likely lead to the 'carrot' invite, in the form of a time table being handed to the US, that we leave. It is my speculation that the 'stick' in this case, will be and Iraq/Iran alliance of some sort. And as Clarke put it, "Iran makes Al Quada look like Kindergarten." He mentioned that many of the Al Quada operatives are currently under house arrest in Iran, comparing it to Martha Stewarts confinement.
He also mentioned his speculation on a group called Qod - General, if you could address this I'd very much like to hear what you have to say about it.
"When the Elgi are defeated, the Gwot will be over." - Richard Clarke
The perfect can be the enemy of the good, and especially in the Middle East you often have to look for a lesser evil. Lesser evilism is actually a major principle in Islamic law.
Here's the problem I see with this column's conclusion:
First, the Iraqis must change the Constitution as quickly as possible after next week's parliamentary elections. Most important, oil revenues should be declared the property of the central government, not the provinces. And the federal concept must be modified to preclude the creation of a Shiite autonomous region in the south.
Asking Iraqis to change their constitution is probably unrealistic., and I'm not sure how much attention they are going to pay to the Constitution anyway. Federalism is not well understood in the Arab world, their only word for it is a loan, and this so-called "federalism" may be only a prelude to partition. And what if you got a unitary state? It and its oil revenues would be dominated by the 60% Shi'ites anyway.
I see no good option here, nor much chance of getting influence. Our least bad option now may be handing over to a Shi'ite theocracy. This was our nightmare from Reagan through Clinton, but Bush II has balled things up, perhaps beyond retrieval.
Also, a broad initiative to reduce sectarian influence within government institutions is long overdue.
That's been tried. It's called Ba'athism. It is totally discredited and didn't work very well at defusing sectarian tendencies. I think it's too late for us to try doing it now.
Maybe we should have tried to educate our Cold War clients, especially in the Islamic world, about American principles such as democracy, freedom of religion, and federalism. Maybe we should do that now. But we haven't. Secularism was associated with Saddam, just as multi-ethnicity in Yugoslavia was associated with Communism. Speaking of which, I'd be interested to hear your comparisons between Iraq and your experiences in the former Yugoslavia, general.
What's the least bad proposal for an American policy that I have seen yet? This column, even though I respectfully disagree with part of it. Thank you, sir, and I wish you were running American foreign policy, but right now I think our best option was our worst nightmare not long ago. The alternatives in Iraq seem to be civil war, or even a new Al-Qa'ida base. You're right that we can't just pull out, but we have to hand over to someone else, some kind of international force, that we can trust. And no one is going to help Bush out now.
Even worse, I don't see much chance of getting a change in US course before 2008.
When that time comes I'm ready to back you again.
After Cornell's convocation, I encouraged you to run in 2008. Your response was, "I haven't said I won't." Please, run in 2008. I'll vote for you in the primaries and general election. I'll also donate any time and the maximum allowable monetary amount. I'll encourage friends, family, and others to do the same. Please, this country is in desperate need of a leader.
I missed the whole shebang, but this has been wonderful reading. I'm looking forward to tomorrow's blog session...I'll be here. It'll be snowing and about 5 degrees outside, and I'll try to defer my customary afternoon nap.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
I like your plan, General Clark, and it is probably the best that can be made at this point.
But how likely is it that the Iraqi's can or will agree to changes in their new Constitution? How likely that the Shiites in the south will give up claim to their oil in the south? or Sharia law? or their militias? And how likely that the Kurds would give up their oil in the north? or their plans for becoming an autonomous state?
Nice if they all would cooperate for the good of the whole country, but how likely is this, really?
Unfortunately, it looks to me like the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Bush cabal has already made such a mess of the situation that it can't be salvaged, and Iran is indeed the winner without firing a shot. But I appreciate your optimism and your thoughtful ideas. I wish you had become our president. I was on your team then, and still am.
General Clark,
I am sure if you were in charge, we could resolve this
situation much faster. But I fear that we cannot make
progress in Iraq by more aggressive military tactics.
How many more Sunni's have to die in order to
force them to the table in a war that was unjust
in the first place? This is really an untenable
situation, and this is what Murtha is saying.
Isn't it ironic that we have a show trial of Saddam,
while the US Guilag is shrouded in secrecy. How can
the US have an credibility as a broker for peace?
Dear General, Your continued work to identify the path to salvage the situation in Iraq is enlightening and courageous, despite the skepticism of many of the people in the Democratic party. Thank you for all you do.
Could you identify who the key individuals are in Iraq who need to be involved ? What kind of carrot can be given to the Shia leadership to encourage sharing the oil revenues with the Sunni insurgents ? Can individuals outside of the Bush administration play a key role ?
We look forward to your comments tomorrow at 2.
Bill and Diane Millen
out there around the blogosphere tonite, people just don't want to hear it. They finally accepted the fact that a withdrawl would have to be slow, but that took a lot of time and frankly hitting them over the head with the consequences over and over. They've found their voice to insist on getting out and looks to them like they have the adm on the ropes with it. Going to be hard to convince them of any strategy that doesn't include packing our bags. We're going to have to give them a clear and concise WHY. Something that really makes them take notice like "bloody retreats" and "fighting withdrawls". It also seemed like it was after you talked to the Out of Iraq Group and they helped get the message out it really took hold. I guess my question would be: Have you spoken with any of the Congressionals about this plan and what was the response (if you could say in public)? As they would be the ones to put the pressure on to have it implemented I suppose.
Sept 2005
".... And I want you to picture what would happen if we announced we're coming out. Now just imagine it, OK. The president, right after Labor Day, you know they always say never announce anything new before Labor Day, the president comes on national TV and says, "I've heard your thoughts, my fellow countrymen, we've lost 2,000 American's, spent 200 billion dollars and we're coming out. We're coming home."
Well the men and women in the armed forces can do it. It will be a fighting withdrawal because the insurgents will be on the heels of the American columns as they come out. I can picture our men and women in those humvees and the dump trucks. You can see them taking fire and asking, "Should I shoot back, if I shoot back who's in that building?" I can see a long and bloody retreat. It will take several weeks to get out of there, four or five weeks. Or if you stage it, it will be bloodier and more difficult for longer. The insurgents will claim they won. But that claim will be disputed by Al Qaeda. They'll say that they drove us out.
And the people who helped us in Iraq will be targeted. They already are targeted but they've got some assistance and support. That will go away quickly. These people will be running for their lives. 200, 300, 500, 800,000, a million. Everybody who ever talked to an American. We don't know where the boundary will be. But it won't be pretty.
And when it's said that we are coming out, the political process that we've put in place will start to come apart, naturally. People are already preparing. There's plenty of private militias there. They've got scores to settle, territory to gain, cleansing to do, resources to capture and I'm sure the Kurds will decide, you know they aren't Arabs anyway, they'll go their own way. So I would expect a pretty rapid recourse not only to civil war but regional conflict, if we were to pull out and say 'we're coming home.' Now, that's my scenario. It reduces American prestige, influence and power all around the world.
Q: These things have happened already, sir.
General Clark: Well, not to the extent I think I've sketched it out. So what I'd say is, that there is a middle ground or a better ground, than staying the course or announcing a withdrawal. We need to change that course and use America's leadership and power not only militarily but diplomatically and politically in the region to become a focus for regional cooperation. It is not yet too late."
That should be on the front page. This is the diference between washington bubble think tanking and experience with the realities of conflict.
Thank you Kat.
We (and "they") need to hear more of this. And I think we need to hear when General Clark thinks it will actually come to our doing just that. As awful as that scenerio is, if that's what will eventually happen, isn't it better to do it sooner rather than later? When will we know it's time to give up?
It's sort of like a person with cancer. When do you stop chemo therapy and turn to hospice care? We've made a lot of progress because for a very long time doctors weren't willing to admit that treatment should eventually be stopped. I think we need to hear that generals have made that progress too.
At some point, we have to give up. People want a leader who understands that. I don't think it's a problem if a person thinks we're at that point and General Clark doesn't. That's easy to handle. But we need to be able to convince people that General Clark will eventually give up if there's no hope.
for posting this. I posted it to my blog a while back and it is what I was referring the "get out now" crowd to so they would understand. Guess I'm looking for a couple words that will shock the pants off of them of why we need to follow a plan like Wes'. Keeping it simple. I humbly defer the ME geopolitical discussion to those who are more experienced and understanding of it than I. Decided to take the title of the op-ed "The Next Iraq Offensive" in the context of getting the Dems to get their collective act together. Work on convincing them. 
Can you please go into more detail of how we can ever win the hearts and minds of the Sunni insurgents? No matter whether they vote or not, they face a marginalized future. One that includes continued retribution by the Shia.
George Bush has had his day and he's bollixed it up.
Time has a very interesting article this week on "Insurgent v Insurgent?" Apparently some of the Iraqi insurgents think control of their operation should be with an Iraqi and not Zarqawi ( a foreigner) which of course doesn't sit well with the Zarqawi crowd. The nationals are also taking part in the election. They say bullets and ballots are not mutually exclusive. There is also a poll that the U.S. is split on withdrawl. Gotta come up with some carrots for those nationals to stop fighting the U.S. and help root out the foreign fighters. Bring the nationals into paying jobs, police, fire, army, whatever they have skills doing. The carrot worked much better in Northern Ireland than the stick did. As for the Shiites in the south, they need to understand that diplomatic relations with Iran are one thing, but becoming West Iran will only upset the Sunnis that make up the entire rest of the region for the most part. They need to work with all their neighbors. Before this new regime in Iran, they were a decent neighbor to Armenia for example, after the break up of the USSR. Armenia had access difficulty to get any sort of supplies and Iran permitted things like food to come through their country to Armenia. Iran and Russia have had good relations for the most part. Having Iran install Sadr in the south as the power would be really bad for the region. That's the prospect for what could occur there. Sistani has said he'll call for non-violent protests to ask for the U.S. to leave Iraq after the election. We may want to work with the expectations that they will ask us to leave. Anyway, you can tell we've all been giving this a lot of thought. We had a fighting global violent extremism idea thread over the weekend on my blog. I hope you get to read it sometime, General Clark.
...is reported to have said to a supporter:
.....those who thought that Iran was going to take over because of the relationship between Shi'a in both Iran and Iraq don't understand the culture - that Iraqis are Arab and the Iranians are Persian, and that over the long term the two simply are too different to sustain a close relationship.
I wondered what your answer to this would be.
Thank you, Sir.
George Bush has had his day and he's bollixed it up.
General sir,
What are your ideas on turning over the recontruction to the Iraqi people instead of the multi-nationals? Ownership of the rebuilding of Iraq is a must in my opinion.
As an aside, have you ever considered joining Veterans For Peace? Only $25 a year membership and you definitetly qualify!
BOHICA (used to be mess o potamian tar baby)
Thank goodness the General knows what's going on. It seems to me voices on both sides of the political fence in America for the most part don't know what's going on. One side wants to keep following the President as lemmings blindly follow their fellow lemmings over the cliff. While many Democrats want to pretend the mess in Iraq isn't America's mess and that we should simply pull out.
Everything you say General Clark makes as good of sense out of the Iraq situation as anything I've heard, well actually better sense since as I've mentioned, I havn't heard anything that makes sense until I tuned into your blog (I am on your email list so I first read the blog post in the email message then decided to come to this site to comment.)
It's unfortunate that we have to write Iran off as a bad apple. Since Iran has a lot of potential for improving itself. After all when Iran was ruled by a king (shah) the US got along well with Iran. I am guessing a lot of it's citizens, particularly younger ones, secretly wish Iran would become less extreme in it's leadership and attitudes and government. Perhaps even change back to having a shah rather than an islamic government which has increased in extremism and is now a slightly watered down Taliban from the looks of it. I'm not saying I know what the answer is in how to deal diplomatically with Iran. But I am saying I think we should not throw optimism about Iran's future out the window, and write them off as a hopeless part of the "axis of evil."
Thanks for not getting on the mindless "cut and run", "flip flop" bandwagon of "getting out of Dodge." I think it's obvious to a lot of voters that Democrats such as John Kerry who are getting on that bandwagon, care more about electioneering than caring about American troops, than caring about Iraq, and caring about taking responsibility for finishing what we started. Cutting and running out of Iraq will be no different from when we cut and ran out of Afghanistan after the Soviet Union was defeated in Afghanistan. And we all know the devestating result of our actions in that situation - it led to the development of Al Queda.
Please run for President a 2nd time General. If John McCain runs and gets elected in the GOP Primary, you'd be the best bet for Democrats. I happen to like John McCain myself as well by the way. But I'd stick to Democrat voting for you if it came down to McCain vs. Clark. (Actually I think you'd both make a winning ticket if one was Pres. and the other Vice Pres., but since you are positioned in different parties, I doubt that would happen, unless you both ran on an Independent ticket, which would have uncertain chances due to party loyalty by voters.)
I think Democrats are overly optimistic right now about winning future elections, and at the same time I think they've either shifted to positions either too far to the left, or they were always too far to the left and have just decided to become vocal about their positions recently. I think the real winners in future elections will position themselves closer to the center, which caters to and wins over swing voters.
Keep up the good fight,
Thanks ever so much, General Clark, for continuing this very important dialogue with us. It is good to see you out there continuing to fight for us and trying to make things as right as possible and it is a rare and wonderful thing that you actually do care to hear what we have to say.
Like many others here, I’m sure, I have great faith in your expertise and opinions but less than no faith in those currently in charge. Do you think there is any chance at all that anything you say will be implemented in any way with the current Administration and Republican Congress in power…and, if so, how on earth might that happen?
Again, thanks. Sometimes I feel like you are our Obi-wan Kenobi, “our only hope”….
Carol
"The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing" - Pulitzer Prize winning author Samantha Power, introducing Gen Clark
It seems to me as though the "cut and run" crowd is only looking at the short term. I know you are looking at at the situation in the long run and the effects on regional stability. How would one go about getting the "out now" crowd to consider the long range consequences of what they propose?
"...the measure of success is...'Can you get your ideas adopted?' " ~ Wes Clark
snip> First, the Iraqis must change the Constitution as quickly as possible after next week's parliamentary elections. <snip
?
Where in the world is Kevin Shelley?!?
WOWSER...ive been here from the start of the draft-movement, and have stood against pulling out of iraq strategically, but this one was a shocker: 5 stars for strategic military leadership, 1 star for cultural knowlege, and only 2 steps away from longterm quagmire-hell, all encapsulated in a little flex-policy op-ed...thats amazing.
i like the can-do attitude, i do, but isnt the USA currently too politically marginalized...THROUGH RELIGION in a region where religion is the organizational mindset, to prop up an abstract corporate-democracy-model in the heart of Islam? unbelievably, in the most bizarre and ugly juxtaposition possible...al-quiada now seems to hold most of the holy-mount in the islamic political/organizational world view...the very "mount" where iraqi democracy must be built to hold the type of legitimacy necessary to be self-sustaining...um, yup. therefore, its likely 1000 US brigades wont accomplish anything more on the cultural-political level...problem: ethnic divisions have hardened beyond melding, the sunnis have become the "target group" for military action, but unfortunately they are perhaps the core component of the central populace. solution: bring all groups in through oil distributed evenly to three "states" with a "post-bosnia type" regional-ethnic forces under a national flag but with an underpinned level of religious autonomy/authority for regional groups). problem: the porous border with iran cannot be sealed. solution -wes' original 3-prong strategy managing the compromises with the ethnic divisions/neighboring countries through standard cia-diplomacy. iran has always been iran, and that didnt obligate our troop deployment before this strategic-blunder. problem: US troop presence is debilitating politically to the legitimacy of the new constitution in islamic-terms. solution: bring in international (muslim) troop presence, legitimizing-the-process through ending all unilateral action, completely pull US troops out, and hand this mess to the world-body, thus re-linking ourselves with said body. do it on a grand scale.
does this op=ed mean we arent running for president next term? p-sout.
Hi, Everyone. I've seen several of you out on the blogs today, and I just wanted to come on line and answer a few questions. Wes