How do Clarkies answer the Cut and Run folks?
Submitted by noelschutz on December 6, 2005 - 7:15pm.
I think Wes was clear. Here is what I posted on dKos.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/6/18292/1716#13
Please go there and correct any misdirection I may have in the following:
Noel Schutz wrote: (speaking of myself in the third person?)
See what Wes answered to questions about his OpEd here:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/2914#comment-47633
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
even people inside of Iraq, who will try to help pull Iraq back from the brink even if Bush shows little or no leadership, becauase it is in their own interests to do so. At this point Bush is stuck on not admitting he is wrong and is also worrying about 2006 and not wanting the mid terms to bring Democratic majorities. As long as something emerges in Iraq that does not require him to say that the United States failed, and if the commanders in the field can work with it, Bush might not fight it.
I would have them read my post, "Whatever the reason (II)" on the General's "The Next Iraq Offensive" blog.
Why?
I going to speak about political truths, that some people can't seem to see. First the only thing the Democrats can do now is suggest how they would handle the situation differently than Bush. That is what Wes is doing. It would be great if Bush would listen, but that doesn't matter. All that matters is to show the country how you would act differently.
Second, as someone who vividly remembers Vietnam, I think the just leave now is terrible politics. People may be against the war, but if Bush leaves and Iraq becomes an Iranian surrogate, or breaks out in civil war, the Republicans will blame the Democrats, and may people will buy it.
Instead we need to really need to emphasize that the Iranians are the ones who are going to win this war. That will not be popular with the public, and we can then hold the neocons responsible for their recklessness.
I just learned of Wes's window explanation, but I had thought of it in a different way. The democrats are calling for an immediate withdrawal right before the election, when a new government will come to power and have a chance to incorporate the Sunni's and amend the constitution. We should wait until they have had the opportunity to do this (until the political window shuts as Wes describes it) and see at that point if Iraq is irreversibly hodesed. Now is definitely not the time to pull out. At the very least we give Iraq an ultimatum to fix things or else we're leaving, instead of leaving a new government high and dry.
If the democrats got their act together (and maybe got some mod. republicans) and put a solid stance behind Clark's position, they could probably force the administration into action. Even if they couldn't get the administration to change, at least the Washington Post wouldn't be running with the headline "Democrats Find Iraq Alternative Elusive" like they did Monday and we'd be in good position for 2006 (and possibly 2008).
You have the elections, and the recent Arab summit where promises to changes to the Constitution were made. This is not the time to pull out.
I would amend your #2 above. We don't necessarily know that Bu$h will not follow what Clark outlines. I'm not confident that he will nor that he will do it right, but to phrase it the way you have implies that we shouldn't leave the troops in the crosshairs until spring since Bu$h won't implement the policies. I honestly believe that Clark is laying out the strategy in the sincere hope that Bu$h will take heed and get things under control. After all, for Clark it's not about winning, it's about having your ideas adopted. And I truly believe that it would be in everyone's best interests if we were able to salvage some measure of success in Iraq, however, for Dem candidates, failure in Iraq is a domestic political victory.
Furthermore, it's not beyond the realm of possibilities that Bu$h would attempt to do what Clark outlines...case in point.