I apologize for the length but I had an epiphany last night…

In your recent op-ed, I think you've outlined a very reasonable plan for Iraq, but I worry that we're losing the battle at home. If the support for the war continues to wane, I'm certain that the White House will begin the drawdown in time for the '06 elections. So, the secondary issue is, how to reframe/repackage/resell the war to an American public that is growing increasingly skeptical.

I think I have a plan to kill two birds with one stone. The basic premise borrows from [gulp] Joe Lieberman's suggestion yesterday -- 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 and others, including at least one marketing communications expert and maybe even envoys to regions of interest (Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, etc.)  Think the anti-WHIG.

I envision you serving on this cabinet as the lead military expert, from which point you could deploy either your plan as is or a version that had been enhanced by you and the other members of the cabinet.

This new cabinet would provide tremendous gravitas and a fresh, nonpartisan, credible voice with one goal -- serving in the best interest of America by serving in the best interest of Iraq. The cabinet’s members and spokespeople 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. A course that was not only designed to win over Iraqis, but Americans too.

Of course, this is entirely dependent on the administration's willingness to turn the reigns over to outsiders. No members of Congress either. Otherwise, I don't think it could have maximum credibility. 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.

Will BushCo go for it? That's the $300 billion question. The idea might have a chance if you let them take credit for it upfront. You 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.

Maybe? What do you think?

Hello General Clark.  Did you happen to see John Murtha's response to pResident Bush today?  Do you have any comments on his opinion?

Thank you!

General Clark,

When you were in Qatar, did you stop by the Army command center there?

Thank you.

General Clark; Greetings from the truly frozen tundra in Madison, WI. At what point, if ever, do you think it would be appropriate to institute an Iraqi version of the Marshall Plan?

Wes 08

General Clark,

I'm wondering, since everyone says Congressman Murtha has the inside opinions from the Pentagon, and members of the Armed Services on the ground in Iraq, why you two are not more in tune in your thinking. Is Congressman Murtha getting bad information from the Generals and others?

Thank you.

Gen. Clark,

I think you're right in your key assetion in yesterday's op-ed -- namely that the big winner in all of this is Iran, and that our invasion of Iraq may leave an imbalance of power in the Persian Gulf which will pose a longer-term security threat to friendly Arab states on the southern side of the Gulf.  The Bush administration seems to be almost acquiescing in this, having not pushed back against the Shi'ites monopolization of oil revenues in the constitution, and having allowed the heavily Iranian-influcenced Shi'ite militias to essentially take oversome units of the Iraqi military.

Given that the same Shi'ite fundamentalist parties (the coalition including SCIRI and al-Dawa) are likely to win a plurality in the Dec. 15th elections, and Ibrahim al-Jafari seems intent on "winning" these issues for the Shi'ite community, what leverage do you think we have to reverse these trends?

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

Gen. Clark,

I think you're right in your key assetion in yesterday's op-ed -- namely that the big winner in all of this is Iran, and that our invasion of Iraq may leave an imbalance of power in the Persian Gulf which will pose a longer-term security threat to friendly Arab states on the southern side of the Gulf.  The Bush administration seems to be almost acquiescing in this, having not pushed back against the Shi'ites monopolization of oil revenues in the constitution, and having allowed the heavily Iranian-influcenced Shi'ite militias to essentially take oversome units of the Iraqi military.

Given that the same Shi'ite fundamentalist parties (the coalition including SCIRI and al-Dawa) are likely to win a plurality in the Dec. 15th elections, and Ibrahim al-Jafari seems intent on "winning" these issues for the Shi'ite community, what leverage do you think we have to reverse these trends?

I really have three central questions right now that I think cover the spectrum of reasonable concerns with your plan thus far, the first and foremost is how to win the home front, namely the President and the Congress, because without political and public support American policy will continue “staying the course” particuraly on the diplomatic equation, or due to voter backlash we may pull out prematurely. The other two concerns are policy related.

#1 Political: Right now a lot of Democrats appear to be lining up behind a hybrid of the Murtha proposal: that we begin drawing down our commitments in Iraq right now and be completely gone in a year or two with a regional rapid responce force. Given the present climate of partisanship and lack of public support for the war effort how can we get the majority of the American people back on board, and is doing that essential to success, or can we be out in two years roughly? And what kind of concessions can we make if any, without endangering the troops or the mission? Would it be possible to start pulling guard and reserve units home or to just re-deploy them from Iraq to Afghanistan?

It might bolster public support for the effort if we could begin reducing commitments incrementally based on perhaps the addition of more Iraqi troops? You mentioned that after the elections we could withdraw about 30,000 troops of the 160,000 we have there now, which units and branches of service do you think we should focus on, Guard and Reserves? And if so would it be possible to give the National Guard units of Louisiana and Mississippi and Reservists from those states a break and end their rotation into and out of Iraq permanently so they can go home and attend to their families properly?

#2: I haven’t wanted to consider this but what if we can’t change the course in time to prevent the disaster in Iraq you have warned about? What can we do to keep Iranian homogony from spreading beyond Iraq’s borders, what do we do then ‘if’ we do fail to prevent it and Iran threatens our allies? I imagine if or when the window of opportunity closes it will likely do so rapidly and in dramatic fashion, what is the back up plan if Washington fails to heed your call and things do go very badly? One of my major concerns is that if we don’t have a plan thought out in advance we’ll have a repeat of Beirut in that we may leave a lot of “stuff” behind in a three week mad rush for the exits.

At this point I do think given the leanings in some in the Democratic party lately and Republican electoral concerns not to mention possible Iraqi factors that we need to have a game plan on how to get out while causing minimal damage 'if' things go wrong. If we are forced to withdraw the troops before Iraq is ready, is it possible to contain the monster we may end up creating in Iraq should we fail, can it be policed like we boxed in Saddam in the 90s or are the dynamics too fluidic to control in such a manner?

#3: What is the sign that the window(s) of opportunity have slammed shut on us and there is nothing left that we can do to influence events in Iraq legitimately? What is the threshold we have to cross before we reach the point that we are out of options to change the outcome? And if the two windows of opportunity you mentioned yesterday are squandered, which is a considerable possibility are there other windows of opportunity that we or others might open up or is this period over the next 3 to 4 months after the election our last chance to get it right? If we fail to use these oppertunities should we begin an planned incremental withdraw or something like that to avoid a pre or post election rush for the exits? And if there are other possible opportunities what might they be and how can we build on them?

On a side note I believe if implemented your plan will work and I fully support your effort, what can we do additionally to give your plan the traction it needs in Washington and in the press to turn from policy paper into action?

Thank you sir.

James Mitchem

Do you watch the tv show Commander in Chief? What do you think of General Keaton?

Thank you so much for stopping by to visit and answer questions.

Great to "see" you again, sir.

I've been wondering if your gig at Fox News is limiting your exposure on other networds. I hardly ever even hear your name on MSNBC and CNN.

What do you think?

See ya' on the trail.

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

for taking our questions.  Along the same lines as Hogfan's questions, I see many people who believe our presence is the major problem (probably is) so the way to cool things down is for us to draw down. How do we and the Democratic Party communicate to the American people that a draw down without a plan is no better and perhaps worse than the dangerous invasion without a plan?  I see things very quickly moving toward "just get our people out of there."

General Clark, if your worst-case scenario for failure in Iraq is regional conflict, doesn't that mean most of the western world has a huge stake in averting failure?

Although the European countries who refused to get involved (as it turns out for all the right reasons) still oppose the war don't they now have a stake in it's success? Is there any prospect of that being leveraged? It's not like only the US depends on Middle Eastern oil.

_{You'd be taking them to the Better Business Bureau if you bought a washing machine the way we went into the war in Iraq. Wes Clark, CNN Aug 17 2003}

Wes, would you be willing to talk with General Pace about your ideas and plans on Iraq? He seems like a very reasonable guy. He was on C-SPAN making a speech and clearly seems interested in hearing ideas on what to do about violent extremism. I was very impressed with what he had to say, his delivery and how approachable he seems to be. Would you call him? Please:)

Two questions:

1. 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?

2. Have you talked with Rep. Murtha about your plan/ideas?

Thanks!

"...the measure of success is...'Can you get your ideas adopted?' " ~ Wes Clark

you mentioned in the blog yesterday RE: the window of opportunity and the fallback position so that people can fully understand your position and not write you off as one of the "stay the course" crowd??  I'm fearful people want to pigeon-hole you in terms of that view... I've been trying to make sure people understand that you are NOT supporting Bush/Lieberman et al -- some people want to lump you in with that message.

THANKS!! Gloria 

Visit www.zianet.com/insightanalytical - Home of the World Media Watch M-W-F, also at Buzzflash.com

Although you feel it is not too late to prevent total failure of the mission in Iraq (and I use the term loosely, because we've yet to hear a good explanation of what the mission is), is that really the same as "winning"? And WHAT exactly is there for us to "win" in Iraq? Governor Dean is getting a lot of flack from the usual suspects right now for his comment that winning in Iraq isn't possible, but is he really wrong?

Your op ed was well done but for me it still begs the question, I think a majority of Americans are asking. Why is it in my interest or that of US to stay in Iraq any longer? Without a public, credible, uncomplicated answer to that question, I think the troops will be out by the start of Presidential primaries. 

It seems to me we need to have that answer first before we have a new strategy. Does that make sense?

In your New York Times Op-Ed piece you stated, “Still, none of this necessitates a pullout until the job is done.” This takes me back to Vietnam, where I served in 1967-68 and 72-73. LBJ just couldn’t bring himself to admit that the war was unwinnable and so we lost almost 40,000 more troops after the Tet Offensive. I think we need to turn  the defense of Iraq over to the Iraqis and redeploy/regroup as quickly as possible. Our military occupation of Iraq simply plays into Bin Laden’s hands and keeps the insurgency going.

 I don't see how we can prevent a civil war whether we remain in Iraq another year or 5 more years. It is an artifically created state, much like Yugoslavia, which lacking a strong leader, will most likely disintegrate. How long are you willing to remain in Iraq to get the job done?

if the American course doesn't change, and simply "stays."  Is there any realistic process that Bush and the cabal of Cheney-Rumsfeld will change anything?  Can these ideas be anything more than intellectual exercises?  What do you see as the likelihood (not the desirability) of the changes on the Iraqi side?

(The reason I pose all these is that I really already see it as "too late", particularly when there is no willingness, here or there, to change course.

Seymour Hersh says that the Bush plan is to draw down troops and replace them with U.S. air power. Hersh says the American Air Force Generals and Commanders are terrified that they will be expected to take their targets from unknown Iraqis whose goals may be to wipe out their tribal/political enemies and that we may thus be drawn inadvertantly to one side of a civil war. And if so, wouldn't the regional allies of the waring factions in Iraq be drawn into the conflict escalating the violence? Is this what you're trying to avoid with your plan? Thank you.

Dear Gen. Clark:

You very clearly state the false, loud, and partisan debate that is going on between the two extremes of "cut and run" and "staying on Bush's course right and talk about the need of a modified strategy:

"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."

You also deny "cut and run," and show full support for our troops and for their mission:

"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."

My questions are how can we effectively spread your correct and balanced message that negates the extreme positions so that the neoconservative Republicans will not be able to say that we are not offering a real solution to the Iraq dilemma or a serious alternative to Bush's course when you are very clearly doing both?

Also, how can the partisanship that is being shown over this issue be toned down?  I appreciate your call for that on your FOX News interviews!

Thank you,

Mitch Dworkin

Sir,

What do you make of the Saddam trial in Iraq? It appears as if Saddam is in charge, refusing to appear in court, making derogatory remarks to the judge, yelling, etc. Would it be a better idea just to get him out of Iraq and hold the proceeding, perhaps in the Hague and hold him responsible for war crimes?. I see his presence in Iraq as fueling the insurgent movement and possibly giving those street thugs more of an incentive to resist the new constitution...thus putting more of our troops in harm's way for a longer period of time. What do you think????? 

P.S.- Hello from your friends up in Maine. It was great to see you at the Muskie Lobster Bake in Brunswick this summer. Thanks for coming !!

Wes,

When someone asked yesterday about a fall-back position, they weren't really talking about the actual process of withdrawal, but whether or not you have a "Plan B" if we come up to the end of the period in which the Iraqi constitution can be amended and it has not been.  In other words if your plan isn't implemented or doesn't work, what do we do then?  You outlined two windows.  What if that window 1 is closed and what if it looks as if window 2 (the Irai government asking us to get out) does not look likely to happen?  To what degree do you advocate staying there long beyond that time?  I understand your wish to avoid timelines, but, on the other hand, you are not advocating that we stay indefinitely are you?

many thanks for your answers.  Many have already asked questions I wanted answered.

My Q edited out because you've answered it!  Thank you! 

Take care!

Kaye Hancock from Santa Fe, NM

John Murtha is commanding much of the debating points in media regarding the Democrats plan, especially since it was endorsed by Pelosi.  He recently argued on MsNBC that almost 95% of insurgents are Iraqis, who are mostly opposed to our occupation.  If the US military withdraws, he argued that the insurgency movement would dissipate and Iraqis would instead direct their political and security efforts against the al'Qaeda movement and terrorist elements within the country. 

How can we best eliminate AQ movement in Iraq, when the insurgency movement that's comprised mostly by Iraqis (Sunnis) are directly opposed to the "occupation" of their country, as well as our military presence in the region.

First off, thank you so much for taking the time to answer our questions, General.

Sir, when you were in Qatar, it was for a conference with the NATO Secretary General, was it not?  Could you give us some of your insights as to the results of that meeting?  Is there a likelihood of further NATO involvement in the region, or any level of consensus among the member nations as to what level of participation might be feasible politically?  Do you know, or sense, whether our administration is doing a better job of wooing NATO and other European leaders?  And to what extent are the Arab leaders inclined to accept NATO involvement?

"Never underestimate what a determined soldier can accomplish when he's fighting for his country." -- General Wes Clark

General Clark,

First I would like to express my hopes to see you take the oath as our Commander and Chief, and the sooner the better.

Over the summer, I found myself in such a state of outrage, that I lashed out with the only weapons I had, the 1^st Amendment and my computer. I started out on Congressman John Conyers’ website, and soon found myself penning an open letter to the press ripping them a new one for ignoring stories critical of the Bush administration. This later lead me co-found SoapBox4Truth.org, a site dedicated to providing insight into the Bush administration’s dealings in the Middle East and Iraq. This lead me to sign on with groups like After Downing Street and Gold Star Vets for Peace. That’s when I saw things start to unravel.

I am proud of the work done by these groups. I’ve gone from being laughed off of Washington Journal for bringing up the word “Impeachment”, to hearing it at least once a week in the MSM. But now I fear that some of the rhetoric used by many of the groups involved in this political knee capping of the Bush administration jeopardizes this accomplishment and could inadvertently cripple the Democratic party as a whole in ’06 and ‘08.

Accept it or not, the Democratic Party has been decapitated by the last two Presidential elections. We have no coherent message, because we have no legitimate leader. In a way, we are in the same boat as the people of Iraq. We are rapidly fracturing along a distinct line between immediate withdraw from Iraq, and force the administration to do it right. I believe that neither line of thinking is good. In fact, I believe that they both will lead to disaster.

The only way to save our party, our country, our place in the world community, is to push for the removal of the Bush administration which starts with putting a Democrat in the House Speaker’s seat in ’06. 

My question to you is, would you be willing to explore methods of asking our troops to reach out voters at home and endorse you as the logical choice to lead them to a true victory that we can be proud of? I realize that I would be a risky move, but risk brings reward to those who dare.

Oh yeh, did you get to read Richard Clarke’s book, “The Scorpions Gate”? If not, check it out. It’s one heck of a story.

Thank you sir,

Erik

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 from the Shia.

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

the questions are great so I would just like to tell you how much I appreciate that you speak of what's best for everyone without tailoring your words or ideas to benefit yourself or a personal agenda.

You are the best example we have of someone working for the common good which is a foreign concept to many! Many of our blogging friends really can't conceive of this concept and assume you have ulterior motives. We know. And we thank you sir.

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right. - Hunter/Garcia

When Americans were threatened, by the administration, with Saddam's alleged WMDs in Iraq, they suppported the invasion.  Now that the truth is known the desire to stay any course is faltering.  Given the average American's short attention span, wth what can we convince that American--in 25 words or less--that it is in our best interests to finish the mission?

and Psy-ops play an important part in any war, but how can we be effective in Iraq if no one believes a word the Adminstration says, anymore? Basically I'm talking about dealing with the fear the Iraqis have that we plan to occupy their country forever. (Maybe their fear is well-founded.)

General Clark,

Thanks for your thoughtful answers. I want you to be able to answer Mr. Bush on the major networks so the mainstream hear what you have to say. What can be done to accomplish that?

Thank you sir, for everything you do. 

snip>  First, the Iraqis must change the Constitution as quickly as possible after next week's parliamentary elections. <snip

Thank you!

General Clark,

Thank you for continuing to keep your message out in the public.  While those who follow the Iraq and Middle East situations closely will understand your points (whether they agree or disagree), I fear that the general public doesn't understand.  Can you boil it down by telling them what it means to each and every American if we a) "stay the course" a la George Bush  b) do the popular thing and withdraw troops now and let the Iraqi's handle their own country or c) follow your plan .  I think that making it as simple as possible is the only way most Americans will follow this reasoning. 

Also, how would you answer the critics of your plan who say that it makes no difference what you propose because George "Bull-headed" Bush will not do anything anyone else tells him to do anyway?  That seems to be a frequent argument against your plan on other blogs.

Thanks for considering my questions.

For all you do, this contribution is for you!

Transaction ID:15996068Date:December 7, 2005 Amount:$20.08

 Mission Accomplished!

Why are we still there?

The rest of the arab world now fears destabilizing influence. Maybe they should have spoken up more before this started. The coalition of the bribed is no more, it grows smaller every day, outside of the Marianna Islands and Tom DeLay's forced abortion sweatshops that the RNC profited off alongside Jack Abramoff..

We have to take care of our own business first.

Iraq will continue to be a war, let's go three state and side with the Kurds to hedge Turkey into the EU in a triangular diplomacy model.

Let them(NATO) take it over from there. The plan was to split the Moslemn world with a Sunni/Shi'ia civil war and  tap old historical veins of tension. Mission accomplished. An outsider isn't going to fix that now.

Starting a repatriation program for Kurds of influence and standing perhaps would ease the Turk tensions? It would definitely accelerate EU influence  provided Trukey joins.

The Kurds are the most likely staging point for Iran subtrfuge anyways now, might as well give them their own country for having gone to bat for us and in their own interests.

Probably water under the bridge now, but did we really have to preserve the borders of Iraq that were drawn up by Winston Churchill 80 years ago? Would we be in a better or worse position if we had just given each major faction in Iraq control of their own 'homeland' and split the country up under an International Summit?

You have characterized Iraq as sitting on the fault-line between Shia and Sunni Islam, so is it wise to try to construct something directly on top of a fault line?

Yes, where were our Iraqi allies on this one? This is bullshit. It doesn't matter when we pullout, the government we leave behind will be impotent. Power comes from the people and it seems to me the Iraqis are giving it to the militias. What's it going to take to make things go our way? Look at how much time and money we spent training the South Vietnamese Army. They fell in extremely short order after we left. The Iraqi government will do the same; they're infested with the very elements we're fighting. We can't win.

Posted by: Patrick Lane | December 03, 2005 at 11:11 AM

Wes, do you agree with the approximately 7% figure for fighters coming into Iraq? Do you agree with Congressman Murtha, who said today the Iraqis could or would get rid of them, if only we were not there.

Thank you for everything.

Let's Go Get Those Bush Bastards - http://ga4.org/campaign/prisonerabuse?source=gac_pa

Gen. Clark,
 
I support and have confidence about a phased withdrawal in Iraq and hope that the U.S. will not repeat the policy of preemptive war in the region.  I was told by a friend, who has an interest in economics, that Iran may provoke the U.S.  and begin trading oil in euros on March 29, 2006. I don't yet have a news source or second source for that contention. Is it possible or am I  putting too much stock in unsupported rumor and conjecture?     

The C-in-C has hired 2 professors who researched public support of prior wars and concluded that American people will support war if it is for a good cause and it is winnable.

Assuming a national leader of whatever party can and will make a convincing, practical case for staying e. g. a future reliable recurring flow of oil to the free world, it still leaves the question of how we know when we have won. My view is we approach victory as one approaches a limit in math. one gets close but never reaches it Or have we been lured into a definitional trap by calling what we do in Iraq a war?

Do you have any thoughts on how bipartisan public support can be generated for our continuing presence in Iraq? Wes Clark, John McCain, Eric Shineseki jointly proposing adoption of Wes' proposed strategy or something close to  it? Include a feedback loop so USG can provide citizens here and there with status e.g. about reconstruction progress or problems that require prompt attention.

ADDED @2030 7 Dec 05

In one context, creating a free and democratic Iraq is analogous to managing a huge and complex aquisition program: large number of variables and interdependencies present in an unstructured environment requiring untold amounts of money and multidisciplinary skill sets. In my view it requires a strategy that takes a systems approach, which Wes' op ed introduces. Key is to then execute that strategy effectively and reliably. Upcoming elections and partisan politics will prevent that from happening unless some wise people in both parties promptly get their heads together and take a bipartisan approach to solving the problem. The country needs experienced leadership now! 

Wes, does it make sense to try and form a bipartisan group to put a public imprimatur on a new strategy that can protect our interests and help Iraq simultaneously? Success would then require an experienced and accountable leader to implement that strategy and manage real world anomalies.

Thanx