My Favorite Wes blogging quotes - My keepers
Submitted by noelschutz on December 7, 2005 - 6:52pm.
Hey, some big time folks on Wes's blogging today.
Here are my keepers:
On a war cabinet
I am against a war cabinet at this time. A war cabinet might be important when the country is in danger of being overrun or invaded, like Britain in 1940. But it would mean a lack administration, Congress, courts, and MSM if we were to do one now. And what for? So the Administration doesn't have to defend its approach to national security? So people can be kidnapped and tortured without any oversight? Or our troops can be left without adequte guidance?
A war cabinet would suggest that democratic dialogue and dissent would give comfort to the enemy. I don't believe that. And I'm sure most of us don't.
The big question
So, the question is, is it too late? I don't think so, as I explained yesterday.
But if we keep on like we're going, doing the Iranians work inside Iraq, then, yes, we'll hit brick wall with the political changes, and we'll either lose all influence or be asked to leave.
Later this
Not too late, but getting that way quick. Winning is a stable, integral, democratizing Iraq that is not a threat to its neighbors. And by democratizing, I don't mean Iranian style democracy.
On being right
Thanks. But remember, no one is ever right all the time. This is like playing chess and trying to be several moves ahead. You soak up the facts, use your intuition, and pray.
On political considerations:
Democrats in office are driven by the politics of Iraq. But what we all need to realize is that the American people don't want to see us lose. If the Democrats make a big play on the need for a pullout, and things go wrong in the current strategy, as they almost certainly will, then where will the Dems be? They'll be blamed.
On advice to office holders
I've spent a lot of time talking to Democrats, but I am not in office. They have to concern themselves with winning reelection. I am giving them my best advice. I hope they'll be able to use it somehow.
On the Sunnis
We have three interests in Iraq: preventing a "terrorist " claim of victory there, leaving behind a stable, integral and peaceful Iraq which doesn't threaten its neighbors, and dealing with other regional problems like Iran and Syria. A hasty pullout certainly will be cited by the terorists as a sign of their success. It will demoralize our friends and supercharge their recruiting. My OP-ED yesterday addresses the second interest. On the third, we need strength to deal with Syria and Iran. A pullout driven by cries of woe and partisanship at home just makes us weaker.
What I tried to say yesterday was that against the Sunnis we should be content to aim for reassimilation into society, rather than just killing them. If we continue to try to kill them we just make more enemies....
On expanded involvement by other nations
Yes, the whole world has a stake in the outcome. But utimately, oil can be bought. It isn't about conquering territories. So the Europeans want to hang back a little..they will help if we work to create the right framework of diplomacy...
On Murtha
Sue, I love Congressman Murtha. He's already staked out a public position. He'll either have to live with that or change it, and changing it would be difficult at this point even if he had second thoughts, which I hope he does.
On Bush-lite
Gloria, let's get right into the substance. There are always people who don't do their homework and want to label people. I recall during the campaign that it was Lieberman calling me Bush light. Don't worry about it. It's not about who you're with, It's about the right thing to do. And I hope Bush will use what I said.
On withdrawal NOW
The ANSWER: a withdrawal now would constitute a monumental failure for the United States. It would aid terrorists, undercut our friends, make it more difficult to deal with North Korea and Iran, and ultimately even impact us economically. It would be a mistake. The trick is to get the strategy right!
On the Vietnam parallel
Fred, this isn't Vietnam, every case is always different. I do believe if we follow the ideas I sketched out that we can avert a civil war and avoid an American defeat. Vietnam was a defeat. We shouldn't forget that. I was a Captain at Fort Leavenworth when Saigon fell, I was with a class of 1200 officers. The Vietnamese officers immediately left to become waiters in local restaruants, for they had no money. The Cambodian officers went home, and were later killed, I heard, and as for the Americans - well, we cried. It had been long and hard, and futile ultimately.
I can talk for a long time about why we failed. It wasn't inevitable. It really wasn't. Read the new book, Mao, the Unknown Story, for a different take.
Finale
Thanks for all the great questions. I will be in touch soon.
Best,
Wes
Thanks for posting these, Noel. Is there a transcript of the full thing somewhere?
I just signed up to this site. I was a member of CCN, but either my password didn't carry over or I forgot it. DailyKos has been my blog of choice since the beginning of the year (I followed Armando over), and I appreciate the vast input of information from everywhere that comes in there. But recently I have been very disturbed by the seeming dramatic increase of the "out now!" crowd and the lack of common sense that many of them display. This heralds a bad trend for us. I recognize it - the "peace with honor" which Nixon sought in Viet Nam was fuel on fire for us. Clark has much sage advice for these times. I will be visiting here frequently and hoping to carry his words to other parts of the "lefty blogoshpere" that I feel are losing sight of the big picture.
The accounts didn't carry over.
This was today's discussion: http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/2934
And this was yesterday's:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/2914
We love kos but stay here and have fun, bicker, spread the word, talk about our pets and Generally form a community. On the same page as kos though. You know us well.
Noel
now,.. don't forget about yesterdays, either
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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.)
The two windows are really benchmarks. Close either one and the other one is closed as well in my opinion.
Wes mentioned we would know how the election went within four montsh. Then we would be at a point to make a decision. I see this as meaning in the late Spring Wes will come out with a definitive statement.
If, on the one hand, the election does well, hostilities are abating and the government embraces the Sunnis and doesn't ask us to leave. He will tell us what to do next.
If, on the other hand, the election does not work out well and the current trends continue, Wes will tell us how we should proceed with a pull out.
So there is a timetable of a sorts. The pullout would, he said, take about four months to get the troops out. So all will happen well before the election and as Wes mentioned his strategy was not followed so it didn't work out and BushCo cannot say its the Dems fault. Well, he can say it but will anyone believe it.
Noel
I dont' think that the elections will help much. The insurgents are the same kind of "lunatic fringe" that we talk about in this country regarding the extremes on each end of the spectrum. They're just like Timothy McVey and his ilk, but in Iraq there are so many damned many of them.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
Question: General Clark, I think you need to lay out your fallback position. The liberals aren't buying this. They think you're too optimistic.
His response
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....
BOHICA (used to be mess o potamian tar baby)
because he seemed to address more the issue of the time frame for actual withdrawal once the decision had been made rather than the real question she posed, which was more in the line of "Do you have a fallback position (or a Plan B) for actually making the decision, if things do not go as we would wish." I thought he was either confused by the term "Fallback" which may well have much more of a specific military connotation to him than to us or he was deftly sidestepping the real question. I hope it was the former.
His answer was definitely helpful with arguments in Kos-like places because it shows he's not too stubborn to leave if necessary. That's what I think people are most afraid of--not just about Wes but about anyone who isn't saying "just bring them home now."
www.clarkbuttons.com (did I mention they're free?)
as the drawdown is implemented...no grass grows under the General's feet, that's for sure. Last thing our General wants is an occupation - he's already made that perfectly clear.
Debra Bowen for CA Secretary of State \'06!
"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."
(this was from yesterday afternoon's thread: http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/2914#comment-47580)