Gen. Clark was LIVE today on FOX (12/11 )and was excellent (full report)!
Submitted by Gloria on December 11, 2005 - 12:58pm.
From the Diaries -- Brent
He appeared live on Fox today a few minutes later than the scheduled :20 after the hour...it was NOT a BBC interview.
Right off the bat, he was asked by Eric about Gen. Casey's earlier comments "optimistic but realistic" on the show about the elections, Sunnis wanting to vote, and fewer suicide bombings....vs Dean's comments about how "we're not going to win." Wisely, he didn't take the bait about Dean ("I can't explain Howard Dean") and praised Casey for doing a good job over there.
He pointed out that we had had elections before and it didn't stop the insurgents and that the Sunnis recognize the Iranians are taking contol via the Shias. The Administration has to work to lessen the sectarian nature of the situation, to change the constitution to try to make the army reflect the population of Iraq, not a Shia and Kurdish army. If we don't do that, we will not be able to undercut the insurgency.
Eric stated that the Sunni clerics were urging their followers to go out and vote...how can the Sunnis translate that into a better representation in the military, etc.?
Clark said it's up to the U.S. to use it's influence. Clark said we still have the "trump hand"-- the Iraqi Shias can't ask us to leave until we finish off the insurgency or until we finish training the troops. We've got to translate our military strength and capabiltites into political influence to open the doors for Sunni participation and influence in that government.
On Al-Zawahari's (sp?) new tape (AQ no. 2 man) ....Clark said Karzai and Afghanistan are in danger because we have been slipping and sliding in terms of security but the broader message about Al-Qaeda is a weak message. He's talking about defeats. He's trying to rally his troops. ... we are succeeding in putting pressure on Al-Qaeda, and the broader question is, can we handle the regional dynamics of the Persian Gulf? Can we bring the fighting in Iraq to a conclusion that not only gives the semblance of democracy through voting...remember, in Iran they have votes...but we want real democracy, that brings the country together, not that hands it over to the Iranian-oriented clerics in Iraq.
Eric: You've posed the question, how would you answer your own question?
Clark said it's really requires the Admin. to be very, very nimble and quick in linking our military capabilities to the political outcomes we want right now. We've got a window of about 4 months after this election try to get that constitution re-jiggered so that so that it cuts off the Iranians access and the Shias control over the oil in that south and denies Iran the opportunity to create a Shia-dominated buffer state in the south..about a 4 month window.
He then stated that "After that, we're going to leave because we've done our work there and the Shias will want us to leave because we've handed over to them what they're most interested in. It won't be a victory that we'll be proud of ultimately unless we take advantage right now of our military capabilities."
*****
A couple of things jumped out at me...first, the very crisp summary message about the overall situation, both in Iraq and the implications for the region.
Second, the statement (as predicted MONTHS ago) that Bushco will be leaving Iraq. (Interestingly, Rep. Pascrell was on just before Clark, stating that in Bush's next speech we would be hearing about pulling out, while a Republican Rep. named Rogers was vehemently disagreeing, talking about staying the course and erroneously talking about Al-Qaeda in Iraq as if it were the main problem.)
In talking about the Bush pullout, Clark moved the discussion into the next phase again--the consequences to the region and how the "victory" will not really be a victory for the Iraqi people nor the US.
It seems to me that this is what the Democrats need to be doing--broadening the picture and pounding against the upcoming propaganda we will be hearing about "victory" while the stage is set for the next mess in the region. Of course, Bushco may WANT this mess so it can trot out its nuclear weapons on Iran....we shall see.
He answered our questions about the 'window,' didn't he?
Go over and rate it up.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/11/16310/102
Thanks for this recap. A job well-done.
While you are there drop by Eric's post on Rumsfield and Recomend him as well.
1. Unfortunately Clark is not president, and the Commander in Chief is not going to carry out the excellent suggestions here. At best (and this is not too little) this is very good positioning for General Clark in the 2008 presidential race.
2. Where is the incentive for the Shi'ites to cooperate with secularism and bringing the Sunnis into the agreement? Not only are the Shi'ites run by clerics interested in ties with Iran, but secular nationalism was discredited by Saddam.
I'll support Clark's position as the least evil choice for the US, but I don't see it as possible as long as Bush is in the White House. More than than, I'll support Clark's position as a good track record for the 2008 election. We need someone in office who knows what he's doing with the military and foreign affairs.
it sure would be nice if the Democrats would take Gen. Clark somewhat more seriously before creating the confusion that has been evident lately...
If I were Wes Clark, I'd be banging my head against the wall right now. But, luckily, I am not WC....and he has the tenacity to keep trying to talk some sense into this party and country.
Does anybody know if we'll be getting a transcript and video of this very important appearance up here at WesPac soon?? I know people at Kos have requested a link to actually hear all of what he said. I tried to be as accurate as possible, but it's not a transcript and his expressions add to the total picture.
Visit www.zianet.com/insightanalytical - Home of the World Media Watch M-W-F, also at Buzzflash.com
http://securingamerica.com/node/375
(I got to this from the transcripts link on the left side of the homepage.)
...however, I doubt that 2008 is what is driving him. He decided to give his best advice, and this is it. As for the WHouse, I'm assuming that although this has been larger ignored by the MSM, and pooh-poohed by the the liberal blogs, the administration knows what General Clark has written. I've noticed an uptick in stories reporting negotiations with the Sunnis.
I do have some questions: I wonder how divided the Sunnis are since many of their major thinkers have probably fled. Also, how much are they now influenced by the Wabbiest from the countryside. I do believe that the memory of Baghdad of the 70s is still alive in the minds of the Sunnis, and prehaps some others.
My pondering about the Shi'ites includes not knowing just how fractured they are as a group. I get the impression that not all Shi'ites want to be under the thumb of Iran or even immitating the Iranian experience. Furthermore, I also understand the situtation to include a power struggle among the Shi'ite clergy.
And then the Kurds...a blank slate for me, except that they want to be left alone. They do want certain resettling to take place, and after all, they are mostly Sunni although that is probably secondary to being Kurds. Still, I don't get the impression that the Kurds would be happy to live little Iran.
What I'm getting to, is how possible would it be for an alliance of convenience to form among some of these seeming disperate groups?
I doubt General Clark sees the outcome of his plans to bring about an absolute settlement, but he is trying to find a way to leave an Iraq that can handle whatever residual unrest exists. Will bush listen? As you say, it is highly unlikely...except...the republicans want out of this mess. My god! What if someone should accuse them of "nation building"?
So glad you posted. I hope that we can continue this conversation.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
So I don't know how concerned he is about 2008. However, I suspect he is speaking more to fellow Democrats, since I doubt that the administration is paying any attention to him. I don't see any indications that they are. If you do, fine.
As for Sunni divisions, they have always been there. I think that is one reason it is so hard to get a handle on who the insurgents are. They are a lot of different people and groups, Iraqi and foreign, with different agendas. Then are are also the "tribal" differences, but those affect Shi'as, too. I'm not sure who "the Wabbiest from the countryside" are, so I can't speak to that, either.
I'm sure you're right that "not all Shi'ites want to be under the thumb of Iran or even immitating the Iranian experience" especially some of the women, but there are enough of them who do want ties with Iran that that is where the whole country is headed. And yes the Kurds want to be left alone, they want their own state, and Turkey doesn't want them to have it, neither does Iran.
The Kurds want Iraq to break up, the Shi'ites want to control it, and may consent to seeing it break up, that may leave a very angry Sunni rump susceptible to al-Qa'ida influence, or even control. Probably the best we can hope for is a Shi'ite takeover, but with the noises coming out of Iran today, that is a worse nightmare than ever.
We have landed ourselves in the middle of an impossible mess. We need to get out, but we are stuck like Br'er Rabbit on the tar baby. Now if someone will only throw us in the briar patch . . .
Without fox it is hard to comment on all of this. From everything that I'm reading, General Clark is absolutely correct about this: the Iranians can be the big winners. To think that our country has sacrificed lives, and treasure; while the Iraqi woman will lose what little freedom they had, for this.
And so by pointing out what should be obvious to everyone but isn't, General Clark advocates for what is the proper course, for our country, for the Iraqi people, for the region, and coincidentally, the Democratic Party.
The weakness in bush's so-called victory is Iran, the anti-Americanism in the region, and eventually the effect this will have on our economy. I'm very worried. bush went to war on lies and ends with lies. Meanwhile, the political discussion swirls around do we agree with Dean or Lieberman. And if Iran gets what it wants to later tweek our noses about oil, will anyone remember who put us in this situation. Probably not. The MSM can't remember what was said in the previous segment; just listen to Tweetie Amnesiaboy.
Thanks for the detailed report. DZ
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley