OPEd: USA TODAY: Next move in Iraq?
Submitted by Wes Clark on November 21, 2006 - 3:14am.
Iraq | Middle East
Next move in Iraq?
Americans want a new approach.
Withdrawal? A bad idea. Partitioning? Won't work. The right approach is one that addresses U.S. interests in the entire region.
By Wesley Clark
The mission in Iraq is spiraling into failure. American voters have sent a clear message: Bring our troops home, but don't lose. That's a tall order both for resurgent Democrats, some of whom are calling for a quick withdrawal, and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which is presumably crafting new options.
Instead of cutting and running or staying the course, it is time for us to begin to redeploy. But how can we do this and improve our prospects for success?
First, we have to think past Iraq and above partisan politics, folding actions in Iraq into a strategy to protect broader U.S. interests throughout the region.
Neither the Bush administration's latest pronouncements nor the current political dialogue has adequately engaged these vital interests. The calamity in Iraq has hogtied the Bush administration, inviting disarray, if not instability, in neighboring countries that also require our attention.
U.S. interests include dissuading Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons and its hegemonic aspirations, providing security assurances for the rapidly developing Arab Gulf states and working with our friends in the Middle East to ensure access to oil resources and regional stability.
Timetables a bad idea
What about a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals? Today, setting a rigid, Washington-driven timetable is an option, but a bad one. A precipitous troop reduction could have far-reaching effects: emboldening Iran, weakening U.S. security promises to friendly states, and even sparking military initiatives by other powers — Turkey or Iran — to deal with the resulting security vacuum. Our weakened position in Iraq also could undercut our leverage in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
What about imposing a tripartite division of Iraq? That would merely feed ethnic cleansing and likely lead to a wider, more intense conflict.
The right approach is a coordinated diplomatic, legal, economic and security campaign drawing upon broader dialogue in the region and intensified political work inside Iraq.
Here is how to do this:
- Establish an effective, sustained shuttle diplomacy within the region.
- Form a high-level interagency diplomatic team, representing the White House and secretaries of State and Defense and led by an experienced, respected diplomat.
- Begin talks within Iraq, and with all its neighbors, based on a clear set of principles outlined by the team. The goal would be to seek the commitments necessary to achieve our aims inside Iraq and also advance U.S. interests in the region.
These principles could include: Iraq would remain whole; oil revenue would go to the Iraqi people based on a formula they determine; the rights and security of individuals must be protected; the United States would have no permanent bases in Iraq; the covert flow of military arms and equipment into Iraq would be halted; and the security needs of all states would be respected.
Regional dialogue needed
A permanent Gulf regional security dialogue could emerge that includes Syria and Iran, and the United States could undertake a role as regional security guarantor. Preliminary discussions should lead to a more intensive dialogue with Iran in which security assurances and nuclear programs are discussed.
In terms of diplomacy, our team would engage each state and party, solicit its views and challenge it to participate in moving forward, just as U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke did in the Balkans a decade ago. Next steps might include confidence-building measures, hosted discussions between factions, and perhaps one or more larger meetings to conclude firm commitments, timetables or sequence of events.
Of course there are no guarantees, but from such a dialogue should emerge a prescription for U.S. troop levels and activities consistent with our larger interests. Carrots and sticks could be employed. For instance, the factions could vow certain actions in return for U.S. assistance or troop deployments, or redeployments, and possible assistance from neighboring states.
Reaching an understanding on Iraq need not be a lengthy process, but the dialogue must be broadened in scope and participation to be effective. The aim would be a consensual solution underwritten by outside guarantors, not an imposed solution. And finally, military power would have a subordinated and supporting role.
Simultaneously, the United States would set about transforming its applied military power in Iraq into the useful diplomatic influence essential to addressing broader security concerns.
Ultimately, security in the Gulf and winning against al-Qaeda will require that we work with regional powers, promote stability and gradual transformation, and regain "strategic consent" for long-term U.S. assistance in the region. We must use the situation in Iraq to propel us toward this larger goal, and in doing so, we will also find the right way to wind down our deployment there.
The outline of what needs to be done is clear. But does the administration have the courage and foresight to do it, or will it continue to march into profound failure?
Retired general Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO, is a senior fellow at UCLA's Burkle Center for International Relations.
in terms of the timetable question as a card on the negotiating table at a regional summit for the U.S. to be able to put down. Otherwise, we have not sticks....just carrots....if a timetable is set prior to a summit occurring.
"from such a dialogue should emerge a prescription for U.S. troop levels and activities consistent with our larger interests. Carrots and sticks could be employed. For instance, the factions could vow certain actions in return for U.S. assistance or troop deployments, or redeployments, and possible assistance from neighboring states."
"decent wages, education and health care for every American is "not just an opportunity, but a right."--Wes Clark
I'm going to be realistic about a timetable.
You're never going to be able to leave Iraq, especially when it comes to the Turkish border.
Ever.
A timetable would only apply to Sunni and Shi'ite territories after they have been partitioned. We would offer troop training, and logistical support if it is requested.
But, while there would be a timetable for those regions, when it came to Kurdistan?
No, we can never leave that border as it is now. In fact, we can't leave at all.
looks like you slipped in on us in the weee hours!
As usual your analysis is compelling, but as time goes on I becomre more and more convinced that neither the President noranyone in admintion has any idea about how to implement your suggestions.
We all enjoyed hearing you on the Ed Schultz show today; keep up the GREAT work!!!
Ellen
for putting your country first; I hope you make the decision to work the politics.
“If you put me on third base I'll take it home.” - Wes Clark
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi should be asking Gen. Clark to officially represent Democrats on a national level in my opinion!
This is also an excellent and serious platform to run on for President in 2008!
It's funny. Last night I had MSNBC on in the back ground. And then I heard a Democrat that was on with Tweety. He was sounding a lot like Wes. Tweety was actually being nice to this guy. It was Senator Jack Reed from R.I.
Reed said that we are way past the need for more troops. And we should be using Diplomacy. And I think he even mentioned the Carrot and Stick approach.
Maybe some of these guys are listening to Wes. One can surely hope.
Run Wes Run! (Please)
I for one am very impressed with your unwavering committment to diplomacy.
Whenever you are asked a question about "What do we do with our military?", your unvarying first response is along the lines of "We have to talk to people before we can answer that question."
Not that it's not an important question - but it seems that it is always, in your mind, the SECOND question, not the first. You're the only one I've heard speak like an actual grown-up, rooted in both reality and humble unchanging values rather than the opinion-of-the-week. It's why I want you as my president.
The issue of timetables came up yesterday on DailyKos, with a few people concerned that your rejection of them indicated you were willing to just "stay in Iraq indefinitely". This was my reply, and I hope I did you some modicum of justice:
"If you listen to some of his interviews on various talk radio, the point he keeps trying to drive home is that BOTH Dems and Republicans keep talking about timelines vs. no timelines, and ignoring what needs to be done to even develop a timeline.
That thing is real, serious, honest-to-God hard diplomacy. As in send in a real diplomatic team to talk to every country in the region, and every single faction - yes, even the ones who've been killing people. Give them a few weeks of meeting DAILY to see what sort of stepping-up the neighbors and vying groups are willing to do, and you plan your timelines accordingly.
You may find out that there's not a snowball's chance in hell of salvaging any stability at all, or you may find out that there is a chance for some semblance of order, or at least containment of the violence so it doesn't blow up the entire region. If it's the former, you pull out much quicker, but if it's the latter you've missed that chance by not even bothering to try talking to them.
What seems (to me) to frustrate Clark is that the talking heads in the press still insist on only addressing the military aspect (leave now? leave next year?) and virtually ignore the rest. He is ever and always saying TALK to people before you make decisions that will affect them, including how fast and on what timetable you get outta there. It's the responsible, adult thing to do.
His hesitance about timelines is in no way a willingness to stay there spinning our wheels indefinitely. We do need to stop occupying Iraq, and he says that.
It's a plea to do some damn grown-up diplomacy before you set a date. Diplomacy first, THEN set the military strategy for re-deployments and drawing down the troops.
The main thing I wanted to get across to those with understandable concerns about Clark and the war is that his hesitance on timelines is not an indication of warmongering. Far from it. It's that he has such heart for and commitment to peaceful diplomacy, that even in this godawful mess that he warned would happen, he believes we should try - because it's the right thing to do."
Thanks again for stopping in, sir. The breadth of your understanding is impressive, as always.
“If you put me on third base, I'll bring you home.” - Wes Clark
Wes always, always, always sees the military as an instrument or function of policy. This administration sees the military option as the end itself. "We will settle for nothing less than victory." That's a military term, not a term of policy.
We should have a policy of positive engagement with all stakeholders in the region. That's what Wes is saying.
You can't engage the stakeholders if you intend to bomb them. It tends to be just a little off-putting.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
Hi Stan,
You can't engage the stakeholders if you intend to bomb them. It tends to be just a little off-putting.
Bingo! And whatever stakes the U.S. thinks it has in the region ... the Iraqis and Iranians and Saudis and Syrians and etc. have even greater stakes. It's their home. They live there. We're just visitors (or invaders), and shoppers (or plunderers).
Crissie
It's a bad option because by it's very nature it dictatorial, not diplomatic. We need to develop any sort of timeline with the parties involved, diplomatically. Neither the Congress nor the administration can solve the problem over here, the hard work has to happen over there, and the only chance of any degree of success is if a serious effort is made diplomatically, and not just for a day or two...ongoing, over there.
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - Thomas Jefferson
Gen. Clark's op-ed calls for no timetable for U.S. troops to leave, no plan for withdrawal of U.S. troops, and no pressure for the Iraqi sects, outside of what he calls regional diplomacy, to unite for a coalition government. As much as I appreciate the General's position, this does not sound like a winning plan to me, and it would only keep us in Iraq for the long haul. How is Clark's plan, with very little pressure for Iraqis to curb violence outside of diplomacy, any different from the wishful platitudes of Abizaid that we heard from the commander during the hearings from last week?
On the positive side, Clark says that diplomacy and focus groups would be tenable options for working to curb violence and return both autonomy and stability to Iraq, and he sees the Iraq mission as part of a larger regional strategy for curbing Al-Queda's influence in the region. He is right in that we should engage with Syria (and, seemingly, Iran) over Iraq, of course.
Obama's plan for a flexible phased withdrawal, based on military realities on the ground and conditional support for Iraq's government based on ending sectarian violence and forming a coalition, from his conference in Chicago yesterday seems like a better plan than the General's.
My problem with Obama's plan is the same problem I have with most plans: It is repeating the (in my mind) grave error of unilateral planning when it comes to the Middle East. It repeats the mistake of coming up with plans that we then take to the region and say, "Here is our plan. We have decided (without bothering to consult you as to your real fears, concerns, and ambitions) that this will be good for all involved. Now sign off on it."
It's exactly that sort of arrogance that has gotten us where we are. The United States is, quite frankly, guessing when it comes to what the leaders in that region think or desire. We don't know. We haven't bothered to ask, we haven't bothered to open any meaningful dialogue. We are assuming. Well-intentioned assumptions are just as dangerous as aggressive ones - sometimes more so.
Talk first. Then plan. Horse before cart. I'll keep beating that drum til I'm blue in the face.
“If you put me on third base, I'll bring you home.” - Wes Clark
It completely blows my mind to hear everyone debating the relative merits and disadvantages of this or that plan, when NO ONE has asked the countries in the region for their input.
Some of those may indeed be good plans, but we CAN'T KNOW THAT until we talk to the regional leaders, inside Iraq and out.
This insistence on jockeying in front of the cameras for the "Best Plan Prize" while ignoring that basic truth has me banging my head on the desk.
“If you put me on third base, I'll bring you home.” - Wes Clark
In fact, I think there's a whole lotta head banging going on around here over this. And not the heavy metal fun kind, either.
What people calling for a Washington-dictated timeline seem to miss is the arrogance and lack of humility in that approach. We did this to the Iraqi people, we ought to at least consult them and the other powers who are going to be trying to influence their future before we dictate to them what amounts to an ultimatum. It's as if we are saying they are to blame for the invasion and occupation, the worst kind of arroagance imaginable. That kind "look out for yourself" of approach is NOT a way to regain respect in Iraq, the region, or the world.
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - Thomas Jefferson
One can go to them and say, "Look, we want out, and it's going to happen in some form or another. But we understand we'll be leaving you with a mess, and ask what we can do, working with you, to make it less horrendous."
There'll be some crow-eating. There damn well ought to be on our part. Suck it up, lay aside your pride, and do the tough diplomacy.
Many of the people who decried our arrogance in going in without consulting the regional leaders or tribal factions now want us to leave in exactly the same cavalier manner. It's the flip side of the SAME arrogance, folks. We have to stop occupying - there's no question of that. But must we do it with the same blind "we don't care what you think" attitude with which we went in? Do you think we can sashay out of Iraq and never have to deal with Iran or Iraq or Pakistan again?
It's not just Iraq, it's the REGION, and we'd damn well start building some bridges instead of burning them behind us, because the problems there aren't going away when we leave Iraq.
“If you put me on third base, I'll bring you home.” - Wes Clark
Hi Martin,
[...] and no pressure for the Iraqi sects, outside of what he calls regional diplomacy [...]
I've heard this theme often in the past week or two. Just last night on Hardball, as CM was interviewing Ed Rollins (GOP aide to Bush I) and interrogating the Dem strategist, the same theme came through: when the Dem talked about "diplomacy," both CM and Rollins dismissed it as "just talk."
Diplomacy is, by far and away, the most important tool of international relations. It's not "just talk." It saves lives and money by seeking mutual solutions rather than using force to impose "our" solution.
If we have a dispute at work or at home, most of us would agree that communication is and ought to be our first, best means of resolving that dispute. That includes listening, and a willingness to accept that our own interests are not supreme. By contrast, the person who doesn't want to talk unless/until he has some threat hanging over the other person's head is a "bully" or an "abuser," and rightly so.
This same principle applies in international relations. Yes, the world of international relations tends to be less structured and more like a preschool playground than a legislative chamber or a courtroom. We've let it be that way, and from that has come the common assumption -- nurtured by a bellicose press under the constant 'guidance' of a militarist guns-for-profit industry -- that it can't be otherwise.
But it can be. It often is. Witness the EU, or simply our relations with Canada. It's not that we never have disputes with Canada; we often have them. But we talk through these disputes rather than threatening to blow up Ottawa.
Diplomacy isn't "just talk." Diplomacy is the most effective and efficient form of statecraft. Don't dismiss its importance.
Crissie
Hi don,
When you're safe behind a desk, it's easy (and safe!) to dismiss "just talk," because you won't be the one caught in the "action." That's my gripe with the neocons and other militarists that are so revered by the MSM.
Crissie
He's repeated the theme that U.S. forces need to applied to leverage the Iraqi government to become more inclusive to the needs of the Sunni's, oil revenues etc.
As far as how long it takes, I don't know how long Clark's plan would take, I don't think even Wes knows that, but even Obama's plan isn't a sure fire way to get us out quick.
The sectarian bloodletting will not end until we do something to end it, Obama's plan would no doubt get us out of Iraq but it is almost certain that Iraq would collapse and Iran would insert itself into the security vaccum and there would be trouble with Kurdistan and Turkey.
Honestly I fear that Obama's plan is more likely to be implemented than Clark's, and the price we pay for that will be an escalating regional conflict. Given that we started this mess I think the worst insult we could add to Iraq's injury is to walk out without asking them what they want and doom them to one of the ugliest genocides in the past 50 years.
You are correct: General Clark does not like timetables because we would be only people beholden to them. And what happens then? I don't know how you define withdrawal, but I would think that no permanent bases and redeployment are certainly a plan for withdrawal.
If there are no good options, and I believe everyone can agree upon that, then since General Clark wants out of Iraq---without having to return---then he is telling you that this is the fastest way out. He is not advocating the "long haul" and has stated that he is not a believer in the Long War.
The article includes:
Begin talks within Iraq, and with all its neighbors, based on a clear set of principles outlined by the team. The goal would be to seek the commitments necessary to achieve our aims inside Iraq and also advance U.S. interests in the region.
and you said:
very little pressure for Iraqis to curb violence outside of diplomacy, any different from the wishful platitudes of Abizaid that we heard from the commander during the hearings from last week?
First, Abizaid primarily confined himself to the military options. And you don't know exactly what pressure Wes Clark would bring to the internal forces within Iraq. But we do know, that while you disparage diplomacy, combined with other carrots and sticks, it is the only thing that will bring an end to the violence. All conflicts end at the table, because all conflicts are political.
As for Obama's plan:
Obama's plan for a flexible phased withdrawal, based on military realities on the ground and conditional support for Iraq's government based on ending sectarian violence and forming a coalition,
This sounds very familiar as in: we'll stand down, when Iraqis stand up. Yes, this is bush's old meme. There's very little meat on this bone, and perhaps Obama has other ideas.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
Military realities?!?!
And you think Barack Obama has a better handle on the military realities than Retired 4-star General, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Wesley Clark? Um....ok.
Hi Wes,
The whole of your comments are so much more insightful than the nutgraf:
Withdrawal? A bad idea. Partitioning? Won't work. The right approach is one that addresses U.S. interests in the entire region.
The USA Today editors did you a grave disservice in writing that, as it portrays you as advocating U.S. interests to the exclusion of the interests of the Middle Eastern peoples themselves. And the body of your essay speaks directly to opening the dialogue by listening to what the Middle Eastern peoples have to say, and basing our actions on helping to fashion a solution which works for everyone.
My one contention is that we should not veto a three-state solution for Iraq, if that is what the Iraqis themselves want. There is already a two-state solution in place; Kurdistan is an autonomous state under the Iraqi Constitution. If the Shi'a and Sunni ultimately decide that a loose federation of three states is offers the most promise for peace and stability -- thus attracting foreign investment and rebuilding Iraq's shattered economy -- then the U.S. oughtn't to veto that solution.
Crissie
that a three-state solution, or partitioning, should not be something that is forced upon them, but rather it needs to be up to Iraq.
Hiya Dorm,
These principles could include: Iraq would remain whole[.]
That can sound like the U.S. is vetoing any multi-state solution, and I don't think that veto would be good policy.
Crissie
subject to the will of the Iraqi's. I believe Wes wants, ideally, just one Iraq, but if they decide otherwise, it's their decision. What will eventually evolve, I believe, is a system basically like ours, with one central federal govt. handling major things like currency, defense, etc. and then a system of states with powers to handle their own internal affairs. Maybe that's what they're working on now, I, frankly, don't know, but I'm sure Wes doesn't want to see 3 separate countries, which would lead to real problems.
Dividing the country into many smaller "states" instead of just 3 regions would also keep the size of the "militias" under control and prevent them from the endless sectarian battles.
Wes 08
Hi Dorm and don,
I'm quite sure that Wes doesn't think the U.S. has the legal or moral authority to veto a multi-state solution in Iraq, if that's what the Iraqi people want. He chose his words quite carefully ... "could" rather than "should" or "must," as Dorm said. But I also know that the MSM generally skims right over carefully-chosen words to what they see (or wish to see!) as "the gist of it." That was my concern.
Crissie
Taken with the picture of General Clark that appears with the article in today's USA TODAY publication, I researched The United States Institute of Peace.
Can anyone imagine a president or vice president of the United States dedicated to the proposition that he or she would be a peacemaker?
I came of age in the 1950s. America turned to General Eisenhower because it was sick of war. World War II was very much in the memory of Americans at the time, and the Korean War was a big issue during the 1952 presidential campaign.
During his presidency, Eisenhower was confronted with numerous international conflicts that could have led to the commitment of American troops on foreign soil, including an idea to send "advisors" to South Vietnam. He rejected intervention unless there was a clear American interest.
The architect of victory in Europe during World War II quickly resolved the Korean war and lead America through one of its longest periods of peace.
IMAGINE America with another proven military leader as its commander in chief.
"Mission and Goals of The United States Institute of Peace:
The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan, national institution established and funded by Congress. Its mission is to help:
Prevent and resolve violent international conflicts
Promote post-conflict stability and democratic transformations
Increase peacebuilding capacity, tools, and intellectual capital worldwide
USIP does this by empowering others with knowledge, skills, and resources, as well as by its direct involvement in peacebuilding efforts around the globe."
People ask me what Clark proposes and this gives the big picture better than I can respond. So I am sending it out right from the Donkey's Mouth - so to speak! (See Tom's Donkey in the Room blog!)
only two comments up at USA Today Opinion on the article. And one of 'em's mine. Perhaps a little support in the comment section would be a good idea.
Great piece General Clark, it was a treat to hear you on Ed Schultz yesterday.
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
Gen. Omar Bradley
I saw Jai's and mine is pending aproval.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
I wonder if that's John Carroll of Boston, Phoenix, WGBH, etc. who posted there.
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
Gen. Omar Bradley
there really is a here "here." What a great community to be a part of.
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
Gen. Omar Bradley
and permanent bases are already in Iraq and I bet we won't ever get out. We're still sending our troops to every other past war zone. This is a debacle of such enormity that I feel sorry for whoever has to take over after His Fraudulency leaves office. But if anybody can make this mess better, I know it's General Clark! It's not easy keeping hope alive. Takes a bus load of faith to get by.
Make the move, start your official campaign NOW! Grab the best people while you can. We need you!
it's General Clark. I believe now as I did during the 2004 primaries, that General Clark is the man for these times. If he decides to run for president, or is appointed by the new Democratic president to be chief negotiator in the Mid-East, he will prove to the world that he has the knowledge and wisdom to lead our country out of the awful situation that Bush has created.
covers all fronts. Obama is just parroting what others have said. and btw, it is probably significant that Iran and Syria are proposing diplomatic ideas to Iraq at present. I have a feeling they may be more tuned in to WKC than the US public is.
I am sure there are many thoughtful Iraqia who have good ideas, if they are only consulted.
Is this essay getting any commentary on Kos or elsewhere?
The General gets it right.
Competence--What a concept!
"Go Away" aka move redeploy. Then there's always option 5..."Going going, gone."
The remaining solution(s)-- (<---maybe too optimistic a term for such a multi dimensional messopotamia)-- but, the plans you have so clearly laid out here for 'extrication' with regional consideration... I'm afraid are likely to be too complex for most people to grasp in the desired soundbite moment.
Complex.
As is the problem. as is the country.
Maybe it won't matter what the average citizen understands and thinks about our getting out. Maybe it's only the handful of Beltway Bob's, the actual policy / decision makers, that need to fully acknowledge the scope as you present it here.
In doing my duty monitoring right wing radio -- I recently heard Sean Hannity telling his audience that it was all so complicated and that the new Dems would only be muddying the waters further by using terms they won't understand. So he was going to simplify it for them. And break it down. He announced on air that; "--you're goint to be hearing a lot about 'redeployment'... and every time you hear that, just know what it really means is- 'cut and run'--"
And because he's a rightie... he repeated that. Several times.
He went on to the economy to alert his listeners to the Dem's new linguistic sleights of tongue there... He said "--You'll also be hearing a lot about 'reinvestment' and just know when you hear that, that it only means 'higher taxes' for you".
Given this kind of "guidance"... how can we as bloggers help to get this message out and present it clearly and readily digestible? And counteract the Hannity effect.
As we move into Presidential Season on the heels of Dem Takeover Season-- it will play into voter's minds heavily, this idea of an Iraq Plan. And people in American, overly burdened with making ends meet, working two jobs, finding affordable health care and housing--- are frankly naturally drawn towards the pre-packaged Hannity style sound bites. We saw with Kerry how that worked. It's a rhetorical question, but I am concerned how we can best distill this important message for "distribution"...
Thank you again General for your most thoughtful and always penetrating analyses on these important problems. You have by far provided the most illuminating and well reasoned discussions on the Iraq war since even before we invaded! And we are eternally grateful.
...is that I recognized very few of the names of the posters.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
I hope only one shows up some day.
The clock is ticking!
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
It seems that we must be patient.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
And you did get up there twice!
(I was surprised they used mine -- I have not endeared Richard Perle to me!) ;P
The section is now closed for any further comments btw.
I purchased a USA Today at lunchtime so that I could read the Op/Ed in all it's 2-Dimensional glory. As I was finished and preparing to fold up the paper, someone who was apparently reading over my shoulder said, "Look, I was reading that piece by General Clark and would really appreciate it if you would allow me to finish." As I handed over the section I said, "By all means. This man knows what it will take to redefine the situation, you know. Feel free to pass it along to others." He smiled and took the paper from me.
Apparently, people are interested in looking at any and all ideas for a resolution to the Iraq debacle. Afterall, we broke it.....we bought it.
May the best idea win.
That's how it's done! This is also known as the "teachable moment."
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
I was in Gettysburg and had purchased a USA Today and came across the article. On my Bus was a RepublicN/FORMER MILITARY teacher. He had asked earlier about my Clark pin I made up. I gave him the article and told him to read this from a true leader. The teacher couldn't put the article down!!! He even got off the Bus when the students were making too much noise to concentrate on the article. It was fascinating to watch. After reading the article, he told me that he would vote for General Clark if he runs again.
Another converted and satisfied customer
If you're a member of Reddit.com, please vote this article up..
plan for Iraq which in my opinion is much better than what I am seeing from many people in this article!
At least Chuck Hegel will stand up to John McCain and he has the right idea about Iraq:
"Among the few GOP war critics who are weighing a possible presidential candidacy is Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. He took issue with McCain's call for more forces.
"We don't have the troops," he told MSNBC on Tuesday. "Even if we did, it's the wrong approach. The time for more troops is past.
"There's not going to be a military resolution that decides the outcome of Iraq. It will be a political solution," Hagel added."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/11/22/94114.shtml?s=ic
Wednesday, Nov. 22, 2006 9:38 a.m. EST
2008 Hopefuls Vary on Iraq Plans
As violence grips Iraq, some White House hopefuls want U.S. troops to start coming home now, or at least soon. Others say the United States must win at all costs. One has called for Iraq to be carved up along ethnic lines. And then there's Sen. John McCain.
"I believe victory is still attainable," the Arizona Republican says. "But without additional combat forces we will not win this war."
In carefully scripted language, McCain then adds: If the country does not have the will to do what it takes to win in Iraq - send in more forces - then U.S. troops should not be made to serve more tours of duty.
"As troubling as it is, I can ask a young Marine to go back to Iraq," he said last week. "What I cannot do is ask him to return to Iraq, to risk life and limb, so that we might delay our defeat for a few months or a year. That is more to ask than patriotism requires.
"It would be immoral, and I could not do it," the former Vietnam prisoner of war added.
Nuanced and multifaceted, McCain's position puts him in conflict with President Bush, most fellow Republicans and, so far, with many of his would-be White House rivals should he run for president.
The stance has allowed McCain, a staunch supporter of the war, to distance himself dramatically from how Bush has handled the conflict.
But the position also places the Arizona senator at odds with a majority of the country, which has grown increasingly frustrated with the nearly four-year-old war that has cost more than $350 billion and resulted in the deaths of nearly 2,900 U.S. military personnel.
Exit polling conducted for The Associated Press and the television networks during the Nov. 7 elections found a majority of voters disapproved of the war in Iraq, thought the conflict had not made the United States more secure and wanted troops to start coming home.
Last month, an AP-AOL News poll found that 58 percent of adults said the United States made a mistake in going to war in Iraq.
The situation in Iraq is ever-changing and the Bush administration, facing pressure from a disgruntled public and the newly elected Democratic-controlled Congress, is expected to make policy changes after former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton complete their independent review on Iraq.
Thus, many likely candidates are sticking to positions they have held for months. Others haven't yet had to face the tough daily questions on Iraq, given their current jobs.
That crop includes GOP Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuilani, and others outside of Washington. They will be forced to grapple with the issue once they decide whether to formally enter the presidential race.
On the Republican side, prospective presidential wannabes have trod carefully on the war, led by one of their own, with most shunning withdrawal of any sort.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who will retire from the Senate in January as he considers a White House run, has staunchly defended the administration. Yet, after the midterm congressional elections, Frist said a bipartisan discussion needs to occur about the way ahead.
"We do have to have victory in Iraq. We have to define what victory is," the Tennessee Republican said.
Another strong war supporter, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the House Armed Services Committee chairman who has launched a long-shot White House bid, said Monday that he wants trained Iraqi security forces to be moved to the front lines to fight to stabilize the country.
Among the few GOP war critics who are weighing a possible presidential candidacy is Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. He took issue with McCain's call for more forces.
"We don't have the troops," he told MSNBC on Tuesday. "Even if we did, it's the wrong approach. The time for more troops is past.
"There's not going to be a military resolution that decides the outcome of Iraq. It will be a political solution," Hagel added.
To varying degrees, possible Democratic candidates are pushing for a way out of Iraq.
Widely considered the Democratic front-runner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York had called for "a phased redeployment" to begin by years' end to, in part, get the attention of Iraq's leadership and demonstrate that U.S. forces would not be in Iraq permanently.
On Monday, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois urged a "gradual and substantial" reduction of forces to begin in four months to six months based on ground conditions and the advice of U.S. commanders. He left the specifics to them, and rejected McCain's call for more troops.
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the party's 2004 nominee, wants all combat forces to leave Iraq by July 1, 2007, and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, the vice presidential candidate two years ago, has called for 40,000 combat troops to withdraw immediately, and then a plan to phase out the remaining troops in 12 months to 18 months thereafter.
And, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has advocated finding peace through the division of the country along ethnic lines, with a central government being used only for border control matters and oil resource allocation.
© 2006 Associated Press.
Was this cross posted to Dkos, MyDD, DU, etc.?
It's time, General--time to announce your candidacy for President in 08. You will have lots more airtime as soon as you announce. Do it soon. We need your leadership. I was an elected Clark for President/04 delagate. I'm ready to do it again.
As much as I have been a supporter, Gen. Clark. I think you have to ask yourself this question, "How do you ask a young man or women to be the last American to die for a mistake?"
John Murtha is right. Not one more American should die to maintain the mullahs in power in Iraq. Not one more American should die to install a pro-Hezbollah, Iranian puppet regime in Iraq. They have a government, they have an army. Let them now assume responsibility for their country. If we want democracy there, then the Iraqis have decided. An overwhelming majority of them (91% Sunnis, 74% Shiites) want us out. Our presence is an instigation for more violence. There is some false idea that by staying we have control. We don't. Please reconsider your position or the anti-war Americans, who are now the majority will not support your candidacy. (See below)
Sincerely,
Bill from Oregon
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003437919
Poll: Most Americans Now Say Iraq War Similar to Vietnam Conflict
By E&P Staff
Published: November 22, 2006 12:40 PM ET
NEW YORK Claims by critics of the war in Iraq that this conflict is similar in many ways to the U.S. experience in Vietnam have long been derided by pundits and administrations officials. But a new survey finds that almost 6 in 10 Americans believe that the analogy is accurate.
A poll by Opinion Research Corporation released by CNN finds that 58% of respondents believe the war in Iraq has turned into a situation like the United States faced in Vietnam, up six points since early October.
In another finding, a whopping 63% of Americans now say they oppose the war in Iraq, with only 33% favoring it.
Ask yourself this question: how will you ask your men and women to die for the compounding of the mistake that you suggest?
Walking away from the mess we've created sure has short term appeal, but leaves the region in dangerous shape. A real leader faces up to that kind of situation and looks beyond the short term, beyond the next election cycle and thinks of the countries future.
Barry
Are you safer today than you were five years ago?©
I hear what you're saying, cmpnwtr.
However, Wes is saying that America has legitimate interests in the area, and pulling out before we've played all the cards in his plan would undermine our interests.
The legitimate interests include oil, of course, but oil is a very important American interest. (Of course we should be working double-time to reduce our dependence on Mideast oil at the same time.)
We also have an interest in being part of the solution to the area's problems for national security and counter-terrorism reasons.
It's a brutal and always tragic fact that when the military is deployed in a conflict, some will die. Nobody feels those deaths more deeply than Wes Clark, outside of the direct families of the fallen. But the military prong, along with the diplomatic and political prongs of his strategy, is necessary at this time and for what we devoutly hope is a short time longer.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
"Walking away from the mess we've created sure has short term appeal, "
I don't accept the premise at all that occupation provides any prospect for ameliorating a terrible situation, or any degree of control. Occupation was bad to begin with, and worse now. The Iraqi people don't want occcupation. The American people don't want occupation. And we need to finish with fighting wars of occupation for oil, and providing more recuits for Al Qaeda by being invaders and occupiers.
Frankly I want a response from Gen. Clark. How does he ask a young soldier to die for a lie?? I am hoping that he will respond, not you, since he is the one who will soon be running for president.
Clark has explained many times what he thinks should be done. You're playing the sound bite game with your comments. This is not a binary situation; continue the same failed military only policy or pull out. That is not the real situation.
It now appears that the only government in the world that's not talking with all countries in the region is the US. Even Iraq is meeting with Syria and Iran. The true problem is the total lack of leadership in Washington. Pulling the troops out won't change that at all.
Barry
Are you safer today than you were five years ago?©
"Clark has explained many times what he thinks should be done. You're playing the sound bite game with your comments. This is not a binary situation; continue the same failed military only policy or pull out. That is not the real situation."
The statements I am making are not a "game." They are the way that I see the situation and many Americans. It is one thing to disagree. It is another to denigrate another and their honest communications. Respectful dialogue in this forum is what is needed and I hope it is the policy of this forum.
The discussion of policy considerations still boils down to a moral question of what are we asking young Americans to do by adding a mistake upon a mistake, that occupying Iraq on a continuing basis will lead to rescuing a tragedy based on lies. Essentially Gen. Clark is asking that more Americans need to die by advocating this policy. I think he owes us and them an explanation for why this is necessary. Perhaps this is seen as a naive and simplistic question, but for me it gets to the core of it, whether you or Gen. Clark agree.
Negotiations are good and should have been done a long time ago. Whether they can bring peace to a civil war is really up to the parties in the civil war. In the meantime American troops have no business remaining there and no business dying there. And no more American families should be receiving coffins for a tragic and unnecessary war.
Let me try another approach. The question that you say needs to be answered follows a well known format to set someone up. What if I asked you; "when are you going to stop beating your wife?" Obviously that's a famous one. I don't know if you're married and if you are I'm certain that you don't beat your wife.
Clark has never asked anyone to "die for a lie". By phrasing your question that way you're attempting to trap anyone who tries to answer directly, intentionally or not. That is not "respectful dialogue".
You are right, the justification for the start of this war was a lie. But problem number one now is how to deal with the situation and make the best of it for our country and the world. Walking away doesn't solve the problem.
Clark has put forward his ideas for a solution many times and at no time has he asked anyone to "die for a lie" as you suggest. In pursuit of a lasting solution you might say that he asks some to risk their lives but he does that reluctantly. There are no quick solutions, we all need to focus on the real issues and get to work.
With that, "good night and good luck".
Barry
Are you safer today than you were five years ago?©
He wants us to stop occupying, and he's made that very clear. He is as far away from Bush's "Stay the Course" as it is possible to be. You're right - continuing to occupy is not the answer. Nor is blindly up and leaving a powderkeg with nuclear weapons on all sides.
A withdrawal has to be planned militarily JUST as much as an invasion does. He readily says that troops may need to be redeployed, perhaps to the borders, perhaps some home, perhaps other options. Get the targets off their backs. You'll notice that almost everything he says about the military is couched in terms of "could, might", not "should, will". That's not lack of conviction, that's a reflection of his basic premise, that everyone else keeps missing: that you have to have dialogue with the region before you can form a firm strategy for getting out of there. Policy first, then plan military strategy for withdrawal. Not the reverse. Good God, how long must he say this before anyone listens?
We went into Iraq blindly, arrogantly, with no concern for the tensions in the region and no respect for the surrounding countries. That was wrong, and dangerous. Wes said that all along.
Now he's saying that to pull out driven by the exact same blindness, ignorance, arrogance, and "us-first, us-only" policy is just as dangerous, and just as wrong, and we will pay for that eventually. To do it would be exhibiting the same disrespect for the other countries in the region that we have so despised in Bush. "Leave now, with no regard for anything" is in many ways a continuation of the flawed thinking that got us there. It would further widen the chasm between the US and those countries.
Clark is not saying stay in Iraq indefinitely, he's saying we need to USE our wind-down in Iraq as a way to heal some of that rift - not entrench it further. We have a glimmer of opportunity here.
We desperately need to build some bridges on our way out. Unless Iran, and Syria, and Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia etc are going to disappear from the world stage tomorrow, and we'll never have to deal or interact with them again, esp. regarding terrorism, then ignoring HOW and in what manner we leave is madness. Dangerous madness
General Clark is saying respect the regional leaders. Talk to them. Then make a plan to get our troops home that includes their input. The solution to reversing a very bad decision is neither to continue the same, nor to blindly do the opposite and hope that somehow works. The solution is to step back, assess where you are, and plan with your brain, not your emotions, to get yourself out of the mess.
This is about much more than getting out - which he wants to do. It's about changing our entire way of thinking about how you deal with that region.
“If you put me on third base, I'll bring you home.” - Wes Clark
A quick exit strategy will be elusive unless we convince the United Nations to step in, since our presence exacerbates regional tension. Most Sunnis want us out, despite the guarantee that Shiite death squads will "cleanse" them from many areas. Most Shiites want us out, responding to bile spewed by militant clerics.
It has become increasingly clear that we cannot win in Iraq without much greater force, but the United States is unwilling to invest in sufficient forces for a military victory (around 500,000). We are unable to win a war of attrition in Iraq, just like in Vietnam, as long as our adversary can replace casualties indefinitely. The United States cannot sustain the current level of conflict indefinitely, unlike our adversaries, because our failed policy is Al Qaeda's biggest recruiting tool for converting countless Muslims into militants.
Since the United States will not invest in winning, nor will we continue fighting at the current pace, we must find a political solution. We must negotiate with "terrorists," as all insurgents are collectively labeled, in order to withdraw with honor.
Unfortunately, both the Sunnis and Shiites are influenced by elements unwilling to negotiate. A political solution requires Sunnis to rebuke Al Qaeda, and Shiites to rebuke their death squad militias. Until Iraqis want a political solution, only external forces can prevent complete civil war. Iraq may already be past the point of no return, because individual Iraqis are now engaging in neighborhood ethnic cleansing. Nevertheless, we need to withdraw with honor.
We could engineer a face-saving withdrawal through a referendum gambit. Since public polls already suggest that most Iraqis would prefer that we leave, a formal referendum of Iraqis should produce similar conclusions. Since this would be the "will of the people," we could just pack our stuff and leave. We could just wash our hands of the situation, despite being responsible for the conflict. Our selective compliance with the will of the people could become a classic example of fair weather principles.
The referendum gambit is of questionable honor. As with the agreement that preceded the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam in 1973, the outcome of our withdrawal from Iraq is
predictable: The dominant force (Shiites) will defeat the weaker force (Sunnis) after we withdraw, unless either (1) a replacement peacekeeping force arrives, or (2) Iraqis reach
a political solution. Colin Powell was right about one thing: The "Pottery Barn Rule" applies: we broke it so we must fix it.
For the United States to withdraw, other forces must take our place until Iraqis reach a political solution. Everyone else is reluctant to step into our shoes because of our
arrogance in invading under false pretenses. They may be convinced, however, by a display of true mea culpa repentance.
Once it becomes obvious that the Bush administration was the perpetrator rather than the innocent victim of WMD disinformation, their conduct may be viewed as a war crime above and beyond the war crime charges currently being considered against Rumsfeld in Germany. Incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already signaled her intent to unleash the House Intelligence Committee, by replacing Rep. Jane Harman as incoming Chair with someone less aligned with the Bush administration. This committee would seem the perfect forum for investigating the actual source of the disinformation campaign.
I’m sure we could identify our own war crimes Gang of Five, similar to the Chinese Gang accused of subverting China after the death of Chairman Mao. Trying the perpetrators in the United States, or turning them over for international prosecution perhaps in The Hague, would be seen internationally as a sincere act of contrition.
Other countries would become much more receptive to sending security forces to Iraq, especially if the United States continued to bear some of the cost.
(IMHO)
Just some thoughts:
I like most of it, but when it comes to Iraq, that territory (and, that's what it is akin to in 2006) is already partitioning itself. Nobody wants to live in a mixed region where sectarian violence runs rampant. Furthermore, loyalties lie along tribal factions vs. any sort of national identity at this point. The Kurds also want no part of the Sunnis and Shi'ites.
I blogged on this, and offered some other thoughts. I don't think we can leave Iraq either, but I do think we can give the Sunnis and the Shi'ites a timetable while putting a permanent presence in the Kurdish territory with the intention of creating a DMZ zone between this territory and Turkey.
As for Iran.....Why don't people just come out and say that China and Russia are really stiffing the US behind the scenes? And, what about SCO? It seems to me the bigger intention is to not only prop up Iran, but get NATO our of Central Asia altogether.
And, finally, on homeland security and the flood of foreign imports: Why aren't we inspecting shipping containers? If the Ports Authorities were doing their jobs, I suspect those foreign goods wouldn't be so cheap as they are now. I also do not understand how 95 percent of all containers that come into this country by ship in a post 911 era are not inspected.
Aren't we playing with fire?
http://myspace.com/the_sentry