Is Democracy the right first step when trying to rebuild a broken society? In most cases war isn't and Mr. Bush is certainly proving that. I have no doubt that when asked if they would like to be able to choose their leadership through a democratic process, most people would answer yes. Setting the Western mindset aside that all people are created equal and have a right to choose their own government, much of the under developed world seems not to be equipped to handle or even care about democracy.

Democracy thrives in societies that have improved communications, universal education, freedom and means of movement and economic interdependence. That is not the case in much of the world today. The spread of democracy on its face appears to be a noble cause, but does it create more problems than it solves? Much of the populace of the world sees the "spread of democracy" as the new colonialism. This coupled with the spread of a global economy creates an atmosphere of distrust among the masses.

The distrust of the West, most notably America, is an exploitable weakness which malicious opportunists like Osama Bin Laden and other "revolutionaries" seem all too prepared to turn to their advantage.

Many people do not see the good-hearted intentions of the West, only greed. One reason for this may very be that we simply do not factor in their individual cultures. Many of the problems in the world today were created after a vacuum of leadership and control was created after the demise of the global polar struggle between the Soviet Union and the West; a struggle cloaked in the banners of democracy and communism. In those times, ideology simply meant picking a side.

As a major supporter of General Clark and a former executive communications NCO to him during his honorable term as SACEUR / CINCEUR, I can attest to the man's high values and genuine desire for a more peaceful and prosperous world. I am somewhat dismayed though by the idea of appealing to people's ideology. I often travel throughout the Caucuses, Africa and Central Asia and most people I meet care very little about ideology. Many of these people live in abject poverty and live day to day. Since they are largely uneducated or worse "miseducated"; have little access to communications; participate in only a local economy; and travel by foot or animal, they are more likely to have feudal or tribal mindset. Politics means supporting, sometimes by any means, local leaders who can protect them and appear to provide them with the resources to live.

The dismantling of modern transportation, education, economic and communications systems is the goal of opportunists like Osama and the African Warlords in Somalia. Muslim extremism is the polar opposite they use to attract people who have formed a distrust of the West; a distrust fostered by the opportunists with mis-education, restricted travel, propaganda and economic dependence.

General Clark is absolutely correct when he says that we are fighting the wrong side of the battle right now. I know General Clark is capable of intelligent application of force when necessary and understands that military might is the iron beneath the velvet. The Uniform Code of Military Justice provides for non-judicial punishment, which gives the Commander the ability to teach and rehabilitate Soldiers who display a desire to change. The most useful feature of this form of "punishment" is the Commander's ability to choose NOT to apply punishment if the Soldier is steadily improving. This analogy can be applied on a global scale in terms of the application of military force. Rampant destruction of societies, even if they are not to our liking only feeds the goals of the opportunists. The break down of structures facilitates their ability to control and subjugation of local communities. Control enough of them and you control a nation or a region.

Maybe a shift from language such as the spread of democracy or Western (read American) values to simply benevolent governance (in any form) will help alleviate fear and distrust of the West. George Bush has it all backwards. The acceptance and understanding of culture and the worldwide improvement of education, communications, transportation and economies is the first step. George Bush thinks he can dismantle a society and rebuild in his image. Dismantling of societies only creates a void, which is quickly filled by malicious opportunists who seek to crush the will of the people and then use them for their own personal gain. Unfortunately, America now seems like one of those opportunists to much of the world.

The reason why most of Eastern Europe did not fall into this trap was cooperative engagement and diplomacy. Programs like the Partnership for Peace; funding sources like the Warsaw Initiative and most notably the inclusion of our NATO Allies all worked in concert to fill the void and provide a beacon for the people. Only then were people able to match their desire for democratic societies, but have the means to support one. For a good example of what America is doing with your tax dollars go to www.pims.org. If you wish to participate and contribute directly to the conversation simply register and start helping.

Men like General Clark provide purpose, direction and motivation. People like us help make that vision a reality. DIPLOMACY WORKS!

Please keep it Boss!
Commoguy
“Make the world great in 2008”

Is Democracy the right first step when trying to rebuild a broken society? In most cases war isn't and Mr. Bush is certainly proving that. I have no doubt that when asked if they would like to be able to choose their leadership through a democratic process, most people would answer yes. Setting the Western mindset aside that all people are created equal and have a right to choose their own government, much of the under developed world seems not to be equipped to handle or even care about democracy.

Democracy thrives in societies that have improved communications, universal education, freedom and means of movement and economic interdependence. That is not the case in much of the world today. The spread of democracy on its face appears to be a noble cause, but does it create more problems than it solves? Much of the populace of the world sees the "spread of democracy" as the new colonialism. This coupled with the spread of a global economy creates an atmosphere of distrust among the masses.

The distrust of the West, most notably America, is an exploitable weakness which malicious opportunists like Osama Bin Laden and other "revolutionaries" seem all too prepared to turn to their advantage.

Many people do not see the good-hearted intentions of the West, only greed. One reason for this may very be that we simply do not factor in their individual cultures. Many of the problems in the world today were created after a vacuum of leadership and control was created after the demise of the global polar struggle between the Soviet Union and the West; a struggle cloaked in the banners of democracy and communism. In those times, ideology simply meant picking a side.

As a major supporter of General Clark and a former executive communications NCO to him during his honorable term as SACEUR / CINCEUR, I can attest to the man's high values and genuine desire for a more peaceful and prosperous world. I am somewhat dismayed though by the idea of appealing to people's ideology. I often travel throughout the Caucuses, Africa and Central Asia and most people I meet care very little about ideology. Many of these people live in abject poverty and live day to day. Since they are largely uneducated or worse "miseducated"; have little access to communications; participate in only a local economy; and travel by foot or animal, they are more likely to have feudal or tribal mindset. Politics means supporting, sometimes by any means, local leaders who can protect them and appear to provide them with the resources to live.

The dismantling of modern transportation, education, economic and communications systems is the goal of opportunists like Osama and the African Warlords in Somalia. Muslim extremism is the polar opposite they use to attract people who have formed a distrust of the West; a distrust fostered by the opportunists with mis-education, restricted travel, propaganda and economic dependence.

General Clark is absolutely correct when he says that we are fighting the wrong side of the battle right now. I know General Clark is capable of intelligent application of force when necessary and understands that military might is the iron beneath the velvet. The Uniform Code of Military Justice provides for non-judicial punishment, which gives the Commander the ability to teach and rehabilitate Soldiers who display a desire to change. The most useful feature of this form of "punishment" is the Commander's ability to choose NOT to apply punishment if the Soldier is steadily improving. This analogy can be applied on a global scale in terms of the application of military force. Rampant destruction of societies, even if they are not to our liking only feeds the goals of the opportunists. The break down of structures facilitates their ability to control and subjugation of local communities. Control enough of them and you control a nation or a region.

Maybe a shift from language such as the spread of democracy or Western (read American) values to simply benevolent governance (in any form) will help alleviate fear and distrust of the West. George Bush has it all backwards. The acceptance and understanding of culture and the worldwide improvement of education, communications, transportation and economies is the first step. George Bush thinks he can dismantle a society and rebuild in his image. Dismantling of societies only creates a void, which is quickly filled by malicious opportunists who seek to crush the will of the people and then use them for their own personal gain. Unfortunately, America now seems like one of those opportunists to much of the world.

The reason why most of Eastern Europe did not fall into this trap was cooperative engagement and diplomacy. Programs like the Partnership for Peace; funding sources like the Warsaw Initiative and most notably the inclusion of our NATO Allies all worked in concert to fill the void and provide a beacon for the people. Only then were people able to match their desire for democratic societies, but have the means to support one. For a good example of what America is doing with your tax dollars go to www.pims.org. If you wish to participate and contribute directly to the conversation simply register and start helping.

Men like General Clark provide purpose, direction and motivation. People like us help make that vision a reality. DIPLOMACY WORKS!

Please keep it Boss!
Commoguy
“Make the world great in 2008”

Is Democracy the right first step when trying to rebuild a broken society? In most cases war isn't and Mr. Bush is certainly proving that. I have no doubt that when asked if they would like to be able to choose their leadership through a democratic process, most people would answer yes. Setting the Western mindset aside that all people are created equal and have a right to choose their own government, much of the under developed world seems not to be equipped to handle or even care about democracy.

Democracy thrives in societies that have improved communications, universal education, freedom and means of movement and economic interdependence. That is not the case in much of the world today. The spread of democracy on its face appears to be a noble cause, but does it create more problems than it solves? Much of the populace of the world sees the "spread of democracy" as the new colonialism. This coupled with the spread of a global economy creates an atmosphere of distrust among the masses.

The distrust of the West, most notably America, is an exploitable weakness which malicious opportunists like Osama Bin Laden and other "revolutionaries" seem all too prepared to turn to their advantage.

Many people do not see the good-hearted intentions of the West, only greed. One reason for this may very be that we simply do not factor in their individual cultures. Many of the problems in the world today were created after a vacuum of leadership and control was created after the demise of the global polar struggle between the Soviet Union and the West; a struggle cloaked in the banners of democracy and communism. In those times, ideology simply meant picking a side.

As a major supporter of General Clark and a former executive communications NCO to him during his honorable term as SACEUR / CINCEUR, I can attest to the man's high values and genuine desire for a more peaceful and prosperous world. I am somewhat dismayed though by the idea of appealing to people's ideology. I often travel throughout the Caucuses, Africa and Central Asia and most people I meet care very little about ideology. Many of these people live in abject poverty and live day to day. Since they are largely uneducated or worse "miseducated"; have little access to communications; participate in only a local economy; and travel by foot or animal, they are more likely to have feudal or tribal mindset. Politics means supporting, sometimes by any means, local leaders who can protect them and appear to provide them with the resources to live.

The dismantling of modern transportation, education, economic and communications systems is the goal of opportunists like Osama and the African Warlords in Somalia. Muslim extremism is the polar opposite they use to attract people who have formed a distrust of the West; a distrust fostered by the opportunists with mis-education, restricted travel, propaganda and economic dependence.

General Clark is absolutely correct when he says that we are fighting the wrong side of the battle right now. I know General Clark is capable of intelligent application of force when necessary and understands that military might is the iron beneath the velvet. The Uniform Code of Military Justice provides for non-judicial punishment, which gives the Commander the ability to teach and rehabilitate Soldiers who display a desire to change. The most useful feature of this form of "punishment" is the Commander's ability to choose NOT to apply punishment if the Soldier is steadily improving. This analogy can be applied on a global scale in terms of the application of military force. Rampant destruction of societies, even if they are not to our liking only feeds the goals of the opportunists. The break down of structures facilitates their ability to control and subjugation of local communities. Control enough of them and you control a nation or a region.

Maybe a shift from language such as the spread of democracy or Western (read American) values to simply benevolent governance (in any form) will help alleviate fear and distrust of the West. George Bush has it all backwards. The acceptance and understanding of culture and the worldwide improvement of education, communications, transportation and economies is the first step. George Bush thinks he can dismantle a society and rebuild in his image. Dismantling of societies only creates a void, which is quickly filled by malicious opportunists who seek to crush the will of the people and then use them for their own personal gain. Unfortunately, America now seems like one of those opportunists to much of the world.

The reason why most of Eastern Europe did not fall into this trap was cooperative engagement and diplomacy. Programs like the Partnership for Peace; funding sources like the Warsaw Initiative and most notably the inclusion of our NATO Allies all worked in concert to fill the void and provide a beacon for the people. Only then were people able to match their desire for democratic societies, but have the means to support one. For a good example of what America is doing with your tax dollars go to www.pims.org. If you wish to participate and contribute directly to the conversation simply register and start helping.

Men like General Clark provide purpose, direction and motivation. People like us help make that vision a reality. DIPLOMACY WORKS!

Please keep it Boss!
Commoguy
“Make the world great in 2008”

today the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a letter (http://www.dni.gov/release_letter_101105.html) between two senior al Qa'ida leaders, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which outlines al-qaidas plans for iraq. analyze that letter, and the logic to opposing terrorists is obvious, but most importantly a clearer plan to defeat al-qaida emerges:
1) al quaida understands that moderate interpretations of Islam are also majority interpretations, and that the outcome of the war is dependent upon radicalizing moderate Muslims.
2) al quaida recognizes that regional governments are crucial to its short term goals, and that regional governments can act to defeat their interests.
3) al quaida is waiting for US withdrawal to fill the vacuum with their reginal control and violence.

this document was likely directed to be released by intelligence agencies for political purposes, specifically to expose rationale for continuing the war in iraq. it should achieve that purpose. no matter how bad the misstep into iraq was, it is even more clear that leaving the country to al-quaida-directed war is not in anyone's best interests.

most importantly, if al-quaida's strategies as outlined in theletter were to be "reverse-engineered" into a strategic plan to defeat al-quaida coordinated terrorism, the plan would look like this:

***continue military/intelligence pressure
***continue cutting al-quaida financial ties
***develop a regional diplomatic gameplan where-in the chessboard was filled with pieces from neighboring countries, then apply traditional techniques to remove al-quaida from the board playing pawn and using pawns on an international scale.
***empower accurate, non-violent regional interpretations of Islam
***go true-multilateral, normalize and legitimize iraq internationally through the bringing in the usual cast of international characters: diplomats, NGOs, UN, etc., etc. prior to withdrawal
***follow regional political organizing principles based on culture, (as exposed in the al-quaida letter), rather than on arbitrary, applied political organizational systems.

damn if wes didnt hit almost those clay pidgeons already with his first shot, when was that??? a year or two ago? yeah...

so we all want out of iraq...

Once again General Clark has divined the right answer to a complex problem; ie: how to get our troops out of the quagmire of Iraq. What a pity that such a great American and keen mind is not sitting in the White House making those good calls. Our country and the world would sure be better off. Lets just hope that the current occupant of the White House isn't able to do too much more damage in the three years he has left and that General Clark runs again in '08.

..who when they first read this they thought it meant Clark swayed some on his own strategy? I realize this may be a coincidence but it would read better with the words "Clark sways some Democrats on Iraq Strategy". I don't know that the author had an ulterior motive as the article is quite positive. However, it did make me jump a little when I saw it. I realize it is as it is but....

At any rate, I think the article itself is good news for those like me who feel that the Out of Iraq Now caucus is really passionate and caring but sounded really out of touch with what's going on and the potential implications.

sands filling the bottom of the hourglass...October 15 vote on that "constitution".

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/1213

http://okcitykid.bravejournal.com/entry/16364

the recent attempt by some leading democrats to split the party into two camps: "pro withdrawal" (the new "fringe") and "pro staying the course" (the perceived "core") has been subverted by Wes' wholistic approach. maybe the DC dems will now realize they dont need to become republicans to steal republican votes, they simply need to function to own the playing field. the time for dems to be cowed and confused by a team of clumsy republican bully-boys is over... yes, the "immediate withdrawal" activists will keep up the political heat, but Wes' strategy for iraq allows for the building of a solid core consensus dem party platform for 2008, and we can already see how important that's going to be.

...we had better listen to this General and read the new book by Quang X. Pham on the unintended concequences of our withdraw from Vietnam in 1975 that resulted in the genocide of tens of millions of Indochineese people--tragic!!!

we need to elect Wes & Gert Clark President & First Lady in 2008.

Bruce Stults
Ronin Solutions, LLC
Chmn & CEO

Here's what I don't get.

Look at this administration. They are tone deaf, completely. When exactly are they going to take up General Clark's ideas? No time soon, that's for sure. Without a majority the Democrats have no power to influence this stubborn Administration or this lockstep Republican Congress. So the struggle will continue as is until we can win an election or manage at least to not have one stolen from under us. That will be no sooner than 2008. Are we willing to let things go on are they are until then? I don't think so!

The military bungling by this Administration is so utterly perfect that one has to wonder if it isn't purposeful. Are we fostering chaos for some devilish purpose that no morally decent person can fathom?

If we leave at once,insurgents will take over. If we stay,there will be no end to insurgency. Wes Clark is right when he says the only way out is to include the countries in the area because they are the ones that will have to deal with Iraq when we do leave.There is no other way. The Bush bunch does not believe in diplomatic solutions. They won't people to submit at the point of a gun. They are also stupid because when you kill one, you create more than one. Vietnam all over.The major difference between polititions and leaders like Wes Clark, is polititions say things that get them votes knowing they won't work.Leaders look for solutions, even though they are not always popular with everybody. At the end of the day, the leader gets the job done and that is what counts for our country

an experience of humanity as well as strategy. Thank you, General Clark, for enabling the Democrats to see it in its complexity. Thank you for giving the powers-that-be a clear message on what they must do to succeed, and on the consequences of their "staying the course."

When I read General Clark's statement on Iraq in the Post I felt it would be the turning point first for the Democrats and then for a new branch of Republicans (McCain, Mitt Romney, John Danforth and fair-minded others in a similar vein) - possibly dividing the Republicans into two camps. The public, the parties and especially the press have been conditioned to returning to past chapters for guidance and scendarios, comparing Iraq to Vietnam and with the departure from Vietnam, for example. The Iraq situation is entirely different and the country is entirely different today. Once the world is assured that we do not have insidious intentions in Iraq - that we do not intend to place American troops on Isreal's near frontier or permanently place bases in the Middle East - the world will help. But that will require a different kind of leadership as this administration has broken faith with the world and with America, especially after 9/11, exploiting Americans sadness and natural patriotic sense for a secret and dangerously unstable agenda. This is the worst kind of exploitation - exploiting a people's soul.Leadership always starts with one man. Nathaniel Hawthorne described him as an old veteran and called him the "Gray Champion." In this particualar instance it will be General Clark. - Bernie Quigley, Haverhill, NH

Dear General Clark,

I have so much respect for you and your opinions, but I must say your ideas with regards to getting American troops out of Iraq are one thing I have to disagree with you on in the strongest possible terms.

Maintaining an American and British military presence there is a cart before the horse approach that is doomed to failure before it even gets out of the gate. As long as there are American troops on the ground there, in the form of an occupying force, there is absolutely no way in this universe or any other that a diplomatic solution can ever be reached. Go back a century or so and look at the map of the Arabian pennisula, and the rest of the middle east. The national borders there, are, as you probably already know, something that was synthetically created by western powers. Please re-read Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T.E. Lawrence. I am sure you must have read this once already, but it is as relevant today as it was nearly a hundred years ago. This is a region of the world where borders on a map are nothing by the side of tribal loyalty, family structure and religious affiliations. The Iraqi people, and their fellow Arab citizens, are neither stupid nor helpless. They are much more capable of governing themselves, and indeed are the only ones who can. Our job, if we ever had one to start with, was most certainly done when Hussein was captured, and we should have left then. As it is, we are now in the unenviable position of being the common enemy that both Iraq and Iran can hate more than each other. Iran has outwitted us because they know that tribes and families are the basis of their social structure, not congresses and halls of government in the sense that we know them. Terrorism in the region needs no encouragement. We have already created a terrorist state where there was none before. Civil war has already begun and will not end until the Shias, Sunnis, Wahabis, Ba'aths, etc., figure out how to form a truce for themselves, however uneasy. By our very armed presence, we have created resistance fighters out of grocery store owners and librarians who are trying to defend their families, and who would have never even entertained the idea of resorting to violence otherwise.

I agree with you that this disastrous conflict should never have happened. I agree with you that our nation should seek a resolution through diplomacy. I agree with you that we should not simply walk away from what is left of Iraq. We cannot, however, reasonably expect to open credible diplomatic dialogue while we have our weapons and soldiers occupying their land. How legitimate can a Constitution be if it is drafted under the watchful and heavily armed eye of a foreign power, and disregards the very culture it is supposed to help bring order to? How can we expect the people of Iraq to regard such a document as binding if they have only entered into it under duress? You have to admit it is difficult to accept the right hand of friendship while the left is holding a club.

*All* of our soldiers and Marines must be brought home immediately. They have given their all and then some to a nefarious cause, and have been wrongly used in a most egregious manner. Americans also have some rebuilding work to do, and we can start by apologizing to our beleagered soldiers, bring them home with all due haste, and care for them properly and completely once they are safely home.

Every life that is lost, every heart that is broken with grief and despair, every body that is injured and shattered, every soul that is destroyed is one too many. It does not matter whether they are an old woman making an ill-fated trip to the market or a frightened soldier out on patrol. We do not have the luxury of buying time with their blood. We have no right to expect any more death to be considered acceptable while diplomats finesse their discussions in comfort. Get the troops out first, then talk. It is the only way to even begin to fix this mess.

"He who is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death." --Thomas Paine

that the Dean should announce that the Democrats will be making Wes the spokesperson for them on all matters pertaining to Iraq.....the sooner the public learns this is the guy to listen to, the sooner the ship will reverse course.

General Clark,

One thing I think is particularly good about your approach, and as far as I know is unique among those with potential presidential aspirations, is your realization of the necessity of dealing with governments in the region with whom we do not have positive relations, such as Syria and Iran, as part of the diplomatic approach to fixing the mess we've created in Iraq. The neoconservatives' approach of calling for "regime change" in Damascus and Tehran has given those governments every incentive to try to cause us to fail in Iraq.

To paraphrase (and parody) Donald Rumsfeld -- sometimes you have to work the diplomatic angle with the regional governments you have, even problematic authoritarian ones like Syria and Iran, not those you wish you had.

We also need to get other regional governments with whom we have better relations (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc) involved in the solution, since they have potential leverage with the Sunni community in Iraq. To be sure, we should encourage and try to assist transitions to more democratic forms of government in these countries in the medium-to-long term, but we shouldn't let that goal cause us to refrain from drawing on them to help with the solution in Iraq. (As I've mentioned elsewhere in the blogosphere, one of the major problems I have with some of the more idealistic "liberal hawks" in the Democratic Party is that they give democracy promotion such a central position that they don't ever want to "deal with dictators," even when pragmatic needs of U.S. national interests suggest we need to do so, as is the case here...)

Anyway, I'm glad to see that the "Out of Iraq Caucus" is listening to you. We need a foreign policy more sophisticated than the pat slogans of "Freedom is on the March" that we hear from the Right, and "Out of Iraq Now" that we hear from the Left. Foreign policy, unfortunately, is seldom black and white -- it's usually many shades of gray...

"Diplomacy is the No. 1 tool that our administration doesn't know how to use at all" -Represtative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)

This is what Clark has said many times during his speeches regarding foreign policy, even among states that may represent a national security threat. But as applied to our success strategy for Iraq, America's leadership around the world must build from 3 prinicple elements from its toolbox:

___________________________

1. Diplomacy - Engaging Iraq's regional neighbors, such as Iran and Syria in dialogue

2. Political - Resolving Iraq's intrinsic security, religious and sociol concerns among the Shia, Sunni and Kurds.

3. Military - Using our armed forces "only as a last, last, last resort!"
___________________________

I just like that strong Democratic leaders, such as Rep. Woolsey, chose to acknowledge one of Clark's principle calls that hallmarks American leadership and respect abroad.
_________________________________________________________________________
"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.)

Such a tough, tough problem, but as always, I don't expect the easy way out from Wes Clark.

"Gordon Gecko epitomizes the values of the Republican Party - Greed is Good!" - Wes Clark to Virginia Democrats, 9/13/05

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/932

Very important for Wes to be having dialogue with with us opposing unecessary war but differ in how to deal with the war we're stuck in.

Along the same lines, is Wes going to be at a forum with Cindy Sheehan, amongst other important figures? I thought I heard that on Air America.

God bless you, General Clark! Thank you for your unending work. I think it's important that all Americans continue to speak out and protest this war (there will be large protests around the country this Saturday the 24th), not necessarily to bring the troops home now, but as a display of public disatisfaction and anger about us being there in the first place, and to pressure the government to take a different strategy that it has up until now regarding the war.