Question: does Clark support sending more troops to Iraq?

[Khephra]

I was just reading an editorial in the new issue of The Nation, and Corn says that this is true. I'm not quite on top of things, like I once was, because of my work. So, I'm just trying to find out the answer to this question. No bashing meant in the slightest.

[Khephra]

1. The only real comment of Clark that Corn quotes is this:

"An increase (in troops) doesn't mean you're failing."

I don't like the editorial addition of (in troops) , so I'm seeking to get to the full info on this issue.

"(" ="["

[Cush]

2. He wants International Troops

From the NATO Countries to relieve some of the US Troops.

Haven't heard anything about sendig more US Troops

[Lefta Dissenter]

3. Read his plan for Iraq at www.Clark04.com

Also, he has stated that he would have troops of a different composition - lighter, quicker, more emphasis on intelligence, less of a dependence on support personnel (a.k.a. Jessica)

[bryant69]

4. As a general though

He might be concerned about how exposed some of our units are in Iraq. I mean that is part of the problem our troops are experiencing; that they are understaffed (due to Rumsfelds desire for a smaller cheaper army (presumably so President Bush could give more to the wealthy). At any rate, there have been many analysts who have suggested we need more troops there.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Khephra]

5. Ok...I found the Corn editorial online

So everyone will know (and be able to take apart) Corn's comments. Please remember: Clark is still my tied (with Kucinich) second place pick. I'm just trying to get info here.

---

The Candidates on Iraq

snip......

Only Lieberman and Clark have suggested that more US troops might be required. In September, Lieberman, who a year ago called for an international force in Iraq, said, "I would send more troops, because the troops that are there need that protection. And we need some of the specialized services that will help Iraqis gain control of their country and mean that sooner American troops could come home." He also has proposed that after civilian administration of Iraq is passed to the UN, the occupation be led by "a qualified Arab official."

Clark has offered the most specific road map for Iraq. He advocates creating a new multilateral organization that would administer the occupation and be headed by a non-American. He does not want to pass the buck to the UN. "It is simply unrealistic," he says, "to have the United Nations take over this daunting task--it's not able and it's not willing." He would assign military responsibilities to NATO, and have NATO--under US military command--report to this new council. "With US command, NATO authority and UN endorsement," he asserts, "other NATO countries would send troops, and Arab countries would also step in." He envisions the possible need for more troops, including special forces that can "strike hard" against the insurgents. But he would like to see an overall reduction in US troops, with other nations making up the difference. "An increase ," he notes, "doesn't mean you're failing." In addition, Clark has called for firing Paul Bremer, the head of the US occupying authority, and for empowering regional councils to name an interim government in order to achieve a faster transition to Iraqi autonomy.

more................

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031201&s=corn

[hilzoy]

6. Possibly.

"First off, we want to distribute our resources properly. This requires US forces to run an agile, intelligence-driven counter-insurgency campaign, while Iraqi forces and our allies perform other necessary tasks. When it comes to our force levels, it's possible that some may need to be added initially to create the right mix of capabilities. You cannot measure success by a reduction in forces, and you can't declare failure by an increase in forces. It's better to do the job right so we can succeed and then bring our troops home.
One mistake in Vietnam was trying to use conventional forces to fight an unconventional war. The more conventional forces we have in Iraq, the more logistics we need. The more unarmored humvees and trucks we have, the greater our vulnerability to roadside bombs. Most of our losses are being taken in routine patrolling and transit - not in active counter-insurgency efforts. The right mix of forces -- more special forces and other lighter units -- will reduce our "footprint," logistics tail and vulnerability, while increasing our ability to strike hard."

from: http://clark04.com/speeches/009/

[Khephra]

7. Thanks!

That's actually a good answer. If he was just talking about the number of soldiers we have over there, I would have been concerned. But it seems like he's thinking about re-distributing soldiers. That's a major difference.

[hilzoy]

10. You're welcome

The whole speech is quite good, as is his new speech calling for a new Atlantic Charter ( http://www.clark04.com/speeches/012/ ). I'm surprised it doesn't seem to have gotten more discussion here; it's quite interesting, and includes passages like this:

"The United States must also respond to the very real concerns of our allies about the environment. The Bush Administration has thrown aside the Kyoto protocol but offered nothing concrete in its place. I would offer our allies real commitments to deal with their justified concerns about environmental threats. America should be willing to meet the Europeans half way and negotiate binding reductions on emissions along the lines of the Kyoto agreement.

The United States must also rejoin efforts to establish an International Criminal Court. I would insist on changes in that agreement to allow America to participate. But by working with our allies to improve the court rather than punishing our friends for supporting it, we would be meeting them halfway.

Each of these steps is wise policy for the United States. But because they reflect the profound concerns of our European allies, they will help breathe life into the Trans-Atlantic relationship. America's unilateralism has given our allies an excuse to withdraw from many global responsibilities. Why should they contribute troops and money if the United States does not give them a say? Just as our allies in Europe expect better from America, I would expect more from them.

An America committed to international law would be better able to ask our allies to help enforce its norms when they are violated. An America committed to diplomatic peace-making would have an easier time winning European contributions to military peace-keeping. An America committed to using NATO when it decides to wage war would have greater authority to ask our allies to spend more to build their military capabilities."

[Khephra]

13. I agree

I do like his stance on this issue...that's why Corn's article bothered me.

[mike_c]

8. Clark does not favor rapid disengagement in Iraq...

"We need a success strategy. Only success that can honor the sacrifice of so many American men and women; it is only success that will allow Iraq to stand on its own; and it is only success that will allow our soldiers to come home. Early exit means retreat or defeat."

and he appears to at least tacitly support increasing the troop commitment:

"# Consider adding troops. General Clark will look at whether adding forces will help the effort in Iraq. He will not measure success in Iraq by a reduction in troops or failure by an increase."

Both quotes are from the official Clark website:

http://clark04.com/issues/iraqstrategy/

[Donna Zen]

15. Define Disengagement

Clark would turn both economic and political sectors over to the Iraqis "tomorrow" was his word. The counter insurgency is currently using the death of American soldiers and the subsequent counter attacks by American soldiers to increase their personal power base. Who are these people? Well ordinary people who have been radicalized true, but it also includes people who were never well intentioned and trying to fill a power vacuum.

What the US is doing now will only move the control away from moderate Iraqis and toward the new war lords. It is a stupid policy.

Clark thinks the entire thing is a mess. What he is proposing here is the quickest and safest way out. 1) Bring some international players as equals to the table, thus taking the target off of our backs and our hands off the oil. The current unwillingness of the Halliburton regime to let go economically is causing increasing distrust among the moderates in country. 2) transition the majority of the area over to an Iraqi force that has been trained by NATO. Lower the US profile which should increase security. As long as the Iraqi security is seen as being trained by the US, the insurgency will label it as a pack of collaborator flunkies. 3) Change the US force structure to one whose mission would focus on the viper's nests. 4) Turn over the Iraqi government to the Iraqi people--even junior has caught on to this one. Now if he and the dickster could just give up the oil.

BTW, since no one seems to have a better plan, I say go for it. I firmly believe that there is an entire body of Iraqis who will surprize the world with the speed at which they could re-establish order. But they cannot be seen as working for Bremmer or Condi. Guided by an international body, there may yet be hope. But Clark also warns that the window is closing for even this plan.

[teevee]

9. deana dn his supporters seriously scare me...

i'm sorry, but that's how it is.

[Khephra]

12. Why?

I think what I asked was a reasonable question, without venom.

[ajacobson]

14. I agree-

totally reasonable, that's good discussion.

:thumbsup:

[democracy eh]

11. from the MTP Sun, Nov 16th transcript...

discussion scattered throughout conversation, but when phrased as a direct question

<http://www.msnbc.com/news/994273.asp>

"MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe we should have more U.S. soldiers on the ground in Iraq in order to stabilize it?
       
GEN. CLARK: I think we need to change the force mix in Iraq as rapidly as we can. I think we need a lighter, more mobile force, more agile, more intelligence-driven. We need to take those 1,400 people who are searching for weapons of mass destruction, pull them off the search, give that to the United Nations people, use them to help us track down Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and to help us find the people in Iraq who are attacking our soldiers. And then we need to start reducing the size of the U.S. force there. We may have to temporarily increase it, but we need to transform what it does. All these heavy forces have big logistics footprints. I mean, you have lots of logistics. You have lots of unarmored Humvees, you have lots of opportunities for ambush. We need to reduce those opportunities."