Wes Clark says,.. "Clock is Ticking..."

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

According to Clark, the Clock is Ticking against us to build a success strategy in Iraq.

--------------------------------
Wes Clark

"Hi everyone!
I'm back in the office in Little Rock for a rare three days at home, and just wanted to thank all of you for your support, and for following the issues so closely.

I particularly appreciated your thoughts on Iraq, and your ideas and suggestions.

I've been working on Iraq pretty intensively for some months, and I want to tell you about some of this. First, I was called up to DC to brief the Senate Democratic Policy Committee in July. And I met a couple of times with former SecDef Bill Perry, former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, and former SecState Madeleine Albright over the summer, too.

I was concerned that the Administration wasn't very forthcoming with the facts about the state of our effort in Iraq, and so I was calling for a set of "benchmarks" which could guide the withdrawal....And preparing to write some, if the administration wouldn't produce these. We had them during the Bosnia operation of course.

Congress demanded them!

Then I realized that we really have no authority in Iraq...none, except that the Iraq government has said we can stay. There's no legal mandate, apparently, now that we've turned back authority to the Iraqis. So the the idea of benchmarks on issues like, rule of law, effective local governments, trained judges and functioning courts...is sort of meaningless....though of course we'd like to see progress in each of these areas.

At the same time, I've been frustrated that since June, when I was attacked by the Wall Street Journal editorial saying that I and other Democrats have no strategy. I wrote out my strategy -again- and sent it to them, but it wasn't published.

Of course, it is hard for democrats to have a strategy, since Democrats don't have access to the information, and since the strategy is really the responsiblilty of the party in power.

But never mind, I updated my views last weekend and sent them in...Hopefully they'll be published soon, in a different newspaper.

In the meantime, I'm doing my best on fox to get across the idea that you can't fix Iraq just by working inside Iraq - - you have to deal with Iraq's neighbors.

The clock is ticking against us...

But I don't believe it's totally lost there yet...we can at least avoid a regional war if we work the right way now...so I don't favor a pullout, an announcement of a pull-out, or a timeline for exiting yet....though I am certainly sympathetic to those who want this thing over.

As I've said from the beginning, going into Iraq was a strategic blunder. But if we come out the wrong way we'll make matters worse.

" http://wes-clark.forclark.com/?rate=1&sid=2005/8/25/172613/872&op=displaystory&pid=&rating_47=5#47

[wli]

1. I've got a 3-step plan for getting out of Iraq

1. retreat to the bases
2. airlift troops from the bases to aircraft carriers
3. sail home

Seems eminently reasonable to me.

[reprehensor]

84. Sounds a little complex.

But I'll take it.

Here's Stan Goff's take:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2035876

[wli]

89. I'm no Tom Hayden; my timetable is 24 hours. n/t

[The Traveler]

108. I like the plan, man!

I agree with Clark that if we exit the wrong way we could set up another disaster, an atrocity. I'm thinking "The Killing Fields". But ... I am unconvinced that we have the power to do anything to stop that now. Sometimes, the best thing to do with a screwed up situation is nothing ... simply because you have achieved a position in which there is no next right thing to do.

Thanks to the strategic genius of the Bushistas, we seem to have arrived at the "no-win situation". That being the case, it might be best to conduct a strategic advance to the rear ...

Get our people the fuck out of there. NOW!

[mmonk]

2. I'm still wondering what

the right way is to complete a wrong. It's tough to decide.

[Frustratedlady]

19. Just a dumb question, probably...

but, what do you think the outcome would be if GWB was no longer in office....as in impeached? The ME has always fought amongst themselves, but our presence (aka, GWB's fiasco) has them so riled, they are joining hands against us and are never going to stop. I don't think they hate the American people as much as they hate the American people when led by GWB. Who can blame them for that? Some of us hate ourselves for letting THAT happen!

I guess my question is, would negotiations be possible with anyone else in charge that had the ability to communicate and reason? I can visualize an immediate calming effect in the entire region (heck, the entire world) just with the riddance of GWB and company in the picture and inserting someone with Carter or Clinton's ability to sit down and negotiate a reasonable outcome.

Or, should I wake up from that ridiculous dream, have a cuppa and shut up?

[FloridaPat]

29. There were stories about Kerry during the campaign turning to one of

his aides as "if we win, what do we do with Iraq?" The invasion was a bad idea. It was done through lies. It is an absolute mess. There is probably no way to fix it now. Maybe if they had the elections immedaitely and got out. But * has spoiled the milk and it will be as easy to fix it now as it would be to unspoil the milk. For the Democrats to have a plan - well the disaster is over. How do you fix a disaster. People and soldiers are dead. Haliburton is soaking in money. The treasury is in a shambles.

[Frustratedlady]

34. How Would A Kerry Win Have Changed This Mess

Yes, and I got the feeling after the election that Kerry wasn't going to fight his loss, even if he knew a way to prove fraud. Either something happened in the last few days, or the fight was knocked out of him. I'm sure he realized he was going to inherit nothing more than GWBs headaches and never going to be able to fix any of them.

I think we are very fortunate that the world understands our plight and is marking time until this "regime" is over and done with.

[karynnj]

174. Kerry gave a 4 point plan in Sept at NYU

He reiterated it on MTP in Jan/Feb 2005. In July in an op-ed he adjusted the plan because the situation had become worse. My guess is that he and his aides did talk about Iraq - It is consistent with all the descriptions of Kerry's decision process that he searches for information and asks for opinions. To interpret it as he had no idea what to do is strange given that he, not Bush itemized a plan. (Also Clark and a few other military people were working with him. If he would have won, I assume Kerry and these people would have been creating very detailed diplomatic and military plans. Some people even said that the trip he took to the ME was planned before he knew if he would be President-elect or Senator when he went.

[Why Syzygy]

40. We leave

We recover from the shame. Rebuild our own nation. The ME can take care of itself. See Viet Nam for reference.

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

57. Stay the course,.. and neocons will reach the end of the world

Staying the course is not a plan. But it's the Republicans who are more divided on this issue, ..it's their conscience that supported the neocons of the Bush Administration.

Nevertheless, at this point, this is not a partisan issue. It must be solved. It is a national security issue for all Americans. As Clark mentioned this morning on FoxNews this morning, a collapse of Iraq's government will likely lead to civil war, and politically compel neighboring countries to establish buffer zones to secure their own borders. Bush thinks he's an admiral, but he steers without any sense of reality or sense of tact towards a hurricane and leading others to follow amid all the signs of disaster.

That's not noble, it's moronic.

Americans cannot disengage without a small measure of stability in Iraq. Otherwise, Iran will support the Shia (SCIRI and BADRs), Saudi Arabia will support the Sunni; while Turkey, Syria and Iran would even engage the Kurds with their alliance to do so. Greece may even support the Kurds! Even China and Russia will and have positioned themselves to advance their own interests.

Overall, for the Middle East, it's not just about the OIL, they're fighting for past political, historical and cultural conflicts dating back to the Ottoman Empire, that is a consequence of European and American policy.

Without political dialogue and diplomacy with Iran, Syria, and the middle eastern countries who have a vital interest to do so, there can be no peace by staying the course in this context. We need leadership!

[blm]

105. Kerry is very tight with Kofi Annan, and he knows EXACTLY what it would

take for the UN and NATO to take over in Iraq to guide it into self-governance.

Kerry met with other world leaders from France, Germany and even Syria and they told him what they would offer in help to secure Iraq.

Stabilize Iraq so UN and NATO can come in and take over and NO PERMANENT US BASES.

Kerry and Clark would have already been on the road to cleaning up Bush's mess in Iraq if BushInc hadn't rigged the voting machines. They always seemed to be on the same page in regard to military strategy.

[Cha]

3. Interesting..thanks for posting this.

"As I've said from the beginning, going into Iraq was a strategic blunder. But if we come out the wrong way we'll make matters worse."

At least Clark is talking about "coming out"!

[charlyvi]

4. I didn't start out as a Clark supporter.

But I think he has the smarts to get us out of this QUAGMIRE shrub has gotten us in. I have developed a true respect for the man. I just wish his campaign skills were a bit sharper--maybe they will be by '08.

[Why Syzygy]

5. I have absolutely NO

respect for him. This says NOTHING. Sound familiar?

Bring them HOME.

[ArkySue]

58. Perhaps you should read

his plan. This post was to his supporters on his blog. Read more about Succeeding in Iraq here before you judge:
http://securingamerica.com/node/214

[heidler1]

6. If we stay more of our troops will die. What could be worse than that?

[dogman]

8. The deaths of thousands more in a civil war.

This isn't just about American lives. The world recognizes that we now have a moral obligation to the people of Iraq.

[heidler1]

11. Do you know of a world wide poll that shows your statement is true?

[dogman]

24. International Law, not a poll.

An occupying country has legal obligations to the country it occupies.

[FrenchieCat]

145. Poster wants a poll!

Now that's an American for ya'! :rofl:

[Name removed]

181. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

215. self deleted...since moderators removed the post

[OzarkDem]

14. The world recognizes no such thing

Iraq would either still be under Saddam's dictatorship or involved in a civil war. That's the nature of their culture, their history, their own social system of government.

Staying longer, trying to impose more "democracy" on Iraq is fruitless. We can stay there for the next 40 years as an occupying force or make a planned retreat and let history take its course, as it would have if Saddam had been toppled by any other means.

Bush knew this going in, as did all our leaders. Everything has evolved exactly as they were told it would.

We can bring in UN peacekeepers as an occupying army and get other countries to start picking up the tab or we can get the hell out.

When it comes to controlling one of the largest sources of petroleum in the world, there are going to be plenty of sharp elbows and little patience or enthusiasm for democracy.

Let them put whomever they want in charge, then let them get oil production back up to speed to fund their own reconstruction. US taxpayers shouldn't contribute another dime.

[dogman]

22. This is an obligation of the occupying power.

Your idea is peace for the US and fuck Iraq?

[Why Syzygy]

41. Fuck Ira*q?

Like we haven't already tried that? How would you say that turned out? Oh. Fucked.

Thank you George W. Bush for creating another monstrosity. I hate him and his devil minions, wherever they crawl.

Goddess forgive me.

[BlueJac]

204. We all hate GW

The fucking jerk!

[OzarkDem]

66. My idea is minimize the damage

We're only making things worse the longer we stay there. We never should have gone there with a ground invasion in the first place.

As a culture, these people don't like westerners in their country, interfering in their lives, their society, their government. Most of the fighting in Iraq is directed at us as an occupying force, a country that is trying to steal their oil. Once gone, a lot of the reason for fighting (and a lot of the arms to do it with) are gone.

Bring in UN troops and let them stay there as peacekeepers. The US presence is only making things worse.

Then remember to never, ever make such a stupid mistake again.

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

115. UN Forces alone is not capable, esp with Bolton, Russia, and China

They'll be certain to be as uncooperative, as possible to make things work out in time required, imo.

As I recall, the UN did send a diplomatic mission there, but they got blown up and left. More importantly, when was the last time the UN dealt with an insurgency? Effectively? Even if they did commit UN peacekeepers, the debate to structure a plan will drag for months on who and how they will engage the political and cultural divisions within the Shia, Sunni's and Kurds. They can't even figure out how to deal with Darfur! So, they're not capable to deal with this type of warfare, logistically or politically. It would be doomed to failure too, imo. Furthermore, Russia and China may even stall or hamper our efforts in this regard, inorder to muscle in their own interests in the region, ....and they're on the Security Council(?)

This may be why Clark also favored using NATO-KFOR forces, including Arab allies to work together in Iraq. NATO, particulalry can respond and act to provide security and respond militarily based on their experience during the Kosovo conflict.

[OzarkDem]

197. Whatever

Get other countries in there and fast or forget the whole thing.

[Clark2008]

213. And what genie have you beckoned to grant this wish?

If it were only that easy...

[heidler1]

166. I agree, give the U.N. the oil and come home.

I think * believed that the Iraqis would be so happy to be rid of Saddam that they'd give us all of the oil we wanted. Moronic!!!

Sure some of the U.N. members would steal the oil if they would get a chance. So who gives a shit. Our troops are dying over there. Sure a civil war will rage if we leave or if we stay. So just pack up and come home.

[tabasco]

82. After an unjust invasion ...

the moral thing to do is recognize the Iraqis right to self-determination. US forces will not maintain peace as occupiers.

The US must announce a withdrawal timeline and beg and bribe the UN to deploy peacekeeping forces. The Iraqis will not be free until the illegal invaders no longer occupy their country. The Iraqis do not need the US to build their country for them. They will build it themselves. Anything we build for them will be torn down.

WAKE UP BEFORE MORE DIE FOR LIES!

[OzarkDem]

95. Good points

We also keep forgetting that this war is no longer economically sustainable for the US. We can't afford to fund it any longer without destroying our economy. I'm convinced that's why even CNN is starting to tell the truth - even Wall Street is starting to get nervous.

Iraqis have a right to forge their own future post-Saddam, with money from their own oil wells. It will be what it is, we can't force good government on them.

[liberalpragmatist]

124. Whaaa?

Iraq would either still be under Saddam's dictatorship or involved in a civil war. That's the nature of their culture, their history, their own social system of government.

Look, I favor a withdrawal, because there isn't much more we can do, we WILL only make it worse. And yes, I don't think we should have gone to war in the first place.

But I find this statement wholly inappropriate. It assumes that some people "just aren't made for democracy." It simply accepts that some countries and cultures are bound to constantly be at war and suffer. It's a willfully ignorant statement and one that could have been made against any culture in the world throughout history.

I think any culture has the ability to live in a democracy and nor we should we just accept that some other country will live in war and go along blissfully disinterested in what goes on in the rest of the world.

Taking this logic to its natural extreme, we would have simply dismissed Japan after World War II - after all, war and military dictatorship first under the Shogun, then under the imperial system, was all they had ever known.

So while I can agree with the specifics of needing to withdraw from Iraq, I cannot accept your casual dismissal of their ability to live in peace and have a future with democracy and human rights. I think they certainly can, and while I doubt you're a racist, that thought is a subtly racist point of view. Had we not gotten involved, at some point I believe Iraq would have become a democracy on its own. And that's the best way, when it's driven by its own people, not imposed from the outside through military force.

[Why Syzygy]

180. At least they had elections!

Before the United States of Democracy got involved.

SH was an evil wicked man. No doubt. Power corrupts, as they say.

Replace one evil with another as a solution? Well. Someone use logic.

Thanks for your post.

[OzarkDem]

198. These are cultures

whose system of government is based on tribal government. Democracy isn't for everyone. Where do we get off assuming we know what is best for them? They have their own right to self determination.

Having experienced a civil war of our own, democracy also has its flaws.

[liberalpragmatist]

208. Well, I'm not calling for us to invade and change their govt

All I'm saying is assuming that they can never have a democratic system of government and that "war is all they know" is misguided. It takes a view of history that ignores the fact that countless countries around the world have had the same features and have emerged as democratic states at peace.

Where I differ with the Neocons, obviously, is that I don't believe in imposing this from outside and for US gain. Rather, I think left to their own societies will develop beyond this kind of system.

[OzarkDem]

214. We're in agreement, then

Pulling out of Iraq may not be the disaster its hyped to be. The Iraqis are probably capable of putting their own government and recovery together on their own, without the help of an occupying foreign army. It may not be US style Democracy, but it will be something that works for them.

:think:

[reprehensor]

86. There might be a civil war if we stay.

Either way, we're the perceived enemy as long as we stay, a major recruitment tool for Islamic radicals.

It's Humpty Dumpty, my fellow DUer, Humpty friggin' Dumpty.

There is NO 'Western' glue strong enough to fix that smashed egg.

[Why Syzygy]

7. Democrats Fumble Iraq Policy

"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, a highly decorated Vietnam War veteran with presidential ambitions, told a national public-affairs television programme Sunday.

"I think our involvement (in Iraq) has destabilised the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilisation will occur," he said, comparing the present conflict's similarity to the Vietnam War.

"What I think the White House does not yet understand -- and some of my colleagues -- the dam has broke (sic) on this policy. The longer we stay there, the more similarities (with Vietnam) are going to come together."

...

While one would think that Hagel's public concerns and Bush's sinking poll numbers -- as well as the surprising near-victory by a strongly anti-war Iraq veteran in a recent election in a solidly Republican Congressional district in Ohio -- would give leading Democrats the political confidence to stake out a more aggressive position on the war, that has not turned out to be the case.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0825-01.htm

Disclaimer: I AM NOT A PUKE! I'm a peace-nic. Whoever calls for Peace, there I am.

[OzarkDem]

9. What's the plan, Wes?

Writing a constitution, training Iraqi forces - been there, done that, didn't work.

Anything else?

[dogman]

13. "Hopefully they'll be published soon, in a different newspaper."

He'll be blogging on TPM next week. Check in.

[OzarkDem]

17. Why not post it on his web site?

Why do we have to wait? Lord knows he and the others have had plenty of time to come up with an alternative.

[trillian]

52. He''s had it on his web site all along!

http://securingamerica.com/issues/iraqplan

[Donna Zen]

16. You have to talk, use diplomacy

to try and stop a regional conflict. Notice that diplomacy is currently NOT being attempted. Also, Clark called bush out this week about the lack of diplomacy and a bush's 5 week vacation.

The clock is ticking, and hope of getting out without a regional conflict is shrinking, but failing to try to stop a civil war that spills over into the entire region is the subject of a serious debate. That is all he's saying.

He will blog at WaPo tomorrow at 1:00 and you can ask questions there.

[OzarkDem]

20. I don't have time

to drift around to a zillion web sites. If he has a plan he should put it out there. Diplomacy isn't enough.

[Donna Zen]

26. Agree, diplomacy is not enough.

Which is why I didn't say that.

I believe that his post said that he is trying to get his plan "out there" although you read it differently. But when the MSM fullfills their role as the greatest asswipes on the planet, what is the alternative? I thought it was the "grassroots/netroots," and I hope some others agree.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OzarkDem]

68. What I read in the post

was simply a summary of what he thinks is going wrong. I'm asking if there is more that he has to say, without having to listen to Fox news or listen to his interview here or his blog there.

Five or six points, what's the plan?

[LandOLincoln]

130. So...you want him to email you personally? You want face

time with Wes? Is that what you're demanding?

Just suppose he did that. What would you demand next?

Just askin'...

[Name removed]

183. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jai4WKC08]

210. The OP was a blog to his base

Not an op/ed in a newspaper, or even a post at DU. Just a friendly "here's what I've been up to lately and where my thoughts are" sort of thing.

We all know what his plan is, and where it's posted. We discuss it daily, among other things, at his blog. So chastise the OPer if you want to, but cut Clark some slack for not elaborating, ok? That said, it's not like his plan hasn't been posted here, in one form or another, about a million times. And the tone of his post, plus the link given at the bottom, makes it pretty clear where it came from. So seems to me the OPer could be forgiven as well.

Sheesh. :eyes:

[Child_Of_Isis]

10. Is it even possible to make matters worse? eom

[FrenchieCat]

164. yessum......it is possible.

and I think that most of us understand that.....in our hearts of hearts.

[LTRS]

12. Dear Wes....

Can the excuses about why dems have no plan and go on television and kick some rethug butt instead of wasting time preaching to the converted.

Sincerely,

LTRS

[dogman]

15. You'd have to watch Faux to see that.

This was a post to the Clark Community.

[OzarkDem]

18. And while you're at it

tell us what your plan is.

[LTRS]

21. Well he has "updated his views"

whatever the hell that means .... but he can't tell us what they are just yet, but hopefully some media outlet will publish them, since obviously he cannot do that in his email to the already converted.

Anyone else getting really sick of this kind of crap from dems? I sure as hell am.

[Why Syzygy]

39. Absolutely

It's like . okay hold your breath now while I fumble for something that MIGHT appease the grassroots. Meanwhile . SEND MORE TROOPS!

US Sends More Combat Troops to Iraq Ahead of Referendum

A senior US officer, Major-General Douglas E Lute, said during a visit to London that it was "very difficult" to deny the "perception of occupation" while there were 150,000-plus foreign troops in Iraq.

...

The US believes Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qa'ida in Iraq, and his associates would not want to die there but would seek other places of refuge and prepare for new battles.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0825-02.htm ~ snips

[Boo Boo]

42. He's been telling you what his views are since before

the invasion right up to the present, and I'm sure he'll tell you again...

and I'm just as sure you won't be listening.

[ArkySue]

64. The plan is here!

Has been. http://securingamerica.com/node/214

[OzarkDem]

81. Thanks! Eureka!

http://securingamerica.com/issues/iraqplan

Ok, here we go

1.Re-Incorporate Our Allies - check - I'm with you on that one, including forcing the Arab states to get involved - troop wise and money wise.

2.Transform Into A NATO operation - check - Agree, but Bolton's working against you on that one and time is running out

3.Consider Adding Troops - I haven't heard a good case made for this one yet. Its become much less plausible since the election as violence escalates and Iraq becomes more unstable. Unless we can get some UN or other Allied troops into the mix, I'd say forget it. No one else wants in this quagmire, and they won't help out as long as they see the US keep pouring troops and money in

4 Adjusting the force mix - unless there's a large influx of allied troops and supplies, its not going to work. We're too far past any of the retraining or re configuring of Iraqi troops or security forces, the insurgency forces have a much stronger hold and are much better supplied than before. Same with improving intelligence - its not going to help.

5. Preventing foreign misadventure - too late, the borders are already too open and unprotected

There aren't many strategies left outside of some aggressive intervention by allies and bringing more countries into the mix to force peace negotiations. Its beyond diplomacy. They need to have another "Dayton Accords" - take the leaders outside the country, lock them into a complex and make them forge a peace agreement. Can't be done without UN and NATO support.

[dogman]

87. This was the original plan.

snip>"Then during my presidential campaign, we unveiled a comprehensive success strategy for Iraq that focuses on the diplomatic, political, and military aspects of the mission. A Real Plan for Success in Iraq is still relevant today, over 18 months later. Political stability and strong diplomatic ties are vital to the establishment of democracy. Sadly, the situation in Iraq has so far severely lacked both of these elements, due to the Bush Administration's overwhelming focus on only the military aspect of the war."<snip
It was a good plan at the time. As you have noted things have occurred since this plan was put forth.
snip>"But never mind, I updated my views last weekend and sent them in...Hopefully they'll be published soon, in a different newspaper."<snip
As you can see he is following the situation and changing his plans to adjust for the failures of this administration to do the right thing. That is why he says the clock is ticking, the options are narrowing quickly.

[Donna Zen]

23. Wes was excellent this morning

He explained how each draft of the Iraq constitution has included Islamic law. This draft also includes a guarantee of civil rights and the rule of law. Wes said that there in lies the problem, because the two may not be able to coexist.

Iran wants Iraq as a buffer state and is very influential in the forming of that document. The Saudis are supporting the Sunnis.

All of this may not work. The clock is ticking indeed. One thing is very clear that a regional conflict will effect more than just the region. There are many poor countries who will effected worse than we will if those oil wells get blown up causing prices to rise to $20 a barrel. I know that it shouldn't be about the oil, but really, to deny that the oil is there, and the world economy runs on it, is to deny the obvious.

He wants out. To me that is very important, because if there is one person on the planet who could get us out, he's the "one."

[LTRS]

25. But of course his plan on how to do that is a secret

... apparently. He has "updated his views" and hopefully some other media outlet will publish them. Even though he has a mic in front of his face, he can't just tell us what the great plan is, and after all, coming up with a plan is not the dems problem.

Give me a break. Voters know it's FUBAR'ed to hell and back. Tell us something we don't know, Wes, like what the dem's plan is.

Hint: they don't have one.

[dogman]

28. The Dems don't have a leader to pick the plan.

You're repeating the same ridiculous meme we hear every day. This is something that the Dems cannot do unless they fall in behind one leader and we all know that's not going to happen soon.

[Donna Zen]

30. Tell em yourself

He's blogging at WaPo tomorrow at 1:00 central time.

[LTRS]

32. If someone has to tell him it's hopeless

I'm basically ready to chuck the whole party until they can get their sh*t together.

[Donna Zen]

38. My post was to yours at #12

You asked about him going on tv and kicking butt. He did this morning.

As for his plans.

Well, he answered questions on the blog..<---the subject of this thread is from a blog not an e-mail.

Also, one the front page of securingamerica.com, he posted about his plan earlier in the week.

If you just want to hate him, then my trying to give you honest answers is a waste of time.

I've read his plan, it's not a secret, and have some reservations about it. But then again, I'm neither a foreign policy expert, was never J-5, and didn't manage to win a war without losing an American life. So, I've held judgement on much of what I hear and read.

I do know that he wants out. That means, he wants out and I'm fine with that.

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

76. Neocons have already FUBAR'ed America to hell and back....

And even though it's the Republicans who backed-up Bush on this debacle in Iraq :freak:, this is no longer a partisan issue,

This is about doing what's right, so wake up!

So,...What(Could)or Do We Do Now?

Wes Clark's strategy for Iraq is guided by the following principles:

1. End the American monopoly.
   * Re-incorporate our allies.
   * Transform the military operation into a NATO operation.
   
   
2. Adjust the force mix.
   * Consider adding troops.
   * Adapt to guerilla war.
   * Better use of intelligence resources.
   * Train Iraqi security forces, freeing up U.S. troops.
   *o Summon the old Iraqi army for duty at the local level.
   *o Reconstitute the Iraqi Army
   * Engage neighbors for better border security.
   * Secure ammunition.
   
   
3. Promote information exchange to advance civil society.

Preventing Foreign Misadventures Going Forward

* Promote security through multilateralism.
* Modernize international institutions to combat new threats.
* Create a new agency for international assistance.

:dem:Greater Details at http://securingamerica.com/issues/iraqplan

----------------------------------------------------------

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Donna Zen]

73. Thanks for catching my error

Your right. Juan Cole quoted $20 a gallon.

And skipping over your rudeness, I assure you that Wes Clark is best strategic thinker we have.

[Why Syzygy]

74. Somehow

I'm not reassured at all. Thanks.

[FrenchieCat]

117. Somehow, you should be.....

Naysaying is easy, and that is the only thing you are doing.

What you are engaged in is not debate, it's mockery. That will not get you far; this is evident to those who read your words.

[Why Syzygy]

125. Now we're into "shoulds"

I never said I was debating. I'm stating my opinions. If you disagree, fine.

I'll go as far as I care to.

In fact! I think Wesley Clark is a DANGER and always have. I cannot help it if some people see him as the new Messiah, but I'll be god damned if I sit down and shut up about my view.

Thanks again.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

188. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

218. Wes Clark is not a danger, and in fact is about the most

rational individual that I have followed.

I guess it's ok to hold ridiculous opinions, but it doesn't make them valid just cause they are said.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Why Syzygy]

137. I'm really sorry you feel that way

:boring:

There are people who actually have original ideas. Clark is not one of them.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Why Syzygy]

172. "My" definition is the same one

the DICTIONARY uses.

o·rig·i·nal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-rj-nl)
adj.
Preceding all others in time; first.

Not derived from something else; fresh and unusual: an original play, not an adaptation.
Showing a marked departure from previous practice; new: a truly original approach. See Synonyms at new.
Productive of new things or new ideas; inventive: an original mind.
Being the source from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is made.

... http://www.dictionary.com ~ try it sometime!

War is outdated. That's the POINT!
Why in hell would I want any military strategy training?
I am a peace person. PERIOD.

Do I have a general bent towards "strategy"? You betcha.
Does not need to be proven to you.

Is it fair for you to call me a "troll" in this forum?

[FrenchieCat]

219. If only that was the truth,

But it isn't.

[Guaranteed]

27. It's too late.

There's nothing we can do. Let's just get out and let whatever is going to happen, happen.

If they go seriously terrorist, I don't know what we'll do. But I have confidence that most Iraqis are fairly reasonable people.

[dogman]

31. When Bush started this it was obvious that the stage for WWIII was set.

Can we just walk away now and let it roll? Shouldn't the rational among us at least attempt to calm things down. Apparently Wes feels it can be brought under control, but as he says the clock is ticking.

[Guaranteed]

33. There's nothing else to do. It's over. nt

[Why Syzygy]

60. And so it is.

Amen.

No Jesus in the sky with diamonds. Ain't happening.

[Guaranteed]

67. 2 1/2 YEARS. nt

[LandOLincoln]

134. Oh woe, WOE (wrings hands, rolls in ashes, shoots self in head).

But then, if I lived in fukkin B-N with the rest of my family, I'd probably be suicidal meself...

[jonnyblitz]

35. that's what larry johnson says and I agree. this stay and fix it

crap isn't much better than Bush and his "stay the course" nonsense.

[Guaranteed]

36. Well, the thing is that I agree with the IDEA- but it's just not feasible

anymore.

There's nothing that we can do. I don't think we can help, so there's no point in staying.

Fuck it. Let's get out with the living troops, money and reputation that we have left.

[reprehensor]

90. It's already a breeding ground for radicalism.

The longer US troops stay, the longer the US lives up to its perception by Islamic extremists as 'Great Satan'.

It's a no-win situation, costing the lives of innocent civilians everyday.

If the Shia are going to lord their majority rule over the Sunni, there is fuck all we can do about it, except be a thug enforcer for a sock puppet government.

No thanks.

[Guaranteed]

121. Yes. Exactly.

We can't break their culture- even if we wanted to.

[Mass]

37. Great editorial, and totally in line with a great number of Dems

including Feingold, Boxer, Cleland, ...

[welshTerrier2]

46. Cleland

i believe i just read that Cleland stated we either have to withdraw or INCREASE the number of troops ... can anyone confirm this?

[Mass]

48. Not sure if this is what you're referring to:

http://www.dnc.org/a/2005/08/senator_max_cle.php

You can judge by yourself.

[welshTerrier2]

72. you got it !!

thanks, Mass ...

[1932]

43. Clark is either right or he is

using an overt argument about military strategy (knowing that people will give him the benefit of the doubt because he's a general) to cloak a covert argument about expanding American economic influence throughout the globe.

My feeling -- and it's just a feeling because I don't know what's really in his head -- is that Clark believes that it's important for Americans to have access to cheap oil from governments that are friendly with the US, and his motivations may be entirely patriotic. So I think that's what he's thinking when he says the US has to stay the course in Iraq until it's "fixed" and that we might have to fight a war against Iran. He's thinking that American might just have to do that so that we don't collapse economically. And that's fine to believe. It's patriotic to want to protect America from collapse. If the only way to keep America going were to make sure that the ME was populated by countries friendly to the US, willing to sell us cheap oil, I'd be for it too.

But I don't think that's the only choice.

I think there's another angle to this that the pro-empire liberals and conservatives don't understand. So long as we exploit other countries around the world in order to protect America's ability to get rich and to consume, there's never going to be stability for us or anyone. That is simply unjust and nobody will put up with it. Countries deserve more than being a home to KFC and McDonalds franchises and ExxonMobil oil fields. They deserve to reap the economic rewards of their own human and natural resources.

And I think it's best for America's long term interests if that happens, even if there might be short term disrpuption where we build wind farms and solar electricity fields and when innovative new industries supplant dinosaur industries.

I don't think the US should leave Iraq a mess so that some future RW president can exploit it like Bush 1 did for Bush 2, but I also don't think that an Iraq made in the image of America and which makes America rich is a better solution.

I think we need to turn the place over to the UN. We need to get US forces out (or drastically reduce them) and help Iraq build an economy and an infrastructure that works for Iraq, and not for Halliburton and Bechtel.

It would be nice to hear more progressives talk about this issue that way (the way Naomi Klein, Jim Wallis and John Perkins talk about it).

[dogman]

50. That is pretty much in line with what Clark called for.

During the campaign his suggestion was pulling US troops into a "small footprint". He suggested turning over the rebuilding of Iraq to the Iraqis and other nations who would provide security and training for the Iraqis. The Us troops would have been held in reserve for reaction to unrest that overwhelmed the Iraqis or security so Iraq's neighbors would not be inclined to invade. As soon as other nations and the Iraqis could provide those needs we would pull out. The key to our pullout would be removing US companies. This would have shown we had no interest in controlling Iraq and would have relieved us of security for these corporate interests. He also advocated active diplomacy with all of the surrounding nations without threatening their security.

[1932]

56. I don't think he's ever said that the US should turn over operational

control, which is the key element of that proposal.

He believes in cooperation, but he's never said that he doesn't think the US should determine the direction Iraq goes.

He has a lot of faith in the US's ability to do the right thing, notwithstanding the fact that there isn't much evidence around the world that America's virtual empire is alleviating misery.

[dogman]

65. The UN pulled out.

If you remember we could not provide security for UN operations. It is the UN's stance that the occupying force is responsible for security.

[1932]

98. The UN can't operate under the command of the US.

That's why they're not there.

If the US gave up operational command, the UN could be in there (and that's where we should be concentrating on building political will).

[dogman]

104. The UN was in there and pulled out.

We have supposedly turned the country over to Iraq and they are in control and have asked us to stay. We are to busy undermining the UN. Clark has offered a plan and changed it with the rapid deterioration of events in Iraq. Bush is responsible for what is going on. Due to that fact, I personally support immediate removal of troops. I'm with you on that. I think there is a better way and Clark knows it. I support him and his efforts to do what is right. To criticize him for things he can't control and for holding out for a better plan is not really productive. He offers hope for a better way. I guess that as long as there is hope, I'll stick with him. I simply look forward to the day that he is the one making decisions because he has the ability to make good ones. I guess that like him, I'm not ready to surrender this country to Bush and the neo-cons.

[1932]

106. We'll see how much control Iraqis have over Iraq over the next few months.

I suspect it will be in chaos by design, which will allow the US to control it.

[FrenchieCat]

149. 1932, you are wrong again.....

Clark called for the charge of command to be subservient to...... NATO..... with UN endorsement!

Transform the military operation into a NATO operation. General Abizaid, commander of US forces in the Middle East, would remain in charge of the operation, but he would report to the NATO Council, as General Clark did as commander of NATO forces in Kosovo. With NATO support and U.N. endorsement, we can also expect some Arab countries to step in. Their presence would prove that this is not an American occupation, but an international and regional effort to stabilize Iraq.
http://securingamerica.com/issues/iraqplan

[1932]

152. We know from Waging Modern Wars that the important thing about

NATO is that it gives the US a great deal of control over the strategy -- especially when a US general leads the operation.

UN endorsement doesn't mean UN control. It means the UN saying that it's not against international law for NATO to be operating.

I think Arab nations are not going to feel that any occupation lead by an American general is not an American occupation.

[FrenchieCat]

157. I think Arab Nations are not stupid.....

and would welcome International involvement over what is CLEARLY an American occupation RIGHT NOW. It's called progress in the right direction and would be a hopeful sign with more to come.

I mean, you can naysay all you want, if it makes you feel more right! Problem is that you are seldom that.

[1932]

160. I'd like to believe that a NATO mission presided over by a US general

and run according to US political and military interests would make people believe that the US is not looking after their own interests in Iraq.

It would certainly be better than what they're doing now.

But I really don't think that gets to the heart of the problem with American empire.

[1932]

161. I'd like to believe that a NATO mission presided over by a US general

and run according to US political and military interests would make people believe that the US is not looking after their own interests in Iraq.

It would certainly be better than what they're doing now.

But I really don't think that gets to the heart of the problem with American empire.

[Why Syzygy]

202. Does the word

"Gaza" mean anything to you? STEP IN? They are stepping OUT.

This twilight zone is almost too much.

And no. I am not leaving. Thanks for the invitation.

[Why Syzygy]

201. The U.N. pulled out?

Yeah! In body bags!

Hope is a good thing. Let's put that faith in ourselves.

We will overcome. (MLK)

[Why Syzygy]

200. The U.N.

got blown up and many good people DIED. Thanks to the misdeeds of the criminals in charge of the U.S.A. I don't doubt what you say at all.

The U.N. stands for UNITED NATIONS. U.S.A. is a rouge nation at this point. And look at the chimp in chief. That explains a lot and yet leaves one wondering.

Your posts are helpful. Thanks.

[dogman]

70. Here's Clark's plan.

http://securingamerica.com/issues/iraqplan

[Donna Zen]

103. On an early MTP

Clark told Russert that we needed to get our "grip" off the oil, and the target off our backs. That was long ago, but since the situation is now even worse, I doubt he has changed that stance.

[Donna Zen]

83. And my feeling

My feeling -- and it's just a feeling because I don't know what's really in his head -- is that Clark believes that it's important for Americans to have access to cheap oil from governments that are friendly with the US, and his motivations may be entirely patriotic. So I think that's what he's thinking when he says the US has to stay the course in Iraq until it's "fixed" and that we might have to fight a war against Iran. He's thinking that American might just have to do that so that we don't collapse economically. And that's fine to believe. It's patriotic to want to protect America from collapse. If the only way to keep America going were to make sure that the ME was populated by countries friendly to the US, willing to sell us cheap oil, I'd be for it too.

My feeling...and I also don't know what's going on in his head...but considering that he didn't/doesn't support this war that access to cheap oil, doesn't come into it. Anyone who is smart, and he is smart, knows that cheap oil is going away no matter what. (Remember, Clark headed up a hydrogen-fueled engine company.) I think he doesn't want to see an entire region desolve into a worse war than we now have.

Everyone who advocates the "out now" theory, neglects to think ahead to a scenario where American troops have to return. And that is a very real possiblilty if things blow up. Just because you don't support that doesn't mean millions of Americans wouldn't. Especially if they drive to work.

Clark does not believe that we should "stay the course."

[Why Syzygy]

203. Actually

I dream every day of them returning NOW. So does Cindy Sheehan and millions of other Americans. They may have to fight their way out harder than they fought to get in. That is due to the war crimes of George W. Bush. But they need to get out.

I hope you're right that Clark doesn't believe in "stay the course". The course is killing innocent people and accomplishing nothing.

WHAT IS THE MISSION?

[welshTerrier2]

44. i respect Clark and his supporters but i disagree

i won't review all the arguments about why i think we need to get the hell out of Iraq ... i've discussed this with the Clarkies many times ...

what i think is unfortunate here, in additional to Clark's position on withdrawal, is his timing ...

it seems to me that we will be able to see things much more clearly after Iraq's Constitutional process is completed ... that is scheduled to happen over the next day or two ...

some news accounts suggest all hell will break loose; others suggest that ratification of the Constitution will allow Iraq to turn a corner ... what is the point of drawing such a sharp line on withdrawal, as Clark has done, at this time?

if all hell breaks loose over the next week or two, would Clark's position be the same? wouldn't he want to take into account significant changes should they occur? it seems to me he's put himself in an awkward spot should he choose to react to possible significant changes in Iraq ...

and i wish Clark had been more thorough in presenting his reasoning for not withdrawing at this time ... again, without arguing my own position, he made no reference to the tidal wave of public opinion turning against the war; he made no reference to the danger of ongoing US occupation and exploitation; and he made no reference, other than not trusting the information they provided, of not trusting the ultimate goals of the neo-cons ... he also didn't mention the Shia death squads that seemingly are murdering Sunnis in Baghdad with impunity ... and he also didn't mention the pathetic state of the training process for the Iraqi military ...

i think Clark's timing and the lack of clarity in his statement were both unfortunate ... i realize he's elaborated on some of his thoughts previously, but not all have read them ... perhaps some of you Clarkies could provide some additional details ...

as I said, i respect Clark and his supporters and hope for the day that we're all on the same side of this withdrawal question ...

[dogman]

55. This was a blog entry today.

He was referring to a post he made earlier and the responses it generated. The original post is here.
http://securingamerica.com/node/214

[Donna Zen]

63. some other comments

General Clark, do you worry that we're splitting hairs over this? I mean, really, almost no one is advocating immediate pullout. And, yet, at least online, we're killing each other over the difference between what you propose and "pulling out."
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply

Splitting Hairs (#22) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Wes Clark on 08/25/2005 05:58:29 PM EST

Actually, there is a pretty wide spread on the views I'm hearing expressed, and some are advocating pulling out, while others just want a date certain. I think the most important thing to understand that "stay the course" is just a slogan - it's not a strategy. We're going against smart, adaptive opponents in Iraq, who are handling many different aspects of frutrating what they perceive to be our aims in the region. So we have to have a real strategy. and the American people have to support it...and we can't support what we don't understand, so, we really do need the debate. it's not bad, so long as people are respectful of each other, to have discussions and disagreements.

also, typos and all...

Thank you so much for posting. (#27) (No rating)
by originaLinda (originaLinda at forclark dot com) on 08/25/2005 06:04:11 PM EST

Dear General Clark: I think Bush may have messed things up beyond fixing. I think that window you mentioned a long time ago may have closed. I do appreciate that you are putting your smarts and knowledge to work on this though. I do hope people will listen. I saw your letter in the WSJ and it was excellent! Doesn't surprise me they won't print your strategy. When I read something recently about the US putting pressure on the Iraqis or something like that, I thought - "I thought they were sovereign."
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply



the window (#47) (Rated 5.00/3)
by Wes Clark on 08/25/2005 06:38:10 PM EST

I think there's still an alternative to simply executing a fighting withdrawal. let's see if we can help them create a Constitution, and create a trained force to carry on the fighting, and while we"re doing that we can work with Iraq's neighbors. i agree we will never get American style Democracy....nor will Iraq's "democracy" spread thr0ughout the region. the time for all that inflated rhetoric is over..but there's still an opportunity to avoid a terribly damaging regional failure.

I've got to sign of now. again, thansk to all opf you for being here, and for caring about our country.

wes

[welshTerrier2]

77. thanks, Donna !!

you sure do find the relevant stuff ...

what are your thoughts on the comments i made about timing?

i'll check back later ... watching a very strange Tim Robbins movie about Iraq ... it's on Sundance and is called "Embedded" ...

[Donna Zen]

102. Timing

Clark once said that he still retains a security clearance, not as deep as when he was in uniform, but certainly deeper than mine. He also has contacts, both here and abroad including the region. But more than that, he keeps close track on positoning of the troops and all the military stuff, that mean nothing to me.

Every so often the military runs tests on strategic problems, Clark came out first each and everytime. And he did it so fast that the first time they tested him, they thought there was something wrong with the test. So they tested him again...they got the same result. He really is the best that we have, probably the best alive anywhere today. I asked Eric Massa about that, and he not only agreed, he said everyday with Clark was like a phd.

I said that, not because Clark needs my endorsement, but only to explain my position. He's watching all of this more closely and with greater understanding than I am able to do. I am not of blind faith, but apart from throwing up my hands, I can only read and be honest about this. I have no fucking clue what we should do. But reading his posts today, I caught a glimmer of how he sees this unfolding that cleared the air.

Someone just put up his clip from a fox appearance this morning where he discussed very clearly what is going on with the constitution. He has read each and every draft. He said that for it to succeed, the Shia must be held to their "compromises." I haven't seen it yet, but the clip is up somewhere. Ice caught it.

As for the timing, I hope you take the time to ask him about it. We are lucky that he will be blogging a lot this coming week. Really, ask him. Please. You are a wonderful writer and that is a great question. He read our comments to his front page blog and I think that is why he came on line today. It was without notice, we just looked over and where it lists "Who's on line" it said Wes Clark.

I do know that he is searching for a soft landing, and that he wants to get out. When he says "Go" we all should know that it means get out now.

Curiously, Wes has said that the greatest threat to the US is not the war, but a one party system. And he said that if the Dems cannot get it together, we might see the rise of a third party. I believe he is seriously trying to strengthen the Democratic party. He does not need the shit that is posted on line about him, and yes, he reads the blogs and he knows about it. Sad when one thinks about it. Worse than Rove.

[Adelante]

79. wT2, Wes will be on Meet the Press this Sunday

You said:

"lack of clarity in his statement"

This wasn't a "statement" -- it was a quick blog entry touching base with Clarkies. A family visit. He can't say everything he has to say on any subject every single time he speaks, nobody can.

[welshTerrier2]

85. no problem, WesDem ...

i hope you'll remind us about MTP (i hate Russert) on Sunday ...

i'd like to hear what Clark has to say ...

[LSK]

45. sorry, but the Clock expired

The minute the 1st Halliburtan employee did a job that an Iraqi could easily do, that is when we truly lost it. There is no winning in Iraq, PERIOD.

GET OUT NOW.

[reprehensor]

91. Wrap up that Turkey.

Time to go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2035876

[katinmn]

47. he doesn't get it. It wasn't right to go in and it isn't right to stay.

[trillian]

49. Wes has always said it wasn't right to go in....

......all he's saying now is, it'll be a blood bath if we cut and run. And not just in Iraq. The danger is that the conflict will spread throughout the region.

[1932]

53. Wes has always said that the strategy for achieving empire in Iraq was

wrong.

But he has alwasy said that it's right for America to extend its virtual empire around the globe through non-military means because America's values are right for the world.

He believes that the US should be economically involved in Iraq, but he didn't think we needed to invade it the way we did in order to do that.

Clark has also said that there are places in the world where it will be right to use military force, and I think in this statement he's saying that that place is Iran.

[dogman]

59. Not Iran, Darfur.

He believes in force as a last resort when all other avenues have run out and no action will result in worse results than action. He regrets that we stood by in Rwanda and sees Darfur as destabilizing a region and allowing genocide.

[Donna Zen]

78. Did ya see

That the bushes via Bolton, have taken out the line "force as a last resort" from the UN reform proposal.

So we should while away the time deciding whether someone who says that we should get the right way is for getting out.

Fucking nutty.

[1932]

96. I'm pretty sure he's talking about Iran

[FrenchieCat]

114. Well we know that you would "think" that you are "pretty" "sure"

that it was "Iran". Why don't you go find where he said that for us.....since you are "pretty" "sure" that he said it.

Thanks! :hi:

[1932]

142. First story that came up googling:

If he were in charge, Clark said, he would put more emphasis on political, economic and diplomatic efforts. "We need to persuade some of Iraq's neighbors, like Syria and Iran, that a peaceful, integrated, cohesive, democratized Iraq is in their interests."

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050720/NEWS02/507200450/1006/NEWS01

IIRC, both his books talk about Iran and Syria as being the middle east neighbors of Iraq he thinks are trouble spots.

[FrenchieCat]

151. And?

We need to persuade some of Iraq's neighbors, like Syria and Iran, that a peaceful, integrated, cohesive, democratized Iraq is in their interests."

Like...ye-Ah! Doh!

Still don't see how that is saying anything close to what you are insinuating that he said. This was your sentence of accusations... Clark has also said that there are places in the world where it will be right to use military force, and I think in this statement he's saying that that place is Iran.

When Clark uses the word persuade, he doesn't mean blow them up! Persuade is a diplomatic term....means TALK someone into believing what you believe, by providing reasons in where they can see as a benefit.

Synonyms: persuade, induce, prevail, convince
These verbs mean to succeed in causing a person to do or consent to something. Persuade means to win someone over, as by reasoning or personal forcefulness: Nothing could persuade her to change her mind. To induce is to lead, as to a course of action, by means of influence or persuasion: “Pray what could induce him to commit so rash an action?” (Oliver Goldsmith). One prevails on somebody who resists: “He had prevailed upon the king to spare them” (Daniel Defoe). To convince is to persuade by the use of argument or evidence: The sales clerk convinced me that the car was worth the price.

[1932]

154. I address this in my other posts here.

It's not Darfur that's Iraq's neighbor that needs to be dealth with. It's Iran (and Syria).

And obviously you start with diplomacy, and you hope diplomacy succeeds. But do you stop when it doesn't? Do you use the military?

I think Clark has indicated that he's willing to use the military if diplomacy fails with the worst of the rogue nations, and I think it's a fair interpretation to say that Iran qualifies as one of the worst in Clark's mind.

(And I suspect he's right about that much -- that it's one of the worst rogue nations. I honestly don't know what to think about a solution if diplomacy fails. That's the part that is important to discuss, as we are here.)

[trillian]

62. Wes has ALWAYS said.........

....military force should only be used as a LAST resort.

[1932]

97. John Perkins (confession of economic hit man) has said it always is used

as a last resort. That doesn't mean that everything that is done that leads up to the use of force is good.

BTW, according to Perkins, the three states are (1) Economic Hit Man, (2) Jackal, (3) Military.

[Texas_Kat]

112. Please stop with your "Book of the Month Club"

interpretation of everything that happens in the world.

[1932]

146. Never.

And I hope other people read these books and form their own opinions.

I don't even care what that opinion is, just so long as its informed.

[FrenchieCat]

153. Well

"informed" would be n-i-c-e (hint!)

[1932]

155. Posts like this are unneccessary.

I know that you think I'm uninformed.

But if you're trying to convince other people that I'm uninformed, please do it with something more than labels.

I very well may be uninformed. But your post (and the one above it asking me to stop citing my sources) doesn't make the case.

[FrenchieCat]

159. No, but your posts do....make the case that is.....

First you say what Clark didn't say. Then you use as a source something that doesn't really mean what you said that Clark said, that he didn't say.

Then you say...."but I'm sufficiently confident I remember these passages accurately so that I'm not in a real hurry to fact check my memory."

So yeah...my post didn't make the case; yours have, however.

[1932]

162. Do you think Clark is saying we have to deal with Iraq's neighbor, Darfur?

Don't you think that the quote I supplied (one of many just like it) supports the argument that he's talking about Iran (and Syria)?

BTW, the more you challenge me on citing page numbers in WMW, the closer I get to getting my copy back, so that slow train's a comin' (as you might say).

[Texas_Kat]

177. I'd appreciate it if you truly cited sources

rather than trying to make a conversation "fit" into your latest interpretation.

You've managed to work the "Hitman" book into the last 3 threads that dealt with Clark as though it was some relevation that countries use economic power and persuasion to promote their interests. (Please note that the US is not the only one who does it)).

THe "Hitman" book might be an interesting read, but it isn't news. It wasn't even news 200 years ago.

If you are looking to discuss global political and economic policy on an abstract basis, there are other venues. DU threads are generally understood to be less theoretical and more ... purposeful.

Now if you wanted to discuss how Bush is using trade with China to prop up his failed diplomatic policy with N Korea, THAT might be an interesting discussion.

Pulling whatever you've read recently into a discussion that has nothing to do with your topic of interest is no way to start an interesting debate.

I"ve often wondered if you are someone who has really just discovered these things you post about so often or if you have another purpose. It is really a puzzle. If you want to find out how someone thinks, it's best to ask, rather than put your ideas in their mouths.

For instance, if you want to know what Clark thinks about something (and don't like -- or believe --what you get told here), go ask him on Friday at the Washington Post blog or go to the TPM Cafe next week.

[Texas_Kat]

165. Some people have actually lived through the things you think are

such revelations.

It's perhaps why some are so impatient with going back through the HISTORY OF THE WORLD with you everytime you happen on a thread.

[1932]

212. I'm living through the chaos caused by virtual American empire.

I'm experiencing the impacts of the post-WW2 polarization of wealth and power and the destruction of societal cohesion on a national and global scale.

[Texas_Kat]

217. Just now?

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Why Syzygy]

71. Oh great. Not

It doesn't work in Ira*q but it will work in Ira*n? What a bunch of SHIT! MAN!

Listen. What is the "American Way"? The PEOPLE RULE (on paper at least). Let the PEOPLE of those countries rule.

Bring them HOME. Get the hell out. Leave them to decide their fate. It's only fair.

[FrenchieCat]

120. It doesn't work in Ira*q but it will work in Ira*n? What a bunch of SHIT!

No one said this but you....and 1932, and IT IS a bunch of SHIT (at least you got that part right).

[Why Syzygy]

129. So what does this mean?

Clark has also said that there are places in the world where it will be right to use military force, and I think in this statement he's saying that that place is Iran. ~ Post 53

I think if Wesley Clark ever had any kind of power at all we would be in worse shape with the devotees than we are now with the
bush-heads. Really.

[FrenchieCat]

131. What it means....is that 1932 said that sentence.....

Not Wes Clark. That's what it means.

Ask 1932 where he got that from? I mean ask him to give you the source link.

In reference to "devotees", I don't think that we care what you think. We are not bots....we are folks that think and feels just like you. Try not to disparage Wes Clark or his supporters just cause you've got a Keyboard in front of you. Unless you provide substance with sources, your opinion is just one of many....and as you know, everyone has those.

[Why Syzygy]

132. I know for sure

you don't care what I think. And, again, I will hold any opinion of Wesley Clark that I choose. And believe me I did my homework. I would love to be able to believe in him. After my research, I do not. Now, if he comes out of wherever and saves the world, I'll change my opinion.

1932 came to that conclusion I guess, based on his view of Wesley Clark. Case closed.

If Wesley Clark comes out in favor of blowing Ira*n to bits just like we did Ira*q, I will have even more probelms with his "ideals".

You can leave me alone now. Can't you? Or does Wesley demand further harrassment?

EOM

[FrenchieCat]

136. I think that your response is silly......

and so was the last statement about Iran that 1932 "made up" and that you "adopted". Seem like y'all got the corner market on having opinions without facts wrapped up..... :hi:

We live in a liberal democracy. That's what we created in this country. It's in our constitution! We should be very clear on this... this country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment. It was the idea that people could talk, have reasonable dialogue and discuss the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get struck by a divine inspiration and know everything, right from wrong. People who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, and dialogue, and civil discourse. We can't lose that in this country. We've got to get it back.--Wes Clark
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=284779&mesg_id=287760&page=

[Why Syzygy]

171. ic

So. You are saying that all the hours I spent researching the topic and coming to my honest conclusions are "silly"? And you expect to blow that out of the water by calling it "silly"?

See. This is why I cannot respect Clark. Those who know, know. Those who worship, worship.

That's okay. I believe in freedom from religion. Don't bring it in my house.

And your facts are ... ????? Never mind. Don't want to know. I already found the facts on Clark.

[1932]

150. See post 144

If you google Wes Clark and Iran, you can find examples of Clark indicating that he thinks Iran is a real source of trouble in the ME. He advocates "working with them" and "dealing with them" and he clearly intends to use diplomacy, but I think it's also reasonable to infer that President Clark wouldn't give up if diplomacy failed.

The real clues to his attitude are in Winning Modern War. In one set of passages in the book he levels criticism on Iran (and Pakistan). In another he says that of the seven or so rogue nations in the world he suspects that ultimately a military solution would be appropriate for three of them, IIRC. He doesn't say which three in that passage, but operating on the assumption that the countries criticized the most are the ones he's thinking of, then you'd have to guess that he's not going to stop with failed diplomacy in Iran.

I've passed on my copy of the book and I'm trying to get it back, but I'm sufficiently confident I remember these passages accurately so that I'm not in a real hurry to fact check my memory.

I will get it back soon, and if I'm way off, I'll be ashamed and embarassed and my credibility will be undermined, and I'll owe the general a huge apology.

In the meantime I encourage everyone to read the book for yourself. Don't rely on the opinions of anonymous people on the internet like me. Go straight to the source and form your own INFORMED opinons. (Incidentally, that's why I try to cite my sources -- sorry I can't link to books, but they're out there to read.)

BTW, if you don't have time to read the whole book, Winning Modern Wars, just read the last chapter (and if there's an index, look up Pakistan and Iran).

[FrenchieCat]

156. You are too funny!

NOT!

He advocates "working with them" and "dealing with them" and he clearly intends to use diplomacy, but I think it's also reasonable to infer....

No, it is not reasonable for you to "infer" your own thoughts into someone else's sentence, and then to go around and tell folks that "this is what he said".

That "other" Clark hater took you word for your statement that Clark was advocating violence against Iran....and that "other" Clark hater had the nerves to then state "case closed", because he assumed that you knew something that you didn't know about what Clark said that he didn't say.

If this is the way the left operates, I'm getting the fuck out of dodge. Cause then the left is no better than the right with all of this "infering" and "heresy".

Sad shit to actually witness! :shrug:

[1932]

If I get my copy of Winning Modern Wars back

and if I cite the pages where Clark says that Iran (and Pakistan) are very unhelpful to American's interests and are destabilizing the region, and if I cite the page where clark says that a military solution might be appropriate for the worst rogue nations, would that convince you that I'm not misrpresenting Clark's attitudes?

Or would I be wasting my time?

People don't have to infer the same thing I infer. That's why I try to tell people what and where my facts are.

[1932]

158. If I get my copy of Winning Modern Wars back

and if I cite the pages where Clark says that Iran (and Pakistan) are very unhelpful to American's interests and are destabilizing the region, and if I cite the page where clark says that a military solution might be appropriate for the worst rogue nations, would that convince you that I'm not misrpresenting Clark's attitudes?

Or would I be wasting my time?

People don't have to infer the same thing I infer. That's why I try to tell people what and where my facts are.

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Texas_Kat]

173. Is this the 2nd or 3rd time you've promised to leave......?

Guess you got a little .... over excited.

[Why Syzygy]

175. over excited might be one way to put it

very upset that people who supposedly believe in the same things I do and fall for Wesley Clark is another way to put it.

I don't know what you people want. There is absolutely no intention of understanding how someone like myself feels about this. Minds are made up. That is "upsetting"... not "over excited".

[Texas_Kat]

176. But I do understand you

I just don't agree with you.

[Why Syzygy]

178. when you call me

"over excited" there is proof you do not understand me.

"Upset" is the term.

[FrenchieCat]

184. So you're upset?

And so am I. And?

Please go away unless you have something constructive to offer. Go to the hack sites and read some more bullshit lies about Wes Clark and go spread them without sources....just by bad mouthing.


If Democrats attacked the GOP the way they go after their own, we would be in fucking power!

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

191. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Why Syzygy]

206. You have not addressed one

legitimate concern in this thread. You throw troll bombs. That's about it. So. How does an educated, concerned liberal appeal to that? I don't. I don't go near repuke boards. I'm HERE.

You are very liberal with your intolerance. That's what scares me.

Wesley Clark will NEVER gain any power other than what he holds over the small minded. And GAWED HELP US if that bunch takes over.

I'd almost rather have George W. Bush. I don't think his worshipers are much less fervent. And at least he's up front with his socio pathology.

This is just too weird to be true. Yet. Evidently it is. And on DU.

Call me stunned. Life. A new adventure every day.

Happy Trails.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

99. Virtual Fetish

Have to wonder about this "virtual empire" that shows up in "virtually" every post.

But pay no attention to me...I've got to wash my hands again...got to wash my hands again...wash my hands again...wash hands again...wash again...wash...

[1932]

107. "Virtual empire" is Clark's term.

If you don't have time to read the whole book, you should at least read Chapter 6 of Winning Modern Wars before you criticize me for using Clark's own terms when discussing Clark.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

116. I've read it

yep it's there all right. The man has written "virtually" thousands of words...2 books, hundreds of articles, op eds etc. etc. but ya' know he doesn't seem to be nearly as in love with the term as you. LOL

Guess it's one of those sound bites that just keep givin'.

[1932]

138. Do you realize how funny your post is?

Clark's concluding chapter is a criticism of "new empire" (military empire) and an argument that virtual empire (of the kind the US has employed everywhere else in the world besides Iraq) is a much better method for spreading and protecting American values.

Virtual empire is the central argument of the book.

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

195. Looking BEYOND (confines of) "EMPIRE" is Clark's thesis.

"Virtual Empire" is historical in context.

In Chapter 6, Wes Clark argues that what has shaped and evolved America's image as an empire must be considered historical in context. It has shaped our military policies, subsequent to WWII to provide security; and our economic growth, subsequent to the 80's and 90's, as foreign countries invested heavily into our markets and currency. Together, it historically has shaped our "image", as a "virtual empire". (Winning Modern Wars, pp 178-89)

The Chapter 6 "Beyond Empire", Clark argues that America must look beyond the security and prosperity rhetoric that has shaped this image of America. Instead, he argued that American policy and strategy should (have) adapt the values of "inclusiveness", which are respectful of human dignity, individual worth (pp190) and common values. Together, he argued that this new look, beyond the virtual empire, requires a strategy which would strengthen America's ecomomic position and which would provide a measure of global security, as the only remaining world superpower.


________________________________________________________________


The failure to adapt our foriegn policies "beyond this virtual empire" is what Clark argues has led to the policy debacles by the Bush Administration, - economically, politically and militarily. Instead, Bush's were flawed in this context, and explains why his policies have adversely diminished America's image and respect, not only among those in the Middle East, but around the world as well.

________________________________________________________________

[ken-in-seattle]

110. Where would you get the idea that Iran is what he meant?

Seriously. He has called for diplomatic contact with Iran. Quatar, Saudi, turkey and syria as the most likely countries who will be effected by a spreading civil war in Iraq. The turks are petrified of their own kurdish minority and Iran has Kurds and turkoman in the north which may join in if given the opening. The Saudis have large amounts of air power and munitions and of course the cash to feed the flames if it sees the sunni;s about to be defeated. A civil war in Saudi is also likely if they don't support the sunnis. Iran does want a sheite buffer state in iraq and wants it supported by its own oil revenues.

I know many would like geopolitics to be easy and have everyone wear a black hat or a white hat but thats only in the movies

[1932]

144. His books.

He thinks Iran is a real source of instability.

I'm sure when he talks about trouble with iraq's neighbors he's talking about Iran (and Syria) and not Darfur.

I'm not saying that the solutions are black and white.

In his book he says that there are about seven rogue nations that cause a great deal of instability. He says that if diplomacy fails, military solutions might be appropriate for three of them. He doesn't name the three, but his book is very critical of Iran.

[FrenchieCat]

163. His book, that you "think" you have committed to memory

is not the same "book" that you keep going on about.

Here, Mr. I read this book -- Those pesky reviews of Clark's book, for you, AGAIN (Since I imagined you didn't bother reading those the last time I posted them, when you going on and on about what you think Clark meant in his book)!

Review from the Gardian
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,1091...
The first 100 pages analyse the recent war in Iraq. Clark commanded US troops in the Iraqi theatre in the early Nineties, and provides useful insights. The true problems for senior commanders are supply lines and troop deployment timetables, not battle tactics. The secret of American military superiority, Clark shows, is, in addition to massive transport capability, a hitherto unheard of degree of co-operation between ground troops and air power. Only recently have the secure communications been developed that allow concepts of 'battlespace' rather than 'battlefield' to become a real-time reality.

He is scathing about the failure by war leaders to plan properly for the post-conflict period. This he attributes to a natural tendency of the American political and military establishment to play to their strengths. A marine in Iraq told me his job was to 'shoot people and blow things up'. Moving beyond that has proved difficult for a conservative Pentagon and civilian leadership suspicious of anything smacking of 'social work'.

The latter part of Clark's book is devoted to a sustained attack on the conduct of the 'war on terror'. Clark says the current administration's bullish unilateralism, dependence on military force, disdain for international law and institutions have been profoundly counterproductive and run against everything that made American great. He says, rightly, that military power should be the last resort and can only succeed when used in combination with diplomatic, social, political, economic, cultural and developmental measures.

America, he says, risks winning individual battles, even campaigns, but losing the war and losing itself. His analysis, manifesto or otherwise, is accurate, timely and important.

Review from Asian Reporter
http://www.asianreporter.com/reviews/2005/22-05winningm...
Drawing on his deep military experience at home and abroad, General Wesley Clark analyzes the U.S. invasion, occupation, and rebuilding of Iraq and its relationship to the struggle against global terrorism in Winning Modern Wars. According to Clark, the American war machine is a dominant force unlike any the world has ever seen, except perhaps the Roman Empire at its apex. Yet the mess in Iraq should be a clear warning that we have much to learn about wielding our power effectively.

snip
In this age of embedded reporters, Internet bloggers, and instant news, "Public opinion itself has become a weapon of war," Clark explains early on. Winning Modern Wars shows that this supposedly retired general is still ready to fight, delivering a "Take no prisoners" assault on the post-9/11 foreign policy of the Bush administration.

General Clark knows what an effective military force looks like, and has nothing but praise for the amazingly competent American soldiers who delivered the decisive victory over Saddam Hussein. But if success results from the work of soldiers on the ground, it is unfortunately errors at the highest levels of leadership that lead to ultimate failure.
Snip
Worse, the whole fiasco in Iraq was nothing but a grave misjudgment by the Bush administration in the first place. There should have been no need for a postwar plan because there should have been no war in Iraq at all. On top of a laundry list of American mistakes laid out by Clark, including spurning of allies, lack of focus on Al-Qaeda, and coddling of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, President Bush’s September, 2003, statement that Iraq constitutes "The central battle in the war on terrorism" encapsulates everything that has gone wrong with the American response to 9/11.

snip
Most of Clark’s criticisms have been raised before, first from protestors on the street and later from disaffected staffers at increasingly higher levels inside the U.S. government. But Clark is no partisan shill, and has real credentials to back up his arguments; he has served as both European Supreme Allied Commander and Director of Strategic Plans and Policy for the Pentagon. The knowledge he displays of the tactics, weapons, and capabilities of the U.S. Army is so thorough that anyone who wishes to understand the campaign in Iraq and the larger war against terror has to sit up and take notice. We can choose to ignore Clark only at our own peril.

"Powell's Books Review"
http://www.powells.com/biblio?partner_id=27104&cgi=prod...
General Clark criticizes George W. Bush's handling of the American Empire, especially as it concerns the War in Iraq. He argues that the war was conducted with brilliant tactics but flawed strategy and that vital opportunities to go after Al Qaeda were missed. Larger questions of Empire are discussed in concluding chapters, with Clark arguing that the "very idea of a New American Empire in 2003 shows an ignorance of the real and existing virtual empire created since the end of World War II" and calling for a "more powerful but less arrogant" foreign policy.

Review by Intervention Magazine
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?file=art...
This is actually three books in one, tied together by the common theme of the leadership failures of the Bush administration. The first three chapters recount the history of America’s preemptive strike on Iraq. The next two show how those actions have distracted us so badly from the true battle, against international terrorism. The final chapter could serve as a draft inaugural address, as Clark details his vision of a collaborative American strategy for success in an interdependent world.
snip
As a veteran leader with a global view, Clark also decries how the Bush administration broke treaties and denied international obligations with impunity. Such a unilateralist approach caused us to lose so much of the international sympathy and support which had arisen after the 9/11 attacks. By casting aside more than fifty years of strategic alliances, we have left ourselves at risk legally, financially, and militarily.

The Nation - Book Review
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031208&s=fitzger...
Most of Clark's views about the general direction of US foreign policy will sound familiar, for most are shared by the other major Democratic contenders. However, this book is nothing like the goo usually served up in campaign literature, for he is also a very good writer: logical, lucid and concise. Moreover, he has much of interest to say about military operations and the relationship--or lack of it--between specific campaigns and the overall US security strategy. He is well qualified for the task.
snip
In his final chapter, Clark attacks the Administration's conception of American power and substitutes his own. Last April, he tells us, there was talk in Washington of Iraq as the first stepping stone to a new American empire. As the US armed forces marched on Baghdad, the perception was that the US military had achieved such a degree of superiority over all its rivals that Bush might fulfill his vision of liberating Iraq and transforming the whole of the Middle East under a Pax Americana. But the truth was that the US Army, the only force available, was not suited to this quasi-imperial vision: It was built for warfighting; it lacked staying power abroad and it lacked nation-building skills. Further, the American public had little taste for empire, and the international community had turned against the war. As it is, Clark writes, the Army has become dangerously overstretched, and US foreign policy dangerously dependent upon it. Clark sees the aggressive unilateralism of the Bush Administration as having roots that go back to the reaction to the cultural revolutions of the 1960s.
snip
In Clark's view, American power resides to a large degree in the "virtual empire" the United States constructed after World War II: that is, among other things, its network of economic and security arrangements, the leverage it had in international institutions and treaty regimes, plus the shared values and reservoir of trust, or "soft power," that permitted past Presidents to lead by persuasion. Clark's forceful book warns that the Bush Administration is undermining this virtual empire and at the same time imperiling the "hard power" Bush counts upon, the power of America's economy and armed forces.

[katinmn]

61. Well, what do you think it is now? Not bad enough for ya?

An average of 50 Iraqis and 2 American soliers are killed EACH day.

Do you think George and Rummy will suddenly acquire intelligence and compassion and start managing?

Not a chance.

We have losers for leaders. And they are committed to being there permanently.

Does Wes Clark think they will ask HIS advice? Ha.

No. The only answer is for the American people to demand a pull-out.

[1932]

51. It's right if you truly believe that the US will collapse

without access to cheap oil from friendly countries in oil rich parts of the world who welcome multinational corporations in their borders and if you believe that the sort of values expressed by the American marketplace have done good things for the world since WW2 (those are the values that have polarized wealth and have made the poor in American and the rest of the world POORER today then they were 30 years ago).

[reprehensor]

94. He gets that much, but...

Nobody can 'guarantee' what will happen if we pull out. Even if we stay, violence of some sort is inevitable.

The Shia seem eager to establish Islamic law in the new Constitution, (interpreted by Shia clerics, no doubt), and the Sunnis won't stand for it.

What are we gonna do? Help the Shia oppress the Sunnis?

It's fucked. There's no glossing over this shit-stain on the bedsheet. It's not worth another drop of American blood.

The damage is done.

Everybody go home.

[ICantBelieve]

100. You can't know what will happen, until it happens

There's no way to know what CAN be accomplished in Iraq with a competent administration--or an emboldened Congress forcing this administration to do the right things.

Iraq right now is a jigsaw puzzle handed to a two-year-old. The fact that the pieces are spread all over the room and covered with spit sheds no light on whether or not we can put the puzzle back together.

If the puzzle can be assembled, it's going to take people with foreign policy experience, particularly the kind that Wes Clark has.

The important thing to remember, however, is that we don't have a competent administration or an emboldened Congress. So, how do we get one of those two things? Well, we could wait til Bush is out and elect a Dem, but that's a pretty awful solution-- to have to wait that long. The best thing we can do--very short term--is essentially have a "no confidence vote" on Bush by continuing to "disapprove" of him in the polls. Slightly longer term, we have to win back seats in Congress.

So, how do we go about the "no confidence thing"? We keep doing what we're doing. Many of us are yelling "get out now!" And that's helpful. Others are saying what we're doing is a disaster and offering a real plan. And that's fine. The two in concert will do well together. The details are not important right now. Getting the domestic politics under control such that the public completely loses confidence in the Bush administration and Congress starts doing it's job again is what is important.

To make this happen, we have to stop splitting hairs amongst ourselves. It won't matter if we're all screaming "pull them out"; Bush isn't going to do it. We need to stick together now and worry about the differences in details later.

[ICantBelieve]

75. "hi"

It's nice to see this here; however, it should be noted that this was a friendly note to Wes's closest supporters. It was titled "hi." It was not titled, "A comprehensive new plan for Iraq." As such, it's really not appropriate to criticize him for not listing specifics in this posting. This was a letter to friends--nothing more, nothing less.

[jonnyblitz]

80. I am curious to hear what he has to say..

I will withold comment until then.

[Why Syzygy]

88. That makes one of us

When oh when will even we, The People, realize that policy is OUR decision? There is no savior. We are it. That's why we do what we do. Work it.

[jonnyblitz]

93. "there is no savior"

I agree. I still am curious to hear what he has to say on this even though I am don't care for him that much..

[ICantBelieve]

101. Right...

There's no savior. But listening is good... :)

[Why Syzygy]

123. It's just that when

people use a phrase like "HE IS THE ONE", it gives me the creeps.
That's what some say about George W. Bush. Some of the same ones who say that about "Jesus". THE ONE!

Oh yeah. If only.

By all means listen to him. I won't be.

[FrenchieCat]

109. To the great minds that I find here, first let me say

That I have been grappling with the Iraq War, (I know for sure how we got there and it wasn't pretty--and my ass was certainly in the streets protesting in SF), the current state of things now (things are fucked and will probably get more so), and the possible future of this Iraq War and all of its overwhelming ramifications as they will affect us, the Middle East, Europe, and in fact the whole world(which is really what this conversation is about, IMO).

What I find is that we, Democrats, are advocating 2 more or less different positions on the Iraq war's future and the solutions for it, and the Republicans are advocating one:

The Bush folks want to stay in until "it's done", whatever that means. Of course, as Clark said, this is not a strategy, it's a slogan. It's the same ol' same ol' that the GOP have been pushing; without a strategy that makes sense, of course, things are only going to get worse, since this administration will continue to make mistakes...cause that's what they do.

Now, we have those Democrats who say "get out now", the shit is fucked and is only going to get worse. Why wait until it does, to do what we could be doing now; pulling out.

These are the folks that either don't want to be bothered in looking at the possibilities of what would happen if we did get out suddently, and would prefer to see Bush pay for what he's done, and a miserable tragic failure in Iraq would do just that. Sure these same folks "care" about our soldiers and the Iraqi people and most likely don't want to see another one or the other die. They are of the mind that we shouldn't have done it to begin with and admitting that and getting out should kind of solve it. Of course, this is the easiest solution to advocate, especially when one realize that it ain't gonna happen....not with Bush & Co. at the helm. So this solution makes it easy to poo-poo everyone else, cause hey....when something's not gonna happen for at least 2.5 years, looking at the possible various aftermaths is not something that one has to do right now.. The Vietnamese were'nt fighting over oil (cause that's all this is anyways), so their aftermath is not the one to look at and study.

The 2nd Democratic option is to work the failing issues differently and to use tools that have not yet been used. These Democrats look at the mess that Iraq is in, but also look at the short and long term Geopolitical implications of what would happen if the US got out tomorrow. They understand that things never happens as we wish them to, so they know that projecting the realities of what this war has brought on (opened a Pandora's box literally) cannot be solved thinking that Pandora's Box can now just be closed and the hell with it.

It is all very problematic to me. The simplistic "get out now" really doesn't take into consideration that "shit" will continue to happen once we are out and they won't necessarily be for the better... for the ones that are really the victims of US arrogance at this point. Even Feingold is not advocating getting out now.....as I read what he said, he's talking December 2006, which is in 1.5 years....that doesn't sound like NOW to me.

What I think currently is that this is not as simple of an excercise as some would want to think it is. I believe that Democrats like General Wes Clark really do have the answers, but don't have the power to execute their plans; plans that could work...but because they are not running the show; plans that will never see the light of day.

I do believe that the plan that Wes Clark spelled out, but that many won't bother to read (they are too busy being smarter than everyone else, I guess) would work and could work in the kind of decent timeframe that Feingold and a few others are advocating. Problem is these plans will never see the light of day...and Foolish Corporate media talking heads and their brethen fellows, those who don't want to know about workable solutions, will continue to naysay Democrats has not having a plan at all (which is a goddam lie)....when the direct problem that Pundit heads should be discussing that whatever plans Democrats have, will not be used....and that this administration will continue to make all of the mistakes that could be made.

This is why the Iraq War was the biggest blunder the US has ever made; because there are no longer any easy solutions. We lose no matter what. The question is to what degree do we lose? and who loses the most? do we lose to a degree that will affect the entire world and allow a bloody civil war that could last years and involve much of the middle east? Or do we lose to the degree where we, Americans, get deeper and deeper into the Iraqi doo-doo and in 2.5 years, maybe Americans will be sick and tired of this and finally elect someone that can then activate a real strategy that would get us out leaving things relatively stable? Of course, in the meantime, we continue to lose soldiers everyday.

So you see, there is not winners in this. There are only losers, no matter which way one decides. That is George Bush's legacy. That is what he created.

Those who refuse to look at Clark's plan, and criticize his message, grow the fuck up! Those asking that the plan be served to them on a platter right here at DU, I can do that....no problem. But you see, in the end, the question becomes not which plan one wants, but rather what would be the actual result of any plan that you advocate. We cannot just focus on what the "good" our chosen plan will yield (Get out now, and soldiers will stop dying), because if we are wise, we must also be willing to look at the negative elements our chosen plan (whichever one you choose) is sure to have.

And this is why George Bush will go down in history as the worse president there ever was. Cause he fucking started this shit, and that is something that I will never forgive or forget. And I also realize that any option chosen is nearly has bad as the next. I just don't think there are any right answers.....only various degrees of the same failure.

[Why Syzygy]

111. Very well thought out

I just don't know how leaving now could make a bigger mess of things than George W. Bush and his devil minions have already done. The only loss in that instance is Halliburton. WE ARE KILLING PEOPLE! I want it to stop NOW!

That's my final answer.

[FrenchieCat]

113. So when you see this below as step one

of an Iraq Plan.....what do you think?

"End the American monopoly. From the beginning, the Administration has insisted on exclusive control of the Iraqi reconstruction and occupation. This has cost us the financial and military support of other nations and made America a bigger target for terrorists. Ending the American monopoly will change the way this enterprise is viewed -- in Iraq and throughout the world."--Wes Clark

Edited to add: This is the number 1 bullet point of Wes Clark's Iraq Peace Plan.
http://securingamerica.com/issues/iraqplan

[Why Syzygy]

122. Isn't it more of a Halliburton monopoly

than anything else? End it. Absolutely. Give these people some aid and support. Food, water, utilities, FREEDOM, including freedom from violence. Absolutely. That's what the U.N. would like to do. Halliburton has failed miserably.

Occupation? I still have a strong negative reaction to that.

Remember, the U.N. headquarters was blown to bits and some very fine people died there. Who is responsible for that?

One question that keeps on my mind is, exactly WHAT is the MISSION?
Democracy? Probably not.

We may need war tribunals. We may need to show the World that there is such a thing as JUSTICE after all. Have not done that yet.

Thanks for asking.

[FrenchieCat]

127. One of the reasons that I asked, was that at the top of the thread

You were poopooing Clark quite a bit stating that he had no plan.

I just didn't know if you knew that getting out of the monopolical economic aspects of Iraq is the first way that Clark feels that we should disengage.....and that this is literally the Number 1 bullet point on his Iraq plan.
http://securingamerica.com/issues/iraqplan


In reference to why we are occupying Iraq, it's obvious to me, it's about oil and geopolitics. Nothing more, nothing less.


Re-incorporate our allies. Fixing the Administration's missteps will require skilled diplomacy at the highest levels. Wes Clark recommends calling a summit of leaders from Europe, the United Nations, Japan and the Arab world to launch a new, internationalized effort in Iraq. They will be more willing to help if America works with them on issues they care about: climate change, the International Criminal Court and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

[Clarkie1]

126. I know you want it to stop now.

We all do.

But you can't always get what you want...and what you want and I want and we all want isn't going to happen, it's a fantasy. It's also a fantasy that if we pull out tomorrow the killing will stop. In fact, it is probable that by pulling out tomorrow (a fantasy) we will kill more people.

A lot of killing tends go on in a power-vacuum induced all-out civil war.

It isn't going to stop now, or next month, or next year, or in all probablity the year after that.

What we need now is the best possible damage control, because we can't get what we all want.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

140. and none too soon.....

Have a safe crash...er, I mean "trip"! :hi:

Why bother debating on a political board with folks who utilitize opinions that are fact based and sourced when one can feel so much more superior by denouncing, denigrating, insulting, and then runnin'? Got-cha! :shrug:

[Why Syzygy]

179. Um.

Yeah. Worship is always fact based. Fer shure. Thanks for your support and wide open mind. :sarcasm:

Way to win friends and influence bots.

Sometimes I wonder about some folks' agendas.

[Name removed]

193. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Why Syzygy]

196. That's healthy .

A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste.
I am truly sorry, even though you and others don't care. I do.

Peace. Let her reign.

[Name removed]

199. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Why Syzygy]

205. Has it not been established

that calling me a troll is counter productive to conversation and against the rules of the board?

Calling "troll" when none exists. Yes. I call that closed minded.

And again. I'm so sorry for you. For REAL. A heart transplant might be in order.

[Name removed]

207. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Why Syzygy]

209. Yeah.. I've had some time

to read your's and Frenchicat's stuff too. And I wonder why ya'll are so angry? Why bite? Unless it's for fun, ya know. But really.

I do not like Clark. Won't lie to you. But I have nothing against anyone here at DU. We are all in this together. I came here with good intentions. There are no easy answers. We know that. Don't we?

I don't know why you call me a "troll". I'm certainly not from the other side. If you mean I've been following this thread, yes, I tend to do that. I find an interesting topic and post there. I'm not even sure what you mean by "troll". But it doesn't sound nice.

[Clarkie1]

147. The Iraqi mothers, the U.S. mothers, or both?

We have responsibilites for people beyond our own borders...the lives of Iraqi mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters.

We have replaced Saddam Hussein as the only thing keeping Iraq from falling into a bloody civil war, and there is no chance for a peaceful Iraq without continued U.S. involvement at this time. The fact that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator not withstanding, it is our responsibility to do everything in our power to leave Iraq at least as "peaceful" as it was under his brutal rule...but without the brutal dictator...and, eventually, without us.

That is a tall order, but it is the price America must for the time being continue to pay -- in blood -- for putting the neo-cons in power. It's also our best argument for kicking their asses out of power in 06' and 08'.

I will not support taking actions likely to turn Iraq into a larger killing field than it already is; too many (American AND Iraqi) have lost their lives already. I support the actions that will most likely result in less bloodshed for all humans involved in this tragedy, not more.

[Why Syzygy]

187. Both n/t

[Pepperbelly]

118. I disagree with cousin Wesley on this ...

although if he does have a good idea on how to disengage while simultaneously stabilizing the region would be ... very nice.

[wisteria]

119. Glad to hear Clark reintegrating what Kerry has been saying! n/t

I understand he said it on Fox. This is good, they need to here some truth over their.

[Adelante]

139. Oh, please

Clark thinks for himself, as does Kerry.

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

148. CLARK: Iraq War is a Strategic Blunder - Sept 2, 2003 (2 YEARS AGO)

Snips from Wesley Clark's interview by National Perspectives Quarterly -
BEFORE HE ENTERED THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY RACE.


09-02-03
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: U.S. WAR IN IRAQ IS STRATEGIC BLUNDER

Wesley K. Clark was Supreme Allied Commander for Europe (NATO) and ran the U.S.-led war in Kosovo, ... spoke on Sept. 2 with Global Viewpoint editor Nathan Gardels.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

BUSH HAS NO POLICY OR SUCCESS STATEGY IN IRAQ

NATHAN GARDELS: With the car-bombing assassination of Ayatollah Hakim in Najaf last week, and before that the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, the U.S. occupation of Iraq has gone badly awry. How do you assess the situation?

WESLEY CLARK: The Bush administration still does not have an overall strategy in Iraq, :hide: and that is putting American soldiers in a situation of great difficulty. The mission in Iraq is very demanding. It requires much more than good soldiers.

We went into Iraq without an overarching political strategy that made sense, so we lost crucial time early on. When you lose time like that in a mission, you lose a lot, because it is then when you make an impact on the population.

Of course, America does not use the ruthless methods of the old Soviet Union, and I wouldn't suggest we ever do. But when the Soviets took over eastern Poland in 1939 after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, they had a plan. They had people identified in every village before they moved in. The United States went into Iraq relatively clueless in this respect.

Now, we're trying to put this together after the fact. And America has to, because it has to be successful. But it is now a real challenge.

:kick:

...snip

IS THERE A ROLE FOR THE UN?

NATHAN GARDELS: Why not work with the United Nations for a resolution that would enable other nations to come in and help while the United States still keeps "unified command"?

WESLEY CLARK: It is not that simple. You have to get agreement from the other countries on exactly what the scope of the U.S. decision-making role will be.

In Bosnia, the United States led the military, but the European "high representative" led the political and economic effort. In Kosovo, the United Nations led the political component, and the United States rotated the military command.

In Iraq, it will be difficult for the United States to claim it is under a U.N. mandate while still maintaining political control and military direction.

Under such a circumstance it will be very hard for other countries to go into Iraq because they won't have the capacity to produce on-the-ground intelligence to keep their troops safe from terrorism. They would be putting their troops into a very dangerous situation that they are not trained or prepared to handle.

It is possible that Indian troops might go in because the United Nations will pay, which means the United States will pay. There might be some Pakistanis, which would be helpful since they are Muslims. But it is not clear how effective these small contributions can be. But you won't get many other countries, if any.

http://www.digitalnpq.org/global_services/global%20viewpoint/09-02-03.html :kick:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

:dem: http://www.SecuringAmerica.com :patriot:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

[FrenchieCat]

167. Thanks for that....

as it only shows that Wes Clark has always known what he was talking about, and he still does.

Iraq was a Grade F+ strategic blunder and will remain so for years to come.

Sure, we can pull out now...but then, we probably would find ourselves going back in at some point or other. And that might be after many more are killed (cause there would have to be a pretty compelling reason to get caught up in the same shit--that we created, again).

Yeah, maybe some of our soldier's lives will be spared....but then maybe more Iraqi Civilians who did not volunteer for this would die.
In my view a life is a life...whether it's soldiers dying or civilians--makes no difference, as I value them the same.

"getting out now" is not gonna happen, no matter how much weight is put on this administration. Hell, if they didn't care when "millions" marched for them to do the right thing and not invade 2 years ago....why would he care now?

Bush and his resolve will be the death of us all, and if some Democrats want to provide a rational and sensible method of dealing with what we now face, we are the ridiculous one for ridiculing such individuals.

[ArkDem]

216. over their what?

[yojon]

135. I think they are mad 'cause we are in their country.

'adding more troops' should make them madder.

Can't imagine what 'deal with Iraq's neighbors' might mean but it doesn't sound too promising.

Kinda seems like she Shiites are going to drive the Sunnis back into Syria or Saudia Arabia, Maybe when they get to Saudi, they will be mad enough to enroll in those Wahabi schools. Won't that be swell.


Fact is that the best way to deal with 'insurgents' who are mad that you have invaded their country is to kill all of them and their families and their cousins and uncles. Short of that, I think they will be unhappy that they got invaded.

[windbreeze]

168. Sometimes I think, I am out of my element on DU...

I know some of us must understand that Iraqi's are human? Don't they feel pain, suffer, and bleed red blood just like the rest of us...? kill them all??? WHAT THE HELL??? Sorry, I don't get it...and another thing I don't get...

WHAT THE HELL IS ALL THIS..Wes Clark and intimating that anyone who supports him, is guilty of having/needing a hero to worship..What is THAT all about??? Could someone 'splain?....please? He's human, and we all understand he is apt to make mistakes, just like all the rest of us do, but he's willing to give it a shot...damn...Are any of our status quo Dem politicians perfect??? Is there any of them that have the experience he has, in the military field?..or of perhaps being able to see this with a clear idea of what to do, or not to do?

I support Wes Clark, and I don't denigrate anyone else's chosen candidate..not Kerry, not Kuchinich, not Dean...none of them..I don't get it, wasn't it Wes Clark that said, no one is going to defend Dems, until they start defending each other?...for crying out loud, do you hear any other Dem saying anything reasonable, or even attempting to come up with a plan for anything to do with Iraq??? Mostly I hear silence and that silence gets more deafening every day.....In fact, I'm beginning to wonder where they all are,('cept for the obvious couple always in the news) in regards to a lot of things...and personally, I think they are mostly guilty of failing every one of us...!!

Look, the fact is...the Dems are as responsible for this blasted mess as the Rep's...we need to face that..we need to admit, we were wrong for supporting this fiasco...in whatever manner we may have done...we need to face the fact that, WE, THIS COUNTRY, INVADED IRAQ...and as the invaders, we ARE responsible to some degree for what happens..NO, I don't want any more of boys/girls to be wounded, or injured, or to die..hell, I don't want any more suffering on anyone's part...I DO support Cindy Sheehan, and I DO understand her position, but do we want to have sacrificed all of those mother's children for nothing?...we have destabilized that whole area with our nonsense...it isn't just Iraq that's a problem...We walk away totally, just close our eyes and walk away...would we be ready for what comes next? Iran/Iraq as one country, possibly?...and it should be obvious to everyone that we cannot allow the small contingent of troops we have there, to be at such risk, while trying to contain millions of people, train police forces, run that whole country and keep control of it...IT IS NOT possible...

I don't know what the answer is, I haven't got a clue, and it does no good to keep ranting about how wrong it was..YES, BY GOD it was WRONG...but it's been done....and now, if there is someone willing to try to figure out a plan, to put his neck in the noose, to dare venture a plan..how 'bout if we let them? We are to the point, that nothing we do is going to be the right thing..so all right, already...let's bury the hatchets and get on with figuring it out...I apologize..no offence meant to anyone...frustration abounds, about a lot of stuff...done ranting...
windbreeze....

[welshTerrier2]

194. "sacrificed all of those mother's children for nothing"

first, i liked your post and thought it was very well written ...

you wrote the following as a question rather than a statement so I wasn't clear whether it was a position you were advocating: "sacrificed all of those mother's children for nothing" ...

i've heard this concept repeated over and over in the media and i strongly disagree with it ...

our measure of the future should not be based on what has been "spent" (or who or how many have been "spent") ... we are where we are ... the policy needs to be determined by defining our values, our goals and weighing our ability to achieve them ...

the "we can't choose a policy that means they died for nothing" line of reasoning is, frankly, crazy ... assuming one agreed with the policy in the first place (i didn't), soldiers who gave their lives did so in furtherance of the policy as it existed AT THAT TIME ... perhaps it makes sense to continue the policy as originally defined and perhaps it does NOT ... but "throwing good money after bad" never makes sense as a justification ... it sounds a little like the gambler who has lost his fortune but justifies one more bet on the basis that he can't let all that good money go to waste ...

all policies, especially those with the serious consequences of warfare, must be continually reassessed based on the best available information and the best judgment ... viewing a change in the policy as dishonoring those who have fallen rather than viewing it as doing the best we can from where we are puts the emphasis on the wrong factor ... we also have an obligation to those who have not "fallen" to get the policy right ...

[windbreeze]

211. I guess

I said it wrong...I can't begin to express my disdain for our venture in the ME..I don't want any more deaths, and I don't want any more "good money thrown after bad"...but is it unrealistic or unfair to ask, that IF we walk away, those who died..died for what? What was the noble cause?....

I agree, when a situation changes, the policy needs to change accordingly, especially now..because the continuing destruction we face is not just in Afghanistan/Iraq, it comes home with the men/women who serve there..it affects all families in ways they never thought possible...there are far more reasons for getting out, than there are for staying...but shouldn't we attempt to be smart about the way we withdraw?....is it realistic to hope we can just simply walk away?...I don't have the answers, the past is the past, and can't be changed...the only thing we can hope to change, is the future...Japan and Vietnam both survive today, in spite of our previous actions...but the pros and cons of any action we take in Iraq, need to be weighed very carefully..do we have anyone else on our side, with Clark's experience, available, and willing to stick his neck out to come up with a viable plan?

windbreeze....

[FrenchieCat]

170. Of course most Iraqis are pissed....

that goes without sayin'. For that matter, the entire world is pissed at us. They certainly aren't going to become unpissed because we just drop everything and go home at this point.

Wes' point on persuading the world to internationalize this mess with the assistance of country's that have the most at stake after Iraq; it's neighbors, actually makes sense to me...even at this late date. Why? Cause that's why everyone is so pissed at us...cause we did something that should never have been done and this administration had and still have the worse intentions there are...to invade, occupy, rape and rule the goddam Middle East; because of it's natural resources and it's geopolitical value.

One way of ending this conflict without it disolving into one big gooey violent mess (and don't fool yourselves, it can definitely get worse) is to change American's current intentions and communicate that clearly to those who have a stake in those kind of a changes taking place and those who would welcome seeing them. It's called using diplomacy. You know, diplomacy should still has a function in this world...I hope. It has been the way to resolve man-made violent conflicts throughout the ages of mankind.

If diplomacy and systematic realistic solutions are ridiculed by both the American left and the right....then all is lost, and we can look forward WW-IV very soon.

[Why Syzygy]

189. The world is looking on

as one does a bloody "accident". This mind set that there is some neat tidy way to clean this up is absurd. It is a FUCKING NIGHTMARE!

What does it take to get so called LIBERALS to see this?

Maybe it's an age bracket thing. I SAW Viet Nam. I SAW Korea. I SAW Bosnia. I don't want to see any more.

My Way? Join the Peace Highway and get a new perspective.

Peace be with you. And so it is.

[Donna Zen]

182. WaPo: Before It's Too Late in Iraq~Wes Clark

From the morning paper:

In the old, familiar fashion, mounting U.S. casualties in Iraq have mobilized increasing public doubts about the war. More than half the American people now believe that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. They're right.....

Adding a diplomatic track to the strategy is a must. The United States should form a standing conference of Iraq's neighbors, complete with committees dealing with all the regional economic and political issues, including trade, travel, cross-border infrastructure projects and, of course, cutting off the infiltration of jihadists. The United States should tone down its raw rhetoric and instead listen more carefully to the many voices within the region. In addition, a public U.S. declaration forswearing permanent bases in Iraq would be a helpful step in engaging both regional and Iraqi support as we implement our plans.



The growing chorus of voices demanding a pullout should seriously alarm the Bush administration, because President Bush and his team are repeating the failure of Vietnam: failing to craft a realistic and effective policy and instead simply demanding that the American people show resolve. Resolve isn't enough to mend a flawed approach -- or to save the lives of our troops. If the administration won't adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that it bring our troops home.



I'm tired, but he did answer my question. I asked him today to please tell me that there would be no permanent bases. Thanks Wes.

Settling in for the ye of little reading ability to get their verbal rocks off.

[Lefergus70]

185. To withdraw or not withdraw

I'm for Clark. And that leaves me wondering how his plan to create something positive from the ashes of Iraq is seen by those who demand an immediate withdrawal of our troops.

And what about Cindy Sherman? Her press release yesterday stated, "We know you can’t bring Casey back, but it’s time to admit mistakes and bring our troops home now."

I love the gutsy sound of that, but I also note that her favorable poll numbers are not impressive. I think I know why: a pullout "now" would spell military defeat for the U.S., and many Americans (over 50% ???)can't deal with that. They have been nurtured on USA myths and have deep emotional needs for victory and glory - and yes, all the spin available to keep them alive. Yes, lie to me, they're telling their leaders; save our hearts and minds.

I think Clark (and Clinton, Dean and Kerry) are acutely aware of this, and of the immense power of the RW propaganda machine to exploit it. Their critics too should give them some slack, at least on the timetable issue.

http://securingamerica.com/issues/iraqplan

[Donna Zen]

190. Did you read the WaPo article?

Basically it boiled down that it was better to try and do it right, but if bush wouldn't do that, then the American people need to ask bush to bring the troops home.

Oh, Clark also gave him fairly detailed instructions of what bush must do, or hit the highway.

[Totally Committed]

192. Posted here, as a seperate thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2036988

[bpilgrim]

220. so, by keeping our troops THERE, we can avoid a broader war in the region?

"we can at least avoid a regional war if we work the right way now...so I don't favor a pullout, an announcement of a pull-out, or a time-line for exiting yet"

i don't follow that... the region is already destabilized so can we MOVE ON from that straw-man?

we need to be NEGOTIATING a TIMELINE for withdraw with the REGION & the WORLD through the U.N. period

anything short of that is simply extending the neoCONs DISASTER and simply ERODING our credibility and goodwill FURTHER to make our last rational hope NEGOTIATION even MORE difficult and thereby making ALL our futures MORE DANGEROUS - not to mention the PRESENT :argh:


http://media.globalfreepress.com

peace

[Moderator]

221. Locking ....

This thread has gotten pretty flamey ... Please review the rules about personal attacks against other members. Thank you.