CLARK-Bush should meet Cindy and tell the truth- It was an elective War

[FrenchieCat]

Houston, Tx.: How would you respond to Cindy Sheehan and the other family members who believe their children have been sacrificed for a lie?

General Clark: I have the deepest sympathy and empathy with Cindy Sheehan. My son served in the Armed Forces and I worried about him every day. And, I carried a burden of guilt about his service, as I am sure most mothers and fathers do. Because, after all, we either encourage them, supported them, or sustained them in making this committment to their country. My prayers and condolences are with every family who has lost a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan, or seen him or her come home forever scarred or crippled. And I thank them for their loved ones' service and for their sacrifice. And I understand the depth of their feelings I believe, because every American trusts our leaders to use our men and women in combat only, only, only as a last resort. And in Iraq, this wasn't the case. And we will probably never learn the full array of motives that lead our nation's leaders to take us to this war. I warned at the time that it was "elective"--we didn't have to do it. There wasn't an eminent threat. So why did we? Cindy Sheehan, every mother and father of our service members, and every American has a right to know. It was a strategic blunder to go there. Now America sees it in hindsight. But those in power have responsibilities to do the right thing, and when they don't they should be held accountable. Cindy is doing everything she can to hold them accountable. President Bush should talk to her and tell her the truth.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/08/25/DI2005082501346.html

[iconoclastic cat]

1. Hellooooo, Mr. President '08!

[Clark2008]

3. I hope, I hope, I hope.

How cool would it be to have a president who is intelligent, knows how to deal with the military industrial complex in a manner that helps "We, the people," is respected around the world, is compassionate, is not afraid to say he's a liberal, knows economics, and is handsome as hell!

:loveya:

[howmad1]

69. Holy Cow!

Do you really think the sheeple are ready for a guy like Gen. Clark? These idiots can't possibly handle someone smarter than them. :P

[LandOLincoln]

70. Well they're just gonna have to adjust, then, aren't they? ;-)

I think most people will get to like the idea pretty quick.

And welcome to the DU, howmad1!

[Totally Committed]

2. Great response to that question.

Best line: "Cindy is doing everything she can to hold them accountable. President Bush should talk to her and tell her the truth."

I got tears in my eyes.

[FrenchieCat]

4. The set up work has been done.....

Bush will continue on his course to destruction, and the 2006 congressional candidates have their issue.

"President Bush, since you won't change your course now your only recourse is to pull out or continue with this disaster that your inept leadership has wrought! You were wrong, and now your time is up! make way for new congressional leadership who can end your giant fuck-up."

[Totally Committed]

8. And so, the trap has been set.

Beauteous!

[judy from nj]

11. I'm surprised that some don't see this

I think Wes is giving them one last chance to do this right and then he will say we need to get out and not through lives away. I'm surprised that some of the bloggers don't seem to get it.

[capi888]

5. Gen. Clark, you Rock

Thank You, for supporting Cindy Sheehan..WHAT A LEADER YOU ARE! Lets hold Bushco accountable and finally meet with Cindy. Truth, Truth, Truth....
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Guaranteed]

6. Outstanding statement from Clark.

Rec'd.

[Dr Fate]

7. Wow- visualize an adult in Washington. n/t

n/t

[pkspiegel]

9. PLEASE run in 08!!!

I just wish an election wasn't so far away. We need the General in the White House NOW!!!

[Clark2008]

81. Welcome to DU, pkspiegel!

:hi:

You have great taste in candidates. :loveya:

[Tinksrival]

10. Thats it!! General Clark speaks for me!

This is exactly what I want to hear from the democratic leadship. Most of them have been silent since Cindy step up to the plate for us.
Will they follow Clarks lead or just keep their "looking out for myself" lips zipped.
The msm can't hide from this anymore now that things are sooo f-uped.
So come on dems say together, say it LOUD, and say it over and over and over,

There wasn't an eminent threat.

It was a huge strategic blunder.

It is an elective war, we didn't have to do it.

Those in power have a responsibility to do the right thing, and when they don't they should be held accountable.

Cindy is doing everything she can to hold them accountable.

Once again, there was no eminent threat, so why did we go to war?

America has a right to know!

[Tinksrival]

13. Kick

This is what you want to hear dammit!

[Amonester]

33. PNAC is a big part of the answer. Why just a few thousand...

citizens really know about them, dominionists for absolute power, always driven by their never ending, insatiable greed?

I bet the PNAC criminal objectives represent mostly 90 percent of the answers to all these legitimate questions, and they're available for free, 24/7 online!

Wes Clark is a good and honest person. I bet he really does know about the whole pack of lies they keep catapulting over and over.

Given what he should know about them (PNAC), I only wish that he could inform the citizens who still don't know about their dangerously criminal ambitions, and also about who they are and what kind of chaos they are creating in both America and the world.

Why is he not "speaking out" against them (more specifically)?

[LandOLincoln]

43. Clark's been warning about the PNAC since 9/11 if not before,

and of course the MSM tried to paint him as some kind of wacko conspiracy theorist because of it.

[FrenchieCat]

78. Hell, Clark was the first to say P-N-A-C on television...

said it on Chris Matthews, and has mentioned them a few times since then. He was ridiculed for it.

Maybe some of those Governmental Dems need to mention PNAC. Wes Clark shouldn't have to always stand up by his self....although he does it anyway.

[Clark2008]

82. I remember that.

And I remember my mouth dropping to the ground that someone - my already-chosen primary candidate, no less - was speaking about the "unspoken" PNAC on national television.

It was a great moment in political history, but was ridiculed by the head-in-the-sand media. Idiots.

[Amonester]

84. I apologize for I did not know that fact because I live abroad...

but my sister who lives in FL has double citizenship (US & Canada), and my two nieces (her daughters) were born American citizens (their dad's from MI).

She doesn't have much time for surfing the Internet, so I guess I kind of "represent" her opinions about US politics here (we mostly share the same views).

Sorry again for not knowing this when I posted my reply, LandOLincoln, FrenchieCat, and Clark2008, and it's true all other elected Dems should "instruct" the masses about the PNAC, and not be afraid of telling the truth about them sickos! Thanks!

[Totally Committed]

12. Kick!

:kick:

[Nikki Stone 1]

14. No kicking, or you'll go to bed without supper.

:)

[dogman]

15. What a great response.

Clear and concise, with no equivocation. Clark is not a politician, he's a leader.

[mike_c]

16. and yet Clark advocates continuing the occupation of Iraq....

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

"But it would also be a mistake to pull out now, or to start pulling out or to set a date certain for pulling out. Instead we need a strategy to create a stable, democratizing and peaceful state in Iraq -- a strategy the administration has failed to develop and articulate."

I disagree with every fiber of my soul-- America MUST pull out of Iraq IMMEDIATELY, unconditionally, and initiate war crimes prosecutions for leaders that initiated, aided, and abetted the criminal war against Iraq.

[dogman]

17. And how is your solution going to happen?

And what is your next plan when it doesn't?

[mike_c]

20. I'd be satisfied with an immediate, unconditional withdrawal...

...and let history be the judge. As much as I hope to see the shrub and his cronies in the dock at The Hague some day, it would be enough-- not justice, but enough-- to let history judge them.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

19. I think the war was illegal

... and I hope Bush eventually gets charged with war crimes for it (although I'm not going to hold my breath on that)

but Gen Clark isn't saying continue the occupation, he's saying it's still worth trying to stabilize Iraq before leaving if it's done quickly and effectively.

If you leave the country with the world's second biggest oil reserves reeling and weak how long do you think it'll be before neighbouring countries use their Shiite/Sunni/Kurd alliances or opposition to get themselves involved? And what about Al Qaeda -- an organisation that loves a failed state.

And if you think what happens in the Gulf doesn't matter as long as Americans aren't being killed there, then you're in denial about the reality of how much the western world depends on Gulf oil.

I wish we didn't have that reliance but I don't think going cold turkey is the solution and I don't particularly want to find out what happens when oil hits $100 a barrel.

I hate Bush for thinking he could get away with this morally and strategically criminal war, but if General Clark still believes some of the damage can be lessened by doing a few things the right way before exiting, I'm prepared to believe him.

Looking on the less-than-bright side, I don't think the Bush Admin will follow his advice, and I don't think he does either.

[1932]

21. The occupation is the fruit of the poisonous tree. I don't think you can

make the invasion right by having a successful occupation. Not only would that be a bad precedent (which would encourage the US to intervene elsewhere, no matter how tenuos the justification), I don't think anyone will accept as legitimate anything that comes out of a new Iraq made in America's image.

The US needs to turn the occupation over to the UN and it needs to be turned into a genuine transition in which the US's is only support is paying for the damage we caused. We remove the stink of the US from Iraq. Anythign else is imperialism and doomed to fail.

[Sparkly]

23. Wow -- that's the most specific "plan" I've seen you articulate.

"Turn the occupation over to the UN." "The US's only support is paying for the damage we caused."

Who, then, handles security on the streets?

[1932]

25. The UN.

[Sparkly]

29. The UN doesn't want to get involved.

Not as long as BushCo is, at the very least.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

30. Yeah, especially now

... they've been insulted with John Bolton being sent to them. Imagine taking over in Iraq and having to deal with Bolton as the middle man. As if the idea of dealing with Iraq isn't unattractive enough.

[1932]

31. No kidding. What better sign that they're the right organization for job

They don't want to be part of an imperial rip off of Iraq. If the process isn't one of ripping off Iraq for their human natural resource wealth, the UN will be involved.

[FrenchieCat]

34. Sure, I agree......

The Iraq war has to be internationalized....with as many players as possible.

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.

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.

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]

37. To me, that's about creating an appearance of fairness

but not guarantying fairness in fact which can only be done by the US not being in Iraq at all.

You're kidding yourself if you think that the US is not there to make sure that Bechtel and Halliburton get rich and to make Iraq into Saudi Arabia II.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

42. I agree withdraw Halliburton and Bechtel

.. so why is all the focus on immediate withdrawal of US military?

Why isn't everyone screaming get US corporations out of Iraq immediately. I'd support that. I just think the military broke the place and they need to do something about helping restore some order before they leave. And, if they work smart, like General Clark suggests they might be able to do that.

Maybe then organisations like the UN can be persuaded to return and help the Iraqi people get their lives back together.

[1932]

51. I think I said that in another post.

This shouldn't be about whether the US withdraws or stays (which is Clark's frame, as well as Bush's, and it's Cindy Sheehan's too).

The debate should be framed in terms of empire (virtual, as well as military). The US cannot come out of Iraq leaving behind a country that is constructed with US influence to be a client state of the US's.

That will be a very dangerous precendent which I think will create more enemies who think of more destructive ways to counter American empire, whether with violence or with economics.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

55. Client State? forget it.

The US cannot come out of Iraq leaving behind a country that is constructed with US influence to be a client state of the US's.

It's not going to be. I think Clark knows that is gone. It's just avoidance of creating a failed state that's behind his suggestions.

[1932]

57. Clark imagines that the US will pull out

when Iraq is ready to return to the communtiy of nations. Judging form Clark's second book, I suspect that means when they're ready to engage in global commerce.

Whith the Americans playing such a big role there, what kind of global commerce do you think they'll be engaging in? Commerce that immensely benefits the US, just like Saudi Arabia.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

66. Sadly we all need the oil industry

not just the US.

Whoever's got the oil, we'll all trade with them. I'm not against global commerce.

Clark doesn't say he wants the US to own the oil and he doesn't want them to "continue to play a big role there". That's your interpretation.

He says he wants Iraq to return to the community of nations. We just all need stability in the Middle East so the oil can be drilled and exported without continuing to double in price.

If only we'd spent the billions of war dollars researching an alternative energy source we'd all be a lot better off. But that's what happens when your country votes in the oil barons.

[1932]

76. Do you think just because if ExxonShellMobil HalliburtonEnron doesn't

monopolize oil production, we won't get oil?

We'll get our oil, but the big oil companies just won't get super rich off of it.

Venezuela is instructive on this front. Their foreign minister has said that it's in their interest to see a functioning US economy. Venezuela wants to sell oil to the US at a fair price. In fact, Venezuela has said that the best price to sell oil at is around 30 dollars pbl because that ensures that economies grow enough to support oil consumption. If it goes too high, then economies shrink, which is bad long term.

Just because a super-wealthy, super-huge corporation isn't making super-large profit margins off some developing country's resources doesn't mean the whole system is going to fall apart.

As for stability in the ME, for the 100th time, IMPERIALISM IS DESTABILIZING!!!! Stability in the middle east requires and end to imperialism. I can't believe I'm having the discussion on a progressive website. But I guess I'm not surprised I'm having it with someone who is defending what Clark says about virtual empire and the need to succeed in Iraq.

BTW, maybe when the profit margins aren't so huge on oil, then we'll start thinking about new ways to get energy. So long as we use imperialism to guarntee huge profit margins for oil companies, nobody's going to be looking for alternatives to the gravy train.

[FrenchieCat]

49. I'm not sure what you are saying....and why you say that I am

kidding myself.

If you think that America is gonna step totally out of the picture and let others go at it, and they not being involved....it is not I who is "kidding myself".

Clark's Iraq plan called for ending the American monopoly. That's what is realistic, since we don't want to kid ourselves.

What does John Kerry's plan call for?

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's Iraq plan #1 bullet point.

[1932]

56. From reading Clark's books which praise the sort of virtual empire

that John Perkins calls destabilizing in its polarization of wealth and its creating of misery, I'm not confident that Clark's ideas about ending the American monopoly extend to ending America's (virtual) imperial designs on Iraq which we're achieving through virtual control of the process.

The frame he uses -- pull troops out vs don't pull troops out/can't be seen to fail by the world or will be perceived as week which will encourage other countries to take shots at us -- ignores what I think is the real issue. The real issue is about empire.

[FrenchieCat]

62. I can no longer debate with you....

because you don't make any sense.

This book that you read, that you interject in every thread that you go into is really not helping your reputation.

You sound confused and limited in your outlook.
You seem paralized.

This conversation has been had, and you continue to cite two books, although you failed to understand them in a way that would help you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2025864&mesg_id=2026964

So again, here are those pesky reviews of Clark's book, for you, AGAIN (Since I imagined you didn't bother reading those the last two times 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.

[1932]

73. You've put so much time and effort into supporting Clark

I don't expect anything I say will change your mind, and that's fine.

But if reading my posts will get some people to read those books and think about what Clark's saying, I think people will see that those reviews are not inconsistent with what I have said about his argument.

[Tom Rinaldo]

85. I would love people to read those books.

That is a great idea. And once again we have the shoot the messenger mentality at work. Clark names it and you blame him for it. Virtual empire is a good descriptive term to describe the degree of international influence, and to a slightly lesser extent control, the United States had in the aftermath of World War II. And much that was and is despicable took place under the umbrella of that influence. However not all of that influence was bad. I would argue that the American influence on Germany and Japan was on balance positive for the World, for two examples. There was also an expanding American cultural political influence in the wake of the defeat of Fascism that was larger than the intended ideological agenda of American imperialists. Both Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro drew some inspiration from America's ideals and democratic traditions for example.

The United States was the strongest initial backer for the creation of the United Nations, which flawed as it may be, was a positive addition to international relations. The Marshall Plan was an example of enlightened self interest on the part of America. And the Soviet Union was also an empire that embraced a totalitarian belief system, and it was expansionist. Containment was a policy that was possible only because there was a Virtual American Empire. The overwhelming majority of Eastern European citizens today acknowledge that American power and influence contributed to their ultimate liberation, and the Soviet Union was never an iota more moral in pursuing their international interests than the United States was.

None of these comments are made to justify immoral behavior on the part of the United States, but to point out that: 1) Clark simply acknowledged the true reality, a cardinal sin in politics because I suppose it interferes with plausible deniability which most politicians love to cling to so much. 2) We live in the real world, not a utopian one of my preference. Starting in the 1930's one of four nations was going to emerge from a global competition as the primary agenda setter for the world for the 20th Century; the United States, Germany, Japan, or the Soviet Union. All of these nation states were highly flawed, but the United States came out on top, and I can't say I would have preferred a different winner. Looking toward the 21st Century either a coalition of Western oriented Democracies, Fundamentalist theocracies, or China will emerge as the driving global force. Politics abhors a vacuum.

When I read what it is concretely,the specific proposals, the specific priorities, that Wes Clark is now advocating, I hope that his vision for the United States in the World prevails over the other contending voices. Ralph Nader is not going to gain control of the United States government, not in his or my lifetime.

[Jai4WKC08]

35. The UN per se doesn't do security missions

They have almost no military planning staff. They assign specific missions to member nations. Who'd be willing to pick it up?

[1932]

38. In the 60s Namibia begged the UN to take control of Namibia from

South Africa and help the country transition to democracy.

The UN didn't do it not because it wasn't within their powers. They didn't do it because Western countries making a lot of money off of colonies and former colonies didn't want to upset the apple cart that was shipping African wealth to their capitals.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

44. exactly

you're not telling me anything I don't know about the UN, but the fact remains it was you saying the UN needs to be brought into Iraq.

So, you know exactly why your suggestion doesn't make sense.

that's why General Clark believes NATO is a better option.

[1932]

47. Hasn't the UN argued for having this role?

Why would they ask for it if they can't do it?

As I said in another post, if there are in fact any problems preventing the UN from taking on this role, the argument progressives should be having is how do we fix those problems.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

52. I've lost track of what you're arguing

the UN doesn't want any part of reconstruction in Iraq for the moment because their staff can't be guaranteed security.

I'd love to see the UN in charge of rebuilding Iraq and the US out of there completely and just paying the bills for its enormous cockup, but until you explain to me who is providing the security for the UN reconstruction, then I'm afraid we've reached the end of the discussion.

You don't think the US should do it, you don't think NATO should do it, and there's no way the UN can provide it's own security.

Unless you think US pulling out will just magically stop the violence -- which I don't I'm afraid I don't believe.

The Coalition of the Willing owe Iraq some restoration of normality. Forget democracy. Just give'em water, electricity, medical care some infrastructure a police force, a judicial system and army and get the hell outta there. You owe them that at least and if you work smart instead of greedy, admit mistakes and bring in allies you can do it.

But only as Clark says, if you move on this quickly. Even he admits it's getting close to too late now.

[1932]

58. The UN didn't relinquish the role when they were attacked.

The US never gave them a role, and when they were attacked, they decided it wasn't worth the risk. They probably also decided that they won't put the shine of legitimacy on an operation that is principally designed to benefit American imperial interests.

I think, notwithstanding that attack, the UN has been willing from the start to control the transition to democracy.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

40. the UN needs security

the absence of that is what's keeping them out. Of course they were always against the invasion and still don't support the US presence there, but that wouldn't stop them getting in and helping Iraqis if they could be sure their staff wouldn't be killed.

the UN morally doesn't agree, but it's pragmatism that's keeping them out, not morals.

Iraqis need security as well. They need to be able to get jobs, attend them without risk of being blown up, have access to clean water and electricity, medical care and food. That's what the US needs to help make available before leaving. that's where the moral responsibility to Iraq lies.

Of course the assholes you've got in power want the oil. I think sooner or later they have to accept they aren't gonna get contol of it. Right back during his campaign Clark said his first move in Iraq would be to redeploy Halliburton to Houston. I still think that needs to be done.

But sadly we all need oil and that's why we can't just leave the country with the second biggest supply of it in the world in total chaos and vulnerable to further invasion and terrorism. They at least need to be able to run their own oil industry under whatever government they choose -- and keep order. Until some semblance of order is restored in the country that can't happen.

[1932]

45. I don't know how many ways to say this.

Any plan that doesn't have both the appearance of no US influence and no influence in fact will result in anything but chaos.

Empire is incredibly disruptive and causes chaos. We can stay and control a process that calms everyone down and gets the petrol and petrol dollars flowing to the US, but it's not going to be calm for long.

Just like Panamians wanting their canal, and Ecuadorians wanting their oil, and Haitians wanting to make money off theor factories, and South Africans wanting a part of their mineral wealth, iraqis are going to want a fair distribution of their wealth, and bribing a few well placed Iraqi politicians with oil riches and shipping the rest to the US is inherently destabilizing.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

24. I don't think it'll ever be a "success"

so I don't think it would set a bad example and prove that imperialism works.

There is not going to be a "democratic Iraq" there isn't going to be the bullshit happy kingdom of liberty that Bush has been blathering about, but there needs to be more effort, and smarter effort, put into giving Iraq some kind of stability before the US exits.

Your idea of handing it over to the UN is fine in theory, but it's got to be more stable before the UN will touch it. Don't you remember they had their headquarters in Baghdad blown up and Sergio Di Mello, the man who was seen as the heir apparent to Kofi annan killed? They've backed off since then and won't return to run anything under the current chaotic conditions.

Truth be known, the UN is almost as unpopular in Iraq as the US because they were given the blame on the Arab street for the sanctions that meant so many Iraqis struggled for food and medicine for so many years.

Clark wants NATO to become more involved and given that European countries, even though they've been insulted by your arrogant Bozo of a president, do have a stake in trying to keep the Middle East on some kind of even keel, they should be persuadable.

Europe needs ME oil as much as your country and mine, and perhaps that leverage has to be used. Bush needs to apologize, tell everyone he fucked up, and admit that he needs help. he also needs, as Clark keeps suggesting, to talk with Syria and Iran and stop threatening them, then he might actually be able to make headway in Iraq.

Yes, the US should bear the financial cost. And they ought to get friggin' Haliburton and Bechtel out of there now and hand over the industry to Iraqis. There's where the real poison has been planted, through American business interests. Get them out and the US army might be able to defend Iraqis as they work instead of their own greedy corporates.

I think the point clark is making is the US can do better than just cutting and running. It won't make the invasion right. It will never be right. Just don't make it worse letting the poisonous tree spread throughout the region.

[1932]

28. That's not an excuse for the US to control the process.

Just like the judicial system in the US has to be fair, and must have the appearance of being fair, the future of Iraq depends not only must be deterimined by Iraqis, it must appear to be determined by Iraqis.

There is no way that any process that involves the US remaining in Iraq as the power training the military and protecting the politicians of Iraq will appear to be free from US influence.

That is why the US has to turn that control over to someone other than the US, and not even NATO is an appropriate alternative. Rad Waging Modern War. Clark writes about four hundred pages about how NATO responds to the political dictates mostly of the US, and when those dictates conflict with Europe's, things can get a little bogged down.

The reason the US wants to be there is BECAUSE they want to make sure the nation that results is deeply entwined with the US the way Saudi Arabia is. That's the real reason we invaded that country. So, I don't have much hope for any just way out of this mess, especially if the alternative plan is Clark's, which, to me, is the same end (US control and influence and Iraqi petrodollars flowing to US) but in the guise of NATO/regional cooperation. It has more of an appearance of of fairness than Bush's plan, without be fair in fact to Iraqis.

The UN overseeing a transition to democracy would be fair in fact and would have the appearance of being fair.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

32. Clark wants an exit plan

No bases, no ongoing control. Just get it stabilized before leaving.

You suggested the UN -- I told you why that isn't going to work and, in fact, the very reasons you say NATO won't work apply to the UN. To the Iraqis the UN is seen as a branch of US authority anyway, as it was the US that pushed for the sanctions on Iraq after the first Gulf War.

If NATO came in it would prove that Europe had to bail out the US, not that the US controlled NATO.

The difference between the UN and NATO is that NATO actually has a properly armed military -- which is needed for security in Iraq. The UN doesn't. It's recent record on peacekeeping has been spectacularly unsuccessful. It could maybe take over reconstruction under NATO protection.

Clark's plan doesn't call for the US to retain bases in Iraq or control the country in anyway, he just doesn't want to leave it teetering on the brink of becoming a failed state.

And it's amusing you telling me to read "Winning Modern War" at the end of that book Clark makes it clear he doesn't think the rest of the world will accept American Empire or imperialism, so it's clearly not involved in his plans for Iraq. He just believes the US can do better than leave it a total mess.

[1932]

36. Clark apparently doesn't believe

that any exit that doesn't have both the appearence of being just and is just in fact is required. Or if he does, then he doesn't appreciate that the US remaining in Iraq will never pass the appearance test, much less that fairness in fact test.

That's the real issue.

I thnk this whole argument about the US having to look like it succeeded is just a pro-empire red herring. Like I said yesterday, succeeding in Iraq could be just as dangerous for the US. If they show the world that they can invade a country without legal justification and despite global opinion against it, and come out of it making billions of dollars for Halliburton and Bechtel, do you think the rest of the world is going to roll over for long? They'll be more afraid of America if we succeed. They'll become more determined to undermine the US then if the US pulled out and looked like loosers.

And if we really want to look like winners in the eyes of the world, the best way to do that is to turn control over to the UN and have no say in the process other than to financially contribute to the damages caused thus saying to the rest of the world, "see, we're really aren't trying to be a global empire, militarily or virtually."

Some other points you raise:
-If the UN doesn't have a proper military, the answer isn't to let an empire-building force do it instead. The answer is that the US shoudl pay its UN bills and the UN should get a properly trained force.

- You don't need military bases to have an empire. Read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

- Why do Clark supporters who read his book ignore the fact that Clark argues that virtual empire is good? Chapter 6 is an argument that we don't need a military empire because since WW2 (Kermit Roosevelt in Iran) we've done a find job spreading American "values" (like turbochared capitalism and polarization of wealth and an increase in misery and poverty) by virtual empire.

[FrenchieCat]

39. You really are not providing a rational as to why

NATO is not a good alternative, as you continue to poopoo them.

NATO is an excellent alternative to a US Military presence in Iraq....as long as other aspects of the political and economical issues are turned over to other international bodies.

It should be a three prong approach; the military, political and the economic aspect of reconstruction. So one cannot take "one" prong and naysay it....cause that means that it is being looked at in a vaccum.

You poopooing NATO and acting like the UN has the bodies to do the military portion of Iraq is bordering on the ridiculous. NATO would be much more appropriate as long as it had UN endorsement.

Your suggestion of the UN doing the military part is not realistic....although, yes, they should be deeply involved.

[1932]

41. I'm comfortable that most readers understand what I'm saying.

My rational for the NATO not being a good option is because, as Clark shows in Waging Modern War, NATO responds to the political will of the US mostly and the EU to the extent that their interests coincide with the US's. (When has NATO acted against the US's interests?)

Europe and US aren'tt exactly operating with a strong moral basis in the Middle East, and definitely not in Iraq.

The UN is the most democratic global institution there is (notwithstanding the Security Council). It's the only body with the legitimacy to do this.

If there are defects in the UN structure that prevent it from doing this, then the debate we should be having should be about fixing those defects, rather than turning to instruments of imperialism just because they're the next thing on the list.

[Texas_Kat]

46. Sine the UN doesn't have the forces

how long do you expect that it might be before they can recruit an train an Army?

Please don't believe I think it's any thing other than a fantasy of yours (and that the UN would EVER really have a standing army--other member nations than just the US wouldn't stand for it) but all that aside....

IF the UN got permission tomorrow to begin building this 'army', how long do you think it would be before they could actually take over?

Please don't say "I don't know"..... This is YOUR fantasy, so I'm asking for your expertise.

How long?

[1932]

48. What makes you think they don't have the forces?

Haven't they asked to do this work?

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

53. No n/t

[Texas_Kat]

54. No, they haven't

Please provide a link indicating that the UN would like to provide security forces in Iraq.

[1932]

59. You can read these at the same time I'm reading them:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/archunindex.htm

[Texas_Kat]

64. Okay, I read them

Your link points to the Global Policy Forum's archives. GPF currently has a team of four full-time people who work with the UN and NGOs. It's a watchdog/lobbying group with the UN Security Council.

I don't see anything about providing UN wanting to provide security forces there.....

No indication of method (or madness) to provide security for even NGO's beyond calling for the US to provide said forces.

Maybe you should try the UN site itself.

Sorry, they don't 'own' an army.... just borrow other countries' armies.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

68. the UN has no standing military

From the UN website:

Senior military officers, staff officers and military observers serving on United Nations missions are directly employed by the UN—usually on secondment from their national armed forces. Peacekeeping troops, popularly known as Blue Helmets, participate in UN peacekeeping under terms that are carefully negotiated by their Governments and remain under the authority of those Governments. The troops and their commanders are deployed as national contingents, which report on operational matters to the mission’s Force Commander, and through him to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General.

The authority to send or withdraw peacekeepers remains with the Government that volunteered them, as does responsibility for pay, disciplinary and personnel matters.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/faq/q5.htm

from other websites...

At present the UN has no military force of its own to send on peacekeeping or peacemaking missions, instead it has to gather together troops and equipment volunteered by member states on an ad hoc basis for each individual crisis.

http://www.debatabase.org/details.asp?topicID=118

To the dismay of many other delegations, the US has even scored out pledges that would have asked nations to "achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product for official development assistance by no later than 2015". All references to the date or the percentage level are gone in the Bolton version.

Passages that look forward to a larger role for the General Assembly are gone. Rejected also is a promise to create a standing military capacity for UN peacekeeping.

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20050826094018482

btw, are you familiar with the capabilities shown by UN peackeeping forces in Bosnia, Rwanda or the congo?

To be suggesting UN as the body most suited to providing security in Iraq you've got to be ignoring history.

UN do reconstruction better than any other international body, but because of the way they're set up (and barely supported) their peacekeeping missions don't have a great track record.

[1932]

77. The key is that the troops they raise are under the command of someone

who reports to the UN and not to the US or to European government.

If you read Waging Modern War, you understand the significance of a NATO commander having to report to the NATO secretary general and to the president as SACEUR commander.

As for the UN having a bad track record doing what it's supposed to do, I have two things to say:

(1) Wouldn't now be a good time for progressives to argue that they should get the resources they need to do the job right for which they were estabilished? and

(2) Has the US used its military more responsibly? Look at Panama, Gufl War I, Grenada. Or how about what the US has done short of using the military, like in Nicaragua and Chile?

I'd take the UN over the US, if my goal were long term stability and justice and not falling into the neoliberal trap. If my goal were to make the corporatocracy happy, I wouldn't pick the UN.

[1932]

60. Just from reading the summaries, looks like UN has the troops

(Bush kept asking for them) but they wouldn't go because the US wouldn't give up comman and control.

In other words, they have the resources, but they can't be tools for American imperialism.

If the US relinquieshes command and control, the UN has the troops and would use them.

[Texas_Kat]

65. Bush asked for a lot of things in his little dreamworld

but... go look at the UN Charter.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm

You will see that "UN forces" are actually "MEMBER forces". That is.... members of the UN.... including the US.

The UN doesn't have it's own security forces!

[Jai4WKC08]

67. I don't know where you're getting that

I scanned thru your link. Didn't see anything to indicate the UN has troops to deploy. Fact is, they just don't. It doesn't work that way. They don't even have the military staff to employ troops, much less the soldiers themselves.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[1932]

74. Many of those articles discuss UN troop participation.

The explanation given for that not happening is not that they didn't have the troops but that they won't participate if the US has command and control.

Don't you think some interpid reporter would have have commented on the impossibility of UN troop participation if it were indeed a moot question?

[Jai4WKC08]

83. You're misunderstanding what you're reading

The UN has no troops. If those articles are written up referring to "UN troops," it's merely shorthand for "troops employed with UN authority."

When the UN takes on a mission, they assign the command and control to a specific member nation and the forces of other nations agree to participate under the command of the designated lead. Of course, each nation chooses whether they will participate and to what extent. The UN had no tasking authority over any of them.

That's what we did in the Korean War. It was a UN operation, but we took on the command and provided most of the forces. The UN-sponsored Multinational Force in the Sinai rotates command and forces; we usually provide only a battalion... or we used to--perhaps the Bushies have pulled our support; I don't know. When I was working it, I think it was Norway running the show. There were "UN troops" (same shorthand) in Bosnia before NATO went in. I think maybe the French were in charge, but I don't remember exactly, since I wasn't working in the region at the time.

I participated in a training seminar with a couple UN military advisors back in 1993. The instructor, a retired officer from one of the Scandinavian countries, looked at our small group of maybe 15 people, all field grade officers, and said, you know, there is more military planning capability in this group than in the entire UN. He may have been exaggerating a little, but his point was obvious.

It's not a matter of funding, as you implied up-thread somewhere, not that the US shouldn't meet its financial obligations. It's the way the UN is set up, by its charter. It's not something likely to change either, and certainly not something the Democratic Party or anyone else in US politics is ready to talk about changing. The UN is a collaborative body, not a sovereign govt.

I believe that some day, we will have some sort of international govt with some sort of limited sovereignty. Maybe even, some day, a truly one-world structure. But that's a VERY long way off, and I doubt the UN will ever morph into one. It will be replaced, maybe several times, as we evolve toward that end, driven by technology and economics, and possibly war. Imo.

[FrenchieCat]

50. Again, you are looking at things through a vaccum.....

and offering no real solution.

NATO really isn't under the "Control" of the U.S., because if it were, then Bush would replace the US with NATO.

The UN cannot take over the security job from Americans, nor do they want to.

However, if there was a summit called, and NATO, the UN, Iraq's neigbor and Iraq itself were all truly given a voice...then I think that a solution could be found, with each taking on some of it.

You need to step back and look at more than just one issue and then nitpick at it because it is not perfect "in your eyes".

The excercise that you are engaging in is not the manner one goes about solving serious problems....

[1932]

61. You're looking at things through Clark-collored glasses.

See my last post.

[FrenchieCat]

63. You are looking at things through anti-Clark colored glasses

and anyway, what's John Kerry's plan?

[1932]

75. I'm reading his books and listening to what he says.

I don't know what Kerry's plan is. Do you?

[Totally Committed]

79. I used to be a literacy volunteer.

To me, reading has always been a skill, central to all thought and the ability to think critically -- one I strongly felt every human being should have.

And I'm not a violent person. I don't eat meat -- I don't even kill bugs... But, I have to say, hearing about all the books you've read, over and over and over and over, has made me want to find whoever taught you how to read and bitchslap them until they cry for mercy. Geez Louise, has that book schtick of yours become irritating! I wouldn't mind so much if it came with comprehension skills, or the ability to even try to see what the other person is saying, but it obviously doesn't. Can't you even try to converse like a real person in even one of these threads?

Okay, you like Kerry. Ever read any books by him? Ever read any books about his plans for the Middle East problems? Or about the gathering storm in North Korea? How about all the Op-Eds he's written about his thoughts on World Affairs for major newspapers or magazines? Why don't you start a thread about one of those, and inform us about all he has to say about Corporatism, and the Peak Oil problem, and the horrors of Darfur, or (your favorite) America's Virtual Empire. I, for one, would be truly interested to read anything you have on him. And, I would love to participate as generously as you have in these threads about Wes Clark, in those threads. I know a lot of us would, I'm sure.

As I said the other day, there is a generous way to support a candidate. "Mass" and "Little Clarkie" are two fine examples of supporters for Kerry who are open and always able to discuss an issue from all sides. They are always respectful, and their posts always have a certain dinity and honor because of that. We do not agree on our choice of candidate, but they are two posters I am always willing to agree to disagree with because the respect they always show is mutual. They are two of my favorite DU-ers because of that. You could learn lot from readig their posts. A lot of the way people act is just be human nature or psychological pathology, but I still feel manners and respect can be learned.

Anyway, your Anti-Clark routine is wearing thin. I'd like to see you start a few pro-Kerry threads. Talk about his books, his Op-Eds, his plans for the ME or North Korea, or maybe his appearances in the media to talk about those things. It would be a nice change, and it would be a more honest use of those "awesome" debating and zoning-in skills you love to use on other candidates' threads.

Thanks ahead of time for the respect and consideration I'm sure you will show this suggestion.

TC

[FrenchieCat]

26. the problem between what we "wish" and what is "realistic",

Won't be reconciled with a demand. Making demands are easy to do, especially when they ain't gonna happen.

Even Feingold is not demanding an "immediate withdrawal"....unless 1.5 years away is "immediate". :shrug:

But I understand that you are....

Is there a politician with juice advocating an "immediate" withdrawal?

Feingold is requesting a December 2006 pull out date but yet, he doesn't offer a plan in the meantime.....instead he is asking Bush and his cronies to come up with a plan and present it to congress...

My resolution does not dictate deadlines or dates certain. And it does request flexible timeframes for achieving our goals in Iraq rather than imposing any, because drawing up timeframes is best and most appropriately left to the Administration, in consultation with military leaders. And, of course, any timeframe has to be flexible -- there are variables that will affect how quickly various missions can be accomplished. But it's hard to conceive of an effective strategic plan that isn't linked to some timeframes. That is what the Administration needs to share.
snip
Mr. President, it is also clear that we must not accept a false choice between supporting the status quo in Iraq and "cutting and running." The status quo -- staying a rudderless course without a clear destination -- would be a mistake. The course we are on is not leading to strength. In fact, Mr. President, I am concerned that it is making America weaker and our enemies stronger. --Russ Feingold
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/05/07/Iraqstatement.htm

"Intense American diplomatic and political engagement in and support for Iraq will likely last long after the troops' mission is accomplished and they are withdrawn. I expect that we will continue some important degree of military and security cooperation with the Iraqis, as we work with them and with others around the world to combat terrorist networks, whether they are operating in Iraq or Afghanistan or England," said Feingold.

"But it's almost as if talking about completing the mission in Iraq has become 'taboo,'" said Feingold. "It's time for senators and Members of Congress, especially those from my own party, to be less timid whilethis Administration neglects urgent national security priorities in favor of staying a flawed policy course in Iraq.http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/05/08/iraqwithdraw.html

Wes Clark gave a plausible plan that could be acted on right now, but it won't. He also profers up a critique of what has occurred up to this point, and has stated that if the course is not changed, then the only alternate left will be a pull out.

I don't see any points of disagreement between Clark and Feingold. In fact I see what they are saying basically the same thing and are more in concert with each other than with the rest of the Democratic crew.

Those who want demanding an "immediate" pull out should not hold their breath....because it would be a folly and as big a mistake as "staying the course".

[jonnyblitz]

27. I am with you...

as Cindy say's, "bring them home NOW!!" :thumbsup:

[Cha]

18. The "elective" war.

That the bushwa is trying so hard to sell as a necessary war.

Thank you, General Clark, for speaking out and calling this war a "strategic blunder".

I appreciate Clark giving props and comfort to Cindy Sheehan.

[jillan]

22. I want a Clark / Hackett team!

Exactly what this country needs right now.

[ksclematis]

71. The Dems had better wake up

and realize who is greeting them at the front door!

I think the Demodratic leadership should recognize that they HAVE a leader of the Democratic party, namely, of course, General Wes Clark, and need to look no further. Yes, including Hiliary who has already lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

No politician articulates as he does without "spinning" their own agendas. No politician on the POTUS candidate scene has the knowledge, experience, intelligence, and fortitude to "take on" the FOX network, the WSJ, USA Today, et al, and put out a plan for the Demo party to take and elaborate upon. The other wannabes have their own little nuances for their personal agendas.

General Clark does not speak in evil/dishonest tongues...he speaks only what he believes is the best way for "his/our" country to get out of the horrendous mess the neocons have created in the USA as well as around the globe.

[Independent_Liberal]

72. Way to go General Clark!

You are an awesome dude!

:)

[Adelante]

80. That he is

An awesome dude. :D