Clark holds both poltical parties' feet to the fire: "Failure is not an Option"

[Clarkie1]

Today on Air Amrerica radio Clark made it clear what must be done: hard, sustained work toward a regional (not merely Iraqi) poltical solution using carrots and sticks.

In addition, Clark correctly identifies:

1. The folly of setting an artificial timeline: It takes away any leverage we have with Iran and Syria...the problem is regional, not solely what Iraq does, so it is silly to try and influence only what the Iraq government does, assuming Iraq can be influenced by setting a timeline).

2. The folly of the "more troops or less troops" argument: There is no military solution; the military can only be used as leverage for a political, regional solution. Clark refers to the idea of adding more troops derisively as a "mechanical solution" which won't succeed because (Clark's metaphor) mechanically adding more blocks that just get knocked down by people who don't want the stack of blocks there is a simplistic approach that doesn't address the real problem. 20,000 more troops could realistically be added for 6 months max, but we would still be left with the same political problem, unless the poltical problem is addressed regionally, with carrots and sticks.

3. What "talking" really means: "I would send a high-level team over to Iraq to talk with the Iraqis and the people in the region. I'm not talking about Jim Baker. I think it's wonderful that Jim Baker wants to talk to the Syrian ambassador. That's not going to produce the kind of results we need. I'm talking about a sustained dialog with people in the region, working it on a daily basis to produce a safety net, a regional safety net, of, of economic and diplomatic and security issues that are out there holding up all the countries in the region."

"I think they're open to talking. I don't think it's going to be an easy dialog. You know, the longer we've stayed in Iraq, the less bargaining power we've had over Iran, because the worse we look over there, the less incentive they have to give in to what we want them to do. They're emerging as the big winners. So, we have to be careful in talking to them we don't just ratify their success in Iraq...And that means you don't want to go into it with a preconceived timeline. What you want to do is go in with sticks and carrots and, and take it from there, and then make it an integrated regional strategy."

4. The pragmatic truth: it would be folly to limit our options at this point, because the stituation is constantly evolving (or devolving under the current "stay the course" policy, as the case may be)

"it may require pulling some combat brigades out of Iraq and putting trainers in in their place...it may require troops in other regions, and it may not require troops, changing troop strength at all for a while."

"We're doing too much on the military side and not enough on the political side...the solution is not just to get the troops out, it's the end state...we've got our whole national security at risk in the region...failure is not an option." (note that when Clark says "failure is not an option" he is referring to the option of simply "pulling our troops out," which would lead to chaos in the region by the power vacuum created. It should also be noted that Clark has said repeatedly that there is no good solution in Iraq...only perhaps a C- or D solution at best. An F is not acceptable, and still can be avoided.

5. Clark realistically notes, "I think...regional dialogue...will be rejected by the White House."

6. Clark identifies common interests with have with Iran: "I don't think Iran wants a broader, deeper war in Iraq...there a whole lot more Sunnis in the world than Shias...they (Iran) know that."

7. Clark indentifies the right way to "back out" of Iraq: "We have to find a way to back out of this that leaves a durable, political settlement in place."

"It's not a mechanical problem (of adding more troops). There is a strong opposing force against the U.S. presence there...until we can deal with the political problem of that, we're not going to succeed."

"(the American people are saying) pull back troops, stop taking so many losses, but don't lose. They want to see the losses go down, they want to see the troops come down over time. They just want to see the killing stop, really, and they don't want to see Iran emerge as setting the stage for another war in the region."

In the end we have to ask ourselves, is pulling out of Iraq within the next few months, or setting a timeline worth the leverage it would cost us with Iran? Is THAT what we want the world's stage to look like in the coming months and years...an empowered Iran? These issues are much larger than what happens in Iraq. We are at the edge of a precipice. By rejecting both Democratic calls for an artificial timeline, and Republican calls to "stay the course" (which incorrectly views the problem as a military one), Clark has taken an leadership role on the current Middle East (not Iraq) crises. It's a voice those of all political persuasions would be wise to consider.


Edited for link to transcript of remarks:
http://securingamerica.com/node/1959

[rocktivity]

1. Just--wow.

:loveya:
rocknation

[ProSense]

2. Folly? Sounds like an excuse!

Congress Approves Kerry Legislation Urging Summit of Iraq and Its Neighbors to End Civil War and Build Political Solution

KERRY-FEINGOLD:

We began an important fight because together we know the time has come for a Congress that shares responsibility for getting us into Iraq to take responsibility for helping to get us out. We know it is not enough to argue with details or logistics, with the manner of the conflict’s execution or the failures of competence, as great as they are. It is essential to fight to set a date to withdraw American forces.

That’s why this June with Russ Feingold, we fought for an up or down vote on the Kerry-Feingold amendment to withdraw US combat forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007. We made it clear that our soldiers have done their job. It is time for Iraqis to do their job – it’s time for Iraqis to stand up for Iraq. It’s time for Iraqis to want democracy for themselves as much as we want it for them. Click here to read our plan.

Hundreds of thousands of you in the johnkerry.com community have shown your support for our plan for Iraq. You signed our petition and urged your Senators to stand with us. With your help, we stood up to the Bush Administration’s aimless and failed course in Iraq.

On June 22, 2006 the Senate voted on the Kerry-Feingold amendment. Thirteen courageous Senators stood with us, and we want to thank them for their leadership:

Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), co-sponsor
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Sen. James Jeffords (I-VT)
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), co-sponsor
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)

The fight is not over until we have changed course in Iraq. November 7th will be a day of reckoning for the administration’s broken course in Iraq.

[Clarkie1]

3. I don't support that approach for all the reasons listed above.

It's a regional problem; it's not just about Iraq.

The senators you list in support of that ammendment are to be applauded for standing up to the administration and making their voice heard. They are all good senators and well-intentioned, but good people can sometimes be wrong. In any case, we aren't making the policy so my opinion at that time was the more voices raised against the adminstration's "stay the course" policy, the better. I still feel that way although of course it would be preferable for Democrats to unite under the best possible plan which we would pursue if we held the White House. That kind of unity may not be realistic.

I would be facinated to hear how Kerry wouild respond to Clark's points. I'd love to see that debate.

[Hippo_Tron]

7. Agreed

The best policy comes when rational thinking people like Kerry and Clark discuss and challenge each other's ideas.

[MrSlayer]

4. This is the reality of the situation.

The country needs Wes Clark.

[LoZoccolo]

5. I trust a general's opinion more than activists on either side.

I was against the war when it started but since not long after it started I've realized my limitations in forming an opinion, not knowing much at all about war. Clark'll get it from the armchair military strategists here for that though (but not the mainstream majority of Democrats).

[Hippo_Tron]

6. Especially since he's not giving the same made-up excuse that Bush is

General Clark's reasoning for not setting a time table so that we can have leverage on Iran and Syria makes real sense. Bush's "the enemy will just be encouraged to wait us out" is a bullshit excuse that he made up off the top of his head and one that he doesn't have any evidence to support.

I think Clark's plan is negotiating with people who have leverage over the insurgent forces to get us to stop the violence and in turn we'll slowly move our forces out. If we are lucky, Baker is recommending the same thing and Bush will listen to him.

[FrenchieCat]

8. So in context, although Clark is not advocating a unilateral redeployment timetable

he is for redeployment as quickly as possible.

In the Oped, he stresses that getting the summit together really doesn't have to take very long.....but it has to be done right.

I agree with Clark on this, and so will most looking at this on the big picture basis.

The timing for the proposal of this plan is perfect. The "Iraq Study Group" has not yet offered up any plan, so they could do this, and claim it as theirs...I don't think Clark will mind if it helps for things to work out for the better for our soldiers in the long run.

The Congress has just changed hands, and the press is clamoring for a plan from them. Here's one!

The new Congress can actually in some small measures have more power than we had say prior to election '08, and the public want a solution for Iraq, but most are not for immediate withdrawal without a plan that would make things go smoothly.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061115/ap_on_re_us/postele...
You can't solve that problem without involving the other players in the region. I think Democrats might be more willing to at least not call (Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) the Axis of Evil," Curran said. "I don't know if the president would go with this, but this administration has to involve other nations in that region."

For now, Democrats appear willing to wait for the recommendations of a bipartisan Iraq study group led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton. The group's findings are expected within the next few weeks.

[lostnfound]

9. A pragmatic, intelligent, but possibly immoral, approach.

I don't mean that Wes Clark is immoral. My respect for him has grown greatly; and I can't and wouldn't judge him "as a person."

His statement "we've got our whole national security at risk in the region..." correctly identifies the root of the problem.

However, what my "moral compass" is telling me is that sometimes you have to do what your conscience tells you is "right" from a moral point of view even if it doesn't seem "right" from the standpoint of satisfying your practical or personal goals.

It is utterly wrong to have >100,000 people armed with weapons positioned in a country for the sake of OUR strategic interests. My conscience tells me that human beings always think they know better rather than following 'God's law'. If that makes me an irrational person, so be it.

[FrenchieCat]

10. I believe that you are right.....and I believe that we will get out.....

however, I also believe that once we get out, we cannot come back in....so we must leave it in a manner that does not come back to haunt us like an nightmare. We were wrong, we should have never gone in, and I pray that we have learned a lesson (like we should have already learned in Vietnam)...HOwever, I don't believe that there will be a mass evacuation overnight, and so at least, the negotiation towards some kind of peace must begin.

[Kolesar]

11. The Israeli-Palestinian Paradox

Ed Schultz: Has there ever been a military complexity in American history, in your opinion, that we're faced with right now?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think this one's really challenging. There are a lot of us who said this wasn't a good idea in the first place, but George W. Bush thought it was, and we went. And people then thought the complexity worked in our favor. I remember people saying, 'Well, you know, if you want peace between Israel and the Palestinians, first you got to knock off Saddam.' Now paradoxically, I hear people saying, 'Well if you want a peace in Iraq, now you have to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem.' I think (sigh) that's a huge problem, and I think when you link try to link them like that, you may have to have a dialog that involves all those things, but, but, but trying to do it in serial fashion, first one and then the other, I don't think it's going to work.

[Pawel K]

12. brilliant man, agree with everything he said

and I personally trust his opinion more than I trust anyone elses.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

13. With all due respect, failure is an option and the most likely one

Thanks to TruthLess Leader lying us into this war, we have no moral authority with anyone in the region. Why would Syria or Iran believe anything we say?

IMO, there are at least three options and none of them are likely to work.

The first one is to just leave, giving the Iraqi government 6 - 12 months to get their security forces in place.

This option is unlikely to succeed, because Iraq doesn't exist as a country any more. It is a piece of land occupied by three tribes, the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites. There was a great article about this by Robert Fisk recently.http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15669.htm

The discussion of this article is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2763544

The second option is to beg the UN for help. They have the moral authority we now lack and it would put other Arabs into the mix, something we need and can't provide ourselves.

This is unlikely to succeed because BushCo hates the UN. Otherwise, he wouldn't want Yosemite Sam Bolton to be our UN ambassador.

Also, as much as I would enjoy watching TruthLess Leader grovel and beg for help in front of the Security Council, it is unlikely to happen. Bush would rather fight this war until the last underclass American youth left in our armed forces gets killed than admit he fucked up.

The third option is politically impossible, but I post it for the purposes of balance.

We could reinstate the draft and put between 500,000 and 1,000,000 troops in Iraq and ruthlessly stomp the insurrection into the ground. Think of it as the Soviet approach.

This option fails because it isn't politically possible and, if somehow, we did it, there is no exit strategy. Our military presence would be all that held the country together and as soon as we left, the civil war would begin again.