General Clark says a timetable is folly! Gen. Clark is completely wrong!

[ProSense]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2772212&mesg_id=2772212">General Clark says a timetable is folly! Gen. Clark is completely wrong!

[upi402]

1. broken link

[ProSense]

2. Fixed! Thanks! n/t

[ProSense]

3. Next move in Iraq? By Wesley Clark

Next move in Iraq?

By Wesley Clark

The mission in Iraq is spiraling into failure. American voters have sent a clear message: Bring our troops home, but don't lose. That's a tall order both for resurgent Democrats, some of whom are calling for a quick withdrawal, and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which is presumably crafting new options.

Instead of cutting and running or staying the course, it is time for us to begin to redeploy. But how can we do this and improve our prospects for success?

First, we have to think past Iraq and above partisan politics, folding actions in Iraq into a strategy to protect broader U.S. interests throughout the region.

Neither the Bush administration's latest pronouncements nor the current political dialogue has adequately engaged these vital interests. The calamity in Iraq has hogtied the Bush administration, inviting disarray, if not instability, in neighboring countries that also require our attention.

U.S. interests include dissuading Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons and its hegemonic aspirations, providing security assurances for the rapidly developing Arab Gulf states and working with our friends in the Middle East to ensure access to oil resources and regional stability.

Timetables a bad idea

What about a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals? Today, setting a rigid, Washington-driven timetable is an option, but a bad one. A precipitous troop reduction could have far-reaching effects: emboldening Iran, weakening U.S. security promises to friendly states, and even sparking military initiatives by other powers — Turkey or Iran — to deal with the resulting security vacuum. Our weakened position in Iraq also could undercut our leverage in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

more...

[FrenchieCat]

4. Clark wants to use redeployment as bargaining power......

but we won't have that on the table for negotiations if we call for a fixed timetable for redeployment before arranging for a regional summit.

You are not getting that complexity....which is actually very clear.

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

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

No one is advocating for a timetable in less than six months anyways, including Feingold, Kerry and Levin....so there is time for the summit to come first.

[provis99]

5. of course a timetable is follly, but not the way Clark means

every day we don't immediately withdraw from Iraq is another day a soldier could die. How can we possibly justify any deaths during the timetable period? Remember the timetable for withdraw from Vietam resulted in 20000 more deaths during the withdrawal phase. All troops should have been gotten out of Vietnam as fast as logistically possible.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Unfortunatly for you, no one is proposing withdrawal prior to July 2007

so, you will not find such a plan that you are suggesting.

So there will be no overnight airlift of everything and everyone on a said proposed and announced date to the world.

And in fact, most folks who voted for the Democrats in don't want the "let's just watch it explode after we're gone" plan that you are alluding to.

[beachmom]

21. COMPLETED by July 2007. Big difference. It would take

AT LEAST 6 months to complete a redeployment. Sorry, Clark's ideas amount to more names going on whatever memorial for the Iraq War is erected. But, he's not the only one -- in fact, his plan amounts to the Washington Consensus, which is the procrastination of the inevitable.

[CarolNYC]

7. Wow...So you take Clarkie1's words and attribute them to Clark...

I'll have to keep that little maneuver in mind when reading your posts from now on...

[ProSense]

8. Yes I did, here's why:

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.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2981135&mesg_id=2981135">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).

Oops, sorry!

I apologize: Clark said: Timetables a bad idea

Clark is wrong!

[CarolNYC]

10. I don't understand...

So, you atttibuted Clarkie1's words to Clark because Clarkie1 posted commentary on an interview he heard? That's supposed to make it acceptable?

And then you eventually posted an apology after starting threads in mulitple forums with the misattributed quote and being called on it...

As I said, something to keep in mind....thanks...

[ProSense]

12. Yes, that's what happened!

Clarkie1 paraphrased General Clark's "Timetables a bad idea" by using the word folly and claiming it somehow negates diplomacy, and I use her paraphrasing to say Clark is wrong. Either way, Clark is wrong.


I think your accusation is damage control.

[CarolNYC]

16. You attributed Clarkie1's words to General Clark...

That's wrong....but you don't seem to think so. I'll say it again, something to keep in mind.

Have a good day, OK?

[BikeWriter]

18. Excuse me! I wanted to see what Gen. Clark said, but...

I'll find it elsewhere where it hasn't been "interpreted."

[ProSense]

19. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2981346&mesg_id=2981417

[BikeWriter]

20. Thank you, Pard.

[Clark2008]

23. Damage control?

Because the vast majority of the people on this board don't know the first thing about diplomacy, redeployment and offering a viable solution to both the US troops AND the Iraqi people?

Hardly.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. The last time I heard, Al Gore thought so also

Have you read Clark's whole editorial in USA Today? There is some pretty radical stuff in there, in a positive way I might add.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. Like this:

"These principles could include: Iraq would remain whole; oil revenue would go to the Iraqi people based on a formula they determine; the rights and security of individuals must be protected; the United States would have no permanent bases in Iraq; the covert flow of military arms and equipment into Iraq would be halted; and the security needs of all states would be respected."

Iraq Oil belongs to Iraq people, they decide what they want to do with it. That is calling out the entire Bush Oil soaked administration.

The security needs of all states would be respected. That completely reverses the PNAC agenda of remaking the Middle East in Americas own image, by overthrowing governments to install Pro-Western "Democracies". Clark is saying we should guarantee Syria and Iran's governments that we will leave them alone and stop trying to overthrow them. The U.S. is the greatest threat to Syria and Iran's security right now.

[1932]

22. Gore was one of the biggest hawks in the Clinton administration.

I wouldn't be surprised if he were parsing his objection to the war today.

[mtnsnake]

13. Looks like you're wrong. According to this, Clark never said that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2772212&mesg_id=2772531

[ProSense]

14. Timetables a bad idea

Timetables a bad idea

[mtnsnake]

15. No. I'm talking about your thread title. Did he or did he not say a timetable is folly?

[ProSense]

17. It's paraphrased: bad idea! Did Clark say bad idea? Cut and run? n/t

[SteppingRazor]

24. Locking.

From the rules:

"Do not post duplicate topics that have already been posted. There are different levels of enforcement in different forums. For example, the Latest Breaking News forum has extremely strict rules against duplicate topics, but the General Discussion forum is much more lenient. Cross posting of duplicates in the two General Discussion forums is not permitted. Cross-posting of duplicates in other forums is occasionally permitted if there is a clear reason for doing so."