Delete. duplicate topic.

[Clarkie1]

[1932]

1. Correct me if I'm wrong: he's saying that the threat of violent force by the

US army is an important part of the carrot/stick process of achieving American interests, so we can't pull them out. I.e., the military is the muscle that compels people in the region to be diplomatic.

[Clarkie1]

2. You misunderstand the role of the U.S. military in Iraq.

It's primarily not about the threat of violent force against a government. That war was over in a matter of weeks, long ago. It's about winning the peace, and as Clark has said, there is no military solution to this. We can't bring peace and stability to the region with the U.S. military alone, and we can't do it alone.

The role of our military while it is still there can, however, be negotiated. It is even conceivable that a "stick" might be a threat to remove our military support and training if our conditions are not met. Before we know what the carrots and sticks are we have to start talking, really talking to Iraqis and the other countries in the region and look for common ground. There are a lot of Iraqis who do not want a security vacuum, but at the same time they want us to leave as soon as we can without leaving a security vacuum. We want to leave soon too. There's a place to start the dialogue, right there. That along with repeating loud and clear there will NEVER be permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq and all oil revenue is for the Iraqis.

[1932]

3. I don't understand what you're saying.

What is an army if not a threat of violent force?

I understand this only a little better:

Of course there are no guarantees, but from such a dialogue should emerge a prescription for U.S. troop levels and activities consistent with our larger interests. Carrots and sticks could be employed. For instance, the factions could vow certain actions in return for U.S. assistance or troop deployments, or redeployments, and possible assistance from neighboring states.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/11/illustration_by_2.html

To me, that sounds like the threat of violent force is an important carrot/stick to get people to "dialogue."

[Clarkie1]

4. The carrots and sticks have to do with providing security for various factions

contingent on getting miltias, for instance, to support the government and play a role in the govenrment. That's what Clark's saying. It has to be a political solution, not a military one. The military can only play a supporting role. If a faction in Iraq wants the support of our military providing security for them, it needs to cooperate with other factions in finding common ground to form a political solution.

Conversely, a faction which refuses go cooperate could get the "stick," but it would have to be a joint Iraq/U.S. effort to disarm them, and the U.S. role would be negotiated with the Iraqi government. This is how the military there gives us leverage to bring the factions together. Using the "stick" would be a last resort, not a first resort. Just is just my opinion, not Clark's but I think I'm in the ballpark of what his approach would be were he POTUS.

"the factions could vow certain actions in return for U.S. assistance or troop deployments, or redeployments, and possible assistance from neighboring states."

[FrenchieCat]

5. Yes, that is usually how it works. and?

YOu think soldiers are trained to kiss ass and that's why they are there?

Just because a poster writes a lying headline about Wes Clark and gets away with it a al Drudge, don't start to party just yet.

[1932]

6. I don't have great faith in anything that is achieved by a threat of force.

If you're going to have a threat of force, there needs to be a morally compelling underneath it, at least -- for example, "fascism is a very bad system of government."

I don't see the compelling moral argument that underlies the threat of violent force that the US military represents in the Gulf. Therefore, I don't see this plan succeeding.

[FrenchieCat]

7. No one is asking for you to have faith.....

In fact, no one was asking you anything!

[1932]

9. Oops. Sorry. For a minute I thought this was a place for dialogue.

My mistake. I guess it's just a place for building myths.

I guess I'll go back to self-censoring when it comes to Clark posts.

Your exchange the other day made me think that this sort of thing was welcomed.

And I was about to put this quote of yours in my sig line: "Now why should they have to feel the need to be silent in a debate forum?" Foolish me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2981364#2983564

[FrenchieCat]

11. Your misreading and then questioning every word is not what I call

discussion. I've noticed when I ask for anything from you, I never get it...while you continue to ask your trifling questions. What's that about?

Kinda of like the dude with the drudge headline.

[1932]

13. Make up your mind. Are people asking me for things or aren't they?

And, either way, why doesn't your own logic from that 11/27 post apply here?

[Clarkie1]

8. a radical, violent, armed militia using terrorism to destablize a legitimate government is bad.

So there's your underlying reason...as I said though, carrots are always better.

[1932]

12. Honestly, when I read that, it took me a few seconds to connect your

referents to proper nouns. I don't think much about American foreign policy in the Middle East is founded on anything remotely associated with morals. But I open to hearing your argument developed further.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Regardless of who started it, this is still a war and not a playground.

You'd have to be naive to think that while negotiating to end a war, the troops fighting for the last 4 years are now going to run home while we negotiate. They are the sticks and always have been. Even the Iraqis understand that. They just want their country back.....as whole as possible under the circumstances. They don't want civil war....and Iran and Syria and Turkey all on their borders calling the shot either.