Clark details what he would do if he were President: "Next Move in Iraq?" (USA Today Editorial)

[Clarkie1]

"W." is very, very WRONG (always has been).

Biden is wrong on this one.

Hillary is wrong on this one (uh, come to think of it, what exactly is Hillary's plan anyway?)

Kerry is wrong on this one (Kerry supporters: NOTHING PERSONAL. Let's focus on the POLICY, not the PERSONALITIES)

Here's why I think Clark is right on this one. You may fully agree, partially agree, or completely disagree. Irregardless, I hope every DU'er interested in making the best of a horrible, dangerous situation in the Middle East considers the viewpoint presented here. Supportive as well as thoughtfully reasoned critical comments are most welcome!

Next move in Iraq?
Updated 11/20/2006 9:12 PM ET
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.

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.

What about imposing a tripartite division of Iraq? That would merely feed ethnic cleansing and likely lead to a wider, more intense conflict.

The right approach is a coordinated diplomatic, legal, economic and security campaign drawing upon broader dialogue in the region and intensified political work inside Iraq.

Here is how to do this:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-11-20-clark_x.htm?csp=34

The outline of what needs to be done is clear. But does the administration have the courage and foresight to do it, or will it continue to march into profound failure?

[understandinglife]

1. Recommend # 1.

[understandinglife]

2. Recommend # 1.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. Woohoo

:woohoo:

[FrenchieCat]

6. I don't know about being a "Superman"......but he's not afraid to

put his thoughts out there. He's not waiting for someone else to do it, so that he can pick it apart.

More on "Clark's plan" which is actually quite detailed.

Did you read it?

•Establish an effective, sustained shuttle diplomacy within the region.

•Form a high-level interagency diplomatic team, representing the White House and secretaries of State and Defense and led by an experienced, respected diplomat.

•Begin talks within Iraq, and with all its neighbors, based on a clear set of principles outlined by the team. The goal would be to seek the commitments necessary to achieve our aims inside Iraq and also advance U.S. interests in the region.

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.

Regional dialogue needed

A permanent Gulf regional security dialogue could emerge that includes Syria and Iran, and the United States could undertake a role as regional security guarantor. Preliminary discussions should lead to a more intensive dialogue with Iran in which security assurances and nuclear programs are discussed.

In terms of diplomacy, our team would engage each state and party, solicit its views and challenge it to participate in moving forward, just as U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke did in the Balkans a decade ago. Next steps might include confidence-building measures, hosted discussions between factions, and perhaps one or more larger meetings to conclude firm commitments, timetables or sequence of events.

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.

Of course, there's more.....

[Bucky]

18. Love the picture, but why does the Donkey look all preggers there?

I'll add this to my silly Clark pictures file.

[buddysmellgood]

4. But that's a PLAN....we can't have a plan.

:sarcasm:

[neuvocat]

That's right!

Democrats don't have no plan...neither.

[solara]

5. Recommended

Excellent!

[FrenchieCat]

7. I agree....

the "Iraq study group" was probably waiting for it. I wouldn't be surprised!

[FrenchieCat]

8. But it appears that a thread started by one who "heard" a radio interview

and felt that Clark wasn't saying what poster wanted to hear without providing a link to the interview is more popular than Clark's actual plan written up right here.

Here's is posters' chance to come and pick it all apart--hope he drops by!

[Clarkie1]

10. Indeed. I would be very interested to hear said poster's thoughts on Clark's actual plan. nt

[Cameron27]

9. The man has a most excellent plan.

"The right approach is a coordinated diplomatic, legal, economic and security campaign drawing upon broader dialogue in the region and intensified political work inside Iraq."

[countmyvote4real]

11. Another military strategist and General has his say.

It’s not like Clark doesn’t know about secular differences. He was the Supreme NATO Commander (or something to that) in charge of dealing with the break up/down of Yugoslavia.

I think that the US has long overstayed whatever welcome there was in Iraq, but in the words of former SOS Gen. Powell, “We broke it. We have to fix it.” Don’t you hate it when you do that?

I doubt that Clark is on the “Save Shrub from himself” commission, but they will likely conclude or make a nod to the same position as Gen. Clark.

[eridani]

13. If someone told you to make a set of dinnerware--

--using only a sack of kaolin and a hammer, could you do it? Are you morally obligated to try? Negotiation is a great idea, but we no longer have the stature to do that.

I'm disturbed by what is missing from this statement. Where is the clear statement that we intend no permanent military presence in Iraq? What about plans to vacate the US Embassy palace? What about the rules made by the Coalition Provisional Authority that essentially strip Iraq of control of its state-owned assets and cannot be overturned by any act of the elected government of Iraq?

[FrenchieCat]

14. talking about setting tables, 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.

as far as what he says....."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.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-11-20-clark_x.htm?csp=34

It's pretty clear to me. Clark's 4th point on "How we do this".....


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.

[eridani]

16. Good for him about the no permanent bases policy

He could also score really big points by mentioning the Bush Embassy palace and suggesting an alternative use for it. What does it say to Iraqis that it is on time and on schedule, with all the water and electricity that anybody could want? Compare and contrast with how most Iraqis are living now.

What does he have to say about the sale of all Iraq state-owned businesses at fire sale prices, which the Iraqi government is not allowed to overrule?

[Strelnikov_]

33. "Sale Of All Iraq State-Owned Businesses"

The only immutable laws are those of nature. The laws of man can be easily undone.

Like any laws passed down by the CPA have any authority any more.

[eridani]

51. Actually, they do

Nothing put into law by CPA can be removed by any act of an Iraq government. If that's changed, post a URL.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Clark clearly says all of that. Some Powerful points. Here:

"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."

Clark doesn't waste a lot of unnecessary words saying it, but it is all there:

The oil belongs to the Iraq people and they are the ones who decide what happens to it

The U.S. will have no permanent bases inside Iraq

The security needs of all states would be respected.

Clark is essentially calling for a complete revolution in the current U.S. policy in the region. He says we need to stop trying to control Iraq's Oil, and we should forget about Iraq being some kind of "american outpost" in the Middle East. And the last piece, not only should we negotiate with Iran and Syria, but we should ensure that their security needs are respected. That, among other things, means we should stop fucking trying to overthrow their governments and/or invade their nations. And we should guarantee that to them. Right now the United States is one of the biggest security threats to Iran and Syria.

[Clarkie1]

12. I would like to explain what I mean by "Kerry is wrong on this one."

That particular comment of mine in the OP has provoked a lot of negative response, but I stand by it. I made it not to attack John Kerry, but to make the point that up to this point there have been basically three Democratic approaches to Iraq which have gotten significant press:

A plan with a timeline (which could include other more useful aspects such as regional diplomacy)

A plan to divide Iraq into parts

No clear plan

John Kerry's plan for Iraq, which gained the support of 13 fellow senators this year, proposed that a timeline be set which would have the bulk of U.S. forces out of Iraq by the end of next month. Most or all of the remainder would be out or redeployed by July 2007.

I don't believe this is the best plan, now or then. I believe because it is not the best plan it is the wrong plan. There are good aspects to Kerry's plan, such as regional diplomacy. Unfortunately, the important regional diplomacy would be tied up by the timetable, since we would have little leverage having already showed our hand in advance.

Diplomacy is a lot like poker. And to continue the metaphor, I think Clark is right to suggest we hold off on showing our hand. Let's use the leverage we have with the hand we've been dealt...but don't go by my metaphor, read Clark's actual plan and then decide.

The problem now is the current administration isn't even engaging themselves in the game, and simply sitting on the sidelines allowing others (Iran, Syria) to win.

If the problem is regional, how does a timetable help us gain the upper hand in the regional diplomacy?

[karynnj]

19. Kerry's timetable is NOT that rigid

He has explained many times that if the Iraqis were working hard and taking the necessary steps, he would of course recommend short extensions. In fact, it was said as "We are not stupid ...".

Kerry's point is that something needs to be done to push the Iraqis to do things that are tough and dangerous to do. He has pointed out that nearly every Iraqi success has come from having a deadline.

Now, I do not see a contradiction between having a dealine and knowing that there would be flexibility if genuine process is being made. This was not a retreat on Kerry's part. The easiest way I can see it is that if I gave my kids a deadline of 5:00 to clean a messy room and saw at 4:50 that the room was close to being habitable - I would give them an extention - instead of not giving them the promised reward. It would be stupid and arbitrary to do otherwise. Without the deadline though, they might still have been putting off even thinking of doing what I asked.

Kerry had pretty much the same demand for regional diplomacy - in fact I think both Clark and Kerry did at least as far back as 2004 and it is consistant with both their world views. The Senate has actually included the Kerry summit proposal in their defense appropriation bill - with Warner's blessing.

Kerry's plan is far more detailed and thoughtful than just a deadline - which was why Senator Warner showed him the respect he did by engaging in a Senate floor debate with him and saying that some parts of the plan were interesting, though he felt the time was not right. At this point, both the summit and the concept that you deal with future terrorist problems via an over the horizon strike force consisting a special forces have won increasing favor - though usually without mentioning John Kerry.

I think the reaction you are getting may stem from one line in Clark's op-ed where he rejects both "cut and run" and "stay the course". The problem is that this is a fake straw man. Almost everyone has rejected both of these extremes. You were contrasting Clark's entire description of his plan to "Kerry has a timeline" ignoring that he had a rich detailed plan that he (and Feingold) wrote up as legislation.

It is fair to debate whether a deadline could be an effective lever to generate movement. Kerry argues that it can; Clark argues that it is not helpful. Behind this disagreement, there is likely more agreement than disagreement on other points. The problem that I had was that saying "Kerry is wrong" is pretty extreme when the key difference is whether or not there is a deadline, without noting that Clark's call for a regional summit is in agreement with Kerry's amendment. It ignores the areas of agreement and concentrates on one difference and Clark's full plan is contrasted to one element of Kerry's.

I do thank you for posting this editorial. It was interesting and shows he has moved to some degree since his NYT editorial from earlier this year. I hadn't commented earlier, because I thought the list of everyone else as "wrong" was (hopefully unitentionally) designed to lead to fights rather than any discussion of pluses and minuses of various approaches.

[Clarkie1]

20. I still do not think Kerry and others are seeing the magnitude of the regional problem.

I do understand Kerry was calling for regional diplomacy, but his call for that was contradicted by other elements of the proposal which would by their very nature undercut the regional diplomacy.

Kerry is wrong on this one, as are the other 13 senators who voted for the proposal to enact a deadline. I don't think there is any way to nuance that fact. It's not about the Iraqis "responding"; it's about working the region and finding a political solution.

It's not about Iraq, it's about the whole region. I still don't think Kerry and many others get that entirely as evidenced by their proposals. I hope Kerry moves towards suggesting (which is all we can do at this point) a better and less contradictory approach in the future. That would mean he would have to put his own political considerations aside, but frankly I'm not sure Kerry is up to that task. I hope he is. Democrats need all the responsible leadership they can muster.

[ProSense]

21. Well, General Odom doesn't share Clark's view

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2980222&mesg_id=2980222

Is he missing the "magnitude of the regional problem."?

Also, Kerry’s expertise—his knowledge of the region, his understanding of America's reliance on oil, his experience during the Vietnam war, his prosecution of the BCCI case and knowledge of how terrorists operate, his respect for people and cultures—points to exactly why his plan addresses all these difficult realities so well.

[Clarkie1]

22. I don't agree with General Odom. As for Kerry, I think he sees too much of Vietnam in this.

It's a completely different dynamic over there, and a far bigger problem and potential catastrophe than simply the fall of one country to a group we don't like. Comparisons to Vietnam are not valid beyond the point that this is a war that did not have to be fought. At this point, Iraq is not a war, it's a poltical problem in which our troops are put in danger everyday.

Kerry has that kind of expertise you point out, but my sense is he is using it with domestic poltical considerations for his own well-being in mind. Well, have a good day. I'm off now.

[karynnj]

34. That is beyond the pale

You say:
"Kerry has that kind of expertise you point out, but my sense is he is using it with domestic poltical considerations for his own well-being in mind. "

I have NO problem with you questioning Kerry's policy and disagreeing with it. What is NOT OK is when you question Kerry's motivation. Did you see Kerry's spontaneous reaction to Senator Allard saying precisely that? Kerry was more emotional and angrier in that off the cuff speech than anytime I have ever seen him. Did you listen to him speak of half the deaths in Vietnam being after we knew the policy wasn't working? That this was a Senate speech seen by a small group of CSPAN viewers tells you that this was not an act.

Go watch Kerry's speech called Dissent (or the one called Real Security). This is very very close to his soul and heart. This is NOT politics for Senator Kerry - and never was. (Consider that as a 27 year old, he answered Morey Safer's question on whether he wanted to be President saying that doing what he thought had to be done because of the war might make that impossible - but they were important to do.)

[karynnj]

41. Your last paragraph effectively says

1) Anyone who has the slightest difference from wht Clark proposes doesn't get it. Kerry clearly gets regional diplomacy.

2)Kerry's proposal is "contradictory" because it is not Clark's - I fail to see a contradiction.

3) If any one disagrees with Clark, they are doing it for political reasons! THIS IS ONE OF AT LEAST 2 POSTS WHERE YOU QUESTION KERRY'S MOTIVATION I don't see a single Kerry supporter questioning Clark's. If you can't get that this is NOT political for Kerry, but something far deeper - the problem is IN YOU not the Senator.

[FrenchieCat]

15. K&R

:kick:

[Raiden]

23. This is why I support Wes Clark!

He can actually analyze a foreign policy issue intelligently and rationally; he also has domestic policy covered! He's the perfect candidate.

I really appreciate the fact that, unlike Bush, he is actively seeking to use diplomacy to settle this crisis. After six years of the Bush Doctrine, we sure could use some diplomacy around the world.


Wes, we need you in 2008! :kick:

[civildisoBDence]

48. Clark is head and shoulders above Kerry

Kerry is toast. Forget him.

Newsprism

[joefree1]

24. But can America have a smart President?

Sure hope so. Clark has my vote and my cash when he decides to run.

[LWolf]

25. Does the administration have courage or foresight?

That's a joke, right?

I do not agree with what I am reading here. It sounds much like what we've already done, that didn't work. Stay in Iraq, build a coalition, etc..

I do not agree that "American voters have sent a clear message: Bring our troops home, but don't lose." I think it's clear that we lost a long time ago. That there is no "winning" here. I don't think the American addiction to winning applies here; war is not a sport, we are not a team, and nationalism benefits no one.

A division of Iraq would lead to ethnic cleansing? I don't see the logic in that particular prediction.

"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."

This is an interesting statement. Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy of criticizing Iran's "hegemonic aspirations?" At least there is some honesty in pointing out that the U.S. is there in the middle east to ensure access to oil resources. Do we have a right to that access? Do we have a right to dictate what happens to Iraq's oil?

I could go on, but won't. I am not inspired by these statements, to say the least. I will at least agree that Hillary, Kerry, and Biden don't have better plans.

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. Repeat: "oil revenue would go to the Iraqi people based on a formula they determine"

You ask: "Do we have a right to dictate what happens to Iraq's oil?"

But Clark already answered your question. It's right there in his statement if you read it.

[LWolf]

32. I read it.

I just included some of the other stuff that went with that snip, that indicated to me that the U.S. might retain some control.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Too late Wes. The Iraqis, Syrians, and Iranians are meeting without us.

America is becoming less and less relevant except as a common enemy.

Funny how all these grand "planners" never seem to include the Iraqi people in their planning.

[karynnj]

36. Senator Kerry included them as the core of the group in a summit

and he has for years.

[leftofthedial]

27. Clark is wrong

we need to leave

immediately

His approach, once you parse the rhetoric, is basically identical to george bush's "stay the course," with the welcome exception that he actually wants to try diplomacy while we are waiting, dying and flushing billions of dollars a week down the toilet.

His plan to not "cut and run," not establish a timeline, not "lose," and not leave a "power vacuum" until we solve all the political problems in the middle east is pie in the sky, especially when one recognizes that our presence there is the source and/or the catalyst for many of those political problems. Various colonial and neocolonial powers since Xerxes have tried to achieve political solutions to the ethnic, tribal and religious violence in that region. After 3000 years now of one occupier after another pursuing diplomatic solutions, every one of them has either failed outright or made things worse. His "redeployment" will have our troops illegally occupying a country indefinitely--a country where we are a major part of the problem, we are hated and most people want us to leave.

He's doing a good job at challenging the bushies and pointing out their failures, but I can not support his solution.

[FrenchieCat]

28. we know that you don't support Clark since you posted that as your headline

yesterday after listening to an interview on Ed's show and discussed without ever posting the interview, and like another similar poster, basically attributed words to him that he did not say.

You say in your latest post here that Clark's plan cannot solve anything....yet you don't really say why, other than it can't do it. If you want to have a discussion, you need to be a bit more articulate and clear as to why you don't think talking to regional leaders can be done for starters. Start there, and work your way through the plan suggesting and source your information as to why it is all impossible. Further, Clark's plan looks nothing like Bush's stay the course. I'm not even sure where you get that from, since you don't say.

You're doing what appears to be challenging Clark's plan and pointing out that it is impossible for it to work, but you really don't have any susbtance in your post that actually backs up what you are saying.

[Clarkie1]

29. The idea of "leaving immediately" coming from the far-left

is as loony as the neo-con dreams of the far-right.

Both courses of action, if followed to their conclusion, will lead over the precipice. There is a better way. Let's hope saner minds prevail

[ProSense]

30. "Leaving our troops in the middle of a civil war isn't resolute; it's reckless."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2981754&mesg_id=2981754

[Strelnikov_]

37. Clark Says Redeploy. Kerry says Redeploy.

"Redeploy troops from Iraq -- maintain training forces and an over the horizon capacity."

Doesn't sound like either is talking about leaving altogether. Simply redeploying, probably back to Kuwait and the Kurdish zone, where we should have remained.

Before the invasion, I argued to the local Freeper coven that if we wanted to pressure Hussein, further contain him, and go after the AQ affiliated group in Iraq, we should just stay in Kuwait and deploy a force into the Kurdish zone in the north.

Looks like we are now going to do that. But only after we have destabilized the region. The region containing 80% of the worlds remaining energetically viable petroleum resources.

[karynnj]

43. Kerry is not speaking of taking all the troops and putting them elsewhere in the ME

This was in fact one major difference between Kerry and Murtha initially. (I don't know Clark's view)

[Clarkie1]

42. I agree. That would be reckless. nt

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[ShaneGR]

38. The main problems with the argument, and its a good one...

Don't get me wrong, I think he's making some great points. Particularly that immediate timetables are a bad idea and racial seperation of the country invites ethnic cleansing. But, in essence he's asking us to increase diplomatic activity with the following immediate neighbors of Iraq:

The Good:

Saudi Arabia
Kuwait
Jordan

The angry:

Turkey

The Militaristic:

Iran
Syria

All of those countries share a border with Iraq. While Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan would most likely work with us. The other three, including Turkey, present significant diplomatic problems for us. The Turks will most likely call for immediate limitations on the Kurdish north of Iraq, limitations that the Kurds will fight tooth and nail to stop. When I say tooth and nail, I mean AK-47 in your face and go away before we kill you kind of thing. The Iranians and Syrians are actually secular enemies. Syria being a Sunni state and Iran being Shi'ite. Good luck getting them to agree on anything with each other, let alone with us. And that's not even including Iran's nuclear ambitions, terrorist financial backing, and religious wacko of a President.

So, basically you need like a super diplomat, as Clark says someone everyone in the region knows and respects, and I'd guess that would have to be an American to lead it all. But who? Clark himself? He's well known, but not there. I just reread what I wrote, anyone think he's nominating himself for the job? Hard to tell. Colin Powell? Definitely not, his reputation is tarnished after that UN speech. James Baker? Maybe. What about GHW Bush 41? Clinton? Who?

It's a good start, but it's not really a plan, other than a really general one.

[mzmolly]

39. Sounds a bit like Murtha's plan as well.

Good going General!

[anitar1]

40. As our soldiers continue to die

while "diplomacy " is being pursued. I don't think so. I like the way everyone appears to waffle on bringing the forces HOME. Obviously , none of them see these soldiers as living,breathing flesh. Flesh is vulnerable to bombs, bullets ect. These soldiers are not numbers. They are people.Thousands of lives have been destroyed because hideous wounds have been suffered by the troops. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people are dead. Families are destroyed. The country has been totally destroyed except for the oil wells. How many years before those ordinary people will see a stable country. Never.imo. No, Mr. Clark, Bring 'em home now.Then you diplomatic folks can run your lips all you want to.

[Clarkie1]

44. Bringing all our troops home now would ensure that Iraq becomes a bloodbath

beyond imagining, and probably the entire regiion as well. Not even Kerry and other adherents of timelines are proposing that. We need to take the moral high ground by equally valuing all life, not only American life. We have that responsibility because we are the ones who started this conflict.

The goal is to bring what stability is possible by pulling our of Iraq in the best possible way. Stablity means less killing, so we share the same goal.

[Martin Eden]

45. "United States ... as regional security guarantor"

Regional dialogue needed

A permanent Gulf regional security dialogue could emerge that includes Syria and Iran, and the United States could undertake a role as regional security guarantor. Preliminary discussions should lead to a more intensive dialogue with Iran in which security assurances and nuclear programs are discussed.

In terms of diplomacy, our team would engage each state and party, solicit its views and challenge it to participate in moving forward, just as U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke did in the Balkans a decade ago. Next steps might include confidence-building measures, hosted discussions between factions, and perhaps one or more larger meetings to conclude firm commitments, timetables or sequence of events.

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.

Reaching an understanding on Iraq need not be a lengthy process, but the dialogue must be broadened in scope and participation to be effective. The aim would be a consensual solution underwritten by outside guarantors, not an imposed solution. And finally, military power would have a subordinated and supporting role.

I like the good General, but I think he's dreaming if he thinks Iran and Syria will cooperate with a plan that entails an indefinite US military presence in Iraq conversant with "our larger interests." We are no longer dealing from a position of strength regarding the prospects for our long term presence in Iraq. Iran has its own interests in Iraq that do not coincide with our own. The idea that Iran -- after being labeled part of an "Axis of Evil" and with a quarter century of animosity between our countries exacerbated in the last few years -- will agree to such a plan, defies credibility.

[Clarkie1]

46. Of course, there are no guarantees. But we have to try. nt

[Martin Eden]

49. Still, NO REAL EXIT

I agree with Clark that we must pursue diplomacy, including negotiations with Iran and Syria. We should engage Iraq's neighbors and other nations that have influence in Iraq and/or a stake in the outcome. Failure to do so is to ignore reality. We also need dialogue with the Sunni insurgency. I say this because an attempt must be made to avoid a bloody catastrophe in the wake of our departure.

However, I think reality also dictates that this conflict will not end as long as the US military is the "guarantor" of Iraq's security. I think Clark and the vast majority of those in our government still envision a US military presence somewhere in the country (definitely within the Green Zone) for the foreseeable future. Even if our troops are no longer patrolling the streets or directly engaging insurgents, such a presence would likely continue to stoke the insurgency and attract foreign jihadists.

Despite the public clamor to get our troops out of there, a COMPLETE withdrawal of the US military is currently seen as an option by very few in our foreign policy establishment (including elected representatives and out-of-office professionals like Clark). The geostrategic importance of Iraq is still seen as too important to abandon our influence there in the face of Iran and other perceived threats to our national interests.

A fundamental change in US forein policy and the post-WWII role of our military would be required to alter the paradigm that we need to be the "guarantor" of security beyond our own shores. Frankly, I don't see this happening. I can see the situation Iraq and public support for our presence there eventually deteriorating to the point where every last vestige of our military is withdrawn from that unfortunate country, but we are a long way from changing the ingrained mindset that has our military enforcing our "interests" around the globe.

[Javaman]

47. I love is plan but there is one thing wrong with it...

Trying to find that "repected diplomat" that represents us. Because in order to do that, we have to have someone other than moron* pick that person. Because, so far, anyone that moron* has put out there, only pisses people off in that part of the world that much more. :(

[Catchawave]

50. The right approach ?

How does one know for sure what the right approach is without privvy to all the intelligence?

I'm a military wife, and Clark sometimes loses me in the rhetoric of military jargon...a-roo-gah :) I'm sure I agree with him as I'm as hungry for the right approach as any DUer !

Jim Webb speaks for me on this issue:

http://www.webbforsenate.com/issues/issues.php