General Clark did not say a timeline is folly.

[Clarkie1]

I said that. A poster here on DU has carelessly used my words from a post regarding Clark's appearance today on Air America radio, and attributed my words to Clark.

Here is what Clark said regarding timetables in a U.S.A. Today editorial published today detailing what he would do now if he were President. The full text of the article (which involves much, much more than an artificial timeline) can be read in it's entirety at the link below.

"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."

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

To put things in context, here is the text of the beginning of Clark's editorial:

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

[FrenchieCat]

1. 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.

That poster didn't understand this complexity....which is clearly there.

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/postelection_ap_poll
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.

[Clarkie1]

2. Good points. nt

[FrenchieCat]

3. Yep....but the "Folly" thing has been posted not only here a few times,

in different ways but also at GDp.

Swiftboating must be hard work! :(

[FrenchieCat]

4. Have to K&R in order to keep this even with the exaggerated

version.

[izzie]

5. I frankly do not think Iraq has much to do with our terrorism.

It is in the mind and that is like herding cats as they say. All countries have killed terrorist for the last 100 years but their ideas live on. Lenin even took over the country he was after and this was after the Czar killed his brother. When people have no power and go after it with terror seems to have been with us for ever and I am sure it will always be so. They of course use the times they live in in how they act. That bombs have replaced a knife should not be a shock. We should leave Iraq to them self I think. We are doing not one thing for that country or for the world or the USA. Their way of believing will have to be set by them self and if they blow each other up I feel it is shame. But we do not seem to be doing a thing to stop it and seem to be adding to it or it was not so bad before we got into it. Our own history of different parts of Christian beliefs should tell us we can not fix their in-fighting on their beliefs. Just a thought on getting out and staying out of others countries.

[Clarkie1]

6. kick. nt