Poll: Do agree or disagree with these 12 goals for Iraq and the Middle East?

[Clarkie1]

Clark's goals in USA Today OP-ED published today:

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

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

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

4. Iraq would remain whole; oil revenue would go to the Iraqi people based on a formula they determine

5. The rights and security of individuals must be protected

6. The United States would have no permanent bases in Iraq

7. The covert flow of military arms and equipment into Iraq would be halted

8. The security needs of all states will be respected

9. confidence-building measures, hosted discussions between factions, and perhaps one or more larger meetings to conclude firm commitments, timetables or sequence of events.

10. A consensual solution underwritten by outside guarantors, not an imposed solution

11. Military power will have a subordinated and supporting role

12. Last but not least: Ultimately, security in the Gulf and winning against al-Qaeda will require that we work with regional powers, promote stability and gradual transformation, and regain "strategic consent" for long-term U.S. assistance in the region. We must use the situation in Iraq to propel us toward this larger goal, and in doing so, we will also find the right way to wind down our deployment there.

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

[madmunchie]

1. I don't know enough about the situation to agree with all of the goals

but they all sound good to me.

[mike_c]

2. ALL of these goals are dependent upon U.S. hegemony in the ME....

...so they're all fundamentally imperialist. Why not let Iraqis set and achieve their own goals?

[Clarkie1]

9. Letting Iraqis achieve their own goals is the goal.

Would you prefer Syria and Iran decide for them?

[mike_c]

14. yes, frankly....

Although I think that is pretty simplistic. Do you mean to suggest that Iran and Syria will replace the U.S. as occupiers? If so, then I don't think that is very likely at all. If they assist Iraq diplomatically then they will be doing much better for Iraq than the U.S. is.

[Clarkie1]

18. Iran is already occupying parts of Iraq in a sense.

There have been reports of them actively aiding Shia terrorists in the South, and sending people to expand their influence there.

[mike_c]

20. yes, they are ALLIES, not OCCUPIERS....

There is a difference you know.

[Clarkie1]

21. Uh...tell that to the people killed by the death squads.

"Sorry we had to chop your head off, we are your Shia allies. This is the part of your country where all the oil is, right?"

[mike_c]

26. that is, unfortunately, precisely the situation that the U.S. occupation...

...has created. Recall that that sort of sectarian violence did not occur before March 2003. That is a situation that Americans have created by invading and occupying Iraq. Any solution will require first removing the cause of the problem-- Americans and their enablers.

[Clarkie1]

28. Your fist assertion is correct, your second is not.

The cause of the sectarian violence in Iraq today is not caused solely by the American forces there...that was just what ignited it by diposing Sadaam and creatingn a power vacuum (of course, there was state-run sectarian violence under Saddam, but that is beside the poiint.) The sectarian violence is being actively fueled by Iran, and an immediate withdrawl now would most likely lead to an excalation of the sectarian violence.

[mike_c]

35. I did not say that sectarian violence is CAUSED by the occupation....

I said that the occupation CREATED the current situation. It simply did not exist prior to the invasion, and if the violence was caused by a power vacuum, as you suggest, then how did a power vacuum arise in a country under occupation lockdown? Power vacuums occur when there is no authority-- are not the occupation forces, and the CPA before them (and to some extent the al-Maliki government), the authorities in Iraq? If they are not, then even that aspect of the occupation has failed-- and that is precisely what I think has happened. So what can be gained by continuing it? In that regard I think folks like John McCain are partly correct-- if the U.S. is going to exert authority in Iraq it will need overwhelming force to do it-- but of course my position is just the opposite, that since we cannot achieve any good outcome without overwhelming military violence, we should fold our tents and leave the field before we foul things up even further.

[Clarkie1]

38. You still seeing the problem as an Iraqi problem. It's a regional problem.

It can't be approached simply by what we do with the troops in Iraq. There are other foreign powers at work in Iraq even today.

[Clarkie1]

3. Who voted for the pemanent bases in Iraq and oil revenue not going to the Iraqis?

I doubt they even read the goals.

[mike_c]

6. I did-- and I assure you that I read them....

The underlying assumption of ALL those goals is that it is up to the U.S. to decide the fate of Iraqi resources, property, laws, government, diplomacy, and the future of their nation. That is imperialism, plainly and simply. The U.S. should end all occupation and terminate any contracts that exploit Iraaqi resources-- that takes care of those "goals" handily by simply putting them back into Iraqi hands where Iraqis-- not the United States-- will determine their future disposition.

[Clarkie1]

7. Except it won't be Iraqis determining their own future.

It will be Syria and Iran.

[mike_c]

12. don't you think at this point that they are more deserving of that role...

...than the United States?

[FrenchieCat]

24. Its not about who deserves what.....as we didn't deserve to go into

Iraq in the first place, and yet we are there. It's about what is realistic based on how the United States has always worked, and based on who is currently leading the United States. At this point considering the damage that we've caused, we need a Marshall Plan pronto! Asking question such as the one you pose doesn't help the Iraqis cause one bit.....cause it ain't gonna happen that way, period.

[mike_c]

29. it won't happen as long as people within the "opposition party..."

...advocate staying in Iraq for any reason whatsoever. There are no good goals to achieve there. If it is right to be out in six months or a year then it's right to be out tomorrow, and we can skip another year of war crimes and death.

on edit-- think of it this way-- if we had decided to withdraw in a year a year ago, we'd be withdrawing today. How would that differ from deciding today to withdraw tomorrow?

[FrenchieCat]

33. A year ago, Democrats didn't control congress, and the polls hadn't

turned quite as they have, and the shit hadn't hit the fan quite as squarely as it is now. So the hyphothetical suggestion you are offering is of no use.

[Clarkie1]

30. Absolutely. We are in agreement there.

I don't want to see any foreign power determining Iraq's future, do you?

[CarolNYC]

25. So you are saying then that we should have permanent bases...

in Iraq? Because one of the goals you disagree with is that we don't have permanent military bases there....

Or you're saying that we should have permanent military bases there if the Iraqis say they want us to?

Or....what exactly?

[mike_c]

31. did you read my comments...?

If you did, you'd know that I do not want ANY U.S. presence in Iraq, period.

[CarolNYC]

34. Yep, this is what I thought you said...yet...

you also say you disagree with this goal (as you say you disagree with ALL of the goals listed and this is one of them):

"6. The United States would have no permanent bases in Iraq"

You don't see where that might cause confusion?

[mike_c]

36. I don't disgree with that goal-- I disagree with the underlying assumption...

...that this is something it should be up to the United States to decide. The Iraqis have already made it clear that they oppose a permanent U.S. occupation, so it is arrogant for the U.S. to even discuss the matter further. We should simply leave.

[CarolNYC]

37. Oh, OK.

So then, you don't disagree with that goal....Cool.

[ProSense]

4. What about: Bring our troops home, but don't lose? n/t

[Clarkie1]

5. Bingo! That's what it's all about! Now let's discuss what it means not to "lose"...

There will be no U.S.-style Democracy in Iraq. That is not what "not losing" means in Clark's mind. The goal of the administration will never be achieved; it can't be.

Not losing means...and I am speaking in very general terms here...bringing our troops home as soon as possible while at the same time bringing as much stability as possible to the region so we can more effectively fight terrorism, assist Afghanistan, etc.

That's what Clark means when he says "failure is not an option." He's not talking about a Democratic Iraq like we think of Democracy, he's talking about a D or C- solution (he has used these very terms) as opposed to an F.

[dmosh42]

8. Agree with most of them!

But I think we would need the words 'try to' because these other neighbors can be pretty uncooperative. But I do believe he has the clearest vision on this and it would be ok if he leads us to exit land.

[Clarkie1]

11. He also said "there are no guarantees," if you read the whole OP-Ed.

But we have to try. It would be irresponsible not to.

[mike_c]

10. you want to believe that the "war on terrorism" is real...

...but it isn't. It is a sham. If Clark believes it's real then he is terribly naive-- if he doesn't, then he is complicit in duping the nation. We can never "effectively fight terrorism." One cannot make inroads against terrorism by fighting at all-- terrorism is an emergent property of exploitative, greedy, and oppressive foreign policy. It follows naturally from U.S. support for regimes that brutalize their own people in return for corporate profits and political advantage. The War On Terrorism is a sham. It is a code word for Perpetual War for Perpetual Profits.

[Clarkie1]

13. Clark has spoken often and well on the need to address the root causes of terrorism.

The root causes are of course poverty and oppression fueld by religious fanaticism. Address the poverty and oppression, and the fanaticism has less power.

I remember him saying some time ago something to the effect of, "We can have a war with the whole Muslim world, but it doesn't have to be that way."

It all starts with talking those those we may disagree with, that's the key. We need to stop making those who may be different from ourselves out as something less than human, that's the only way the human race can survive.

You made some good points, thanks for your post!

[FrenchieCat]

19. Unfortunately my friend, the War on Terror is real in the sense that

9/11 did happen, regardless of how. You can call it something other than a "War on Terror" if it makes you feel better, but the bottomline is if you decide to take a trip to the Middle East, please don't go just wandering around singing ladida, as you may not make it back.

In fact, come to think of it, you are so far from the reality that exists in the mind of most Americans that it ain't even funny. It's about perceived reality that counts, and the War on terror is very real to the overwhelming majority. And here you are calling Wes Clark naive? so I would gather that each and everyone of our politicians are just that , as you would have it...and you are wise beyond anyone's expectations! Plu-Eaze!

[mike_c]

23. ahh, who else do we know who invokes 9/11 to justify U.S. "force projection"

...throughout the world? And if, as you say, "it is all about perceived reality" rather than the truth, America is already lost because if that is so then any skilled propagandist can talk Americans into giving away even their most essential liberties out of fear of "terrorists." Oh wait....

[FrenchieCat]

27. It's not about that at this point......get real and stop attempting to

muddle what our reality is at this point.

Ain't no one gonna rename the War on Terror.....Those who chose the name are still in the Executive office.....and all of the politicians have called it that.

Rent an Island...cause it sounds that you would prefer to remake your world using your labels which is not gonna happen here; not in this century, anyways.

[mike_c]

32. you're right-- I do like to think I'm not just one of the herd....

BTW, do you know what the blue marks on their backs mean?

[ProSense]

16. Reality:

Iraq: over 3,700 civilians killed in October in new monthly high, UN reports

IRAQ TO AMERICA: GET OUT....

Retired Generals on the broken army and illusions of the Iraq war

Civil war, anti-American sentiment, broken army and denial!

[Clarkie1]

17. I won't argue with the reality in Iraq today.

I assure you Clark understands that reality very well. Our time for saving this from an F is extremely limited.

[FrenchieCat]

22. and you are saying what, exactly?

that we should get out when? When Kerry says we should. That would be July 2007, wouldn't it? Is that what "Get out" means? Retired Generals discussing our overstretched army has nothing to do with what Wes Clark is advocating which is a diplomatic solution.

[FrenchieCat]

15. That shouldn't be a goal?

Should we be so pessimistic to the extent of not even attempting to "think" of best solution scenarios....should we really only be coming up with the worst? Wow....now that's depressing!

Guess if I get Cancer, rather than attempting to study up on various treatments that might help me, it would be better if I just laid down and died? That mentality is a killer!

[Clarkie1]

39. Kick for the evening crowd. nt