Wes Clark answered bloggers questions today...here is what he said.

[Clarkie1]

I am against a war cabinet #47923
Posted by Wes Clark on December 7, 2005 - 3:05pm.
I am against a war cabinet at this time. A war cabinet might be important when the country is in danger of being overrun or invaded, like Britain in 1940. But it would mean a lack administration, Congress, courts, and MSM if we were to do one now. And what for? So the Administration doesn't have to defend its approach to national security? So people can be kidnapped and tortured without any oversight? Or our troops can be left without adequte guidance?

A war cabinet would suggest that democratic dialogue and dissent would give comfort to the enemy. I don't believe that. And I'm sure most of us don't.

We have the equivalent of a #47929
Posted by Wes Clark on December 7, 2005 - 3:08pm.
We have the equivalent of a Marshall Plan now, in terms of resources. But if we could bring the Iraqis togther, they would have enough in oil revenues to be able to handle their development or redevelopment.

I have spoken to Congressman Murtha #47939
Posted by Wes Clark on December 7, 2005 - 3:13pm.
I have spoken to Congressman Murtha a couple of times since his return, and I don't doubt his sincerity or the accuracy of his recounting the assessments he heard. That"s why I'm trying to change the strategy. But the troops aren't the best source of advice on how to set a strategy - they are the best source of insight on how the current strategy is going. So, the queston is, is it too late? I don't think so, as I explained yesterday.

But if we keep on like we're going, doing the Iranians work inside Iraq, then, yes, we'll hit brick wall with the political changes, and we'll either lose all influence or be asked to leave.

our leverage is our military #47941
Posted by Wes Clark on December 7, 2005 - 3:17pm.
Our leverage is our military and economic commitment to Iraq. That's why we must not set artificial timelines that reflect American impatience or domestic politics.

The Bush Administration is well aware of Iran, of course, but they haven't quite figured out how to address the issues I'm raising without triggering massive Shia unrest, inspired by who? Why, Iran, of course. And that's why the strategy must be changed promptly, before we lose our remaining leverage. As soon as we complete the work against the Sunnis, or the Shiites think that we have, or turn it all over to the Shiite dominated Iraqi military, then our usefulness will have greatly diminished, and with it our leverage

Thanks. But remember, no #47945
Posted by Wes Clark on December 7, 2005 - 3:19pm.
Thanks. But remember, no one is ever right all the time. This is like playing chess and trying to be several moves ahead. You soak up the facts, use your intuition, and pray.

Democrats in office are driven by the politics of Iraq. #47961
Posted by Wes Clark on December 7, 2005 - 3:26pm.
Democrats in office are driven by the politics of Iraq. But what we all need to realize is that the American people don't want to see us lose. If the Democrats make a big play on the need for a pullout, and things go wrong in the current strategy, as they almost certainly will, then where will the Dems be? They'll be blamed. Look, Bush made the war a matter of domestic politics. He and his company have consistently trashed opponents and tried to stifle criticism. It was a mistake. Let's don't compound it by going partisan ourselves. We MUST succeed in this mission. I've sketched out elsewhere the dire consequences of a premature pull-out.

I've spent a lot of time talking to Democrats, but I am not in office. They have to concern themselves with winning reelecton. I am giving them my best advice. I hope they'll be able to use it somehow.

As for containing an Iranian oriented Iraq, I think that's a lesser problem right now, and will have to be dealt with later. Of more concern is the Iranian move to get nuclear weapons. At some point the Adiministration is going to have to consider ALL options, and the military option is being made more difficult by the current strategy in Iraq. I don't want to say more.

As for the window of oppportunity, I explained this yesterday - someone will get you to my post - but don't draw any hard timelines. Look, if we switch the strategy to what I'm suggesting, we might achieve substantial drawdowns relatively soon....but it must be driven by events on the ground, not domestic political considerations.

Yes, I am prohibited by #47964
Posted by Wes Clark on December 7, 2005 - 3:28pm.
Yes, I am prohibited by contract from being on MSNBC or CNN.

We have three interests in #47968
Posted by Wes Clark on December 7, 2005 - 3:32pm.
We have three interests in Iraq: preventing a "terrorist " claim of victory there, leaving behind a stable, integral and peaceful Iraq which doesn't threaten its neighbors, and dealing with other regional problems like Iran and Syria. A hasty pullout certainly will be cited by the terorists as a sign of their success. It will demoralize our friends and supercharge their recruiting. My OP-ED yesterday addresses the second interest. On the third, we need strength to deal with Syria and Iran. A pullout driven by cries of woe and partisanship at home just makes us weaker.

What I tried to say yesterday was that against the Sunnis we should be content to aim for reassimilation into society, rather than just killing them. If we continue to try to kill them we just make more enemies....

Yes, the whole world has a #47970
Posted by Wes Clark on December 7, 2005 - 3:34pm.
Yes, the whole world has a stake in the outcome. But utimately, oil can be bought. It isn't about conquering territories. So the Europeans want to hang back a little..they will help if we work to create the right framework of diplomacy...

Gloria, let's get right into the substance #47992
Posted by Wes Clark on December 7, 2005 - 3:54pm.
Gloria, let's get right into the substance. There are always people who don't do their homework and want to label people. I recall during the campaign that it was Lieberman calling me Bush light. Don't worry about it. It's not about who you're with, It's about the right thing to do. And I hope Bush will use what I said.

The ANSWER: a withdrawal now #47995
Posted by Wes Clark on December 7, 2005 - 3:58pm.
The ANSWER: a withdrawal now would constitute a monumental failure for the United States. It would aid terrorists, undercut our friends, make it more difficult to deal with North Korea and Iran, and ultimately even impact us economically. It would be a mistake. The trick is to get the strategy right!

Fred, this isn't Vietnam, #48001
Posted by Wes Clark on December 7, 2005 - 4:01pm.
Fred, this isn't Vietnam, every case is always different. I do believe if we follow the ideas I sketched out that we can avert a civil war and avoid an American defeat. Vietnam was a defeat. We shouldn't forget that. I was a Captain at Fort Leavenworth when Saigon fell, I was with a class of 1200 officers. The Vietnamese officers immediately left to become waiters in local restaruants, for they had no money. The Cambodian officers went home, and were later killed, I heard, and as for the Americans - well, we cried. It had been long and hard, and futile ultimately.

I can talk for a long time about why we failed. It wasn't inevitable. It really wasn't. Read the new book, Mao, the Unknown Story, for a different take.

Thanks #48015
Posted by Wes Clark on December 7, 2005 - 4:13pm.
Thanks for all the great questions. I will be in touch soon.
Best,
Wes

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/2934?from=0&comments_per_page=50

[Gloria]

1. Thanks, Clarkie1, for posting.......

He answered my question!!!

Like yesterday, I'm also compiling this as a document for future reference....and for passing around to augment the op ed....

[Clarkie1]

2. Cool.

I think perhaps I will post a question if I can think of a good one that hasn't been covered yet.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Get a clue Wes. The war is lost.

Generals and politicians. Admitting the obvious is beyond their capabilities.

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

4. don't confine your thinking to a 'cosmological constant," Einstein

I wouldn't confine your thinking to a 'cosmological constant," Einstein, ... remember a static mind may just be a major blunder, if you don't expand 'unt the possibilities of a bigger universe of realities,....yah.

[Clarkie1]

5. Define "lost."

Edit: specifically, please define your criteria for "lost" in relation to attempts to influence the outcome for the benefit of the Iraq people, regional stability, etc.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. The war was lost when the first GI crossed the border.

It has accomplished exactly nothing but to fatten the wallets of the miltiary industrial complex and give the politicians a false veneer of toughness.

It has alienated the people of the Middle East and most of the world (rightfully) against the United States.

It has been of no benefit to the Iraqi people - except the gravediggers and the capitalists.

It has displayed the downright incompetance of our bloated military and shown that "the world's mightiest military" can be beaten.

Our "influence" in the Middle East has diminished to that of a wannabee crusader/colonialist that has overreached it's ability to be either.

The staggering cost of the war has, and still is, bankrupting the people of this nation in terms of infrastructure and basic quality of life.

We can now count our "friends and allies" on the fingers of one hand and have fingers left over.

By any measurement. We lost. The longer we stay and contribute to the chaos we subjected the Iraqi people to, the worse the loss will be.

If General Wes can't see that, then he is a fool. (A not uncommon failing of military brass and a given in politicians).

[1932]

12. I second that.

Iraq reminds me of the end of Fargo.

Her mute and motionless prisoner in the back seat is Gridsum, who displays no reaction to Marge's emotional contemplations about the entire fiasco. Uncomprehending and truly perplexed, she lectures him and scoffs at the kidnappers' senseless and greedy motivations that would lead to violence and murder:

"So that was Mrs. Lundegaard on the floor in there. And I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper. And those three people in Brainerd. And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know.

She passes the silent Paul Bunyan statue on the outskirts of Brainerd.

"Don't you know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well, I just don't understand it."


On Edit: Another reason there's no winning in Iraq is that success would be a failure. If the US proves that it can invade a country based on pretext and then make a success of it, many many countries will NOT be saying, 'boy, can't wait for the US to invade us!!!!" They'll be upping the ante to an incredibly deadly level. They'll try much much harder than 9/11 to knock us off. We'll do more for global stability if we prove that we do not want to be and are not campable of being ANY kind of empire -- virtual or military.

[loyalsister]

14. Exactly

He is still too much on board. Anyone who talks about this in any context of "winning" is clueless despite their military wisdom.
They have it all ass backwards. I have heard it straight from Muslims who live in my city. We keep fighting this war in Iraq as if it is our war pretending WE can "win" and we piss the entire ME off more and more and give more and more people reason to believe we just disrespect and hate them.
As we demand separation of church and state and women's rights the intensity of the hate just multiplies.
And one politician after another sits over here argueing that if we stop doing that and leave, there will be more terrorism.
This is a cultural issue. It has gotten lost in the military strategy. The truth are there are a lot of people out there who think we have a culturally antagonistic\racist agenda.
There is no agressive military strategy that can solve that problem.
It's time for serious no gun diplomacy.

[1932]

15. I don't think it is primarily cultural. I think that, like most imperial

interventions, it's about money and power. It's about people getting rich off Iraq and whether they're Iraqis or Americans. And like most interventions of the last two centuries, there's a strong racial component.

If the US were an islamic country and still behaved the same way, developing countries would still hate us for extracting so much of their wealth and using it to polarize the powerful and the powerless..

[loyalsister]

28. You clearly missed my point

It was that even when less imperialistic heads are considering the issue there is no respect offered for the Middle Eastern culture.
The arguement is that if we allow them to form their government the way they want, it will become a hotbed of terrorism. So, we are there muddling through and disrespecting people who have a long history and culture that we don't relate to very well.
And don't forget, this is like the birthplace of civilization. Although, that has been long forgotten with the loss of the documentation.
There is so much more than simple imperialism at work here.

[1932]

33. My point was that I think cultural insensitivity is one of many parts

that make up the complex motivations of imperialism and that greed and power imbalances are as singnificant, if not moreso.

i understand that you feel that imperialism is a subset of cultural insensitivities.

What part do you think greed and power imbalances play? Do you think they there consequential? I feel that they are the root motivations.

[loyalsister]

44. I meant to point out that

Democrats seem to share concerns about greed motives as reflected in their attacks on Halliburton, etc.
Although they have not called attention to it, they did not seem to be equally agressively culpable in the Imperialistic drives as PNAC.
They are however every bit as culturally insensitive as Republicans. And, they don't seem to be willing to admit that we were not just wrong to begin with. We are wrong to impose impose our brand of Democracy on the Iraqi people.
The Dems and Republicans are afraid to admit this because they are afraid of offending Americans!! Their constitution, when their elections happen, etc should not be a political issue in our country. Yet, the parties are allowing it to happen. None of that is our success.
Neither party admits it at the risk of insulting American narcisism and the sensibilities of the true believers in American innocence.

[1932]

47. Yes. I also think it's strange that some Democrats frame withdrawal as

"it's their mess to fix" (so as to imply that they should suffer more, and so be it) rather than "this mess is going to be fixed faster if we get out of there."

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. Bush trumpets "victory" as an option. Bush is firmly in a military model

He still promotes the Iraq invasion as something that will ultimately lead to great things. None of Bush's Democratic critics that I am paying attention to see Iraq that way. Some talk about a possibility of ultimately defeating the insurgency movement, but when they do so it is not focused primarily on military measures, it is about conditions under which the Sunnis would cooperate inside of an Iraqi government rather than attack it from the outside. It was racist in my opinion to invade Iraq. It is not racist to have hope that an internal Iraq arrangement that allowed the various factions to coexist without civil war might still be possible. The major factions inside of Iraq still have some hope for that themselves. That is why negotiations between some Iraq insurgency elements and the interim government there continue. That is why many more Sunnis are leaning toward full participation in the next round of elections there, and why agreements were reached between all major factions (except Al Quada) at the recent Arab League brokered meetings. Hope may be flickering but it is not yet dead.

Bush blathers about "Victory!". All I hope for is a possibility that Iraq may yet avoid a full scale no holds barred civil war with neighboring states intervening directly in the fighting.

[loyalsister]

29. Military model

good choice. Bush may be stuck in it, but why does a general who I would think would know better stay there. This thing has no military model.
Iraq was artificially pasted together in the first place. We took away the only stability, sick and unfortunate as it was, away from them.
There's nothing to win, we just have to figure out how to make it right for the people whose homeland we trashed. It is my belief that we owe them a hell of a lot.
I get annoyed anytime I here any Democrat talking about "winning" or victory or strategy as if any of those things are up to us or part of our future. When really, it's all about politics and the idea that "the "American people" want to win this war."
Screw our credibility. There are people who need an infrastructure.

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. For so long as humanity is deeply flawed

which I figure will certainly take us past my lifetime, there will always be some place for diplomacy inside of military models and for force inside of diplomatic models. There are extreme variations however in how the two are positioned relative to each other, and sometimes the blend advanced is very heavily weighed toward one end or the other. I still believe that Clark is advancing a diplomatic model for Iraq that recognizes, under the current circumstances, a significant ongoing military element, while Bush is stuck on advancing a military model, that invokes diplomacy as little more than a fig leaf.

All of the significant players in and around Iraq now have at least a plan A and plan B. One of those plans will be based on the assumption that the best or only way to advance their aims will be through violence. Circumstances inside of Iraq need to shift sufficiently for the alternate plan or plans to become more viable than ones based on violence. Boiled down to an extremely simplistic level, that means making it more difficult for everyone to achieve their legitimate ends with force, and easier for everyone to achieve their legitimate ends through diplomacy. The devil as they say is always in the details.

I abhor the term "Victory" when applied to Iraq and grimace whenever I hear "Win" used. Positive terms are difficult to apply to a disaster, but some language is needed to differentiate between worst case scenarios and better than worst case scenarios. I think that is what the use of the word "success" relative to Iraq is all about. It is less rah rah than "victory" or "winning". It starts with looking at the situation as it exists now, not prior to the invasion, and it judges what relatively desirable objectives might still be attainable under the current circumstance, and measures progress or lack of same toward those.

[sybil]

25. ah well - then there's nothing further to talk about?

If this purely political partisan resolution to withdraw from the criminal war were actually to be implemented it would take months to achieve in any case but you've said it all - there's nothing more to be said? (btw "practicable" was Murtha's keyword, "immediate" was J.D.'s.)

In the meantime we should not listen to Statesman-Generals?...it's just foolish to talk about this? Thanks, but I'll listen to Clark. I've heard more than plenty from 'agendized-politicans'...IF under a Republican majority, such a resolution were to pass (in a pig's eye), all that Wes Clark advises could conceivably be achieved in the amount of time it would take to completely withdraw - (but only given that there was a "competent" behind the wheel,) of course that ain't gonna happen and Clark knows this admin. is not going to listen. They did not listen in 2002 when he advised against invasion...y'know they had that PNAC agenda, that imperial vision...and they have not listened to anyone since.

"the bu$h era"...regardless of his PN-i-AC-al advisers bu$h will "withdraw" from Iraq becuz of political pressure from right and left and just as in the beginning he has no plan, no clue, no strategy for leaving - And it will be bloody! - and Iran will own it!

Keeping in mind that bu$h has fully three years to f*ck it up moreso, eveyone should listen to Clark and/or anyone else who can articulate a plan. No one else has. Start to finish, General Clark has had plenty to say regarding foreign policy and the Middle-east...but the proletariate should dismiss it you say? just sit down, shut up and stop talking about Iraq?

like it's going to go away?...fat chance!

with all due respect

[1932]

13. We have no business using our military or the threat of militarty presense

or the consequences of an unjustified military action to influence any country to do anything.

We do NOT have a Marshal plan for Iraq. We have a market fundamentalism plan for Iraq.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. "Market fundamentalism"--yes

See Susan Jacoby's article in the September 2004 issue of Harper's.

It is a militarists' delusion to think that any good can come out of continuing evil.

[1932]

32. I got that phrase from Cornel West's Democracy Matters.

[librechik]

6. Wes is wise--he's the only guy who has actually done what we need to do

in Iraq. He's well worth paying attention to.

Nevertheless, it is an undeniable truth that we have been tagged as occupiers and now have a resistance to deal with which will attack us as long as we are there. I admire his optimism, but I'm afraid it is too late to try a Kosovo-like strategy in Iraq. We trashed our moral authority to remake Iraq right at the beginning by bombing civilians, allowing looting, and then looting the country ourselves. Not to mention Abu Ghraib. WE never did anything like that in Kosovo.

We have to face he fact that we are screwed. We must try something else, but first of all we must remove our troops, who are only making things worse.

Murtha gave the Pukkkes a way out if only they were bright enough and humble enough to grab it: "We have achieved our goals in Iraq. Mission accomplished. We go now." see? Victory accomplished. If it isn't for oil and military presence, why do we stay?

Instead they argue the job must be finished. The job will NEVER be finished, if we let them use "whatever it takes" as the standard. What we did was not just a mistake, it was wrong, and morally corrupt. The situation is not equivalent to Kosovo in that sense, and we can't use the same strategy and achieve the same results.

The world must be clearly shown that the US will not long tolerate war criminals in its leadership. Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush and co-conspirators must be confronted, vanquished and punished very publicly and soon, or we will all become complicit war criminals ourselves. That is the bitter pill we must swallow, or go down like South Africa. As long as we continue to appease them, we are accomplices.

I don't think there's a chance in hell of that happening. Can Wes help get that done?

[ThomWV]

7. Just Plain Good Sense

What one might call 'a plan'.

[jmatthan]

8. Wes Clark lives in la-la land

The question yesterday on CNN International was what could be considered as Complete Victory in Iraq.

This was my answer (not aired, of course):

Good question.

When the Green Zone in Baghdad is barricaded and US forces and their Iraqi Collaborators are air-lifted out of Iraq while Iraqis hasmmer at the gate?

Wasn't that complete victory in Vietnam?

[RandomUser]

30. They said the same thing when Clark testified against the war in 2002

Clark testified against the war in congressional hearings against Richard Perle, before everyone voted for the IWR. Wellstone even cited Clark for helping to convince him to vote against the war.

Guess what? They called Clark crazy and in lala land for oppposing the war when everyone wanted to vote for the IWR. But Clark was right.

Later, when the media trumpeted that the "elections" in Iraq would quell the insurgency, Clark warned against those hopes. Everyone called him nuts again, but the attacks continued even after the election. He was right again.

It wasn't politically popular to opposed the rush to war. It wasn't politically popular to be a wet blanket when everyone cheered that the "elections" would stop the insurgents.

And now, you've got people on one side saying "Out NOW! Screw the consequences." And you've got people on the other side saying "Stay the course, we're winning." And only Clark is out there saying neither extreme will work, that we need to "Change the course" and not "Stay the course" -- he even denounced "stay the course" as nothing more than empty sloganeering by Bush. It's not politically popular to "Change the Course" when the finger-in-the-wind politicans see poll numbers siding with the "Out NOW! Damn the consequences!" And he won't get any support from "stay the course" idiots who want this disaster to continue down the track it's going.

But you know what, Clark must know that he will get attacked from both the left (Out NOW!) and the right (Stay the course!), and that his position of Change the Course is not popular. Just as it wasn't popular for him to testify in congress against the war in 2002. Yet, what I most fear is that he will be proven right yet again -- and that pulling out now will set the stage for a larger regional conflict, just as the aftermath of WW1 set the stage for WW2.

They said he was in lala land when he lobbied senators to vote against giving Bush the power to go to war. But I shudder to think he will be proven right yet again.

The only thing worse than what's happening in Iraq now, is if you take that mess -- and multiply it tenfold, changing a war contained in Iraq into a war engulfing the entire Middle East and all the countries there. And that is exactly what the Middle Eastern leaders are telling him when he visited them recently. I hope it won't come to it, but sides are being chosen and preparations are being made for a regional war.

Clark's position is not politically popular because he doesn't support "Stay the course" or "Out NOW." But it wasn't politically popular when he testified in congress against the IWR either. But you know what -- it was right, and I think he may be right again. I would love to hope he's wrong. But if he's right, there will be hell to pay -- think of the Iraq disaster magnified ten times.

So before you say Clark is in LaLa Land, think of all the other times they said he was in LaLa Land. He was right in every single one of those instances. And the proof of his insight is written in the blood and tears we're going through now. It's not about what's politically correct or popular -- it's about what's right. I like and support Clark -- but I dread that he will be proven right yet again, when it's too late, with the proof of his insight again written in blood and gore ten times worse than the current disaster.

[eridani]

10. Failure in Vietnam was not inevitable?

What part of "invading another country not a threat to us is just plain WRONG" doesn't he understand? Wars of occupation are political contests where the only two options are to get the conquered people to like being ordered around by foreigners with guns, or totally controlling them with overwhelming numbers. The former is impossible by definition, and the latter impossible for lack of manpower. If you don't have the numbers, genocide is the only other option. And that's what anybody who thinks we can "win" in Vietnam or Iraq is essentially advocating.

If you are doing something that is wrong, why should you be effective at it in the first place?

I challenge General Clark to read the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence and justify any continued European or American presence there for any reason.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1945vietnam.html

Sound familiar? It should, and that was entirely on purpose.

[KittyWampus]

50. Failure Was Not Inevitable. Bad Intelligence, Corruption, Population Abuse

lead to defeat in VietNam. Same as in Iraq.

[1932]

11. Vietnam was winnable?

I'd love to see Cornel West or Jim Wallis, or someone else like that engage Clark in a debate of his pro-empire fantasy world.

[mattclearing]

19. I'm kinda curious for more info on this point of view. Paging Frenchiecat!

:)

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. Hopefully she'll get your page also, lol

First, to set the stage, Clark was blogging in reply to this comment in a question posed to him online:

"...LBJ just couldn't’t bring himself to admit that the war was unwinnable and so we lost almost 40,000 more troops after the Tet Offensive. I think we need to turn the defense of Iraq over to the Iraqis and redeploy/regroup as quickly as possible. Our military occupation of Iraq simply plays into Bin Laden’s hands and keeps the insurgency going.

I don't see how we can prevent a civil war whether we remain in Iraq another year or 5 more years. It is an artifically created state, much like Yugoslavia, which lacking a strong leader, will most likely disintegrate. How long are you willing to remain in Iraq to get the job done?

To which Clark blogged this:

"Fred, this isn't Vietnam, every case is always different. I do believe if we follow the ideas I sketched out that we can avert a civil war and avoid an American defeat. Vietnam was a defeat. We shouldn't forget that. I was a Captain at Fort Leavenworth when Saigon fell, I was with a class of 1200 officers. The Vietnamese officers immediately left to become waiters in local restaruants, for they had no money. The Cambodian officers went home, and were later killed, I heard, and as for the Americans - well, we cried. It had been long and hard, and futile ultimately.

I can talk for a long time about why we failed. It wasn't inevitable. It really wasn't. Read the new book, Mao, the Unknown Story, for a different take."

I haven't read "Mao, the Unknown Story". I guess maybe I should. Anyway, Clark was an instructor at West Point. At West Point they dissect every American military engagement, they still analyze the American Revolution. Clark was not commenting on whether the Viet Nam war should have been fought, he was commenting on whether the specific outcome that resulted was inevitable. And that outcome was an American defeat. That is exactly how the entire world saw it and describes it, as an American defeat. Clark said that an American defeat in Viet Nam was not inevitable. He may or may not be right about that, but, given his background as a military instructor, if he holds that opinion I would at least consider the question to be open to debate. That is a separate question from whether it would have been worth the costs involved to avoid that defeat, let alone get involved in that war in the first place.

Clark was in this case commenting on the limitations of using one historical event to predict the outcome of another. Clark clearly believes the United States should not have invaded Iraq. And he clearly foresees circumstances, as outlined in his comments above, under which he believes the United States should withdraw it's forces from Iraq. He does not at this point think that circumstances that would mandate a quick and total withdrawal are inevitable.

[Pithy Cherub]

23. Have read the book and Clark is right. the book sets

out some little known facts that had they been taken under consideration would have set conditions for success. The author is a very distinguished writer, Jung Chang. She speaks authoritatively with multiple sources about STALIN stopping Mao from going into Vietnam. p 356.

Using allies wisely and to have a diplomatic and political scenario backed by military power, if need be, is a ongoing lesson from Vietnam.

Mostly, I love the fact that Clark is willing to debate the ideas in public forums and encourage a robust discussion. Very rarely seen with most people with public stature. Go Clark!

[1932]

34. So what's the "US wins Vietnam" scenario that Clark's implying exists?

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. So maybe we both need to read a book this time

One of the arguments I remember using at the time against the Viet Nam War was that it was a civil war and thus there was no need or justification for the United States to intervene. There is a whole cottage industry inside the United States now revolving around if the South had won the Civil War. Of course that civil war took place on this continent during a previous century. The outcome of any civil war is seldom if ever pre-ordained.

The scenarios you ask about would be ones in which the Viet Cong and their northern allies/countrymen would have instead been defeated by Vietnamese aligned with the Saigon government with U.S. support. Had that happened the world would not have concluded that the United States was defeated in Viet Nam, which is exactly what the world did in fact conclude. So conversely had Saigon won the war, then the United States too would have would have been seen as "winning". U.S. support for the "South Vietnamese government" was a policy decision arrived at by civilians in Washington. The military's job wasn't to decide if that was good policy or not, just to offer military plans that could lead to the success of that policy.

I suspect there are multiple theories for alternate political/military histories for Viet Nam that might have resulted in a different outcome, branching off of different decisions made at different times. Whether or not the defeat of the Viet Cong would have ultimately been in the interests of most of the people living in what was then called South Viet Nam is another matter entirely, as is a critique of whether there ever was a defensible rational for the United States ever becoming involved in Viet Nam in the first place. That too is a political, not a military, discussion. I had a lot of those discussions almost 30 years ago, and went to almost as many demonstrations.

[1932]

40. We have someone here who says they read it, so I thought I'd prime the

pump by asking what they think Clark is arguing.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. Hell, I'd like to debate him

I do not understand all the Clark-worship on this board. I mean, people who were totally against the war now think it's fine to keep troops there and creep into a new mission (containing Iran) just because Clark said so!

He's nothing more than a kinder, gentler version of the imperialistic mentality that got us into trouble in the first place, and frankly, when I checked his websites during the election period, I found his domestic proposals to be less than inspiring.

It's disappointing to see that so many DUers still think that the U.S. has the right to try to "fix" the world.

[Donna Zen]

24. How to get out

It's disappointing to find anyone anywhere that does not want us take the best road out. Listening to the reasoning of someone who did not want us to go in, and now wants to get out would seem in keeping with using our head. And btw, I do worry about the rise of Iran, but then, I'm just not into me or any other woman condemned to wear the veil.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. His benchmarks for "success" could conceivably have U.S. troops

still there killing and being killed for the foreseeable future.

Sometimes it hurts to admit that there IS no way to fix what we have done and that our attempts will only make matters worse.

As far as Iran is concerned, they have a growing opposition movement, and the WORST thing that could happen would be for that opposition movement to become identified with the U.S.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. I don't disagree with anything you say here

I would certainly put Bush in the category of those who will never admit that there IS no way to fix what we have done and that our attempts will only make matters worse. I don't put Clark in that category however. Right now, given all the complexities inside Iraq and the region, the foreseeable future maxes out somewhere in the 18 month range, and that is a very "liberal" estimate. More realistically is maxes out in the 18 week range, since the approaching Iraq Elections may trigger off wildly differing scenarios.

So IF certain RELIABLE benchmarks for success WERE achieved, then yes, I would see Americans still killing and being killed in Iraq as you so bluntly, but accurately, describe it. But those numbers would begin to swing down, and progress inside Iraq would begin to become more verifiable. Failing to achieve that objective scenario would establish the case that you are making, to my satisfaction anyway and I believe to Clark's. Bush is planning on an open ended commitment to "achieving victory" in Iraq. Clark isn't. He is presenting a course for change that involves an immediate redeployment of U.S. Forces inside Iraq concurrent with simultaneous new diplomatic initiatives inside and outside of Iraq. Clark does not view a statistical likelihood of failure being sufficient reason to simply accept failure if there are measures that can still be taken in the short term that might partially salvage the situation, and when a complete failure will likely lead to drastic negative consequences for millions. Clark has not convinced many Democrats like yourself that any potentially positive role for American troops in Iraq remains, but the disagreement, while profound, is an honorable one within a broader agreement about the need for the U.S. to exit Iraq and the earlier agreement that we never should have entered Iraq in the first place.

You are absolutely right about the Iran opposition movement.

[ultraist]

41. "Yes, our military forces are dangerously overstretched."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/opinion/06clark.html?pagewanted=2&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fContributors

"Yes, our military forces are dangerously overstretched. Recruiting and retention are suffering; among retired officers, there is deep concern that the Bush administration's attitude on the treatment of detainees has jeopardized not only the safety of our troops but the moral purpose of our effort.

Still, none of this necessitates a pullout until the job is done."

***

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/2934?from=0&comments_per_page=50

"We MUST succeed in this mission. "

***
Sounds like a close kin to "stay the course" and "Plan for "Victory."

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. Yeah, this sure sounds like Bush, doesn't it:

"Here's my thinking. This is really the first time I have tried to formulate this, so consider this as a draft that I may have to come back and amend somewhat. But let me put the bottom line up front: No, it's not yet too late to try to straighten out the policy and strategies in Iraq and the region.

The first window closes when we've lost the ability to influence the Iraqis politically. Because you really can't win militarily. So, the trick is to use the military presence and the economic assistance to create the political leverage on the Iraqis to change the constitution, reduce the sectarianism, readmit the insurgents, etc....when there's no ability left to influence them, then the first window has closed....(for example, there's a four month window after the election when the Constitution can be changed by majority vote, which may be one of the key factors driving the timing)...at that point, we have to look at our other interests in the region, and assess whether staying in Iraq helps or harms them...those other interests include the terrorists, (Al Qaeda), and Iran's nuclear and hegemonic ambitions, and whether our presence there is overall doing us more harm than good. The second window closes if they tell us to leave. At that point, staying is tantamount to invading."
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/2914

[1932]

46. Well, it doesn't sound like Bush's Bizarro-Wilsonian language.

It sounds more like the military-technocratic justification for the same ends that the Bizarro-Wilson appeals to spreading democracy are meant to achieve.

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. Don't confuse justifying an invasion with attempting to avoid regional war

On another thread I commented that we need words to describe the difference between having the worst case scenario occur in Iraq and avoiding having the worst case scenario occur. If we agreed that the very worst case scenario for Iraq, internal civil war leading to regional warfare, is something virtually all of us would like to have avoided, and if we concede that it is indeed American stated policy to avoid that scenario, having it happen anyway would be an American failure. That is the failure that Clark says we must avoid. Avoiding that is the mission Clark wants to succeed at.

These goals are very far removed from Bush's fantasy "victory" of making Iraq safe for Democracy and indoctrinating the Arab world into the joys of American style freedom. Clark doesn't think we are fighting in Iraq to defeat Terrorism. Unlike some other leading Democratic politicians, he always made the case that Iraq had no meaningful connections to 9/11, and that invading Iraq would aggravate the terrorist threat, not reduce it. Clark thinks we are now trying to help stabilize Iraq in order to slow down the further spiraling of terrorism, not to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" and other related lunacy. example.

But sure, just chalk it all up as "the same ends" if that is convenient to the point you are hell bent on making. A debate over the best way of avoiding the specific failure I described above, or even a debate over whether or not that failure can be avoided, is an honest and important one. Merging the goals of George Bush and Wesley Clark into one is just doing the Right Wing noise machine's work for them.

[1932]

51. Don't be misled into believing a different means can justify the same

ends.

Making other countries conform their governments to what's in the best interest of Wall Street isn't right just because you advocate "virtual" means of achieving it over military means.

[1932]

36. I think what Clark represents is the notion that there's this

pure form of imperialism motivated entirely by a sincere desire for securing america. If he convinces you that there are patriotic reasons for being imperialist then it's OK, but if it's just about making private companies rich, it isn't OK.

I'm not sure if that difference really exists.

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. Was the United States intervening in Europe in World War II Imperialist?

I experience your definition of "imperialist" as being almost infinitely elastic and almost as slippery. If your definition is an attempt to influence events beyond our borders involving other sovereign states, then our involvements in Europe in World War II and in Korea during the Korean War would seem to meet that definition.

Was John Edwards, for example, advocating Imperialism when he defended the American invasion of Iraq? Has there ever been an American President who wasn't an imperialist and if so, what definition of Imperialism are you using that excludes that gentleman or gentlemen?

[1932]

39. The Japanese and Germans were imperialist nations invading neighbors

and enslaving their populations in order to create a very powerful class at the top of their own societies.

FDR defended working people around the world against imperialism. FDR was anti-imperialist and anti-fascist and had a very different plan for the post-WW2 world that the West Point-Wall St power axis that dominated the Truman administration prevented from coming to fruition.

JFK was an anti-imperialist. As a senator he gave a speach that was so scathing of imperialism (the French in Algeria, specifically) that enraged Adlai Stevenson because Adlai was a Wall St lawyer at that time making money off US corporate exploitation of Africa.

Read Parker's Galbraith biography and then we'll talk.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. You're overlooking the Western Hemisphere aren't you?

"He may be a Bastard, but he's our Bastard". (The actual quote might have been S.O.B. rather than Bastard)

And do you think FDR had a big problem with the British in India?

JFK may have had anti Imperialist tendencies, tendencies strong enough to anger some ruling interests, but in many parts of the world his Administration peacefully coexisted with aggressive American corporate interests. Actual hard core Colonialism was still going full blown in 1960, and JFK wasn't exactly on the ramparts of freedom at every opportunity, regardless of a speech about Algeria. If you concentrate on his sins of Omission, Imperialism to which he turned a blind eye, he does not come across as a hero by that measure. Imperialist forces in the U.S. are notoriously greedy. That is why they almost always give more money to Republicans than Democrats even when Democrats support 92% of the same world order that the Republicans do, with the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party clocking in perhaps at about 86%.

You are notorious in my opinion (Yes I'll own it as my opinion) for selectively pinning the Imperialist label on Wes Clark and virtually no one else, and I'm just not buying it. You didn't answer regarding Edwards by the way.

[1932]

45. FDR said that about Somoza. Notice FDR did not call him a freedom fighter.

He knew he was a bastard and he definitely knew that Somoza wasn't the equivalent of Washington and Jefferson and our founding fathers.

No president is 100% perfect. JFK had a problem standing up to his State Department and Defense Department because, often, they wouldn't do what they were told to do and would sabotage his plans. JFK had to prepare the speech he gave at American University IN SECRET WITH ONLY TWO OR THREE STAFF INVOLVED because of the hostility to anti-neoliberalism at State and Defense.

So, yes, the FDR and JFK administrations weren't spotless. While FDR fought fascist imperialism on two continents, he didn't take out Somoza in Nicaragua. Nonetheless, FDR was, without a doubt, an anti-imperialist and, like JFK, believed that democracy was NOT secondary to Wall Street profits. I'm going to repeat this again: Senator JFK gave a speech so critical of French imperialism in Algeria (which was prescient, given what happened in Algeria in the 60s) that the neoliberal, Wall St lawyer and two-time loser as Democratic nominee for president, flipped out. These are not vague lines that separate these presidents and these politicians. When Barak Obama supports Cambodia's desire for preferred trade status because they have some of the most progressive labor laws in the world (and by extension, Obama is helping American workers in the process) he is putting himself clearly on one side of that line no matter how many DUers seem to be confused about his politics and his motivations and his values.

FDR and JFK both believed that it was as important for other countries to have strong working and middle classes that weren't exploited by their governments and private sectors as it was for America to have that. (And the realized -- as we're discovering now -- that it's as important for working Americans as it is for those foreign citizens that they have strong working and middle classes).

Really, read Parker's biography of Galbraith. It makes it very clear who were the neoliberals and imperialists and who believed in democracy from FDR to the present.

As for me selectively pinning labels on Clark, you should be less concerned with me labeling Clark and more concerned with what Clark says about himself. Clark wrote a book lauding US "virtual" empire (a palatable alternative to military empire, according to him). He told WT2 essentially that imposing on Iraq a form of government which serves US interests is right because otherwise we would have to fight wars for oil. He thinks that it was wrong and damaging for American prestige and influence for the US to pull out of Vietnam and that it was a winnable war.

Clark frames his neoliberalism in terms of national pride and "securing america" rather than securing profits, but the policies he advocates aren't very different from the policies of the politicians who are more blunt about who profits from neoliberalism.

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. My intent is not to bash FDR or JFK

(though Somoza was just the tip of the iceberg in Central and South America) it is just to point out that there has always been serious complicity between America's ruling political structure and America's international Corporate interests, under both Democrats and Republicans. However, even under those circumstances if I felt that there were no significant differences between the Democratic and Republican Parties, and between individual Democrats, I wouldn't be wasting time at Democratic Underground. Your continuing "No Comment" regarding John Edwards and Iraq, however, is duly noted.

I call attention to your selectively pinning labels on Clark because it undercuts the integrity of your critique that you so religiously do so. You separate him out from all other National Democrats in the process, something Clark's many progressive allies in the Party would find bewildering. "Lauding" is a word you choose, your analysis of Clark's Book is not widely shared. Consistent with everything else I know about Clark, if there is an elephant in the Room, he will talk about that elephant, not try to pretend he doesn't see it. Clark's positions on how the United States should interact with the world around us are among the most progressive advanced by any leading Democrat.

Edited to add: Talk about Bizzaro use of language!: "He told WT2 essentially that imposing on Iraq a form of government which serves US interests is right because otherwise we would have to fight wars for oil." "Essentially" will never be a big enough qualifyer of words to justify that type of "fun house mirror" twisted summary. See, it's when you do say things like that, that I get this odd feeling you have a burr up you know where about Clark that distorts everything you say about him. Maybe I'll just leave it at that.

[1932]

52. Again, I'd worry more about what Clark is saying than what I'm saying

about what Clark is saying.

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. I'm not worried. People should read Clark themselves

They don't need either one of us as "reviewers".

Here is a link to Amazon where you can buy his book online. Plus, if anyone is really stuck on wanting reviews, 32 readers of Clark's book have left their own reviews at this site also, all of them more extensive than what is being bantered about on this thread. By all means go for it. Don't worry about what either 1932 or I have to say about what Clark says. Read him yourself:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1586482181/ref=cm_cr_dp_pt/104-2085706-8112748?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

[CarolNYC]

54. the burr

Heh Tom, I think the whole burr thing is pretty darn obvious to anyone paying any kind of attention.
;)

[Clark2008]

55. I don't want to fix the world - I argued not to go into

this fucking war just as Clark advised the Congress.

But, now that we're there, we have to "fix" some of what we rended so that we can A.) safely get our troops out with some face and B.) keep the thugs from taking over Iraq like they did Afghanistan.

I'd hate it if MY country were the cause for yet ANOTHER Taliban-type extremist regime that persecutes women for cause and harbors other extremists who would fly planes into more of our buildings.

I don't like that we're there, but we HAVE to find a way out safely. And simply leaving won't provide that.

[mattclearing]

17. "I recall during the campaign that it was Lieberman calling me Bush light.

Fucking hilarious. :D Nice one, Wes.

[julialnyc]

18. I love that!

perfect statement to make his point!

[Abelman]

35. Ugh, it's so murky

Iraq is so murky.

I agree with the post about Clark's claiming the outcome of Viet Nam could have been different not being the same thing as agreeing with the actual primary invasion.

Here's what I think.

We should NOT have invaded Iraq. There were diplomatic methods for deposing Saddam being put into play. We now know (and some of us were pretty damn sure then) that Iraq posed zero threat to the United States as well as most of it's bordering countries, that it had no ties with Osama or al Qaeda at that time, and that the Administration lied it's way into invading. Iraq, because of us, is now harboring future terrorists who hate us.

Now, I really am torn on the leaving/staying issue. On the one hand, we had no business invading in the first place. On the other hand, and one I think Clark agrees with, we did and we created the problem that now exists. (When I say "we," it is not really "we," it's the *Admin, but I really don't want to worry about semantics) As a country, we invaded another soveriegn nation. We, in effect, "broke" it. I personally feel that when you break something, you should be the one to fix it. Ask for help if you need it, and if what you are currently doing is breaking it even more, then the time comes to change the way you are fixing it.

I have a pretty over the top comparison. Say you have a pressure valve on a boiler that isn't working quite right. Now, you know you need to fix it. You could wait until help arrives to fix it properly, or you and your small group of buddies could try yourself. Unfortunately, your method of fixing it is hammering it with a monkey wrench.

After a while, it is pretty obvious that you've made the problem a lot worse. The valve is spurting out steam, which it wasn't doing before, and scalding you and your friends a bit. You keep hitting the valve. It is obvious that if you watch it, and release the pressure manually, it will be "okay." If you just leave it, the pressure will build up and explode, taking your basement with it. Or, you could get your buddies to help you fix it properly. I mean, you've gone and made it worse, you need to do whatever it takes to fix it properly.

That's a little over the top, and far from a perfect analogy, but just my two cents. We've created this problem, and it is our duty to fix it properly. Or course, this is difficult, because the guy in charge seems to think if we just keep hitting it with a wrench, it will be fixed. Idiot.