Kerry does not rule out troop surge, but demands real diplomacy.

[Clarkie1]

Kerry today on NPR: "If a surge is unaccompanied by the kind of political resolution that I just described, it would be catastrophic mistake. You can put another 100,000 troops into Iraq and it's not going to make a difference without resolving the fundamental difference between the state builders. This a power struggle. It's a power struggle...between Sunni and Shia...it's a question of finding some accomodation."

http://www.npr.org/templates/dmg/dmg_wmref.php?prgCode=DAY&showDate=20-Dec-2006&segNum=2&mediaPref=WM&sauid=U653918961131504976545&getUnderwriting=1

It's important that Democrats hold hearings on any proposal to increase the number of troops there and demand to know exactly how the troop surge fits into a larger political strategy to address the regional issues. We should not oppose a troop surge outright from the beginning...if in fact the administration does propose a troop surge. We should listen to their proposal, and ask the tough questions. If they refuse to make the troop surge part of a larger plan addressing regional diplomacy, we must certainly oppose it. If the do propose talking directly with Iran, Syria, etc., we will need to listen carefully to what they say about how a surge would fit into that kind of political strategy...and still not necessarily support the surge. Our demands for more regional diplomacy are backed up by the ISG, the findings of which I continue to believe Democrats should endorse.

[hijinx87]

1. I'm just not sure troops are the solution

to a "regional power struggle". choosing sides is out of the question,
and not choosing sides just means that you get attacked by both sides.

it's probably a misuse of the military in the first place. if you point
them at something, and tell them to obliterate it, they are pretty good
at that. but drop them into a dispute and tell them to moderate it? that's
just not what the military was designed to accomplish.

[Clarkie1]

2. Troops are not the solution. At best the can help fill a security vacuum temporarily.

There has to be a real regional effort at a political solution, real support for that approach. Otherwise you are right; it's not a military problem, it's a political one.

[hijinx87]

3. if it is indeed a civil war

then I fail to see even a proper "security function". security
for whom? against what?

it's just a mess.

[Clarkie1]

5. It's not an all-out civil war yet.

Kerry talks in this interview of the "potential" for a civil war. It's definitely a power struggle between Sunni and Shia, simmering and sometimes getting hotter. Whether or not it's called a civil war is really just a matter of semantics. We have to look at the level of violence happening on the ground and the orgins of that violence, that matters more than labels.

[hijinx87]

7. oh, sure it is

the country is basically split into two rival factions, in this
case religious, who are slaughtering each other in order to see
who will control the government, and thus the country. that's
the classical definition of a civil war.

[Clarkie1]

11. Kerry disagrees, but whether it meets the definition or not really isn't the issue.

The issue is only what is happening on the ground, the causes, and what can be done to affect the causes, not what the ongoingn violence is called.

[hijinx87]

15. well, maybe kerry is just wrong.

and what you call it is critical in understanding the nature of the
problem that you have on your hands. historically, foreign powers
don't solve other county's civil wars; they are "resolved", usually
with incredible bloodletting, by the factions themselves.

[Clarkie1]

22. Kerry seems to believe a poltical solution is still possible without full-scale civil war.

Obviously, you disagree.

[hijinx87]

26. obviously.

other than dying in droves, we have no business nor function in another
country's civil war.

[ProSense]

71. No he doesn't!

In the first six months of the year, 14,338 Iraqi civilians were killed, mostly in sectarian violence. Prime Minister Maliki acknowledged last week that an average of 100 Iraqi civilians are being killed every day. Just think about that for a second: 100 people killed every day. And the violence has only been getting worse: 2,669 civilians were killed in May, and 3,129 civilians were killed in June. That's nearly 6,000 Iraqi civilians killed in the last two months alone. And since the February 22nd bombing of the Shia mosque in Samarra, the government reports that 30,359 families -- or about 182,000 people -- have fled their homes due to sectarian violence and intimidation

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2985124&mesg_id=2985124">Mr. President, this is not just a civil war -- by historical standards, it's a relatively large scale civil war. In fact, a recent academic analysis published in the New York Times showed that the median number of casualties in civil wars since 1945 is 18,000. Estimates of total casualties in Iraq vary, but the number is probably at least twice that many. Larry Diamond, a former consultant to the provisional authority in Baghdad, has put it simply: "In academic terms, this is a civil war, and it's not even a small one."

In the absence of a date, they have an excuse to simply continue to dawdle and procrastinate as long as they want. I don't think one young American soldier ought to be killed because Iraqi politicians are unwilling to compromise in order to assume responsibility for their own country.

[AtomicKitten]

4. IMO troops needs to redeploy the hell out of Iraq a la Murtha's plan.

The troops are sitting ducks and the violence will only escalate. Any increase in troop level will just increase the body count. Effin hell.

[Clarkie1]

6. Without going into the merits, Murtha's plan simply isn't going to happen.

The situation is constantly evolving...the best approach now might not be the best approach a month from now, but I'm almost certain the administration is not going to endorse Murtha's approach in the two years they have remaining. We need to do the best to affect parts of the policy we can (perhaps) affect.

[AtomicKitten]

8. I believe what you say is the truth.

Which is why I'm banging my head on my desk.

Junior has left NO GOOD OPTION which is why IMO getting the hell out of Dodge ASAP should be the goal.

I feel like I'm watching a car wreck in slow motion.

[hijinx87]

12. that's the best idea I have heard in weeks.

I will bang my head on my desk with you. :banghead:

maybe it will help.

[AtomicKitten]

17. ***

[hijinx87]

23. LOL!

if that doesn't make me feel better by morning, I think I will try
plan B; heavy drinking.

[hijinx87]

10. that is the horrifying fact of the matter

there isn't a side to this apple that isn't rotten to the
core. this could be the most intractable problem in the
history of the country.

there just isn't a right move; just different degrees of
"fucked up" (pardon my language).

[countmyvote4real]

13. Do you have a dead limit on that "affect?" n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

83. You know I wasn't in favor of cutting the funding at first

But now I'm starting to think that maybe that's what Democrats need to do, or at least refuse to fund the additional troops. Democrats need to make it clear that they will not permit any further escalation of this war, which is what junior plans on doing.

[welshTerrier2]

9. "We should not oppose a troop surge outright from the beginning"

here's a hint John: IT'S NOT THE BEGINNING ANYMORE ... this god damned f%$^ing war has lasted longer than WWII (the big one) ... either you're going to do all you can to stop bush now or you aren't ... the time for "let's see what he comes up with" is long, long gone ... i know what he comes up with and it's never good for the American people ...

the reason we should outright oppose the surge is BECAUSE BUSH CAN'T BE TRUSTED ... it doesn't matter if you ask hard questions ... it doesn't matter what assurances bush gives you ... there should be NO LINKAGE between negotiations with Iran and our Iraq policy ...

we need to get the hell out!!!

[AtomicKitten]

14. some people here are arguing the semantics of

a "surge" as opposed to troop increase (allegedly NOT in Iraq), but it is the SAME DAMN THING. If the troops are available, Junior will use them because the necons keep touting one more try. Aarrggghh!!!

I concur. WE NEED TO GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ TOUT DE SUITE!!!!!

[hijinx87]

18. more troops can't be the solution, because lack of troops isn't the problem. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

19. yahtzee

[Hippo_Tron]

84. Agreed, lack of troops might've been a problem 3 years ago

When the situation still could've been contained. The situation has gotten progressively worse over the past 3 years and we can add more troops all we want but it won't make a difference.

[welshTerrier2]

21. two different issues?

i've assumed "the surge" means more troops being deployed to Iraq (or kept there longer than their rotation schedule) ... i've also heard discussions about increasing headcounts in the Army and Marines over the next bunch of years ... i have no particular objection to the latter ... in fact, i've long believed we should de-emphasize our military hardware focus and spend more on personnel ...

bush wants to drag the thing out until he leaves office so someone else can be blamed when we withdraw ... Democrats should be taking their case to the American people ... they should say that bush has "already lost the war" and his refusal to admit it is nothing more than politics and ego ... Democrats should rally the American people to put an end to this madness ...

instead, we get a note from his mother (the ISG report) that little georgie cannot take the test today because he isn't feeling well ... and "the surge" is the same garbage ... it's all just playing for time ... and it sure looks like the Democrats are going to rollover yet again ...

it's just incredible ... and this after the voters had their say in November ... just incredible ...

they're all a bunch of followers ...

[Clarkie1]

27. Just saying "we lost the war"

It's not that simple. Certainly we lost the war we were told we were fighting in the beginning: the war for a Western-style democracy in Iraq. But at this point there are even bigger issues. We have a responsibility to do the best we can to prevent a wider, bloodier conflict.

Simply to say "we lost" and start the withdrawl tomorrow has such high potential negatives it's not an option at this point.

[AtomicKitten]

28. The Dems will LOSE in 2008 if they let this war continue.

Junior has NO INTENTION of leaving Iraq. And the presidential election will be all about Iraq and will focus on who's got the most testosterone, and the Democrats will lose. History has set a precedent for that outcome. The Republicans will blame Democrats for all that goes wrong between now and then.

The enthusiastic participation in the last election gave the Dems a mandate to get out of Iraq. They need to jump on it NOW while the public is behind us. NOW. Not in two years. There is no good option otherwise. It makes ZERO political sense to piss around and ZERO sense to let one more of our soldiers die in Iraq.

Stupid, stupid politicians. Hemming and hawing over a failed policy while more people die.

[Clarkie1]

31. No matter what we do now, Junior isn't leaving Iraq anytime soon.

We can jump all we want, but it's not going to change that fact. Also, many Dems do not believe immediate withdrawl is the best of the bad options. I'm one of them. We have moral responsibilities.

[AtomicKitten]

33. cut off the funding!!!!

It worked for Vietnam.

[Clarkie1]

37. Then the region falls into bloody chaos, and around comes November 08'....

and?

[AtomicKitten]

39. too late -- it's already in bloody chaos

And it is widely believed our troop presence is exacerbating the problem.

This war run under this president is a disaster and, unless we impeach the bastard and the shooter he rode in on, that dynamic isn't going to change. Who ever imagined war-mongers would be so inefficient at war?

Sorry, I see no downside of getting the hell out of there immediately.

[Clarkie1]

40. But that's not our call anyway.

We don't have the power to get out immediately. It's not in our (Democrats) power, it's in their hands. Understanding that, shouldn't we try to change the policy as it is in a positive way?

[hijinx87]

42. the congressional dems can force his hand, though

he may get funding, but only targeted funding, and only under extreme
restrictions, with timetables for getting the troops out.

that way, you avoid the "defund the troops" accusation AND the
"cut and run" accusation.

[Clarkie1]

43. And we enable the "Democrats lost the war" accusation. nt

[hijinx87]

66. as has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread . . .

there isn't a possible "solution" to this problem that doesn't
have a significant downside.

this one just seems the least lethal, literally (for the troops)
and figuratively (politically in 2008).

[Hippo_Tron]

86. Fine, I'll take an election loss in '08 in exchange for getting out of Iraq

Although honestly I honestly don't think people will believe the "Democrats lost the war" accusation. The elections this year along with junior's horrid approval ratings have proved that people aren't buying the propaganda like they did in '04. But if what you say is true I'll take four years of Mitt Romney or John McCain, if it means we're out of Iraq in six months, over a Democrat in office who comes in and we're still in Iraq.

Sometimes there are more important things than winning.

[AtomicKitten]

44. I'm pontificating from my desk!

Maybe you can understand why I'm still so pissed off about the IWR vote.

There is NO GOOD OPTION - not for the US, not for the Democrats. And so, as Democrats we have NOTHING TO LOSE by doing the right thing and getting the hell out of Iraq now.

Under the guidance of BushCO, PNAC's wet dream has turned into a nightmare. I agree, we aren't in charge. But we ARE in charge of the purse-strings now. And that is the ONLY leverage we have. IMO we MUST stop this war immediately. IMO it is our ONLY option.

End of rant. I'm going to stop before my head explodes.

Good discussion, Clarkie1. Thanks. It feels good to talk about something important instead of the crap festival usually going on here. Ha, ha.

[Clarkie1]

47. I"m still pissed at Kerry and other about the IWR vote, too.

As I said before, Kerry and others castrated the U.S. Senate that day. It is politically unforgiveable.

[AtomicKitten]

48. I agree.

I defended you before on that statement and will do it again.

[Hippo_Tron]

89. We did the wrong thing with the IWR, and it hurt us in the long run

Which is why it pisses me off that once again we're afraid to do the right thing now. As I said above, if it comes down to getting out of Iraq or winning in '08 (which I don't believe it will) I'll take getting out of Iraq in a heartbeat. Sparing the lives of a few hundred soldiers and potentially thousands of Iraqis is worth enduring four years of Mitt Romney or John McCain.

But honestly I don't believe that forcing Bush out of Iraq will make us lose in '08. The war is so unpopular right now that with the exception of the loyal 30% (if it is even that much) people will be happy that we are out. I think what is more likely to happen is that conservatives a decade or two from now will cite forcing Bush out of Iraq as an example of liberals being weak and it might potentially play well because people will have forgotten how horrible the war was.

[Clarkie1]

41. It's not our war to "let continue!" nt

[AtomicKitten]

46. Dems bought in with their 'yes' votes on the IWR

People like to mitigate that vote, explain it away. Bullshit. And that's why I am livid to this day about it. We gave the Republicans the gift of our complicity with that vote.

[Clarkie1]

50. Yes, they did. I wasn't any part of it. nt

[Clarkie1]

16. Kerry didn't say that, but he certainly implied it.

I tend to agree...if they propose a surge, demand a hearing. If they refuse to speak before the hearings (can they do that?) then certainly oppose the surge. If they are cooperative with the hearing, listen. Listening is always good. Even more importantly, ASK THE TOUGH QUESTIONS. Then we would have a stronger foundation to oppose the surge. Also, we could potentially even use it as leverage to get more regional dialogue going by the administration. We will oppose a troop surge unless you do A,B.C...etc.

The issue isn't the number of troops, it's the overall policy. We should also demand any increase in troops be temporary, for a specific goal while emphasizing our determination that the military cannot solve the problem. Or, we might decide we should oppose an increase, but we need to listen to what they have to say; we will then operate from a position of greater strength instead of just yelling back and forth.

[AtomicKitten]

20. If John Kerry came back and uttered these words

"How Do You Ask a Man to Be the Last Man to Die in Iraq?

I would become his campaign manager for 2008.

[Clarkie1]

24. Even if Gore ran? nt

[AtomicKitten]

29. you're killing me, Clarkie1

but, yes, I would -- it's that important

[welshTerrier2]

35. "we need to listen to what they have to say"

actually, we don't ... they lie; they manipulate evidence; they "fix the facts around the policy" ... i don't care what they say because i don't believe anything they say ... top generals (Abizaid, Casey, Powell) have said more troops won't help; why should i listen to bush's spinmeisters?

it's time to stop pretending they might tell the truth ... it's time to stop pretending that sending more Americans to die in Iraq makes any sense ... it's time to stop pretending that if we play hardball in Iraq it will strengthen our bargaining position with Iran (btw, the opposite is true) ...

IRAQ IS DONE ... FINIS ... OVER ... pack up the troops, turn out the lights (they don't work anyway) and go ...

regional negotiations? great ... i'm all for them ... diplomacy and statesmanship? no argument there ... we need to understand the critical strategic importance of the ME? excellent point ... none of that changes the reality in Iraq - it's OVER and OUT ... ME negotiations should not be tied to what we do in Iraq ... it is time to leave ... and then talk ... talks will take years and have almost no chance of succeeding ... i, for one, cannot support a "larger plan" being linked to "surges" and more insanity in Iraq ...

no, i have no interest in "what bush might say" ... a great big NO THANK YOU to that ... i'm done listening to the nonsense ... it's time to leave ...

[Clarkie1]

38. And we leave tomorrow...and what does the Middle East look like in November 08'?

Do you really want to give the neo-cons that "I told you so" gift? The only way we could do that would be to cut off the funding. That would destroy the Democratic Party.

[welshTerrier2]

45. that's really what this is all about, isn't it? politics ...

there's no question if the Dems play anti-war hardball the "i told you they were going to make America surrender" won't be far behind ... but, i think we should not let political fear dictate what we believe in ... this isn't 9/11/2001 anymore ... the nation is not shocked the way we were back then ... the spin is getting old, very old ... the last election told the story ...

we need to stop being so fearful of the political consequences ... the American people will be with us if we argue that Iraq has become hopeless ... most Americans know that's the reality ... calling for a "fast as troop safety allows" withdrawal is LEADERSHIP ... it's proactive rather than a cowering reactive response ... Americans keep looking to Democrats to stand up and show some integrity; instead we get all this mealy-mouthed equivocation about trying something new or hearing out the president or giving diplomacy a chance ... the bottom line is our troops are dying, the Iraqi people in overwhelming numbers want us to leave immediately, the Iraqi government is corrupt and inept, it really is all about oil and guaranteeing a presence for the big oil boys ... it's lost ... it's crap ... and i believe the American people will reward us for finally telling them the truth they already believe ...

getting out is good policy; so is leading the country in the right direction and being honest with the voters ... it's time to start saying what we think instead of letting the marketing department chart the course ...

[Clarkie1]

49. No, it's not all about domestic politics. I have larger concerns than that.

It's about the world, specifically the Middle East. I'm not an isolationist; we can't afford to be. We are there, we can't separate ourselves from the reality of how our actions affect other people, nations, and the world so easily.

It's not that simple.

[welshTerrier2]

52. negotiations

the US, at times over the last 20 years or so, has played a very active role in trying to forge some type of accord between the Palestinians and the Israelis ... we had substantial influence over the Israelis in those talks ... the result? ... 30 years and it's still a horrible situation ...

i'm not an isolationist either ... i'm all for diplomacy ... but Iraq is toast ... my motto is "we broke it and there's no f%^&ing way we can fix it" ... and bush's real objective there is OIL ... the goal is to find a way to leave some "pipeline guarders" behind with at least sufficient infrastructure to "guard the oil assets" ... the situation in Iraq is way beyond the crisis stage ...

what really should be pushed right now is a national energy strategy ... i can hear it now: "yeah, but that could take years" ... it sure could ... if we were talking about getting serious about conservation and global warming and weaning off our oil addiction and re-engineering our entire society to be less fossil fuel dependent, the national dialog would be much closer to where it should be ... are these long-term? sure ... but this is the time to EDUCATE voters about why all these issues are so important ... it relates directly to the ME ... instead, at best, we get some Senator from Iowa going on about ethanol ... hardly a national energy policy ... no one wants to talk about this issue in the context of Iraq and the ME ... it's too bad ...

anyway, i think the Dems are too fearful of the political fallout and whether you, or anyone else, sees the larger issue, i'm afraid it's politics that are ultimately driving the bus ...

[Clarkie1]

53. You are absolutely right that our dependence on foreign oil is what drives all this.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that we need a real national energy policy. It ought to be our #1 priority, because it affects so many other issues...the environment, the economy, job creation, national security, the list goes on and on....

[StoryTeller]

65. I agree with you on this, Clarkie1

You make good points. Thanks!

[countmyvote4real]

30. You’re absolutely right.

Some (Don’t you hate that reference in the TV ‘news?’) might argue that it is dishonorable to leave Iraq at this point. I will argue back as I did in 2003, that it’s dishonorable to invade, destroy and subsequently occupy another country without any credible threat to our security. When did we ever strike first? (Grenada is not a comparable or justifiable response.)

If anything, we are obliged to give the next dictator that can control things a huge blank check. (Hell, a big "Oops we goofed." fruit basket to Saddam should not be out of the question.) Ideally, this should be redirected from the misguided funds to the war profiteers. Of course, it won’t. But their drain on our dollars will not stop until we leave this country alone to fend for its self. We’ll still be paying hands down, but at least it won’t be in blood.

[IndianaGreen]

32. Amazing to find Colin Powell to the Left of Kerry on the troop surge

in Vietnam this was called "escalation" and it didn't resolve anything.

Democrats should be saying the same thing about Bush's surge that Powell and Abizaid have said, it will solve nothing and it will lead to more US casualties.

[Clarkie1]

36. And then they will say that we are putting partisanship before dialogue.

No thanks. We need to take the higher ground. Nothing wrong with hearing them out, then responding.

[blm]

58. Kerry made clear in BOTH interviews he's AGAINST troop surge - the excerpting implies

otherwise. He said EVEN IF we put in a 100,000 troops it wouldn't matter if there was no real diplomacy to seek a POLITICAL solution.

He's NOT rejecting it as a kneejerk reaction, he's rejecting it because he's SCRUTINIZED the situation.

Careful with excerpts.

[welshTerrier2]

59. has Kerry ruled out a troop surge or ...

did he NOT rule it out under certain conditions (such as coupling a surge with meaningful diplomacy)?

1. YES he's absolutely opposed to it because IRAQ IS OVER and we shouldn't invest another life into it
2. NO he sees certain situations where increased troop strength might be warranted

which is correct? btw, i have not seen or heard his answer to this ... it's a sincere question ...

[blm]

61. He said he's opposed to more troops. Specific transcript excerpts here....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/20/125158/50

[welshTerrier2]

63. i just watched the NPR interview

"there are critical things we need to do TO GET THIS RIGHT" ...

"IF a surge is unaccompanied by the kind of political resolution that I just described (diplomacy), it would be a catastrophic mistake" ...

the answer to my last question, based on this statement, is that Kerry has left the door open to adding more troops as long as doing so is "accompanied" by "the kind of political resolution" he described ... his answer is CONDITIONAL and that's too bad ...

from the Hartford Courant on the views of other Dems:

"If the commanders on the ground said this is just for a short period of time ... we'll go along with that," Reid told ABC's "This Week."

That view was not shared Sunday by Democratic Sens. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Jack Reed of Rhode Island and likely Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware.

Kennedy told "Fox News Sunday" that while he respected Reid, "that's not where I am." Biden told a New Hampshire audience that "the president and others who support a surge have it exactly backwards," according to an Associated Press account from Manchester.

Powell, speaking on CBS' "Face the Nation," was also skeptical. "The American army isn't large enough to secure Baghdad," he said.

[blm]

69. He's just describing what will happen there - he said he's opposed to more troops.

In context he's describing what WILL happen with that scenario. I just don't understand why people KNOWING full well that Kerry is for withdrawing troops still seek to excerpt his statements without taking them in full - he's AGAINST more troops. Latching on to his description of what will happen does not encompass his stance against more troops.

Did the entirety of his Today interview and the NPR interview come down to Kerry being against more troops in Iraq or not? YES, he is AGAINST more troops in Iraq.

[karynnj]

90. He doesn't say he is for it under ANY circumstances

He says, without diplomacy it would be catastropic.

That does not mean he recommends it with diplomacy or that he approves it with diplomacy.

It means what he says - if you have this kind of surge AND it is without diplomacy, then it will be catastrophic.

In other statements he was clearly against more troops - saying McCain wanting that was "dead wrong" for one. This to me seems to be emphasizing that doing this, particularly with no diplomacy is a very bad idea.

I hope he will be interviewed when he returns to the US because I think that his statements may have also been restrained because he was in the Middle East.It would make his job harder if he was speaking out.

[StoryTeller]

64. My understanding of that statement

was that "the beginning" refers to the administration's proposal of a surge, not the beginning of the entire war. He's saying that he's not going to categorically oppose a surge until he hears the entire proposal first and can make a judgment on the facts, not on assumptions.

I know that you and a lot of the rest of us would like to see all our Democratic leaders say F**** Bush, get the hell out now. But that's really not the best way for them to approach this. Senator Kerry and Dodd are in the Middle East now, functioning as a diplomatic presence and listening ears. The worst thing for anyone in that position to do is to erupt in fiery rhetoric. They need to convey an attitude of reflection, open-mindedness, and even-temperedness. That's in the best interest of our country and the M.E. region.

I have every confidence that Kerry is fully aware of the fact that the chances that Bush will do anything the way he is suggesting are non-existent. But a good leader knows that the way to lead people forward is not by a cynical, angry attitude, but by pointing to positive open doors and encouraging people to do the right thing.

I appreciate that Kerry is willing to hear Bush out, find out what the plan is, before completely rejecting it. It shows that he's not one to jump to conclusion about anything, and it shows that he's not trying to push forward his own agenda. It takes a really classy person to be willing to listen to those he disagrees with. Listening doesn't equal agreeing with. But it does indicate his desire to collect ALL the information, and let ALL people have their say, in the hopes that every good idea will be brought forward--even if it comes from his political enemy.

That's a real leader right there.

[LittleClarkie]

25. Seems reasonable enough

But I bet he already knows that Bush isn't going to go for the kind of diplomatic strategy needed. Kerry seeks an adult solution from a giant infant.

I reckon he won't get it. Hence, he will end up opposing.

[Clarkie1]

34. It's basically Clark's position in so many words as expressed in the NPR interview this week. nt

[Clarkie1]

51. Kerry supporters seem to be mostly avoiding this thread.

I wonder if it makes them uncomfortable in some way.

Well, back to my eggnog....

[StoryTeller]

67. I'm here!

I just found the thread and am working my way through it. I appreciate a lot of the points you've made--as I stated upthread.

Putting together the various statements Kerry has made on the idea of a surge, my take on it is this:

Kerry does NOT support a surge. He's been very clear that his plan is phased withdrawal with specific deadlines. I don't know how much his suggested time line for that has changed since he initially proposed the idea, but he's been very consistent about this and has never called for MORE troops FOR IRAQ.

He's using this question of a surge as an open door to really pound home the necessity of a diplomatic/political solution. IF you do a surge without the political/diplomatic work, it will be catastrophic. But the reality is, if the diplomacy happens, a surge is probably not necessary.

Consider this--if he was completely dogmatic about opposing the surge under any conditions (i.e. never phrased it as an if/then statement) how would that be demonstrating the diplomatic/political approach he is advocating? He is living out the exact method he is proposing--that of a diplomat. And a diplomat uses a conciliatory, encouraging approach to try to bring the other party around to his way of thinking.

I think Kerry is just walking his talk, as usual.

[ProSense]

70. I'm here!

Kerry is Unequivocally opposed to a surge?

Clark has a different opinion:

Diane Rehm: How would you react to that, General Clark, increasing troops now?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think, I think first of all, it's a temporary measure. Secondly, I think you'll probably get some results on the ground.

Diane Rehm: What would it accomplish?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think you'll get more patrols on the streets of Baghdad. I think you'll get more snipers on rooftops. I think you'll get more roadblocks. I think it'll be more difficult for militias to move. I think you'll be able to occupy certain areas for longer without having to pull the troops back. In other words, I think you'll get some marginal military advantages. If the major problem is political not military, the question is: What is the President going to do to gain the political initiative? He's met with Maliki. He's met with Hakim. He's now meeting with the Sunni leader. What's going to emerge from that? Is there going to be a political strategic consensus? That's what's going to determine our success or failure in Iraq.

[StoryTeller]

72. Thanks for this info, ProSense!

After reading this, I think we can compare Clark's and Kerry's positions this way:


Kerry: Troop surge is a bad idea. Potentially catastrophic.
Clark: More troops might give temporary helpful results. (Emphasis on "temporary" though.)


Kerry: The only way to reduce the scope of disaster caused by a surge is to encase it in a larger diplomatic/political effort. Diplomacy has to be the solution.
Clark: The long-term benefit of more troops is limited. The solution has to be diplomatic/political.


They agree on the ultimate solution--it has to be diplomatic/political. They have differing opinions on the short-term benefit of a surge.

I don't think it's that difficult to understand either one's position. And I bet that if you sat both men down and let them discuss it, they'd probably end up acknowledging the value of the other's viewpoint. This is NOT an easily-distilled discussion, and it's no place for dogma. I think both Kerry and Clark would encourage us to be like them and listen to each other openly and not be too quick to argue. They would understand the value of working together to create the best solution available.

[FrenchieCat]

73. Are you stating that in Clark stating "what" a surge would do, it equals him

favoring the possibility?

Amazing how one would take so much trouble to parse John Kerry's words, but would not take the "same care" in regards to Wes Clark's answers to direct questions. Funny and ironic how that works. My candidate really said this...... vs. your candidate said "he supports more troops" when it is a clear untruth that nowhere does Wes Clark ever states that More Troops is the answer.

How sadly desingeniously partisan of you!

The question WES CLARK was answering was this one.....Diane Rehm: What would it accomplish? to which he gave the answer you posted.

The question Clark was NOT answering the question, "Do you support a Troop Surge?"


Below, Clark further answers with an analogy of what more troops would really mean in the big picture..... It's not that the United States is modeling clay, and somebody says, 'Well, let's just put a little more, one more pound of clay, and I, I'm sure we can build this statue the right height.' There are other people out there who don't want us to build that statue. When we add clay, they take away clay. When we form it one way, they pull it out another way. I'm talking about Iran and Syria and other forces. We're operating against resistance. That resistance takes many forms. It takes the forms of blackmail, threat, intimidation, education, money, weapons, technology, and if you stand back and look at the mission thus far, what's, what stands out is a persistent underestimation of the opposition - their resourcefulness, their dedication, their ability to mobilize and embed in the population. And so, what my concern is not the troop level, but what is the program-

In essence Clark believes that More troops vs. less troops is not what is relevant to our Foreign policy discussion as to what to do about Iraq. He believes it to be a temporary measure that could certainly be done BUT WOULD NOT BE SUCCESSFUL IN THE LONG TERM, because CLARK DOESN'T BELIEVE THAT MORE TROOPS WOULD SOLVE OUR "We are losing in Iraq" problem.

He elaborates in the same interview......GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, you know, I think it's possible on a short-term basis to surge 20 or 30 thousand. It's a question of the level of pain you're willing to inflict on the rest of force, the people who are back here preparing, the people who are in the Guard and Reserve. That can be done. That, that's mechanically possible. The question is: What do you gain from it? As Robert said, we don't have any leverage against Iran. So, we're going to put these troops in there to try to stabilize the situation. Are we likely to succeed by increasing 20 or 30 thousand troops. Temporarily, I think you'll probably suppress some of the violence. They'll have more difficulty moving and so forth, but within six weeks, eight weeks, six months, if Iran wants to crank up the heat on the United States forces, they'll find a way to do this. So, how are we going to come back and deal with Iran? That's the question.

Here he talks about what Moderates Arabs are saying in the middle east, and his feelings on it...
just came back from the Arab Strategy Forum in Dubai. I, I couldn't believe how many people came to me and said, 'You've got to put more troops in.'

I said, 'What is it you want these troops to do?'

They said, 'We don't know, but you just got to put those troops in there,'
because they don't have a political answer. They don't have a diplomatic or strategic answer, and troops are like, they're like black magic in the civilian world. People don't quite understand what they do, but they must be part of the solution."
http://securingamerica.com/node/2030

[StoryTeller]

74. I don't think ProSense was stating anything of the sort.

Further up-thread, someone made the statement that Clark and Kerry have the same position regarding the surge. All ProSense was doing was providing information regarding Clark's statements on the surge.

Clark and Kerry do not have exactly the same position (as I summarized in the post above yours). But I don't think their positions are terribly far apart either.

I think the biggest mistake people are making in this thread and the other one about Kerry's position on the surge is that they are equating a discussion of what COULD happen in a given scenario with what they WANT to happen or what they SUPPORT.

I don't see any evidence that either Clark or Kerry are in favor of a surge. I think they have differing views of what could happen--which is fair. No one knows for sure what will happen. But both are very much in favor of a political/diplomatic solution, not a military one.

It's not doing either of them justice to pit them against each other. In a situation like this, you need all ideas brought to the table and you need leaders who are willing to listen to each other and reflect deeply on the merits and ramifications of all ideas before coming to conclusions. I think that in the case of Clark and Kerry, you have two pretty wise individuals who would do just that if given the opportunity.

[FrenchieCat]

77. Well maybe so....but I have followed Prosense's approach over time

and she is not one who would hesitate in perverting someone else's words if it will help out John Kerry. Prosense may have thought that it was a good idea at the time, but the only thing it did was to establish that prosense is not above "creating out of context distortions" about other's views if John Kerry might benefit indirectly or directly, whichever is most appropriate at the time

Here are a few examples!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2981346

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2994677#2995813

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2997917

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2997616

[ProSense]

78. That's silly!

Follow the your first link to that paraphrased statement here.

The second and third post are verbatim: I am not the author of Gen. Clark's testimony or the AP article.

No depth to being disingenuous for you, huh?

[FrenchieCat]

80. You didn't think it was "silly" when you were making up headlines

about what Clark "said" by using words in a headline that Clark had never uttered yet pretending that they had been said by Wes Clark himself, when they hadn't.

If you recall, Clark had never "said" timetable were a "folly"....it was what a Clark supporter had said in a tread that he started...and instead of keeping your responses to that thread, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2981135
you decided to start various threads on the subject with your very own spin attached to the headline and get this; started multiple threads in more than one forum!

PROSENSE'S two threads in two different forums started at the same time with the same headlines in response to a Clark thread (because you couldn't bare the thought of just responding within the Clark thread, and had to go round making shit up along with your own inspired marqui instead :eyes: )--

This was the headline of your thread started in GDP....

General Clark says a timetable is folly! Gen. Clark is completely wrong!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2981346

and your thread started in GD...

General Clark says a timetable is folly! Gen. Clark is completely wrong!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2772212&mesg_id=2772212

and later yet, once you shamed into it, you did decide to make an apology that was a non-apology for the other threads you had started! :eyes:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2772568

So now, you Prosense is supposed to be an authority on what is "Silly".

So....Yeah. OK! What-E-ver! :crazy:

[ProSense]

82. How many ways can I say it: Clark is wrong about a timetable! n/t

[FrenchieCat]

88. For starters, maybe had you not attributed words not used by Clark, that would have been a better

way!

IN particular when one understood that Clark was saying that he DOES NOT FAVOR setting timetables PRIOR to negotiations with those involved, but rather IS FOR negotiated timetables.

In addition, starting 3 threads in multiple forums attributing words that Clark did not utter was simply the overkill "yellow journalism" sensational way....that you used as your approach.....

therefore you used 3 bad ways too many.....

So.....

How many ways could you have made up an "outright out of context untruth" about Wes Clark was more the crux of your sillyness.

[ProSense]

91. Clark: Timetables a bad idea

His words, not mine:

Timetables a bad idea

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.

[ProSense]

85. Also, don't

take it personally! I think a timetable is the best approach. A lot of people apparently don't agree.

[StoryTeller]

79. You know, this sounds like it's a personal issue

that you have with ProSense. So I'm going to let the two of you work it out.

Good luck!

[blm]

75. The problem always comes down to the same thing - Kerry and Clark give FULL ANSWERS and

consider all sides, and when they may be describing a situation's reality or possibilities, the excerpts get used to define their positions if people choose to do so - like the way this thread was started.

I have noticed both Clark and Kerry try to give as full an answer as possible and end up at some point getting criticized for whatever portion of the answer gets the focus.

[sandnsea]

76. As for me

I think it's against the rules to use the word I would choose to apply to your post. So go ahead with your silly games. DUers have more to go on than your single distorting post.

[nealmhughes]

54. It is becoming more and more obvious that Iraq, an artificial creature, is having its bindings

unravelled. It is noone's fault and everyone's. The Ottomans didn't seem to whine too much at Sevres, to be honest, regarding the loss of Mesopotamia and Syria and Palestine. The Brits brought in the Hashemites and kept control for a while, then the kingdom fell apart after 30 years or so. For those not up on their Middle Eastern history, the Hashemites are the House of Hussein, and as direct decendents of the Prophet Mohammed, were the hereditary sharifs of Mekkah until ibn Saud started his conquest of most of the Arabian Peninsula. Britain "rewarded" the Sharif by making his sons kings. The only one left out of the lot is Jordan, and it nearly fell by the PLO's power in the early 70s, hence "Black September". King Hussein hit the Palestinians hard in retaliation for their "state within a state" with his Bedouin army. The Hashemites and their allied tribesmen won.

The Ottomans had been relatively lenient on all its subjects -- with the notable exception of the Armenians, and then only once Russia was trying to get the Armenians to rebel and join their fellow Armenians in Russian Armenia against the Ottomans, and we know the sad outcome of the madman Enver's genocide -- so the Kurds had their own province. The Sunnis effectively had the now-termed "Sunni Triangle" and the Shia were the majority in the South. The rights of the Jews and Christians were protected, but they did have to pay a tax, but were able to actually function in Ottoman society on a nearly level field. As the "Turkification" of Ottoman society began, the multi-ethnic fabric of the Empire was rent asunder.

The Kurds even had a republic for a while under Russian oversight during the Russian Civil War! Iran was then weak and unable to do much of anything, the oil boom was just starting back then in the Mideast...so British bureaucrats drawing lines on maps made perfect sense at Whitehall. Unfortunately, it seems that there is no Big Daddy any longer. No Sultan. No Hashemite with the power of his lineage to bind them together. Only a group of Westerners on Crusade who do not speak much Arabic at all and don't know a Shia from a Sunni from an Assyrian from a Kurd. No more Saddam whose Baathists were a danger to the oil monarchies and ruled with an iron fist, but were secular and did bring a lot of "modern" conveniences to the state with their oil money...

Unfortunately, Wahhabi Sunnis, the most "ideologically pure" of the Sunnis are the official state religious leaders of the al Saud House. Osama is a Wahhabi. The Taliban and al Qaeda are Wahhabi. The want Sharia, women cloaked and all "franks" out of "holy soil" and that means a lot of Iraq, all of Arabia and Palestine.

The Shia are more complicated. They are waiting on an Iman to return and have Ayatollahs. Wahhabis Sunnis look upon them about as Roman Catholics do Baptists -- "well, I guess in the big picture they are co-religionists, but heretics, heretics all!"

The Wahhabis have a whole lot of idle princes and potentates with a lot of petrodollars on their hands. Ergo: the financing of al Qaeda and the Taliban. To tit their tat, the Shia Iranians have a lot of petroeuro on their hands to fund Hizbollah and the Sadr Brigade, et al.

It appears that when the Ottomans were in control there was a weak and poor Arabia, Mesopotamia and Iran. Now there isn't...except a weak Mesopotamia. That means that the void is trying to be filled by proxy by the Sunni oil monarchies and the Shia oil-financed nominal republic of Iran.

Note that Afghanistan isn't even considered: Heaven help whomever messes with the Afghans! A fierce tribal agricultural/pastoral people don't cotton well to outsiders, be they Russian, Arab, or Western.

In short, there is no easy solution. Only more death unless people there decide they are tired of killing their neighbors and that something more than branch of Islam or Arabic-speaking vs. Kurdish trumps their fight as proxies in the Arabo-Persian War by proxy.

We have no business being there, to summarize. None at all. They will sell us their oil. They would be starving without it. We will buy it, or we will shiver in the cold and dark without it.

The best thing the world could do is put the Straits under UN naval control to guarantee the flow of oil, since noone seems much interested in anything other than the oil -- certainly not the people of Mesopotamia and a serious multi-party dialog with all parties, from Canada to China involved, but is there anyone out there with the moral integrity to call for such, much less to lead them?

[StoryTeller]

68. Thank you for this excellent historical summary.

You're right--not enough people know this history. I certainly didn't. I really appreciate the information.

You said:
"The best thing the world could do is put the Straits under UN naval control to guarantee the flow of oil, since noone seems much interested in anything other than the oil -- certainly not the people of Mesopotamia and a serious multi-party dialog with all parties, from Canada to China involved, but is there anyone out there with the moral integrity to call for such, much less to lead them?"

I think you're pretty much right, though it makes me sad to say it. People should be so much more precious than oil, and the world really has its priorities screwed up on that point. I would like to point out, though, that serious multi-party dialog IS being called for by Kerry (and I would assume some of our other Democratic leaders, too). And I would assume that there are some M.E. leaders who want it, too. But I see your point--until the leaders of the most involved factions are willing and able, it won't make much difference what other leaders would like.

[rollopollo]

55. Kerry made an important distinction

The bigger picture in Iraq is not US vs. The Terrorists. It's Sunni vs. Shia. They have been fighting for ages. And other Middle Eastern countries will support their own. We are simply caught in the crossfire (and drawing some of the fire from both Sunni and Shia- because we won't leave).

If someone thinks that the US can somehow play referee between these two factions, then based on that misunderstanding, there will be a lot of needless American casualties.

[beachmom]

56. Kerry is for a timetable for withdrawal of American troops

He is not for a troop surge. This thread is highly misleading. He said both on The Today Show and on NPR that a troop surge was a bad idea. From my diary on dailykos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/20/125158/50#c161

GREGORY: More troops would not do enough in your estimation to shore up Baghdad and at least give the Maliki government a fighting chance?

KERRY: Not without a fundamental political resolution. I think you could put 100,000 troops and you're going to up the casualties, up the stakes, increase the violence and not get a resolution.

Kerry will absolutely not support a troop surge now. That's what they're talking about. What your excerpting is him leaving options open for the POLITICAL and DIPLOMATIC process, which could very well include U.N. peacekeeping troops. Who knows. That's not what Bush and the right wing are up to here. They don't want to do any real diplomacy; they just want to send in more troops for the heck of it. That is immoral and Kerry is opposed to it.

[TayTay]

57. Your headline is misleading, at best.

it would be catastrophic mistake.

What part of catastrophe did you not get?

It is a stretch to say that this implies that Kerry supports a surge. He said he did not. Senators Kerry and Feingold introduced Amendments in the Congress in support of a timeline to withdraw troops from Iraq because 'our troops have done their jobs' and the solution to Iraq is political, not military.

This comes very close to lying about what Kerry said. Very, very close.

[Roland99]

60. Same train of thought he put forth in his long speech before voting FOR the IWR

[wisteria]

62. I see nothing wrong with Sen. Kerry's approach.

Obviously, just sending more troops is not going to solve the fundamental problem- the tug of war between the Sunni and Shea. Diplomacy is the key, but all parties must want to and have a reason to succeed in bringing the country together. He cautiously warns, that Democrats must be very alert, ask the right questions and not be afraid to vote against the requests if all stipulations are not agreed upon and undertaken. He understands the larger ramifications of not trying to salvage what we can from this mess, and he really believes that diplomacy may work. How will we know if we don't attempt it? HOWEVER, HE DOES NOT, AND I REPEAT DOES NOT, THINK THAT SENDING IN MORE TROOPS WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEMS THERE. HE HAS CALLED FOR AND STILL BELIEVES IN WITHDRAWING AMERICAN TROOPS AS PER THE KERRY/FIENGOLD AMENDMENT.
Others may disagree, but Sen. Kerry has fleshed out a detailed plan, I am sure he would be open to debate and discussion though.

[Zhade]

81. Putting in even TEN more won't do shit, Kerry. C'mon, you KNOW BETTER.

"How do you ask a man to be the last one to die for a lie?"

It's our occupation driving the violence and allowing those who would commit violence without that pretext to run wild.

We must get out. That's it. Nothing less.

[karynnj]

87. Kerry is NOT saying a smaller number would work

that is crazy - he is for bringing the numbers down. You are twisting words.

[Zhade]

92. No, the media is, and I fell for it.

NT!

[karynnj]

93. I'm sorry then - the personal attack was against rules

and was not called for.

[Zhade]

94. No worries, I understand the frustration.

NT!

[Clarkie1]

95. Reality-check kick. nt