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