Wes Clark: "I wish this were the end of the story in Iraq, but it isn't."

[Totally Committed]

Wes Clark, in DNC Radio Speech: "Public confidence in President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq has sunk to an all time low"

October 15, 2005

The transcript:

"Good morning. This is retired United States Army General Wesley Clark.

"Today in Iraq, an important political event is taking place as Iraqis vote on their draft constitution. A hundred fifty thousand American soldiers and Marines are working to provide security and stability there along with the Iraqi forces that we've trained.

"I wish this were the end of the story in Iraq, but it isn't.

"Public confidence in President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq has sunk to an all time low. An increasing number of Americans of all political persuasions are now calling for expedited withdrawal of US forces. More and more Americans are angry. They are angry about the President's incompetence and his general unwillingness to acknowledge with some humility that he has made some terrible and tragic mistakes regarding the mission in Iraq.

"But America cannot allow itself to be so blinded by anger over this Administration's mishandling of events since the removal of Saddam Hussein from power that we are unable to see the danger of pushing for a premature withdrawal of US forces. Those who would use terror as a tactic in Iraq would be rewarded and emboldened if we pull out prematurely. We can not do that.

"We understand what is at stake in Iraq. And that is why we are so frustrated by the President's failure to give the American people clear answers to basic questions.

"Mr. Bush is long overdue in providing a plan to achieve Iraqi military sufficiency, to build domestic political consensus inside Iraq around a new government, to achieve regional political stability around Iraq, and to finally achieve an efficient reconstruction effort in Iraq.

"Basic questions: How many capable Iraqi forces do we need before we can bring our troops home? How are we going to forge a political consensus between those quarreling factions in Iraq? And what is our strategy for neutralizing the threatening and armed militias there?

"How can we do a better job with less corruption in the reconstruction of Iraq? And, how can we make Iraq's neighbors a part of the solution, instead of a source of the problems inside Iraq?
"Staying the course is not a strategy, it is just a slogan. What we need to do is change the course and put in place a real strategy that will not only bring us success in Iraq, but will restore to the United States of America the moral authority we've lost through our missteps over the past three years.

"Today in Iraq, a large turnout is expected as Iraqis vote on a new constitution. And that seems to be an important step toward a Democratic Iraq, bet let's not kid ourselves about the difficulties that lie ahead.
"The Sunni minority is isolated, fatalistic, and increasingly anti-American. Many of the Iraqi forces we are training are able to fight with US leadership and support, but their real loyalty is in doubt. Militia forces are strong, they're well organized and, in fact, they are the ultimate arbiters in Iraq. They are preparing to settle factional disputes by force.

"Economic recovery measured by electricity, water and oil production has faltered. And Iraq's neighbors are feeding the incipient conflict; each aiding their own factions.

"We have a long way to go before victory, or at least some measure of success, is assured.

"And that is why we must say to our sons and daughters who put themselves in harms way for our own safety and for the freedom of others: You have our gratitude. You have our respect. You have our unqualified support. We love you and we will not forget your sacrifice and that of your families when you come home. We are determined to ensure that this Administration provides you a plan for success befitting of your sacrifices and service.

"There is no alternative to success in Iraq. This administration has an obligation to provide our men and women in uniform and the American people that strategy.

"This is General Wesley Clark. Thank you for listening."

There is a link to listen to the address here:

http://securingamerica.com/node/282

[Singular73]

1. I agree with Clark.

Calling for pull-out is ludicrous. The PEOPLE of Iraq deserve better.

[welshTerrier2]

7. yes ... good ... the people of Iraq deserve to be occupied

and dedicated US forces, under great Iraqi empathizer george w. bush, will bring freedom and prosperity to the land and not put commercial interests ahead of the interests of the Iraqi people or the American people ...

our fighting forces will remain in Iraq to continue the very excellent progress they've been making over the last 2.5 years ... no amount of money and no number of dead Americans will dissuade us from our noble mission ...

we will remain in Iraq until Iraq is broken up into weakened factions unable to protect themselves from the dominance of Big Oil ... and each little weaken state will be left so desperate that they will have little choice but to succumb to the will of the US and its oil industry ...

now, of course, this will not initially apply to the Shi'ites in the south ... they will become a satellite state for Iran ... but that won't last long once the US attacks Iran ...

the reason a pull-out is necessary is that the mission the troops are being directed to accomplish is NOT in the best interests of the Iraqi people ....

[1932]

141. So true.

[IndianaGreen]

10. The people of Iraq don't deserve to be raped and murdered by US troops

We have no business in Iraq and staying there will not change the ultimate outcome, but will only result in more dead and wounded.

[LynnTheDem]

29. Ummm...the people of Iraq want us THE HELL OUT.

But hey, obviously YOU know better what's best for them.

[Pepperbelly]

2. While I dearly love Cousin Wesley ... he is wrong about this ...

What he is missing is this: 95% of the violence in Iraq is directed at our troops. If our troops leave, also leaves 95% of the violence. The insurgency is an insurgency ONLY because we are a foreign and seemingly crusading power in their midst.

I would do the same thing if the roles were reversed. So would Wesley. And we would stop when the foreigners were driven out.

[OKNancy]

6. Except that maybe violence would lessen,

but most likely a fundamentalist regime would take over. Very bad for half the population of Iraq. Very worrisome.

And no matter, we won't just pull out. It won't happen no matter who is in control of US politics.

[LynnTheDem]

30. Gee, you haven't read the new "constitution" have ya.

Guess what; it makes Iraq an Iranian-style ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST STATE.

So what was your point again?

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

16. that's not true

most of the violence in Iraq is now between Sunni and Shia -- and directed at the fledgling Iraqi security forces. Quite often US forces are nowhere near at the time car bombs go off or executions are carried out. It's not all about America -- even though Americans seem to think that's how the world operates.

This from the UK Guardian yesterday:

Saturday's vote on Iraq's new constitution takes place nearly six months after the country's first elected government took power, and during that period at least 3,663 Iraqis have been killed in war-related violence, according to an Associated Press count.

The current interim government took power on April 28 after long negotiations that followed parliamentary elections in January.

The AP gathered the statistics on Iraqi dead on a daily basis from hospital officials, Iraqi police, the Iraqi military and other government officials.

The Iraqi deaths include civilians, bodyguards, police, security forces and the military. They do not include the nearly 1,000 Shiite pilgrims killed in an Aug. 21 stampede on a Baghdad bridge that began when rumors spread through the crowd that a suicide bomber was among the faithful.

As of Thursday, the AP count also showed that at least 395 members of the U.S. military have died in the same period.

If the US pulled out tomorrow there'd still be horrendous violence in Iraq. And it would quite likely explode into a regional war.

[Pepperbelly]

19. regardless of who a particular attack might be aimed toward ...

it is aimed toward us.

It wasn't there before we got there.

[dogman]

24. It was there before we got there.

It has existed on different levels since the British created Iraq. Even under Saddam's strong-arm rule Kurds and Shiites were murdered in large numbers.

[LynnTheDem]

32. No it was not there before we got there.

And that's a fact. ;)

[dogman]

33. Tell that to 100,000 dead Shiites.

Tell that to the Kurds. Are you serious? This civil war was taking place for years and led to the rise of the Baathists. How do you think the minority Sunnis controlled this country?

[LynnTheDem]

36. I am serious; there has NEVER been civil war in Iraq between Shia & Sunni.

100,000 dead Shia. Really? Would that be from the Basra Highway Massacre perptrated by the US and UK in the Gulf War?

[dogman]

38. Yes and when one faction of a country kills another, it's called civil war

You don't believe the Shia were trying to overthrow Saddam's hold on their sector of the country? Whether it was perpetrated by offers of support from the outside does not change the internal dynamic.

[LynnTheDem]

45. There has never been a civil war in Iraq.

That's just fact.

[dogman]

49. Well you and I must have a different definition of civil war.

My dictionary says: Snip>a war between citizens of the same country.<snip

[LynnTheDem]

57. There has never been civil war in Iraq; there has never been war

between the Shia and Sunni in Iraq.

[dogman]

64. Well that is an interesting notion, but the facts show otherwise.

You have not even addressed the war with the Kurds either.

[LynnTheDem]

66. FACT; there has never been a civil war in Iraq. FACT; there has

never been war between the Sunni and Shia, nor the Sunni and Kurds.

There HAS been a war between the 2 KURD factions.

Those are the facts.

You may think otherwise, and that's fine, you're entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. ;)

[dogman]

93. FACT: There are dead Sunnis, there are dead Shia, and there are dead Kurds

Fact: they have killed each other. Even the two Kurd factions have fought each other. Just because Robert Fisk says that is not civil war does not make it fact. I have given you the definition of civil war and it clearly applies to Iraq.

[LynnTheDem]

115. Your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But FACT is, there has never

been a civil war in Iraq.

There has been war between the 2 main Kurdish factions in Kurdistan over the past 30 years.

:)

[LynnTheDem]

124. Civil war in America!

U.S. murder rate for 2003, 5.6 per 100,000 persons. In 1980, the US homicide rate peaked at 10 per 100,000. TWO less per 100,000 than Iraq's worst rate, in the 1970s.

TOP TEN COUNTRIES FOR HOMICIDE, 2003 COUNTRY PER 100,000
(1) Columbia 63
(2) South Africa 51
(3) Jamaica 32
(4) Venezuela 32
(5) Russia 19
(6) Mexico 13
(7) Lithuania 10
(8) Estonia 10
(9) Latvia 10
(10) Belarus 9

TEN WORST COUNTRIES FOR MURDER, LATE-1990s COUNTRY PER 100,000
(1) Columbia 84.4
(2) El Salvador 50.2
(3) Puerto Rico 41.8
(4) Brazil 32.5
(5) Albania 28.2
(6) Venezuela 25.0
(7) Russian Federation 18.0
(8) Ecuador 15.9
(9) Mexico 15.3
(10) Panama 14.4

TEN WORST COUNTRIES FOR MURDER (MID-1970s) COUNTRY PER 100,000
(1) Lesotho 141
(2) Bahamas 23
(3) Guyana 22
(4) Lebanon 20
(5) Netherlands Antilles 12
(6) Iraq 12
(7) Sri Lanka 12
(8) Cyprus 11
(9) Trindad & Tobago 10
(10) Jamaica 10

There has never been a civil war in Iraq.

[LynnTheDem]

129. "The warning of an imminent civil war has no historical basis."

As political analyst Wameed Nadhmi told Egypt's Al-Ahram Weekly newspaper, "the US aim is to weaken Iraq-to divide it on sectarian and ethnic lines while keeping it geographically intact."

"The warning of an imminent civil war has no historical basis.'
http://www.iso.org.au/socialistworker/531/p6c.html

Bush and Blair continue to peddle the myth, beloved of old colonialists, that Iraqis will start a civil war if the "benevolent" presence of the occupation forces is removed.

-Sami Ramadani is a senior lecturer in sociology at London Metropolitan University and was a political exile from Saddam's regime
http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-ramadani030704.htm

Dahr Jamail; Unembedded in Iraq

The Shia/Sunni rift is largely a CIA generated myth. There are countless tribes and marriages alike that are both Shia/Sunni. There are mosques here where they pray together.

There is the possibility of war if the Kurds go independent, but the more likely possibility of that war would be Turkey invading Kurdistan before any Shia/Sunni action would occur regarding this.

Another Iraqi man pointed out that if there were a civil war, no Shia or Kurdish attack on Fallujah could ever possibly compare to the devastation the US military has caused there. I think he makes a good point.
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/20669

Unlike the United States, Iraq has never had a full-fledged civil war. There have been various revolts and revolutions, but never a full-fledged civil war on the scale of the American civil war. This propaganda about the inevitability of civil war if the US pulls out plays off stereotypes and prejudices many Americans have about “third world” peoples – that “they” are extremely unstable, have lots of civil wars, frequent coups and major ethnic tensions. Such stereotypes simply do not apply to Iraq.
http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/Iraq.html

[dogman]

134. Ahh, the fringe left has proclaimed it thus.

No ulterior motive there. If its tribal wars between militias then its not really killing, ok.

[LynnTheDem]

143. Where's all your links about Iraq's history of civil wars?

-Sami Ramadani is a senior lecturer in sociology at London Metropolitan University and was a political exile from Saddam's regime.

"fringe left"!

-Dahr Jamail

"fringe left"!

-political analyst Wameed Nadhmi

"fringe left"!

[dogman]

146. Your thread title.

Snip>And in a real sense, if a civil war does break out, it will be Iraq's second in about 13 years.<snip
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FC02Ak01.html

[LynnTheDem]

148. The 1991 uprising was not a "civil war".

Goldstein, journalist, (who does NOT know more than the ME experts who say there has never been a civil war in Iraq) is calling the 1991 uprising a "civil war".

[dogman]

152. You didn't give me a list of those you consider qualified.

Had I known that was a condition I wouldn't have bothered. Given that only your "experts" have a say, I will cocede there was no civil war, just a high murder rate. I suppose they will not admit the possibility of regional conflict either. So the Middle East is just a region that has a high murder rate and that's ok, so let them just carry on then.

[LynnTheDem]

153. As long as it's not rightwingnut trash, as long as it's not journalists

and op-eds, but actual ME experts. :)

[dogman]

157. Well, since Clark has worked in the Middle East and is a top military

analyst and considering he has attended conferences there and actually discussed these matters with a number of Middle East statesman, I'll just take his word for it and doubt you.

[LynnTheDem]

160. No you don't "doubt" me, you doubt all the ME experts I've

posted quotes from.

And hey, fine by me. Let's just stay in Iraq forever! Coz that's how long "success" will take. Hope Wes calls all his supporters to enlist, the military's pretty short on warm bodies.

:)

[dogman]

166. Wes would not call that a success strategy.

In his opinion the military completed the majority portion of its job some time ago. He would not have sent troops in in the first place. When the troops were sent in, he pointed out that the proper number and mix of troops was not being used. Once Iraq was occupied he stated that the American presence should be minimal, both at the military and reconstruction aspects. His primary concern at this point is that not only will Iraq be an ongoing war but it will spread through out the region. He has also stated that as the window to turn this disaster quickly closes, the only resort will be to pull out. I've long passed the age to enlist but would be willing to again if it would produce the outcome Clark envisions. Since this war is being run by Bushco however, I would not suggest for a moment that anyone do so. I experienced one corporate run war and feel most fortunate to have survived. As Clark says, military force should only, only, only be used as a last resort for a problem that has no other solution.

[dogman]

131. Which factions were involved?

Not quite a majority of a village or 100,000 in one uprising.

[LynnTheDem]

133. Find me links then about civil wars in Iraq, and I'll let my prof

of ME Studies know he taught us all bullshit, and I'll let all the ME experts know they're living and teaching bullshit.

;)

Iraq has never had a civil war.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

50. and that means there can't be one?

(edited to add link left off original post)

This from Sydney Morning Herald journalist Paul McGeough who is widely respected (especially by the left) as one of the few journalists who's spent a lot of time in Iraq (and Afghanistan).

If you read the full text of this long speech given in Sydney last week you'll see he is by no means a supporter of Bush. In fact he calls him on the lies he told to get support to invade Iraq. However he doesn't think a quick exit by the US is a viable answer.

It is no exaggeration to say there's a risk the entire region could implode, possibly delivering to Al Qaeda or one of its satellites a state-based operation - in Iraq or maybe even in Saudi Arabia - that would threaten global oil supplies and the delicate balance of power in the region.

It can't be allowed to happen - so at what cost, at what price might Iraq be rescued from the US? The short answer is: Probably not the way the Americans are going about it.

So, he has essentially the same "change the course, don't stay the course" opinion as General Clark.

And he is quite clear that the dysfunction in Iraq isn't being caused by Americans, although they've certainly enabled it by creating a power vacuum.

The elephant on the Baghdad table was the huge Shiite majority that had been oppressed for centuries. But Americans are not good elephant trainers - they wanted to work around the Shiia religious leadership, hoping they could buy time for the exiles they brought back by the planeload, to build their own political parties and constitutiencies. But, as Mark Danner, observed perceptively in The New York Times last month, they never managed to confront Iraq's underlying political dysfunction - of which the tyranny of Saddam Hussein was a product, not the cause

Furthermore he talks a lot about the Shia v Sunni violence. And it's not caused by the Americans. It was there before and erupted in the power vacuum created by the American invasion -- which was not only wrong, but it was bungled as well.

Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is Osama bin Laden's pointsman in Iraq. He is determined to bring a civil war on as he scratches at the Sunni-Shiite fault line with his constant and brutal suicide bombings in Shiite communities. And despite the pretence of not esponding violently, the Shiites are hitting back - their private armies have taken control of entire sections of the military, police and intelligence services; they run their own illegal prisons - I've seen them - And now, they are now rounding up Sunnis for summary execution.

Last weekend I spoke by phone to an associate of one of Iraq's new breed of Shiite henchmen - he reported that his acquaintance had executed 37 Sunnis in the previous 24 hours and how that night, they were to be guests at one of the highest Shiite tables in the land for Iftar, the twilight breaking of the Ramadan fast.

Sunni hit men also stalk Shiites living in Sunni strongholds - paying locals to identify their targets; and both Shiite and Sunni families are reportedly selling up and moving out of areas in which they are in localised minorities. Even in the supposed peace of the British-controlled south, rival Shiite gangs and militias are carving out territory - the local police chief admits he can trust only a quarter of his men and diplomats admit that the British grip on security is tenuous. It is a cruel merry-go-round.

The only people who will stop being killed if the US just cuts and runs in Iraq is american soldiers. Sure, if it's only Americans you care about, that's fine. But personally, despite being against this war from the start, I think General Clark is making the moral argument that the US should be expected to make a better, smarter effort to provide Iraqis with security and maybe some water, electricity and health infrastructure before just pissing off and leaving them a mess.

The US leaving won't solve their problems. The US staying the course won't solve their problems. There is the possibility of an answer that is neither of the above and General Clark shouldn't be pilloried for making an effort to define it.

[LynnTheDem]

55. 1. If you care about the Iraqis, WHY are you willing to IGNORE what

the majority of IRAQIS want?

2. The US CANNOT PREVENT WAR if that's what the Iraqis decide to do.

3. We are THE PROBLEM; we will NEVER be the solution.

4. IF civil war breaks out when we leave that is NOT OUR BUSINESS. Iraiws DO NOT NEED BABYSITTING.

5. Again, coz it's so worth repeating, IF you cared about the Iraqis, WHY are you so willing to IGNORE what the majority of Iraqis want, which is us the HELL OUT of their country?

6. White man's burden (only WE can prevent civil war...if WE leave, chaos will erupt...only WE know what's best) is a crock of arrogant shit.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

69. You know this how?

what is the source of your expertise about what the majority of iraqis want?

I've quoted two people, Juan Cole and Paul McGeough who both have long term interests and contacts with Iraq and they don't seem to believe it's what the majority of iraqis want.

[LynnTheDem]

72. Post #52; " Oh look, Iraqis have spoken, only the US ain't listening."

You weren't listening either.

[LynnTheDem]

31. And we're doing sucvh a GREAT job of preventing any civil war!

We are the PROBLEM, NOT the solution.

Iraqis want us OUT of THEIR country.

IRAQ FOR IRAQIS; YANKEES GET THE FUCK OUT.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

62. Juan Cole says different

I think he has some cred on the topic and he doesn't use screaming headlines, simplistic slogans and four letter words to make his point:

Ten Things Congress Could Demand from Bush on Iraq

Personally, I think "US out now" as a simple mantra neglects to consider the full range of possible disasters that could ensue. For one thing, there would be an Iraq civil war. Iraq wasn't having a civil war in 2002. And although you could argue that what is going on now is a subterranean, unconventional civil war, it is not characterized by set piece battles and hundreds of people killed in a single battle, as was true in Lebanon in 1975-76, e.g. People often allege that the US military isn't doing any good in Iraq and there is already a civil war. These people have never actually seen a civil war and do not appreciate the lid the US military is keeping on what could be a volcano.

All it would take would be for Sunni Arab guerrillas to assassinate Grand Ayatollah Sistani. And, boom. If there is a civil war now that kills a million people, with ethnic cleansing and millions of displaced persons, it will be our fault, or at least the fault of the 75% of Americans who supported the war. (Such a scenario is entirely plausible. Look at Afghanistan. It was a similar-sized country with similar ethnic and ideological divisions. One million died 1979-1992, and five million were displaced. Moreover, all this helped get New York and the Pentagon blown up.)

I mean, we are always complaining, and rightly so, about the genocide in Darfur and the inattention to genocides in Rwanda and the Congo earlier. Can we really live with ourselves if we cast Iraqis into such a maelstrom deliberately?

And as I have argued before, an Iraq civil war will likely become a regional war, drawing in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey. If a regional guerrilla war breaks out among Kurds, Turks, Shiites and Sunni Arabs, the guerrillas could well apply the technique of oil pipeline sabotage to Iran and Saudi Arabia, just as they do now to the Kirkuk pipeline in Iraq. If 20% of the world's petroleum production were taken off-line by such sabotage, the poor of the world would be badly hurt, and the whole world would risk another Great Depression.

[LynnTheDem]

65. WAR-SUPPORTER Juan Cole. Gee, he sure has been WRONG

about a lot of things regarding Iraq.

But hey, you wanna go with his bullshit, fine by me.

I'll go with what the MAJORITY OF IRAQIS WANT; USA OUT OF THEIR COUNTRY NOW.

;)

[paulk]

98. Juan Cole is not a war supporter

he's one of the most credible sources on Iraq around

and

shouting louder than everyone else doesn't make you right


it makes you look foolish

[CarolNYC]

102. Shouting louder...

Amen to that paulk. I feel like I'm watching O'Lielly or Hannity with all of the shouting going on.

Like Phil Donahue told O'Lielly when he was on, "Loud doesn't mean right."

[LynnTheDem]

111. But right does make right.

;)

[CarolNYC]

167. thanks, LynnDem,

for the small letters...makes it much easier to read...and, IMHO, makes your argument more convincing. I am so tired of all of the shouters. I see the big letters and, considering most of the shouters are the idiots and lunatics on the right, I can't help but subconsciously think of them and it makes me turn away from any loud, shouting post.

I think yours is an important voice in the debate...It's just a lot easier to "hear" without all of the shouting.

Be well....Carol

[CarolNYC]

168. thanks, LynnDem,

for the small letters...makes it much easier to read...and, IMHO, makes your argument more convincing. I am so tired of all of the shouters. I see the big letters and, considering most of the shouters are the idiots and lunatics on the right, I can't help but subconsciously think of them and it makes me turn away from any loud, shouting post.

I think yours is an important voice in the debate...It's just a lot easier to "hear" without all of the shouting.

Be well....Carol

[Joe Chi Minh]

196. Notice that from stone cold certainty about a "civil war"

having occurred, Lynn, bonzo grudgingly conceded that they were murders, then pleaded regional conflicts, then questioned why we should leave the Moslem world to govern itself, cruelly bereft of the benefit of our universally-admired spiritual values shaping their destiny from the barrel of a gun.

Why, the unprincipled way in which the UK has been run by successive far-right governments for the benefit of the large corporations and to the detriment of the social and physical fabric of the country at large, these past twenty-five years, has not gone unnoticed by our closest rivals in Europe, France and Germany. What contempt the Scandinavians have for our "brightest and best" doesn't bear thinking about.

[LynnTheDem]

110. Wanna bet? Juan Cole did indeed support invading Iraq.

Oops you sure look "foolish"!

Quotes by Juan Cole (from his own blog);

July 2003
"So, I refused to come out against the war. I was against the way the war was pursued--the innuendo, the exaggerations, the arrogant unilateralism."

March 2003
"I remain convinced that, for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides.

February 2003

"I am an Arabist and happen to know something serious about Baathist Iraq, which paralyzes me from opposing a war for regime change in that country."

"My own knowledge of the horrors Saddam has perpetrated makes it impossible for me to stand against the coming war, however worried I am about its aftermath."

TNR:

What's more, Cole has called himself "an outspoken hawk in the war on terror," and his views on the invasion of Afghanistan and the Iraq war, both of which he supported (while also voicing concerns about U.S. unilateralism), seem to bolster his credibility, reassuring readers that he doesn't suffer from the knee-jerk anti-Americanism found in many Middle East studies departments.
https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20050425&s=karsh042505

DailyKos; In the Matter of Juan Cole

We tend to rely upon Prof. Juan Cole for expertise regarding the Middle East, in general, and Iraq, in particular. Recently, however, I have read articles that raise troubling questions about the scope of his expertise and his trustworthiness.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/10/35758/6445

[eridani]

161. Juan Cole has changed his mind

http://www.juancole.com/2005/09/why-we-have-to-get-troops-out-of-iraq.html
The hundreds of thousands of protesters who came out throughout the world on Saturday were demanding a US and British withdrawal from Iraq.

The protesters are right that we have to get US ground troops out of Iraq.

The issue is not the rights and wrongs of the war. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There was no nuclear program, and the mushroom clouds with which Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice menaced us were figments of their fevered imaginations, no more substantial than the hateful internal voices that afflict schizophrenics.

<clip>

I conclude that the presence of the US ground troops is making things worse, not better. Let's get them out, now, before they destroy any more cities, create any more hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons, provoke any more ethnic hatreds by installing Shiite police in Fallujah or Kurdish troops in Turkmen Tal Afar. They are sowing a vast whirlwind, a desert sandstorm of Martian proportions, which future generations of Americans and Iraqis will reap. The ground troops must come out. Now. For the good of Iraq. For the good of America.

[LynnTheDem]

162. Juan Cole; "The ground troops must come out. Now."

Yes he certainly has changed his mind. Good for him, NOW he's on the correct path.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

208. He hasn't changed his mind

The same article I linked upthread advanced the same theory about removal of ground troops. But he means just ground troops.

Cole doesn't want the American military out of Iraq because he believes the prospects of civil war, escalating into regional conflict are too real.

Now, I don't know how viable his military strategies are but either way he doesn't think America getting out is the answer.

Here's the continuation of the same article I linked above:

1) US ground troops should be withdrawn ASAP from urban areas as a first step. Iraqi police will just have to do the policing. We are no good at it.

If local militias take over, that is the Iraqi government's problem. The prime minister will have to either compromise with the militia leaders or send in other Iraqi militias to take them on. Who runs Iraqi cities can no longer be a primary concern of the US military. Our troops are warriors, not traffic cops.

2) In the second phase of withdrawal, most US ground troops would steadily be brought out of Iraq.

3) For as long as the elected Iraqi government wanted it, the US would offer the new Iraqi military and security forces close air support in any firefight they have with guerrilla or other rebellious forces. (I.e. we would replicate our tactics in Afghanistan of providing the air force for the Northern Alliance infantry and cavalry.) I concede that this tactic will get some US Blackhawks shot down from time to time, and won't be painless.
But it could prevent the outbreak of fullscale war. This way of proceeding, which was opened up by the Afghanistan War of 2001-2002, and which depends on smart weapons and having allies on the ground, is the major difference between today and the Vietnam era, when dumb bombs (and even carpet bombing) couldn't have been deployed effectively to ensure the enemy did not take or hold substantial territory. (I am not advocating bombing civilian neighborhoods of cities; I am talking about intervening in set-piece battles of the sort that will become possible in the absence of US ground troops.)

4) With the agreement of the elected Iraqi government, the US would prevent any guerrilla force from fielding any large number of fighters for set piece battles. Such large units of militiamen attempting to march from Anbar on Baghdad, e.g., would be destroyed by AC-130s and other US air weaponry suitable to this purpose. This tactic cannot prevent the current campaign of car bombings, but it can stop a full-scale Lebanon or Afghanistan-style civil war from erupting.

5) In addition to the service of its air forces, the US would offer targeted military aid to ensure the stability of the Iraqi government. It would help protect key political figures from assassination, and it would give the Iraqi government help in preventing pipeline sabotage so as to increase Iraqi petroleum revenues and strengthen the new government.

6) The US would help rapidly build an Iraqi armor corps. The new Iraqi military's lack of tanks is almost certainly because the US is afraid they might be turned on US troops in a crisis. Once US ground troops are out, there is no reason not to let the Iraqi military just import a lot of tanks and train the new Iraqi army in using them.

[eridani]

243. We'll have to wait until he has a 3rd article then

Yours was dated August 2005, and mine September 2005. In the latter, he didn't say anything about air support. Since the resistance seems to be doing well without set-piece battles, why would they want to start them all of a sudden? The threat of that is the only reason that Cole wants air support there, but by his own logic this is a war to advance political objectives, and set-piece battles are totally useless for that. And if he thinks the neocons are going to let the Iraqi army have tanks any time soon, I'd like a hit of whatever he is smoking.

[1932]

144. The US wrote the imperialist playbook in the Philippines.

A big part of the strategy there was to use Filipinos as the enforcers of American imperialism based on the theory that they would kill their own people.

The insurgency has read their history books.

If the US weren't building up the Iraq security forces as an instrument of US control, they wouldn't be attacked by insurgents.

[Joe Chi Minh]

195. He doesn't seem to get it at all that those he calls "terrorists" are

nothing other than resistance fighters, like the maquisards in France in WWII, bent on ousting from their country an occupying imperial superpower.

It would be nice to get rid of corruption and fraudulent elections at home first, too, wouldn't it, before presuming to eliminate or even minimise such vices, abroad? Actually, the way they run their domestic affairs, whether corruptly or otherwise, is nobody's business but their own. Why the sudden crusade, anyway, after the longstanding cosy relations with Saddam Hussein?

[mike_c]

3. damn, I was ready to hope that Clark would be honest about Iraq....

This is more of the same old militaristic bullshit, polished up with a bit of old-fashioned partisanship.

"But America cannot allow itself to be so blinded by anger over this Administration's mishandling of events since the removal of Saddam Hussein from power that we are unable to see the danger of pushing for a premature withdrawal of US forces.

(snip)

"We have a long way to go before victory, or at least some measure of success, is assured.

(snip)

"There is no alternative to success in Iraq. This administration has an obligation to provide our men and women in uniform and the American people that strategy.

More "complete the mission" bullshit from a man who seems forever bent upon being an PNAC tool. :puke:

[Pepperbelly]

5. bullshit ...

you confuse mistaken with corruption. You cannot make that case. You can only surmise and speculate which amounts to very little.

[mike_c]

12. no-- forgive me if I gave the impression that I think Clark is "corrupt...

..except to the extent that I think the militarist perspective is itself fundamentally flawed, but even that is not corruption in the sense that you heard in my comments. But to be clear, I agree with you-- in this he is simply wrong-- I don't think his motives are corrupt. I do think that Clark's call for "success in Iraq" is congruent with the objectives of the PNAC, for whom "success in Iraq" is the key to U.S. military dominion and political hegemony in the middle east, but I don't think that he shares their motives.

I think he describes his essential motives in this speech-- acknowledging that the war against Iraq is fundamentally wrong and that it should be terminated immediately is a slap in the face of the soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors who've been committed to the conflict. It acknowledges that those who've died did so in vain, in defense of a lie, and in the name of corporate profits, not American principles (to the extent they can be separated, but that's another matter). But in doing so he flaunts his worst blind spot-- unquestioning allegiance to military culture. The truth is that those deaths were for nothing, or worse. Clark's refusal to face this makes him the unwitting ally of the neocons, for whom completing the mission is just as vital.

[welshTerrier2]

15. "the war against Iraq is fundamentally wrong"

that is the essential issue i have with Clark's position ... I think Clark has done a great job understanding the truth about what is happening in Iraq ... his description about the anti-Sunni nature of troops being trained by the US is exactly right ... and i strongly agree with his calls for regional diplomacy ...

but the military roll in Iraq, no matter how different Clark himself would manage it, fuels Iraq's instability and imposes American imperialism on the Iraqis ... from day one, actually long before day one, bush, PNAC and the neo-cons have sought to make Iraq a US puppet to exploit their oil and control their government ...

and try though i have, i cannot get Wes Clark to go there ... the mission is fundamentally wrong because it is all about imperialism, not peace, stability, democracy or fighting terrorism ... more occupation does nothing but enable this undesirable outcome ...

[Pepperbelly]

20. that is where I am now although I was originally on Wesley's side

of the question.

We should leave. Now. No matter what we do, we have destabilized the region and an Islamic Republic is inevitable.

[welshTerrier2]

22. it's a catastrophe

there is no joy in Mudville ... i am hopeful that some kind of post-withdrawal process might bring some sanity to Iraq ... bush and PNAC have got to be crushed ... that's what is wrong, even unconscionable, with the Democratic position ...

unless Democrats, as an opposition Party, object not just to the bush mechanics in Iraq but to his MOTIVES as well, the real enemy remains safely hidden from the American people ... Democrats need to stand up to rampant imperialism ... yes, at first they will be labeled as anti-American ... but with the truth on their side, the truth being that those with a pro-oil, imperialist agenda are the real traitors, Democrats will ultimately prevail ...

they will prevail, that is, if they ever engage this struggle ... the fact that they haven't done so leaves three disturbing possibilities ... feel free to add others ...

one, they are sniveling cowards ... they want to convince America how tough they are but will not stand up to America's hidden power elite ...

two, they are nothing but a bunch of slightly more socially liberal corporatists who really are in the pockets of big oil ...

three, they genuinely believe failure in Iraq will disenfranchise the ability of the US to procure the oil it needs ... this third possibility, while at least seeming to have the best interests of the American people (and the American economy) at heart, still fails the integrity test ... it does so because it conceals the truth ...

if we are so dependent on foreign oil imports that our government endorses an imperialist foreign policy, then the America people deserve to know the truth and they should be able to either choose or reject the policy ... and if option 3 above is the real reason Democrats are supporting the bush occupation (regardless of the changes they may seek), they need to tell the truth and push for longer term alternatives like conservation and alternative energy sources ... coming out for those policies, as they have, lacks clout without clarifying the urgency of the crisis ...

as a registered Democrat, the question becomes where do we turn for leadership to represent these views? for now, i continue to lobby our representatives ... but if they don't respond, and they haven't shown much inclination to be responsive, then what ???

[dogman]

26. Maybe number three but they need to get elected to change things.

Will a candidate that openly calls Bushco the war criminals that they are ever get elected by the majority of voters needed to win? Do you think Americans can handle the truth? Might we need to approach this in a manner that allows us to take control in order to make the necessary change? I would love to see all of these war criminals brought to justice, but I doubt that it can or will happen. I feel I just have to keep working to affect the change needed by making the changes that are possible first.

[welshTerrier2]

39. "they need to get elected to change things"

well, there are differing views on this ...

your view, if i'm restating it fairly, seems to be that "the truth" is probably not worth the political risks it might entail ... you argue that Americans probably could not handle the truth and that Democrats should just try to get elected as their top priority ... once in power, then and only then, can they try to effect change ... perhaps you're right but i disagree ...

first, it's important to understand that not all Democrats, especially many of us who are bitterly opposed to this war, are fully confident that option 3 above (i.e. Dems are genuinely concerned about oil procurement if we fail in Iraq) is the reason most elected Dems continue to support the occupation ... you may disagree with them but it's still important to understand that a significant chunk of Democrats feel alienated by what their elected representatives are doing ... this is NOT a healthy political climate for the Party and many see it as a catastrophic policy for the country ...

second, your premise that we have to win before we can make changes is not necessarily valid ... sure, being in office would give us immediate clout ... but that doesn't mean all we can do is spend the next year or two or three doing nothing but campaigning ... one, Americans are looking for real ideas and real leadership ... and two, Democrats aren't just politicians; they're national leaders ... they have two jobs to do, not just one ...

i see the "we have to win before we can make changes" as narrow, short-term thinking ... Democrats need to build a bold platform of ideas, communicate them in a powerful and consistent way to the American people and fight like hell for their beliefs ... if voters see a Party that's "thinking about moving to the right to attract voters", they don't see a Party with deeply held convictions ... it just smells bad; in fact, it stinks and Americans can smell that kind of vote-seeking insincerity a mile away ...

so Democrats need to lead ... they need to educate Americans ... they need to show that they have not only good ideas but fresh ideas ... some of us see this country on the brink of disaster ... who will teach Americans about the urgency we face? global warming, peak oil, WTO job loss, emerging economies like China and India, nuclear proliferation and on and on ... we sit at the brink of disaster and Democrats are worried about a "shoot the messenger" syndrome ...

perhaps their calculation is that if they rock the boat too much, they'll lose ... i see it very differently ... first of all, if they lose but fight for the truth, i think it's worth it ... and secondly, if they fought hard for the truth, i don't think they would lose at all ... i believe that the best policies make the best politics in most cases ... playing it safe and waiting for bush to self-destruct, and he is, may give the Democrats an election or two ... again, i see that approach as short-term thinking ... yeah, i want to win too ... but i think not only could the Democrats win a few elections but they could reclaim their majority status for decades to come if they level with the American people, propose real solutions and fight like hell to make this country better ...

so i understand where you're coming from but i think we should, and we really need to for the sake of the American people, set our sights much higher ...

[mike_c]

43. wt2, if it were possible to nominate a single response...

...for the Greatest Page, I'd nominate this one immediately. Best comments in this thread, IMO.

[dogman]

46. I agree with you about the long term.

However if we don't affect change in the short term, I don't think we'll have an america to save. It has been noted that under Clinton we became too complacent. I feel that is true. due to his ongoing battle with the media I think we lost an opportunity to educate the public. clinton was obviously a centrist and had an affinity for corporatism. He was content to hold the middle and the RW forced the agenda. The left was basically compromised by the media attention to that battle. I happen to think Clark is a leader who has the skills to communicate ideas to the majority in terms they can understand and identify with. He is also a long term strategist who thinks in terms of a 100 year vision. I see a number of well meaning Dems, but none with his capabilities or dedication. This is not just about the Presidency however, it is also about getting a Congress that is willing to work toward these goals also. It seems that Clark has worked toward this and is able to communicate his ideas with them.

[mike_c]

41. does Americans' inability to "handle the truth," or the simple expediency

...of wanting to win elections justify echoing the neocon lies?

[dogman]

53. No, but neither Clark nor I are doing that.

Please be real and acknowledge that I was writing about the truth that Bushco are war criminals, not the fact that this is an unjust war. i realize that is the basis for them being war criminals but I also realize you are not likely to win an election with that level of rhetoric.

[mike_c]

80. so you're suggesting what? NOT calling the war illegal or those...

...who perpetrate it war criminals? Lying by omission is lying just the same, and worse, in this instance it's tacit approval, because in politics, once you've turned your back on injustice, it's doubley hard to face it later without appearing a hypocrite. No, the simple truth will always win in the end.

[dogman]

97. What?

I called the war illegal. I said Bushco are war criminals. I did not say lie about it. What I said is that in my opinion a candidate cannot use that level of rhetoric and get elected in this country. Look at what happened to Dean for being candid. A candidate cannot be blunt and get elected by the majority of voters in this country. If the simple truth wins, how come we have Bush for President?

[mike_c]

100. you keep saying "I don't advocate lying..."

...but then you say "but we cannot afford to tell the truth." What you call "that level of rhetoric" is the simple unvarnished truth about Iraq. We (liberals and our candidates) can either tell the truth about the war or we can lie about it-- the middle ground of remaining silent is tacit complicity with the lies. If that's what America wants from its leaders, then it's time to pack up and leave, because there is no hope left for the future of democracy, no matter which shade of white liar ascends to power.

[dogman]

104. See yah.

If this country could handle the truth, the GOP would still be a minority party. Not using rhetoric that will be twisted and turned on you is not telling a white lie. There are more subtle ways to get a message across than name calling. The names you call may be accurate but they will neither win you friends nor influence enemies. That's why it is called politics. I rather enjoy watching a person get the point across in a non aggressive manner. Clark does that rather well.

[IndianaGreen]

112. The alternative to GOP lies are Democratic lies, is that what you propose?

I think that you are selling the American people short.

[dogman]

120. No

I propose however that if you come out and say Bushco are war criminals and should be brought before the Hague, you might well be correct, but you will never sell that to the majority of American voters. You could say that it was an elective war that should never have been engaged in. To me that is really the same concept but put in a form that is palatable to a majority of voters. Do you realistically think you will see Bush before a World Court?

[IndianaGreen]

122. I don't want Bush at The Hague... they don't have a death penalty

I prefer to see Bush tried, convicted, and receive the maximum punishment in the same way he did it to others when he was Texas Governor.

Democrats may be too chicken shit to try Bush regime officials for their crimes, but a Socialist would have no reservations whatsoever to see that these criminals get justice.

[dogman]

135. Cool

but a Socialist will never be in that position in this country unless Bushco has its way long enough. Maybe that would be a reason a socialist would not want to see a regime change in this country. Let it fall like a rotted fruit.

[IndianaGreen]

27. Great post, welshTerrier2

The truth is that the Democratic Party is at a fork on the road. The party establishment, the Beltway Democrats, would like for the party to continue being the party of appeasement. They supported the war not because they were lied to, they knew full well Bush was lying, but because they believe in the same imperialist agenda as Bush. Just compare the similarities between the PNAC and the DLC's PPI. These are two sides of the same imperialist coin. The PNAC is raw, undiluted imperialism. The PPI is nothing more than a sugar coated version of PNAC.

The grassroot Democrats want the Democratic Party to become a real opposition party, not just by saying "NO" to the Bush agenda but by also offering a progressive agenda to the American people that presents a real choice, not an echo of the GOP.

Our challenge is to ensure the Democratic Party takes the correct path!

[1932]

155. There is a fork in the road for Democrats.

The CAFTA vote was one of the signposts.

PNAC is about a form of "legal" globalization (that exclusively benefits the wealthy at the cost of labor and at the cost of progressive governments that might want to use resource wealth to build social infrastructure) as much as it is about illegal wars.

CAFTA is the other side of the same coin the Iraq invasion is on.

Many Democrats chose to oppose CAFTA. At the fork in the PNAC road, a significant number of Democrats took a left turn for the first time in 30 years.

[1932]

150. I think he honestly and genuinely believes that the presence of American

business activity in Iraq will enrich America immensely and some of the benefits will trickle-down to Iraqis.

I disagree. But I don't think Clark is corrupt if this is what he believes. I just think he is wrong.

I also think his problem with the war is tactical, but he agrees with the ends (he thinks they could have been achived through soft empire, as the US has in many other countries around the world).

[dogman]

170. Putting your thoughts into Clark's head again?

Where has he ever said that he genuinely believes that the presence of American business activity in Iraq will enrich America immensely and some of the benefits will trickle-down to Iraqis? You sure come up with strange interpretations of his words.

[1932]

173. You've read these quotes, no?

But while a powerful military has been vital, the chief means of our influence has been an interlocking web of international institutions and arrangements, from NATO to the World Bank to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This network of mutual interdependence, though marginalized by the Bush administration, was largely devised by America, which has also been its chief beneficiary. It is, for all practical purposes, a kind of empire--but to use a contemporary term, a virtual one. Properly used and expanded, it can be the secret to a secure and prosperous future.

{snip}

For decades, the United States has been at the hub of this network of mutual interdependence, sometimes called "globalization." Heavily influenced--some might say dominated--by us, globalization reflected the American values of free-market economics and popular democracy. Enabled by modern communications and transportation, this network facilitated access to markets and investment opportunities abroad, assisted the flow of talent and intellectual property, and fostered the spread of market forces and democratic processes around the world. The major beneficiary of all of this was the United States itself. In short, this "globalization" was the new American empire.

{snip}

But this shift {by the Bush administration to military agression in Iraq}--rather than promoting the emergence of the new American empire--put all that we gained with "soft power" and the virtual American empire at risk.

{snip}

But if leadership is defined as "persuading the other fellow to want to do what you want him to do," as Eisenhower put it, then American leadership is failing. We simply aren't persuading others to align with our interests--we are coercing and pressuring.

-Wes Clark (Winning Modern Wars, Chapter 6)

WELSHTERRIER2:To be more direct, I want to discuss American imperialism and the foreign policy abuses of America's oil cartel. The oil industry has been realizing record profits since the war in Iraq began. The close ties of the oil industry to the Bush administration are undeniable. Perhaps those on the right might even argue that the acquisition of oil, even through the use of warfare, is in "our interest". But if that is the real reason this war is being prosecuted by this administration, and I believe it is, such issues should be put before the American people for their consent. I, for one, do not approve of such conduct especially where the benefits seem to accrue to commercial interests and not the interests of the American people.

CLARK: Without question, oil is one of many interests that the United States has in the Middle East. Oil is what gives the region much of its significance. But oil is important to America. Until we develop energy independence, we're going to be dependent on imported oil and, increasingly, natural gas.

America's economic strategy with respect to oil is that it is a commodity, and the people that have it want to sell it because they need the money. So our primary approach until developing energy independence should be, if we need it, to buy it - rather than having to fight for it.

Were we to pull out precipitously from Iraq, and destabilize the emerging political efforts there, the consequences would likely be a steep jump in the price of oil and hardship for millions of Americans as a consequence. But the consequences and thus our interests go beyond oil. As I said in my comment to Jai, potential for a civil war in Iraq would be high if we leave before there's an agreement and the militias disarm. But it might not just be civil war, because the Kurds will likely declare independence, which would bring in the Turks and Iranians as well.

So though I was absolutely against going into Iraq, now that we're there it's critically important that we get out in the right way. That means helping Iraq put a new democratic government in place, develop the security forces it needs to defend itself, and ensure that the needs and interests of America and all nations in the Middle East are respected in the process, to minimize future regional conflicts. It's up to the Bush Administration to ensure that happens, and up to the rest of us to hold their feet to the fire until they act.

The links for these quotes are here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1846184

[dogman]

175. Yes, we've gone through this on another thread.

Clark's historic narrative can hardly be described as his plan. If he were to write that Native americans were abused in the past, you would accuse him of espousing the abuse. Once again, where has he ever said that he genuinely believes that the presence of American business activity in Iraq will enrich America immensely and some of the benefits will trickle-down to Iraqis? Nothing you have highlighted above says that. Once again your highlighting is selective. Are these words snip>and all nations in the Middle East<snip
irrelevant in the above paragraph? You continue to distort and take words out of context. I think that is disingenuous and unconscionable.

[1932]

176. My highlighting is selective?

They're his words.

Highlighting is, almost by defenition, selective. What's wrong is selective EDITING. I've left in the entire paragraphs. And you can find the link to the entire chapter and the entire TPM discussion. I'm not trying to selectively edit. But I am, indeed, trying to highlight. How that can be a perjorative, I do not know.

You accuse me of trying to read Clark's mind, right?

Well, when you read his mind, what did it tell you about how saying the US "and and all nations in the Middle East" meant that he didn't really think that Iraq should be built in the interest of the US, to feed into America's profitable conduct of globalization?

You accuse my reading of being selective. Perhaps it is. But it's also as likely as your reading his speaches like tea leaves. Throw in "and all nations in the Middle East" and suddenly it's not about American imperialism. OK.

[dogman]

178. You have accused him of promoting the US to the detriment of

other countries. He advocates fair trade with the interests of both parties and the global effects to be taken into consideration. Trade is bilateral, not unilateral.
I can use a hammer to build a house. Another person can use a hammer to smash someone's skull. How does that reflect on my use of the hammer or the hammer itself? If you take my previous sentence and highlight the words-I can use a hammer, to smash someone's skull-, what might be your intent? Is that fair or reasonable?

[1932]

182. In those passages Clark lauds the hammer of globalization.

He admits that it benefits the US a great deal. He says that's a good thing. He doesn't mention that it has ever hit anyone on the head. He also talks about Iraq in terms of America's benefits (if we pull out, gas will be expensive for us, which is bad) and he says that it's important that it's important that the Iraq that we creat beneifts American interests.

[IndianaGreen]

184. Slavery was also a good thing.... to the Southern plantation owners

Globalization is another form of slavery in which the people toil to eke out a living while the elites in their countries, and the capitalists in the West, live a life of luxury built on the backs of their workers.

Clark believes in the white man's burden!

[dogman]

186. Slavery was immoral

Globalization is not slavery. It can certainly be used for immoral purposes as well as good. Clark believes in morality. Now you are beginning to ascribe thoughts to Clark that are not his. I thought you were more honest than that.

[IndianaGreen]

189. Globalization is slavery

Clark professes belief in market freedom which in practice has always meant that US corporations can operate in foreign countries unfettered by worker protection and environmental laws. For the last 200 years it has been the primary mission of our military to protect corporate interests and to quell any uprising by the exploited masses. Each ribbon that the good general wore on his uniform had a corporate component to it, whether he likes to admit it or not.

Clark is further confusing our illegal and criminal war in Iraq, crimes which he refuses to acknowledge, with the war on terror:

Lay out a concrete success strategy for Iraq; win the war on terror.

http://securingamerica.com/issues/overview

Compare Clark and other defenders of American corporate hegemony to someone like Dennis Kucinich:

Trade

Trade in goods and service can be good when it benefits both trading countries. But a lot of international trade benefits neither country. Instead, multinational corporations gain greater freedom to move plants and equipment and the products made with them around the world. Trade is harmful when it spurs the exodus of good paying jobs and undermines the ability of working people to protect their living standards. Free trade agreements, such as NAFTA, accelerated the transfer of capital out of the U.S., while the products made with that capital were still shipped back to the U.S. for sale. When the U.S. becomes more of a marketplace for goods rather than the workplace where they are manufactured, working people lose their economic footing, and the country’s economy as a whole becomes weaker. This is reflected in the United States’ ballooning and unsustainably high international trade deficit. Congressman Kucinich continued to fight to protect workers’ rights and local democracy from attack by global corporate trade.

The Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA)

Congressman Kucinich remains firmly opposed to CAFTA and to all free trade agreements following the NAFTA model that benefit multinational corporations while harming workers, diminishing environmental protections and limiting access to healthcare for the poor. The Congressman has made efforts to work with legislators across borders to unify opposition to DR-CAFTA.

In the 109th Congress, Congressman Kucinich hosted Central American legislators from El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua who opposed DR-CAFTA in their own respective countries to brief the U.S. Congress. On May 26, 2005 Congressman Kucinich hosted the Central American legislators at a “Party Effectiveness Luncheon” with the Democratic Caucus and a Congressional staff briefing focused on the unconstitutional manner that CAFTA was passed in the three Central American countries. A few weeks later, Congressman Kucinich assisted fellow Ohioan, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur in bringing 10 Central American legislators back to Washington, where they participated in a joint press conference opposed to CAFTA attended by several U.S. Representatives.

In the 108th Congress, Congressman Kucinich initiated a letter signed by 17 Members of Congress to government officials in El Salvador to express opposition to CAFTA and to claim that CAFTA will be harmful to both the United States and El Salvador.

International Monetary Fund Reform

Congressman Kucinich has been instrumental in drawing Congressional attention to the effects of the IMF's harsh economic policies on developing countries. For the past two years, Congressman Kucinich has insisted that future funds for the IMF must be conditioned on an end to the IMF's imposition of those policies, which cause unemployment, environmental despoliation, and a deterioration of health and education.

In the 107th Congress, Congressman Kucinich has tried to protect gains made in previous Congresses. He testified to the Foreign Operations Subcommittee that an important reform banning user fees for certain essential services was being undermined by the Department of Treasury.

In the 106th Congress (1999-2000), the House made two important advances. Congressman Kucinich offered an amendment to direct the Department of Treasury to create an inventory of all the instances in which the IMF requires borrowing countries to privatize industry and government services, deregulate environmental and financial laws, roll back labor law reforms, and raise interest rates. The Chairman of the subcommittee agreed to include acceptable language in the bill to obtain such a study. In exchange, the amendment was withdrawn. The House also passed an amendment offered in the Foreign Operations subcommittee by Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. to prohibit the IMF from requiring developing countries to charge fees for health services and education. Those fees have been shown to discourage poor people from receiving health care and education for their children. In addition, Congressman Kucinich was the only member of Congress invited to speak to the tens of thousands of people who demonstrated against the IMF and World Bank in Washington, DC on April 16, 2000.

In the 105th Congress, Congressman Kucinich was one of the leading advocates of IMF reform. Congressman Kucinich introduced a bill with Congressman Jim Saxton, a senior Republican from New Jersey, to press for reform of the IMF and deliver meaningful debt cancellation to the world's poorest countries (HR 2939). The bill was the inspiration for a successful amendment offered in the Banking Committee that delinked debt relief from obligating poor countries to follow IMF economic policies. That amendment passed on November 3, 1999. In the 105th Congress, Congressman Kucinich was a leader in the effort to prevent IMF expansion, and his activities helped to delay a $18 billion expansion by nearly one year. Notably, Congressman Kucinich successfully lobbied other Members of Congress when a procedural motion was raised to require that Congress give the IMF expansion funds. The motion was defeated on April 23, 1998.

Congressman Kucinich was also successful in eliminating a "plant closing provision" of the IMF funding bill. The bill contained investment deregulation conditions that would have automatically applied if funds were appropriated for the IMF. Those conditions would have had the effect of encouraging plant closings in the U.S., since the IMF would have been guaranteeing conditions that multinational corporations seek when they transfer capital from the U.S. to developing nations. Those conditions were also the subject of negotiation in the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). Congressman Kucinich lobbied other members of Congress in the leadership to eliminate those conditions.

What is Fast Track (a.k.a. Trade Promotion Authority)?

Fast Track is a procedural straightjacket designed to speed Congressional votes on international trade agreements. Congressman Kucinich has opposed Fast Track legislation since coming to Washington.

He was one of the leaders of the effort that defeated Fast Track in 1997 and 1998. Fast Track would have enabled the U.S.Trade Representative to negotiate an expansion of NAFTA to the rest of South America and other countries.

There is good reason to oppose Fast Track. Namely, it ushered in NAFTA. The North American Free Trade Agreement has caused numerous problems since it was enacted in 1993. The U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada has ballooned. As a result of increased imports from our NAFTA partners, American workers have lost thousands of good paying jobs. At the same time, some companies have used the threat of moving jobs to Mexico to place downward pressure on wages and benefits for American workers. Meanwhile, the labor side agreement to NAFTA has proven to be totally ineffective. The real value of wages for Mexican workers has declined since NAFTA was enacted, and not a single company has been cited for violations of worker rights or labor standards.

In addition, serious concerns have been raised about environmental problems and food and truck safety under NAFTA. The degradation of the environment has escalated along our border with Mexico, and the environmental side agreement has proved to be a complete failure. At the same time, it is abundantly clear that the U.S. government is not adequately inspecting trucks and agricultural products that enter this country, thereby threatening the health and safety of the general public. Furthermore, the sovereignty of local, state and federal authorities to protect their constituents from environmental and other dangers is severely undermined by the investor rights section (Chapter 11) of NAFTA.

If granted Fast Track authority, the new administration hopes to expand NAFTA to encompass all countries in the Americas. This Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) would export the destructive effects of NAFTA throughout our hemisphere.

For all of these reasons, Rep. Kucinich is convinced that Congress should continue to reject any fast track legislation. We need to make sure that the serious problems which have arisen under NAFTA are addressed in a meaningful way before we rush ahead with expanding this trade agreement to the rest of South America.

What is the WTO?

The World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995. It is the result of Uruguay Round of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) negotiations. The WTO consists of 16 agreements on subjects ranging from domestic patent law to food safety regulations - and has 135 member countries. The WTO transformed the GATT, a consensus-based trade pact that focused primarily on tariff and quota cuts, into a new global commerce agency that allows member countries to challenge any of each other's laws as "illegal barriers to trade." The WTO can enforce its rulings and force countries to get rid of disputed laws by approving retaliatory economic sanctions against the losing country. In its five-year existence, WTO dispute panels have almost exclusively ruled against the challenged laws, which are often health and safety related.

The WTO Has No Minimum Human or Worker Rights Criteria for Membership:

Under WTO rules, as long as it met WTO commercial obligations, Nazi Germany would not be disqualified from WTO membership based on its conduct. WTO rules do not require that member countries (or countries wishing to gain WTO membership) respect or enforce internationally agreed core human and labor rights standards. WTO policy explicitly enables countries to ignore global norms relating to collective bargaining, child labor, and forced labor as a strategy to reduce production costs and gain a competitive advantage vis-a-vis manufacturers in other countries. The WTO thus has put in motion a global trading regime whose rules reward the players who are most exploitative of labor, promoting a race-to-the-bottom that undercuts advancement of international labor rights and the improvement of standards of living worldwide.

GATT/WTO Rules Threaten Efforts to Protect Labor Rights:

Many people want to stop child labor, but the WTO blocks the most obvious ways of doing that. For instance, the WTO prohibits our use of a ban on the import of products made with child labor. GATT rules prohibit distinguishing among products based on how they are made. This means that a WTO Member country cannot ban goods produced in forced labor camps, goods made by children under abusive conditions or goods produced in violation of other internationally recognized labor or human rights. This is confirmed by a U.S. Congressional Research Service report, which warned that a U.S. proposal to ban the products of child labor would subject the U.S. to a GATT challenge.

The WTO agreement on government procurement bans the consideration of non-commercial factors (such as human and labor rights) in government purchasing decisions. One mechanism with which to improve both government and corporate accountability is to reserve lucrative public contracts for socially responsible businesses. But the WTO denies citizens this type of control over the use of their own tax dollars. Under WTO government procurement rules, countries can only take into consideration commercial factors when awarding contracts. These rules have been used by the EU and Japan to challenge a Massachusetts state selective purchasing law against corporations in business with Burma's human-rights-violating regime.

WTO rules on product standards cast worker safety safeguards as illegal trade barriers: Under new WTO rules, even workplace safety laws can be challenged as illegal trade restrictions. Canada is pressing such a challenge against France's ban on asbestos.

The WTO undermines the sovereignty of countries.

The WTO has taken away the freedom of citizens to pass laws freely. The proof is in the numbers: The total number of completed WTO cases: 65. The number of instances countries have changed their laws or policies in response to WTO challenge: 59.

The U.S. uses the WTO to protect compact disk makers and bananas, not workers.

The WTO is not used by the U.S. to protect worker rights. Instead, the U.S. is most likely to use the WTO to protect patents and copyrights. The number of WTO challenges initiated by the US: 30. The chances that a US challenge targeted patent or copyright laws: 1 in 3. Another U.S. priority is bananas. The U.S. has vigorously used the WTO to open Europe to bananas grown in Central America by Chiquita brands, a U.S.-based multinational corporation. Bananas did not build America. Steel and auto did. But this shows that the administration cares more about bananas than about steel or automobiles. Such a trade policy is, in a word, bananas.

The WTO has been used to rollback advances in public health programs.

Developing countries face a health and economic crisis due to HIV/AIDS. At the same time, they cannot afford the market price for antiretroviral drug treatment.

Brazil's answer has been to manufacture generic antiretroviral drugs for the treatment of HIV/AIDS and provide them free of cost to all Brazilians who need them. Brazil's program has been successful; it has reduced the AIDS death rate by half. The World Bank and the United Nations cite Brazil's HIV/AIDS program as one of the best in the world. Nevertheless, the U.S. challenged Brazil for violating WTO intellectual property laws, and the WTO agreed to establish a panel to rule on the case. If the U.S. had won this case, the WTO would have authorized the U.S. to impose punitive economic sanctions on Brazil. Fortunately, the U.S. withdrew its case against Brazil on June 25, 2001, in response to public pressure.

http://kucinich.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=1466#cafta

[dogman]

193. Which dictionary gives that definition?

And the following point:
Snip> Combat global threats by fostering global cooperation and maintaining moral stature abroad.<snip
Those pesky terms, cooperation, moral.
I'll tell you what though, I have no disagreement with Dennis and if it were possible for him to get elected, he'd have my vote.
Just follow your link. You'll find Clark has other issue and policy papers. And without the advantage of a Congressional staff paid for by taxpayers.

[1932]

233. It's debt slavery. It makes countries spend hallf of GDP on debt payments

which forces them to forego social spending which could lift their populations out of poverty and therefore out of economic slavery to the west.

Even Jeffrey Sachs whose "clinical" development economics is (relatively but not absolutely) lighter on the responsibility of the West to alleviate poverty makes this point.


To clarify that last point: Stiglitz locates much of the blame for disfunctional globalization on the political process and on the IMF. John Perkins's first hand account in his book implies a great responsiblility on private actors like himself. Sachs doesn't go as far as those two, and locates responsiblity in a broader range of factors. One of the more significant is debt caused by the structural adustment era free-market focus and the IMF's support for those programs (which is why he supported the Millenium Development Goal project of alleviating debt).

[dogman]

185. Again and again, over and over.

Globalization is a fact. America's economic power has been a fact. Of course, since the fact that the US is an economic superpower and that globalization is underway, the US benefits. As an American of course it's a good thing. An economic fact is that as long as we are dependent on oil, a rise in price is detrimental to America. We have witnessed that fact. Are you aware that due to the economic strength of the US, a recession in the US will likely lead to a global recession? You have talked about the seeds that help grow the economy of other countries. If the US stops planting those seeds, those countries will not see as much new growth. He does not mention creating an Iraq. That is another instance of you making an unwarranted accusation. Why can't you be honest and let Clark speak for himself? He does mention that we should use the hammer of globalization for the betterment of all peoples. He has basically made many of the same points you make and has offered plans to implement a way to achieve balance and consideration of others needs. In fact he explains that that is the only way to achieve long term success. He points out that we are a superpower and thereby have the means but as citizens of the world we have an obligation to follow moral and ethical standards. While you and the authors of your favorite books discuss the problems and injustices, he actually proposes workable solutions and is actively trying to do something about them. Do you think Clark supporters are really mindless cult followers? The majority are aware of these problems and are willing to embrace a leader that identifies them, discusses them, proposes workable solutions, and has the internal fortitude to attempt to make change. Clark loves America, his supporters love America. We want an America that we can once again be proud of. It would seem to me that would be a basic requirement for President.

[1932]

187. I know you probably don't have the time and aren't interested,

however, for people who are interested in some alternative models for globalization besides the one in which the US has engaged since the Truman administraion, I suggest Richard Parker's Galbraith biography. New Dealers (and Kennedy) had a different vision of America's participation in global economic development.

The short version of this is that they believed that the Keynesian economics of the New Deal applied to foreign policy as much as they did to economic policy. There were Keynesians and New Dealers who saw that the business and military Keynesian of the Truman and Eisenhower administrations was going to lead where it has (and they got excited when, 17 months in JFK's administration, it looked like he was going to reject that form of globalization).

And if you want to read some interesting criticisms of globalization that bear out what the New Dealers and true Keynesians feared, read Stiglitz's Globalization and its Discontents and Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom. There's also a book called Health of Nations which discusses the negative impacts of wealth polarization on societies. And if you don't believe that the US has impletement globalization with the goal of polarizing wealth, John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hit Man describes the process.

Clark addresses none of these arguments when he lauds the hammer of globalization. I think he's living in 1998, before the Seattle protests, when everyone was for NAFTA because they didn't see how it was going to be implemented. You can no longer have a serious discussion about these issues while pretending that it's all good or that the values we're projecting through globalization are core American values.

Incidentally, John Perkins ends his book with an appeal to patriotism that is similar to your last few sentences. Except he says that the America that he wants to be proud of is one that embraced the progressive values of fighting injustice and imperialism that we displayed in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars and WW2 and one that rejects the injustice of exploitation and soft imperialism since WW2 that Clark lauds.

I know you think I'm just picking on Clark, but if any politician positioning himself as a Democratic presidential candidate wrote and spoke as much as Clark has in favor of soft/virtual empire, I would criticize them too. I write about Clark so much because he has said so much about these issues. If Evan Bayh or Gore has written in so much detail about their enthusiasm for virtual empire, I'd comment on that too.

[dogman]

190. As I said, I am aware. But again

Clark describes globalization, he does not laud it. He does describe how it can be used for good.
Snip>
We don't need the New American Empire. Indeed, the very idea of classic empire is obsolete. An interdependent world will no longer accept discriminatory dominance by one nation over others. Instead, a more collaborative, collegiate American strategy will prevail, a strategy based on the great American virtues of tolerance, freedom, and fairness that made this country a beacon of hope in the world.
America's primacy in the world-our great power, our vast range of opportunities, the virtual empire we have helped create- have given us a responsibility for leadership and to lead by example. Our actions matter. And we cannot lead by example unless we are sustained by good leadership. Nothing is more important. <snip
It's all there. Read his words as he wrote them and tell me what is different than what you just wrote that Perkins wrote, once again keeping in mind that Clark describes the recent globalization without lauding it. Maybe if these issues concerned Bayh or Gore, or any other leader, you could find their writings on it. He does not have enthusiasm for virtual empire, he has enthusiasim for what it could accomplish within the framework he writes about.
Snip> a strategy based on the great American virtues of tolerance, freedom, and fairness that made this country a beacon of hope in the world<snip

[1932]

205. Yes Clark does laud soft empire.

His thesis is this: soft ("virtual") empire has been very good for America. Military ("New") empire is bad because it jeopardizes evrything we've achieved through soft empire.

Again, John Perkins says that soft empire is not something different from new empire. He says empire is a three step process: (1) the economic hit man, (2) sending in the jackals if the economic hit man aren't allowed to succeed, and (3) sending in the military if the the jackals don't succeed. Soft or virtual empire includes step one. Clark argues that virtual empire is good empire. A lot of people disagree.

Just look at Venezuela. They have huge oil reserves and progressive leader. During the oil strike (the jackal stage) they had no money because soft empire had them bound to contracts which made money for corporations rather than for Venezuelans. Chavez had a program to eliminate illiteracy and if not for Cuba printing all those readers for them and telling Chavez to pay later, they would have had to sacrifice a social program which has proven all over the world to reduce poverty and promote democracy, all thanks to the apparatus Clark describes as soft empire.

Soft empire does not work and it's not distinctly different from new empire. I'm so on teh side of Perkins on this issue: new empire is the third step in a three step program which begins with soft empire.

[dogman]

218. Hey, vote for Perkins, he's your man!

Or pack up your books and head to Venezuela and teach them economics.

[1932]

222. Whatever. I think I'll just keep trying to stay informed and keep writing

about the things that concern me, if you don't mind.

[dogman]

224. You don't care about the poor, uneducated people?

Hell it would be a perfect opportunity. Maybe you could help make sure the contracts they sign with Bush's soul mate Putin don't put them at a disadvantage. With your persuasive talents you could start a Draft Perkins for '08 movement. The only thing that I mind is the deception and misstatement of facts, over and over, again and again.

[1932]

225. This is really going to be your last refuge? Telling me to move

to Venezuela and telling me to support Perkins for president?

Dude, that's weak.

[dogman]

227. At least I'm not telling you what you think .

That's weaker. Clark devoted 34 years to public service, since then he has given an inordinate amount of time and effort to espousing Democratic causes. I'm just saying there are opportunities for you to practice what you preach.

[1932]

232. At least I'm thinking.

And I think you might tright to label what I'm doing as telling people what to think, but I think you probably must realize that I can't MAKE anybody think anything that isn't supported by facts and logic. And I think that this turn in your approach towards me (telling me to move to Venezuela) suggests that you've given up on using facts and logics in your own defense.

If Clark is cheering for structural adjustment era Reagain-Thatcher, Washington Concensu, privatize everything development economics than he may be esposuing ideas that some Democrats have espoused in the last twenty years, but he's not espousing democratic or progressive ideas (and he's not espousing ideas that any Democrat who traces his political heritage back to FDR and the New Deal should ever have supported).

And, hey, Venezuela's problem isn't in Venezuela right now. Venezuela's biggest problem is in the US. I'd probably do more good if I spoke up about these issues here in the US, don't you think? If the US had an SOA-endorsing IMF Washington Consensus, free-marketeet at all costs enthusiast with links to the N.E.D. as a president, that would suck for Venezuela (and the rest of the world), eh?

[dogman]

240. And deceiving.

Read my post again. I did not say you are telling people what to think, you are trying to tell people what Clark thinks. Hell you even tried to tell me what I thought. I have given up on being able to have an intelligent discourse with you because you have struck a mantra and refuse to acknowledge what is written. Once again you claim Clark is cheering something when he has clearly stated otherwise. If you think the US is Venezuela's problem, wait until Putin is done with them. If the US had the President you describe, Venezuela might have a more serious problem. That is why I work wholeheartedly to have Wesley Clark elected President. The US and the world deserve the best, and at this point, the best is Wesley Clark.

[IndianaGreen]

191. "We want an America that we can once again be proud of."

Sounds like Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign slogan, and look what that got us into.

Forget pride and love of imperial armies and let's get our Republic back. Damn the Empire!

I remind you of the words of Emma Goldman:

What, then, is patriotism? "Patriotism, sir, is the last resort of scoundrels," said Dr. Johnson. Leo Tolstoy, the greatest anti-patriot of our times, defines patriotism as the principle that will justify the training of wholesale murderers; a trade that requires better equipment for the exercise of man-killing than the making of such necessities of life as shoes, clothing, and houses; a trade that guarantees better returns and greater glory than that of the average workingman.

Gustave Hervé, another great anti-patriot, justly calls patriotism a superstition--one far more injurious, brutal, and inhumane than religion. The superstition of religion originated in man's inability to explain natural phenomena. That is, when primitive man heard thunder or saw the lightning, he could not account for either, and therefore concluded that back of them must be a force greater than himself. Similarly he saw a supernatural force in the rain, and in the various other changes in nature. Patriotism, on the other hand, is a superstition artificially created and maintained through a network of lies and falsehoods; a superstition that robs man of his self-respect and dignity, and increases his arrogance and conceit.

Indeed, conceit, arrogance, and egotism are the essentials of patriotism. Let me illustrate. Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others.

Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty (1911)
Emma Goldman

http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Goldman/Writings/Anarchism/patriotism.html

[dogman]

194. Interesting, but then why bring back the Republic?

Once again we can't seem to agree on definitions. Quite a few on the Right seem to view Globalization as anarchist. I agree that my call is simplistic and probably even juvenile. That is because that is the spirit in which I made it. A spirit of naivete and youthful innocence. I realize that, but I use it as a counter to the image of patriotism espoused by Reagan and Bush.I see nothing wrong with the pride, I don't see it as a love for imperial armies. Emma Goldman might well be correct about certain aspects of patriotism but just like any abstract concept, I think it is in the mind of the individual and need not be constrained by another's view.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

177. Yes, we sure have been through this before

I remember saying we need to define globalization in order to know what we're talking about.

[1932]

183. Clark's definition of globalization:

But while a powerful military has been vital, the chief means of our influence has been an interlocking web of international institutions and arrangements, from NATO to the World Bank to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This network of mutual interdependence, though marginalized by the Bush administration, was largely devised by America, which has also been its chief beneficiary. It is, for all practical purposes, a kind of empire--but to use a contemporary term, a virtual one. Properly used and expanded, it can be the secret to a secure and prosperous future.

{snip}

For decades, the United States has been at the hub of this network of mutual interdependence, sometimes called "globalization." Heavily influenced--some might say dominated--by us, globalization reflected the American values of free-market economics and popular democracy. Enabled by modern communications and transportation, this network facilitated access to markets and investment opportunities abroad, assisted the flow of talent and intellectual property, and fostered the spread of market forces and democratic processes around the world. The major beneficiary of all of this was the United States itself. In short, this "globalization" was the new American empire.

It's the web of institutions and arrangements promoting free markets and democracy (Clark always puts "market" before "democracy" when he mentions the twin values) dominated by the US, of which the US is the chief beneficiary, which is the secret, when properly used, to security and prosperity.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

188. Try reading this, which I posted in the last go around Wes globalization

We need a working definition of "globalization" in order to have an inkling that we're actually having an exchange of opinions, facts, ideas etc.

On page 180 of "Winning Modern Wars," Wes writes about the 1980's and 1990's when enormous budget deficits were run by our government by foreign governments purchasing our bonds. He says, "In short, American Empire was, to use a contemporary term, virtual. The United States was at the hub of a network of mutual interdependence, sometimes called globalization.""

He has much more to say, this is not a simple issue. He says that the international institutions that we were involved in creating and the network he refers to helped us.

He goes on to say the US was very involved with the UN and nuclear and chemical weapons regulation, as well as regulating the exploitation of the oceans.

And he says, "...The United States had representatives everywhere, ambassadors and delegates and officers detailed for periods of service. And, issue by issue, they worked to pursue and secure US interests.

But the American way was not to rely on coercion and hard pressure but on on persuasion and shared vision. To an unpredented extent, the United States had been benign and magnanimous as a victor in World War II. Sharing international power through the United Nations system, deeply involved in assisting the reconstruction of the German, Japanese, and Korean economies, hosting foreign students and encouraging exchange programs, speaking out against the old colonial empires, receiving immigrants, the United States became an ideal, a model for nations around the world. American beliefs expressed in the Bill of Rights had inspired others around the world. We were palpably uninterested in classical empire ...for two-thirds of a century the United States was regularly viewed as the most admired nation in the world..."

The last is from page 182.

He continues to discuss soft power, the cold war and much more.
At the bottom of page 183, he writes, "But 2001 marked a profound departure in U.S. foreign policy. Coming to power in a disputed election, the Bush administration acted unambiguously to put a more unilateralist, balance-of-power stamp on US foreign policy..."

He then notes that we were withdrawn from Anti-Ballistic missile treaty, the Kyoto treaty to deal with global warming, 2 way talks with North Korea.

Later he says that all this unilateralism only put at risk what we had gained.

Finally for now, back to the last chapter, page 200 he says "We don't need the New American Empire. Indeed the very idea of classic empire is obsolete."

He refers to "a more collaborative, collegiate American strategy, based on the American values of "tolerance, freedom, and fairness that made this country a beacon of hope in the world..."

[Joe Chi Minh]

199. His whole history has been right-wing Republican.

Why would he reverse all his essential beliefs, without even giving any explanation, as far as I'm aware.

[dogman]

200. Well you've proven, so far, that you are not aware.

Because of his essential beliefs, he is a Democrat.

[Crunchy Frog]

211. Throwing out a statement without providing a shred of evidence

to back it up. There is in fact no evidence for the statement made in your post. He's been voting Democratic since the early 90's. He was the target of RW Republicans during the Clinton administration. During the time that he used to mostly vote Republican, he was pretty much apolitical, but like many military people, thought of the Repubs as being more military friendly.

There's no evidence that he's ever reversed his essential beliefs. He has always stood up for securing the best social services for soldiers and their families. He has tried to institute provisions for environmental protection on bases that he ran. He has practiced and defended affirmative action and actively sought to promote women and minorities. He has stood up for the rights of gays to serve in the military. He has stood up against genocide, and earned enmity from the RW for it.

I don't know in what universe that history would be considered right-wing Republican, but it's not the universe that I'm living in.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

17. what a ridiculous claim

"Clark is a PNAC tool."

You're the one with a Richard Perle quote at the bottom of your post, maybe you should check out what PNACer perle thinks of the General.

[mike_c]

48. what else would you call it? Clark supports the same objectives...

...in Iraq as the neocons. Completing the mission, success in Iraq, blah blah blah. If he manages to acquire the authority to actually continue the mission as CinC, how is that divergent from the PNAC objective of imposing a puppet government on Iraq by military force? Would it make a difference if a democrat exports militaristic imperialism rather than a republican?

[dogman]

61. What objectives does he share with PNAC?

He does not advocate imposing a puppet government, nor using military force to do so. Provide me with any information you have to the contrary, please.

[mike_c]

76. oh please....

Excerpt from Clark's speech:

"But America cannot allow itself to be so blinded by anger over this Administration's mishandling of events since the removal of Saddam Hussein from power that we are unable to see the danger of pushing for a premature withdrawal of US forces. Those who would use terror as a tactic in Iraq would be rewarded and emboldened if we pull out prematurely. We can not do that.

Excerpt from "Rebuilding America's Defenses...."

Indeed, withdrawing from today’s ongoing missions would be problematic. Although the no-fly-zone air operations over northern and southern Iraq have continued without pause for almost a decade, they remain an essential element in U.S. strategy and force posture in the Persian Gulf region.

Excerpt from Clark's speech:

"There is no alternative to success in Iraq."

Excerpt from "Rebuilding America's Defenses...."

...the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

[dogman]

101. And?

He does not advocate imposing a puppet government, nor using military force to do so. Those were the claims you made. What have you posted that says otherwise?

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

209. I sense I'm wasting my time but ...

General Clark doesn't want permanent military bases in Iraq. Just because he's not for immediate withdrawal doesn't mean he's in favor of occupation. You could stop being deliberately obtuse about this but it would spoil your argument I guess.

he thinks the Bush admin should talk to and try to find common ground with Iran and Syria, tell them they're in no danger of invasion from the US. The neocons don't want to do this.

he thinks Halliburton should be deployed back to Houston. The neocons don't want this.

he thinks the you can't win a war on terror by killing people. The neocons think they can.

that's just a few differences. And there is the key one that he opposed the war in the first place and argued against Richard Perle before the HASC. But your entrenched line of thinking is unlikely to be disturbed by inconvenient facts so go on thinking General Clark is a neocon. Muddying the water like that will help noone but the neocons.

[Joe Chi Minh]

197. He's a School of the Americas apologist.

All you need to know. You wonder whether it trained Saddam Hussein's goons, as well as supplying him with WMDs to "destroy Kurdish villages, in order to save them."

[Donna Zen]

198. Saddam's goons

as you call them, were trained in E. Germany.

[Joe Chi Minh]

201. Thank you. It's good to know these things - albeit from a long

distance. Do you feel relieved about that, Ms Zen?

How many and which countries, I wonder, have enjoyed the bounty of a US taxpayer-funded, "private" education for their goons, at the feet of their philanthropical gurus?

[brokensymmetry]

4. And what do we tell the moms and dads....

you know the ones...the ones who lost their only son or daughter?

Or the ones whose son or daughter came back with a face that's been melted by fire?

Or the ones whose son or daughter came back as a quadraplegic?

Sorry, guys, but Chimpy's war is not worth another American death, not worth another arm or leg, not worth another broken spirit.

It's time to go.

[FtWayneBlue]

8. I say, too, it is time to get out.

There is a call for everyone to get out and protest the war on Iraq in the streets within 24 hours of the official US troop death count reaching 2000. I will be there, and invite everyone else of like mind to do the same.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Blah, blah, blah... another version of "stay the course"

Clark even fails to call Bush a liar for lying this country into a way. Wes Clark mischaracterizes the Iraq War when he slaps Bush on the wrist for what Clark describes as "some terrible and tragic mistakes regarding the mission in Iraq."

When Clark says that "there is no alternative to success in Iraq" he is ignoring that the US invasion of Iraq was as criminal as Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and Hitler's invasion of Poland. Clark ignores international law and the ethics and morality of the war.

The American people don't need as President someone that promises to manage the war better, what we need is someone that will quickly bring to an end this shameful chapter in our nation's history.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

103. If you followed Wes enough you'd know differently

"Clark even fails to call Bush a liar for lying this country into a way."

He doesn't have to say it every single time he opens his mouth. Wes opposed going to war in Iraq.

And to anyone who says Wes is a PNAC tool, HAH! :rofl:

That is insane.

And does anyone think the President Clinton was intent on engaging in an imperialist foreign policy? And don't you all count him as a part of the DLC crowd?

Some of what is being written opposing Wes etc in this thread sounds as ideological as the neocons, and like a liberal form of the GOP talking points.

[CarolNYC]

105. yeah, well,

it's certainly true that the right doesn't have a monopoly on idealogues. :(

[IndianaGreen]

113. I know about his shameless speech to the School of the Americas

Do you think that changing the name of SOA and putting a fresh coat of paint on it changes its true nature as a school for assassins?

[dogman]

121. No, changing its mission does.

I don't doubt that it has gone back to what it was under Bushco. There is enough evidence to make that a likely scenario.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

123. There was nothing wrong with his speech

and here is a link to the speech:

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/usarsa/SPEECH/cgscspch.htm

My comment:
Wes believes that the grads who practice torture etc didn't learn it there, like the grads of Harvard Business School didn't learn white collar crime etc there, as he points out.

It is obviously controversial.


Here is an article about Wes's response regarding the school:

From an article "Facing Questions, Clark Backs Army School"

January 17, 2004. Boston Globe. Joanna Weiss

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0117-01.htm

"...In New Hamspshire and Wisconsin, Clark has defended the school to questioners. "We are teaching police and military people from Latin America human rights," he said last week in Concord. "And if we didn't bring them in and teach them human rights, they wouldn't be able to learn human rights anywhere."

On the stump, Clark tells critics that Bruno will take them to visit the school, although he sometimes misidentifies Bruno as a board member.

"He's on the board. He'll be happy to take you down there," Clark told the woman who questioned him in Concord. "If you find anything in that curriculum material or anything that's taught there that looks in any way remotely connected with human rights abuse or torture, you let me know, and I promise you, we'll close the School of the Americas when I'm president," he said.

But if "you find nothing wrong you see these officers and noncommissioned officers in there learning about human rights, I'd like you to change your position."..."

[IndianaGreen]

127. Clark “Proud” of SOA/WHISC, Downplays Atrocities (SOA Watch)

For Immediate Release: January 20th, 2004

General Wesley Clark on Defensive on School of the Americas (SOA/WHISC), Once Under His Command

Clark “Proud” of SOA/WHISC, Downplays Atrocities

From June 1996 to July 1997, General Clark served as Commander of the US Southern Command, where he was responsible for US military activities concerning Latin America, including the School of the Americas (SOA), now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC). On Sept. 20, 1996, Pentagon officials admitted that SOA manuals used from 1982 to 1991 advocated the use of torture, extortion, and extrajudical executions against dissidents in Latin America. The New York Times wrote "an institution so clearly out of tune with American values should be shut down without further delay."

On December 16, 1996, a few months after the Pentagon admission of the torture manuals, Clark visited the SOA, not to demand accountability but to give a commencement speech at an SOA graduation ceremony. Six years later and still, no one has been held accountable for the use of the torture manuals at the SOA. The SOA trained death squad leaders, assassins and military dictators. Its graduates were found responsible for some of the worst human rights atrocities in Latin America, including the El Mozote massacre of more than 900 civilians in El Salvador in 1980, the murder of Guatemalan Bishop Juan Gerardi in 1998 and of Colombian Archbishop Isaías Duarte in 2002.

At almost every campaign stop, Gen. Clark is facing critical questions concerning his connection to the SOA and his continued unpopular support of the school. Asked about his continued support of the SOA during an event in Manchester, NH, on Dec. 19, 2003, Clark responded, " I’m not going to have been in charge of a school that I can’t be proud of." In reaction to a question asked in Concord, NH, about the torture manuals Clark stated: "We're teaching police procedures and human rights . . . never taught torture." Despite cosmetic changes, the SOA remains a combat training school that teaches Latin American soldiers commando tactics, psychological operations, sniper and other military skills. Its graduates continue to be linked to massacres and other crimes. A few examples:

· In April 2002, the Venezuelan Army Commander-in-Chief Efrain Vasquez and General Ramirez Poveda -- both graduates of the SOA -- were key players in an attempted coup against the democratically elected Venezuelan government. In total, the school has produced at least eleven military dictators.

· In October 2003 it became public through documents released by the Mexican Secretary of Defense that SOA-trained ex-soldiers are now working as highly trained hired assassins for the Gulf Drug Cartel. SOA graduates comprise over a third of 31 renegade soldiers who were previously part of an elite counter-drug division of the Mexican Army.

http://www.soaw.org/new/pressrelease.php?id=61

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

130. Yes, I've read that stuff. It doesn't refute my last post. n/t

[dogman]

138. Seems interesting that after Clark took command admissions were made.

Followed by changes in the "School". But I suppose giving credit for that would be a stretch.

[Joe Chi Minh]

202. Having an ideology implies that you have values, ideals.

Scorning ideology is a right-wing talking point, in itself.

[jonnyblitz]

11. "Why Immediate Withdrawel Makes Sense"

here is a link to an article that a fellow DUer posted earlier in the week that counters Clark's bullshit :

Why Immediate Withdrawal Makes Sense
by Michael Schwartz

<snip>

...The future, by definition, is unknown and so open to the unexpected. Nonetheless, it is far more reasonable, based on what we now know, to assume that if the U.S. were to leave Iraq quickly, the level of violence would be reduced, possibly drastically, not heightened. Here are the four key reasons:

1. The U.S. military is already killing more civilian Iraqis than would likely die in any threatened civil war;
2. The U.S. presence is actually aggravating terrorist (Iraqi-on-Iraqi) violence, not suppressing it;
3. Much of the current terrorist violence would be likely to subside if the U.S. left;
4. The longer the U.S. stays, the more likely that scenarios involving an authentic civil war will prove accurate.
<snip>

<snip>
American withdrawal would undoubtedly leave a riven, impoverished Iraq, awash in a sea of weaponry, with problems galore, and numerous possibilities for future violence. The either/or of this situation may not be pretty, but on a grim landscape, a single reality stands out clearly: Not only is the American presence the main source of civilian casualties, it is also the primary contributor to the threat of civil war in Iraq. The longer we wait to withdraw, the worse the situation is likely to get -- for the U.S. and for the Iraqis.
<snip>

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0922-32.htm

[IndianaGreen]

14. Excellent article! A must read!

American withdrawal would undoubtedly leave a riven, impoverished Iraq, awash in a sea of weaponry, with problems galore, and numerous possibilities for future violence. The either/or of this situation may not be pretty, but on a grim landscape, a single reality stands out clearly: Not only is the American presence the main source of civilian casualties, it is also the primary contributor to the threat of civil war in Iraq. The longer we wait to withdraw, the worse the situation is likely to get -- for the U.S. and for the Iraqis.

[dogman]

18. Sure, let's go with Mr. Schwartz's best guess.

That's a great strategy. Take a dump and leave it for someone else to clean up. Given the choice of that or Bush's leadership, I might agree with his guess. Given the choice of that or Clark's strategy for success, I trust Clark.
Snip>The prospect of a civil war is, of course, horrendous, but the ongoing American violence is massive enough that it would take several Bloody Wednesdays every week to match it. This, of course, is a possibility, but a more reasonable guess would be that, in a trade-off between the end of U.S. violence and an escalation in the civil war, the result would actually be a decline in civilian casualties in Iraq.<snip

[jonnyblitz]

34. somebody needs to ask the Iraqi's what they want. nt

[dogman]

37. And how do you propose doing that?

Bushco claims that is what they are doing with these votes they've held. That is one of the things Clark has proposed. That is the internal political mechanism that needs to be developed. I don't believe there is one Iraqi voice right now.

[jonnyblitz]

40. there probably isn't one Iraqi voice but something tells me

even if there were, we wouldn't listen.

[LynnTheDem]

52. Oh look, Iraqis have spoken, only the US ain't listening.

The US never was listening;

Kurdish leader shuns US move to oust Saddam
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,739916,00.html

Independent Iraqis Oppose Bush's War
http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,12809,907780,00.html

January 2005: 82 percent of Sunni Arabs and 69 percent of Shiites favor US withdrawal(Zogby)

2005; Newsweek reports that "Every major poll shows an ever-larger majority of Iraqis want the Americans to leave."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6857145/site/newsweek /

March-April 2004: 57 percent, "leave immediately"; 36 percent, "stay longer". (Gallup)

June 2004: 41 percent, "immediate withdrawal"; 45 percent, withdrawal after election of a permanent government; 10 percent, 2 years or longer. (Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society/CPA).

June 2004: 30 percent desire immediate withdrawal, 51 percent want withdrawal after a government is elected, 13 percent said that Coalition forces should remain until stability was achieved. (Iraq Centre for Research & Strategic Studies)

June 2004: 53 percent say leave now or "within a few months" or "until an Interim Government is in place" or "in six months to a year"; 33.5 percent allow "more than one year" or "until permanent government is in place"; 13.6 percent, even longer if necessary. (Oxford Research International)

February 2004: 56.3 percent of Iraqis somewhat or strongly oppose the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq. "Strongly oppose" versus "strongly support" is 2.5-to-1. (Oxford Research International)

March-April 2004: 58 percent say US forces have behaved very or fairly badly; 34 percent say US forces have behaved very or fairly well. The ratio between those saying "very bad" and those saying "very well": 3-to-1. (Gallup/CNN/USA Today)

March-April 2004: 30 percent say that attacks on US forces were somewhat or completely justified; another 22 percent said they were sometimes justified. (Gallup/CNN/USA Today)

May 2004: 87 percent express little or no confidence in US coalition forces; 92 percent view coalition forces as occupiers, rather than liberators or peace keepers. (Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society/CPA)

June 2004: 67 percent of Iraqis strongly or somewhat oppose the presence of Coalition troops; 30 percent support. (Iraq Centre for Research & Strategic Studies)

June 2004: 58 percent of Iraqis somewhat or strongly oppose the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq. Strongly oppose versus strongly support is 3-to-1. (Oxford Research International)

June 2004: 70 percent say Coalition troops are an occupying or exploiting force; 30 percent say a liberating or peacekeeping force. (Oxford Research International)

June 2004: Majority of Iraqis say invasion was wrong;
Invasion of Iraq was absolutely right say 13.2 percent; somewhat right, 27.6 percent; somewhat wrong, 25.7 percent; absolutely wrong, 33.5 percent. (Oxford Research International)

March-April 2004: 46 percent say the US invasion has done more harm than good; 33 percent say more good. (Gallup)

March-April 2004: 42 percent say Iraq is better off today than before the invasion, 39 percent say worse, 17 percent say the same. (Gallup)

August 2004: 46 percent of Iraqis say their situation has improved since the fall of Hussein, 31 percent say it has grown worse, and 21 percent say it is unchanged. (International Republican Institute)

57% said the coalition should "leave immediately"...
Among respondents in Shi'ite and Sunni Arab areas-- that is, leaving out Kurdish respondents--the numbers favoring an immediate pullout were even higher: 61% to 30% among Shi'ites and 65% to 27% among Sunnis.

In Baghdad, where U.S. forces are concentrated, the numbers were highest of all: 75% favored an immediate pullout, with only 21% opposed.
http://baltimorechronicle.com/060304Media.html

Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies, which is partly funded by the State Department and has coordinated its work with the Coalition Provisional Authority, more than half of all Iraqis-- including the Kurds-- want an immediate withdrawal of US forces...
http://baltimorechronicle.com/060304Media.html

The first survey of Iraqis sponsored by the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal shows that most say they would feel safer if Coalition forces left immediately, without even waiting for elections scheduled for next year.

55% of Iraqis say they would feel safer if Coalition forces departed right away.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5217874/site/newsweek /

Referances:

Press Release, Survey Finds Deep Divisions in Iraq; Sunni Arabs Overwhelmingly Reject Sunday Elections; Majority of Sunnis, Shiites Favor U.S. Withdrawal, New Abu Dhabi TV - Zogby Poll Reveals (Utica, NY: Zogby International, 28 January 2005), available at: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=957

International Republican Institute polls: Survey of Iraqi Public Opinion, September 24 - October 4, 2004 (Washington DC: International Republican Institute, October 2004), available at: http://www.iri.org/pub.asp?id=7676767887 ;Survey of Iraqi Public Opinion, July 24 - August 2, 2004 (Washington DC: International Republican Institute, August 2004), available at: http://www.iri.org/pub.asp?id=7676767885

Oxford Research International polls: National Survey of Iraq, February 2004 (Oxford, UK: Oxford Research International); National Survey of Iraq, June 2004 (Oxford, UK: Oxford Research International); both available at: http://www.oxfordresearch.com/publications.html

Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society/CPA poll: Public Opinion in Iraq: First Poll Following Abu Ghraib Revelations 14-23 May 2004 (Baghdad: CPA, May 2004), available at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5217741/site/newsweek /

Gallup poll conducted with USA Today and CNN: Cesar G. Soriano and Steven Komarow, "Poll: Iraqis out of patience," USA Today, 28 April 2004; "Key findings: Nationwide survey of 3,500 Iraqis," USA Today, 28 April 2004, available at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-gall... . Also see: Richard Burkholder, Gallup Poll of Iraq: Liberated, Occupied, or in Limbo? (Princeton, NJ: Gallop Organization, 28 April 2004).

Juan Cole, "Spinning Iraqi Opinion at Taxpayer Expense," Antiwar.com, 25 October 2004, available at: http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=3843

Robin Wright, "Religious Leaders Ahead in Iraq Poll; U.S.-Supported Government Is Losing Ground, Washington Post, 22 October 2004, p. 1;

Mark Turner, "80% of Iraqis want coalition troops out," Financial Times, 7 July 2004;

Michael Hirsh, "Grim Numbers," Newsweek, 16 June 2004;

John Lemke, "Poll: Security, unemployment major problems, UPI, 25 May 2004.

"Opinion Polls in Iraq," Iraqanalysis.org, http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55

Iraq Index: Tracking Reconstruction and Security in Post-Saddam Iraq (Washington DC: Brookings Institution), section on public opinion polls; available at: http://www.brookings.edu/iraqindex

Frederick Barton and Bathsheba Crocker, project directors, Progress or Peril? Measuring Iraq's Reconstruction (Washington DC: CSIS, September 2004), available at: http://www.csis.org/features/0410_progressperil.pdf

YouGov poll in Iraq, July 2003;

-Three in four of Baghdad residents say the city is now more dangerous than when Saddam Hussein was in power.

-32 per cent say that everyday life is better now than it was a year ago. Twice as many say it is either just as bad (16 per cent) or actually worse (47 per cent).

-71% want power handed over within 12 months

-56% want US troops to remain for at least 12 months

-Believed reason for bush's war; “to secure oil supplies” (47 per cent) and “to help Israel” (41 per cent). Just 23 per cent said US aim was “to liberate the people of Iraq”, while 7 per cent said “to protect Kuwait”.

The formal reason for going to war, “to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction” came last. Just 6 per cent think this was America’s and Britain’s main motive.

-Opinion of the people of Baghdad towards Americans, three months after they occupied their city; friendly (26 per cent), hostile (18 per cent), 50 per cent feel “neither friendly nor hostile”.
http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/07/week_3/16_poll.html

Iraqis Do Not Trust Americans, Says Poll

-Asked if the US and UK should help make sure a fair government is set up in Iraq, or should the Iraqis work this out themselves, 31.5 per cent wanted help while 58.5 per cent did not.

-Some 38.2 per cent agreed that democracy could work well in Iraq, while 50.2 per cent agreed with the statement that "democracy is a western way of doing things and it will not work here".

-Asked whether in the next five years the US would "help" Iraq, 35.3 per cent said yes while 50 per cent said the US would "hurt" Iraq. Asked the same of the UN, the figures were almost reversed, with 50.2 per cent saying it would help and 18.5 per cent the opposite.

-Reguarding US and British troops, some 31 per cent wanted them to leave in six months and a total of 65.5 per cent in a year. Some 25 per cent said they should stay two years or more.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0911-01.htm

[dogman]

73. A lot of numbers that are all over the place.

But these polls and statements by various leaders are hardly representative of anything concrete. I have no doubt we had no business going into Iraq. I also have no doubt that the vast majority do not want a long term presence either. I do not believe a majority want to be left to what will take place if internal and regional stability have not been established.

[LynnTheDem]

79. Denial ain't just a river. ;)

"hardly representative of anything concrete"

January 2005: 82 percent of Sunni Arabs and 69 percent of Shiites favor US withdrawal(Zogby)

2005; Newsweek reports that "Every major poll shows an ever-larger majority of Iraqis want the Americans to leave."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6857145/site/newsweek /

YOU know so much better than the IRAQIS THEMSELVES! WOW! I am AMAZED!

:rofl:

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

78. so do the pollsters

phone Iraqi homes to do these surveys in between power outages or do they go knocking door to door in between car bombs?

[LynnTheDem]

81. Why dontcha go look up the poll internals. Or gee maybve all those

dozens of polls are fake! Or maybe all the Iraqis who responded aren't real Iraqis!

And you of course know better than the Iraqis do, anyways, right? ;)

[jonnyblitz]

91. people who are mainly here to prop up their favorite candidate

aren't interested in facts. thanks for this post btw.

[LynnTheDem]

59. They've been asked, many times. And the Iraqis answered. Too bad

America ain't listening.

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

71. no need to

LynnTheDem apparently knows ;-)

[LynnTheDem]

74. Yes I do know.

And if you read post #52, you'll know more than you do now. :)

[Joe Chi Minh]

203. "Take a dump ?"

My, you're a slick customer. Don't you mean "Turn a country into a dump, then leave it for someone else to clean up!?!"

[ticapnews]

13. Imagine every American soldier gets on a plane tomorrow and leaves Iraq.

What happens Monday? Peace and prosperity break out all over the country? The Sunnis and Shiites lay down their arms and sing Kumbaya around the campfire? Al-Qaeda operatives who have moved into Iraq since we invaded go home and get jobs somewhere?

I think the Bush Administration needs to announce an exit strategy that
- brings the soldiers home over the course of the next 18 months
- trains enough Iraqi soldiers/security to maintain some sense of stability after we've gone.

Of course, it is a moot point, because the Bush Administration has no intention of leaving. But it's great politics for Karl Rove to divide Democrats who are split over when we should leave Iraq. While we fight over when and how to withdraw, the neocons plan for their long-term bases where they can launch invasions of Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. And as long as we stay divided, they don't have pressure to leave.

It all goes back that "We make reality" quote. We can fight all we want and it won't change the reality of what this Administration does.

[Catchawave]

21. Clash of the Titans in Virginia Beach

I live so close to this venue, I'm tempted to go !

Gingrich, North to debate Clark, Begala at Regent
Third annual Clash of the Titans™ to examine the Bush Strategy in Iraq
by Joe Miracle and Steve C. Halbrook

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va.— The war in Iraq takes center stage at Regent University on Oct. 21 as four heavy-hitters in American culture and politics engage in verbal combat in Regent’s third annual Clash of the Titans™ debate.

Both sides of the political spectrum will tackle the question, “Is the Bush strategy working in Iraq?” Arguing for the strategy will be Newt Gingrich and Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North from the right. Arguing against the strategy will be General Wesley Clark and Paul Begala from the left. NBC News and MSNBC anchor Forrest Sawyer will serve as moderator.

The event will begin at 3:30 p.m., Oct. 21, on the main stage theatre in Regent’s Communication & Performing Arts Center, and will be followed by a V.I.P. reception and dinner in the Library Atrium.

As time goes on and casualties mount, more questions are being raised about President George W. Bush’s strategy in Iraq. Critics of the president’s plan say there is no end in sight, even drawing parallels with Vietnam. Supporters say that nation-building takes time, and that we are gradually building trust with the Iraqi people.

More at website: http://www.regent.edu/news/clash_titans_preview05.html

[IndianaGreen]

42. Begala is a scum bucket, a complete disgrace!

When Cynthia McKinney accused Bush of having foreknowledge of the 9/11 attack, which turned out to be absolutely true, Paul Begala attacked her mercilessly as a looney.

Begala supports the war and he belongs to those DLC Democrats that delude themselves into thinking they can win the war.

[Catchawave]

68. So I shouldn't go ?

Tix are $25-$35, and I'd hate to be lining Pat Robertson's pockets too. From what I remember of Begala is that he was a weenie on Crossfire.

[IndianaGreen]

77. It would be a good show to watch.

Newt and Clark are the only two with brains, and they are the only intellectuals. It should be an interesting debate.

[Catchawave]

89. I have this up in the Virginia Forum....

I know there are several DUers in the SE Va. area, it would be nice to go with like minded buddies :)

[IndianaGreen]

94. Please let us know how the debate turns out

I am particularly curious about Newt and Clark since they are both running in 2008.

[karynnj]

181. I agree - it should be a fascinating show

I would really like to see a transcipt on it. (Although it would never happen it would be great to see a real debate in a univerity (or foundation) setting between Newt and North against say (Kennedy, Gary Hart or Kerry) and Clark actually dealing with American Foreign policy. It appears that the Republicans have COVERTLY inacted policies of undermining goernments that are contrary to the what most of us think the US stands for. I know some Democratic administrations also did these things - but especially Hart and Kerry seemed to fight those inclinations.)

[Donna Zen]

192. I dislike Begala

for many reasons including his DLC connections, his undying support of DLC candidates, his open cheerleading manipulation of the 2004 primaries, his whimping out and trashing Cynthis McKinney, but even I must admit that Begala was against the war. Before it started and ever more--against.

[Donna Zen]

23. I've read the reasons for pulling the troops out and it sounds great.

What I haven't read is how that happens. What's the plan? Immediate pull out takes a minimum of 6 months of packing. What happens in those 6 months? Do you really believe that there are no fighters in Iraq who are not using and abusing the good people of Iraq for their own political ends? Call those people assholes, call them religiously demented, call them terrorists...but call them something, because about 10% of the people engaged in armed struggle could give a shit about much beyond subjagation of women and totalitarian rule.

So...how do we get out? A phased withdrawal? A rush down route 101 to hell? How exactly? And what happens to Iraq? Oh, ya think it's gonna just be fine? Okay. Do you really for one moment think that the surrounding majority Sunni countries are going to let Iran influence a third of Iraq? How about the equipment? Do we leave it? What about the economic future of Iraq? What about the Kurds? Turkey? The Turkmen are being kidnapped and killed now, what about that minority? What units leave first? What about the logistics? If we are shot at while rolling out, do Americans get to shoot back? Do we battle our way out of Iraq?

So, what's your plan? I mean your exact plan....

[judy from nj]

25. Agree Donna Z

Many people are so angry at Bush they aren't thinking ahead. Do you know what a civil war is like? How many people would be killed? What if the Shiites break away, will Sunni Arabs just sit by and let them get away with it? If the Democrats win in 2008, they will still have to deal with the problems of Iraq. We need a strategy to damp down the violence, get people working together, and get a regional dialogue going. That is a much harder task than just saying - get out now - but it is essential.

[LynnTheDem]

35. 1. The US CANNOT PREVENT WAR if the Iraqis decide to go full out

civil war.

2. What happens after we leave is NOT OUR BUSINESS.

The Iraqis have taken care of themselves for centuries; they DO NOT NEED babysitting.

LEAVE NOW, like the VAST MAJORITY of IRAQIS want, and pay reparations.

WHITE MAN'S BURDEN is a crock of shit.

[Donna Zen]

47. Iran and Syria and especially the citizens of Iraq

have a vested interested stopping a civil war. Ya think? So do we...but that is not where the road is leading. Clark is telling you, me and anyone who will listen to demand that the problems that are leading to civil war are sorted out. Why? So that we can leave.

Juan Cole has said that this may make no difference to the individuals calling out: Leave Now, but it will make a great deal of difference to those in the surrounding countries. Cole's latest solution is to pull back the American troops and control the spead of civil war with air power. I can see his point, and he is taking the responsibility by offering the nub of a plan, but I fear that air power 1) still keeps America engaged and 2) is even worse for the civilian population than what is happening now. Hard to imagine, but that is probably true.

The country of Iraq has not really existed as it does today, and I oil was certainly not the issue 3 centuries ago. And actually in his own horrible way, Saddam was their babysitter, just as another set of bastards will one day "babysit" this country.

Pay reparations: to whom? How will an ordinary Sunni get dollar one from the bastards now in charge? How will a woman with kids to feed get her next meal?

You brush off all of these nagging little difficulties as some soundbite filled with vitriol, but there are actual lives in the balance. Millions of lives as a matter of fact.

Now, rather than "all caps" let's have some specifics. Clark wants out, I want out, you want out. Rejecting the notion of regional diplomacy be instituted in lieu of force would seem rather cavalier, although an easy claim to make, unless you have a different and specific plan. Let's have it.

[mike_c]

60. you know-- Clark supporters spend an inordinate amount of time...

...explaining to the rest of us what Clark "really means" when he says something like "success in Iraq" is essential. I'd suggest that either Clark begins saying what they say he means, or they start listening to what he's actually saying.

[dogman]

171. Only because Clark detractors spend an inordinate amount of time

defining what Clark "thinks". We have learned over time that the RW media (which is most MSM today) use these tactics to reconstruct most liberals. The truly amazing thing is that so many on the left have embraced this same tactic.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

180. I agree and agree

[Joe Chi Minh]

204. It's difficult [b]not[/b]to know what someone thinks,

when they lay it out before you in speech and writing. As Aneurin Bevan put it, "Why look in the crystal ball, when you can read the book?"

[dogman]

219. So you're saying the problem is reading and listening comprehension

is Clark bashers larger deficit? They aren't twisting the facts afterward? I don't think that's a very kind thing to say.

[Joe Chi Minh]

237. No, what I'm saying is that when people speak, we are able to

perceive their mindset, what they think; so that your contention that Clark bashers are claiming to be mind-readers is foolish. They don't need to read his mind, when he tells us what's in it. Surely thats plain enough to understand?

[dogman]

241. No doubt.

Then why do they ascribe thoughts and words to him that he did not write or say? You may be right. Maybe their goal is distortion and deception. Maybe it isn't lack of understanding. Maybe it is deliberate.

[IndianaGreen]

179. Clark has to be "explained" in the same way Kerry was in 2004

Granted that Clark is not as well-versed in obfuscation as Kerry was, but it should be disquieting to his Clark supporters that Clark's views need to be spinned even before the primary season begins. How is Clark going to explain himself when he is in the limelight of the national media?

[LynnTheDem]

63. Here's the bottom line;

IRAQIS want us to get the hell out of their country and have been saying so, as a majority, from the start.

WE ILLEGALLY INVADED IRAQ. A nation that had been doing NOTHING WHATSOEVER to anyone. The IRAQIS want us to leave.

SO LEAVE.

My plan how? BY FUCKING PLANE.

[capi888]

75. Yes indeed and the US will be the target for Terrorists.

If we pull out all at once and leave the ever expanding Al Quada insurgents, we will be the target of every Muslim country. Wes knows that WE will be the target for terror attacks here in the US. We must use all our tools, not just military, but diplomacy, and political tools. It is in the Worlds interest. Gen Clark has been consistent on his analogy of the War in Iraq...that it is WRONG...but we are there and we have to find a way OUT, that doesn't put the World in Chaos and death. Bush has created a mess, and we must find a way to get our troops out safely, with a plan that works, as soon as possible. He does not want to stay the Course, he wants to CHANGE it. He can do it and knows HOW!

[LynnTheDem]

85. We are the REASON. We are the PROBLEM.

We give the terrorists street cred for as long as we stay in Iraq.

We can't change the course by staying in Iraq.

[mike_c]

108. gotta fight them over there, huh...

...so we don't have to fight them here?

[1932]

158. What if we stay until it's a "success"?

How hard are the terrorists going to try to knock us from our perch if suddenly the US is making billions of dollars off of Iraq and shows that an illegal war can turn out pretty well?

Do you think they're going to give up and go home? Or do you think they're going to up the ante?

Staying and making a success of it could be every bit as dangerous, if not moreso -- provided it could be made a success. It's much more likely that it will end up like every other attempt at military and soft empire in history: an expensive mess that only lasts as long as the empire resists justice.

[IndianaGreen]

44. A week to fly all the troops out of the country

Leave the equipment behind to the Iraqi "government." Most of the equipment is in sad shape anyway.

[Donna Zen]

58. Thanks IG

I wondered about all of the equipment. Nevertheless, there's plenty that is ready to aim and fire and also plenty of tech stuff. As far as what passes for the Iraqi government, I wouldn't trust them with shit. Reverse engineering is a horrible thing. How about the stir all of that tech equipment will cause on the world's black market devoted to weapons sells?

One of things that is likely to happen is a movement toward genocide against the Sunnis. The army that we have been creating over there is primary Shiite. I suppose that the Saudis and others will step in to stop that from happening.

Where do we land the planes?

Do we take Iraqis who have cooperated with the US? Just the rich ones or all of them? How about their clans and families?

The Kurds want to break away, they now have signs at their border that say welcome to Kurdistan. Do we let the Turks just "take care" of what they see as this problem on their border?

[IndianaGreen]

67. I would leave the Iraqis that allied themselves with Bush to the mercy

of their countrymen. None of them are worth saving, anymore than the neocons that brought this war are worth saving. Neither Allawi nor Chalabi are worth saving!

[capi888]

51. Right on Donna Z...there has to be a PLAN

Gen Clark said, if we were to pull the troops out, the insugents would kill, anyone that supported our troops, and the bloodbath of our military would be horrendous. It would create a travesty for our troops lives along with the killing of anyone who supported the U.S. There has to be a PLAN in place, slow withdrawal over a period of time. You just can[t yank out 150,000 troops, equipment, without a massacre happening. Lets look at reality. Wes Clark wants a PLAN for withdrawal, along with assurance that the US is not having permanent facilities for our troops.

[IndianaGreen]

54. Clark is repeating the same lies we were told about Vietnam

Gen Clark said, if we were to pull the troops out, the insurgents would kill, anyone that supported our troops, and the bloodbath of our military would be horrendous.

Same lies I heard from prowar generals during the Vietnam War. None of it turned out to be true! The only ones that may find themselves in jeopardy would be those former Iraqi exiles that wanted the US to invade Iraq by spreading lies about WMD. I won't lose any sleep if Ahmed Chalabi were decapitated!

[LynnTheDem]

70. Britain in Iraq, 1919...sound familiar?

"What would happen if we withdrew? We cannot abandon Iraq to anarchy and confusion".
-Lloyd George, British PM, warning of civil war in Iraq if the British Army left.

The Brits lost 40,000 troops in that attempted occupation.

[Donna Zen]

82. Why is diplomacy so fucking bad?

Why is talking to people such a fucking sin all of a sudden?

Gen. Clark went into the back rooms of the Dem caucus and told them NOT to vote for this debacle. He told tv audiences that this was the greatest geo-political blunder that the US ever made. I hardly think that he is spouting Vietnam bs. (Note: Clark did a master's thesis on every decision made about Vietnam, he traced every decision right through the Pentagon Papers and back to 1946. He is well aware of every lie told, and had some scathing remarks to make about the conduct of that war.)

Chalabi will be swimming in the bucks, he is part of the group that is allied with Iran.

You could well be correct: that all of Iraq will bloom in the sweet light of peace, or we will walk away from a Lebanon, a Palestine on the Tigris. If dialog can stop that from happening, I'm all for it.

Finally, I will remind you that bush has no intention of leaving. So call it from the rafters if you want, but I prefer to call out his incompetence and demand that he change the course. Iran wants to talk, Syria wants to talk, the surrounding nations want to talk, but only bush can begin the dialog.

[LynnTheDem]

88. Changing course = LEAVE.

Anything else is just same ol shit.

[mike_c]

56. leave the infrastructure behind...

...armies have conducted orderly retreats for centuries-- they don't take six months. Every U.S. soldier could be out of Iraq in 30 days if the Pentagon wanted them out, and that's getting all the sharp toys out with them.

[Donna Zen]

87. Please define orderly retreat

Phase out units? According to all estimates I've read it takes 6 months. What about the non-pointed sticks? There's some very high tech stuff over there.

You do realize don't you that what you are suggesting is never going to happen. Makes it easy of course to spout, but doesn't make a bit of difference.

[mike_c]

92. a rapid withdrawal with command structure intact, which differs...

...from a flight. With sufficient airlift capacity, most troops could be flown to forward bases in Kuwait, Qatar, Turkey, etc as quickly as they could fall back to Baghdad. Troops in the southern part of the country could withdraw directly to the Kuwait border-- that's how they got into Iraq in the first place, and it only took about two weeks to advance to Baghdad (and that was against resistence-- I don't think the Iraqis are going to fight against their withdrawal).

[Gloria]

226. Well put, Donna Zen! "pullout" makes it sound like it takes about

5 minutes. In reality, unless there is a plan to ease the way, it means more bloodshed against our troops and among Iraqis.

Obviously, a lot of people haven't heard the "three legged stool" analogy which Clark uses.....the diplomacy part has to be brought online before any "pullout" can proceed with descending into chaos.

[LynnTheDem]

28. Sorry Wes, but you are WRONG.

But hey, let's talk again 10 years and 50,000 US dead from now.

[Donna Zen]

84. You missed the point

No one is talking now. That's the problem. I want the dialog to begin NOW not 10 years from now.

[LynnTheDem]

86. LEAVE NOW.

Anything else is just more death and destruction.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

106. Or if you're wrong we can talk after Al Quaeda takes

advantage of another Islamic state in Iraq, on the verge of collapse and engaged in civil war.

How many years and how many deaths then?

Hard to say, depends on who goes nuke, who uses nukes, how strong Queada becomes.

How much rage there will be at the USA for going in and making a huge mess of things and then leaving it a worse mess, having absconded with their money, their oil, etc?

Hard to say.

Wes was involved in negotiating the Dayton accord after the war in Kosovo. His experience isn't limited to the purely military aspect of foreign policy.

He is extremely smart, very experienced, dedicated to his country, and also to doing what is right. He is a man of integrity.

[LynnTheDem]

118. IF IF IF...so hey let's just stay FOREVER coz IF we left 2000 yrs from now

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

126. There's nothing to respond to, this doesn't compute. n/t

[LynnTheDem]

136. Gee, it's pretty simple; IF al Qaeda can take over Iraq next week IF

we left Iraq next week or IF al Qaeda could takae over Iraq IF we left Iraq next month or IF al Qaeda could take over Iraq next year IF we left Iraq next year...or IF al Qaeda could take over Iraq 2000 years from now IF we left Iraq 2000 years from now...

It ain't al Qaeda fighting us in Iraq. It's IRAQIS. See, they're kinda pissed about us INVADING and OCCUPYING them and bombing the fucking crap out of them, their families, their friends and neighbors and their country, especially when Iraq had not been doing ANYTHING WHATOSEVER to ANYONE.

And even though the majority of Iraqis NEVER wanted us to "liberate" them and even though the majority of Iraqis want us the hell OUT of their country, we ignored and continue to ignore what they want. And we continue to kill them and their families and their friends & neighbors.

And the Iraqis continue -and will continue for as long as we're there- to fight and kill us. And for as long as we're there, we give UBL and the likes of Zarqawi street cred; our invasion has INCREASED the threat of terrorism and will do so for as long as we're occupying Iraq.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

137. Al Queda's been drawn in, as a result of our stupid entry into this

stupid war.

Now we have to do what is best from here on.

2000 years?

Your IF is if we stay there for a while to try to do what Wes is outlining...

What is the dif? An If is an If...

;)

[LynnTheDem]

140. "drawn in"? You mean Ansar al Islam's Zarqawi? He isn't al Qaeda.

He never was al Qaeda.

Or do you mean the 2 fake "al Qaeda" letters?

How many al Qaeda have been caught in Iraq? NONE.

Some Ansar al Islam fighters have been, and Ansar has been in Kurdistan for years.

What's best is to get the hell out, like the Iraqis want us to. NOW. Every day we stay is another day of increasing the threat of terrorism and more lives lost.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

145. No I'm not referring to the administration propaganda

I've heard it said many times by people like Al Franken and many of his guests, among others.

Please don't put words in my mouth, especially the words of the hateful admin in the WH.

;)

[LynnTheDem]

147. Ahhh, you've "heard it".

Right. ;)

It is often argued that the US must stay in Iraq because if the US pulls out it will become a base for terrorists to strike against the United States. This is pure speculation – there’s no real evidence to support it. When the US pulled out of Vietnam it didn’t become a base to launch terrorist attacks against the United States, so why should we assume Iraq would? Hypothetically, any country in the world could be used to launch terrorist attacks on the United States – that doesn’t mean every country in the world should be occupied.

Occupying Iraq actually has the opposite effect; it makes anti-US terrorist attacks more likely. The occupation of Iraq is a blatant act of aggression that angers much of the world, especially Iraqis and others living in the same region. This gives anti-US terrorists many more recruits and increases the number of people willing to engage in terrorist attacks against the US.

Withdraw from Iraq and anti-US terrorists will have fewer recruits.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

151. Oh, okay. I guess that all that is why I was out demonstrating against

the war in Vietnam so many years ago.

Al Franken checks his facts carefully, has teams who do fact checking, and has very reputable, reliable guests on oftentimes.

Like Seymour Hersch. Among others.

Other guests may be for entertainment value, but the facts are not taken lightly on Air America Radio.

[LynnTheDem]

154. So who told Al Franken al Qaeda is in Iraq? bush would sure

love to have some factual "al Qaeda in Iraq" info, and that he has none would be a dman good indication that there is none.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

156. They were not there before the invasion.

Bush has admitted that it has become a ripe place for terrorists since the invasion, but not before.

With intermittent false assertions that Iraq and 911 are connected.

But I'm sure you already know all about this.

[LynnTheDem]

159. Yes I know this. But what proof there's al Qaeda in Iraq now?

All I hear is refs to al Zarqawi, and contrary to bush & the m$m, he is not al Qaeda and never was.

The "terrorists" in Iraq are Iraqis. The longer we stay though, the more likely we will breed terrorists around the world, because our being in Iraq engenders hatred towards us.

[Joe Chi Minh]

206. They're not apt to learn from you or anyone, if they're

still swallowing the Al Qaeda bullshit. They probably still believe it's the Baathist bitter-enders, too.

At least Porter Goss doesn't believe the whole of the CIA is training every sinew to find Osama Bin Laden!

[dogman]

128. Pull out now, we can be back in a short while and do it again.

When it is the center of a regional war, possibly leading to a World War, we can have another shot. By that time the neo-neo-cons can probably introduce their newly developed high tech weapons.

[LynnTheDem]

132. Uh huh, same shit every conquering nation says.

Just as Britain spouted the same shit in their first attempt at occupying Iraq.

Bullshit then, bullshit in 'Nam, bullshit now in Iraq.

[dogman]

139. Britain is back, aren't they?

Never heard it said about Nam. Are we a conquering nation? What have we Conquered?

[LynnTheDem]

142. They CHOSE to be back. Iraq was doing NOTHING WHATSOEVER

to ANYONE.

Your remark is truly amazing.

And yes, it was constantly said during 'Nam, we couldn't pull out or the commies would be under every bed in America and 'Nam would descend into civil war and *gasp* maybe start a world war. :eyes:

[dogman]

149. Sorry, it was to easy.

Seriously Nam was a civil war. You might be attempting to refer to the domino theory however. Nam was part of a World War, just an undeclared Cold one.

[LynnTheDem]

83. Been there, done that...lost 40,000 soldiers.

"What would happen if we withdrew? We cannot abandon Iraq to anarchy and confusion".
-Lloyd George, British PM, warning of civil war in Iraq if the British Army left.

Oops wrong.

-"We come as liberators, not as occupiers."

Oops wrong.

-"We should be received in Baghdad with the same cordiality as in southern Iraq and that the Turkish troops would offer little if any opposition".

Oops wrong.

-"We must be prepared... to go very slowly with constitutional and democratic institutions."

Oops wrong.

That was Britain's first failed attempt to occupy Iraq. And as always, the imperialist conquerers made the same bullshit noises they make today; sure sounds familiar, don't it.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6337.htm

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article312696.ece

http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles360.htm

PS; Britain lost 40,000 troops in that attempted occupation.

[Donna Zen]

90. When?

So when are all you going to tell me to vote for Hillary? I know it's coming soon.

[mike_c]

95. well, you'll certainly never hear that from my mouth....

Hillary is another Iraq war enabler. I'd gnaw off my right arm before I'd vote for her, or urge anyone else to.

[Joe Chi Minh]

207. She's a great one for the gratuitous non sequitur.

[IndianaGreen]

96. I don't think the Kool-Aid is ready yet!

No amount of sugar or sweetener can mask the bitter taste of Hillary's Kool-Aid.

[sarcasmo]

99. Clark/Boxerr in 08

[mike_c]

107. I'd love to see Boxer on the 2008 ticket....

I'd vote dem for Barbara Boxer, just as I support her in California. But I won't support ANY candidate who refuses to repudiate the war against Iraq and call for the most rapid withdrawal possible, followed by open and comprehensive investigation of the circumstances that led to the invasion. That last is just as important as ending the war itself, because you can't assert that the war is wrong and should not be fought without acknowledging that SOMEONE SOMEHOW misled the nation into that war. You can't say "whoops-- big mistake" without acknowledging that the folks who made the mistake are responsible for the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands.

[windbreeze]

109. It seems to me....

That Clark has said, we need a PLAN...success...well, success can be viewed in many different ways...on many different levels...don't we owe it to ourselves, to those men and women that have died, to at least insist on some semblance of success.???
I know that Clark has also stated that we have a small window of opportunity to succeed, and the window is closing fast...and then, the American people have the right to insist on complete and total pullout..immediately...
I feel that he is calling for Bush to change direction, since the direction he has gone thus far, is resulting in complete and abject failure...
NO we should never have gone in there, and Clark has stated that in the past, repeatedly...He was AGAINST this "war" and occupation, from the get go, and has spoken out more than anyone else..Loudly, and consistently, since BEFORE we went in...He has given Bush many "slaps on the wrist".....but it seems to me, we need to remember who exactly got us into this mess, and who voted for war in Iraq...there are a lot of Senators/Congressmen who should be speaking out, and aren't...It WASN'T Clark who took us in there..and I dare say, if he had been President, we would NEVER have found ourselves in this mess...contrary to what some of you may believe, about career military men, any man who has served in a war, is going to be the last man to take us into a war, without using every other means first..it is NOT NOW, and NEVER has been, his responsibility to figure out how to get us out..but I won't fault him for attempting to give Bush a clue..
Some of you seem to think it's up to him, and I for one, simply do NOT understand that mindset...at least he exposes himself to your anger by trying, which is more than a lot of others are doing...so I suggest you write and tell him how you feel...
windbreeze

[jonnyblitz]

114. I don't think anything is up to him. I just don't agree with his

solution. He isn't in any position of authority to impliment any plan anyway. He is just offering his ideas which is a good thing, whether I or anybody else agrees or not.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

116. "people in the White House don't understand -- you don't use force except

as a last, last, last resort..."

Below is an excerpt of an interview by Democracy NOW with Wes on the eve of the New Hampshire primary in 2004:

"...GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: In that place, too. And they had flown over it a couple of times. You know, we just -- we were trying to establish some kind of communications on the ground with the Albanians. The Serbs were on the nets, and they were jamming all of the communications, and they were doing imitative communications deception. And nobody could get the truth about it. We saw the Serb vehicles around the place. And I didn't make the decision, but they were following orders on my command. And it was looked at, and so forth. The decision was made as a legitimate target. It turned out that they had been ordered to stay in there by the Serbs. The Serbs were surrounding the place to keep them penned in. It was horrible. You never forget stuff like that. That's why when this government has used force as it has, it makes me so angry. Because these people in the White House don't understand -- you don't use force except as a last, last, last resort..."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/1632224

[IndianaGreen]

117. Justify the blood that has been shed by shedding more blood!

don't we owe it to ourselves, to those men and women that have died, to at least insist on some semblance of success.???

That's the sort of militaristic nonsense that caused nearly 60,000 names to be engraved on the Vietnam Wall Memorial, and that's the kind of thinking that will keep on adding more names to a future Iraq Wall Memorial.

The dead are dead! There is nothing we can do to bring them back to life. Words such as "honor" are totally meaningless to those that lie 6-feet under. The only honor is to save the lives of those that are still serving in the quagmire in Iraq, and the only way to save their lives is by withdrawing them immediately and unconditionally.

Let's bring the troops home, let's bury the dead and nurse the wounded, but let's leave Iraq now!

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

125. I've never known Wes Clark to say anything like we have to stay there

because people have already died.

That isn't the point. His point is forward looking, not backward.

[windbreeze]

163. NO one has to tell me anything about Vietnam

Absolutely no one...my husband served two terms in that godforsaken country, and died from cancer of the neck and head as a result..my nearest neighbor died from a particular type of cancer caused ONLY by agent orange, just barely a year ago....even if the troops came home tomorrow, 10-50 years down the road they will still be dying as a result..no matter how quickly we get them out of Afghanistan/Iraq, they will continue to die...just as they are still dying to this day from their service in Vietnam..

We can scream bring them home all we want to..Bush will bring the troops home when he damned well pleases, or when it is going to suit his best interests, politically...
I am sure Clark knows that's the case, and at least he's in there giving it his best shot, by charging Bush to salvage some small part of this bullshit mess..call it by whatever name you will...

You are correct, honor means nothing, if you are dead..BUT..this is also a volunteer army, and they knew when they signed up, that this wasn't a game they were playing, that they were soldiers, and would have to go where they were sent..no one bothered to tell them, that we might just have an idiot son in the big house, that wouldn't care how many of them died..or IF they died...from all of his recent speeches, he still doesn't...and that's exactly why I don't see it changing..

Vietnam, didn't go away just because the troops came home, neither will Iraq...and no one knows that better than Clark....no man hates war, more than a man who has experienced one first hand...
windbreeze

[1932]

172. It doesn't matter if they stay or go because they'll die when they come

back from things to which they were exposed in Iraq? That's your argument?

But the only ones who will die back in the US because of things that happened in Iraq will be the ones who were in Iraq. If they get out of Iraq, fewer will be exposed th the hazards in Iraq and they won't be exposed to the hazards as long.

Clark knows that when a population loses its political resolve, military strategy doesn't matter and a country can force its politicians to end bad projects like Iraq and Vietnam. (That's his argument in both his book about Yugoslavia and his book about Iraq -- he says that once the military embarks on a project, the public should STFU until the project is finished; he thinks we could have won Vietnam if the public hadn't lost its resolve and in his book about Iraq he describes a moment about a week into the invasion when the media was being a little critical, which wasn't good, but that they turned it around by doing human-interest interviews with the troops and that was good because it kept the US public on the side of war.)

In Dr Strangelove, the insane general who starts the war quotes Clemanceau who said "war is too important to leave to the generals" (he says it's not true -- that war is too important to leave to the politicians, which is why he singlehandedly started the war that ended the world).

I agree with Clemanceau -- military strategy must come second to political will in a democracy. Vietnam was the right outcome. The problem with Vietnam wasn't that military resolve was weakened by waning popular support. The problem was that we didn't have an informed debate BEFORE Vietnam. Popular will would have kept America out of Vietnam if it had been followed from the beginning.

Chomsky says that there are two superpowers in the world: US's military-capitalist hegemonic drive and POPULAR OPINION. I think it's true that those two things are invetibably in opposition. I can't imagine an informed public which believes in the idea that people should have power and that the US stands for democracy and justice, would ever endorse hegemonic imperialism. It's lies that get Americans to be hostile towards Venezuela, Vietnam, Allende, and Iraq. The truth would inevitably lead people to conclude that occupying Iraq is wrong.

[NCarolinawoman]

119. I imagine that Clark knows that Bush is not inclined to bring

the troops home in the next three years. Bush will probably go through the motions right before the '06 elections, but total withdrawal isn't going to happen as long as Bush is in charge, no matter how much we say "Bring them home now!" I think Clark is trying to deal with this reality.

Clark was truely against this war and predicted in his testimony before the HASC all the bad things that were going to happen. I've gone back and read his entire testimony. He's a stategist and at times a visionary; so I trust that he may just have a clue as to what could happen next. He knows all the players in the Middle East....many of them personally.....even the Iranians, apparently. So he is trying to get some kind of policy going on in the three years we will be stuck there under Bush.

It would be great for him politically to say "Bring them home now." But this is obviously not about politics for him. And it's NOT GOING to happen under Bush, no matter how much we scream about it.

Just as a side note: Has anybody ever wondered that if Bush suddenly DID withdraw the troops, he might just get it in his head to start another war? He would once again have the manpower. It is hard for me to imagine what kind of trouble he will bring upon us in the next three years.

[bklyncowgirl]

164. The Democratic Party choir--each singing his own song

The Republicans sing the same song. "Stay the course". There may be a few themes and variations (The Do it Better imvrov largely written by John McCain) but on the whole the message is the same.

As for the Democrats, they can't even agree on which song to sing, much less on how to sing it.

There are the the small but influential group of prowar Democrats (Clinton, Biden, Lieberman etc.) who are doing their own variation on "Stay the Course (but Do It Better)".

The "I Voted For the War Before I Voted Against it" Democrats add their own theme to the "Stay the Coruse Do it Better" theme, "The I trusted You George Bush Blues".

The antiwar Democrats are united by having been against the war from the git go. The problem is that the antiwar Democrats don't sing the same song. You've got Feingold and Boxer singing "Timetable Rag", Clark singing "Gotta Have a Plan" and thousands of grassroots activists singing "Get out Now". What's worse is that whenever any of these guys sing their song they're immediately and vicously attacked by everybody else on the antiwar side.

I think this is what Howard Dean was referring to when he told Cindy Sheehan that the Democratic Party could not come out against the war. He's tried to get a consensus. (Dean at one time or other has sung all of the major Democratic themes except for "Get out Now" (he's done a variation on that one called "Get out ASAP") but consensus just isn't happening.

As choirmaster, Dean has basicly thrown his baton out the window and screamed "I can't deal with these people--let's talk about health care."

That's a mistake because the Iraq war is the biggest issue of our time. I'd like to see these leading Democrats get together with representatives of grassroots organizations and try to put together something that looks like a plan. Otherwise it's every man and women for themselves and that does not inspire confidence.

[Crunchy Frog]

165. I think that's an excellent summation.

I don't see our party getting very far on this until at least the leaders come to some sort of broad consensus regarding how to approach this issue.

I have no problem with the grass roots activists taking the "out now" position. I'm inclined in that direction myself, and think that it's a necessary part of holding the politician's feet to the fire. I'm not sure, however, that that's the best or most effective position for the Democratic party to be taking. I do think that there needs to be some degree of unity in message amongst the party leadership, and the Lieberman/Hillary Clinton DLC one is not going to cut it.

[IndianaGreen]

174. In 1917 the Bolsheviks demanded peace now

The Bolsheviks won because they put peace and bread at the top of their political agenda, while the Mensheviks wanted to keep Russia in the war to honor the blood of the fallen.

In 2008, the candidate or political party that stands for "peace and bread now" will win the bulk of the 2004 ABB votes.

[Crunchy Frog]

213. I thought it was the Provisional Government under Alexander Kerensky

of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, who wanted to keep Russia in the war. I think the Mensheviks lost out more because they were politically outmanouvered by the Bolsheviks. Not surprising since the Bolsheviks were highly centralized and autocratic (not unlike modern day neocons) while the Mensheviks were much more democratic in orientation.

I would hardly put the Bolsheviks up as a models of peace, considering what they did once they siezed power in order to hold onto it, and considering what their political heir Stalin did.

I ain't going to be voting for no Bolsheviks in 2008. That's for damn sure!

[robbedvoter]

169. Here's a Mark Fiore to illustrate same:

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/reuse.html

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

210. To Wes Clark's detractors: I don't believe there is anything

that could be said that would have an impact on your opinion.

Or is there, and if so what?

And before you ask, yes there would be things that could change my opinion.

But I asked first.

If what I suspect is true, then I see no reason to continue to post about the topic since there is no chance for real exchange of ideas and opinions.

[welshTerrier2]

212. just to be clear ...

i do not see my disagreement with Wes Clark on the withdrawal issue nor on the building of "permanent bases" issue as qualifying me to be a "detractor" of Wes Clark ...

Mr. Clark is an experienced, insightful man with many excellent ideas ... he's just wrong on Iraq; that's all ...

[Crunchy Frog]

214. I agree with you WT2. I think you're probably not the type of poster

that the question was directed towards. I myself distinguish between people like you who have honest disagreements and can express them in a respectful fashion and those who seem simply to want to hate for the sake of hating and have found Wes Clark to be a convenient target.

I definitely understand the frustration of people who want out now. Heck, I want out now, damn the consequences. However, I can see where political figures who I admire may choose to look at the situation in a somewhat different manner than I do.

This war has really created a no win situation where the consequences are going to be horrendous, pretty much no matter what we do. I can't fault people like Clark, Feingold and others for trying to figure out the least worst option for getting out of this situation that the Bushies have landed this country in.

[welshTerrier2]

215. i think that's a double-edged sword ...

we are a testy bunch, no doubt ...

one spectrum occurs between those who disagree and argue in a polite but firm manner versus those who disagree and argue in a red hot flaming manner with colorful rhetoric ... i suppose both contribute to making DU an interesting place for discourse ...

but another spectrum occurs between those primarily focussed on ideas versus those primarily focussed on a candidate ... of course, there are substantial overlaps within these groups ... but i wish DU would put candidates on the back burner for awhile ... or maybe put candidate posts in GD-Candidates ...

there's something lost in a discussion forum when the following type of exchange occurs:

wt2: ok ... you hate my idea ... how would you handle it ...
x supporter: well, i agree with x ...
wt2: well, what does x say ...
x supporter: x says we should blah, blah, blah ...
wt2: well, what do YOU say ???
x supporter: i agree with x ...
wt2: ok ... i understand ... but if x changed his view tomorrow and his new position agreed with me, would you also change your position???
x supporter does not respond ...

i can't tell you how many times i've had this occur on DU ... i guess it's nice that x supporter has so much faith in their candidate ... i only wish x supporter had their own opinions so that democracy would flow up from the grassroots rather than down from the candidates ... it seems kinda bass-ackwards to me ...

[Crunchy Frog]

216. Yeah, I think that dialogue on DU often does degenerate

in that fashion. Some people like to attack particular political figures wherever possible. Other people who have developed strong committments to particular political leaders often get very defensive and the attacks tend to harden people into defending a particular position. All in all, I think it ends up being a disastrous recipe for quality political discourse.

I think what you often see happening here, and describe very well, may not be so much a matter of people placing faith in a candidate above their own opinions, so much as a particular type of dynamic playing itself out on the board. It definitely does get tiring.

I have my own opinions and they sometimes differ from those of my chosen candidate, and I think most people on here who back someone are the same way. Attacks tend to bring on defensiveness and a desire to circle the wagons in many though. This is why I often find the political discourse at a place like CCN to be more thoughtful and less likely to degenerate into little tit for tat battles of oneupmanship. Nobody is feeling on the defensive the way often are here, so there is much more freedom simply to discuss issues.

I once again thank you for the respectful way that you discuss issues and argue positions rather than personalities. I think you do your part to try to keep discourse here civil.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

229. Yes, I think your description is very accurate

I want out of Iraq too, but like you I have to consider the opinion of someone like General Clark, based on what I consider his track record.

In the end, I'm not sure how I'd vote if we got to vote on the exact timing and method of withdrawal from Iraq.

But in the course of discussion, I find myself defending everything Clark when he comes under unrelenting attack.

Not because I believe that every single thing he says is right. Some of what he says I believe as well.

Other things I simply present a plausible argument to show that there are other beliefs than those of the people who seem to direct anger at Wes Clark.

[dogman]

220. That brings up a point I wonder about.

If Bushco says tomorrow, your right, we're pulling out immediately. will that make them ok?

[jonnyblitz]

231. I support the position of getting the troops out now no matter

WHO promulgates that position. as a ten year vet, troops lives are MUCH MORE important to me than WHO is the person that gets them out the soonest. sometimes principles are more important than propping up a candidate which is what I believe Clarkies are doing, at all costs, no matter what his positions. I read Clarkie threads, I am not stupid...


If Bush decides to get the troops out NOW i support him in THAT endeavor(of course we know that won't happen in a million fucking years) that doesn't mean I am a Bush supporter.

[CarolNYC]

234. sheesh!

Did it ever occur to you that maybe supporters of Wes Clark chose to support him because they agreed with his thinking, that they researched him and his views and beliefs and liked what they found? Why is it so hard to believe that if they agreed with his thinking then, they might find they agree with his thinking now, or at least trust in his experience and ability to evaluate a situation and determine the best course to take? Do Clark supporters really have to be careful not to agree with anything Clark says for fear of looking like they are just trying to prop him up?

I suppose it’s possible that people chose other candidates to support for reasons other than that they agreed with their thinking, trusted them and thought they would make good leaders…but I don’t think that’s a good thing, you know?

[IndianaGreen]

217. "I want out now, damn the consequences"

I agree with you in that there is no victory in Iraq, as the one we saw at the end of the Gulf War. Staying in Iraq will not prevent our ultimate defeat, which is inevitable, and will only add to the numbers of dead and wounded on both sides of this sorry and unnecessary war.

The point of this thread, that we all missed, was Clark's counter to Bush's pack of lies in his weekly radio address. No matter how I may disagree with Clark, there is no disagreement that Bush's military adventure in Iraq has permanently harmed our country in a way that has never happened before in our history. Not even Osama bin Laden could have dreamed of destroying the US military and bankrupting the US in the way Bush has.

[dogman]

221. There is the bottom line, you've summed it up well. N/T

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

230. Thank you

"The point of this thread, that we all missed, was Clark's counter to Bush's pack of lies in his weekly radio address. No matter how I may disagree with Clark, there is no disagreement that Bush's military adventure in Iraq has permanently harmed our country in a way that has never happened before in our history. Not even Osama bin Laden could have dreamed of destroying the US military and bankrupting the US in the way Bush has."

Thanks for bringing us back to the heart of the matter.

[CarolNYC]

235. Yep,

that seems to have gotten lost in all of the squabbling....Thanks for the nice summation.

And, I think, no matter what we do now, there's no good way out of this for anyone at this point. Very sad.

[Totally Committed]

236. Great Post!

When I read this thread, I see the posts are clearly divided into three categories:

**** Baseless attacks: By the usual cast of characters, which I immediately discount as more of the same b.s., and move on.


**** Honest disagreement: Deeply-held principles and beliefs by those like wT2 and IndianaGreen who have proved over time, and in other threads, their deep and consistent committment to the same set of values and opinions they espouse here.


**** Strong support for a candidate (either Wes or not): Coloring the posting and thinking on this matter. There is either attack or defense, depending on whether the candidate supported is Wes or another.

I fully respect those with whom there is an honest disagreement. With them, there is the possibilty of dialogue and discussion that would broaden all our outlooks on this matter and others. With them, there is the possibility of concensus-building and alliance-forming. In their honest disgreement is the possibility of meeting in a sort of middle-ground.

If those who disagree with Wes Clark simply on the basis of support for another candidate, or those who's only purpose is to find every Wes Clark thread and trash it, had sat this one thread out, I believe the conversation that could have been possible here between Clark supporters and those in honest disagreement with him on this subject could have been thought-provoking and positive. But, that was not possible while the others were in attack mode, for whatever reason. Those, like wT2, who really long for a dialogue with Clark supporters is always left wanting more, because in these threads the Clark supporters are left fending off attacks reflexively. The "bunker mentality" produced by the constant need to defend is not condusive to the openness and trust necessary to have a real conversation with those who, like him, really deserve one.

It's a sorry state of affairs, and one for which I have no immediate solution. I just hope we'll keep trying to find one. I hope we keep talking to each other, and maybe even a way to appeal to those who are simply here to detract from Wes, for whatever reason, to allow those of us who really want to discuss these important matters with those who are serious about their disagreement, to do just that. To maybe find it in their hearts to at least some of thetime sit out one or two of these threads. You are doing this Party no favors with the disruption of dialogue amongst the various factions.

I truly commend IndianaGreen for this wonderful post. In it I see the basis for agreement on a number of levels. Such wisdom should not be ignored while we are busy swatting flies.

TC

[welshTerrier2]

238. the plan vs. the man

1. Wes Clark is a genius; Wes Clark is great ...
2. Clark's military background and experience as a diplomat give him tremendous insights into foreign policy
3. Wes Clark doesn't just say "stay the course"; he's offered a real plan to get us out of the mess in Iraq
4. Wes Clark has provided some good ideas about regional diplomacy but he's still looking for "success" in Iraq
5. Wes Clark is calling for continued occupation and the building of "permanent" military bases
6. Wes Clark is enabling bush's plan for empire
7. Wes Clark shows the typical, hawkish military mentality

I keep thinking that our discourse is hurt by candidates ... Clark isn't running for anything and neither are most of the Democrats ... at least not yet ... 2008 is a few light years away ... it's not that we shouldn't ever mention various leading Democrats, but so much of what's posted is either posted as an advertisement, an attack or a defense that it just doesn't seem credible ...

and i certainly don't mean to be suggesting that those supporting candidates fail to engage in sincere discussion of the issues; some do and some do not ...

if you look at the statements at the top of this post, i think we need more of the stuff in the middle and less of the stuff at the top and bottom ... it's one thing to say: "Clark's plan is bogus; all it will do is get more troops killed" ... that talks about THE PLAN (whether you agree or not) ... it's another thing entirely to say: "Clark is bogus; all he'll end up doing is getting more troops killed" ... that talks about CLARK ... one focusses on the plan and the other focusses on the man ...

and once the focus is on the man, be the focus positive or negative, the cycle of attack and defend begins ... and the discourse grows less sincere ...

[Totally Committed]

239. I'd actually like to take this "Plan vs. The Man" thing a step further...

In the past I have tried to write issue-only threads, and they have fallen flat. I felt then, as I do now that people with little to say on anything substantive need a personality to attack for an issue to get any play around here.

I have posted thread after thread about Darfur, Poverty, Classism, Racism, and so on, and NONE OF THEM has gotten 238 responses, as this one has.

It is Clark's name and personality that draws interest, which draws the detractors, which draws the defenders, until the whole issue is lost, and the personality thing takes hold.

What I would loike to see here is a list of issues the Democratic Base feels are important, and once a week (say, on Monday) a thread is started to discuss ONE ISSUE at a time. Those who participate will be asked to leave their candidate preferences at the door, and participate with only their willingness to discuss the issue at hand in tow. No personalities, no candidates' positions, nothing but the sharing of knowlege through dialogue.

If I thought that would be possible, I would be over the moon. Any takers? Any thoughts?

TC

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

242. Sounds like a pretty good idea to me

However, it does seem reasonable to allow references to policies of people who were candidates. If they have some expertise or espouse what seems like a good idea.

But to steer away from discussing the candidates themselves sounds like a really good idea. Like if I quote General Clark or someone else quotes John Edwards, that should not be taken as opening up the entire record and/or personality or integrity of that individual.

It only opens up discussing the issue and the opinion cited.

(Sounds like we're talking about admissable evidence and arguments in court, but it seems like it would be helpful)

I can't recall a time when the Democratic party seems to have a lot of groups within which are very identified with a former Presidential candidate. In some ways this is good, as it seems to energize us as a whole. And I happen to like pretty much all of them to one degree or another.

The downside is of course the in-fighting based on the person that can result, as we've seen here.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

228. I agree also that you are not one of those to whom my

question was directed.

[jonnyblitz]

223. I disagree with him on several issues that are important to me.

other then that I am sure he is a nice guy.