Clark: * sending mixed messages to Iraq. Discusses National Security Plan

[Clarkie1]

Host: Okay, so the Democrats say that they have this new national security plan. What is it?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well I think it's a unified approach across all elements of national security. It includes energy security, taking care of the men and women who fought - our veterans. It includes going after weapons of mass destruction, dealing with the problems of North Korea and Iran and resolving the problems of terrorism and Iraq.

Host: Well, it's awfully ambitious. I actually read part of this plan today and it also said that one of their big focuses is to “eliminate Osama bin Laden.” How do they propose to do that?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well we're going to put renewed emphasis into working Afghanistan and with Musharraf in Pakistan and we're going to double the size of our special forces and we're going to crack the nut in going after Osama bin Laden. When the president said he wanted him dead or alive right after 9/11, his name soon dropped off because it's very difficult to go after one person. You really have to focus on it. We went into Iraq instead of focusing on Osama bin Laden and the result is he's still on the loose.

Host: Now, about on the topic of Iraq, this new plan says that the Democrats will ensure that 2006 is the year that Iraq can transition to full sovereignty with Iraqis assuming responsibility for their own security. That sounds easier said than done. How do they propose to do that and hasn't…isn't that what the president has been trying to do?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, the truth is that the policy that we've had in place - the president's strategy - is simply running out of gas in Iraq. Right now, 3 months after the elections were held, there's still no Iraqi government. You have feuding political leaders and it's not the fault of the men and women in uniform. This is a political strategy that the president requires, to work behind the scenes, to use maximum US leverage, to engage in dialogue with Iraq's neighbors and to get help from other Arab countries to be able to pull together an Iraqi government that de-legitimizes the insurgents, that modifies the constitution so there's no need to fight. That's the principal work that has to be done. It has to be done now, in 2006. This can't be deferred to 2007 because if it is the insurgency will grow and deepen and Iraq won't hold together.


Host: Well, that sounds good, but how will the Democrats - your party - deal with the things like the car bombs and the daily violence from the insurgents?


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: This is a problem that has to be dealt with first at the political level, inside Iraq. Adequate incentives must be provided and leverage attained against the various parties in the Iraqi government and their supporters, to be able to pull together an Iraqi government that really does legitimate the Iraqi people and de-legitimate the insurgency. That hasn't been done. That leverage has been two years late in being applied, the recognition of what the problem was has been late. All the leverage still hasn't been applied. When the president sends mixed messages like 'we'll be there through the next president's…into the next president's administration' and at the same time tells the Iraqis to pull up their socks and get going, that's a mixed message. The truth is that we can't be effective keeping our people there unless the Iraqi leaders do their part and that's a message they have to understand. And Democrats are giving them that message.


Host: Okay, General Wesley Clark thanks for outlining the plan for us.


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Thank you.

http://securingamerica.com/node/821

[Teaser]

1. It's actually better than I'd hoped

calling for a "responsible redeployment" from Iraq is closer to withdrawal talk than I thought they'd get.

[Disturbed]

2. It's a Pipedream.

When the Bush Regime imposed over 100 Edicts upon Iraq and sided with Allawi and Chalabi the Bush Regime Agenda failed. The Shi'ites and Kurds are not going to hand over any power to the Sunnis. Now there are a multitude of factions fighting each other for control of territory with. The Iraqi Army is fractured and so is the Police Force. It will take a miracle to stitch together an Iraqi Govt. that will stem the power struggle. Dems just don't want to voice the reality that the US/UK Occupation must withdraw ASAP and let the Iraqis fight it out. Dems do not wish to be seen as the "cutting and running" Party. They are against Iraq and a hard place.

[karynnj]

4. Iraq and a hard place? pretty clever

I agree with your analysis. I think some of the more lberal parts of the party have come pretty close to saying we should get out if there's not a government every soon. (Kerry and Reed are two people talking weeks, not months or years.)

[Teaser]

5. Of course it is. That's the point.

The phrase "responsible redeployment" is broad enough that hawks and us can agree to it. And it puts the argument about "what is responsible" on the table. Redeployment is taken as a given.

That's the best we can do given some of the people we have in office. When we elect some better Dems, we in Nov, we can improve it.

[FrenchieCat]

7. True, true....

as Democrats are divided on this, but only technically....cause other than Lieberman, I don't think any Democrats support this war....

This is after all "THE Democratic Plan".....so I think it is quite good considering the divergence of opinions.

[ShockediSay]

3. He's good

and probably our best bet.

Not a crooked professional pol

Not a chicken hawk

Not unfamiliar with all aspects of national defense

Not unfamiliar with defense contractor driven foreign policy

Not unfamiliar with defense contractor driven deficit <ESPECIALLY

Not afraid to be specific

If he's not our candidate, I give up on the 2 party system

[FrenchieCat]

6. Glad you brought up the Defense Contractor driven subject....

Interview with Laura Knoy:
http://www.nhpr.org/node/5339

(Not an offical transcript, but) a transcribed version of what Wes Clark said:

"I think General Eisenhower was exactly right. I think we should be concerned about the military industrial complex. I think if you look at where the country is today, you've consolidated all these defense firms into a few large firms, like Halliburton, with contacts and contracts at the highest level of government. You've got most of the retired Generals, are one way or another, associated with the defense firms. That's the reason that you'll find very few of them speaking out in any public way. I'm not. When I got out I determined I wasn't going to sell arms, I was going to do as little as possible with the Defense Department, because I just figured it was time to make a new start.

But I think that the military industrial complex does wield a lot of influence.

We need to create an agency that is not about waging war, but about creating the conditions for Peace around the world. We need some people who will be advocates for Peace, advocates for economic development not just advocates for better weapons systems. So we need to create countervailing power to the military industrial complex."
----------
Clark: Don't spare Pentagon
"We need to put all the government spending programs on the table, including the military programs," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/25/elec04.prez.debate/

[ShockediSay]

9. Guess we know who will be funding

his swift booty bunch.

Good post, Cat

[PATRICK]

8. It is interesting

to see how Clark is dedicated to certain strategies on Iraq, strategies that are decent and make sense, by bouncing off the failure of Bush's totally different skew. Bush wants chaos and division and too many corrupt deals to "bring people together", people who might control their own destiny. Bush is destroying the possibilities of Clark's ideas even as he destroyed the military objectives. The agenda is all wrong.

Bush will settle for anything that leaves him in practical dominance and purposeful profit relationships
with the conquered. This forces the nobler ideals to keep downsizing expectations of what sanity and goodwill can accomplish. One wonders if the nobler people, had they been given rational control of Iraq policy could have succeeded or still can in some way. They keep trying to believe they can, but one keeps thinking of Vietnam.

Taking over from Bush is like taking over from the French after Dienbienphu, only worse.