Gene Lyons: A Democratic Strategy for Iraq

[Jai4WKC08]

A man who should need no introduction here, Lyons has an excellent column in the Arkansas Dem-Gazette today.

It's starts off:

Don’t hold your breath, but Democrats may be showing signs of life in the national debate over Iraq. For most of three years, including Sen. John Kerry’s presidential campaign, party leaders have appeared fearful of challenging George W. Bush’s belligerent bungling. They haven’t wanted voters to mistake them for George McGovern, the World War II bomber pilot and 1972 Democratic presidential candidate who made the mistake of being right about Vietnam too soon. Now that may be changing. As recently as July, the party establishment worried that Americans couldn’t be trusted to make elementary distinctions. Writing in the Democratic Leadership Council’s Blueprint Magazine, Will Marshall opined that while " ntellectually, of course, it’s possible to separate Iraq and the war on terror," Democrats needed to be wary lest voters mistake them for anti-American, hippie pacifists....



Meanwhile, most Democrats agree with the question put by former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart in a recent Washington Post column: " hat will history say about an opposition party that stands silent while all this goes on?" Many have begun to despair of leadership from the aforementioned U.S. senators, all of whom voted in favor of giving Bush a blank check to do as he pleased on Iraq back in October 2002 and can’t seem to admit they were bamboozled.

But there’s at least one name-brand Democrat who wasn’t obliged to vote in 2002, and whose patriotism is hard to question: retired Gen. Wesley Clark. Maybe that’s why the former NATO supreme commander and neophyte 2004 presidential candidate has taken the lead.

Beginning with a trenchant column in The Washington Post and a subsequent appearance on NBC News’ "Meet the Press," Clark has begun a calculated assault on the Bush administration’s Iraq policy from the right and left simultaneously...



Clark lays down what he calls "a threepronged strategy: diplomatic, political and military" to deal with the realities the Bush administration ignored in its half-baked belief that American invaders would be greeted by flower-throwing throngs. Almost none, frankly, has any likelihood of being enacted. Hire 10,000 Arab-American translators? Convene a regional security council to hash things out with Iraq’s neighbors, i. e., Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.? Not gonna happen. And then? "If the administration won’t adopt a winning strategy," Clark writes, "then the American people will be justified in demanding that it bring our troops home." He doesn’t pretend that would be a good thing. Asked about the consequences of retreat in an online forum, Clark concedes that " n exit that leaves behind violence, chaos and civil war will be viewed as a clear American defeat. And it will supercharge terrorist recruiting, increase problems for American diplomacy... and increase the danger closer to home." Clark only implies that retreat could end up being the least bad option.

http://www.nwanews.com/story.php?paper=adg§ion=Editorial&storyid=127033

[yurbud]

1. Did Clark talk about oil?

Hillbilly Hitler art:

[FrenchieCat]

2. Yep, he did....

He said that if we want it, we should buy it....

Re: Changing course in Iraq requires leadership (3.00 / 0) (#177)
by wclark on Aug 30, 2005 -- 02:00:45 PM EST

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--Wes Clark.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/29/94325/1284

[yurbud]

3. that should have been first--it would buy us some good will in Arab world

Hillbilly Hitler art:

[Jai4WKC08]

4. I disagree about "first"

Clark's first column at TPM was about changing the course in Iraq. Even if Bush took us there for oil (personally, I think it was more about US politics... oil was just an added goodie... but whatever), it is not now THE central issue in Clark's vision of what we should be doing there now.

Of course, if you read between the lines, Clark does put oil front and center when he suggests that Bush's biggest failure at this point in time is not pursuing an effective diplomatic track for the region as a whole. Because if Clark's strategy were implemented, you can bet that oil would be one of the key issues that would have to be addressed, and it would be with all the players having a say, not just the Big Oil corporations. They can only control the oil when the US is calling all the shots, and that's precisely what Clark says, and has always said, needs to change.

In any case, Clark answered one question on oil, what you see up-thread, but he expanded on the subject on Wednesday, when he answered a question about alternative energy sources:

I think energy policy has to start with a vision. In the 1950s and early 60s, the United States was a net energy exporting nation. People bought oil from us. Our goal should be to return to a position where we're selling as much energy abroad as we're buying. This is possible if we use America's natural resources and technology.

Start with renewable energy: wind and solar. The technology is vastly superior to what was available 30 years ago, but it needs continuing government support to move through a myriad of obstacles, including local utility company regulations, investor concerns, and intellectual property protection. But a substantial part of America's energy demand could be met by solar and wind.

Then consider coal. We have some of the largest coal reserves of any nation in the world, and like petroleum, coal is a complex hydrocarbon. It can be gasified and liquefied. It can be used to produce methane, diesel, or aviation gasoline. And its polluting effect can be regulated and minimized. All of this is economically feasible given the current prices of natural gas and petroleum. But again, government leadership is required to "kickstart" the process.
Nuclear energy has always been a quandary. There will always be residual safety concerns, but the more daunting obstacle is the disposition of spent nuclear fuel. Urgent research in materials science is required to produce storage containers that can resist the long-term caustic effects of storing nuclear fuel. And it would be even better if procedures could be developed to nullify the radioactivity of the isotopes.

In the near-term, high energy prices will incentivize more exploration for oil and natural gas. That's fine, but insufficient to meet our real national security needs for energy. This is a perfect example of why a market-oriented solution is not always optimal, and when government leadership and vision are required.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/31/122436/786

[FrenchieCat]

5. Whoa....I like that energy statement!

Energy Dependence = National security