Clark Challenges Bush in DC on Iraq

[Tom Rinaldo]

Smack dab in the Beltway's Morning newspaper, The Washington Post, General Wesley Clark takes it right at the Bush Administration today, in an OpEd I'm sure they don't want to read, but they still know that everyone else will. General Clark nails it with his title; "The Smart Surge: Diplomacy" in a classic example of devastating framing. If enhanced diplomacy is the "smart surge", what is a temporary steroid injection of 20,000 or 30,000 more U.S. troops into Iraq? That's just plain dumb.

I would urge all to read the full OpEd in the Washington Post, but it took Clark just three sentences to cut through Bush's military surge spin to the bottom line of predictable results:

"What the surge would do is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut the morale of U.S. forces and risk further alienating elements of the Iraqi populace. American casualties would probably rise, at least temporarily, as more troops appeared on the streets -- as happened in the summer when a brigade from Alaska was extended and sent into Baghdad. And even if the increased troop presence initially frustrated the militias, it wouldn't be long before they found ways to work around the neighborhood searches and other obstacles, if they chose to continue the conflict."

But Clark's challenge to Bush goes deeper than simply calling his strategy wrong. He blames Bush Administration policies for feeding the regional instability now consuming American and Iraqi lives inside Iraq, and he warns that absent a genuinely new approach to the Middle East, one that emphasizes diplomacy, the flames of war are likely to spread further:

"Well before the 2003 invasion, the Bush administration was sending signals that its intentions weren't limited to Iraq; "regime change" in Syria and Iran was often discussed in Washington. Small wonder then that both countries have worked continuously to feed the fighting in Iraq.

Dealing with meddling neighbors is an essential element of resolving the conflict in Iraq. But this requires more than border posts and threatening statements. The administration needs a new strategy for the region, before Iran gains nuclear capabilities. While the military option must remain on the table, America should take the lead with direct diplomacy to resolve the interrelated problems of Iran's push for regional hegemony and nuclear power, the struggle for control of Lebanon, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Isolating our adversaries hasn't worked.

Absent such fundamental change in Washington's approach, there is little hope that a troop surge and accompanying rhetoric will be anything other than "staying the course" more. That wastes lives and time, bolsters the terrorists and avoids facing up to the interrelated challenges posed by a region in crisis."

In an unusual move, Wes Clark published this same OpEd piece one day earlier in the United Kingdom, in Britain's "The Independent". General Clark's opinions are highly respected in Europe. By publishing his OpEd on back to back days in both London and Washington DC, General Clark has signaled his intentions to frontally take on Bush regarding Bush's approach to the entire Middle East now, much as General Clark took Bush on regarding Iraq and the War on Terror when Clark last ran for President in 2004. It seems it will once again take a General to make the case that the only solutions in the Middle East that we possibly want to live with are political, not military.

Read General Clark's full Washington Post OpEd here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/07/AR2007010700980_pf.html

[capi888]

1. Thanks Tom

As usual, you are on the Ball...

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

2. Has he been on any of the MSM? nt

[nealmhughes]

3. General Clark understands why Iran is sabre rattling, with us matching them tit for tat...

The Administration must, as the General states recognize the failure of neoconservative policies.

This artificial structure of Iraq, bound together only by a strong military in the past, is a curious colonial relic: a relic of both the British, Ottoman, and now US empires. Recognizing the disintegration of a state, much less an empire is difficult for many used to the status quo to recognize and acknowledge. Recognition forces analysis of a former entire Gestalt and acknowledgement of a failure is seen as a personal and institutional failure with no clear option in the making.

That is why the US continues to treat Venezuela and Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina and Chile as if they were still client states. They are not. The only client the US has left is Mexico, and only by the ruling elites' continuing hegemony in matters political and social there.

We find ourselves in the curious position of continuing to play footsie with the most politically and socially repressive monarchies and dictatorships in the world, people who fund people who seek to rend us asunder, making Enlghtenment a brief passage in the blip of history.

Empire has never worked, they all fall eventually. Greece, Rome, Persia, the Arab Caliphate, the Ottomans, the USSR, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, the Rising Sun...and the UK and the US. History teaches us that empire is eventually folly.

Mr. Reagan played with fire with his proxy war in Afghanistan, unleashing well-funded Wahhabi extremists who were met by equally well-funded Shiite extremists in Iran in the adventure's extention of Iraq under Mr. Bush, fils.

Were the West and the East energy independent, these regional squabbles would be rendered merely "curious" in Beijing, Tokyo, Moscow, Paris and New York...the Arabs vs. the Persians in the longue duree...but we are tied to these squabblers by our lust for their black gold. But they are not mere "oriental squabblers", these Arabic and Persian speakers, they are men and women and children who seek stability, education, working electricity, potable water, and a job, the same as everyone else in the world. But what a price they have paid for "modernization!" Let us recall the first major war of "Modern Times" the 40 Years War. Germany was laid waste for 2 centuries from a stupid war over whether a cracker became flesh or not...Is there any wonder that Iraq can be laid waste over squabbling over whether Ali is the proper leader of the Islamic World or not?
But of course, no war is fought over a cracker or a hereditary leadership -- those are the face issues. The neocons refuse to see these wars for what they are: the realignment of the Middle East with a strong democratic Persian and strong democratic Arab two-faced reality... it is inevitable, and we do not like the idea of the loss of our clients, but we have lost them, probably forever. The Shah is dead, the House of al Saud is tottering, and we are about to see -- hopefully in our near future -- a United States which no longer meddles and promotes the Enlightenment ideas upon which we and France were founded, not propping up tyrant after tyrant for what they can give us: gold.

[wellstone dem]

7. great article thanks nt

[pansypoo53219]

4. 20 little indians

instead of 10.

fodder. that's all the military is to georgie and dickie. for they didn't serve.

[harlinchi]

5. Kicked and recommended for the General! n/t

[car54whereareyou]

6. The "Smart" Surge

K&R! n/t