Note: crossposted from GDP
Clark argues that we should push for a regional dialog with other Arab states including Syria and Iran ... i think that's great ... and he argues that we should work to turn off the flow of weapons and fighters going into Iraq ... well, that's fine too ...
but these ideas cannot succeed as long as the US is viewed as an imperialist occupation force ... and no "dialog" is going to change the hearts and minds of people in the Middle East anytime soon ... the US has been an abuser in the Middle East as far back as FDR if not before ... we assassinated Mossadeq in Iran ... we installed the tyrannical Shah ... we supported the tyrannical Saddam ... we invaded Iraq on a pack of lies ... we've propped up the hideous royal family in Saudi Arabia for decades ... and rightly or wrongly, US support for Israel is a major source of hatred for the US in the region ...
the US has squandered its good will and built a horrible reputation throughout the Middle East ... the idea that we could have bush convene a "dialog" to build credibility for any kind of peace or stability process, let alone democracy, while we continue to be imperialist occupiers is frankly absurd ... and to make matters worse, Clark supports the building of US military bases in the country ... he justifies this by arguing they are needed to safeguard American troops ... i can't think of a worse signal we could send to those worried about permanent American military occupation ...
I appreciate Clark's sincerity in looking for solutions in Iraq ... i think his ideas were exactly what was needed after the first Gulf war ... support from the region at that time should have been built upon ... unfortunately, greed and oil got in the way ...
the problem i have with General Clark's position, at least to the extent it is explained in the BP, is that General Clark seems unwilling to recognize the extent to which the US does not hold the moral suasion to drive any kind of negotiating process ... any path to peace or stability needs to start with the end of US occupation ... no one in the Middle East is going to trust the US or its motives while we continue to impose our will inside Iraq ... and furthermore, it is NOT at all clear that negotiating at a government to government level will resolve the infiltration issues either ... if we can't get Tehran to abandon its nuclear program, what makes General Clark believe we could get the Iranians to side with the US on quelling the violence inside Iraq ... you build good diplomatic relationships by respecting national sovereignty; not by invading and becoming a long-term occupation force ...
the solution to Iraq begins with withdrawal ... after that, we should look at the kind of regional negotiating framework, driven by the UN not the US, that Clark is calling for ... we cannot gain trust and act as neutral "umpires" when we're one of the teams in the game ...
sorry, Clarkies ... that's the way i see it ...
also, check out this other post that discusses the utter futility of trying to resolve Iraq's "insurgency crisis" by focussing on "foreign fighters":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2112748&mesg_id=2112748the only way to leave Iraq is to load the troops on the planes and leave ...