Tidbits from Clark on CNN/Washington Week today/night...

[Gloria]

Clark was on Inside Politics and had two good areas of discussion:

First, he really gave a very informative answer about why the generals say one thing and the senators say another, vis a vis troop levels. Makes a lot of sense! Never thought about how "one" multiplies into MANY more in terms of support personnel, etc.

The other thing about how Clark said that the "groundwork" is being laid for a "change." He really focussed on the "buildup" idea....not the alternative of leaving. I got the feeling he thinks they want to commit more troops, we don't have many....so.....he was being very "non-out on a limb" about it....but it makes me think about Hagel saying a few days ago that a draft might be needed....

Fast forward to what USED to be a great news panel show.....

Then, on Washington Week in Review, which I happened to be clicking by,
I caught a comment from a new "unknown" face reminding us all that a poll is saying that "55% of the Iraqi people feel things are going in the right direction" in Iraq...and this "reporter" beamed and repeated that things are "trending" in the right direction. The impressed with himself Doyle McManus of the LA Times then said that the Administration is "cautiously optimistic" because the Shiites are all on board for the election, so if they can get a few of the "rebellious" Sunnis to say nice things about it, then Iraq will be on a new track after the elections.

MMM..this flies in the face of a recent report I read that opined that the post-election period would be perhaps even more dangerous...because if the Shiites are the winners (which they will be), the various factions will have many things to complain about and things could escalate. Which sounds logical to me....

[Donna Zen]

1. Put that together

with what we learned from General Clark earlier this week: that Sistani is looking for "legitimacy" first. Then will come the theocracy.

Sistani is having his way with this administration which will now do just about anything to have their bacon saved.

Clark recently urged the Gulf states to put together their own "contact" group to deal with Iran, and thus, head off another US bully-boy act. It is the Iran-Iraq combo that has the Gulf worried, because it will change the regional dynamics.

Wes has been giving us pieces of what he knows...but oh, to know what he knows.

[buddysmellgood]

2. If you ask me, we have to put on this election show and then get out.

We can't protect the Iraqis. In fact, they will be safer after we leave. We can't protect our own troops. We don't have any more troops and a draft simply won't fly. Bush blew it. We lost. Time to get out.

[Gloria]

3. Before OUR "election" there was much talk about declaring

victory and getting out. In fact, John King brought that up today with Clark...then Clark discussed the alternatives as I outlined in my original post.

But I just got the sense that this bunch of asses are going to do the macho bit and increase troop levels and linger on in Iraq. The worst thing that could happen is to have a civil war there and it may very well happen after the election. And who knows what Iran's involvement will be as they support a Shiite majority?? Maybe Bush will take the easy way out and nuke everyone there...but with Hagel mentioning the possiblity of a draft and Clark today saying that we just don't have many troops left....I just get the feeling a draft is going to be called for whatever reason the Bushitas have in mind. They will start a campaign for it, I bet, like they did with Iraq and like what they're going with Social Security....

There will be a drumbeat of fear, Iran will be mentioned frequently, etc. etc.

That's unless, of course, Kerry suddenly emerges as the President of the United States....

[Donna Zen]

4. Agree with a caution

If a civil war breaks out--a good possibility--it will look more like genocide than long term low grade fighting. That of course might cause the Kurds to break away. The Kurds are Sunnis.

Look_this war is the worst friggin foreign policy decision this country has ever made. Would the US be obligated as the breakers in the China shop to go back in? I may say "no" just because I hate what is going on, but even I know that there are long term consequences that will effect everything.

There are no easy answers here. If we had any diplomatic team AT ALL, there might be a way to 1) accept an Islamic fundamentalist state 2) get our gracefully. But as we both know a huge number of Americans didn't vote for that. No telling what dim-chit asshole bush will do.

[asjr]

6. Oh, I agree. Once the election is held, if it is held,

the Iraqis are going to do what they darn well please. They want us out of there so badly they will hold the election if they have to shoot everyone who comes near. And civil war will occur. And Shrub will say We tried to help them and they wouldn't agree. He will come up with some such s--t. I do not care who is elected there. I am still angry over who was wrongly elected here.

[Pithy Cherub]

10. Many are tiptoeing around the fact that the Iraqi election may be

questioned for legitamacy. Additionally, if there is no firm consensus, it is not at all apparent that a coalition would hold all of the factions together. Iran and Syria are already mischief making and the USA has no polical capital to expend with the international community.

Understand your point about caring about the election here - but that directly affects how the US goes forward there. Hence, the great General is very much in the thick of it. Gotta love Wes!

[Gloria]

7. Yes, it is real mess we're in and there is a total vacuum in terms

of diplomacy. I've been wondering about the recent Arab Forum....running almost opposite a conference headed by the Administration. Here at the Arab Forum we see Clinton, Albright, Tyson...and Clark, who was in the region for a week before. As if there is some alternate team at work, talking common sense.

It is fascinating. What if Kerry IS named President?? It seems to me people are at work already, for that possibility....just in case.

What also complicates the whole mess is that we have the EU negotiating with Iran (and heavily dependent on their oil), Russia involved in Iran, Blair teaming with Bush to undermine Al-Baradei, the U.N. nuke negotiator....you get the picture. I posted a story in the current WMW relating to Iran pitting the EU against the US over the nuclear issue...

It's really a very tense and complicated situation and Bush, I don't think, even really cares. Chaos is fine with him...

[Donna Zen]

8. Al-Baradei

was at the forum with Clark and Clinton. And there was also a very, very heavy weight there whose name excapes me. It was a man associated with France and London--a man who was also invited to Morocco in May when Clark spent time working on a counter proposal to the G-8.

Clark is consider THE expert on Eastern Europe, but he is no slouch when it comes to the Gulf. I think he once said: as you know...that is a region I've been interested in for some time.

Which means...well, he knows quite a bit. Also, the moderates in the region really like Clark because he was willing to "put it on the line" to save Muslims. They remember. They trust the General.

[buddysmellgood]

9. How would a civil war be different from the war in Iraq now? I mean,

at what level is it genocide? We've killed 100,000 Iraqis by some estimates. What evidence do we have that this civil war and genocide are "good possibilities." I believe it's a possiblity, but at least if we leave, whatever happens can become the world's problem again.

[Donna Zen]

11. Why the world's?

Genocide would be the targeting of Sunni tribes etc. One of the points that Clark made in a recent interview is the US non-appreciation of the tribal associations of the region. Syria is iirc a Sunni country. I admit, I do not understand. I can imagine that entire peoples could get wiped off the face of the earth.

(BTW, the banner on CNN this a.m. had a news blip about the Kurds applying to the UN for a resolution of their independence.)

This could...hard to believe...get much worse.

This is NOT the world's problem; the world, aside from Tony Blair, did not want this war; knew it was a huge blunder.

I suppose we could just leave and let them "fight it out;" see what happens; count our chickens, see where the phoo shits and then wear it. You may be right, especially with the current regime's bumbling asshole diplomacy, that it would be the same result--death and destruction. Could mean not thousands but millions.

But neither is this the world's problem, nor is there a correct answer. Looking for a "better" answer is the best that can be hoped for.

I may have demonstrated against this war, argued in person prior to the IWR with none other than John Kerry against the resolution, written to everyone I could think of, and worked to oust this horrible regime, but I still pay my taxes. So I confess to my cowardliness--to paraphrase Thoreau: "what am I doing out here?" So whether I like it or not, my name; however pale the writing, is on this war. Not the world's. And I wish I knew the answer.

[RafterMan]

12. Syria is a Sunni country

but its rulers are Alawites, who are sort of a mystery sect in Islam. They might sponsor the Sunnis, or they might curb their support if Iran threatened them with Hezbollah in Lebanon. But if they didn't, the Saudis would.

But you're right in the spirit of the problem -- if the great power pulls out, the regional powers may step in and start picking proxies. In addition to the natural badness involved when more-or-less equal powers fight, this adds a grave risk of escalating the conflict beyond Iraq's borders. That is why Clark's plan to involve the regional actors NOW is so vital.

I also agree with your previous post about forgetting the "threat" posed by an Islamic state with Sistani backstage. The guy has shown himself to be both a better partner and a better adversary than the expats or the Sunnis. He's demonstated a lot of political smarts, and the US doesn't so much have to prop him up as get out of his way. All to the good. His Iranian backers won't want a nuclear Iraq, or a holier-than-Iran Iraq, so the "nightmare scenario" isn't so terrifying. And since 9/11, Iran has been intelligent and effective in identifying and acting upon those areas in which their interests lie with the Great Satan -- they have deftly managed the bull-headed Bushies where Chirac and even Putin have failed.

This gives me a bit of hope -- even if Bush is to dumb to see it, Sistani and the Iranians have both shown themselves capable of outmaneuvering him when it counts. In this case, it would likely be to our advantage as well as theirs.

[Donna Zen]

13. Excellent post

Thanks for filling in some blanks. Clark does say that the moderate Arab Gulf states who are currently moving to reform their governments (UAE etc) are worried by the new 800 lb gorilla forming to their north. It is the balance of power thing..donchaknow.

It is not Iraq that will have the bomb, it will be Iran.

Clark believes that Sistani is waiting to make any fundy moves. Curious. Although Sistani is described by MSM as "moderate" I'm not buying. Clark has also said that "we" don't know "who" we are talking to in Iran: the military, the mullahs, or the reformers.

The sad irony here is that we have spent all of this blood and treasure to enhance the power of Tehran, and probably weakened both the reform movement in Iran, and the reform movement among the moderate Arabs.

Killing Sunnis everyday who adhered to socialist secular principles is just friggin crazy.

One other thing: the bush-regime set out to create the perfect Milton Friedman state...no holds barred rampant capitalism. I believe that is the never-mentioned-by-MSM reason this war is so fervently embraced by the regime who are unwillingly to understand Islam as more than just a system of religion, but also a system of government and economics.

If it wasn't for these brief appearances by General Clark and his letters, I wouldn't know shit. (Well, pretty nearly...he is a great teacher.)

ps The blathering on some threads about Iraq sets my hair on fire. I appreciate the honest discussion here.

[buddysmellgood]

15. Well, it's nobody's and it's everybody's. The world has an interest in

Iraq's stability. Clearly we can't do it alone. I thought Kerry had a chance to get others involved. I agree, there is not correct answer. All I can see now is a cluster, and when something is going wrong, you do something different.

[Donna Zen]

5. From the transcript:

CLARK: Yes, I have. And I think that there are a lot of questions about what is going to happen after the election.

In other words, will the United States stay? Will the United States declare that the mission is a success? They have got an election, it's up to the Iraqis to take it over. Will we immediately start a troop withdrawal?

We don't know. But what we do know is this: that the president, if he's going to keep public support, any public support behind the war, and keep the troops in there, has to start -- he's got to say the mission is succeeding. But if he's going to make changes, he's got to start saying the obvious, that this is not going quite the way it was laid out to be.

And so he's laying the groundwork publicly for making the kinds of policy pronouncements after the election that it's tough, that the fighting's not going to go away, that we may require a mission there for an extended period of time. That we may re-deploy the troop, maybe we'll even reinforce the troops. Maybe we'll have a more extended campaign against the Sunnis after the election.

We don't know exactly what the policy is going to be. But what we do know is the president is laying the groundwork for some changes.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0412/24/ip.01.html

[FreeStateDemocrat]

14. What is Turkey's postion on Iraq?

Doesn’t Turkey have a dog in this fight too since I was under the impression that they are violently opposed to any independent Kurdish region being carved out of Northern Iraq? It would appear that militarily they would be a major player if Iraq would become destabilized due to an American withdrawal.