Wes Clark to WSJ: 'Resolve' on Iraq Is Fine, but We Also Need A Plan

[ClarkUSA]

'Resolve' on Iraq Is Fine, but We Also Need a Plan

Letter to the Editor of Wall Street Journal

In your June 30 editorial "Wanted: A Constructive Opposition,"
following the president's speech on Iraq, you chided me and a number
of other Democrats for simply critiquing the president's plan rather
than offering our own. Your criticisms are both incorrect and
misplaced.

I and others have offered our plans again and again. We called for a
diplomatic strategy in the region -- rather than relying wholly on
threats and warning -- more and better equipped U.S. forces focused
on training the Iraqis, and a more intensive effort to promote
political and economic development in Iraq. I first articulated my
plans in my 2003 book, "Winning Modern Wars," and continued to
propose a better approach throughout the presidential campaign.

But no matter: It is the duty of the president to propose a plan
that works, and to explain it and win the support of the people.
Instead, as casualties mount and Americans begin to doubt, all the
president does is call for "resolve."

I'm all for resolve -- I lived it during my tour in Vietnam. But
Americans are beginning to understand that success in Iraq requires
more than just resolve: It requires an effective plan, sufficient
resources and effective execution of political, economic and
diplomatic efforts, not just great "soldiering."

We in the loyal opposition are doing our duty by pointing out
shortfalls in the president's approach.

Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark
Washington

http://www.securingamerica.com

[Texas_Kat]

1. Maybe Evan Bayh (and the DLC) needs to pay attention

Wes Clark delivers the Democrat's message on National Security loud and clear.

Evan "Bye-bye" Bayh has been complaining about Democrats being weak, maybe he's just been looking in the mirror.

Maybe he should read a little bit of Wes "Get some Starch" Clark's strong insistence that Democrats are strong on National Security and that patriotism and strength belongs to Democrats.

[paulk]

16. Bayh didn't complain about Democrats being weak on National Security

He pointed out that there is a perception that Democrats are seen as weak on National Security. It's a perception that many other Democrats have also pointed out.

[dogman]

76. Clark himself has pointed it out, but he has also pointed to an answer.

Don't stop with pointing out the obvious and becoming an echo chamber to the Right Wing. Point out the fallacy of this perception and give a solution. That's called leadership and that is what we need.

[paulk]

82. and I applaud him for it

Clark is ok in my book.

However, I don't think it's right to misinform people about what other Democrats said, which is what the poster I replied to did.

[Texas_Kat]

84. If he's quoted as saying something he didn't intend, then this

'practiced politician' needs to work on his rhetoric skills.

Here's the beginning of the AP article (all we're allowed to post):

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, a possible presidential candidate in 2008, said Thursday that his party lacks credibility on national security and needs to convince Americans that Democrats are willing to use force when necessary.

Until the party can persuade voters, it will be unable to move the debate to issues that work for Democrats, Bayh said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"Unless the American people know that we will be good stewards of the nation's security, they're unlikely to trust us with anything else," said the two-term Indiana senator. "That's a very important threshold we have to get over."

Bayh said there are legitimate grounds to criticize President Bush's approach to fighting terrorism, but until Democrats establish more credibility on the issue, many voters won't listen.

So instead of saying "Democrats ARE the party of National Security. Real National Security." We get weasel rhetoric that says, "Well, maybe sometimes we are and sometimes we're not, but under the right circumstances a..."

He says that "...until Democrats establish more credibility on the issue, many voters won't listen."

He's exactly right. HE has no credibility on national security and HE's one of the Democrats who's aspiring to lead the party. Who in the hell is he talking about "Democrats who are perceived as weak on national security...." a though he's not one of those responsible for following the Republican line without even a whimper.

Oh, yeah.... it's all those other Democrats are weak.... Faugh!




http://newsobserver.com/24hour/politics/story/2609653p-11068999c.html

[paulk]

94. this is a good example of how the MSM distorts what Democrats say

Bayh said that the Democrats are perceived as being weak on national security. This is true - Democrats ARE perceived as being weak on National security. Why? Because the MSM changes what Bayh said into this:
"Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, a possible presidential candidate in 2008, said Thursday that his party lacks credibility on national security..." Thereby reinforcing the RW meme.

I don't hold Bayh responsible for "weasel rhetoric" here - you've got to understand - the media will take and distort anything ANY Democrat says to fit into the right wing framework. Including Wes Clark, if they decide to go after him.

If the Democrats are going to win in 2008, we need to understand that the media is the enemy. It's not about whether we support Evan Bayh or Wesley Clark.

[dogman]

102. I completely agree with your assessment of the media.

As a Clark supporter I observed it in the last Primary. We saw the press was good for Clark until he actually declared. We saw the manipulation of the "Dean Scream". As soon as I saw it I knew Dean was probably finished and I also knew how unfair it was. It is still used today, although attempts to embrace it have deadened it somewhat it still affects those who don't pay attention. One by one we saw the media build up candidates, only to turn on them once they posed an actual threat to W. Edwards was hyped by some of the pundits only to be ignored when he was the VP pick. Kerry was portrayed as a hero in Iowa, only to be swift boated in the late stages of the face-off. Kucinich and his message were ignored from the beginning to help portray him as an outsider and impotent candidate. The local papers just touted the great pork delivered by Hastert but decried the Fed's failure to provide funds for additional pork.

[FrenchieCat]

2. There goes the theory

propagated by the Corporate Media that Democrats only criticize and have no plan.

Too bad all of the Democrats in Congress each didn't write a letter to the WSJ. Maybe they would have heard their lie being called out a bit better.

Too bad Bayh-Bye didn't offer his plan for national security....cause he kinda played into the WSJ's BS.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. This is a good idea..

"Too bad all of the Democrats in Congress each didn't write a letter to the WSJ. Maybe they would have heard their lie being called out a bit better."

Has that been done before? All the opposition members of a US house (lower or upper) writing the press and saying WTF? Kind of like the DU activists team in a way....

This could be extremely effective.

[FrenchieCat]

8. I think so....

But would it happen?

It's almost impossible to get these congressperson to do anything these days. Shit we're lucky we even have a few good ones in there!

[kayleybeth]

3. Hear, hear, Gen. Clark!

Great response!

[Gloria]

4. He needs to get off FOX and start getting some serious exposure

in the papers and on a variety of TV/radio shows.

His comments like these need better exposure than being kicked to mornings at FAUX trying to answer leading questions from those clods. His "force" is being compromised; I hope his contract is up after 6 months.

[AnnitaR]

6. I disagree.

The people who need to hear him the most watch Faux! He was wise IMHO to use them to get his message out.

[yellerpup]

13. I think so, too. oem

[FrenchieCat]

7. Gloria, Wes is needed at Faux for the 2006 elections.....

The problem is Faux will be watched in reference to these upcoming (and fast approaching) elections.

If we don't have a strong Dem sitting somewhere on that news channel that can reach all of those voters, it will not help our case one bit. We need to change whatever "R"s are in the congress right now from all of the states and all of those districts....to "D"s. How is congress gonna be any different in terms of party composition, if those who voted one way last time, vote that same this time? Think that many new Democratic voters are gonna just appear out of nowhere instead? It's not gonna happen. We must reach those who make a two vote difference; one away from the "R"....and one to the "D".

Wes is the strongest most Red State alluring Dem we truly have..but he's also someone who is really on our side. He needs to show them the way....or else, they stay brainwashed, and they'll vote the same way again.

Somebody's got to sing to someone other than the choir. Mainstream gets its newsfeed agenda from Fox and the other cable news channel...and that's not even funny. Even those who don't watch Faux and the other cable mess still end up being influenced by them....as the triple cable networks often determine what's gonna be the news.

Why do you think the missing blonde from Aruba gets such big play everywhere? Cause that's what the trible cable owners want.

Wes Clark doesn't seem so worried about himself as much as how he can help 2006 candidates. I'm glad that he finds that more important than his "reputation".

Glad he's willing to do what he can, cause I trust him to say the right things on Faux to further the Democrats....and in the big picture, 2006 is what is most important.

[dogman]

77. Why do robbers rob banks? 'Cause that's where the money is.

Unfortunately Faux is where the audience is. Particularly the Red state audience. That's where the battle front is and that's why Wes is out front leading the assault on the RW. Wes is not afraid to take it to them.

[radfringe]

9. sad reality is that there is no plan

Bush: 'No war plans on my desk' for Iraq
May 23, 2002 Posted: 12:58 PM EDT (1658 GMT)

BERLIN, Germany (CNN) -- President Bush reiterated Thursday that Iraq remains a significant threat, but he stopped short of saying the United States will go to war with the Middle Eastern country.

"I have no war plans on my desk," Bush said at a Berlin news conference during the first stop of his European tour. "We've got to use all means at our disposal to deal with Saddam Hussein."

-------------

at the time of that statement I was inclined to believe bush* was lying, it was inconceivable that we would go to war without plans. Considering the mess - I am now inclined to believe bush* when he said there were no plans.

what do you think? was he lying or telling the truth when he said there were no plans? :evilgrin:

[Raiden]

10. Imagine Evan Bayh saying something similar...

"The problem with the Democrats is that they don't have a plan! We need to win the war, which the Republicans are doing, and to do that we have to co-opt their strategy. With the Republican strategy, the winning Republican strategy, the Dems can't lose. We need more guns, more bombs, more WAR! And while we're at it, let's make Bush's tax cuts permanent, otherwise we'd scare the voters. Let's face it, the Dems are weak on defense; The Republicans have been right all along!"



Meanwhile, a few masochistic Democrats defend him...


At any rate, this is just another example of why I hope that Wes Clark becomes our nominee in 2008. He can make a statement without deprecating the party even more. At least leave THAT job to the Republicans. SHEESH!

[AX10]

20. I'm suprised that Bayh and the DLC/Blue Dogs haven't....

acused Clark of treason yet.

God Bless Wes!

[ClarkUSA]

69. Nah, Bayh is too busy comparing Democrats unfavorably w/ Republicans

Bayh said his electoral success in heavily Republican Indiana and moderate views are a model for Democrats to end their recent electoral failures. Summing up those failures are polls that show voters overwhelmingly trusting Republicans on national security, he said.

"We've got a few voices out there who would be a little bit more on the fringe," Bayh said. "Unfortunately, too often they define the entire party."

http://newsobserver.com/24hour/politics/story/2609653p-11068999c.html

[Pepperbelly]

11. I disagree with Cuz Wesley's plan ...

It is better than Bush's but not the best. The best is to fly our people to the airport and go home.

[Clark2008]

73. And turn it into another Afghanistan?

No thank you. We left that place too early and it spiraled into a theocratic meltdown and birthed some of the worst terrorists this world has seen.

I hate that we're in Iraq, but we have to stay there just awhile longer to set things correct. I know that sucks and it's killing our soldiers, but that fucker Bush got us into this mess. Of course, it will take a strong Dem like Wes to get us out and get us out in a time reasonable to both Iraq AND the United States. Bush doesn't have an exit strategy at all that isn't based on the election cycle.

[Pepperbelly]

75. 95% of the insurgency is directed at us.

Period.

We leave, we reduce violence by 95%.

These are grown, mature human beings who will have to get their own shit together. I don't want another ... not a single solitary soldier, marine or sailor to die there.

[Clark2008]

78. But we tore up their "shit."

So, we owe it to them to help repair it. I don't want anyone else to die there, either - a soldier or a civilian - but facts are facts. We broke it. I want a reasonable plan to get out.

And, I really like how great you are to the women of Iraq - leaving them to fend against the stripping of their rights in the "new" Iraqi Constitution.

Lovely.

:sarcasm:

[jonnyblitz]

81. and the only way we stop tearing up their shit is to leave...

does anybody ever think to ask the IRaqi's if they want us to say? I guess they don't get a say in any of this.

[Clark2008]

83. No - we need to rebuild their shit.

Not tear it up, anymore.

I want out of there, now, too, but I don't think pulling out and leaving, carte blanche, is the way to do it.

BUT, I will agree that we need to listen more to the people and not the Chalabi puppets. Gonna get that in from BushCo? Hell, no.

We're not leaving 'til they get their hands on that oil or put the right puppet regime in place that will sell/give it to us and destroy women's rights there in the process. We only care about human rights when we're NOT getting the goods.

[Pepperbelly]

85. I disagree ...

while we did break their shit, to our everlasting shame, the biggest instability there is us, not the Iraqis. And to presume to think that only we can fix it is only the latest manifestation of the White Man's Burden.

It isn't any truer now than it was then.

Most of the violence is the result not of religious fanaticism but of nationalism, the natural resentment against invaders or conquerors. The only sure way to cure the wound is to first remove the source of the irritation.

[Clark2008]

89. Most of the violence toward US is nationalism

But there is a great deal of religiosity that is going on that I doubt you have the first clue about.

I do.

[Pepperbelly]

91. do you always make this sort of impression?

Just curious about your snippiness.

[eridani]

93. No, we should just give them money and let THEM repair it.

That would probably help a lot with the 60% unemployment rate and reduce insurgency recruiting as well.

[jonnyblitz]

80. is it any better than Afghanistan now?

how soon we forget about Vietnam...

[Pepperbelly]

86. A friend of mine with whom I work was a POW during Vietnam ...

he thinks this shit is worse. I wasa little surprised by his assessment until he explained how much more difficult it would be in Iraq because there is literally no one in uniform except us, our allies, and the Iraqi security forces.

Makes it tough to know where to stand and where to lean.

[tsuki]

12. Damn, that man is good. He has a great flair for turning a phrase.

Resolve is good, but a plan is better. :thumbsup:

[Catchawave]

14. Didn't he try and start WW3 in Kosovo ?

:scared:

[Sparkly]

15. No.

:eyes:

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. Kosovo was a NATO action

and not a single US soldier was lost.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

19. What's your purpose in flaming this thread? I see you're a "newbie"...

but you sound awfully familiar.

Here's your thread which you cleverly turned into a major attack on Wes Clark. It's on GDP right now where you printed the above crap again with no source link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1986572&mesg_id=1986572

Methinks there is an alleged newbie with an aggressive anti-Clark agenda.

Hmmm, wonder why? :tinfoilhat:

This is the anti-Clark pro-Serbian drivel that permeates Democracy Now's Loony Left webpages. Guess NATO's decision to stop the ethnic cleansing of 1.5 Albanians doesn't sit well with the supporters of war criminal Slobidan Milosevic, eh?

Why aren't some people focusing their passions onto attacking Bush and what he is doing in Iraq instead of obsessively trashing a good Democrat who's doing his part to call Bush and the Republicans on their shit?

Maybe some people are here not to attack Bush at all. Hmmmm.....

[QC]

21. Yeah, there used to be another Milosevic apologist here

who was fond of citing Sir Michael Jackson of Bloody Sunday infamy as an authority and relentlessly trolling every Clark thread 24/7 while refusing to provide any evidence for his assertions.

What was his name again?

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

25. Oh please give it a rest.

Tell the whole story. Serbian troops prevented those journalists from escaping that communications tower. The Serbian military were using the tower to coordinate attacks and target American troops. Your Loony Left Lies are as Orwellian as any of the Radical Right.

You know, it's funny how you can't give General Clark any credit for saving 1.5 million Albanians from Serbian genocidal intentions. Maybe it's because it's not as important to you as supporting a war criminal like Slobidan Milosevic and rationalizing the genocidal intentions of the Serbian military during Kosovo.

[inthebrain]

28. Do you take that same argument with the Iraq war?

Your no different than Bush and the Hard right on this one.

"If your not with me your against me"

To quote the great Obi Wan Kenobi.

"only sith lords speak in absolutes!!!!"

Perhaps you think Amnesty international and Human rights watch are a part of that "loonie Left conspiracy" as well. They cite those very same incidents as evidenc of human rights violations.

Loose the nationalism and try taking a stand on principle. Perhaps you'll find that electorate might decide you stand for something. If my desire to not live my life as a hypocrit upsets you, perhaps I'm doing something right.

Since your such an expert on Clark, perhaps you know that his own memoirs mention that he believed the bombing campaign would lead to an increase in the genocide. This comment was made on March 6th to Madeline Albright.

Odd that he still went along with it dont you think.

Clark has lots of baggage and not a lot of it is pretty.

[ClarkUSA]

31. You sound so familiar...and your personal attacks are familiar, too

You are claiming things again without a sourced link or footnote that gives the whole context.

General Clark was absolved of all blame in the Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against Yugoslavia: http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm

You just can't give General Clark any credit for saving 1.5 million Albanians from genocide at the hands of the Serbian military, can you?

Take your Loony Left talking points and stop trying to flame this thread.

[QC]

32. "only sith lords speak in absolutes!!!!"

That in itself is an absolute statement.

So much for deriving one's political philosophy from sci-fi flicks.

[ClarkUSA]

41. LOL!

:rofl:

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Crunchy Frog]

37. No, he didn't.

You can stop shaking now.

[leesa]

24. Same old shit. No comment that the war is illegal and immoral, just

that it needs to be fought better. Same old DLC shit.

[ClarkUSA]

26. Clark is defending Democrats against a Republican meme...

Wes Clark is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of the DLC, unlike Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, Howard Dean, Al Gore, Evan Bayh, Tom Vilsack, and Mark Warner.

In this letter, his purpose was to refute a GOP meme on the Bushbot editorial pages of the WSJ and he puts the blame for the continuing tragedy in Iraq squarely on Bush's shoulders.

[goodhue]

27. Resolve for what? Plan for what?

Only resolve or plan I'm interested in is to bring an end to our illegal occupation and getting our troops home. Fighting a war better so that we "win" is not a message I'll rally around. It didn't work for Kerry, and I don't see why it would work for Clark. Argument that he will sell it better b/c he is a general is myopic.

[ClarkUSA]

29. Repeat: Wes Clark is defending Democrats against a GOP meme

He is putting the responsibility for Iraq squarely on Bush's shoulders by taking
it straight to the deep-red pages of the WSJ.

His words are not about fighting the war better, it's about how we should have avoided the war in the first place. It's about how we can better win the peace and not leave Iraq a Ground Zero poster boy for recruiting jihadists.

His being a general may not mean anything to you, but it sure does to anyone who has any respect for what 35 years of exemplary military experience in the executive wing of government brings to the strategy table.

[goodhue]

58. We can't and won't win peace with a military occupation.

Iraq already is a ground zero posting boy for recruiting jihadists.
Being a general does actually mean something to me, but it ain't good.

[ClarkUSA]

63. We can win peace with what General Clark has mentioned in his letter

and in his Iraq Plan which is outlined at his WesPAC website:

A Real Plan for Success in Iraq

When the President flew out to the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and posed under the banner that read: "Mission Accomplished," he made it clear he did not understand the scope of the mission. We need a success strategy. Only success can honor the sacrifice of so many American men and women; it is only success that will allow Iraq to stand on its own; and it is only success that will allow our soldiers to come home. Early exit means retreat or defeat. Wes Clark has a plan to internationalize the reconstruction, counter the terrorists' guerilla war more effectively, and give Iraqis a greater stake in our own success.


What Do We Do Now?

Wes Clark believes we need to clearly define our mission in Iraq by deciding what constitutes success. Our mission is to create a secure, stable Iraq with a representative government. Only this will make America more secure and enable our troops to come home. Success means that Iraq is strong enough to sustain itself without outside forces but is no longer a threat to its neighbors; that representative government has taken root so Iraq can be a model for democratic hope in the Middle East; and that Iraqi society and the Iraqi economy are healthy enough so that Al Qaeda cannot recruit there.


Wes Clark's strategy for Iraq is guided by the following principles:

1. End the American monopoly. From the beginning, the Administration has insisted on exclusive control of the Iraqi reconstruction and occupation. This has cost us the financial and military support of other nations and made America a bigger target for terrorists. Ending the American monopoly will change the way this enterprise is viewed -- in Iraq and throughout the world.

* Re-incorporate our allies. Fixing the Administration's missteps will require skilled diplomacy at the highest levels. Wes Clark recommends calling a summit of leaders from Europe, the United Nations, Japan and the Arab world to launch a new, internationalized effort in Iraq. They will be more willing to help if America works with them on issues they care about: climate change, the International Criminal Court and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

* Transform the military operation into a NATO operation. General Abizaid, commander of US forces in the Middle East, would remain in charge of the operation, but he would report to the NATO Council, as General Clark did as commander of NATO forces in Kosovo. With NATO support and U.N. endorsement, we can also expect some Arab countries to step in. Their presence would prove that this is not an American occupation, but an international and regional effort to stabilize Iraq.

2. Adjust the force mix. The Bush Administration has failed to formulate an effective tactical plan. No such plan will be viable without substantial contributions from military leaders on the ground. Still, Wes Clark would approach the problem as follows:

* Consider adding troops. Wes Clark believes we should look at whether adding forces will help the effort in Iraq. He would not measure success in Iraq by a reduction in troops or failure by an increase. It's more important to do the job right so all the troops can come home sooner.

* Adapt to guerilla war. One mistake in Vietnam was trying to use conventional forces to fight an unconventional war. The more unarmored humvees we have, the greater our vulnerability to roadside bombs. We have suffered more losses in routine patrolling and transit than in active counter-insurgency efforts. We need to ensure the right mix of forces to fight a classic guerrilla war. That means more Special Forces and other light forces better suited for counter-insurgency.

* Better use of intelligence resources. To protect our soldiers we must do all we can to find out who's attacking our soldiers. That means better intelligence work and improved relations with the civilian population. Yet intelligence specialists and people who can speak to Iraqis in their own language are scarce. We need to take the linguists and intelligence specialists now involved in the search for WMDs and assign them to our military counter-insurgency efforts. International inspectors are willing and able to take over this mission. We must also augment our intelligence capability with new technologies and better recruitment in the Arab-American community.

* Train Iraqi security forces, freeing up U.S. troops. We need to empower Iraqis to provide routine security so American soldiers can focus on urgent tasks like counter-insurgency. Wes Clark would implement a comprehensive two-tier plan: train police first, then military.

o Summon the old Iraqi army for duty at the local level. We need more Iraqi paramilitary units and police at the local level. General Clark will use thorough background checks, generous pay rates, and real political control for Iraqis -- as well as appealing to Iraqis' sense of nationality -- to put Iraqis in charge of basic security, freeing up US soldiers to focus on our most urgent tasks, including counter-insurgency.

o Reconstitute the Iraqi Army so that it eventually can do the work the occupation force now does - guarding Iraqi borders, keeping order, and fighting insurgents. It will take considerable time to have an Iraqi Army trained enough and integrated enough to do the job.

* Engage neighbors for better border security. Iraq is now a magnet for every jihadist in the Middle East. Closing the borders requires cooperation from the countries bordering Iraq. But currently, Syria and Iran don't want us to succeed because they fear they are next on our invasion list. Wes Clark recommends engaging Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia with both carrots and sticks. We have serious issues with each of these countries, but closing those borders is the most urgent priority right now. We must show Iraq's neighbors that cooperation with us is in their interest and will help their region.

* Secure ammunition. Today, hundreds of thousands of tons of ammunition from Saddam's arsenal have yet to be secured, and thousands of shoulder-fired missiles remain at large. Terrorists have used these stockpiles to attack our forces. We should destroy that ammunition immediately or else secure it with surveillance technology and troops from other countries willing to come to Iraq.

3. Promote information exchange to advance civil society. To encourage the growth of civic organizations, media, neighborhood groups -- and promote reconstruction -- we should open the West to Iraq for exchange programs so that Iraqis who have been isolated for years can see the what the rest of the world does with its economy, schools, health care, media and government.
Preventing Foreign Misadventures Going Forward

* Promote security through multilateralism. No nation will ever have veto power over our security. But turning our back on our allies makes it harder to protect ourselves and our interests. Despite our overwhelming military, economic and political strength, we cannot pursue Arab-Israeli peace, support reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, deal with the challenges of North Korea, track down Osama bin Laden, fight the global war against terrorism, face the problem of Iran, and return to prosperity in this country, unless we have allies to help us.

* Modernize international institutions to combat new threats. Wes Clark recommends pursuing a new Atlantic Charter to repair and modernize our security partnership with Europe. The Charter that will define the threats we face in common and demand action from our allies to meet them while offering a promise to act together.

* Create a new agency for international assistance. Wes Clark believes America should lead the world in addressing the causes of human misery by attacking the problems of poverty, disease, and ethnic conflict with the same energy and skill we have brought to the challenge of warfare. A new agency would combine the existing development efforts of our government with a real budget for research and development, planning and the ability to draw on the new national Civilian Reserves that Wes Clark proposed in his campaign last October. These efforts will reduce the anger and alienation that gives rise to terrorism, and win us more friends and partners around the world. It will be far easier to ask gain international support for our concerns when other countries see us helping them on theirs.

http://securingamerica.com/issues/iraqplan

............

If you're going to base your feelings and comments about Wes Clark on a categorical rejection of all things military, then there is no use discussing his letter or his policy with you.

I was an anti-military Green until 2002. Then I took a good look at Wes Clark's anti-Iraq War stance during his HASC testimony and I put my prejudices aside Michael Moore did the same. The man has 35 years of experience in an area where most Democrats are clueless about and I for one respect his years serving in the exectuive wing of our government.

[SonofMass]

30. So Wes is in favor of increasing troop strength and making

it a bigger war. I'd been led to believe that he was an anti-war candidate.

[ClarkUSA]

33. He is for training Iraqis faster so we can leave Iraq faster

He is for winning the peace. More troops to train Iraqis instead of what they are doing now. That means shifting troops to where peace is better served instead of using them the way the Bush Pentagon is doing so now.

[quinnox]

34. Clark was never an anti-war candidate

After all, he is a General. Though your point is well taken, Clarkies love to have it both ways on this issue.

[SonofMass]

35. I can see that.

:eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

40. I can see that some are just interested in attacking Clark's supporters

Gee, the primary wars will never end for some People Who Never Change.

[inthebrain]

52. Nobody is attacking Clark supporters

We are trying to have a reasoned debate and discussion about CLARK!!!

Thats how good decisions are made. You hash out the good and the bad.

You supporters really need to work on your personal issues if you think I for one am attacking YOU personally. If anything, me making that claim would hold more water.

SO far I have been called a Milosvic supporter (which rings of Bushies claims)

Accused of attacking CLARK SUPPORTERS. Meanwhile, valid arguments that I have made have been parsed as a whole. If you really want to vote for the guy I cant stop you. THe only hope I or anyone else could have is to get you to rethink your position on this guy.

You want to discuss or dissagree with my reccomendation that's fine. I'm all for it and I encourage you to!!!!

[Crunchy Frog]

65. I'm really supposed to expect a reasoned debate and discussion

about Clark from someone who until early this morning, didn't even know how his name was spelled. Sorry to be nitpicking like that, but it does detract somewhat from your credibility.

I would be far more likely to take seriously the arguments of someone who at least had his most basic facts straight. Also someone who doesn't take the promotion of one candidate (Kucinich) as an excuse to trash someone else.

I do hold out some hope that you will be learning something from the many very informed people that you will be butting heads with on here. If you are the least bit openminded, as opposed to simply being here to push a single minded agenda, you may in fact learn a few things.

Peace.

[ClarkUSA]

36. You've come here to attack Clark supporters, too? One thread isn't enough?

You did it here at this GDP thread already:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1987451&mesg_id=1987597

.......

FWIW:

Wes Clark has been publicly against this war since September 2002, when he gave
extended HASC testimony:
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html
.......

"Most of the potential '08 Democratic contenders either supported the decision to go to war in Iraq or oppose an early withdrawal. However, it is clear that many in the liberal base of the party favor an early pull out. Nature and politics abhor a vacuum, and an explicit anti-war candidate is likely to emerge.

Besides Senator Feingold, General Clark is the only other likely candidate who explicitly opposed the war."

http://www.bullmooseblog.com/

[quinnox]

39. What are you talking about?

Yes, I choose what threads I want to post in, for one thing. (although so obvious I don't understand why it needs pointing out) For another, how are my comments an attack?? Or is your definition of an attack anything that isn't worshipful of Clark? Then I plead guilty.

[ClarkUSA]

43. You have posted bashing remarks about Clarkies consistently today

For example, you have used two threads that I know of to pursue your obsessed theme of bashing Clarkies:

Here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1987451&mesg_id=1987597

Here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1986922&mesg_id=1987879

Here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1986922&mesg_id=1987913

[quinnox]

45. So?

What is your point? Is only glowing remarks of Clark and his supporters allowed? I don't think so.

BTW, a DU rule you might not be familiar with: "Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere."

[ClarkUSA]

48. It means you are jumping from one Clark thread to another

to get in your anti-Clarkie remarks. That is stalking. Heads-up, this is a thread I started. You came here and immediately began posting anti-Clark and anti-Clarkie comments. You are the one who should be reading DU rules more carefully.

If there's another Clark thread, shall we expect you to stalk us there too, with your anti-Clarkie comments?

Why not contribute to a dscussion instead of making snarky comments about a good Democrat and his supporters? I have plenty of opinions about other groups of supporters but I don't think it's important to any discussion.

[quinnox]

50. Let me be clear

If there is another Clark thread that looks interesting to me and I want to post in it, then I will. PERIOD

Second, I think quoting my posts from other threads is a pretty clear violation of the DU stalking rule (though nice how you try to turn it around) and it is definitely not cool according to rules to take your disagreements from one thread to another like you are doing with me.

Anyway, bottomline, I won't be intimidated from posting in Clark threads, be assured.

[ClarkUSA]

54. Let me be clearer...you asked for proof and I provided it

You are spinning DU rules. Nice try.

I am asking you explicitly to stop bashing Clarkies because it is pure flamebait on any thread. It is not productive for any discussion purposes to attack Wes Clark and his supporters again and again, unless that's your agenda.

[quinnox]

57. It has been fun but I have to watch

Deep Space Nine. Tell you what, since you asked nicely I will refrain for today from attacking Clarkies anymore. I will leave you the last word.

[ClarkUSA]

61. I love Deep Space Nine

Peace.

[ClarkUSA]

55. self-delete (dupe)

[FrenchieCat]

38. I think there was only a few anti war candidate in the last race....

and that was Dennis Kucinich, Sharpton and Mosley Brawn. But since Kucinich was anti choice until recently....I have my own beef with him.

I don't know the perfect candidate....but I do know that Clark is a man that I respect and Admire.

For those who advocate....US out, UN in. Good luck! Don't know if the UN would oblige. Hope y'all stay asleep in that dream. Me, I'm into the reality of things. :hi:

[Donna Zen]

46. Generals generally hate wars

• Clark was indeed a candidate

• What does "anti-war" mean as your qualifier. If our country was actually (not PNAC pretend) under attack, would a President Kucinich, as the CIC, order our military to defend the country?

• Clark freely admits that he is 1) a general 2) not anti-every war.

• All of the canidates who opposed this war, limited their opposition to this war.

I'm against this war, that does not mean that I would rule out the concept. I'm actually glad that something was done about Milosevic. Oh, and I'm an American Serb.

So, do you believe that the USA should disband the military, and go on record that it will never participate in any war ever again?

There are pacifist and I respect them. I leave myself a little more room for the possibility that until humans reach a higher plane of thought, a better place, that unfortunately we will sometimes have to drink the poison of war.

Not this war.

[quinnox]

49. answers

No, I don't think the military should be disbanded or go on record that it will never participate in any war again.

As to the qualifier, I mean anti-war as in anti-every war.

I'm not a pacifist either, I was merely pointing out that Clark is not a peace-nik, he is a United States General, he would use force if necessary, that is all.

[1932]

60. In Winning Modern Wars, at one point Clark argues that the US

should engage in diplomacy in all but two of a list of a half dozen rogue nations and, once all the rogue elements move to those two nations, a military solution would be approrpriate for those two nations. At that point, he doesn't say which two nations he's talking about, but he does write very crticially of Iran and Pakistan in other parts of the book.

Whether you agree with that or not, I don't think there are many DU'ers who think that someone who feels that way can be called anti-war with no qualifications.


As an aside, I believe that Clark wrote an Op-Ed for the WSJ which might be interpreted as modifying that strategy. I think he said that Iraq has now caused a dispersion of terrorists elements that makes it difficult for a military solution in any country to work (but I'm not sure if that's an accurate interpretation -- I only read the exerpts here at DU).

[LandOLincoln]

67. "...he would use force if necessary..."

And this is a bad thing??

Please explain.

[AX10]

70. Clark is our best choice.

[HootieMcBoob]

62. This is Clarks plan

Do you know of a better one?

A Real Plan for Success in Iraq

When the President flew out to the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and posed under the banner that read: "Mission Accomplished," he made it clear he did not understand the scope of the mission. We need a success strategy. Only success can honor the sacrifice of so many American men and women; it is only success that will allow Iraq to stand on its own; and it is only success that will allow our soldiers to come home. Early exit means retreat or defeat. Wes Clark has a plan to internationalize the reconstruction, counter the terrorists' guerilla war more effectively, and give Iraqis a greater stake in our own success.

What Do We Do Now?

Wes Clark believes we need to clearly define our mission in Iraq by deciding what constitutes success. Our mission is to create a secure, stable Iraq with a representative government. Only this will make America more secure and enable our troops to come home. Success means that Iraq is strong enough to sustain itself without outside forces but is no longer a threat to its neighbors; that representative government has taken root so Iraq can be a model for democratic hope in the Middle East; and that Iraqi society and the Iraqi economy are healthy enough so that Al Qaeda cannot recruit there.

Wes Clark's strategy for Iraq is guided by the following principles:

1. End the American monopoly. From the beginning, the Administration has insisted on exclusive control of the Iraqi reconstruction and occupation. This has cost us the financial and military support of other nations and made America a bigger target for terrorists. Ending the American monopoly will change the way this enterprise is viewed -- in Iraq and throughout the world.

* Re-incorporate our allies. Fixing the Administration's missteps will require skilled diplomacy at the highest levels. Wes Clark recommends calling a summit of leaders from Europe, the United Nations, Japan and the Arab world to launch a new, internationalized effort in Iraq. They will be more willing to help if America works with them on issues they care about: climate change, the International Criminal Court and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

* Transform the military operation into a NATO operation. General Abizaid, commander of US forces in the Middle East, would remain in charge of the operation, but he would report to the NATO Council, as General Clark did as commander of NATO forces in Kosovo. With NATO support and U.N. endorsement, we can also expect some Arab countries to step in. Their presence would prove that this is not an American occupation, but an international and regional effort to stabilize Iraq.

2. Adjust the force mix. The Bush Administration has failed to formulate an effective tactical plan. No such plan will be viable without substantial contributions from military leaders on the ground. Still, Wes Clark would approach the problem as follows:

* Consider adding troops. Wes Clark believes we should look at whether adding forces will help the effort in Iraq. He would not measure success in Iraq by a reduction in troops or failure by an increase. It's more important to do the job right so all the troops can come home sooner.

* Adapt to guerilla war. One mistake in Vietnam was trying to use conventional forces to fight an unconventional war. The more unarmored humvees we have, the greater our vulnerability to roadside bombs. We have suffered more losses in routine patrolling and transit than in active counter-insurgency efforts. We need to ensure the right mix of forces to fight a classic guerrilla war. That means more Special Forces and other light forces better suited for counter-insurgency.

* Better use of intelligence resources. To protect our soldiers we must do all we can to find out who's attacking our soldiers. That means better intelligence work and improved relations with the civilian population. Yet intelligence specialists and people who can speak to Iraqis in their own language are scarce. We need to take the linguists and intelligence specialists now involved in the search for WMDs and assign them to our military counter-insurgency efforts. International inspectors are willing and able to take over this mission. We must also augment our intelligence capability with new technologies and better recruitment in the Arab-American community.

* Train Iraqi security forces, freeing up U.S. troops. We need to empower Iraqis to provide routine security so American soldiers can focus on urgent tasks like counter-insurgency. Wes Clark would implement a comprehensive two-tier plan: train police first, then military.

o Summon the old Iraqi army for duty at the local level. We need more Iraqi paramilitary units and police at the local level. General Clark will use thorough background checks, generous pay rates, and real political control for Iraqis -- as well as appealing to Iraqis' sense of nationality -- to put Iraqis in charge of basic security, freeing up US soldiers to focus on our most urgent tasks, including counter-insurgency.

o Reconstitute the Iraqi Army so that it eventually can do the work the occupation force now does - guarding Iraqi borders, keeping order, and fighting insurgents. It will take considerable time to have an Iraqi Army trained enough and integrated enough to do the job.

* Engage neighbors for better border security. Iraq is now a magnet for every jihadist in the Middle East. Closing the borders requires cooperation from the countries bordering Iraq. But currently, Syria and Iran don't want us to succeed because they fear they are next on our invasion list. Wes Clark recommends engaging Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia with both carrots and sticks. We have serious issues with each of these countries, but closing those borders is the most urgent priority right now. We must show Iraq's neighbors that cooperation with us is in their interest and will help their region.

* Secure ammunition. Today, hundreds of thousands of tons of ammunition from Saddam's arsenal have yet to be secured, and thousands of shoulder-fired missiles remain at large. Terrorists have used these stockpiles to attack our forces. We should destroy that ammunition immediately or else secure it with surveillance technology and troops from other countries willing to come to Iraq.


3. Promote information exchange to advance civil society. To encourage the growth of civic organizations, media, neighborhood groups -- and promote reconstruction -- we should open the West to Iraq for exchange programs so that Iraqis who have been isolated for years can see the what the rest of the world does with its economy, schools, health care, media and government.

Preventing Foreign Misadventures Going Forward


* Promote security through multilateralism. No nation will ever have veto power over our security. But turning our back on our allies makes it harder to protect ourselves and our interests. Despite our overwhelming military, economic and political strength, we cannot pursue Arab-Israeli peace, support reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, deal with the challenges of North Korea, track down Osama bin Laden, fight the global war against terrorism, face the problem of Iran, and return to prosperity in this country, unless we have allies to help us.

* Modernize international institutions to combat new threats. Wes Clark recommends pursuing a new Atlantic Charter to repair and modernize our security partnership with Europe. The Charter that will define the threats we face in common and demand action from our allies to meet them while offering a promise to act together.

* Create a new agency for international assistance. Wes Clark believes America should lead the world in addressing the causes of human misery by attacking the problems of poverty, disease, and ethnic conflict with the same energy and skill we have brought to the challenge of warfare. A new agency would combine the existing development efforts of our government with a real budget for research and development, planning and the ability to draw on the new national Civilian Reserves that Wes Clark proposed in his campaign last October. These efforts will reduce the anger and alienation that gives rise to terrorism, and win us more friends and partners around the world. It will be far easier to ask gain international support for our concerns when other countries see us helping them on theirs.

http://securingamerica.com/issues/iraqplan

[FrenchieCat]

64. And the Corporate media tries to say

that Democrats have no plan! This seems like a Democrat's plan to me :shrug:

Hel-Lo, WSJ.....WTF are you smoking?

[ClarkUSA]

66. How about Democrats articulating better when they go on TV?

Though I'm sure Biden will be on again Sunday speaking verbatim from this letter.

[Jai4WKC08]

72. That's just more anti-Clark/anti-Clarkie BS

You'll never hear a Clarkie say Clark is an "anti-war candidate." That was always a line from the most ignorant media shills. So can the "have it both ways" crapola, ok?

What you will hear us say is that Clark believes war should always be the last resort. And that as someone who has seen the horrors of war close up, he more than anyone appreciates how necessary it is to avoid. But anti-war? Not a chance. He believe that war is sometimes necessary. As he did in Kosovo.

The differences between Kosovo and Bush's Iraq War are many, but the most important one is that the threat to the Kosovars was imminent and on-going. If Saddam had been murdering the so-called Marsh Arabs (as he did in 1992) or the Kurds (as he did back in the 1980s), Clark might have supported going in there too. He believes in using military force, as a last resort, to stop genocide. He thinks we should have intervened in Ruwanda, and should be using the threat of intervention in Darfur now, prepared to back it up if necessary.

And yes, Clark knew that initially the Serbs would step up the killing of Kosovars once the bombing started. It's one reason he wanted to go in with ground forces (the other being he could have prevented more Serbian casualties). But he also knew that it was critical to put a stop to it BEFORE winter set in and killed the million or so who had already been forced out of their homes and into the mountains.

[Clark2008]

74. Never said he was.

But he was and is an anti-Iraqi-war Democrat.

Which is what is important NOW.

[Donna Zen]

42. What Letter are you reading?

I'm checking and I see nothing about increasing troop strength or enlarging the war.

He does say:

sufficient resources and effective execution of political, economic and
diplomatic efforts, not just great "soldiering."

Hmmmm....not just great soldiering. Sounds to me as if WKC doesn't think that troops are the answer. He does call for effective execution of political, economic, and diplomatic efforts.

You can't win hearts and minds when you're killing people's families.~Wes Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

44. Reading is not part of the excercise

for some. Making their point, however, is.

[Donna Zen]

51. OMG!

And all this time I've been coming here and reading what others had to say. This concept could save me a lot of time.

Here's my point. There are many people who spend their days gnashing their keyboards and surveying the Democratic landscape with the hope that someone would speak for them. But, if that someone is the subject of one of their juiciest hate files, then all bets are off.

Being against this war, I did my homework. It is insulting that those who will not read would think that I don't know the difference.

This is a great fucking letter, written by someone who lost friends when he came out against this war. I am proud to join Wes Clark as a member of the loyal opposition. If America had listened to him in the first place, we would have never invaded Iraq.

pssst! I noticed one of the posters in this thread actually joined the WSJ editors is saying that the Dems. have no plan. Oh goddess, when will it end?

[MissMarple]

59. It will all end when everyone is perfect, ie. dead,

it's just a part of the human condition. Meanwhile, we just keep on keeping on, and helping each other out. Patience, keep the long view, and all that stuff. :)

I've already done my teeth gnashing for the day, and have regained some perspective. Now I'm going to read some more of "What's the Matter With Kansas" and probably lose it all again.

[haypops]

47. WSJ

Clark tells the WSJ how it is and Novak is canned from CNN over defending his self to Carville's "The WSJ is watching you". Its a good day for Democrats.

[MissMarple]

53. haypops, welcome to DU!

And don't let all the bickering on this thread bother you, we do that a lot. But no one said participating in a democratic republic and it's politics wasn't a messy business. :)

[ClarkUSA]

104. You're right. Welcome to DU, haypops!

Novak will always be remembered for outing a CIA covert operative NOC and then blowing his cool bigtime about it on live TV.

Stick a fork in him --- he's done.

I enjoyed hearing how Carville outed the pro-PNAC editorial pages of WSJ. What a blow to their esteemed status - now millions of people understand that they are a higher-priced extension of the same Rovian GOP agenda that drives The Washington Times.

[AtomicKitten]

56. I LUV Wes Clark And Supported Him In the Primary in 2004

He is a breath of fresh air. (Can't stand people that trash him because he didn't say this or that.) He is a credible player that commands respect. He climbed all up in the grill of Faux News on a few occasions. But he was green as a politician. Look for him being on deck in the future.

[LandOLincoln]

68. Luv your handle, your politics,

and your pic, Atomic Kitten, and welcome to DU!

[AtomicKitten]

71. Thanks.

that's a vote of confidence all the way around!

[ClarkUSA]

100. I second that. Welcome to DU, Atomic Kitten!

You've been doing great in allowing fresh air to mix in with the gusts of hot stale air emanating from some quarters.

:thumbsup:

[FreedomAngel82]

88. I like the shirt

Very funny. Although I'm not a huge Clark fan or anything like that I like the guy.

[Cha]

79. Way to Go, Gen Clark!

Thanks for answering the wsj's "criticisms".

I'm just glad they printed Wes Clark's letter.

[wisteria]

87. John Kerry presented a plan for Iraq during the election and

recently restated his suggested plan in an Op-Ed piece in the NYT. I do applaud Clark for defending Kerry and other dems who point out that we need more than just resolve in Iraq.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wiley]

92. Kerry was at the Senate hearings

When Clark testified and smacked down the neo-cons during his testimony before both the House and Senate. Even Dean said during the primary debates that Clark was against the Iraqi invasion. They were both for the resolution before the ill-planned Iraqi War Resolution was passed - with John Kerry and John Edwards approval.

:eyes:

[splat@14]

95. Fox will fire him and hire Novak

[Misskittycat]

96. This is a great letter. Also, a point that is overlooked while Dems are

bashing each other over the best "plan" for Iraq is that there is no good plan for Iraq, thanks to Bushco. It's a mess, and the only alternatives are really bad ones. If we stay, it's bad. If we go, it's bad. That's the biggest truth that should be hammered home: Bush created an awful situation, and the only way to deal with it is to pick the least awful of all the bad choices. There are drawbacks to any plan that anyone could draw up now -- precisely for the reason that Bushco mucked it up so badly on so many levels.

That needs to be our theme: It's a God-awful mess, with no good solutions, but here's one...

[IndianaGreen]

97. So Wes Clark belongs to the "I can fight this war better than Bush" crowd

WRONG! What we need to do in Iraq is to order our troops to pack their gear and board the fleet of planes and ships we are going to send to Iraq to fetch them home.

Clark must be suffering from Napoleonic delusions if he thinks he can win the war in Iraq. The time to leave Iraq is NOW!

[ClarkUSA]

98. Wrong. He is defending Democrats against a persistent GOP meme

Instead of the lobbing insults at a good Democrat, please read through the whole thread...we've gotten this same kneejerk driveby comment on this letter multiple times and addressed it already.

There is such a thing as winning the peace through means other than military engagement. Read General Clark's letter carefully before you pass off-the-cuff judgment. This is a situation that calls for something more complicated than "let's get 'em out." And I say that as a born-and-bred New Yorker who knows people who both lived through 9/11 and died on that terrible day.

Please read this, if you want to really know what Wes Clark has on his mind:


A Real Plan for Success in Iraq

When the President flew out to the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and posed under the banner that read: "Mission Accomplished," he made it clear he did not understand the scope of the mission. We need a success strategy. Only success can honor the sacrifice of so many American men and women; it is only success that will allow Iraq to stand on its own; and it is only success that will allow our soldiers to come home. Early exit means retreat or defeat. Wes Clark has a plan to internationalize the reconstruction, counter the terrorists' guerilla war more effectively, and give Iraqis a greater stake in our own success.


What Do We Do Now?

Wes Clark believes we need to clearly define our mission in Iraq by deciding what constitutes success. Our mission is to create a secure, stable Iraq with a representative government. Only this will make America more secure and enable our troops to come home. Success means that Iraq is strong enough to sustain itself without outside forces but is no longer a threat to its neighbors; that representative government has taken root so Iraq can be a model for democratic hope in the Middle East; and that Iraqi society and the Iraqi economy are healthy enough so that Al Qaeda cannot recruit there.
Wes Clark's strategy for Iraq is guided by the following principles:
1. End the American monopoly. From the beginning, the Administration has insisted on exclusive control of the Iraqi reconstruction and occupation. This has cost us the financial and military support of other nations and made America a bigger target for terrorists. Ending the American monopoly will change the way this enterprise is viewed -- in Iraq and throughout the world.

* Re-incorporate our allies. Fixing the Administration's missteps will require skilled diplomacy at the highest levels. Wes Clark recommends calling a summit of leaders from Europe, the United Nations, Japan and the Arab world to launch a new, internationalized effort in Iraq. They will be more willing to help if America works with them on issues they care about: climate change, the International Criminal Court and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

* Transform the military operation into a NATO operation. General Abizaid, commander of US forces in the Middle East, would remain in charge of the operation, but he would report to the NATO Council, as General Clark did as commander of NATO forces in Kosovo. With NATO support and U.N. endorsement, we can also expect some Arab countries to step in. Their presence would prove that this is not an American occupation, but an international and regional effort to stabilize Iraq.

2. Adjust the force mix. The Bush Administration has failed to formulate an effective tactical plan. No such plan will be viable without substantial contributions from military leaders on the ground. Still, Wes Clark would approach the problem as follows:

* Consider adding troops. Wes Clark believes we should look at whether adding forces will help the effort in Iraq. He would not measure success in Iraq by a reduction in troops or failure by an increase. It's more important to do the job right so all the troops can come home sooner.

* Adapt to guerilla war. One mistake in Vietnam was trying to use conventional forces to fight an unconventional war. The more unarmored humvees we have, the greater our vulnerability to roadside bombs. We have suffered more losses in routine patrolling and transit than in active counter-insurgency efforts. We need to ensure the right mix of forces to fight a classic guerrilla war. That means more Special Forces and other light forces better suited for counter-insurgency.

* Better use of intelligence resources. To protect our soldiers we must do all we can to find out who's attacking our soldiers. That means better intelligence work and improved relations with the civilian population. Yet intelligence specialists and people who can speak to Iraqis in their own language are scarce. We need to take the linguists and intelligence specialists now involved in the search for WMDs and assign them to our military counter-insurgency efforts. International inspectors are willing and able to take over this mission. We must also augment our intelligence capability with new technologies and better recruitment in the Arab-American community.

* Train Iraqi security forces, freeing up U.S. troops. We need to empower Iraqis to provide routine security so American soldiers can focus on urgent tasks like counter-insurgency. Wes Clark would implement a comprehensive two-tier plan: train police first, then military.

o Summon the old Iraqi army for duty at the local level. We need more Iraqi paramilitary units and police at the local level. General Clark will use thorough background checks, generous pay rates, and real political control for Iraqis -- as well as appealing to Iraqis' sense of nationality -- to put Iraqis in charge of basic security, freeing up US soldiers to focus on our most urgent tasks, including counter-insurgency.

o Reconstitute the Iraqi Army so that it eventually can do the work the occupation force now does - guarding Iraqi borders, keeping order, and fighting insurgents. It will take considerable time to have an Iraqi Army trained enough and integrated enough to do the job.

* Engage neighbors for better border security. Iraq is now a magnet for every jihadist in the Middle East. Closing the borders requires cooperation from the countries bordering Iraq. But currently, Syria and Iran don't want us to succeed because they fear they are next on our invasion list. Wes Clark recommends engaging Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia with both carrots and sticks. We have serious issues with each of these countries, but closing those borders is the most urgent priority right now. We must show Iraq's neighbors that cooperation with us is in their interest and will help their region.

* Secure ammunition. Today, hundreds of thousands of tons of ammunition from Saddam's arsenal have yet to be secured, and thousands of shoulder-fired missiles remain at large. Terrorists have used these stockpiles to attack our forces. We should destroy that ammunition immediately or else secure it with surveillance technology and troops from other countries willing to come to Iraq.

3. Promote information exchange to advance civil society. To encourage the growth of civic organizations, media, neighborhood groups -- and promote reconstruction -- we should open the West to Iraq for exchange programs so that Iraqis who have been isolated for years can see the what the rest of the world does with its economy, schools, health care, media and government.
Preventing Foreign Misadventures Going Forward

* Promote security through multilateralism. No nation will ever have veto power over our security. But turning our back on our allies makes it harder to protect ourselves and our interests. Despite our overwhelming military, economic and political strength, we cannot pursue Arab-Israeli peace, support reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, deal with the challenges of North Korea, track down Osama bin Laden, fight the global war against terrorism, face the problem of Iran, and return to prosperity in this country, unless we have allies to help us.

* Modernize international institutions to combat new threats. Wes Clark recommends pursuing a new Atlantic Charter to repair and modernize our security partnership with Europe. The Charter that will define the threats we face in common and demand action from our allies to meet them while offering a promise to act together.

* Create a new agency for international assistance. Wes Clark believes America should lead the world in addressing the causes of human misery by attacking the problems of poverty, disease, and ethnic conflict with the same energy and skill we have brought to the challenge of warfare. A new agency would combine the existing development efforts of our government with a real budget for research and development, planning and the ability to draw on the new national Civilian Reserves that Wes Clark proposed in his campaign last October. These efforts will reduce the anger and alienation that gives rise to terrorism, and win us more friends and partners around the world. It will be far easier to ask gain international support for our concerns when other countries see us helping them on theirs.

http://securingamerica.com/issues/iraqplan

[IndianaGreen]

101. "a secure, stable Iraq with a representative government" is a pipe dream!

an updated version of Vietnamization.

There won't ever be a "secure, stable Iraq with a representative government" because Iraq was created by the British Colonial Office in the first place! Shia religion is viewed as a heresy by Sunni Islam, and has been so since its violent birth.

Any majority rule in Iraq can only stay in power by force. The Shias won't allow the Kurds to gain independence, and will use brutal tactics to prevent that from happening, assuming Turkey doesn't take care of the problem first.

Any Shia government in Iraq will be a satellite of Iran, and will be far more anti-Western and anti-Israel than Saddam's regime ever was.

Putting a secular government in power, even a hybrid Shia and Sunni led by someone like Allawi, will come under attack by the different religious factions that want to impose religious law throughout the country, including Al-Qaeda.

Clark is seeing Iraq as a General, a problem to be solved by a combination of force of arms, diplomacy, and a bit of good luck. We must see Iraq for what it is: a criminal occupation of a country we had no business invading in the first place.

We would be better off putting Saddam back in power, give him Jenna Bush as compensation, and get all of our troops out immediately and unconditionally.

The size and number of names on a future Iraq War Memorial is up to us. How many more names are you willing to see engraved on that monument? I'll say that 1,800 is 1,800 too many!

[Jai4WKC08]

103. You may well be right

But you say it with the certainty of a neo-con raising a purple finger and proclaiming that democracy will flourish throughout the region.

Fact is, we can't know for sure that Iraq can't become "stable and secure" with something that resembles a representative government. And what we do know is that if we pull out now, it will almost certainly collapse into civil war, with at least some part of it a Talibanesque client state of Iran.

Clark is not "seeing Iraq as a General," but as a diplomat, a world leader, and essentially as a realist. He is not naive, or even overly optimistic, about the possibilities. He has said on numerous occassions that our odds are not great. I think last time he spoke to the issue, he said 50-50, but that may have been a rather off-handed assessment, considering the venue. But he has also said that without defining what success is, working all the pieces of the equation, and especially continuing the Bush course, driven as it is by domestic politics (and who knows what else), there is no chance.

Clark also knows that all the nations in the region, even Syria and Iran, have much to lose if Iraq collapses. Economically, politically, and even ideologically. He believes that with the right sort of leadership, they can all be brought to the table to take some ownership of the situation there, to one extent or another, and knock out some hard commitments to making Iraq work as an independent nation. He also seems to believe that the alternative to trying is just not acceptable, since it would likely cause us to have to go back in at some time in the not too distant future.

As I said below, you don't have to agree. But you underestimate Clark, or judge him by your prejudices of how generals think, if you think that he just wants to fight a better war, or solve the problem with "a combination of force of arms, diplomacy, and a bit of good luck." Clark is a deeper thinker, a grander strategist, and a man with a far broader understanding of the forces of history than you give him credit for.

[Jai4WKC08]

99. "FIGHT this war better"? Hardly.

Another DUer who doesn't bother to read what is actually written. Or listen to what Clark has been saying all along.

Clark's letter specifically says, "It requires an effective plan, sufficient resources and effective execution of political, economic and diplomatic efforts, not just great 'soldiering.' "

Sure, we could just wash our hands of the whole mess the Bushies have created. I suppose that's all you'll ever be satisfied with. But seems to me most people on both sides of the aisle agree it's not a realistic answer, so it ain't gonna happen, no matter who's elected in 2006 or 2008.

You have every right to disagree, of course. But please don't over-simplify or mischaracterize what Clark is proposing, or try to squish it into your own preconceptions of what he's about. He's not talking about fighting a better war, but about using all the tools in the kit to find a long-term resolution.