question for Wesley Clark supporters....

[mike_c]

Let me preface this by saying that I've looked for an answer and I *THINK* I've been able to patch one together from various sources but not an unambiguous one, so I'm hoping that someone can point me to a citation.

The question: General Clark has stated pretty convincingly that had he been commander in chief in 2003 he would not have started a war of aggression against Iraq, but if he succeeds in securing the 2008 democratic party nomination and is elected president, would he end the war against Iraq with all possible dispatch? Has he made his intentions clear in this regard?

I ask because the statements I've been able to find suggest that he would be reluctant to "admit defeat" and end the war without achieving some nebulous "objective," but I'm unsure about that-- his responses lead me to believe that, but not without a certain ambiguity.

I'd like to know whether he has unambiguously said the one thing that I most want to hear from potential 2008 candidates-- that he not only opposed the war in 2003 but he opposes it now AND WILL END IT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

Anyway, I'd very much appreciate a citation that answers my question. TIA!

[Bobbieo]

1. Looks like the General has to answer that question, himself.

and it is a good one!

[mike_c]

2. yes, I'm surprised....

Some of the Clark supporters here have pretty encyclopedic knowledge of his public statements, etc., so I'd thought I'd get a prompt response. Oh well, maybe it's just late in the evening.

[Bobbieo]

3. I was a strong Clark supporter before the last election but now,

after havng read several articles, I have second thoughts about the man and how he would handle the presidency.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Why don't you provide the links to those articles that your read......

in order that one can determine more specifically what you are talking about. Is that fair?

[Bobbieo]

7. No, it is not fair. I found them on the Interent!!!

If you want to see them - look them up for yourself!!! if I could find them so can you.

[FrenchieCat]

8. I didn't mean to upset you in anyway by asking what specific articles

YOU had read that made you doubt your support. Even if you could provide a title or something...this would be very nice.....as the Internet is vast, and much has been written about Wes Clark, not all of it accurate or unbiased.

I only asked this of you because it would seem that in making the statement that you made, you would make it complete enough for whomever is reading it to know what you are talking about besides inferences. That's where the fairness question came in.

However, if you are not interested in providing further information about your statement, that is alright too....as it is a free country last I check (well kinda, sorta...well maybe not!) but I certainly didn't think it would cause harm to inquire on your sources.

Peace to you.

[Bobbieo]

9. OK Frenchie Cat - Gateau - I've got them saved somewhere but I'm not very good at

this computer stuff. I just do the basics and will try to send them to your DU box.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Thanks!

Bobbio! :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

4. Wes Clark does not believe that dealing with Iraq should wait the 2008 election....

Which means he believes that it is George Bush that needs to do the right thing, and needs to do it soon. Accordingly, Wes Clark's recommendations could be "done" by the Bush administration if they wanted to.

Today on Bloomberg TV, he stated that the Democrats will be "investigating" and holding hearings on whatever "plan" Bush comes up with, and that as far as he could see, the plan would be "Stay the Course some more".

According to my exposure to much of what Wes Clark has said on the subject of Iraq recently, I conclude that Wes Clark believes that we can come out of there without explosions engulfing the entire ME region IF we negotiate our way out of the situation, and yes, using troop numbers as part of the negotiation process. He believes that war always ends via negotiation, and that it really is the only realistic way to get us out of there. He doesn’t believe that rushing out of there as soon as possible will provide a long term answer that would in anyway reverse what we created when we went in.

I believe that Wes Clark understands better than most that our troops lives are very important, but he also understand that so are the lives of all who live in the ME, and he doesn’t believe that the safeguard of American Troops should be our only concern. Wes Clark didn’t want to go in, understood that there was not plan and that we would be opening a Pandora’s box..... but he also understands that there must be a plan in pulling out as well, and that one of our primary concern has got to be that we should leave the region in some form of stability .......because once we leave, we cannot go back....nor should we expect anyone else to attempt to achieve some kind of peace with the various factions especially, if we didn’t even try. He believes that what Americans “say” is their values and interest includes not breaking the shit to smithering and then running out in order to save ourselves leaving chaos as we go. I have heard him say that he does not believe that other countries will be willing to sacrifice their own for the sake of a secure Iraq in particular after seeing what happened to the U.S., and since we are the ones that started this shit, we can’t expect others to want to pick up the ball and sacrifice their soldier’s lives for this.

Therefore, he believes in having those who have a stake in what happens to Iraq come to the table, laying all of their cards down (including the US), and hammering an agreement that would be a compromise to achieving some type of regional peace that would allow us to withdraw from Iraq in a way that would keep Iraq from escalating into an even bigger hell-hole. He doesn’t believe that we can win this militarily, as he has said this a number of time....and so troop numbers aren’t the issue, nor are Washington driven time tables as much as wanting to do the right thing and understanding that getting out will and should be part of the end result.

At Brown University - Q&A
You've suggested that the United States engage Iran and Syria in a dialogue with Iraq. How will the involvement of those two fundamentalist countries facilitate the development of democracy in Iraq?
Well, you have to be careful what you're trying to achieve in Iraq. I think what we're looking for in Iraq is three things - first, an end to the violence; secondly, a government of some type that more or less meets the needs of the people in Iraq; and third, a country that doesn't become a threat to its neighbors, either explicitly or by virtue of its own internal conditions. The idea that you could impose and inject certain democratic ideas into the Middle East with a Judeo-Christian army - it was probably a loser from the beginning. But no matter how slim the chance to succeed was, there was probably always a certain chance that it could have been successful. But with the policies of the (Bush) administration, there's no chance in the near term that we're going to get anything like a Jeffersonian democracy out of Iraq. I think to seek that as the aim is to be unrealistic and to seek a goal that we can't possibly afford.

You have said you oppose setting a timetable for American troop withdrawal from Iraq.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I oppose Washington setting a Washington-driven timetable.
If Washington doesn't set a deadline for troop withdrawal, what incentive does Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have to develop a legitimate military force?
Well, let me answer that question with another question: Do you think al-Maliki right now is happy in his position in Iraq? Do you think he feels comfortable and secure knowing that there are Americans there? Do you think he believes that he can just cruise on this way and earn a fat pension as a retired head of state? I don't. I think al-Maliki knows that he's on a wild ride on a bucking bronco. And whether America sets a deadline or not, he knows the current situation is unsustainable. The question is, can anyone pull together enough common interests among the Iraqi politicians and the neighboring countries to dampen the fight and to give people a reason to work together rather than to work against each other?
http://securingamerica.com/node/1972

Diane Rheem Radio Show -
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think we've put ourselves in a position where if you pull the plug- We took out the stopper in the bottle at the top of the Persian Gulf when we got rid of Saddam Hussein. We're now the stopper in the bottle. All of our friends in the region say, 'Don't leave.' We don't have a political answer. So, we're now talking about military answers, but they're insufficient.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think he heard their concerns that this is not simply a military problem, that it is at heart a political problem. It can be lost militarily. It can't be won militarily. There are not enough forces to try to go in there and post a platoon at every street corner in Baghdad, and if you could, it wouldn't solve the problem anyway. And I hope he heard the cry from the military to put the whole weight of all the power of the United States - our diplomatic power, international law, our alliances, our economic strength, everything behind this, the, the mission to create a strategy within which our troops are expected to perform.
http://securingamerica.com/node/2030

What Wes Clark isn't "for" is screaming "we'll take 40,000 troops out" as thought that is a detailed plan as an election slogan....cause winning an election ain't his goal.

[mike_c]

6. thank you....

As you probably know, I'm very much "for" pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible. However, another thread tonight reminded me that Clark's opposition to the invasion of Iraq met one of my absolute baseline requirements for support in 2008. Unfortunately, I wasn't sure about how he proposed to solve the problem of our being there. Thanks for giving me some additional info to digest.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. It is a good question Mike, which unfortunately doesn't have a short anwer.

The short answers for Iraq are: Get the hell out now, OR Start up the draft because we sure as Hell are going to need it if we want to "win this militarily".

I have to pack for a trip I am leaving on at dawn so I don't have time to write much of anything right now. I am going to point you to my own blog and suggest that you might read a few entries that I made there. Three in particular.

The first is "Debating Iraq Online with a friend": http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/2006/12/debating_iraq_online_with_a_fr.html#more

The second is "The Lid On Pandora’s Trunk; Stopping the Next War NOW::
http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/2006/12/the_lid_on_pandoras_trunk_stop.html

The third is: "The Three Logical Positions On Iraq":
http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/2006/12/the_three_logical_positions_on.html

You may have already seen one or more of these posted on DU threads. For what it's worth, if you take the time to read them, you will have a pretty good sense about how this Clark supporter views Clark's position on Iraq and why.

Because time is scarce for me now I will be blunt with you. I unfortunately trust Clark on Iraq. I say unfortunately because I don't like what he has to say. I say I trust him on this because he has been right every damn step of the way about Iraq and how the situation was likely to play out. Clark supporters can link you endlessly to stuff that makes this point. When all the media was aglow about reports from Iraqs first and second elections, with video shots of smiling old ladies with purple thumbs, when all of the Bush Administration apologists and their media whores were saying; "see. SEE, isn't Democracy wonderful, isn't it all worth it?" Clark was on FOX of all places explaining exactly why there were huge dangers ahead that were at best being papered over by those elections, how in some ways they could lead to the break down of Iraq civil society. He was saying this on the same fucking night that almost everyone else was saying "Gee I have to admit, this Democracy stuff is looking pretty good after all".

Clark travels to the middle east often, and unlike most American politicians he doesn't spend almost all of his time while he's there inside Israel embracing their hard line politicians. Clark is very worried about the drift of events in that whole area of the world, the region wide drift of events, the interplay between Iran and Iraq and Turkey and Jordon and Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Sria and Lebanon and Israel. He is worried about a widening conflict, a potentially greatly widening conflict. And it's not just about Oil, it's also about ancient regional rivalries between Persian and Arabian cultures. It's also about an ancient sometimes violent religious schism between Shiites and Sunnis. It's also about the conflict between Islam and Judaism, Turks and Kurds, and going back further it reignites an ancient conflict between Christianity and Islam. A tinder box is too gentle a word to use for that part of the world now. And yes the whole world's economy depends on the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf that seperates Iran from Saudi Arabia. The poor world wide are the first to die in a global recession.

But if you read my Pandora's Trunk piece you will see that it is my opinion that Clark is most concerned about the potential current flash point between the United States and Iran. He sees us drifting, or maybe even driving, toward another war, one that would be a total catastrophy. Out of the conflict at hand involving Iraq, Clark is looking to kick off a diplomatic process that can deescalate that crisis and help prevent the wider war that he fears we all are moving toward. The United States destabalized the entire region by invading Iraq. Clark does not think that a sudden unilateral U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would sufficiently restabalize the region absent other serious initiatives. Unfortunately there may not be time to wait out George Bush on the current course he is on, and as you will see in my Iraq debate piece, I don't see any way Democrats in Congress alone can force Bush completely out of Iraq against his will while he remains in office. I've been through this before, I saw it with Nixon.

Rather then issue hollow timelines that we lack the power to impose even if we agreed to try, I support Clark's emphasis on pushing regional diplomacy. Clark makes a case for why it is best to enter diplomacy without unilaterally announcing our own plans ahead of talks. I talk about that in my blog debate with WelshTerrier2. Unlike George Bush, I fully trust that Wes Clark really wants us out of Iraq. That is consistent with everything he has said about our involvement with that part of the world since 2002. He knows we have to leave Iraq. Anyone advocating for a timeline to leave Iraq is also arguing that we can't just leave Iraq now. I really do think that Clark is the most honest about his position. Any Democrat can propose any timeline that they want. First of all they can't enforce it. And second, if they are willing to argue that we shouldn't just pull all our troops out within the next six weeks, how can they be so sure that pulling them out when the preset alarm goes off is really the right time to do so? If you undercook a chicken and pull it out of the oven too soon bacteria can kill you just as surely as if it were raw. Either you need to cook your food or you don't. Half way measures don't always make sense.

If a politician doesn't think there's any reason to stay in Iraq, than call for an immediate withdrawal now. If you can't call for that then be honest about why you won't. Clark is honest about that. The reasons he gives for not advocating immediate withdrawal aren't simple, not all situations are, but he explains what he thinks is still at stake in the region, and he advises us on the best way to disarm this ticking time bomb on the way out of the door. If the problem is region wide the answers that emerge won't only emerge from Washington.

I heard Clark say that he doesn't think it is worth another American soldiers life to keep them inside Iraq without some real plan that can accomplish some worthwhile mission. Clark thinks the essential parts of a workable plan will have to be political, there is no military answer left for Iraq. He believes that troops can have a role to play, but they can not be looked on as the answer. What thay means to me is this. If Clark becomes President, and he finally has the power to put his thoughts into action, he will look at the situation he has inherited at that point. If a viable regional diplomatic process can still be salvaged at that point, Clark will pursue it toward reversing the drift toward greater war. Negotiating Americas full withdrawal from Iraq would be a stated goal. Without such a process there is nothing American troops can accomplish inside Iraq for any length of time. It may be beyond that by the time he Clark takes office. Unlike the chicken hawks, Clark understands the concept of strategic retreats. If nothing reasonable can be won then don't waste more blood and treasure while losing. Clark won't leave troops inside Iraq without a viable meaningful mission, and the only meaningful mission now is to reverse growing regional instability, not planting new Jeffersonian Democracies in the Middle East. Clark never signed on to that mission. He argued against it from say one.

One way or another Clark will get our troops out of Iraq, but if we are lucky, he will be able to do so without the whole region exploding in the process.

[mike_c]

31. thank you, Tom....

Like you, I have a busy day ahead but I'm really looking forward to reading your blog entries tonight. Right now my personal opinion is that neither military nor diplomatic solutions are likely unless several very important U.S. concessions occur, mostly about face reversals of long-standing foreign policy, so I'm sceptical. Remember how the Paris peace talks dragged on and on while Vietnam imploded because the U.S. was unwilling to negotiate on terms necessary to secure peace rather than dubious "peace with honor." The current discussions about a future diplomatic thrust in the ME sound suspiciously like trying to achieve something similar-- an elusive peace that bolsters U.S. interests at the expense of regional needs, which might very well include humiliation of the U.S. for it's blunders and bone-headed neo-imperialism.

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. Responding quickly from the orad

Negotiations only work when all parties legitimately can find a reason to let them work. But good will does not have to be that reason. To shift the playing field for a second, Noth Korea and the U.S. are unlikely to truly see eye to eye on much of anything within this decade, but if North Korea believed that their regime would be left secure and in place as a result of reaching some kind of understanding with the U.S., they might accept one, and vice versa the U.S. might give North Korea legitimacy our government is loath to give it if in return the nuclear threat can be defused. None of that requires renouncing the respective ideologies and world view of either government. Under a Democratic President, some kind of agreement might be reachable with North Korea, even if the United States retained some imperialist aspects of its overall foreign policy. There are forces inside Iran that would welcome a lessoning of direct tesions with the West, not to do us any favors, but for their own reasons.

[Donna Zen]

11. On several occasions

....Wes Clark has said that this is a political problem with a military component. Thus, only a political solution can bring about the conditions to pull out the troops. Of course he has also said that we must announce very publicly--right now-- that there will be no permanent bases. No permanent bases tells me that means there will not be American troops in Iraq. Following that logic, one would have to conclude that he would get them out.

BTW, Wes Clark has also said that there is no need for the internal Iraqi discussions to drag on...maybe three weeks. Those talks would set the time line for withdrawal.

This is not pipe-dreaming. All of the parties currently fighting in Iraq want something. What the want, or more accurately, what they are willing to settle for, cannot be known unless all of those involved talk. Wes Clark is a senior adviser to the ICG, and has said that he is now working intensely on policy/strategy. The ICG is currently considered to have the best plan to get us out of Iraq. You might want to connect the dots.

It must pointed out that General Clark warned those who voted for the war, where we would find ourselves if we invaded. Trusting those who made the original mistake of ignoring those very accurate forecasts who now wanting to get elected and our making wild statements, should give thinking people pause. Go figure. Some people actually supported the war-hawks while they were standing by these candidates. Lots of people can read the polls, but saying that they have changed the mind about the war and now want out is not a plan.

Personally, this war makes me sick. It is robbing future generations of what we need like health care, education, and yes, working to lift people out of poverty. I'll stick by people who stood up and spoke out before it was fashionable.

[mike_c]

12. thank you-- I agree completely about sticking by people...

...who openly opposed the war "before it was fashionable." That is my minimum baseline requirement for support of ANY candidate in 2008. The issue now is that there are a number of potential candidates who meet that criterion, and so the next filter (for me) is "what will they do to end it?" A plan for "succeeding in Iraq" is a complete non-starter for me-- it's warmed over neocon imperialism-- so any "plan" that I support will by necessity be a plan for disengagement and withdrawal. I'm interested in what General Clark has to say about that.

Thanks for your input.

[Tinksrival]

39. ICG link:

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4227 :)

[Stan Davis]

13. Three legs of the stool

All along Wes Clark saw the need for a three-pronged strategy to create the conditions for the best possible solution: the military leg, the political leg, and the diplomatic leg.

The military leg provides leverage to allow the other two legs to proceed. For example, a date-certain timetable reduces America's leverage in the region. The military leg provides some measure of security and provides the training of indegenous forces.

The political leg is the internal politics of Iraq -- protection for the rights of all, and strengthening the institutions we take for granted, such as a legal/judiciary/penal system, a financial system, and a goverment conducive to improving Iraq's infrastructure.

The diplomatic leg is external, and brings all stakeholders in the region to the table. "We have to talk to countries we don't like," Clark says over and over.

These three legs are mutually supportive and symbiotic. As one strengthens, the other two work better.

He might even support a short-term increase in force levels...IF and ONLY IF such a "surge" is a decision reached through the political and diplomatic process, not just doing more of what we've been doing...which isn't working.

The bottom line is that Clark seems to see America's role more of a catalyst than as the prime mover in whatever new strategy is adopted. A new strategy has to emerge from the political and diplomatic thrusts, not just to throw massive power at what is fundamentally not a military problem.

The bottom line is that according to Clark, the military must always, always, always be an instrument of policy, but never the policy itself.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO

[mike_c]

14. thank you, Stan-- what you're saying seems to reinforce my belief...

...that Clark continues to support the idea of "succeeding" somehow in Iraq rather than admitting our mistake and withdrawing.

[Donna Zen]

16. Let's flip that statement

Are there any candidates that go around saying that they hope we fail? Clark has already said that bush's mission has failed. Clark defines success as getting out with grace...a D- solution is what he has said we have left.

The only candidates I can think of who openly opposed this war are: Kucinich, Obama, Gore and Clark. (I remember Richardson as quite supportive, and certainly not negative.)

I could support any of the four, as people with the type of judgement that can be trusted in future crisis.

[Lena inRI]

19. Donna, I agree 100% . . .

with your Gore and Clark support . . .not any other combo from these four. . .adding that only a Gore / Clark ticket would GUARANTEE BOTH the right judgment in crises AND the most winnable 2008 ticket across the electorate's political spectrum.

:kick: :toast: :kick: :toast: :kick:

[Jai4WKC08]

26. And of those four

Only DK advocates immediate withdrawal.

This is a good thread, but I don't believe mike_c is being completely honest with us about his reason for starting it. I think the way he frames his question, and especially his follow-up comments, show that he knows the answer he's trying to get to.

[mike_c]

28. not at all-- I THINK I know the answer Clark has provided...

...but I'm unsure. There's no hidden agenda here. I have two absolute bench marks for 2008 presidential support: opposition to the war in 2003 and a commitment to withdrawing all U.S. troops if they're still in Iraq in 2008. Another recent thread reminded me that Clark meets my first criterion, but my impression has been that he doesn't meet the second. Hence this thread-- I've asked Clark supporters for clarification. Would Clark end the war if he were president, and could you kindly provide a citation for an unambiguous statement to that effect?

[Auntie Bush]

33. You mean this statement?

"...that Clark continues to support the idea of "succeeding" somehow in Iraq rather than admitting our mistake and withdrawing."

[Donna Zen]

36. Note: a major geopolitical blunder

Clark used that term during one of the earliest interviews I saw with him. He used it again last week on fox.

[Stan Davis]

17. Mistake

Well, Mike, Clark has said that invading Iraq was a "strategic blunder" of "collosal" proportions. It was, in fact, a mistake.

But we own the mistake and are responsible for doing what we can to rectify the mistake, recognizing, again, that the results of the mistake cannot be improved militarily. If the stakeholders in the region come to a consensus through political and diplomatic efforts that only additional America troops can improve things, he would support such an increase at least for the short term, provided that a clear mission is defined along with specific conditions allowing America to withdraw its forces. Similarly, he'd support an immediate reduction in force if, again, the proposal to reduce forces comes out of the same process.

We can't enforce a solution, but we can help implement one developed through the non-military processes.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO

[jen4clark]

18. Not sure you're understanding

the whole thing. I'm not as eloquent as other Clarkies, but I think what you're missing is that General Clark is attempting to avoid the entire region from going up in flames. Because if we were to just up and leave now, with no attempts at diplomacy with Iraq and it's neighbors, that is surely what will happen. General Clark spelled out in detail before we went in what could happen -- all of it did. I trust his judgement on what would happen in the region if we were just to leave now, taking no responsibility for what happens next.

It's been detailed many places as I know I'm not being clear. I'll see if I can dig something up.

[Lena inRI]

21. Here's what clarified Clark's position for me. . .

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think one of the major efforts that the opponents of the Iraq Study Group have, have worked on is to discredit the idea of dialog in the region. I think this is really unfortunate. It's the United States strategy posture before we went in there that created a lot of resistance on the ground to us in Iraq, and whether we agree with the Iranians or the Syrians or not, we ought to be talking to them, and we ought to be talking to them without preconditions. We may not be asking them for help, and I wouldn't ask them for help, and they're not going to offer help, but what I do think is important is to set Iraq inside the regional context. There's no advantage to anybody in moving toward a war with Iran. We're not going to occupy Iran. It's too large. We're not going to change its culture. It's too diverse. We're not going to democratize it. It is not going to be, after a war, converted to a Western-style Democracy. So, therefore why are we moving in this direction? We need a dialog first, and bring all of the other instruments of U.S. power to bear through that dialog.

Diane Rehm: So, you would take Iran's proposed or purported development of nuclear weapons off the table?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Oh, I'd say that's one of the things we're going to talk about directly.

Diane Rehm: But would you talk about that first?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: No, I'd talk first about-

Diane Rehm: Would that be a precondition?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No, I'd go in with a set of principles that we agree, in the region, that we want for the region that borders should be respected, security needs should be respected, that the Iraqi people should have a right to determine their own future, and have that dialog with Iraqi and Syrian and Turkish leaders - all the people who are effected by it-

http://securingamerica.com/node/2030

Clark continues to be the military pragmatist AND the progressive idealist simultaneously . . .it's what I've admired about him ever since September, 2003. . .he says NOT what you want to hear but what you have to hear to move forward and find a SOLUTION. . .he's an "answer man" not a bullshit artist. . .like so-o-o-o-o-oo many politicians out there.

:kick: :loveya: :kick: :loveya: :kick:

[mike_c]

29. thanks, Lena....

eom

[FrenchieCat]

23. Success is relative, wouldn't you say........

Clark talks of success as not leaving a hole in the Middle East where Iraq might used to be. He has already admitted to failure, military failure at that...when he states that we cannot win militarily.

Admitting our mistake and withdrawing is not going to close the pandora's box...in particular if you believe that there is a civil war going on in Iraq as we speak, our withdrawal will not end it.

Those who want an admission of our mistake obviously haven't heard Wes Clark called this the biggest blunder in American foreign policy over and over again...so I'm not sure how much more of a admission of a mistake one could make. It was a mistake to go in he said and after that big one, it was mistake after mistake after mistake. So, I think that Wes Clark ain't trying to avoid admitting to the fact that this shit was a mistake from the get.

Wesley Clark Calls Iraq War A Major Blunder
By By Mike Glover -- Associated Press
Sep 21, 2003, 21:54
http://www.chewinthefat.com/artman/publish/article_283.shtml

2/11/04
After leaving the military, and before launching his political career, he was an analyst for CNN, where he was a consistent critic of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, which Clark calls a "historic blunder."
http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/democrats2004/clark.html

By TIM HIGGINS
REGISTER STAFF WRITER
September 1, 2005
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, in Iowa on Wednesday, called the war in Iraq a "strategic blunder" and said the Democratic Party needs to speak out against it.

"People of this party are every bit as patriotic as people from that other party," Clark told an audience of about 50 Democrats. "We can never let them forget that. You don't have to agree with the president to be patriotic in our country, and especially when our country is at war.

"Sometimes your most patriotic duty is to speak out and make your voice heard."
http://www.muhajabah.com/clarkblog/2005/09/clark_tells_democrats_speaking.php

11/12/05
"Going into Iraq was a blunder", Clark stated firmly.
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/11/12/wes_clark_intelligence_was_hyped.php#more

3/26/06
Clark criticized the Republican strategy in Iraq, calling the war a "complete blunder compounded by mistake after mistake."
http://congressmanberry.blogspot.com/2006/03/arkansan-wesley-clark-joins-democrats.html

04/15/06
"They pressed for this, they pressed for open warfare before the diplomacy was finished. It was a tragic mistake. It's a strategic blunder. It was wrong" Wes Clark
http://zfacts.com/p/353.html

09/05/06
"In plain language, invading Iraq was a mistake, a strategic blunder, a step- a major step in the wrong direction for winning the War on Terror. It's time for America to face the facts. Invading Iraq was an unnecessary war. It distracted us from what we were trying to accomplish in Afghanistan, and it's been counterproductive in winning the War on Terror. "--Wes Clark
http://securingamerica.com/node/1426

May 2006
Al Franken: Well, let's go back to the biggest principle of them all. Was this a mistake?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely.

Al Franken: Okay, now.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I said it at the time. I warned the administration not to do it. I testified in front of the House and the Senate that this should, this was an elective war. I was on Tim Russert. I was all over saying, 'This is not such a great idea.'
http://securingamerica.com/node/932

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. Add this one to your collection Frenchie, from 12/02/03

Portsmouth Herald
Portsmouth, NH
Tuesday, December 2, 2003

Clark says U.S. is losing ‘war on terror’

By Shir Haberman
[e-mail]
Campaign 2004 Archive

Gen. Wesley Clark soundly criticized President Bush on how he is managing the war on terrorism.

"We are not winning the war on terror," said the former NATO commander. "Today’s terrorists are regrouping in Afghanistan, while tomorrow’s terrorists are being recruited in Iraq.

"We should get an international authority to oversee the reconstruction and help recruit international troops, freeing up American forces to go after terrorists," Clark said. "Our current efforts are not only ineffective, but dangerous."
http://www.seacoastonline.com/2003news/12022003/col_capi/63444.htm

[mike_c]

30. I understand that-- Clark's opposition to the war isn't the issue....

I know he has said over and over that it's a blunder. What I want is an unambiguous confirmation that he will end it.

[FrenchieCat]

34. I believe that his goal is to end it......

just not all crazy like we're a bunch of teenagers.

What I marvel at is how many who were anti-Iraq because of the harm that would come to Iraqi civilians now seem much more concerned about our troops and don't seem to feel like they have an obligation to continue to worry about who they used to worry about prior to us going in. I find that somewhat lacking in the kind of compassion that I would expect to see in someone who is anti-war.....even anti this war....and that Iraqi would continue to stay at the forefront of concern. I realize that they haveb't had it easy, but I'm no longer sure if anyone really cares as much about them as was once professed. Guess one can make the case that they will continue dying no matter, and perhaps at lower numbers if we leave....but I believe that to be an optimistic guess not really backed up with any real facts. Gambling on the best outcome with the lives of other people is a risky proposition indeed. I would prefer to trust one who is experienced in these matters, than the ones who are chanting slogans with slim chance of occuring while running for office.

[Stan Davis]

15. A bit more on Clark and policy

For at least two years now, Clark has been talking about the lack of an overall, overarching policy in foreign policy. These lectures and speeches often point out that when the Iron Curtain rusted through, America didn't know what kind of policy should come next. The Cold War overarching policy was the containment of Communism. What is it now? What should it be?

Well, we do know what that policy has been over the last six years: the PNAC agenda of democratizing the Middle East. Gen. Clark always saw that as a flawed policy doomed to failure, and he's not afraid to cite PNAC as the origin of that policy. You can't install democracy at the point of a gun.

The overarching policy could and probably should be security, but security in an all-encompassing sense. According to Clark, security consits of physical, economic, health, environmental, opportunity, and educational security. Each of these elements of security reinforce the other elements. Fostering all of these components of security worldwide should mitigate the forces that drive terrorism.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO

[jen4clark]

20. To fully understand

takes a lot of reading. If you're interested, this is Tom Rinaldo's blog where he posted a conversation he had with another blogger from DU which explains General Clark's position better than I ever could.

Debating Iraq Online With A Friend

http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/2006/12/debating_iraq_online_with_a_fr.html#more

[The Count]

25. Bookmarked

[Sparkly]

27. The "nebulous objective" is PEACE.

I think it's clear to everybody there's not going to be a "success" or "victory" except in the sense of mitigating the disaster, as opposed to making it even worse.

Yes, he'd end the war "with all possible dispatch" and "as quickly as possible." As has been discussed here, complete and immediate withdrawal of our own troops isn't synonymous with ending the war. I can think of only one candidate/potential candidate who is speaking with that assumption.

One difference about General Clark is that he has the experience and ability to hit the ground running if elected; no long learning curve, no delegating it to others, no lengthy new 'studies,' no taking a long time to become acclimated to foreign policy or to be introduced to multinational diplomacy, etc. He'd put together a team and get right to work.

As I've said before, peace won't just happen there -- peace has to be waged. And I believe he is best prepared to do it.

[Cameron27]

32. This is what cinches it for me:

"One difference about General Clark is that he has the experience and ability to hit the ground running if elected; no long learning curve, no delegating it to others, no lengthy new 'studies,' no taking a long time to become acclimated to foreign policy or to be introduced to multinational diplomacy, etc. He'd put together a team and get right to work."

Who can speculate about the dynamics in Iraq (and the entire region)when the next president finally takes office? We've got 2 more years of Bush and a new Congress; will there be a surge? will Congress eventually just cut spending in disgust? will the Congressional investigations cause dramatic effects? how will the political climate in Iraq itself change during this time?

All plans or strategies that are being tossed into the pot now, will have to be re-evaluated & reconfigured due to time and circumstance, and I'm supporting Clark because I think he's uniquely qualified to do this. His predictions have been proven correct in the past, so I feel comfortable trusting his judgment in the future.

edited: spelling

[Auntie Bush]

35. That says it all for me!

"His predictions have been proven correct in the past, so I feel comfortable trusting his judgment in the future."

What a difference from bush! Everything bush* expected would happen...didn't! Everything Clark predicted would happen...happened!

Bush* is batting 0...Clark is batting 100% :woohoo:
A President we can count on! A President with prophetic abilities!That's our Wes!

[Donna Zen]

38. From yesterday:

"there are those who are profiting from the division of Iraq, and they want to see it continue."
--- General Wes Clark

01/02/07 Bloomberg TV network,

[NV1962]

40. Three links with commentary for you

First, a fairly comprehensive overview of Wes Clark's view on Iraq from BEFORE the war, way back when the usual cheerleaders were stumbling over each other to rubberstamp Bush's war of choice, with VERY few exceptions among Dem Senators who actually listened to what he had to say on the subject and sadly, now try to sell the revisionist excuse that they were "mistaken" and "misled" on an issue where they matter-of-factly refused to take in cogent words of caution - compiled by Maria:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/7/18592/1665

This long compilation not "simply" sets the record straight on Wes Clark's position on Iraq, but also serves as a cautionary tale toward those who believe it's acceptable that current "anti-war" candidates run for WH, when they previously vocally supported that very same illegal, unnecessary and wasteful invasion and occupation of Iraq. As much as they would like the electorate to think in terms of an "honest mistake" in "a matter of opinion", it is in effect an enormous error in judgment (which should give plenty of pause by itself) and even moreso, represents an object lesson in the perils of cognitive dissonance, as shown in the run-up to that war.

Second, a fairly lengthy rendition of a speech (with subsequent Q&A session) by Wes Clark before the Council on Foreign Relations:
http://securingamerica.com/node/607

Here, you get a very clear idea of how the General approaches the Iraq crisis - not as a unique facet in and by itself that can be "resolved" by withdrawing troops ASAP, but as an intractable part of a larger problematic cluster, where a joint multi-pronged set of efforts, means and policies is absolutely necessary, if -- beyond the moment itself of "withdrawal" from Iraq -- anything resembling a longer term satisfactory solution is the key objective. In other words, Wes Clark looks at the Middle East as a complex whole, not just at a delusional sum of compartmentalized piecemeal problems. Abstract Iraq from the Middle East at your own peril.

Perhaps more important than these previous two links is the appearance of Wes Clark before the Senate Armed Forces Committee. The reason I believe this following link to resources is at least as important as the previous two for obtaining a picture of how Wes Clark approaches problems, is because it shows the General without any benefit of hindsight, BEFORE that cursed war in Iraq, explaining why it is such a bad idea. The reader does have the benefit of hindsight - as well as the luxury of comparing his approach to foreign policy to what was about to unfold, with what a tragic number of Senators (and Representatives) with precious few exceptions have shown, as recorded by recent history:
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/12/7/18592/1665/171

Especially this last one shows why, in my humble opinion, Wes Clark is not only the very best man the Democrats can field to manage the current crisis, but especially to avoid creating other big ones. Having a "disposition" and "charisma" isn't enough: what is necessary is a combined package of proven leadership qualities, proven insight, proven principles, and proven character. General Clark is the real deal and the whole deal.