Wes Clark comments on the "surge"

[CarolNYC]

US general points the finger over 'doomed' troop policy in Iraq
Ex-Nato chief, writing in the 'IoS', says sending 20,000 soldiers would be 'too little, too late' and may alienate Iraqis further
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
Published: 07 January 2007


Wesley Clark, the former Nato commander who led the 1999 war in Kosovo, is urging President George Bush not to send more troops to Iraq, saying the "surge" in forces being considered by the White House would be too little, too late and could only deepen the hole that the United States and its allies have dug themselves.

Writing exclusively in The Independent on Sunday, General Clark said the time for a military solution was long past, that US troops lack the skills and the political legitimacy to pacify the conflict-ridden regions, and that the only way forward was a political initiative encompassing the entire region.
...........

"What the surge would do is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut US forces' morale, and risk further alienation of elements of the Iraqi populace," he added.
.............

The Democrats who have just taken over the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as the majority of American voters, believe the time has come to plan for a phased redeployment and withdrawal. "We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq," the new Democratic leaders in the House and Senate wrote to President Bush on Friday. "Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake."

General Clark, who ran for the White House on a Democratic ticket in 2004, adds military authority to that point of view. "US troops lack the language skills, cultural awareness and political legitimacy to assure that areas cleared can be 'held', or even that they are fully 'cleared'," he writes. "The key would be more Iraqi troops, but they aren't available in the numbers required."


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2132566.ece

[tblue]

1. Clark has been right about Iraq from Day 1. He always said there's no military solution

to Iraq, and now all the Dems are saying it, and even some Repugs and outspoken military leaders. How I wish we could turn this over to some grown ups quick before lots more people die. Iraq is FUBAR.

[Adelante]

4. That's such a nice picture, tblue

[tblue]

8. It's not hard to find a great pic of Gen. Clark

[sampsonblk]

9. And he's the ONLY one...

who has been right all along.

[MadMaddie]

2. Clark is right but as we know...* doesn't listen to experience

battle hardend military leaders.....

[brazos121200]

3. I think Wes Clark is Great, and would make a fine running mate

for any Democratic Presidential candidate in '08, if not a Presidential candidate himself. He got off to a slow start in the '04 campaign by skipping Iowa, but might do well next year.

[IndianaGreen]

5. Clark is saying the same thing Powell said, and other military men

Many other officers feel the same as Clark does about this misguided surge.

The war was a mistake from its inception, and nothing short of an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US troops will do.

[Tom Joad]

6. "We never had enough troops in Iraq"? why not "This invasion was illegal and immoral? "

Why not "We should never have had any troops in Iraq"?

[jen4clark]

10. How's this?

"This administration has taken us on a path to nowhere -- replete with hyped intelligence, macho slogans and an incredible failure to see the obvious," Clark said in the broadcast.

http://securingamerica.com/node/846

[jen4clark]

7. It's interesting

that his piece is in the British paper, isn't it? Was that by design I wonder or could he not get it published here?

2008 = President Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Of course the papers here didn't want to print it........

That would ruin the point that Dems don't have any views worth printing.....and plus the only Democrats they want us to see are the "top tier" didn't-or-don't-know-shit-about-Iraq-or-about-War-in-general" Democratic Presidential contenders they have foisted upon us.

But what's new? :shrug:

[judy from nj]

11. Wes lays it out clearly

I was hoping he would write an editorial on "the surge(escalation)". I too wonder why he wrote it for a British paper.

I hope he writes up his thoughts on Iran next.

[NCarolinawoman]

13. This puts me in mind of the term "Hair on Fire"

That was the term I first heard when it applied to Richard Clarke trying to warn people about 911.

And no one listened.

Now I'm thinking about that Huffington Post article talking about Wes being upset about Bush wanting to attack Iran....and many Dems going along with it. We know that he talks to the Army Generals--like the two that are leaving. The two that Bush wants out of there.

And I read tonight that Steny Hoyer just met with a lobbying group tied to AIPAC and says "Iran having Nuclear Weapons is unacceptable".

And retired General Barry McCaffrey keeps saying that attacking Iran would be insane.

What in the hell is going on?

[Jai4WKC08]

17. That they're putting a Navy guy in as CENTCOM commander

Is another big indicator of what's to come.

CENTCOM has been commanded by an Army or Marine Corp general since its inception back in the 1980s. The new admiral is sure not going there to oversee the ground war in Iraq or Afghanistan. His expertise will be in launching strikes from aircraft carrier groups with their assorted guided missile platforms.

And don't buy the White House bullshit about picking a naval officer to execute a global strategy. By the time they get to 4 stars, Army and Marine officers are every bit as globally oriented as the Navy. If not more so.

[dillydilly]

12. Wes and his former colleagues are doing everything they can to warn the world

............{i]"While further details of the Camp David and Crawford meetings are not known at this time, other events surrounding those meetings suggest where the White House is headed. General Abizaid, as reported last week in EIR, abruptly went public with his plans to resign from the military in March. Military sources linked his resignation to his conviction that the Bush-Cheney White House is intent on "regime change" in Iran by military action, and he wants nothing to do with it. And on Jan. 5, reports surfaced in the media that General Casey will also be bounced from the command of ground forces in Iraq—apparently because of his own rejection of the "surge" fantasy. News reports today suggest that Casey will be kicked upstairs to the post of Army Chief of Staff, a post that was nearly impossible to fill with an active duty officer before Donald Rumsfeld's departure."..............


and further down........


......."One retired general and former Presidential candidate, Wesley Clark, was deeply disturbed by de Borchgrave's warning. Arianna Huffington, writing on Jan. 5 on the Huffington Post website, reported on an encounter with General Clark just after the UPI piece appeared. She wrote that Clark was furious about the idea of a U.S. preventive strike on Iran: "How can you talk about bombing a country when you won't even talk to them? I'm worried about the surge," Clark told her, "but I'm worried about this even more." Asked why he was convinced that de Borchgrave was correct in his assessment of an imminent strike against Iran, Clark replied, "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided, but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers. Unusually blunt language from a retired flag officer contemplating another run for the Presidency."..........


http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3402bush_pelop_war.html

[newyawker99]

18. Hi dillydilly!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Cameron27]

14. Well, he's been right about this from the beginning,

but his words have been twisted so many times by people with an agenda or a candidate they're trying to push. I'm delighted that he's specific and clear with this; NO SURGE.

He speaks with an authority that no one can match; now for some media coverage.

[TacticalPeek]

15. the real danger of the troop surge is that it undercuts the urgency for the political effort

Wes Clark OpEd

The truth is that, however brutal the fighting in Iraq for our troops, the underlying problems are political. Vicious ethnic cleansing is under way right under the noses of our troops, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces - it cannot be smothered easily, for additional US efforts can stir additional resistance - but rather from more effective action to resolve the struggle at the political level. And the real danger of the troop surge is that it undercuts the urgency for the political effort. A new US ambassador might help, but, more fundamentally, the US and its allies need to proceed from a different approach within the region. The neocons' vision has failed.

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2132496.ece