Clark's "In Your Face Challenge" to Bush on Iraq

[Tom Rinaldo]

Smack dab in the Beltway's Morning newspaper, The Washington Post, General Wesley Clark takes it right at the Bush Administration today, in an OpEd I'm sure that they don't want to read, but which they still know everyone else will. General Clark nails it with his title; "The Smart Surge: Diplomacy" in a classic example of devastating counter framing. If enhanced diplomacy is the "smart surge", what is a temporary steroid injection of 20,000 or 30,000 more U.S. troops into Iraq? That's just plain dumb.

You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long.
Smack dab in the Beltway's Morning newspaper, The Washington Post, General Wesley Clark takes it right at the Bush Administration today, in an OpEd I'm sure that they don't want to read, but which they still know everyone else will. General Clark nails it with his title; "The Smart Surge: Diplomacy" in a classic example of devastating counter framing. If enhanced diplomacy is the "smart surge", what is a temporary steroid injection of 20,000 or 30,000 more U.S. troops into Iraq? That's just plain dumb.

I would urge all to read the full OpEd in the Washington Post, but it took Clark just three sentences to cut through Bush's military surge spin to the bottom line of predictable results:

"What the surge would do is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut the morale of U.S. forces and risk further alienating elements of the Iraqi populace. American casualties would probably rise, at least temporarily, as more troops appeared on the streets -- as happened in the summer when a brigade from Alaska was extended and sent into Baghdad. And even if the increased troop presence initially frustrated the militias, it wouldn't be long before they found ways to work around the neighborhood searches and other obstacles, if they chose to continue the conflict."

But Clark's challenge to Bush goes deeper than simply calling his strategy wrong. He blames Bush Administration policies for feeding the regional instability now consuming American and Iraqi lives inside Iraq, and he warns that absent a genuinely new approach to the Middle East, one that emphasizes diplomacy, the flames of war are likely to spread further:

"Well before the 2003 invasion, the Bush administration was sending signals that its intentions weren't limited to Iraq; "regime change" in Syria and Iran was often discussed in Washington. Small wonder then that both countries have worked continuously to feed the fighting in Iraq.

Dealing with meddling neighbors is an essential element of resolving the conflict in Iraq. But this requires more than border posts and threatening statements. The administration needs a new strategy for the region, before Iran gains nuclear capabilities. While the military option must remain on the table, America should take the lead with direct diplomacy to resolve the interrelated problems of Iran's push for regional hegemony and nuclear power, the struggle for control of Lebanon, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Isolating our adversaries hasn't worked.

Absent such fundamental change in Washington's approach, there is little hope that a troop surge and accompanying rhetoric will be anything other than "staying the course" more. That wastes lives and time, bolsters the terrorists and avoids facing up to the interrelated challenges posed by a region in crisis."

In an unusual move, Wes Clark published this same OpEd piece one day earlier in the United Kingdom, in Britain's "The Independent". General Clark's opinions are highly respected in Europe. By publishing his OpEd on back to back days in both London and Washington DC, General Clark has signaled his intentions to frontally take on Bush regarding Bush's approach to the entire Middle East now, much as General Clark took Bush on regarding Iraq and the War on Terror when Clark last ran for President in 2004. It seems it will once again take a General to make the case that the only solutions in the Middle East that we possibly want to live with are political, not military.

Read General Clark's full Washington Post OpEd here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/07/AR2007010700980.html

[democrank]

1. Whenever Clark opens his mouth

he makes mincemeat out of the little Junior Bush. Hope he runs in `08.

[Dinger]

31. God, Just Thinking Of Him Debating * In '04 (Or Any Time) Makes Me Drool

and get all giggly and happy inside.:)

[Quantess]

36. Yes, he does! I love General Wes Clark!

Whether Clark runs for President or not, I will always think highly of him. What a powerful speaker.

[yellerpup]

2. Sign Gen. Clark's petition

to stop the surge.

Link: http://securingamerica.com/stopthesurge

We have to fight like hell to keep it from happening. Our troops are counting on us to support them.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Signed....Thank you! I didn't know that Wes Clark had a petition

on this issue. Really good of him! :patriot:

[yellerpup]

18. He's great.

I had literally just signed it before checking in with DU. :thumbsup:

[Cameron27]

7. Thanks for posting that..

it probably deserves it's own thread....:)

[Schema Thing]

8. Signed

I don't know if I dropped off the list, but I didn't seem to get an e-mail about this from Clark.

[Cameron27]

15. I'm not getting emails either,

and I signed up in November. I was wondering what happened too.

[Cameron27]

16. self delete

dupe in a strange way

[yellerpup]

19. My pleasure to post it

I didn't think to post it as a thread, but you're probably right. :hi:

[Sweet Freedom]

39. Just checking if you posted elsewhere.

I too, think it deserves it's own thread. There's only 6000+ sigs on this.

FYI: I added a link to the Wes Clark group, but don't want to dupe if you've added it to a general forum ("general" no pun intended).

Anyway, thanks for the reminder.:hi: I get these e-mails at work, but am blocked from accessing them and had forgotten to logon at home. My brother just returned from his second tour of duty in Iraq. I thought he was out of the military for good, but have learned he must stay in until March. Needless to say, I'm a bit nervous about him being "surged" and redeployed before March.

[yellerpup]

46. I posted as separate thread yesterday in GD

at the request of seasonedblue, who also posted in politics. I'll be sending out safety vibes to your brother. Our nephew is going for his third tour, first in Afghanistan then in Iraq and now he's on his way back to Iraq again. These kids...so brave yet so manipulated...our nephew seems (to me) to be bearing all the responsiblity of keeping his brothers safe, i.e.; "If I'm there, I won't let anything happen to my guys." In a way, I understand it, but on the other hand I see it breeding cynicism even beyond what our 'Nam Vets suffered and are suffering still from carrying the ball in a game no one wanted to be played in the first place. Anyway, thanks for signing the petition--as to why the count is low (6K) I noticed several postings yesterday of people who usually got e-mail notifications from Wes but have been inexplicably left out of the loop on recent mailings. :hi:

[Sweet Freedom]

51. Sending good thoughts to your nephew and your family! /nt

[Sweet Freedom]

40. Never mind

As I trudge through the Greatest page, I see it has been posted a couple times.

[high density]

10. Heh.

On behalf of President Bush, thank you for your correspondence.
We appreciate hearing your views and welcome your suggestions.
The President is committed to continuing our economic progress,
defending our freedom, and upholding our Nation's deepest values.

Due to the large volume of e-mail received, the White House
cannot respond to every message. Please visit the White House
website for the most up-to-date information on Presidential
initiatives, current events, and topics of interest to you.
In order to better receive comments from the public, a new system
has been implemented. In the future please send your comments to
[e-mail].

Thank you again for taking the time to write.

[FrenchieCat]

11. Got the same response......

Must be that the decider is too busy deciding to take us to nowhere by "staying the course but some more!"

"and so I understand that there's an fool born every minute--
I just didn't realize that we'd have one in our highest office this long!" --FrenchieCat 1/08/07

[yellerpup]

20. Got the same message.

Bet the 'large volume of e-mail received' was 99% dead against the surge. ;)

[Seldona]

12. Signed

Kicked.

[yellerpup]

21. Thanks!

Don't you love to make a difference? Even if it's just to irritate B***. :hi:

[Seldona]

30. Absolutely.

Sent it out to friends and family as well.

:toast:

[IA_Seth]

14. Lol, just posted a thread on that. n/t

[yellerpup]

22. Good for you, Seth!

The petition deserves it's own thread. Thanks. :kick:

[BlueCollar]

37. petition signed

Thanks for the link

[yellerpup]

38. Thank you!

[Sweet Freedom]

41. Signed and here's the WH reply:

On behalf of President Bush, thank you for your correspondence.
We appreciate hearing your views and welcome your suggestions.
The President is committed to continuing our economic progress,
defending our freedom, and upholding our Nation's deepest values.

Due to the large volume of e-mail received, the White House
cannot respond to every message. Please visit the White House
website for the most up-to-date information on Presidential
initiatives, current events, and topics of interest to you.
In order to better receive comments from the public, a new system
has been implemented. In the future please send your comments to
[e-mail].

Thank you again for taking the time to write. <end>

Our Nation's deepest values? What would those be?

[yellerpup]

48. Same thing they told me.

"We welcome your suggestions..." Yeah, then we spit on them and toss them in the trash.

[The Count]

42. Done. Thanks.

[yellerpup]

49. Thank you!

:thumbsup:

[pwb]

3. condi would have to talk with other countries???

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. And George would have to let her

It's pretty damn sad what it's come to under this Administration. "Bomb 'em? Sure no problem. Talk with them? Now that's pretty extreme..."

[blm]

13. Bullies don't talk - but, they don't fight, either, if they have to do it themselves.

The world is one screwed up place thanks to the Chickenhawks.

[montanto]

6. signed n/t edit K/R

[MasonJar]

9. Wes Clark would be a great president. The dems have such a

wonderfully strong group of potential presidential candidates....the pugs have Brownback, McCain et al. If we can win for any of these lovely dems, the world may survive.

[DearAbby]

17. done

:kick:

[Cameron27]

23. Came back to rec

:)

[blm]

24. Well said, Gen. Clark.

.

[Adelante]

25. OK nt

[talk hard]

26. vote to rec

Clark stands out from the rest on this & I hope people listen to him.

[welshTerrier2]

27. "Iran's push for regional hegemony and nuclear power"

General Clark wrote: "America should take the lead with direct diplomacy to resolve the interrelated problems of Iran's push for regional hegemony and nuclear power, the struggle for control of Lebanon, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

Absent from this statement is any indication that one of the primary "irritants" in the region is the conduct of the US itself ... Clark's understanding that the solution will not and cannot be military is dead on the money but he fails to reflect that the US is a very major, if not the major, source of conflict in the Middle East ...

It is time to put an end to seeing the Middle East as yet another marketplace for US death weapons and bloated profits for America's defense industry ... It is time to strip the Big Oil privatizers of their greedy gains in Iraq ... Any call for diplomacy in Iraq are pathetically inadequate if they do not include the primary source of conflict and the main motivation for the US invasion ... an appropriate response to the conflict must include a clear statement that all contracts made with Iraq, especially oil contracts (e.g. PSA's) while the US is in occupation are tainted and will be voided ...

Big Oil should not be permitted to exploit a desperately weakened Iraqi government for their own greedy gains ...

it is not just "Iran's push for regional hegemony and nuclear power" but the US push for regional hegemony and control of oil for private corporate gain that must be put on the diplomatic table ... Mr. Clark's "diplomacy" will be DOA until this critical element is included ...

[FrenchieCat]

28. Actually, Clark has said that we were part of the problem many times.....

Clark's understanding that the solution will not and cannot be military is dead on the money but he fails to reflect that the US is a very major, if not the major, source of conflict in the Middle East ...

This is what he said back in September of 2002--check out his prescience and his acknowledgment that the world knows what we did (as should we)....
------------

"The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere.

we really don't know what we're going to face. So in the immediate aftermath, there's going to be the possibility of a chaotic environment that's going to require a substantial American presence as well as a vast humanitarian governmental structure to meet the needs of the 23 million Iraqi people.
Then we're dealing with the longer mid term, the mid term problems. Will Iraq be able to establish a government that holds it together or will it fragment? There are strong factionary forces at work in Iraq and they will continue to be exacerbated by regional tensions in the area. The Shia in the south will be pulled by the Iranians.

The Kurds want their own organization. The Kurds will be hemmed in by the Turks. The Iraqis also, the Iranians also are nervous of the Kurds. But nevertheless, the Kurds have a certain mass and momentum that they've built up. They will have to work to establish their participation in the government or their own identity.

we've encouraged Saddam Hussein and supported him as he attacked against Iran in an effort to prevent Iranian destabilization of the Gulf. That came back and bit us when Saddam Hussein then moved against Kuwait.

We encouraged the Saudis and the Pakistanis to work with the Afghans and build an army of God, the mujahaddin, to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now we have released tens of thousands of these Holy warriors, some of whom have turned against us and formed Al Qaida.

My French friends constantly remind me that these are problems that we had a hand in creating. So when it comes to creating another strategy, which is built around the intrusion into the region by U.S. forces, all the warning signs should be flashing.

There are unintended consequences when force is used. Use it as a last resort. Use it multilaterally if you can. Use it unilaterally only if you must. "
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-clark-092602.htm

[Clarkie1]

32. This is all I have to say to that.

The right approach is a coordinated diplomatic, legal, economic and security campaign drawing upon broader dialogue in the region and intensified political work inside Iraq.

Here is how to do this:

Establish an effective, sustained shuttle diplomacy within the region.

Form a high-level interagency diplomatic team, representing the White House and secretaries of State and Defense and led by an experienced, respected diplomat.

Begin talks within Iraq, and with all its neighbors, based on a clear set of principles outlined by the team. The goal would be to seek the commitments necessary to achieve our aims inside Iraq and also advance U.S. interests in the region.

These principles could include: Iraq would remain whole; oil revenue would go to the Iraqi people based on a formula they determine; the rights and security of individuals must be protected; the United States would have no permanent bases in Iraq; the covert flow of military arms and equipment into Iraq would be halted; and the security needs of all states would be respected.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/11/illustration_by_2.html

[welshTerrier2]

33. "oil revenue would go to the Iraqi people" - but it isn't!!

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/welshTerrier2/106

comments? has General Clark spoken about the PSA's being imposed on the Iraqis? should he? these are not legitimate, arm's length transactions!

if one maintains we have an obligation to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, that works for me ... if that includes stealing their oil as the fee to do so, forget it ... that's just good old fashioned blackmail and imperialism ... Wolfowitz and his cronies at the World Bank have put the squeeze on the Iraqis ... they are so weak and so desperate they were in no position to negotiate Iraq's oil future ...

I would like to hear unequivocal statements from Clark and all Democrats that all "corporate contracts" negotiated while Iraq is "under duress" are null and void ... we're either backing Big Oil and letting bush "win" his war for oil or we're standing up for international justice ... Democrats should not reward either bush or the oil piggies with the theft of Iraqi oil ...

has General Clark specifically addressed this critical issue?

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. WT2, an honest question

Have you heard any Democratic candidate who you honestly think is capable of defeating whoever the Republicans nominate in 2008 make statements such as you are suggesting? I am not even trying to argue the point (at least not yet, lol) about whether or not it would be counter productive for a Democrat to run for President making such clear statements, I am just wondering what you are finding other Democrats willing to say on this subject. Have you only asked Clark supporters about this? I may well be mistaken, but I have read more explicit comments from Clark about the rights of the people in that region to control their own oil wealth than I've seen from any other leading Democrat so far.

[welshTerrier2]

35. "any Democratic candidate?"

no ... i am not supporting any candidate ...

if you read this post you'll see i ask the question of any and all candidate supporters ... in fact, i ask this question about Dems in general ...

as for the "political consequences", my view is that it would be a huge boost for Democrats! why??? because I think many Americans understand that there is corporate greed everywhere in our government ... i frankly don't believe too many would be upset with a Dem candidate who was willing to take on Big Oil ... do Americans believe it's OK to squeeze a desperate and weak Iraqi government into giving private oil companies as much as 85% of their future oil revenues?

if your statement is that Clark's position on this issue is better than other candidates, i'm not in that business ... my focus is the bottom line ... i believe we went to war for oil and i believe we will continue to go to war for oil until the profit is taken out of the venture ... it's not just Iraq; it's future wars as well ...

politically viability is a very necessary, albeit an unfortunate, consideration ... but if we allow it to block us from speaking the truth and educating Americans about what we believe, how will things ever change? if the astute political analysis is that there is risk taking on big oil or "being the first one" to raise a controversial or new issue, we become prisoners of the status quo ... we need to start talking about the changes we envision even if they are risks for doing so ... no, i'm not advocating committing political suicide ... but a rational and responsible dialog with the American people that we have no right to allow Iraqi oil to be taken by greedy multi-national oil piggies as it surely will be, is a risk very worth taking ... mark my words - if we don't "get this one straight", we'll soon find ourselves at war again ... what is needed is sound energy policy; not corporate greed and imperialism ...

i'm glad Clark's comments about the rights of Iraqi's to own their own oil were posted in this thread ... the reality is that his statement is already inoperative ... the contracts have all been signed ... so, what now????? it's time for Clark to back up his words with a plan of action!!!!! and it's time, as you fairly point out, for other Dems to go on the record with a position on the theft of Iraqi oil ...

do you agree that the mega-oil companies negotiated their "arrangements" with the Iraqi government under very unfair conditions? do you believe they should be able to "privatize" Iraq's future oil revenues to their advantage? do you believe this was an "arm's length" transaction under real market conditions? what does General Clark think about the climate in which these PSA's were entered into? the US was supposedly going to help Iraq rebuild its infrastructure; it turns out the rebuilding was for the exclusive benefit of Big Oil ... is anyone surprised???

my good friend Tom, this is what all this war is all about ... it's great to call for Iraqis keeping their own oil revenues as General Clark has done as long as that gets backed up with meaningful action ... the contracts have all been signed ... the time for ACTION is NOW ... what say the Democrats?????

we need to steal back the cheese so the rats won't be tempted to try this again ... if they know they can get away with this, trust me, they'll be back all too soon ... it is our job to stop them!!!

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. A brief reply

I think an American political leader running for President can and should speak directly to the issue of imperialism (though the actual language used may need to avoid classic Marxist terminology). It can be framed in terms of how to create a peaceful and secure world where all of our resources collectively can be used for positive measures, instead of a constant series of military conflicts and unending security threats that drain our treasuries and kill our people.

Realistically, the way that other nations have regained control of their own natural resources in the past, after they were stolen from them by multinational corporations, is by a local government coming to power in the victim nation that demands that control. There are two routes, one more extreme than the other. The more extreme route is nationalization, the less extreme route is demanding a renegotiation of terms more favorable to the victim nation. Although imperialist powers traditionally have done all in their power, including staging coups, to prevent a government gaining power that will demand their national rights, there are many examples of nations that have forced the corporations to back down, at least partially.

A Presidential candidate can of course speak in general terms about what constitutes fair trade, and the dangers inherent in a foreign policy that depends on the exploitation of others. However I honestly doubt that an American politician attempting to win a national election currently, can demand something from American and Multinational corporations for the people of another nation if the government of that other nation does not raise that issue for itself.

I am not speaking about what is righteous, fair, and just, I am speaking about what is pragmatically doable. Granted, Iraq is a very special case, because the legitimacy of that government is paper thin, with American fingerprints all over it. However that government will not last as currently constituted. American control over it can not long be sustained with our military stretched to the breaking point.

For me the road to justice is paved with results that lead one to that goal. A clear vision of that goal is just a mirage if you can't get close enough to touch it. I long ago tired of hearing my own voice "Demanding" that this that or the other thing happen immediately, when I had less power to back up my "demands" than a flea does to demand that a flea collar be removed from it's host dog.

So, pragmatically speaking, I think that the most constructive thing an American politician can do now to restore justice in Iraq regarding their control of their own oil, is to support an Iraqi political solution that leaves power in the hands of Iraq leaders who are beholden to their own people and not to the United States. This is not an abstract concept at all. This is exactly the type choice that our next President will have to make. Once Iraq is in the control of Iraq's people rather than our puppets, the Iraq government that results will almost automatically demand that the prior Oil contracts be torn up.

The rubber will hit the road in the United States when such a government demands its rights. Will we then have a President who understands that true American interests, rather than the interests of the Oil oligarchy, requires that the legitimate interests of Iraq be acknowledged and respected, or will we have a President who will seek to subvert such an Iraq government to replace it with an updated puppet still attached to our strings?

[Adelante]

29. We need more!

5,028 emails gone to Bush so far.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

43. Genral Clark has experience of warfare, Bush hasn't

so who do you believe?

[Gregorian]

45. TARGETS

As I have been saying, our troops are targets. And I think that is how we should be talking about this.

The problem is, this isn't a war. As such, we cannot devote our full resources to it. This means that unless we are a significant ratio of troops, we are nothing more than targets. We would need a million men in Iraq to make it otherwise. And since it is not a legitimate operation, we will not and cannot devote our fullest attention to the matter.

To devote the entire war machine to Iraq would reveal the illegality of it.


Edit- Clark is awesome!

[Clark2008]

47. Kick.

:kick:

[capi888]

50. Just signed up some more

Got 7 more to respond....at work...

[Tom Rinaldo]

52. A KICK to thank your efforts! n/t

[Adelante]

53. 9,820 emails to Bush - MORE!!

:kick: