Clark: "Why should more Americans die while we refuse to discuss the situation with Iran?"

[Clarkie1]

Clark says U.S. must talk with Iranians
General says more troops not what's needed in Iraq
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
By SHELBY G. SPIRES
Times Military Writer [e-mail]

Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark called for a "surge of diplomacy" instead of American troops to improve the situation in war-torn Iraq during a visit to Huntsville on Monday.

Clark, a Democratic presidential candidate in 2004 who is considering another run in 2008, blamed Iran for supporting insurgents and causing violence in Iraq. Clark called on the White House to find a diplomatic solution instead of sending more troops to the region.

"Why should we be afraid of talking with the Iranians? During the Vietnam War, we had channels of communication with the North Vietnamese and during the Cold War we had an embassy in Moscow," Clark said. "We have always been willing to discuss differences with our enemies.

"We might not like what they have to say. It might not lead to anything, but we should sit down and meet with Iranian delegates. Why should more Americans die while we refuse to discuss the situation with Iran?"

The war in Iraq "is a mistake from the beginning," said Clark, who led the 1999 NATO war in Kosovo. "We should never have gotten involved there. We should never have stripped forces from Afghanistan, which was a worthwhile effort.

"I'm afraid we are going to lose in Afghanistan because of these mistakes in Iraq."

The opening phase of the war had too few American troops, which has led to anarchy and civil war, said Clark, who said he visited the Middle East last month.

"After the initial combat phase, reconstruction projects and efforts to establish a government also have failed. The elections didn't achieve much in the way that Americans see and believe in elected governments," Clark said. "It's truly a mess there."

Clark said he's not in favor of abandoning Iraq, but he would like to see the focus shift to diplomacy and rebuilding the nation.

"Military force is not always the only option," he said. "We have to improve the political situation - the best we can - and establish a productive economy there.

"We need to put people back to work in Iraq."

Clark was in Alabama to swear in Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks "and to meet with friends and supporters here in Huntsville," he said.

Refusing to commit to a run for president, Clark said he was still considering a 2008 campaign. "I'll make up my mind in the next few weeks - soon," Clark said.

http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1168942666185870.xml&coll=1

[David Zephyr]

1. "The war in Iraq "is a mistake from the beginning," said Clark

This guy is a winner.

[IndianaGreen]

2. A "surge of diplomacy" is exactly what is needed

but the Bush regime hates diplomacy, preferring an old Western shootout. Just look at how the Bush regime has ignored the Israel-Palestine conflict for the last 6-years. Result? More violence and more retrenchment by the parties in the conflict.

Democrats should have embraced the Baker-Hamilton recommendations, and they should censure and/or impeach Bush for ignoring Congress and the people.

[Clarkie1]

3. I think the Baker-Hamilton recommendations were our strongest card to play.

And unfortunately, the Party has a whole has largely lost the opportunity. Right when they came out the Democratic Party should have embraced it as a sane, bi-partisan approach to the problem, but instead the Democrats politicized and nitpicked the report along with the administration, and now we are arguing about troop levels and funding more than advocating stronger diplomcacy and the other recommendations of the report.

It's true that we still aren't the ones setting the policy, but there was a lot of political capital in that report (still is) if more Democrats had been willing to look at the report as a glass half full rather than half empty and united behind it.

[IndianaGreen]

7. You are so right, Clarkie1

Baker-Hamilton was a lost opportunity that allowed Bush to use the "if you disagree with the surge, where is your plan?" meme. Our plan is on the table, it is Baker-Hamilton!

Democratic leaders lack political instincts of any kind. All they rely on are weather vanes, polls, and focus groups. You can't lead with focus groups!

[Clarkie1]

10. We are of a like mind on that one, IndianaGreen! nt

[Auntie Bush]

18. Truer words were never spoken! "You can't lead with focus groups!"

When Clark runs he'll come up with a plan. Maybe he's working on it as we speak. It could be similar to the Baker-Hamilton plan with many of his own ideas thrown in...much like he's been saying in his writings.
Anyway, I'm sure no one will be able to say, "Democrats have no plan" after Clark gets in the race. Then the other candidates will have to come up with something better...hehehe that will be a tough one.

[Donna Zen]

4. The money line for me:

Why should more Americans die while we refuse to discuss the situation with Iran?"

Hey, another there's another quotable soundbite.

And so we wait....

[welshTerrier2]

5. my money line ...

"Why should more Americans die while we are discussing the situation with Iran?"

i fully support Clark's call for providing American aid to help rebuild Iraq ... i do not, however, see any sense to keeping our military there in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. the Iraqi people overwhelmingly want the US to leave and we therefore have no right to remain ...

If Clark really believes his own money line, i.e. "Why should more Americans die while we refuse to discuss the situation with Iran?", and it's a given that bush will NOT negotiate with Iran, Clark should either be calling for bush's removal from office and/or he should be calling for complete withdrawal of American forces from Iraq ... failing to do that, he fails to meet the standard he himself has set ...

[Clarkie1]

6. Welsh, Compete withdraw from Iraq immediately would likely result in millions of deaths.

What would that do for our reputation in the world?

[welshTerrier2]

11. "immediately"

first, just to be clear, my "immediately" means as rapidly as troop safety allows ... i use the term in a more "symbolic" sense ...

to answer your question, the risk of wider civil war concerns me very deeply ... however, i do NOT believe continued US presence will help prevent a wider civil war ... in fact, i believe bush's plan to steal Iraqi oil, which is just about complete, will badly worsen the internal strife in Iraq ... my view of the "real deal" is that bush is using the US military to procure an oil deal ... he's using our troops to blackmail Maliki ... once the PSA's are signed, sealed and delivered, you'll see some kind of "strategic withdrawal" where US troops will be pulled away from Baghdad to "allow the Iraqis to take charge of their own security" ... it's all crap ... bush has no investment in doing a damned thing for the Iraqis ...

so, if we don't do all we can to get the troops out of there ASAP, all their presence will really accomplish will be the guarding of pipelines and fields for private, commercial gain ... real nice, eh?

it makes ZERO SENSE to push for a political settlement with bush in charge ... his mission is NOT your mission ... he is using the American military for illicit purposes ... you cannot make the kind of rational arguments Clark has made because doing so fails to understand the "nature of the beast" ... bush is a corporate puppet ... and all this talk about talking to Iran is also all well and good but it AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN with bush in charge ... calling for approaches as PRE-CONDITIONS that keep our troops in harms way, and I repeat, against the will of 85% of more of the Iraqi people, makes no sense GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES ... i am 150% supportive of Clark's call for regional diplomacy; it's critically necessary ... and we need to look at the entire region, not just Iraq ... but i part company with Clark when he sets this "won't happen under bush diplomacy" as something that must occur before troops can be withdrawn ... to me, that's crazy ... first, bush won't negotiate ... and second, it could take years upon years upon years and i'm not willing to support another 5 or 10 or 25 years of war ... i'm sad to say i see a bloody civil war in Iraq as inevitable and i do NOT believe the US can change that reality by occupying Iraq any longer ...

Clark's advice is perfect; i wish he would heed his own words - "Why should more Americans die while we refuse to discuss the situation with Iran?" - since it's clear that bush will NOT negotiate with Iran, does Clark then argue that we should keep the same troop levels in Iraq? to me, such positions would be self-contradicting ...

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. Mostly he argues that arguing over the troop levels

right now distracts us from the greater threat of the U.S. being drawn into a larger war. He wants Congress and the American people to confront the entire Bush policy toward the middle east, and the world too when you consider the situation with Korea, that says the United States does not talk with nations it brands as untrustworthy. I think Clark thinks we can be focusing on the number of troops inside Iraq or we can be focusing on the militaristic anti diplomacy approach to the world that Bush is hell bent on taking, but realistically the larger debate won't get a real hearing as long as we stay focused on debating troop levels and timelines and not the underlying dangerous policy that is driving us into new conflicts.

And it bears out in practice I think exactly the way Clark sees it. We aren't discussing both any where near equally. 50 times as much attention is being paid by Democratic politicians to how long the U.S. should remain in Iraq than to the dangers of diplomatically untempored hostility toward Iran and other nations that leaves us stuck on a collision course with them. And all of the debate at best will only change matters at the margins inside Iraq regarding U.S. troop strength. Maybe Bush will feel a need to announce withdrawing 15,000 troops 3 months sooner than he intended, in a best case scenario. Meanwhile a new round of military conflicts is drawing near with little public attention.

I suspect Clark knows that Bush is going to run out the clock on keeping troops inside Iraq until the next President takes over, with some kind of withdrawal starting before the 2008 election to help Republicans hopefully somehow win then. Given that I think Clark is using whatever platform he is given to argue for changing the course diplomatically, because public opinion is still more unsettled over whether it makes sense to negotiate with Iran than it is over staying long term inside Iraq. The results on that are in; there will be a major move out of Iraq under the next President, but minor tweaking to and fro under this one. What is less certain is whether first the American people, and second the American political system, has the will needed to stop the next war with Iran. That is where the most meaningful debate still needs to occur. And that is the debate Clark chooses to concentrate his energies on. It is meaningful to do so whether or not Bush can be directly persuaded by sane arguments. Support for starting another conflict must be undercut now, the nation has to swing sharply against Bush's non negotiations policy toward Syria Iran and North Koreas.

[welshTerrier2]

19. calling for the end to a war longer than WWII is not a "distraction"

and i don't agree it has been a distraction for most Congressional Dems ... haven't Dems strongly pushed for negotiations with Syria and Iran?

where are all these discussions about troop levels? beyond commenting on the "surge", i'm not sure i can think think of a single Senator who has provided specific "headcount plans" ...

i'm with Clark all the way on this one: "Why should more Americans die while we refuse to discuss the situation with Iran?" ... if we don't withdraw now, that's exactly what will be happening ... you can't answer the question in vacuum; bush simply will NOT negotiate ... how many more times do we have to hear him say that before we believe him?

some have argued all this Democratic posturing about troop levels is meaningless because bush won't listen anyway ... that's quitter talk to me ... let's rally the American people against remaining in Iraq ... let's start talking about this abusive oil deal ... let's make it clear exactly who has benefitted from the US invasion of Iraq ... let's scream it loud from the people's halls and let America know we've had enough of bush's bullshit ... by applying pressure in this way, we are likely to win over a few more republicans ... maybe we'll build a national cry for impeachment ... maybe we'll build some political leverage ... i don't accept that Congress, with the weight of an angry public behind them, can't stop this war ...

we need to build the political energy to deprive bush of power ... in this climate, not only may withdrawal become a possibility, but the diplomacy Clark calls for may become possible as well ... staying in Iraq makes absolutely no sense to me ... i cannot look at the day to day madness and believe the role of the American military is a constructive one ... i cannot read the terms of the oil deal and believe this whole madness has been about anything but corporate greed ... and in the end, i do not believe we can hold back the divisive tide that has ripped Iraq apart ... even the Iraqis want us OUT NOW; by what doctrine are we permitted to remain?

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. We go around on this I know

I would say that Clark is calling for an end to the war, because the war is larger than Iraq although Iraq is the current active battleground. A withdrawal from a battleground does not end a war. Even Murtha's plan I believe calls for redeploying troops nearby where they can be called on in an emergency, and Clark anticipates that that emergency is virtually inevitable if the larger war is not stepped back from by most if not all of the major players involved in it. For all I know WT2 is is possible that a further increase in Iranian influence inside Iraq if the U.S. pulled out completely ASAP without opening up a working regional diplomatic dialog with all the nations most effected by what happens inside Iraq, could be the trigger that would seal a U.S. air attack on Iran's nuclear program. Consider for a moment that wild possibility, if, just if, that were true, how could we then say the war was ended by a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq?

I'm surprised to hear you say that no Senators have provided headcount plans. I guess I just assumed that Kerry had, and Feingold, and probably others also. I am willing to stand corrected on that though. But no I do not think that Democrats have pushed hard enough for negotiations with Syria and Iran. Some have. Kerry has been great on this, I'm sure some others also have - I don't think Kerry was a lone when he went to Syria tfor talks, but this needs to be pounded and pounded and pounded. It should not only be thrown in as a part of a plan for dealing with Iraq, the entire premise under which the Bush Administration divides the world up into dependable allies and untrustworthy enemies who can not be dealt with has to be frontally challanged. Negotiations with Syria and Iran almost became the forgotten stepchild of the Baker/Hamilton report. As soon as Bush rejected the troop withdrawal recommendation and focused on his surge, that is where Congressional attention followed, not to the rejection of diplomancy.

Anyway WT2, I still greatly respect your position on all of this. Some decisions are relative no brainers, but my decision not to join with you fully in the quest you are on regarding getting the U.S. out of Iraq ASAP is not one of those no brainer decisions for me, not by a long shot. Even if it is possible for Conmgress to build to an ultimate show down with the White House, that I believe is still at best nearly a year away. Especially if it needs a veto proof majority. I rule out impeachment because I can not see simultaneious 2/3rds votes approving impeachment of both Bush and Cheney happening in time before the 2008 campaigne is in full swing, and at that point it becomes extremely unlikely. But maybe you and your allies and possibly me too further down the road will suceed in getting enough unity in Cpngress to open up new alternatives for action and not just verbal and paper demands. Between now and the day that approaches, I am tuning in primarilly to the attempt to stop war with Iran.

[welshTerrier2]

21. the day you finally join me on this ...

will be the day i will have finally purged the impurities from my sword ...

allow me to frame this view of new Presidents and Iran and oil and such ... humor me on this for a moment ... imagine that my view bush is in Iraq for OIL is correct ... imagine that is his singular purpose ... until now, that oil has been in a state of flux ... could the US really leverage their position to "lock up" rights to the oil? any arrangement had to be approved by the Iraqi government which itself had virtually no credibility or stability since we invaded ...

but now, Maliki has signed away Iraq's oil rights to Big Oil ... this is not some whacko conspiracy theory; it's all over the mainstream press ... it has been for some time now ... so finally, the US has its "spoils" ... does anyone believe bush would stop short of anything at all to protect his "investment"? i would expect everyone to say "No" ...

OK ... now, the US pulls back to a more defensive posture but Iran pushes its agenda inside Iraq and the oil fields are threatened either directly or indirectly ... when you're pushing for peace, it's important to understand exactly what everyone wants a "piece" of ... and of course, draining Iraq of its own oil does not bode well for a post-US accord inside the country ... bush's actions will greatly worsen the conflict inside Iraq ...

and then we turn to our shiny new Dem president in 2009 (that's a pretty long time to wait for peace, eh?) ... and what exactly is the position of this new guy about the rights of Iraqis to reap the benefits of their own oil? how can we assess what a Dem President would do?

i'm afraid i don't care for my own answer ... take a look at the "silence of the Dems" (a new movie?) ... is it fair to assume the Dems see grabbing Iraqi oil as the national (i.e. US) interest? or are they just a bit shy right now about confronting Big Oil who just might be willing to help out a wee bit with campaign costs? ... i ascribe no such motivation to the Dems; i don't rule it out, either ... so where does this all leave us? well, it leaves me knowing, with one exception, that the Dems have not objected to this theft of Iraqi oil ... it makes me concerned that "the policy is bi-partisan" and that grabbing the "spoils" will, one way or another, regardless of which party wins the WH in 2008, lead to war with Iran ...

so i applaud Clark's focus on Iran and his calls for diplomacy and regional vision; sadly, i think he has not focussed on the core of the problem ... it's the OIL ...

that's my little script; it's why i think as i do ...

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. "so let us not talk falsely now; the hour is getting late."

Nice signature line WT2, I just noticed it. Very true that is.

And very true that Oil lust and lust for Oil profits and the interplay between the two, is why we are so deeply embroiled in the Middle East, at the absolutely most benign end of the spectrum, to the reason why we are underwriting all sorts of imperialist agendas in the middle east, at the more believable end of the spectrum.

You know by now what I believe WT2, I believe matters are so grave that we all need to decide what alliance of interests we can forge and work through to help steer America away from the brink. For now, at least while he still may be a candidate, I have my eggs in Wes Clark's basket. He at least accepts and argues in public that the Nation States in the Middle East, artificial as many of them are, represent legitimate aspirations of peoples that in many cases have cultural and historic roots that go back further than the United States does. He at least argues in public that the United States needs to attempt to reach working understandings with our current adversarys in the region through genuine diplomacy, not intimidation masquerading as diplomacy.

Clark had a full career outside of the sphere of organized politics. Organized politics by it's very nature in our current corporate system is dependent on large amounts of corporate cash being regularly available to politicians rising through the political ranks to prominance. Clark came to prominance independent of money machines in his prior career, and he didn't cash in on his prior career to walk through the lucrative revolving door into the defense industry. Clark, in other words in my opinion (others may differ) is about as clear from career entaglements with corporate money as anyone is likely to ever be who has a real shot at the Presidency. And unlike Chicken Hawks, I think Clark actually knows exactly why wars are to be avoided if at all possible, which makes him less inclined to just say we have the power, let's steal what we want. Since the only way we can steal what we want rather than barter for it in good faith, is by thrusting our military foremost into all of our dealings in the Middle East.

I know how hard it has been for some life long liberal activists to accept that it seems to be a career military man who has one of the best grasps currently on where the role of the military should end in implementing American policy objectives, and where actual good faith negotiations should take the lead, leaving force to he used only, only, only as a last resort. I went through my own skeptical period with Wes Clark years ago by now.

WT2, it is so hard to even get a candidate with an honest independent voice to be taken seriously by the media, let alone nominated, let alone elected, that I am under no illusions about how easy it will be to counter the power of the Oil Lobby in Washington. Clark has plenty of courage, he's demonstrated that throughout his life in numerous ways. That will be needed. Clark is moved by moral considerations, his stances on Rwanda and Darfur are examples of that, and this too will be needed. Clark truly believes in the deep threat posed to our planet by global warming, and this too will be needed, to counter the agenda of the Oil industry. Wes Clark is among the politicians (there are others also) who I believe really takes environmental issues to heart, and who is genuinely committed to breaking America's dependency on Oil.

You have to move the ball forward if you want to reach the goal line, and my current strategy for doing so is to support Clark's run for the Presidency in 2008. Even if he doesn't win, I count on him to talk with candor about real issues facing our nation. He's already had a rich and fullfilling career, he reached the heights of accomplishment in it, I don't think Clark would trade his soul to become President. Becoming President was never his goal, seeking the office was originally a by product of him not wanting to see the men and women of our volunteer military thrust into a war that did not need to be fought. Now Clark sees another war looming that he wants to prevent if that is possible. I really think those are the kinds of motivations that make Clark tick, not excessive personal ambition.

Were it the latter we all would have known for a year already that Clark was running again in 2008. There's a part of him that doesn't even want the job, but he thinks he can do it better than anyone else and therefor it may be his duty to attempt to do so for the nation he spent his life standing ready to defend if called on to do so. I think that's the way Wes Clark actually thinks. At core it is the same way of thinking that leads a Greenpeace activist to blockade a whaling ship, you simply go where your values lead you, and where you are needed.

So he is the guy I am counting on to be our shiny new Democratic President in 2009. It's either him, or someone else who is capable of getting elected, or it is another Republican god forbid. The next President's last name will not be Chomsky, I'm sure of that at least. I have some trust in Al Gore also, but not many others. The situation is too complex, and special interests in the United States have too much at stake and will be pushing too hard to trust the office of President to a relative rookie who will need on the job training, or to trust it to anyone to whom personal ambition rivals their desire to serve as their top motivator for wanting to become President.

You see, I look at the scenarios you painted in your post and I think they look pretty damn plausible. In my mind, electing Wes Clark is our best shot at preventing it all from developing along those lines. And I can make a small difference in that quest, which if I am right, is a very important one. I can help swing the balence to make that happen, and that is why I take the opposite stance from you WT2, that is why I openly have alligned myself with a candidate for President. It's the strategy that I think I can actually help implement. Our struggle would not end if Clark becomes President, even if I am right about the type of man he is. We will have to continue the struggle because even with the absolute best intentions he would need support from below to politically survive and succeed at making changes. But I think our hand would be much stronger across the board if we started out having someone like Clark as President. I trust him more than anyone else I believe has a chance of being elected to deal with "the Oil" in a way that will help advance a progressive agenda.

[FrenchieCat]

9. "calling for removal from office" sounds good to me!

But I'll tell you, considering my sig quote and the date, I believe that Wes Clark really could find a way out.

Based on what you say, it doesn't matter what Dems say really......cause Bush ain't gonna listen to no one. That's why some are just shouting a number to the wind and hoping it sounds good....cause its all pretty much moot.

I believe that will be in Iraq until the next President (and it better be one who knows what in the fuck is going on)is sworn in.....and then, unfortunately, we will still need the time to withdraw in a manner that doesn't become "Pandora's Box-Part Deux"!

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. He would have to guarentee that Cheney went at the same time though

If anything, he's worse.

[IndyOp]

8. Thank You Mr. Clark and

"Military force is not always the only option" <- :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

I cry for the necessity (?) that anyone would ever have to say that.

[Clarkie1]

12. A few Clark quotes come to mind.

"They killed in the name of God. But they are not the first. This began in pre-history; the tragedy is that it persists today. Some would characterize the events of 9-11 as a clash of civilizations, and a conflict of religions. And to many it seems a simple and satisfying explanation.

But others would suggest, correctly in my view, that such an interpretation is both wrong-headed and dangerous. They recognize a civil war within Islam itself, as contending factions compete for power. They would argue that we must influence the struggle where we can, by supporting greater attention to the secular structures in the Islamic world, and by encouraging our own American Islamic community to speak out in support of America’s democratic values.

Ultimately, your generation will have the decisive voice. You will determine whether rage or reason guides the United States in the struggle to come. You will choose whether we are known for revenge or compassion. You will choose whether we, too, will kill in the name of God, or whether in His Name, we can find a higher civilization and a better means of settling our differences. And this is not a new choice, not for your generation — it is a choice that many others have faced throughout history. Only now, we can hope that with your help and engagement we can find a new answer."



"We'll still need our armed forces and we'll take every necessary action to make America safe — but we'll gain that safety not by force of arms, but by who we are and what we represent. For we should be an America not puffed up by pride in our own power, but rather an America humbled by the recognition of our common humanity. We must make sure that globalization helps people around the world, raising living standards and improving the environment everywhere — rather than leading a race to the bottom."



"Working together, we can build a world in which the rule of law — not the rule of force — governs relations between states. A world in which leaders respect the rights of their people, and nations seek peace, not destruction or domination. And neither we nor anyone else should live in fear ever again."

Wise words from a very thoughful human being.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

[bonito]

15. Amen, it should only be in self defense

And not a gulf of token incident either. And thank you Mr.Clark for serving not only your fellow countrymen but representing the the true Ideology we as Americans have always believed in to the benefit of the human race.

[blm]

30. Those who have been thru the worst of it usually agree force is the LAST option

that should be considered and only AFTER everything else has failed. Bush went into Iraq even as the weapon inspections and diplomacy were successful and PROVING war was not necessary.

[tuvor]

14. Talking with Iran could potentially result in order in the Middle East.

C'mon, that's not what bush wants.

[Eurobabe]

22. No he wants constant turmoil so he can start another war

to stop the insurgents that he gave birth to.

[Auntie Bush]

17. "I'll make up my mind in the next few weeks - soon," Clark said."

Yippeee!!!! I can't wait! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce:

[jen4clark]

24. Video from Huntsville!

Thanks to Ruth at CCN!!

www.ptnine.com/clark_huntsville_01_16_2007.wmv

[mzmolly]

25. "surge of diplomacy"

Great stuff! :toast: to the general!

[Larry in KC]

26. Possible campaign slogan: Wes Clark 2008 - A Surge of Sanity

[Larry in KC]

27. Or "Wes Clark 2008 - A Surge of Wisdom"

[Larry in KC]

28. Or "Wes Clark 2008 - A Surge of Expertise"

[Larry in KC]

29. I could go on and on... I'll stop here. Other suggestions?