This is from General Clark's interview this AM - scary.

[Joe for Clark]

WHY US SOLDIERS ARE STILL DYING IN IRAQ
Wesley Clark was on Democracy Now this morning and during his extended interview, he made an observation as to why he felt the US has to stay in Iraq.
If the US were to withdraw, Saudi Arabia would be forced to fill some of the vacuum for their own interests in offsetting Shia power in Iraq and the region. The most likely way the Saudis would accomplish this is by arming Sunni groups in the Iraq civil war. (No surprises yet.)
But then Clark pointed out that the Saudis would likely fund the best trained, most committed Sunni fighters, Al Qaeda.
So, the argument is that US soldiers are dying because "our ally" is threatening to fund, arm, and train the next generation of Al Qaeda who, after fighting US marines for four years, has more than enough hatred and recruits to terrorize the US for a generation.
Not exactly the clean, "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" argument, eh?
(I am struck by the parallel that we are also confronting Iran over its nuclear program to prevent the Israelis from "confronting" Iran.
With "friends" like these........)

[crikkett]

1. I'll be damned!

:crazy:

[Joe for Clark]

2. We probably all will be before this is over.

[Bucky]

3. Damn. Not sure Saudi Arabia could pull that off. Or that al-Qaeda would buy in.

But still, damn. A sudden pull out would be precipitous and dangerous, certainly. It's like watching shelf after shelf after shelf of fine china crash over, dominoes style, and being helpless to stop the physics of the disaster. No matter what we do, Bush has created problems that will take two generations to undo, even if we don't make any further blunders in the world.

Damn.

[Joe for Clark]

5. I should say - I am in favor of the fastest possible pullout.

And I respect Clark deeply. If he was president now I would be happy about it. And I am sure we wouldn't be here talking about a collapse if he were.

His observation is very shrewed, maybe correct.

But we do damage either way - we are truly in a no win situation now. And I want those kids protected more than anything else. They better live to fight another day at this point.

Clark doesn't pull any punches - I really respect him for that.

Joe



Absolutely - this is going south

[Bucky]

6. I want our troops protected too, but it's not our top priority.

As a democracy, we let this criminal war go foreward. As a democracy, we own the consequences. The top priority has to be what's going to stablize Iraq the fastest. Those kids were lied to by the president, as were all of us, but they're there from a country that chose to start this war. If you fuck up your neighbor's house, you have to fix it if you can before you leave.

[Joe for Clark]

9. You understand, we may have another fight coming -

and we just used up our army - for what???

Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Joe

[FrenchieCat]

20. I agree with you.....

when I marched against the war (twice), my concern was not with the troops. It was with our opening up a strategic Pandora's box in the ME and with the possibility of innocents that would die; innocent Iraqis not given a choice.

If you ask me today what is most important, it is again not our volunteer troops who really did sign on for this....but it is still with the innocent Iraqis that to this day have not been given a choice, and to the potential generational damage we have caused there.

I want our troops out of there as soon as possible....but not if yanking them out means chaos and mayhem for the innocent Iraqis that will remain in the pit that we dug for them.

This is tragic, but a soundbyte solution really is no excuse for a real strategy.

Bush has already told us that we will be in Iraq till at least the next President. This is one time I believe that he is telling the truth. So this Out now stuff is really just empty demands that will not be met no matter how good it feels to say it.

I am of mind that General Clark, out of all of those who speak on these matters has what it takes to get us out of Iraq in a way that is least hurtful for all concerned....and in this case again...my concern is with those who never had a choice to serve as fodder for any war, ever.

That's the sad part. We advocate for the lives of our U.S. troops as though their lives are the only important ones involved in this. I find that troubling, and it shows me that the left sometimes is only slightly more thoughtful than the right when it comes right down to it.

On the one hand, some on the left mistrusts the military, including the good General who has been right all along and warned us before this shit happened! On the other hand, some on the left demand troops out now, and use the reason to do this as a call to save the lives of the troops. I don't know if we are all thinking about what happens after we leave. Are we really looking at the "could happen" scenarios? Can we really advocate turning around and shooting our way out of this and then all will be much more peaceful? I just don't think things will work out of the best scenario which seems to be what many present in their argument for us to "just get out".

[Joe for Clark]

23. Do not ever lecture me about war.

It is OVER dear. It just is. And I really like Clark- but nobody is right 100% of the time.

That his observations are true- may be. But as a culture we better start asking ourselves what is better for us.

Kid is on his third tour - I made it my business to understand the dynamics over there.

And I got to live thru a few wars myself.

The kids need to be pulled - now.

Joe

[FrenchieCat]

26. I was giving my opinion.

which obviously is different from yours.

I didn't consider my opinion a lecture.

I feel for your son as well.......as much as all of the other lives that have been affected there.

Read my sig.

I respect whatever you have to say for yourself.
I simply request the same.

and yes, you are correct...no one is ever 100% correct in anything. However, some are more correct than others.

I leave this as proof:

Wes Clark on September 26, 2002

"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're going to have chaos in that region.

in fact, what may happen is that we'll remove a repressive regime and have it replaced with a fundamentalist regime which contributes to the strategic problem rather than helping to solve it."

"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.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/01/mining_and_finding_prescient_g.html

[Joe for Clark]

27. You are right.

I am a little edgy - I have such a bad feeling about this deal right now.

But understand - Clark - he isn't in command here. He has no influence over the events right now.

And God, I wish he did.

About 18 (or so) months ago it got really serious up north. Deadly. I never saw this on CNN - but the kid was there - they started probing our base in Mosul - firefights were breaking out every other day on the base. They were really trying to push our buttons.

These are the same morons that tried to lob mortars frommoving trucks months before.

They are learning - adapting.

Frenchie - those kids just need to come home now. They are getting paraded up and down streets as living targets. They know that.

I respect your opinion Frenchie - and I should never have implied differently.

Joe

[FrenchieCat]

28. Bush will not bring them home.....he will not do what is needed to get that done

no matter how much we wish. I also don't think that congress will not be able to stop this before a new Democratic President gets into office.....not in our sad reality.

Clark described Iraq invasion as the worst strategic blunder in the 20th century in 2003 and a Pandora's box as early as 2002. He described it as such for a reason.....Giant Strategic Blunders can't be made all better all of the sudden (unfortunately).

Clark was just over in Saudi Arabia earlier this week. He knows what those in the region are saying...which is what he shared in that interview.

He also knows exactly what he is saying about the US plans for Iran, which is why he started the Website that he did. http://www.stopiranwar.com/

There is no glory in stopping something before it starts....because how can one measure something that never was? But he is intent in making sure that what happened with Iraq does not get repeated.

Some will call his warnings and the scenario he lays before us as "hypothetical" for both Iraq and Iran. I call it "prescient". He pretty much knows what most likely will happen, just like he knew prior to the IWR being voted on.

Gene Lyons said this about Clark in 2003...

I do think his concerns are honest. I think his criticisms of Bush are exactly what he believes. One reason that I think that is I have had an opportunity to talk to him in a sort of a semi-private way.

Going all the way back to the summer of 2002, I got a sense of how strong his feelings about Iraq were. Long before it was clear that the administration was really going to sell a war on Iraq, when it was just a kind of a Republican talking point, early in the summer of 2002, Wesley Clark was very strongly opposed to it. He thought it was definitely the wrong move. He conveyed that we'd be opening a Pandora's box that we might never get closed again. And he expressed that feeling to me, in a sort of quasi-public way. It was a Fourth of July party and a lot of journalists were there, and there were people listening to a small group of us talk. There wasn't an audience, there were just several people around. There was no criticism I could make that he didn't sort of see me and raise me in poker terms. Probably because he knew a lot more about it than I did. And his experience is vast, and his concerns were deep.

He was right, too. How long ago was it that you were hearing all this sweeping rhetoric from the Project for a New American Century; that we were going to essentially conquer the south of Asia, contain China, and dominate the Middle East? And the United States was going to stand astride the world like a colossus. And all of a sudden, we invade a crummy, tin-pot, little third-rate dictatorship like Iraq, and we've already got more than we can handle. It's clear we're not going to dominate the world. And the question is, how in the world do we get out of there with our skins intact? And how do we then find a foreign policy that makes more sense?
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

Clark's not going to do quasi-private chats with journalists on the issue of Iran, as he saw that it didn't stop a thing! He's taking no chance this time round. He has learned much from what happened with Iraq, and he will not allow it to happen ever again.....not if he can do something to stop it.

Ps. And please know that I have respect for you and your opinion and I have empathy for what you are experiencing in relations to your son....and what he is experiencing...which must be the kind of experience that no one should wish on another...ever.

[ProSense]

30. So just because Bush refuses to do it, Dems should justify staying vs withdrawing sooner? n/t

[FrenchieCat]

34. I'm not talking about what congress should or should not do.....

I'm talking about what will end up most likely being the case.

Of course congress should make demands....and various congress people are.....although none of those demands are stating "troops out today"......

Each proposal is a plan that calls for the withdrawal of "some" troops and offers various strategic approaches in attempting to get to some kind of peace.

The whole strategy is wrong.....troop strength (whether to withdraw 25,000 or 50,000) is as Clark said, rearranging the chairs on the Titanic......the ship will sink no matter what, unless the ship is righted, i.e., the strategy is changed.

Some plans are better than others, but that being said, I still believe that Bush will do what he wants....cause that's all he's done to date.

[ProSense]

36. Let me ask: How long will it take to right the ship (leaving troops in Iraq)? n/t

[FrenchieCat]

39. Well, what I do know is that orior deadlines demanded have come and gone.....

and more have been proposed...and most if not all of those will come and go as well.

But I would guess that with the right President in office, implementing a strategy in where all parties involved, including the neighbors in the region sit at a peace table and negotiate out the demands each has, the structure of who will do what, the nitty gritty details, it may not take as long as all that.

If you are asking me if I think the ship can be righted before November of 2008?.....I doubt that it will be.....because the President that we have in office now, this Commander in Chief will only do what he sees fit. And I don't think that one as incompentent as Bush and his administration will get this right in record time.

sorry if I'm pessimistic.

[ProSense]

45. Doesn't matter if they've come and gone, Iraq is lost and in civil war.

As deadlines come and go, Iraq falls deeper into chaos. The troops need to be withdrawn.

Does anyone believe the situation in Iraq will improve two years from now with Bush in charge and U.S. troops in the middle of a civil war on the ground there?

[Joe for Clark]

31. If those kids are not pulled our of there -soon -

we won't have an army left.

The dynamics over there are very very strange. It is religious/tribal/ethinic all going off at once.

It may explode over there if we just pull out. Maybe not.

And if we don't, we won't have an army left anyway.

They will implode.

Joe

[FrenchieCat]

35. Hence the "pandora's Box" label.....

closing the lid will not bring back the demons let out.

Our army is already shot. We have already imploded, IMO.

[Joe for Clark]

38. If we don't - we have no army.

They are used up right now - but the faster we start building them the better off we are.

And if we don't do that - we can end up in a lot more trouble than just Iraq.

The time is really over there - it just is Frenchie - and I want our army back.

Cause you know and I know - they may have to fight another day.

Joe

[FrenchieCat]

40. Our army has already been decimated in a way that will take years

for us to recover.

And Bush will not fix this.

I never wanted our army there to begin with....and so yeah.....we are in deep trouble.
And that's the bottomline, isn't it?

[Joe for Clark]

41. No - not years-not yet.

This may change - but right now we have a chance.

Those kids know they are being used for someone elses target practice - daily. They know their vehicles are getting chewed up by sand and not replaced, they know many things.

This president was selceted by the supreme court - not us - and the man has screwed up at every conceivable point along the road.

This has to give- by everything that is morally right - he has to.

I don't know - does this take a religious group marching on the capital?? By impeachment - By what exactly??

This is breaking Frenchie - the ground is breaking under their feet.

Joe

[FrenchieCat]

43. One of the things that Gen. Clark said is that many in the Arab world

did not blame America...even for going into IRaq. They witnessed and saw that Bush was selected by the Supreme Court. However, Clark said that since the 2004 elections, the same many in the Arab world are now holding us more accountable than before. They saw Bush get elected this time around, even as he had done some great big F*ck ups. They are not as forgiving as they once were. We, as Americans are now much more on the line about this policy...much more than before anyways.

Read it here!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3138497

[Joe for Clark]

44. I am a Clark person. He is right 99 % of the time.

But 100% of the time - I think we need to take his observations very, very seriously.

You know - I don't care what they think - we have to do what we need to do.

I want our army back - and I want it whole.

We are americans first, afterall. And they can go to hell.


Joe

[Forrest Greene]

56. Don't Give Orders

...that you can't enforce.

[bvar22]

46. The more we "fix it", the worse it gets.

You are probably too young to remember VietNam. (sigh)

[frogcycle]

47. respectfully disagree

"...some on the left demand troops out now, and use the reason to do this as a call to save the lives of the troops. I don't know if we are all thinking about what happens after we leave. Are we really looking at the "could happen" scenarios? Can we really advocate turning around and shooting our way out of this and then all will be much more peaceful?"

You got it wrong. it is not the "could happen". It is the "will happen". Whether we leav now, or in five years; whether we leave suddenly or slowly, it will happen. The locals will settle old scores, there will be a bloodbath, and after some period of time some sort of stalemate or victory by one side or the other will be achieved. Period.

It is not a matter of staying until we achieve something. It is a matter of how many will die to achieve nothing.

[mike_c]

55. go to your neighbors house and "fuck it up," then see if they want you...

...to stay until it is fixed. Seriously. If you fuck up your neighbor's house you will be removed immediately and your removal is part of the solution.

[dkofos]

51. Here we go with the Dominoe effect again.

In case you don't remember, that is what they said would happen in Vietnam.

It didn't

[peacetalksforall]

4. I heard it early and hope to listen again, because I heard some really

serious stuff that is bothering me tremendously.

I heard a very military person speaking this morning, not a civilian.

[Joe for Clark]

7. It is interesting about him -

He is a general with a masters in philosophy. A very unusual man.

He is probably right. But I still want those kids out of there. AT this point I could not care less what they do to each other after we go.

Bothers me too.

Joe

[peacetalksforall]

10. Especially because I think Clark would be Hillary's VP nominee.

If I remember correctly - she (and Pres Clinton?) supported Clark in '04 - Arkansas and all. Should she win the nominaton.

[Joe for Clark]

12. I will (hope) I don't say anything bad about the potential

nominees. I won't about Edwards - I think he is ok. I do have some issues with Hillary because of the war - but I like Bill.

To the extent Clark was urged to run - it was from Bill not her.

Now Gore was Bill's VP - Gore knows fully well Clarks capabilities.

I really have come to believe - Clark is desperately needed as SOD - MORE than as president.

I think it is that bad with our army - and cannot afford that at all.

Joe

[Clark2008]

21. Except he can't be SOD until 2010.

Rules.

He can be SOS, though.

[Joe for Clark]

22. Yeah, we'll see just how long that rule lasts.

[FrenchieCat]

24. Hillary didn't support Clark in 2004. She didn't endorse him,

and didn't make any appearances on his behalf, or did she said anything of note about him in any of her own appearances.

Wesley Clark owes nothing to the Clintons, yet sometimes I think some believe that the Clintons have Wes Clark on a leash or something! In fact, it is the Clintons that owe a large part of Bill's foreign policy legacy to Clark. While Clark was fighting a successful war and negotiating with 19 NATO states before making any moves, Bill Clinton was answering questions about a Blue dress, and Hillary was standing by her man.

Because of the Somalia "Black Hawks Down", Clinton chose not to go into Rwanda, although Wes Clark urged it and prepared a plan for 20,000 troops under the United nations banner to intervene. It was turned down by Clinton's Joint Chief of staff. Too risky, he said.

Clinton initially relented going into Kosovo--but after his failure to go into Bosnia (where nearly 200,000 were killed) and a successful peace intervention called the Dayton Peace Accords (which Clark was one of the main negotiators), Clinton finally decided to listen to the humanitarian General and decided to get involved in Kosovo before a Genocide took place there.

If I need to remind anyone....it was under the Clinton administration that Clark was "retired" early. They didn't do anything to stop that either.

So, no...Clark owes the Clinton not a damn thing!

And so, I conclude that Hillary will not have General Clark as her Veep. She's not courageous enough for that. Hillary and Clark have had different opinions on Iraq ever since 2002. She will go with a safe Bayh (which is why he most likely pulled out of the race, or a Vilsack).

[peacetalksforall]

29. I remember a big deal being made out of a Clinton-Clark support

system from '04 - perhaps it was all in the speculation game, but I thought it was more formal. The more I think bout it, the more I remember Hillary supporting Clark. Pitfalls of tricky memory holes.

[FrenchieCat]

37. Find one source on this......and let me know.....

I can already tell you that the only thing you will find is what Novak wrote...that Bill Clinton was making phone calls to donors. It was reported by Novak and noone else. It was a whispered non confirmed report.

Clinton also called Clark one of the rising stars in the Democratic party.

That's about it.

President Carter contacted Wes Clark about running. Clark has also mentioned Charlie Rangel and later Joe Biden asking him to run. Wes Clark has never mentioned Bill Clinton or Hillary making a call to him.

So think about it some more...and google it as well. as I don't think you will find anything reputable that you will be able to attribute to Hillary in reference to in anyway supporting Wes Clark in 2004.

[peacetalksforall]

54. I will rely on your expertise here. You certainly seem to have been

involved then, since, and now. I only have a fuzzy memory and a big impression I was left with. It's not a big deal for me. Things change too fast for me to dwell on it.

[Eurobabe]

57. Oh not this recycled crap again

:eyes:

[Adelante]

50. The show is "War and Peace"

The interview was called "War: Past and Present" - for the context.

[krispos42]

8. Ramdi Rhodes mentioned it a couple of days ago

When she says something, it is usually right. And scary.

This is no better. Bush is right when he says we absolutely must win in Iraq now.

His problem is that his inflexable idealology, strategic rigidity, arrogence, and like-minded cronies trumped a) not going in in the first place, b) going in with enough troops, and c) using the proven Marshall Plan to rebuild.

And now it is too late to win.

What really sucks is that this Iraq war is going to cause a terrorist attack on us. And Bush will get zero blame for causing it.

[Joe for Clark]

11. She is usually right.

I know - we lost this two years ago. It is just too late in the game now. So what do we do???

DO we stay to hold off an event we cannot. Further burn this army out - -for how long can we do that?

People see us as weak or strong - I don't want to see the day they see us as weak. This does not have to happen.

We are the United States - despite what this SOB did to us.

You correct mistakes from the begining -may be painful, but there is no other way.

Sooner we do this the better.

Joe

[cdsilv]

13. We have to declare victory and leave.....

...just like vietnam.

Just leave.

If the Saudi's feel that they have to put a card in this game, then they have to.

If Israel feels that they have to as well, then that is the way it is.

We do not belong over there.

UNLESS. The powers that be have decided we are going to TAKE the OIL.

If that is what the politicians have decided, then I guess that is what we'll do - no matter how many kids die.

Until we the people decide that we don't want to do that.

That won't happen until there is a draft - threaten my kid with going to war (won't happen, one is
in college with really good grades, the other is deaf -- both girls), and I'll raise hell.

[Joe for Clark]

17. I am not so fatalistic.

I really believe strongly in this country. What we have done, what we stand for.

This is FDRs country, not this little pricks.

Oh, this is going to blow up over there - now, a year from now - what ever. Maybe we caused it.

But we sure don't have to stand front and center into a shit storm, either.

And anyway - I think we deserve a "do-over" - we earned that the hard way as a country.

Joe

[eagler]

32. Just because we pull our troops out doesn't mean

that we can't contain the war to iraq.

[Adelante]

14. Here is audio and video

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/02/1440234

The whole interview was a couple of hours, but this is an hour long. Very worthwhile time spent.

[PhilipShore]

15. Bush's oil war involves both public and secret wars...

[Clark2008]

33. Is that screen shot from Wargames?

[PhilipShore]

42. Yes: Tic tac toe ?

:)

[shireen]

16. rock and a hard place

damn Bush!

I still think we need to get out of Iraq ASAP and seriously ramp up on alternative fuels.
But even then, it's going to be a painful transition.

For what it's worth, the one thing we can do to slightly redeem ourselves is by impeaching the bastard and his thugs, charge them with treason, crimes against humanity, and throw them in prison for life. Then, just maybe, the world will start to forgive us.

:grr: :grr: :grr:

[Joe for Clark]

18. GREAT POST!!

Clark points out a reality we need to take into consideration - he is right to do so.

We need to consider all realities - and then pull those kids out of there.

In the history of our country - if there was ever going to be sucessful impeachments - this is the time.

Totally agree with the sentiments.

Joe

[Selatius]

19. I don't know if they'll fund Al Qaeda, specifically. There's still bad blood with the House of Saud.

Osama is still persona non grata, and some of the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia against the government have been said to be Al Qaeda.

[TheBaldyMan]

49. Yeah, they hate him so much they visited him in hospital in summer 2001

and they continued to fund him afterwards. I think you misunderestimate the depths that the House of Saud will descend to so they keep control of the purse strings.

The Wahabi sect has a stranglehold on the country, making it as priest ridden as the most reactionary Roman Catholic regime during the inquisition. OBL is not persona non grata in Saudi Arabia, he has support at the highest levels, not officially but still real.

Bad blood? The ties between the Bin Laden family and the Saudi royals are strong and long standing. Stronger even than the Bush family and Prince Bandar. The support is necessarily covert but while transfer of funds is not as easy as it once was Bush will not actively pursue highly connected Saudis given any other option.

If OBL was such a pariah why is he still at large?

[NJCher]

25. foreign policy being dictated by others?

So--do you enact a strategy because X might do this and Z might do that? Do you run a country on hypotheticals?

Politicians routinely refuse to answer questions based on hypotheticals but it appears many here think it's just fine to formulate foreign policy on hypotheticals.

If the Saudis feel they have to, as the poster above says, "put a card in this game," then that's what they have to do. Same goes for Israel. The U.S. cannot let foreign policy be dictated by other countries.

We DO NOT own this war. We were lied to. What we need to do is stop the mistake that was made as quickly as possible and that means to stop killing Iraqis. We need to get out of there and offer financial reparations. The U.S. IS the problem there.

Our responsibility is to prosecute bush, cheney, and all those who acted with them to promote this war. We need to estrange ourselves from politicians who were gullible enough to buy into their war hysteria (Hillary Clinton, sorry, has to go for this reason).



Cher

[bonito]

52. I agree with you

Our involvement has to end now, the longer we stay = the longer the situation remains.

[Jack Sprat]

48. it's all crazee, koo-koo, hoo-doo,

nanzi-wonker stuff. The Anti-Christ twins got us jacked up in this. They need to be impeached and imprisoned for life for this debacle.

[MGKrebs]

53. Iraq isn't going to be "solved" by the military.

The solution will come through a political process. The military is supposed to be keeping a lid on things long enough for that process to happen, but the Idiot In Charge has no political process; actually that's not exactly correct, his process was to quickly have "democratic" elections and then throw the whole mess into the new governments' lap, except to exempt US military from Iraqi law. And I don't think the military has realistic goals anyway, which means they have little chance for success. What exactly is their goal? "Keep violence to a minimum"? It's just not a military problem- can't be solved with a military solution, at least not one that we are ever going to be willing to undertake (I hope).

I think any discussion of pulling troops out now or later has to be coupled with what ELSE happens. Regional talks to create a goal and a path? UN involvment? What would it take to get France, Germany and Russia involved? What do they think should happen? Partitions? Is there any sense that Sunnis and Shi'ites WANT to live together? Can the extremist elements be isolated?

I don't think we should dramatically pull everybody out because there will be a bloodbath if we do that will last for years as the various "warlords" sort things out. However, as long as we do not have some sort of reconciliation dialogue or process to achieve a peaceful and stable outcome, we are just standing in the middle of the warlord battle anyway. As long as we are not going to be part of a solution, we might as well pull out.

[FogerRox]

58. Yeah Clark said a number of things that really bothered me

No way I vote for CLark in a primary.

[Poiuyt]

59. The Saudi's are probably funding the Sunnis right now

I heard that the reason so many US helicopters have been shot down recently is because the Saudis have been giving the Sunnis surface-to-air missiles.