Do you want Congress to, "take a stand here, and end the war", like Kucinich said & Clark suggests?

[Divine Discontent]

Poll question: Do you want Congress to, "take a stand here, and end the war", like Kucinich said & Clark suggests?

Former General Wes Clark: "How do we get out of here? Because our presence long term there is not a good thing. We’re playing into the hands of people who don’t like foreigners in a country that’s not tolerant of diversity. And that’s not going to change.”


So, what I'd like to know, if you're willing to vote, is whether the members of DU are against the influx of $50 billion in war funding and 30000 troops for at least 3-5 years - OR - if you're in support of the request on behalf of Gates & McChrystal made by the Obama Administration?

[ecstatic]

1. Hey, let them do it. Actions speak louder than words

Kucinich.

[Divine Discontent]

3. yes, they do!

"The legacy of Vietnam really looms over these discussions," Clark said. "It's particularly painful for me to see where we are in Afghanistan."

Clark commanded an infantry battalion during the Vietnam War and was shot four times. He was awarded a Silver Star for his efforts in battle.

-----------------------

I would love to meet Gen. Clark and tell him he is a hero to me. How I wish he was the one who was advising the president every day...

[ecstatic]

6. I like Clark, but he is into war, big time... review his quote in it's full context nt

[Divine Discontent]

9. I gather that he likes the special ops type of militarism, but one thing, I sure agree with him on

this --- "I'm not sure what the Cheney solution was to Iraq, but I can't associate myself with it."

[tblue]

8. I've met him.

And I think I was too starstruck/dumbstruck to say anything meaningful. But he's a very warm, gentle man with a lot of passion. I trust his judgment on these things. I wish Obama would, too.

[karynnj]

28. If you respected Clark, you would not distort his position - even if you respectfully disagreed

In case you missed the many posts pointing out that Raw Story completely distorted Clark's testimony, which supported Obama's plan, here is the link to that testimony, under Part III and some other Clark comments at other times. This is Clark's (or his supporters for him) website) - http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/18126

A good DU thread on this was - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x39900

[NanceGreggs]

2. It's time to come home ...

... it's really time.

[Divine Discontent]

5. I can't believe how much time has passed since we went there to stop Al Qaeda. I was young when the

war started! lol

(hope you're having a good holiday season up there, stay warm dear NG!)

[msongs]

4. Obama's war needs to be paid for on-budget, like us poor people have to do things nt

[Divine Discontent]

7. that's certainly a very important fact in this, yes.

[girl_interrupted]

18. If anyone knows how to get in and out of a war quickly

It's General Clark. Clark was not for further escalation in Afghanistan, you quoted him correctly. Right now being a supporter for Obama during the election, he is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He may want to be loyal to the President...but when you get right down to it..Clark is on the same page as Biden. And neither one was for escalation there.

[FrenchieCat]

10. You are misrepresenting Gen. Clark's view for your own use......

Larry King Interview with Gen. Wes Clark shortly after the President's speech, Dec 1, 2009


CLARK: the president limited the objectives. He's not talking about nation-building. He's not talking about building a democracy.

I think he pointed right at the objective, go after Al Qaeda. He didn't talk about Pakistan, but Pakistan is all over this speech. And the simple truth is that, as he said, you can't get at Al Qaeda in Pakistan without doing more in Afghanistan.

So I think that he's going to put a lot of pressure on the Pakistanis and give them a lot of help and expect them to do a lot more directly against Al Qaeda while the U.S. forces in Afghanistan also work against Al Qaeda and work for a very minimalist objective with the idea of getting ourselves out of there in a responsible way pretty quickly.
....

I think victory here is we go after Al Qaeda, particularly in Pakistan. We do it with the leadership of the Pakistanis, we give them the support to do it, we build a strong relationship with Pakistan, and we leave behind in Afghanistan some kind of minimally stable government.

If we have to go back in there at some later time, if we have to leave a residual force, if we have to leave some special forces and intelligence collectors there, we might have to do that.

But the point is the objectives in Afghanistan are pretty minimal. What we really want to do is go after Al Qaeda. And that's a war that there won't be a victory parade. Mark's exactly right on that. But we'll know when we're winning. We've already done a pretty good job against Al Qaeda. We just need to finish the job a little bit more in Pakistan, and we can't do that if we don't hang on in Afghanistan.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/01/lkl.01.html

Is this what is meant by "Intellectual Dishonesty?"
I've been reading about such over at GD....
and seems like this instance fits the bill.

[Divine Discontent]

16. His main point is that we should be out of Afghanistan, & use ops forces where needed.

That would be the "finish the job a little bit more" in Pakistan that he is referring to, not bring 30000 addt'l troops into the mix when he said what I posted in the OP, which is rather direct in stating we need to get the h out of Afghanistan, in the larger sense. I don't believe in just ignoring the situation, but I am hopeful Congress does go against what the military & the CiC wants on this - we've been there far too long.

Look at you, FC, asking if I'm intellectually dishonest in my commentary on this thread!

You flatter me. :blush: (you should get that)

[rwheeler31]

11. It takes time.

[smalll]

12. Do I want Congress to obstruct my President as he attempts to fulfill a major foreign-policy

goal, as promised again and again, openly and clearly, all throughout his campaign?

:think:

Um, no!

[Divine Discontent]

15. the kick & unrec are still appreciated, thanks for voicing your opinion, that's what the thread was

created for, and I respect hearing your choice as you see it.

I don't trust the b*sh guys, Gates & McChrystal, and strongly support Clark for all he's stated over the years. His guidance hopefully will be listened to in time, imho.

[Turborama]

13. "Were I in his position, I would undoubtedly have asked for more troops, too."

Former General Wesley Clark:

"I must acknowledge first that I am greatly in sympathy with our military commanders, and especially
General McChrystal, who has asked for more troops. No doubt he needs them to provide security for
the population, to train the Afghan forces, and to impede and constrain Taliban reinforcement and
replenishment along the porous border with Pakistan. Were I in his position, I would undoubtedly have
asked for more troops, too."

Full transcript posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x39900#40504

Why are you cherry picking to make false summations? Raw Story did exactly the same thing and there's a post about it just below this one.

[Divine Discontent]

14. to do the things you're asked to do, you would need more troops - it doesn't mean that there's a

necessity for it. The SoS has said we aren't going to cut and run, and she's getting that from the CiC, and I think that this is Obama's mistake. Gen Clark made it clear that being there only hurts things, and we should withdrawal - that's the main statement. Secondarily, he said if he was there he'd ask for more troops too, to do the things requested of his position - but that doesn't mean his main comment is to be ignored. He was showing sympathy to a fellow general's situation.

[FrenchieCat]

17. I have followed Gen. Clark for years, liiterally........

and folks have consistently "used" his soundbytes (cutting off his words)
for their own purpose, which most of the time has had nothing to do with his intent.

He is a clear speaker.

Yes, he wants to get out as quickly as is responsible...
and that the key word; responsible.
In addition, he is not interested in us running out of there in an incoherent
non strategic manner.

General Clark is a General who requested Helicopters while fighting in Kosovo,
in order to do the job that he felt was required,
and he wasn't granted his request because of the fear of some that it might result in casualties, and in fact ended up getting "retired early" by the long knives.
and for that he was called a Warmonger all over DU.
I can't think of him as being a ridgi idealogue when it comes to this war,
considering that when he was running for President, his position was the same
as that of Obama's.

[Divine Discontent]

20. I agree that he is not wanting to just disappear next month out of the region.

"The legacy of Vietnam really looms over these discussions," Clark said. "It's particularly painful for me to see where we are in Afghanistan." And his choice of wording, 'minimalist' approach, to the situation in Afg/Pak, is what Biden was calling for if I remember last year. Smaller is better after all these years there, otherwise, it really does begin to resemble Vietnam. I certainly hope they block the funding, but if they don't, I know the president removing the troops from Afghanistan is certainly something he has to realize himself will be a requirement if he wants re-elected. Too often I say I want to be proven wrong, only to be proven right, but I certainly do hope this is one of those times when I'm 100% wrong. Our country needs this to succeed - whatever the outcome is, that region could cause WWIII.

[Turborama]

19. You are either misinterpreting what he said, didn't read what he said in full or spinning it...

....A la Raw Story.

An exit strategywas the "main statement". He was/isn't talking about "OUT NOW!" as your poll suggests.

"Now, together with our NATO allies, we have almost 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. Any abrupt reversal
of existing US policy, including the abandonment of Hamid Karzai and his government, and the prompt
withdrawal of US forces might have serious adverse consequences far beyond Afghanistan. AI Qaeda
would claim credit, terrorist recruitment would surge, subversion within the states allied and friendly
with us would intensify, the stability of democracy in neighboring Pakistan could be further undercut,
and US power and prestige might be seen to wane.

On the other hand, the longer we stay, and the larger our force, the more resistance and resentment
that we create, by our disruptive influence, by the casualties we inflict deliberately and accidentally. We
are a foreign element there in a culture which doesn't tolerate diversity. However appealing it is to us to
say, we won't quit, this mistakes American will as the potential weakness, whereas in actuality it is the
strength of our resolution, our persistence and determination which cause difficulties in the region.
There is an Islamic revival underway, a struggle to cope with the spiritual impact of modernization and
globalism, and that revival draws energy from the antagonism our presence creates. We need to find
our way out, seizing credit for such successes as can be achieved, for the region is better dealt with from
a distance than with our presence, and especially not with military presence ..

The approach I would recommend is focused on an exit strategy. The best exit would be after the take
down of the top AI Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. This is an objective about which discussion has been
publicly suppressed, and it probably should remain so. But I hope it will be foremost in the minds of the
Administration.

In the meantime, in Afghanistan, our exit strategy must be built around four factors: attempting to
reduce the level of violence by seeking a political amelioration of the conflict. Greater assistance to the
government of Pakistan in dealing with the AI Qaeda and Taliban remaining in Pakistan, economic
development in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and developing a more capable security structure for the
Afghans."

http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/OI111709/Clark_Testimony111709.pdf">Details

------ ---- ------

[Divine Discontent]

21. he wants to leave responsibly, but, he states a minimalist approach to the region

I, like many here, would prefer special ops teams taking out their leadership structure. Large ground forces for the problems at hand just aren't making sense to many.

And really - this rings so true - We’re playing into the hands of people who don’t like foreigners in a country that’s not tolerant of diversity. And that’s not going to change.


Again, a responsible exit with the military preparing smaller forces to handle specific assignments that are designed to achieve a goal each time out sounds so much more prudent. Regardless, if y'all get Congress to vote for the funding, I hope it works - I want to see that region reigned back in. As I told FC, that region could be the one that starts WWIII, quite easily. Witch China, N. Korea, Pakistan & Afghanistan all within range of each other, diplomacy isn't easy. I'm glad SoS Clinton is where she's at in the Administration. I think she's doing a great job!

[FrenchieCat]

24. I think that it will end, and it will end much better than you are predicting......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x42368



And when you have a chance, I'd like to know what you have predicted that has come to pass.
If you would provide links to your correct predictions, I'd like to see them.

[Turborama]

25. General Clark has been calling for more troops & "nation building" since at least 2006...

General Wesley Clark: War in Afghanistan isn't about "military; it's political and economic"


"Success is still possible...but (we must) take measures now," says former NATO commander (Newsweek)

Sep 29, 2006

What We Must Do Now

Success is possible. But make no mistake. We are not winning.

By Wesley K. Clark
Newsweek International

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, U.S. forces achieved a rapid, high-tech victory over Afghanistan's terrorist-supporting Taliban government. Five years later, the Taliban is back. But this is a different fight. Not only Afghanistan but NATO itself is at risk.

Fingers are pointing. Washington didn't commit enough forces.

The Europeans are too timid. The central government is weak. All that might be true. But the real problem grows out of how the United States defined its mission to begin with. That was to strike the Taliban but not get stuck in Afghanistan. We don't do "nation-building," American leaders declared, as if that were something to be proud of. Besides, the troops would soon be needed in Iraq.

The fact is that Afghanistan was a tribal country savaged by 20 years of war and further brutalized by the fundamentalist Taliban. Its infrastructure, educational system, agriculture--all was gone. With the Taliban in retreat, traditional warlords reestablished themselves. Vital political and economic assistance never arrived. Neither did a sufficiently strong international security force. Instead, a few thousand U.S. troops were inserted to pursue the remnants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The government of Hamid Karzai, pieced together, was never able to extend its reach much outside Kabul. The results today are a mockery of early optimism. Despite the presence of almost 40,000 NATO troops, security has worsened. Opium has again become a major business, infrastructure redevelopment lags, schools remain closed--and across great swathes of the country the Taliban is resurgent.


It's not as though NATO forces are incapable of fighting the insurgents. By body-count and loss ratios they're doing well, using heavy firepower to clobber the Taliban wherever fighters mass in conventional battle. But the real war isn't military; it's political and economic. Destroying a few Taliban units here and there certainly retards their goal of regaining full control of the country. But it doesn't provide what's essential: continuous security and the chance for political and economic redevelopment to take hold. Ultimately, that's the only thing that can defeat the Taliban. Meanwhile, NATO's own credibility is on the line--yet it hasn't deployed the political, economic and military resources to win.


The Taliban know this. Until fairly recently, they stayed largely underground. Now that they have begun to surface, Afghanistan's security has worsened. Having squandered initial opportunities, the Karzai government and its international backers now face a long-term struggle against an indigenous guerrilla force with substantial financial resources from opium production at home and "charity" from abroad-not to mention a reasonably secure cross-border sanctuary in Pakistan. With a resurgent Taliban, all political and economic development is more difficult today than it would have been right after they were originally dispersed, and military requirements are more demanding. NATO has supplemented U.S. forces, but without demanding from the United States a winning political and military strategy.

=snip=

All of this is a far cry from the lessons NATO and the United States gleaned from their successful peacekeeping operations in the Balkans. There we learned that we needed strong legal authorities, overwhelming military power, a comprehensive political and economic plan and close coordination with a high representative or special representative for the U.N. secretary-general to link nation-building activities on the ground with our military security operations. We put more than 40,000 troops into tiny Kosovo in 1999, with one tenth the population and one sixtieth the area of Afghanistan. In Bosnia, we had an international donors organization that measured progress and held contributing nations accountable. We knew that if the political-economic mission failed, NATO would fail. And we were determined not to fail.

The mission in Afghanistan is far larger, more distant and more difficult. And make no mistake: we are not winning. Instead, we are at a crossroads. If we persist in failing to face up to the profound economic and political requirements, if we neglect the need for strong coordination, if we think the mission is only about counterterrorism or counterdrug operations, then we will lose. In order to succeed we must adopt some of the lessons and practices we put in place so painfully in the Balkans. We must acknowledge the magnitude of the task and pull in the full authority of the international community. NATO can do much more than just supply troops. We need to acknowledge that, yes, we do nation-building.

Full article: http://www.greatertalent.com/GTNnews.php?articleId=146

It's my opinion that "smaller forces" is what has led us to where we are now. No-one, including the previous Resident of the White House, has been paying attention to what's been happening. The British troops have been fighting the Taliban almost single handedly in Helmand for the past 4 years - 4 years in which the problems in Afghanistan have been spiraling out of control - and now they are getting some much needed reinforcements. Reinforcements that have been called for by Clark since at least 2006.

With regards to: "We’re playing into the hands of people who don’t like foreigners in a country that’s not tolerant of diversity."

The Taliban aren't tolerant of diversity and we're not playing into their hands, we're finally going in to finish off the job that should have been over and done with 8 years ago. Afghans are a tolerant people, if http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=407431&mesg_id=407462">these videos are anything to go by.

One final note about Clark...

As I said http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=37430&mesg_id=38287">here on Friday:

"http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433_id=37430&mesg_id=37531">He's not talking about nation-building. He's not talking about building a democracy."

The President has limited his objectives and this is something that greatly disappoints me.

General Clark is on the http://www.nsnetwork.org/about/board">Advisory Board of the National Security Network who produced a report in April last year which stated:

http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/828">Success Will Require That The United States Redouble Its Reconstruction Efforts

Looking at Google http://tiny.cc/K5JCm">search results it doesn't look like a very well known report. Judging by what he said in his speech on Tuesday, it seems that not only was it completely ignored by Busch, the President isn't taking it seriously either - if he knows about it at all that is.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong and the President is taking reports like the one above onboard but just couldn't talk about it in the speech for political reasons. This report from The Center for American Progress written in November 2007 is well worth reading, too.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/11/pdf/afghanistan_report.pdf">The Forgotten Front

[TexasObserver]

22. out now

[Iggo]

23. Out. Now.

[lamp_shade]

26. Before they vote it down, Congress better have a very good plan for getting out.

It would take them 6 months and chances are their plan wouldn't be any better than the President's. Keyword is "CAREFULLY" (withdraw).

[ClarkUSA]

27. Not sure where/when you got your quote, but Gen. Clark supports Pres. Obama's decision 100% (link->)

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK (RET), FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER:... It was a strong speech, Larry. I think he laid out an important case.

I agree with a lot of the sentiments that Michael Moore expressed. I do think in this case, the president limited the objectives. He's not talking about nation-building. He's not talking about building a democracy.

I think he pointed right at the objective, go after Al Qaeda. He didn't talk about Pakistan, but Pakistan is all over this speech. And the simple truth is that, as he said, you can't get at Al Qaeda in Pakistan without doing more in Afghanistan.

So I think that he's going to put a lot of pressure on the Pakistanis and give them a lot of help and expect them to do a lot more directly against Al Qaeda while the U.S. forces in Afghanistan also work against Al Qaeda and work for a very minimalist objective with the idea of getting ourselves out of there in a responsible way pretty quickly...

CLARK: I think victory here is we go after Al Qaeda, particularly in Pakistan. We do it with the leadership of the Pakistanis, we give them the support to do it, we build a strong relationship with Pakistan, and we leave behind in Afghanistan some kind of minimally stable government.

If we have to go back in there at some later time, if we have to leave a residual force, if we have to leave some special forces and intelligence collectors there, we might have to do that.

But the point is the objectives in Afghanistan are pretty minimal. What we really want to do is go after Al Qaeda. And that's a war that there won't be a victory parade. Mark's exactly right on that. But we'll know when we're winning. We've already done a pretty good job against Al Qaeda. We just need to finish the job a little bit more in Pakistan, and we can't do that if we don't hang on in Afghanistan.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/01/lkl.01.html

[BeFree]

29. 20 percent of DUers?

I can't believe there are that many DUers who support the MIC campaign to make war on the innocent Afghans!!

After all the info and pleadings for peace there are that many people who don't have a clue yet?

[polichick]

30. They refuse to believe that their superhero is dead wrong. nt

[Divine Discontent]

31. 1 year ago & the same poll, with W, would be 99% against 30k-50k against additional troops

it's sad what an intellectually gifted speaker can do to sway a crowd.

[avaistheone1]

32. I don't support this escalation at all. I think this one of the poorest decisions ever made by a US

president and at one of the worst of times for our country.

[harun]

33. Reading the posts of those 20% they think like they are 80%.

I think it is new Dem's who used to be Conservatives who couldn't go along with the tea party BS so they came here. They are used to being the 20% who thinks they are 80%. They hang around here long enough maybe they will start thinking instead of following what the Corporate Media tells them. If they are obstinate asses for long enough they will be dealt with.