I apologize: Clark said: Timetables a bad idea

[ProSense]

Next move in Iraq?

By Wesley Clark

The mission in Iraq is spiraling into failure. American voters have sent a clear message: Bring our troops home, but don't lose. That's a tall order both for resurgent Democrats, some of whom are calling for a quick withdrawal, and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which is presumably crafting new options.

Instead of cutting and running or staying the course, it is time for us to begin to redeploy. But how can we do this and improve our prospects for success?

First, we have to think past Iraq and above partisan politics, folding actions in Iraq into a strategy to protect broader U.S. interests throughout the region.

Neither the Bush administration's latest pronouncements nor the current political dialogue has adequately engaged these vital interests. The calamity in Iraq has hogtied the Bush administration, inviting disarray, if not instability, in neighboring countries that also require our attention.

U.S. interests include dissuading Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons and its hegemonic aspirations, providing security assurances for the rapidly developing Arab Gulf states and working with our friends in the Middle East to ensure access to oil resources and regional stability.

Timetables a bad idea

What about a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals? Today, setting a rigid, Washington-driven timetable is an option, but a bad one. A precipitous troop reduction could have far-reaching effects: emboldening Iran, weakening U.S. security promises to friendly states, and even sparking military initiatives by other powers — Turkey or Iran — to deal with the resulting security vacuum. Our weakened position in Iraq also could undercut our leverage in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

more...

He's still wrong!

[Clarkie1]

1. But not "completely wrong?"

For the record, I don't think Kerry's "completely wrong." There were some good ideas in his plan, but in my opinion it was just to rigid and Washington- driven. There real work needs to be done over there, not over here. My opinion, obviously. And Clark's.

The senate can't solve this.

Edit: The best thing about Kerry's plan (the 13 senator's plan) and all the alternate plans for Iraq is that they applied pressure to the administration. The results of the election have applied more pressure. It's everyone's responsibility now to make public what they believe is the kind of approach in the best interests of the U.S. and the world, especially those with expertise in the area.

It's to be expected there will be differences of opinion where to go from here.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Clark wants to use redeployment as bargaining power......

but we won't have that on the table for negotiations if we call for a fixed timetable for redeployment before arranging for a regional summit.

You are not getting that complexity....which is actually very clear.

So in context, Clark is not advocating a unilateral redeployment timetable although he is for redeployment as quickly as possible.

In the Oped, he stresses that getting the summit together really doesn't have to take very long.....but it has to be done right.

I agree with Clark on this, and so will most looking at this on the big picture basis.

The timing for the proposal of this plan is perfect. The "Iraq Study Group" has not yet offered up any plan, so they could do this, and claim it as theirs...I don't think Clark will mind if it helps for things to work out for the better for our soldiers in the long run.

The Congress has just changed hands, and the press is clamoring for a plan from them. Here's one!

The new Congress can actually in some small measures have more power than we had say prior to election '08, and the public want a solution for Iraq, but most are not for immediate withdrawal without a plan that would make things go smoothly.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061115/ap_on_re_us/postelection_ap_poll
You can't solve that problem without involving the other players in the region. I think Democrats might be more willing to at least not call (Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) the Axis of Evil," Curran said. "I don't know if the president would go with this, but this administration has to involve other nations in that region."

For now, Democrats appear willing to wait for the recommendations of a bipartisan Iraq study group led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton. The group's findings are expected within the next few weeks.

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

No one is advocating for a timetable in less than six months anyways, including Feingold, Kerry and Levin....so there is time for the summit to come first.

[Hippo_Tron]

3. Basically he's saying lets negotiate then we can talk about a timetable

Which makes a lot more sense than Bush's excuse not to have one which is "it will encourage our enemies to wait us out". Clark knows as well as anyone that our forces aren't doing any good but he wants to at least attempt to get other nations to take some responsibility so that maybe we can stabilize the region when we do pull out.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Correct......AND Considering this AP story from 11/15 which has been

widely printed everyfuckingwhere......(just google to see who all printed this.....all of them)

Wes Clark has provided a plan. So now, they can shut the fuck up about Democrats not having a plan for Iraq! :)


Poll: Most doubt Dems have plan for Iraq By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
Wed Nov 15, 4:16 AM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061115/ap_on_re_us/postelection_ap_poll

[neoblues]

5. So much for passing the word...

So much for passing the word to ALL U.S. and Allied Troops and arranging the world's most massive transport operation... and just pulling out "overnight".

Though, just imagine the resulting confusion... The IRAQIs wake up one morning next month, and there's no U.S. troops to be found, just empty barracks/palaces and bases. Maybe we could leave some warm MRE's sitting on the tables... They'd think it was an episode of The Twilight Zone.

They'd be so stunned, it'd be a couple of days before they got back to their revolutionary struggles. Alas, they'd be unrestrained entirely, as would Iran's plans for IRAQ and old Muqtada al-Sadr and his hopes for an Islamic state/theocracy.

Besides, it'd be too costly--and they couldn't pull it off. Not overnight anyway, and our own 'fearless' leader, Gomer w. Bush, would never go along with it.

Nevermind...

[FrenchieCat]

8. Just kicking the "apology" to go with its master!

:eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

6. Like the "retraction" in a paper, the "I'm Sorry" never gets quite the same

exposure as did the original smear.

But thanks for the small correction.

And I will tell you that there are no real "good" solutions for Iraq....it is a mess, and different folks have different ideas on how to go about resolving the situation under the circumstances that makes most claim...."it's pretty fucked up-but like a catch 22, you're damned if you try, you're damned if you don't".

Poll: Most doubt Dems have plan for Iraq
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
Wed Nov 15, 4:16 AM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061115/ap_on_re_us/postelection_ap_poll

[FrenchieCat]

7. Odd how the original LIE is still floating like cream on a sundae.....

and the apology is on page 3 of GD.....

:eyes:

[MrSlayer]

9. Clark is the only one who has it right.

Everyone else is just pandering or trying to keep the chaos going. This is a very serious political situation that the nimrod neo-cons have created and it needs to be resolved at least to some extent before we can leave. Clark's plan is the only plan that has a chance of having some success.