Reminder: Gen. Wesley Clark calls for exit from Afghanistan

[mr_show_time]

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark -- the onetime Democratic candidate for president -- told Congress Tuesday in little-reported remarks that the United States should begin planning for an exit from Afghanistan, breaking ranks with Obama's current Afghan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

The former Supreme Allied Commander of US forces Europe reminded Congress of the "legacy of Vietnam" in considering the US strategy in Afghanistan. Obama's commanders have called for an increase of as many as 60,000 troops in the war-torn country.

You've got to “figure out where you’re going," Clark told the House Armed Services subcommittee on oversight and investigations. "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.”

Clark pressed Congress to begin devising an exit strategy from the country. He said that the US should strengthen its relationship with Pakistan and work with the Pakistani government to target al Qaeda, while diminishing its presence in neighboring Afghanistan. He also argued that economic development in Afghanistan was important.

If the US were to increase its forces in Afghanistan, Clark said, a exit strategy should be in place first.

"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.

The retired general said he preferred a "minimalist" approach that would subvert Afghan terrorism, as some Democrats, including Vice President Joe Biden, have argued. Biden has asserted that the US should draw down its Afghan military presence and focus on the Taliban, while taking the fight to al Qaeda.

A Committee Democrat criticized Clark's approach, saying a focus on rebuilding Afghanistan was akin to former Vice President Dick Cheney's approach to Iraq.

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

"The primary issue," Clark said, "is get the stategy exactly right."

http://rawstory.com/2009/11/gen-wesley-clark-calls-exit-afghanistan/

[FrenchieCat]

1. Clark pressed Congress to begin devising an exit strategy from the country.

Done.

[girl_interrupted]

4. And are we "exiting"?

No

[IndianaGreen]

59. According to DOD, Obama is using Bush's caveat of 'conditions on the ground'

July 2011 is the beginning, not the end, of the process of U.S. forces coming home, Gates said, noting that any transition will be based on conditions on the ground.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=56922

[mr_show_time]

5. Laughing at you for thinking we'll actually pull out in 18 months

Enjoy. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34260027/ns/politics-white_house

[NYCGirl]

2. Looks like he got his wish. Did you see him with President Obama today? NT

[FrenchieCat]

3. Yep.

And he was on Larry King after the Obama Speech Wednesday, and appeared quite supportive
of this President. :thumbsup:

[girl_interrupted]

8. Trouble is...that "firm exit" is no longer firm: "Afghanistan pullout date not definite"

WASHINGTON - So much for the deadline.

President Barack Obama started the clock on the U.S. war in Afghanistan this week, announcing that the beginning of the end would come in July 2011 even as he massively expanded the war by ordering 30,000 new U.S. forces into the fray.

Selling that mixed message to Congress just hours later, Obama's three chief war managers promptly put the countdown on hold. The exit strategy isn't absolute, they said, disappointing Democrats for whom the July 2011 date was meant as an olive branch from a Democratic president bearing bad news.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34260027/ns/politics-white_house

[mr_show_time]

9. I posted the link at least twice

But they seem to be ignoring it.

[girl_interrupted]

14. I've noticed...some people have trouble with the facts

that's too bad

[spiritual_gunfighter]

37. You could post it 30 times, they would still ignore it

it is the equivalent to sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming till you go away.

[FrenchieCat]

15. We've got us an Exit strategy......

but not a firm timeline.

They are Not the same.

We know.

Doh!

[karynnj]

79. True - and I think raw story is spinning this

Obama himself spoke of an exit strategy. Clark is not calling for an immediate exit as some here have read. In addition, it is clear from the quotes that he is for economic development (which I assume means some security effort, as you can't send in people to do economic development, without providing them security.

[vaberella]

13. Yes I did....which still didn't make sense to me.

But I was like...whatever!

[ClarkUSA]

6. Reminder: Pres. Obama demanded exit plans from his Pentagon chiefs before this ever happened.

Source Link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6556191/Barack-Obama-demands-exit-strategy-in-Afghanistan.html

Kudos to Gen. Clark to back up his Commander-in-Chief. :)

[mr_show_time]

7. And what an "exit plan" it is

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34260027/ns/politics-white_house

[girl_interrupted]

10. LOL! We havent even got there yet.....

And already the "firm exit" plan is no longer

[girl_interrupted]

11. What say you Mr Show..think we've been "Punked"? I sure do

[mr_show_time]

12. But Obama is never wrong!

Just ask Frenchiecat.

[girl_interrupted]

16. LOL! Like FISA?

[mr_show_time]

19. And...

Blocking judicial ruling on Bush's illegal eavesdropping, and backpedaling on "Don't Ask Don't Tell," and filling his economic cabinet with the same individuals that caused this collapse.

[FrenchieCat]

18. mmmm......both with Underscored names,

isn't it a small world?

As for whose wrong?
I'm glad you asked.

You are mixing your apples with your oranges, I see.

An exit strategy is not a firm deadline; got it.

An exit strategy is a way out.

A "firm" deadline, is when you have an exact time of said exit strategy.

General Clark didn't talk about an exact date must be had or else.

Sounds like you are a bit off topic,
and fail to understand what the General said.....
which is what the OP is about.

[girl_interrupted]

21. Not off Topic...right on Topic

Wes Clark wasn't for further escalation...and as matter of fact...neither was Joe Biden. But in the President's speech he assured the nation of a firm exit date. That is not proving to be true.

[FrenchieCat]

27. Wes Clark speaks for himself....you don't.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK (RET), FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: We've had a great show. 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.

More....
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

[Cha]

50. Thanks for this transcipt, Frenchie..

Very informative.

[Turborama]

62. "He's not talking about nation-building. He's not talking about building a democracy."

I agree that 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.

ETA My thanks for the transcript, too. :hi:

2nd ETA 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

[karynnj]

80. It was never a firm exit date

It was a firm date to start the withdrawal process. Big difference.

[mr_show_time]

24. Yeah

The underscores give us a way. We are so busted. What are we going to do now? It's not like other DU members would use underscores in their screen names. Woe is me, woe is me.

Here are some cold, hard facts. Robert Gates said, "We're not just going to throw these guys into the swimming pool and walk away." It is clear that we are there until the Afghan government is ready for the transition. Do you expect the Afghanistan's security forces to mature in 18 months? That's a joke. The Afghan army is poorly trained, ill equipped, incompetent, and lacking any resolve for the fight we imagine for them. The police force, too, is all of the above, plus openly corrupt. It does such endearing things as setting up fake checkpoints so police can stop cars and demand bribes.

You are fundamentally wrong. I don't expect you to realize that, since you obviously have no set of principles and just follow your Leader every step of the way.

[ClarkUSA]

17. Yes it is. "White House: July 2011 Is Locked In for Afghanistan Withdrawal" (CBS News link -->)

Source: CBS News

During the Senate Armed Services hearing today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was pressed by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. on whether the July 2011 date for beginning to withdrawal troops is "locked in."

Gates seemed to suggest there was some flexibility, that "it was a clear statement of his strong intent" and that "the president always has the freedom to re-evaluate his decisions." After the hearing Graham said he took that to mean the date is "not locked in" and will depend on conditions on the ground.

It was a point of contention at the White House briefing today – I asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs if senators were incorrect calling the date a "target."

After the briefing, Gibbs went to the president for clarification. Gibbs then called me to his office to relate what the president said. The president told him it IS locked in – there is no flexibility. Troops WILL start coming home in July 2011. Period. It's etched in stone. Gibbs said he even had the chisel.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=34070&mesg_id=34070

Who are you gonna believe, a MSM mediawhore or the President? Of course, if you're an Obama Hater, you believe the MSM mediawhore, as long as the story is anti-Obama.

[girl_interrupted]

20. Maybe you should have watched the Senate hearings today..things have changed

Your link is from a day ago. Today is Thursday and when questioned before the committee they could not assure them of a fixed time frame

[FrenchieCat]

22. I am responding to the OP posted......

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark -- the onetime Democratic candidate for president -- told Congress Tuesday in little-reported remarks that the United States should begin planning for an exit from Afghanistan...


See the "Planning for an exit" part.

What are you responding to?
Cause I don't see anything about exact fixed deadlines in there. :shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

23. How? Has the President issued a statement contradicting what he said yesterday? I think not.

:)

[girl_interrupted]

25. Has he issued a statement contradicting what was said in today's hearings?

No. Think you better keep yourself updated. Also get a clip of todays hearings and see for yourself.

[ClarkUSA]

26. Why should he? I wouldn't pay too much attention to what's said in hearings... remember Condi Rice?

I would never trust anything Hillary says. She has become quite the gaffe machine since she became SoS. :)

[girl_interrupted]

28. I certainly do

I remember how Barbara Boxer went after Condi Rice. I also remember Obama voting to confirm Rice twice. As to "why should he"? He sent 2 representatives today to the hearings today to Speak on his BEHALF. Are you saying when questioned, they lied? I strongly suggest u get a clip of Today's hearings and watch it for yourself.

[ClarkUSA]

30. Guess you believed Condi Rice, too, when she testified about WMD?

:)

[girl_interrupted]

33. I certainly didn't...Now explain Obama's vote for her

As a NY'er...I watched Condi Rice testify twice regarding the August 2001 PDB "Bin Laden determined to attack in the U.S." and both times that lying sack of s***" turned my stomach.

I watched her shoe shop in NY and theather-go while the South was drowning in the admist of Katrina.

I watched as Barbara Boxer went afer Rice, and I was hoping with all my heart she would be denied her appointment..but Obama voted for her twice..once in committee and again in the Senate.


So tell me...did he believe her WMD story? I sure didn't.

[ClarkUSA]

38. Well then, you just proved my point. What people say at hearings doesn't amount to a Hill of beans.

No pun intended. :)

[girl_interrupted]

42. I see, so then Obama bought her story about the WMD's?

[ClarkUSA]

44. lol! Moving the goalposts?

:rofl:

[girl_interrupted]

61. A yes or no would suffice

Are you capable of that? You threw out the question, so answer it...yes or no, did he? Sorry but bobbing and weaving isn't going to work...too difficult for you? Guess so.

[ClarkUSA]

69. "A yes or no" to a purely gratuitous question? Why don't you make a guess?

:)

[FrenchieCat]

29. The President spoke for himself.....

We have an exit strategy and a timeline, even if it isn't as firm as many would like.
He doesn't give an exact date or hour and shit, but we didn't have an exit strategy before,
for like 8 years.

I know this makes you upset, but that's too damn bad.

[knightinwhitesatin]

31. Clark under the bus

in 3...2.....1

[FrenchieCat]

32. Clark is driving the bus,,,,,,

but obviously, you didn't even bother to read the comments where Clark is quoted
in support of President Obama's exit strategy.

LOL!

Kool kids who don't read; this way:

[girl_interrupted]

34. LOL! Neither Clark nor Biden were for further escalation in Afghanistan

A fact some people can't deal with, it seems!

[FrenchieCat]

35. Both had caveats.....and they got it.

deal with it.

[mr_show_time]

36. What the hell are you talking about?

Enough with the Kool-Aid and explain what you mean.

[girl_interrupted]

39. She must mean it wouldnt have cost us less loss of life

Because more troops wouldn't have been sent over, according to their plans. Ergo...costing us less in blood and money. We can't have that! After all her children aren't going over there, so why would she care? Therefore...Obama must be right!

[karynnj]

82. Huh?

THey both very likely do not agree with the plan, but are supportive in giving it a chance. They have a right to their positions.

[ClarkUSA]

40. Nah, Biden just voted for IWR while Obama said it'd be a dumb war before the 2002 vote.

And who cares what Gen. Clark said or didn't say about more troops in Afghanistan?
He's not a factor at all in any decision making process on the issue.

[girl_interrupted]

41. And then Obama chose Biden as his VP

Not to mention campaigning for Kerry in 2004 who also voted for IWR. Poor judgment?

Yes why care what General Clark would say...after all he is only a General who got us in and out of war in Kosov in record time....unlike McChrystal.

[FrenchieCat]

43. So if you are so caring of what the General Said,

why are you not listening to what he has to say?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK (RET), FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: We've had a great show. 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.

More....
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

[mr_show_time]

46. You left something out

"I don't question his commitment. He said he wants to go after Al Qaeda. I believe he will. And I believe he'll go after them forcefully wherever they are. And I think the key to Al Qaeda right now is Pakistan and you can't get at Pakistan without being in Afghanistan."

"At the same time, this is a part of the world that doesn't tolerate diversity. We're a foreign element there. And the sooner we can get out, the better."

And we're back to Square One.

[FrenchieCat]

48. "The sooner we get out" isn't a fucking firm timeline.....

especially when he follows with this....

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.

Doh!

[girl_interrupted]

52. It applies to not escalating in the first place

That's the point you just can't grasp. Now that we are in, we are stuck. One day we hear there will be a firm date for withdrawal..the next...maybe not. You think Obama is just going to wave his magic wand and make it all better. You dont give a damn about the cost in Afghani or Civilian life, you have no family going over there to fight & all you worry about is whether or not it will cost Obama re-election. I read your post regarding another attack in NY. I have yet to meet another Democrat as pathetic as you, to stoop so low to use a bush/cheney tactic to cover a politicans ass the way you did. You're sick.

But that's you, how you sleep nights, is beyond me.

Want to educate yourself as to what "a little more in Pakistan" is going to be like?

Here, educate yourself from a person who has spent years in both Iraq & Afghanistan, a reporter who never spared the rod when it came to bush either, I dare you:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9lrfRG9a3A&videos=iaHhEL7Cui4

[FrenchieCat]

54. Only you and your "new" Friend in this thread trying to create a fuss.....

But you Underscored.

Did you come from that scary non progressive place
where everyone talks in locksteps
and makes fun of DU,
and decided.....
Hey, I know, Let's post an out of date article,
and we can act like Gen. Clark is against Obama's plan,
and hope no one reads anything other than What you post
and get FrenchieCat to react" game?

muhaha_ha_haha!

[girl_interrupted]

56. You didnt have the guts to view the video did u

I thought so, you're only good to run your mouth.

Am I not allowed to have people who agree with me on a thread? They have to be my "friend"? Tell me...is "ClarkUSA" you're "friend" too? How stupid.

I didn't post a thread that said NY would be vulnerale to attack if we didn't go along with Obama...you did...and there is nothing "progressive" about that. It's the same rhetoric we have heard for the past 8 years from bush/cheney.

Gen Clark has never been for escalation, whether last month, or this month, and neither has Joe Biden. Obama gave them both a lemon and they made lemonade out of it. Why Obama would listen to the likes of McChyrstal who was involved in the Pat Tillman coverup, over someone like Clark or Biden, is beyond me.

Do I care what "FrenchieCat" reacts to? Frankly Madame I don't give a damn. At anytime you could have skipped this thread. No one forced you to respond. Hate to break it to you...but you just aren't that important.

[FrenchieCat]

57. O_K

wink, wink.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[girl_interrupted]

60. This is your thread, not hers, why she takes it personally is beyond me

Ego maybe? What a lamer...everything is about "her". Who asked to her respond? She'll probably start another "Attack in NY" to scare the rest of the "non believers".

[karynnj]

84. There are few people involved who did NOT say that, including Obama

[ClarkUSA]

47. Good question. I doubt you'll hear a lucid answer.

:)

[ClarkUSA]

45. For other reasons than his IWR vote, I'm sure, and after Biden apologized for his vote.

<<Not to mention campaigning for Kerry in 2004 who also voted for IWR. Poor judgment?>>

Sen. Obama campaigned for the Democratic presidential candidate. So what? You're grasping at straws, as usual.

<<Yes why care what General Clark would say...after all he is only a General who got us in and out of war in Kosov in record time....unlike McChrystal.>>

History aside, what I said about Gen. Clark's relevance to the decision-making process stands. I have no love for McChrystal but he's following orders from Pres. Obama now. Must kill him to do so, too, given that Pres. Obama rejected his advice (and Hillary's backing for McChrystal).

:)

[girl_interrupted]

49. You brought it up "Nah, Biden just voted for IWR "

Not me.. What you are missing here, is that maybe Biden learned after that fiasco in Iraq. Given that and the fact he had a son serving, may have given him even more insight into what goes on there. And remember, it isnt just Biden who didnt want to escalate but others in the administration as well.

You're the one grasping at straws....if Obama was so against this war..yet he campaigns for Kerry and appoints Biden VP...it leaves one to wonder why.

And I think it's time you stop blaming others and start realizing its Obama's decision, no one elses. The way you make it sound, it makes Obama look weak...like he has to hide behind Hillary's skirts, in order to make a judgment. "Hillary made him do it"

Lame.

[ClarkUSA]

70. I was replying to your holier-than-thou statement re: Biden's position on more troops.

The rest of your rant is so far out in left field it's amusing.

<<Not me.. What you are missing here, is that maybe Biden learned after that fiasco in Iraq. Given that and the fact he had a son serving, may have given him even more insight into what goes on there. And remember, it isnt just Biden who didn't want to escalate but others in the administration as well.>>

The only person we know backed Gen. McChrystal's ubertroop surge recommendation 100% is Hillary. As far as I know, no on else in the WH, including the President, was with Hillary and Gen. McChrystal.

<<You're the one grasping at straws....if Obama was so against this war..yet he campaigns for Kerry and appoints Biden VP...it leaves one to wonder why.>>

D'oh! You're confusing the Iraq war with the Afghanistan war. Pres. Obama campaigned on "finishing the job" in Afghanistan.

<<And I think it's time you stop blaming others and start realizing its Obama's decision, no one elses. The way you make it sound, it makes Obama look weak...like he has to hide behind Hillary's skirts, in order to make a judgment. "Hillary made him do it">>

What's the basis for this delusion of yours? I never ever said or implied anything of the kind. If anything, it's obvious he isn't listening to ever-warmongering Hillary, otherwise he'd have given in to Gen. McCrystal neocon urge for 80,000 more troops for 10 years as per her idiot advice.


:)

[HughMoran]

66. Clark and Biden got what they wanted!

There is a draw-down plan starting in 18 months - that's relatively soon.

Too bad you signed up for another tour "assuming" Obama would do differently than he had promised. :shrug:

[me b zola]

51. FAIL

1) This article is from November, before Obama revealed the new strategy

2) Obama also disagreed with Gen. McChrystal.

3) There is now an exit strategy--because Obama would not except a plan that didn't have one.

[quiet.american]

53. I never really liked the '+1' thing, but it's growing on me. +1. nt

[Captain Hilts]

55. Clark is STILL my guy!

[Dinger]

65. Mine Too!

:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:


Boy, it feels good to do that again.:)

[tomm2thumbs]

63. kick

[HughMoran]

64. I guess Clark and Biden were thus strong influences behind the scenes

Obama said "here's what you get and do it quickly as we're starting a draw-down in 18 months."

[ClarkUSA]

71. Not sure if you can make that conclusion. Gen. Clark was never at the WH that we know of.

If Gen. Clark was such an influence, then wouldn't Hillary have listened to him rather than Gen. McChrystal? But then again,
Hillary's erstwhile "military mentor" was neocon Gen. Jack Keane last year, as per the WSJ and other news articles. Every
report indicates Biden was the strongest influence behind Pres. Obama's decision, second only to his own instincts.

[HughMoran]

72. Probably right

I was making a point more than stating a fact, but we agree on the fact that Clark's position isn't necessarily in opposition to what occurred.

[ClarkUSA]

73. Ah! I agree with your "point" then.

;)

[freddie mertz]

67. Clark is showing more common sense than the president.

Wish he was being listened to.

[ClarkUSA]

68. How so, given that Pres. Obama demanded an exit plan before Gen. Clark mentioned it?

Also, General Clark and that "common sense" of his you so admire totally supports the strategy behind President Obama's decision:

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

[freddie mertz]

75. He's being cautiously supportive. I respect that. nt.

[ClarkUSA]

78. lol! Gen. Clark praised Pres. Obama's "strong speech" and said that he had "an important case"...

Then Gen. Clark went on to back up every strategic reason Pres. Obama had for making his decision:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=37430&mesg_id=38381

If that's your idea of being "cautiously supportive" then I guess I'm a "cautiously supportive" supporter of Pres. Obama's decision, too.

:rofl:

[freddie mertz]

81. I've heard stronger language from Gen. Clark.

He's a team player, but he seems to have his own ideas, and I think they may be sharper than we got out of the WH this week.

[VMI Dem]

74. Wow, wonder if he got clearance from the Clintons to make these remarks.

On a serious note, good for him.

[LastNaturalist]

76. Reminder: Wesley Clark is a nobody in American politics right now.

[Adelante]

86. Reminder: He is not in politics right now, so...

Gen. Clark is the best on strategy and he is a national security expert whether in politics or not. This Raw Story piece is not taking Clark's full testimony into account, but picking off one part they want to highlight. President Obama and Gen. Clark both know how complicated this all is and it's always a mistake to cherry pick what either of them say. I'm glad he and the President are on the same track. Except for one significant event, they generally are.

[elleng]

87. And why would that be?

[karynnj]

77. Without hearing the entire strategy, this is possibly being distorted to imply that

Clark was calling for an immediate pull out. The fact is that Obama himself added in a date when withdrawal must start. His first comment would not have been out of place in Obama's speech.

Where he differs with Obama, is that per raw story, he prefers an approach more like Biden's. I wonder how accurate that quote is because they also speak of helping with the economic development. This suggests that he, like others, possibly including Biden - really are for more than just counterterrorism. (The question that triggered the later quote seems to lend support to this.)

[Turborama]

85. Here is General Wesley Clark's testimony to the House Armed Services Subcommittee in full

It seems like Raw Story skipped over his economic development suggestions. Where are those 'little-reported remarks' in their article?

"He also argued that economic development in Afghanistan was important."

Well, after a quick search I've found them and, as you suggest, it does seem like Raw Story did some cherry picking...

I would copy and paste it but http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/OI111709/Clark_Testimony111709.pdf">the PDF only allows snapshots so here it is in JPEG format...






I don't know if you've seen http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x37430#38287">this post yet, there's a couple of links there that I think give an insight into General Clark's attitude towards Afghanistan's economic development. As does this quote I found on a largely ignored but http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/29/714336/-Think-outside-the-box:-Afghanistan">very interesting Daily Kos diary.

"The solution to terrorism is not going to be found in bullets. It's not going to be found in precision ordnance or targeted strikes. It's really going to be found in changing the conditions. It's going to be found in establishing a global safety net that starts with security and goes to economic development and political development and the kinds of modernization which let others enjoy the fruits of modernization that we as Americans enjoy."

~ Gen. Wesley Clark, October 17, 2001, Annual Lecture sponsored by the Center for the Study of Force and Diplomacy at Temple University

[ShortnFiery]

83. Wait, if the M$M finishes manufacturing consent for this escalation, General Clark will do an

180 on demanding an exit strategy. That just how flexible (two faced political) he truly is ... has demonstrated repeatedly in the past.