Clark holds both poltical parties' feet to the fire: "Failure is not an Option"

[Clarkie1]

Today on Air Amrerica radio Clark made it clear what must be done: hard, sustained work toward a regional (not merely Iraqi) poltical solution using carrots and sticks.

In addition, Clark correctly identifies:

1. The folly of setting an artificial timeline: It takes away any leverage we have with Iran and Syria...the problem is regional, not solely what Iraq does, so it is silly to try and influence only what the Iraq government does, assuming Iraq can be influenced by setting a timeline).

2. The folly of the "more troops or less troops" argument: There is no military solution; the military can only be used as leverage for a political, regional solution. Clark refers to the idea of adding more troops derisively as a "mechanical solution" which won't succeed because (Clark's metaphor) mechanically adding more blocks that just get knocked down by people who don't want the stack of blocks there is a simplistic approach that doesn't address the real problem. 20,000 more troops could realistically be added for 6 months max, but we would still be left with the same political problem, unless the poltical problem is addressed regionally, with carrots and sticks.

3. What "talking" really means: "I would send a high-level team over to Iraq to talk with the Iraqis and the people in the region. I'm not talking about Jim Baker. I think it's wonderful that Jim Baker wants to talk to the Syrian ambassador. That's not going to produce the kind of results we need. I'm talking about a sustained dialog with people in the region, working it on a daily basis to produce a safety net, a regional safety net, of, of economic and diplomatic and security issues that are out there holding up all the countries in the region."

"I think they're open to talking. I don't think it's going to be an easy dialog. You know, the longer we've stayed in Iraq, the less bargaining power we've had over Iran, because the worse we look over there, the less incentive they have to give in to what we want them to do. They're emerging as the big winners. So, we have to be careful in talking to them we don't just ratify their success in Iraq...And that means you don't want to go into it with a preconceived timeline. What you want to do is go in with sticks and carrots and, and take it from there, and then make it an integrated regional strategy."

4. The pragmatic truth: it would be folly to limit our options at this point, because the stituation is constantly evolving (or devolving under the current "stay the course" policy, as the case may be)

"it may require pulling some combat brigades out of Iraq and putting trainers in in their place...it may require troops in other regions, and it may not require troops, changing troop strength at all for a while."

"We're doing too much on the military side and not enough on the political side...the solution is not just to get the troops out, it's the end state...we've got our whole national security at risk in the region...failure is not an option." (note that when Clark says "failure is not an option" he is referring to the option of simply "pulling our troops out," which would lead to chaos in the region by the power vacuum created. It should also be noted that Clark has said repeatedly that there is no good solution in Iraq...only perhaps a C- or D solution at best. An F is not acceptable, and still can be avoided.

5. Clark realistically notes, "I think...regional dialogue...will be rejected by the White House."

6. Clark identifies common interests with have with Iran: "I don't think Iran wants a broader, deeper war in Iraq...there a whole lot more Sunnis in the world than Shias...they (Iran) know that."

7. Clark indentifies the right way to "back out" of Iraq: "We have to find a way to back out of this that leaves a durable, political settlement in place."

"It's not a mechanical problem (of adding more troops). There is a strong opposing force against the U.S. presence there...until we can deal with the political problem of that, we're not going to succeed."

"(the American people are saying) pull back troops, stop taking so many losses, but don't lose. They want to see the losses go down, they want to see the troops come down over time. They just want to see the killing stop, really, and they don't want to see Iran emerge as setting the stage for another war in the region."

In the end we have to ask ourselves, is pulling out of Iraq within the next few months, or setting a timeline worth the leverage it would cost us with Iran? Is THAT what we want the world's stage to look like in the coming months and years...an empowered Iran? These issues are much larger than what happens in Iraq. We are at the edge of a precipice. By rejecting both Democratic calls for an artificial timeline, and Republican calls to "stay the course" (which incorrectly views the problem as a military one), Clark has taken an leadership role on the current Middle East (not Iraq) crises. It's a voice those of all political persuasions would be wise to consider.


Edited for link to transcript of remarks:
http://securingamerica.com/node/1959