Collin Powell: I'm not convinced more troops is the answer to Iraq

[bigdarryl]

He was good on Face The Nation with Bob Shufer talking about Iraq he also said winning in Iraq is not the U.S. responsibility it's up to the Iraqi people to achieve victory. good point no wonder he was fired by Bush he makes to much sense. He also said we should be talking to Syria and Iran.

[BeFree]

1. Clark needs to listen to Gen. Powell

Gen. Clark seems to think more troops stuck in Iraq will help. Powell sees that is foolish. Good for him. Powell must truly care for the troops stuck there.

[bigdarryl]

2. Why is he a republican I would never know the man is...

smart as a tact and his views are more to the democratic party he's for affirmative action for minorities and he is not a military man who wants to just attack a country because we dislike there leaders.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. That is total nonsense.

If you don't take the time to listen you will never understand a person who is willing to answer a question fully and honestly. Clark was asked what could be accomplished with the "troop surge" option. And he gave an honest answer. He explained what could be accomplished with a surge of 30,000 troops. A little. Temporarily. He described a technical feasibility as in "that's mechanically possible". The full context is this:


"Diane Rehm: But it sounds, General Clark, as though Robert Kagan is talking about a huge surge of military. Where does that huge surge of military personnel come from?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, that's, that's-

Robert Kagan: Can I just jump in before we talk about-

Diane Rehm: Sure.

Robert Kagan: -those numbers that I'm talking about-

Diane Rehm: Sure.

Robert Kagan: -because we're talking about numbers in the range of 20 to 30 and possibly 40 thousand, and just, just, I know General Clark knows this stuff very well, better than I do, but in the short term at least those, those numbers can be achieved by stretching out rotations, which is very, which is a real hardship for the soldiers-

Diane Rehm: Sure is.

Robert Kagan: -which is one reason why we have to move very quickly to expand the overall size of the Army and Marines.

Diane Rehm: And before you respond, General Clark, let me just remind our listeners at :27 before the hour, you're listening to the Diane Rehm Show. Go right ahead.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, you know, I think it's possibly on a short-term basis to surge 20 or 30 thousand. It's a question of the level of pain you're willing to inflict on the rest of force, the people who are back here preparing, the people who are in the Guard and Reserve. That can be done. That, that's mechanically possible. The question is: What do you gain from it? As Robert said, we don't have any leverage against Iran. So, we're going to put these troops in there to try to stabilize the situation. Are we likely to succeed by increasing 20 or 30 thousand troops. Temporarily, I think you'll probably suppress some of the violence. They'll have more difficulty moving and so forth, but within six weeks, eight weeks, six months, if Iran wants to crank up the heat on the United States forces, they'll find a way to do this. So, how are we going to come back and deal with Iran? That's the question.



Clark also said this on the same show:

"Diane Rehm: Do you agree with that, General Clark, breaking up the Maliki government?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Yes, there's, there, there's been talk about that, but, Diane, we, we've got to talk about the bigger regional picture. We've got to talk about Iran and Syria and the neighbors, and what the President is doing by focusing on the troops strength is he's putting his head down and not seeing the big picture here. There are reasons for that. This is a very painful set of discussions, and what we're doing is we're moving more and more sharply into opposition to Iran. Iran is the neighbor. Iran has 70, 75 million people. They're strong, and they've got a grip on our interests in places like Lebanon and on the borders with Israel. So, this is going to come out in many other ways. You cannot answer a strategic political problem simply by a temporary increase of troops on the ground in Iraq."



Clark nails why the temporary gains would ultimately be futile: "but within six weeks, eight weeks, six months (Iran could crank up trouble again)" if Iraq is dealt with as a military problem. Clark also recently had this exchange on the Ed Schultz show:


Ed Schultz: And with that, our resources continue to be deployed for- depleted. For instance, in visiting with Senator Reid last night, or last week, he, he was saying that, where are we going to get the troops. I mean, John McCain is out there saying we should put in more troops, and that is, of course, is one of the options - injecting more troops into Iraq. It, it's Reid's feeling is that we don't have those troops. What do you know? What do you think?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think you could come up with 20,000 troops for six months, but at the end of that, you're really in trouble. At that point, you cannot sustain the additional troops, and so you're going to have a big cutback. And I think what has to realized about this is, it's not a mechanical problem. There's a strong opposing force against the U.S. presence there. There are active measures taken against us. So, it's not a matter of, of, of like stacking blocks up and how many blocks per hour can you stack, because there's someone coming around and knocking those blocks down as soon as you stack them up. And until we can deal with the political problem of that - which is a political problem, not only inside Iraq, but Iran and Syria - we're not going to succeed."



I think your summary of Clark's position completely missed the mark, I hope that wasn't intentional.

Clark is a military analyst. Almost every possible move has up and down sides. Sometimes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and vice versa, but Clark will always lay out the facts as he sees them. He has an opinion both about what an additional 20,000 U.S. troops inside Iraq's capital could do, and couldn't do. He can recognize short term marginal military advantages, within very specific parameters, to deploying more security forces inside the capital. But he also said it would put a harsh burden on our military families, and at the end of the day nothing of lasting value would be accomplished. The troops could not be sustained at that level, the insurgents would adjust, the Americans would have to leave, and Iraq would be in no more stable a state than it is now, without a political solution.

One thing I like about Clark actually is that he does lay information right there on the table for others to ponder along with him. He strongly believes that in a Democracy citizens have both a need and a right to be fully informed. We obviously are reaching some different conclusions about the meaning of Clark's comments.

I was there in person with Clark in New Hampshire about 6 weeks ago when Clark said that McCain was "blowing smoke" with his proposal to send more troops into Iraq, it wouldn't solve anything. "Blowing smoke" is a direct quote by the way, lol.

[BeFree]

6. So

Your headed for the recruitment office and gonna sign up?

As for me, I want our boys out, yesterday. All the military analyzing in the world ain't gonna solve the problem. The Iraqis want us out. Just leave.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. When I was of draft age I burned my card

Don't question my committment to peace and justice. You not only implied, but stated that Clark thought sending more troops into Iraq was a good idea, and that he needed to learn from Powell on Iraq. That was incorrect. That is why I responded to your post.

[BeFree]

10. You need to get glasses?

When I read your Clark-wash, it discourages me even more from giving any support to Clark. Why can't you see that?

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Here is what you need to think about

Whether or not you ever give a trace of support to Wes Clark for anything. You are upset about the war in Iraq, for Damn good reasons. I have no doubt that you, like I, on at least some level are still furious about the Democrats in Congress in 2002 who didn't do more to stop the U.S. from going to War with Iraq. I am not just talking about the actual IWR vote and who voted which way and why. I am talking about the way that Democrats that year, fearing opposing a "popular war time President" after 9/11, allowed George W. Bush to continually demonize Iraq and Saddam Husein for months even before the IWR vote. I am talking about the way that Democrats caved and let the pre mid term election cycle be dominated by Bush's war agenda, when they knew damn well that there was no urgent need to deal with Iraq right then no matter what Hussein might or might not have been up to. Bush steered the debate into why and how we needed to confront Iraq as a national priority, not whether it was wise to do so in the first place. He shoved us down that slippery slope and Democrats were there shoving right along side him

That is happening now with Iran. Do you need glasses? Why can't you see that? However deadly the military conflict with Iraq has been, an American attack on Iran, even if it is just a "surgical strike" with "smart" bombs to take out Iran's nuclear facillities, would open up a Pandoara's box 10 times larger than the one the U.S. opened by attacking Iraq. The time to organize against our drift into the next war in NOW damn it. Doesn't it frustrate you how hard it is to stop a war once it has already started? You want our troops home from Iraq yesterday, fine. How are you going to make that happen? I fought the Viet Nam War for 7 years and two Presidential elections before it ended. It's damn hard to turn off a war when the President of the United States is determined to continue it. We failed to elect a Democratic President in 1968 and 1972 and the Viet Nam war continued. We "failed" to elect a Democratic President in 2004 and the war in Iraq continues. Our next crack at the White House is in 2008.

It is much easier to stop a war in its tracks before it even gets started, which also happens to be healthier for birds and children and all living things if you are a fan of bumper sticker politics. So by all means keep fighting for "Out Now" from Iraq if that is what you believe, but at least pay attention out of the corner of your eye to the constant effort that Wes Clark has been engaged in for three years now, making the case in the face of the Chicken Hawks that the United States needs to negotiate directly with Iran. Whenever Clark is asked about Iraq he always manages to make the point that we must be willing to talk with Iran.

Do you think that's coincidental? I don't. I know Wes Clark is worried that the Bush Administration is setting the stage now for an attack on Iran. He uses every discussion about Iraq to talk about the need for a political and diplomatic, not military initiative, and he always stresses the need for direct diplomacy with Iran. The peace movement, as is too often the case, is behind the curve on this one, just like they were with Iraq. Clark was warning against ill founded U.S. military plans for the Middle East back in the Summer of 2002. Now he is warning against U.S. hostility toward Iran. To keep this post from getting to long I am going to follow this with a seperate post focused on Clark's warnings about war with Iran.

Diss Clark all you want, but for God's sake don't ignore his warnings this time.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. I was present for this event. I blogged it

That racist cheer leader for war Glen Beck is making the case for war with Iran nightly on CNN Headline news. The problem is too many Democrats keep falling into the trap of agreeing that Iran is run by madmen who we have to be tough with. The same dynamic that played out with Hussein in 2002 in the run up to the IWR vote.

I saw Clark speak in New Hampshire in October and later blogged some of it. It's true that he said these things BEFORE Democrats retook Congress, which he passionately argued we needed to do everything in our power to make happen. The threat is slightly reduced now, but in no way eliminated. I start with Clark speaking transcribed from my recorder:

"I think that we're in a very dangerous position because not only is the clock ticking in North Korea, but the clock is ticking in Iran. The President has basically lined up his statements so that he can not live with the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon, and he has made a half hearted effort at diplomacy. We're not talking with Iran directly. He's made a half hearted effort at diplomacy, I believe, so that diplomacy will fail. And then, his plan is, sometime in the Spring of 2007, which is not so far away, he's going to come on Television, he's going to say:

'My fellow Americans. For 5 years we've watched the evil empire of Iran struggle to prepare nuclear weapons. Although our intelligence is not perfect, we have enough information to assure us that they're making progress.

As I told, and promised you, we will not allow the worst weapons to fall into the hands of the worst people. Iran is a state that supports Terrorists. For the good of humanity they can not be permitted to have nuclear weapons. We've asked our Allies to help, we've gone to the United Nations, we've asked the Iranians to forbear, nothing has worked. There is no option remaining, but to use America's military superiority to address this growing and gathering threat.

As I speak to you tonight, the first bombers are over Tehran. We will not falter, we will not fail, we will not be denied, and America will prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons.

Thank You my fellow Americans'

This was the second time out of the five events that we attended with Wes Clark, where Wes delivered a mock George W. Bush speech declaring the commencement of military operations against Iran. The first time was at a small meeting of very active local Democrats in Goffstown NH, the previous afternoon. It wasn't word for word the same, but both times the fake speech was chilling to hear. If anything the version Wes Clark gave the prior day was more realistic, and in that smaller setting the gasps it evoked were even more obvious than some visceral groans I heard come from the crowd the Henniker.

In Goffstown, Clark quickly broke false character, flashed a wan smile and said, "Pretty good, huh?" in acknowledgment of how realistic the fake Presidential announcement had seemed to everyone. Janet turned to me in Goffstown and commented that, if she didn't already know Wes Clark, hearing him make Bush's case for War so emphatically could have unnerved her. As it was, simply knowing that Wes Clark believed there was a good chance that we would all actually hear an address very much like that come from George W. Bush sometime in the next 8 months was more than frightening enough for everyone gathered. This night, in Henniker, Clark returned to his own voice and continued:

"Now that's the speech, OK, that's what's going to happen. I'd say 50, 60, 70% likelihood after the first of the year, IF we don't get Democrats in Congress. Now when that happens, it will be very hard for Democrats to stand and say; 'Oh stop the bombing, we like it when Iran has nuclear weapons.' No we don't, we'll be back on the defensive again. That's why we've got to start speaking out now. We're being set up again, just like we were with Iraq, and what I've found in my life is, generally that if you want a war, you can have one.

Most people are about equally brave, most people will fight. Most people love their families, they love their homes, they believe that whatever they believe in is the single one way to truth, reconciliation and the after life, and most people will fight for it. Most people are not philosophical about it, and whether you're walking into a bar in New York City after the Red Sox have played the Yankees, or whether you're dealing with the Bosnians and the Serbs, or whether you're talking about Christians and Iranians. People will fight for what they believe in. So if we want a war with a billion Muslims, we can probably have one. I don't think we want one, we certainly don't need one, and we should do everything we can to prevent it. And that means this election is the crucial moment for doing that."

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. Clark on Iran: 11/30/06

"You know, from the beginning, there've been factions in the White House that, that saw the invasion of Iraq as just the first step, and then they'd move on to Syria, and then get Lebanon under control, and then eventually sweep back and get regime change in Tehran. But I think what people in the White House may not have fully appreciated is that these countries have enduring interests. It's not a matter of regime change in Iran. It's the fact that Iran is a major power - 70 million people. They've got enormous wealth in their petrochemical industry. They've got a culture. They, they have sought regional dominance there for years and years and years, even before Ahmadinejad became the power. They want to be consulted and we've frozen them out now since the late 1970s. It, it's time to open a dialog with Iran. We may not agree with them, but even during the Cold War, we talked to nations we didn't agree with, like the Soviet Union, when we had missiles aimed at each other."
http://securingamerica.com/node/1998

[Drum]

4. It's easy for him to say anything where he sits now....

He still carried the neocons water to the UN, and frankly I cannot forgive...I think Colin should s.t.f.u. and go back to blending in.

[Oleladylib]

8. good grief..even plants and dogs grow..Let it be.

[Drum]

11. just my opinion...

Not saying never, and not saying I haven't admired him---a lot---before the Bush years, but I just think that he hasn't rehabilitated enough for "parole" just yet.


Again, just my opinion...someday, maybe, but not yet.

[gratuitous]

5. Gee Colin, do you believe yourself this time?

And why should it be up to the Iraqi people to "win" in their own country? We, after all, are the "grown-ups" who decapitated their leadership, permitted the vacuum to collapse the civil society, and now three years later are debating whether we should walk away or run away from the mess we created.

All because Mr. Powell went to the UN with his prevaricating Power Point presentation, trying to pass off phony drawings as "evidence" of the imminent threat Saddam posed not just to the rest of the world but directly to the United States. I wonder if Schieffer had the bad taste to bring up Colin's shining moment from February 2003? Surely not.

[Oleladylib]

7. I like this guy...I REALLY like this guy. n/t

[leesa]

12. What a fool this war criminal is! Still can't figure out which way the wind

is blowin, eh? "Winning in Iraq ia not the US responsibility"...just brilliant...we launch an unprovoked, illegal invasion with HIS help, and now it's the Iraqis fault that something or other isn't being "won".

What a disgusting man.

[Joe Bacon]

13. TIme to yawn again

Go away Powell, you have lied your last lie. Just go away.