You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iraq
General blames US for Iraq ’chaos’
2003-08-28
The former commander of Nato forces in Europe, General Wesley Clark, says American policy has "created chaos" in Iraq.
A smart guy, he discovered what we already knew
General Clark said the fundamental problem was the US tendency to fight states to get at "terrorists", rather than take on the "terrorists" themselves. "We may have given Osama Bin Laden the recharge he needed to rebuild his arsenal and his ranks," he told the BBC’s World Today programme. General Clark is being encouraged to become a democratic candidate for next year’s presidential election, but has not yet announced if he will stand. His criticisms coincided with a warning from the US administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, that the country would need tens of billions of dollars to rebuild its shattered infrastructure. The bill to overhaul essential services would reach almost $30bn, on top of the estimated $1bn per week the US already spends on its forces in Iraq, he said.
Should be no problem, isn’t that the so-called amount saved by Turkey’s refusing?
President George W Bush has pledged "no retreat" in Iraq, saying US-led forces are making good progress in restoring order and insisting Iraq is part of the wider war on terror.
I wonder which part that is, Felluce?
But General Clark expressed reservations about waging war on a country that he did not believe was "particularly linked to terrorism" or an "imminent danger". He said the war should have resulted in restored Iraqi relations with the UN and Nato, finding weapons of mass destruction and ensuring Iraq would "not become a hotbed of international terrorism".
What, you @!# democrat! You call Bush and Powell liars, I saw Powell showing enough valuable proof on satellite photos!
"We are drawing in terrorists. We have created chaos in Iraq," he said.
Uhhhm, blame it on the Turks, with a northern front this wouldn’t have happened
America should have concentrated its efforts on the "fundamental problem" of fighting "terrorism", he argued. "What I have seen again and again is a tendency to want to attack states to get at terrorists rather than dealing with the harder problem of getting the terrorists themselves."
That statement doesn't make any sense. Sorry. Terrorists don't float in the air, and they need money to eat and to buy guns and ammunition. They also need money for bus tickets, so they can spend all their time going from one country to another to blow things up. Having money and bases implies support from countries or organizations on the ground — also not floating in the air or somewhere out beyond Jupiter.
He said America should rethink its strategy on Iraq, and work to ensure Iraqis could take back control of their borders, security and reconstruction.
???, give back the oil? Never, our fight on terror will continue "no retreat!"
General Clark said he would announce in the coming days if he would stand as a democratic candidate in next year’s presidential elections. The situation in Iraq is fast becoming an issue for next year’s presidential election, the BBC’s Justin Webb reports from Washington. Mr Bush’s speeches have been branded "empty rhetoric" by opposition candidates, and his popularity ratings have fallen.
Those of us who support him, on the other hand, don't regard his statements as "empty rhetoric," though we do regard most of the pronouncements coming from the Dems — Kerry and Dean, particularly — as self-serving and politically motivated. We also realize that Bush's "popularity" is going to fluctuate — we also realize that there's a strategy behind his actions.
The number of American deaths since the end of major combat operations on 1 May has now surpassed the number killed during the war - 139 compared to 138.
That's a meaningless milestone. The actual destruction of Sammy's regime was the easy part. We said prior to the war that once Sammy was gone the Bad Guys would be rushing in to try and snatch the bone from our jaws. I thought there would be a lot more clumsy Iranian involvement and not so much clumsy Saudi involvement, but none of the outline of what's happening is coming as a surprise. If I'm not surprised, and most Rantburgers aren't surprised, why would Bush be surprised? And if Clark's surprised, he's sure as hell not presidential material.
Posted by:Murat

#18  I'm not a Clark fan, but expect he will be used by the Dem's as a VP candidate for credibility as "strong on defense" I bet he has a horde of medals awarded for his performance in staff roles or medals that his XO wrote the justification for.

I don't get the Kerry as a "War Hero" deal. Didn't he destroy or discard his medals in a war protester. Seems like you have to adopt either the "Hero" or "Protester" persona and kind of stick with one or the other.
Posted by: Super Hose   2003-8-28 9:25:41 PM  

#17  The man--and I use that term lightly when referring to Clark--was fired by Clinton for being a military fuck-up.
And we're supposed to accept this assclown as a credible source on ANY subject?
Please.
I'll take the word of our soldiers and not the anti-American BBC or a Turk with a known hatred of my nation, or any nation that isn't bending over and taking it in the rear from the frothing Muslim jihadi hoardes.
Posted by: Celissa   2003-8-28 5:50:02 PM  

#16  One final link, Murat.

USA Today

the money quote:
No one is keeping economic statistics now. But consider the Al-Rewad Exchange in Baghdad, one of dozens of firms that will wire money into and out of the country. Omar Tabra, a heavy-set man who presides over the business, says $6 million in cash is moving through the operation every day, evenly split between incoming and outgoing transfers.

"In the short run, I can't see improvement because of the attacks on coalition forces and sabotage," Tabra says. "But in the long run, you have all the potential for improvement in this country: oil, land, manpower, Persian Gulf ports. What else do you need for an economic boom?"

One place that is already booming is the Shorja market in central Baghdad. The noisy open-air market is now as crowded and busy as at any time in the past.

Fawziya Hamza, 50, a Baghdad housewife, looks through a stall where shelves are filled with shampoos and tables are piled high with blocks of soap. Life here, she says, is "getting better and better."

Muhsin Hamid Akar, 32, has been doing a brisk business selling satellite phones from a small store in another part of downtown Baghdad. He urges his fellow Iraqis to be patient: "A man gets the flu, it takes seven days to recover. After 35 years of dictatorship, what can anyone expect?"
Posted by: Chuck Simmins   2003-8-28 4:28:37 PM  

#15  The problem is, Frank G, that you don't know it's a Murat until you get to the bottom. The first three comments were kind of cryptic (or uninformative, if you like). When I got to the fourth one I thought, "Hey, this is bullshit! Must be Murat." And so it proved. But I wasted entire seconds of my life finding that out.
Posted by: Angie Schultz   2003-8-28 4:26:59 PM  

#14  General Clark is being encouraged to become a democratic candidate for next year’s presidential election

Well there's your explanation right there. You can't be a democratic candidate while praising Bush at the same time.
Posted by: Raphael   2003-8-28 4:04:30 PM  

#13  I think it's appropriate to mention that General Clark was fired from his position as head of NATO because he screwed up the Kosovo operation so bad, and had no backup plan when the primary (air interdiction) proved to be a fiasco. The direct result of his mis-calculation was the deaths of about 20,000 people. I wouldn't follow this "general" to the bathroom.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2003-8-28 4:00:57 PM  

#12  I shall take Cyber Sarge's word, and the known record of CNN, BBC, and Al Jazeera, over your Fatwatical Assertion That You Utter The Truth, Murat.

SOP: Declare your opponent's news sources as FALSE, your own as the TRUTH, and try to sound convincing. When this happens, the red flag goes up that this guy DOES NOT WANT YOU to think on your own, go anywhere else for possible contradictory information, or draw any other conclusions.

The proof of the pudding will be in any successes and failures based on any actions one takes in response to whoever they believe. General Clark's record speaks for himself: If following his own advice didn't help him that much, it certainly won't help me if I follow it.

It is interesting to note that you can glean useful information from any data source. The Kicker is that the data source may be displeased that you may get information from them that isn't what they INTENDED you to get (such as the nature, alignment, or reliability of the data source for starters). Its a form of deconstruction, although in the old days it was called a BS detector.

Right now, I'm learning more about Murat than he'd probably prefer.
Posted by: Ptah   2003-8-28 1:26:27 PM  

#11  --The situation in Iraq is fast becoming an issue for next year’s presidential election, the BBC’s Justin Webb reports from Washington.---

And the BBC knows. Why, they'd never lie or "sex up" a story, would they???
Posted by: Anonymous   2003-8-28 1:19:37 PM  

#10  Wesley Clark -- the Democrats idea of what a general should be. Pathetic.
Posted by: Ned   2003-8-28 11:53:41 AM  

#9  Sneller, I actually met Clark during the Kosovo FIASCO and he is a wimp! If we had him in charge, the ground war would begin in about three months. We did things right in Iraq (vis-a-vis bombing) and Clark is just pissed that he never got a chance to WIN a war (Kosovo was/is not a WIN). None of the current crop on 'Monday Morning Gernerals' can honestly defend that the war was not a HUGE Victory. This rabble that are bombing and shooting since the end will not be around for much longer. I hope he does join the race, that would make the 2004 Election so much sweeter. Note: Clark is not exactly someone that can pump up a crowd (trust me).
Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter)   2003-8-28 11:53:16 AM  

#8  *John* Wesley Clark? sorry -- must have been channeling Pete Seeger or something... He's just Wesley (the kid from ST:TNG).
Posted by: snellenr   2003-8-28 11:50:35 AM  

#7  Incidentally, a useful link on the number of deaths in Iraq can be found here, wherein the author points out that there have been only 63 *combat* deaths since May 1 (the rest have been accidental).
Posted by: snellenr   2003-8-28 11:39:45 AM  

#6  Re: "John Wesley Clark" -- how bad a general are you if you get fired by Bill Clinton for being a wimp? (BTW - I read his book, and the subtitle should have been "Mom, those guys are being mean to me!")
Posted by: snellenr   2003-8-28 11:36:17 AM  

#5  Chuck, Frank close your eyes on my postings fine, also close it on the BBC etc. In fact you may lock yourself up in your bombshelter and shut down your TV and PC. Focus your mind only at your own perceived "truth" and go for it, America is doing well on all points. :)
Posted by: Murat   2003-8-28 11:27:07 AM  

#4  Chuck, Murat is like Tony Foresta at Bill Quicks' site - scroll through the dirt and you won't get any on ya
Posted by: Frank G   2003-8-28 11:22:06 AM  

#3  Fred, when does Murat reach his limit?
-------------------------------------------
101st-sponsored clinic opens in Zumar
--------------------------
Humanitarian assistance to Iraqi orphanage
------------------------------------------
TO ALL: Most interesting. This is a response to a message that said rules of engagement (ROE) were causing Army deaths and did not apply to the Marines.

No it's not true. The ROE are dictated by CJTF-7, not individual commanders. They are the same for Army and Marines, not to mention the Navy and Coast Guard. We're required to be armed at all times.

The two magazine rule is that you must have at least two magazines on your person at all times, this helps when you're engaging the enemy. Most people carry at least three pistol mags and seven rifle mags respectively. Both Army and Marine units openly display their weapons.

They both shoot when threatened also. Several attacks have been thwarted by Army and Marine personnel shooting first. We're also much better shots than the enemy. They tend to spray and pray, while we tend to just shoot them.

The Army has more attacks because their AOR encompasses Baghdad and the surrounding areas where the bulk of the attacks have taken place. I've noticed the press does a poor job in reporting our response to these ambushes. To put it plainly, we kick butt! The usual 'real' report reads: "Five IZ (Iraqis) fired AK-47s and RPGs at patrol (or convoy), soldiers (or marines) returned fire resulting in 3 KIA, and 1 WIA, 1 escaped. RPGs missed, AK fire ineffective, no US casualties."

We do take some casualties, and that is not a good thing, but we are very effective at counter-firing at the ambushes. Aggressiveness has proven very effective.

The enemy is primarily made up of insurgents from Iran and Syria who hire Iraqis to attack coalition soldiers, not disgruntled Iraqis who are mad that their power is not on all day yet. They provide them with AKs and RPGs and send them on their way with a promise of cash after the attack. They even give motorcycles to kids which they get to keep if they ride by a coalition checkpoint and drop a grenade.

After one such attack, we found out how easy it was to shoot people off motorcycles. You can hear them from a long way off and shoot them long before they get within grenade dropping distance.

We have good leaders, and they're responding aggressively and well to the attacks, they emphasize that everyone must engage the enemy whenever they show themselves. The kids here are excited to do their job, and they do it well, with the proper weapons and lots of ammo. We go out with M2 50 cals and Mk-19 automatic grenade launchers mounted on our vehicles. We carry SAWs, M-203s, M-16s, and M9s. We also carry several different types of grenades and use everything as needed.

We read press articles on the net that have no resemblance to reality every day. Just last week I read an article where a car bomb killed fifteen American soldiers, destroyed three armored vehicles, and one tank at the Baghdad Airport. Our unit there was surprised when we told them about it since they've been there the whole time and never heard any explosion. The press lies, they make things up, and they misrepresent things to forward their own ideals. It would be funny except that so many people believe them.

Take care,

John H. Taylor, LTC
CA Babylon, Iraq
The Braden Files via Howard Veit
---------------------------------------------
Any Credibility that Al Jazeera may have had before today has been smashed. Today a demonstration was to be held to demand the release of an Imam who was a close personal friend of Saddam and used his Mosque to store weapons and as a Refuge for Baath Party members. The Demonstration was to be broadcast live on the Arab News Network and they wanted to get real exclusive News. They wanted Americans to fire on the crowds. In order to ensure that we would, they PAID people to carry weapons in the crowd and to fire them at us in order to provoke a Violent Response from US troops.

Thing is, this isn't the first time Al Jazeera has PAID for the spreading of Anti-American Sentiments in this country or even this city. And these people are so desperate for money right now that they will do anything for it. A little boy who used to hang out at the Gate of the Civilian/Miltary Operations Center (C-MOC) and has since we occupied the building was given money and photos of Saddam Hussein and told to run through the streets shouting Anti-American slogans. Now, this boy had until that day been at the C-Moc every day, hanging out with American Soldiers who treated him pretty well. When stopped by us and asked why he was shouting such things, he replied that two men had paid him to do so. ... The two men turned out to be Local Al Jazeera correspondents.
From Great Sage on location in Iraq. Via el Jefe, Glenn
Posted by: Chuck Simmins   2003-8-28 11:10:16 AM  

#2  "What I have seen again and again is a tendency to want to attack states to get at terrorists rather than dealing with the harder problem of getting the terrorists themselves."

Because, of course, the terrorists exist independently of, and outside of, states.

How did this guy make general? Ass-kissing?
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2003-8-28 11:10:01 AM  

#1  Seems to be a pattern: Dems going to overseas media outlets to criticize the U.S. actions? Don't they know we're gonna hear about it - from aholes like the BBC? Clark's an ass - actually got fired by Clinton for the Russian fiasco at the airport..perfect for Hillary's VP
Posted by: Frank G   2003-8-28 11:03:55 AM  

00:00