Article

2003-11-06 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred Pruitt 2003-11-06 10:00|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I think I'd rather have Wesley Crusher than Wesley Clark as President.

see http://www.mcdevzone.com/weblog/archives/001430.html

Posted by mhw 2003-11-6 10:04:58 AM|| 2003-11-6 10:04:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 agree clark is weaselly, and some of the criticism above are spot on.

BUT:"What's the matter with having an American in charge? ". er that it makes it look like an American occupation, and this alienates SOME Iraqis, and has costs outside of Iraq. I suggested before the war was over that we should get a non-American from the Coalition of the Willing to be in charge - i think i suggested Vaclav Havel. I havent seen anything from the admin about why they didnt do something like that - it would certainly have reduced pressure for UN involvement.

About an interim govt. Does Clark understand the implications of this? That means an interim govt composed of Kurds, SCIRI, Alawi and Chalabi. Im not sure that would be so bad (and i think it unlikely it would lead to an Islamic state) but is Clark saying that Wolfie et al were RIGHT to be enthused about Chalabi and the Kurds? Besides theres an intermediate position between current policy and recognizing an interim govt - that would be to give more DE FACTO control to the IGC, while retaining sovereignty and ultimate veto in the hands of the CPA - so that if the IGC does something totally out of hand we can step in, but we make the occupation more IRAQI and prepare them for self-govt. Reports I have seen indicate far too much micro-management by Bremer. Which is frustrating the heck out of the IGC folks. It is THEIR country after all. Maybe its better in theory (as per Fareed Zakaria) to wait 2 or 3 years and let political parties evolve, and hold all power in CPA hands to keep Kurds and exiles from running things - but A. We dont have unlimited time cause 1. We could lose in Iraq, in a number of different ways 2. The whole point of this was to achieve change to impact the GWOT. We could wait 3 years for Iraq to reach where we want it to be, and meanwhile AQ could take out a city. If we want Iraq to be the start of falling dominoes, and we want that to happen in time to matter, we've got to get things moving politically. B. I suspect even if we wait 3 years we'll end up with a similar political constellation. Certainly no change among the Kurds, who seem quite loyal to the KDP and PUK. SCIRI's influence in the south may recede a bit, but not much. And the INC, contrary to what both the left and some on the right think, is not likely to go away either - its not JUST Chalabi, it includes a number of secularist exiles, who have extensive ties with non-exile Iraqis.

in summary, i agree their are problems with Clarks view - the biggest that its expressed by someone who has been so weaselly in his few on the war in general. But I think there is a major critique that can successfully be made of Bush's policy in Iraq.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-11-6 10:44:01 AM|| 2003-11-6 10:44:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 "I would transform the military occupation into a NATO operation with US forces in charge. With US command, NATO authority, and UN endorsement, other NATO countries would send troops, and Arab countries would also step in."
NATO, huh? Didn't Wesley's puppetmaster, Bill Clinton, just say this? This guy is so controlled by the former Clintonites that it is laughable. The way he is dropping in the polls is heartening -- it shows that people can see the "man" behind the curtain controlling things.

Posted by Tibor 2003-11-6 11:12:32 AM|| 2003-11-6 11:12:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 LH - Clark's picture is classic 20/20 hindsight. All post-war occupations with which America has been involved have gone exactly this way, in fits and starts replete with mistakes and reassessment and restarts. InstaPundit has blogged numerous examples of the same things happening in post-war Germany.

OT: Which reminds me again, where has TGA gone? I miss the hell out of his perspective!!! With Bulldog, JFM, TGA, and others, I felt like I had a decent range of views to grasp the below-the-radar mood in Europe. He's sorely missed!

Re: Iraq, the true key to following through to make this a success that reaps the benefits forseen when it was undertaken is the reelection of Bush. Anyone else would fuck it up - some in spades. I'm afraid it's as simple as that, regards the big picture. Just to prove that NMM is a totally blinded moron knee-jerk, I voted for Carter cuz he was a very smart guy. Proof that smart people (like Weasley) don't necessarily deserve positions of authority.

This is one of the primary reasons that I am committed to Bush - the guy is a hardcase and will push through to the end if he's not thrown out. The warts and miscalculations and mistakes will be addressed as they are identified. Keep pointing them out - I'll bet someone is listening now and then. Thx for the analysis!

Posted by .com (RoPMA) 2003-11-6 12:16:55 PM|| 2003-11-6 12:16:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 It is unconscionable to allow our country to continue staggering down the track that we're on in Iraq.

See what happens when you let a Kennedy drive the train?

Posted by Raj 2003-11-6 1:15:44 PM|| [http://angrycyclist.blogspot.com] 2003-11-6 1:15:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Everytime Clarkbar opens his mouth it reminds me of General Sir Michael Jackson's encounter with Clarkie over the securing of an airfield in Kosovo to prevent the Russians from landing. Here is Jeff Elkins take on the whole thing. But in summary, now that Mike Jackson is chief of staff of UK military I wonder what will happen to our 'special relationship' if Clark is elected President?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/elkins/elkins17.html

Posted by Jack is Back! 2003-11-6 1:26:30 PM|| 2003-11-6 1:26:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 The problem with bringing in a non-American to replace Bremer is the fact that there are no viable alternatives. Any of the Commonwealth countries might bring back memories (imagined, of course) of British colonialism; none of the Arab countries are trustworthy; France, Germany and Russia don't deserve even the slightest recognition for their "help"...

Another problem is that Iraq would turn into another Bosnia -- permanent international presence, as "aid workers" turn "assisstance" into careers.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2003-11-6 1:37:39 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2003-11-6 1:37:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 How about an Italian or Spaniard.... pitching in and not a lot of baggage.

Wait... make that how about an Italian?

Posted by Shipman 2003-11-6 2:13:37 PM|| 2003-11-6 2:13:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 "LH - Clark's picture is classic 20/20 hindsight"

Interestingly one of the things Clark calls for is an allied individual to head the occupation. Lieberman called for that in FEBUARY, before the war began! And IIRC, we discussed exactly that right HERE!

Clark may be a weasal, but some of us supported the war from the beginning were concerned about the admins reluctance to nation build. I think Wolfie gets the importance of changing the region. Im NOT sure about Cheney, Rummy, or Condi. Let alone Powell.

Dot com - you ever read Paul Berman's "Terror and Liberalism" ?- you should.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-11-6 3:07:09 PM|| 2003-11-6 3:07:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 rantburg - 2/27/2003

"Senior Bush administration officials, speaking anonymously, have briefed reporters on their vision of a postwar Iraq and these plans emerged last night:
The US military would control Iraq in the short term after President Saddam's removal; troops would maintain security, protect Iraq's oil fields, ensure that other nations respect Iraq's existing borders and find and destroy weapons of mass destruction.

A civilian administrator would work on engaging Iraqis in the formation of a democratic government. A transition would last months, not weeks. The administrator would not necessarily be an American.

If it's not going to be Tommy Franks, it should be somebody on the order of Havel. No Frenchies, no Arabs, no UN... "

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-11-6 3:20:10 PM|| 2003-11-6 3:20:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 LH - Lieberman is the one Donk who has been consistent and not a limp-dick phool tool. If he was electable, I'd want to know what else he thinks. He's not - and that sucks, actually, because it leaves America divided solely based on the Iraq question, I'd say: Stick it out or Cut 'n run. An election should be about the whole picture, but the Donks have chosen polarization on one issue as their prime strategy. I think they shoulda demanded a refund from their Paid Pol Advisors long ago.

Re: Admin / Nation Building / NeoCon short-term thinking. OK - you get to say I Told You So. ;-) I wondered the same thing about Afghanistan - and it may soon return to Totally Fucked. Iraq is ultra-crucial, IMO. Another dropped-ball like Afgh would make a joke of everything. Hence Bush 2004 or emigrate, officially, probably to Thailand - as I would have zero left in common with NMM's PamericaC. Re: Cheney, Rummy, Rice, and Powell... Which ones are phools? Not Rummy and not Rice. Cheney is still an enigma, IMO. Powell is smart & politically astute, as we saw when running JCS, and playing his assigned role. If he's a dolt, then Dubya is to blame cuz that's where 99% of his words and actions originate. Wolfie gets paid for Big Ideas & GlobalThinkâ¢, prolly. So it falls to JCS and State's tiff and turf games to ID the specific screwups. I've said before that I see Dubya in a somewhat unflattering light. Details are not his strength, IMO. He's like Reagan, IMO. He says what his vision is and expects the people he's hired and who report to him to get the damned job done. That works great in business, obviously it can fail / fall on its ass in Govt. Personally, I think much of what failed initially can be traced back to upper and mid-level State people and their back-stabbing political turf bullshit. I do not believe them to be above sabotage. I'd dearly love to see them fired en masse. But that time has passed. Dubya has to get on-track and keep it there till the bloody bitter end - probably another 18 months. Just my 2 cents.

I'll have a look at the Berman book. It's certainly unavailable here and I dunno about Amazon's int'l shipping. I'll check it out. Thx!

BTW, Havel would've been a great choice, if he'd been interested.

Posted by .com (RoPMA) 2003-11-6 3:57:00 PM|| 2003-11-6 3:57:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Rice is an old Kissinger protege, IIRC. And Rummy an old Nixon hand, IIRC. Not people whose natural focus is on a global war for democracy. People whose thinking is "realist" if more muscular than the State Dept variety. Doesnt make them fools by any means - Kissinger was no fool - nor was Metternich! But what we need now is something different from "realpolitik" - its a vision to win an ideological war against a new variety of fascism.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-11-6 4:49:34 PM|| 2003-11-6 4:49:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Please don't drag Metternichs name into anything having to do with Kissingbug. Kissingbug has Bechtel paid scholars who do nothing but look for passages with his and Metternichs name in the same paragraph.

Posted by Shipman 2003-11-6 5:18:17 PM|| 2003-11-6 5:18:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Interesting. This coincides with a political opinion piece in today's Gazette by E. J. Dionne, of WaPo. In it he speaks with glowing words about the Democratic Party's alternative foreign policy. What it all boils down to is the same old sh$$: turn the whole thing over to the United Nations, apologize for acting "independently", and stop being so much of a bully.

The Democratic Party is firmly and unswervingly committed to ending US sovereignty and making this nation subservient to the United Nations and "world opinion". Those in public offices should be expelled, and the entire party dumped somewhere north of Montreal.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-11-6 7:24:59 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-11-6 7:24:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Clark's comments are mostly (1) obvious and represent no real change from current strategy, or (2) laughable. Especially laughable -- though perhaps it's not so funny, as here's a former 4-star SACEUR vying for a major party pres. nomination mouthing the words -- is this bizarre suggestion that a non-American be put in political control. Presumably this would be to appease the perverse, or bad-faith, or outright hostile opposition of "allies" and others to the US destruction of the Iraqi regime. That's jaw-dropping enough.

But how vapid can Clark get? Does he believe that Iraqis, overwhelmingly desperate for our basic success in vanquishing the diehards and fearing most that we will leave before the job is done, would be somehow reassured (rather than appalled or concerned) that a non-American (seemingly, ANYBODY but an American?) was "in charge" of the occupation? This is a brutal test of wills, a sort of hybrid civil war with international involvement. Iraqis, sensibly enough, care about results, not the passport of the guy at the Republican Palace in Baghdad. Equally sensibly, they know the US will make or break this, so why would a non-American proconsul help?

Honorable military service, first in his class, real smart guy, sure. But when he has talked in public much above the tactical level and outside narrowly military issues, Clark has been amazingly unimpressive (polite, respectful formulation for a reality that merits far harsher language).

I know memories are short, but was it supposed to be humorous for Clark to suggest NATO involvement? Though not probably his fault, his famous experience with NATO in the Kosovo war was one of the biggest fisacoes since WWII. It was a burlesque of political-military bumbling saved only by the fact that the adversary was a solitary little pipsqueak of a country that had a ready exit by ceding some territorial control. It's going to be "a long, hard slog" in Iraq even with a fairly well-run, determined operation with clear US control. Substituting some fanciful NATO operation cannot even be considered a serious idea.

Posted by IceCold 2003-11-6 9:45:22 PM|| 2003-11-6 9:45:22 PM|| Front Page Top

10:25 Daniel King
08:46 Raptor
01:04 Dar
23:48 chriskarma
23:15 Raj
22:54 Seafarious
22:48 Raj
22:13 Jarhead
22:13 Bomb-a-rama
22:09 Fred
21:58 Christopher Johnson
21:56 Jarhead
21:54 Robert Crawford
21:48 Angie Schultz
21:45 IceCold
21:17 Parabellum
20:40 djh
20:29 Rafael
20:26 Old Grouch
20:05 .com (RoPMA)
20:00 Jarhead
19:59 Barbara Skolaut
19:57 Tim
19:44 Michael