« They Must Be Doing Something Right | Main | Philadelphia Story »
21 June 2005
Wes Says — June 21
Wes Clark, on Fox News, says, "There is no alternative to our success in Iraq. None."
Uh-oh. Sound bites can come back to take a big piece out of your hide. Sound bites are not Wes Clark's best thing. (Only Republicans get 'em really right.)
What I heard him say as well (but then, I'm an inveterate Wes-watcher, and my ear is tuned to his particular nuance) is that the planners should be planning for both tracks — stay in or withdraw.
What we cannot be sure of is whether BushCo has any plan at all.
RJ and I will be debating here the question of whether we should be planning a pullout now, or if not now, when — and under what circumstances.
Posted by EDN on June 21, 2005 at 12:19 PM in International Affairs, Wes Says | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451648869e200d8344a6a6b53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Wes Says — June 21:
Comments
I saw that too, Ellen. While I know what he means, I would've preferred a different choice of words - one that made the success that's needed "theirs," or "the world's," rather than "ours."
But perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself here ...
Posted by: RJ Eskow | Jun 21, 2005 4:24:23 PM
RJ, what exactly does Clark mean?
Please don't get me wrong. I like Clark a lot, but if he's in the camp that says it was wrong to invade Iraq but now that we're there...[insert any hawkish nonsense about "finishing the job" or "fixing" the mess], then I've got to reconsider my support for him.
It sounds like a lead-in to Nixon's "secret plan" for "peace with honor."
Well, maybe Clark sees it as a recipe for electoral success with the large part of the electorate that can't face the truth, doesn't want to hear it and much prefers to cherish the illusion that we can do whatever we want because we're 'Murricans.
With talk like this, it will be nearly impossible to convince people that the only real alternative--withdrawal--is some sort of "success".
It will be the task of the next Dem presidential candidate to demonize the Republicans, to cast blame and responsibility where it belongs for a disaster in which there is no honor, no alternative to withdrawal, and no rescue for the nation without a repudiation of this ruinous Republican imperialism.
For this honesty, that candidate should expect to be attacked with the spittle-flecked fury of 35-40% of the electorate. Most Dems would wither under the assault. I thought Clark would be the man to stand up to it and be able to fire back with twice the firepower.
I suppose it's a good thing I'm not managing anyone's campaign. But the one thing I'd like to see before I die is a straight-talking Democrat. I want someone who's as honest as the day is long, who's not afraid to spell things out to the people, who's not afraid to take a stand even if it loses him some votes from the mushy middle.
Isn't that what most Americans want? Isn't that what the idiots who voted for Bush thought they were getting--a straight talker? I suppose their impulses were okay, even if they were too stupid or too biased to recognize a fraud when they voted for him.
Now you may think I'm being rude or harsh to characterize the typical red-state voter as "stupid" and "biased," but I mean what I say. The Bush voters have been had, big time. They were stupid to vote for the fraud that's picking their pockets and either killing their children or selling them into future economic peonage. They might not want to say it out loud, but Bush's plummeting poll numbers say they're thinking it.
As a military man, Clark should know when it's time to retreat, when it's useless to waste lives over a cause that's not only lost, but was insane from the get-go. So when he says "there's no alternative to success," is he saying he doesn't recognize the Iraqi occupation as the biggest clusterfuck since Vietnam? It sure sounds like that.
Posted by: Max | Jun 22, 2005 7:04:03 AM
I think he's saying that we can't leave the country in the catastrophic state it's in today - less safe than it was before our invasion. My thoughts on who should fix it and how will be the subjects of future posts, I suspect.
If his meaning is as you describe ... well, I won't be a happy camper.
Posted by: RJ Eskow | Jun 22, 2005 8:14:18 AM
He did say "two-track planning" — if I implied that I merely read that into what he said, then I apologize for not being clear.
"Strategic planning" is writ large in Wes' resume. He has already spoken out in favor of taking our European allies up on their offer to train Iraqi soldiers out of country. Does anybody think that enabling Iraqis to take over their own security shouldn't be part of our plan? It that were the agenda then it could probably get results. But we know (or suspect) that that isn't the agenda, or at least not the principal goal.
Wes walks a fine line. He really does love the Army and the troops. He is appalled by their treatment and the treatment of vets — it's a cornerstone of the issues he speaks out on (see his WesPAC website).
"Success" is a word whose meaning is at the heart of the debate. From "complete domination" to "not leaving the country in tatters and open to outright civil war" are the poles. We need to hear more from Wes on this, and not just in 30-second takes on Fox.
Posted by: Ellen Dana Nagler | Jun 22, 2005 8:34:30 AM
One thing about Clark, to my mind, is that he is the man who can make the truth palatable to the deluded who talk about "winning" in Iraq. And he can make it crystal clear.
To my mind, the best we can hope for is a negotiated cease-fire that permits a rapidly-phased withdrawal coupled with ploughing a whole lot of money to the Iraqis for rebuilding.
Engaging the Europeans (and, I presume, paying them) for out-of-country troop training is fine, but one wonders if these new Iraqi recruits will fare any better than the old or be any less riddled with insurgency spies.
I'm sure Wes Clark loves the Army and is outraged by what's happening to the troops, the organization and the vets.
That's why it's essential that blame be placed where it belongs--with Bush and the Republicans.
They will paint Clark as a traitor, as a coward, with every vile smear they can imagine. So he must be aggressive and careful never to give them an opening like "no alternative to success." He has to define success--which in this case is the avoidance of an utter rout--in a way that denies the Republicans any figleaf that might cover their shame.
As you can tell, I am not in a conciliatory mood vis-a-vis the Republicans. The Republicans have taken this country to the brink, perhaps over the brink, where this country is poised to forget its ideals, its Constitution, its soul.
Should Clark, or any Democrat, win in 2008, the Republican jackals will be waiting for him to fail. And it will take a Herculean effort for the country to dig its way out of the pit the Republicans have dug for us. All the more reason to make sure the Republicans are blamed ever and always.
Posted by: Max | Jun 22, 2005 10:04:29 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
