[b]The Next Iraq Offensive[/b]

[Nickdfresh]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/12/05/opinion/oped.583.jpg

By WESLEY K. CLARK
Published: December 6, 2005

Doha, Qatar

WHILE the Bush administration and its critics escalated the debate last week over how long our troops should stay in Iraq, I was able to see the issue through the eyes of America's friends in the Persian Gulf region. The Arab states agree on one thing: Iran is emerging as the big winner of the American invasion, and both President Bush's new strategy and the Democratic responses to it dangerously miss the point. It's a devastating critique. And, unfortunately, it is correct.

While American troops have been fighting, and dying, against the Sunni rebels and foreign jihadists, the Shiite clerics in Iraq have achieved fundamental political goals: capturing oil revenues, strengthening the role of Islam in the state, and building up formidable militias that will defend their gains and advance their causes as the Americans draw down and leave. Iraq's neighbors, then, see it evolving into a Shiite-dominated, Iranian buffer state that will strengthen Tehran's power in the Persian Gulf just as it is seeks nuclear weapons and intensifies its rhetoric against Israel.

The American approach shows little sense of Middle Eastern history and politics. As one prominent Kuwaiti academic explained to me, in the Muslim world the best way to deal with your enemies has always been to assimilate them - you never succeed in killing them all, and by trying to do so you just make more enemies. Instead, you must woo them to rejoin society and the government. Military pressure should be used in a calibrated way, to help in the wooing.

If this critique is correct - and it is difficult to argue against it - then we must face its implications. "Staying the course" risks a slow and costly departure of American forces with Iraq increasingly factionalized and aligned with Iran. Yet a more rapid departure of American troops along a timeline, as some Democrats are calling for, simply reduces our ability to affect the outcome and risks broader regional conflict.

We need to keep our troops in Iraq, but we need to modify the strategy far more drastically than anything President Bush called for last week.

On the military side, American and Iraqi forces must take greater control of the country's borders, not only on the Syrian side but also in the east, on the Iranian side. The current strategy of clearing areas near Syria of insurgents and then posting Iraqi troops, backed up by mobile American units, has had success. But it needs to be expanded, especially in the heavily Shiite regions in the southeast, where there has been continuing cross-border traffic from Iran and where the loyalties of the Iraqi troops will be especially tested.

We need to deploy three or four American brigades, some 20,000 troops, with adequate aerial reconnaissance, to provide training, supervision and backup along Iraq's several thousand miles of vulnerable border. And even then, the borders won't be "sealed"; they'll just be more challenging to penetrate.

We must also continue military efforts against insurgent strongholds and bases in the Sunni areas, in conjunction with Iraqi forces. Over the next year or so, this will probably require four to six brigade combat teams, plus an operational reserve, maybe 30,000 troops.

But these efforts must go hand-in-glove with intensified outreach to Iraqi insurgents, to seek their reassimilation into society and their assistance in wiping out residual foreign jihadists. Iraqi and American officials have had sporadic communications with insurgent leaders, but these must lead to deeper discussions on issues like amnesty for insurgents who lay down their arms and opportunities for their further participation in public and private life.

Iraq, for its part, must begin to enforce the ban on armed militias that was enshrined in the new Constitution, especially in the south. Ideally, this should be achieved voluntarily, through political means. But American muscle will have to be made available as a last resort. The Iraqi government should request that for the next two years, six to eight American brigades serve as a backup, available as a last resort if there is trouble in cities with large militia factions like Baghdad, Basra and Najaf. And it is vital that the Pentagon provide our forces with better crowd-control training and many more translators than they have now.

As important as these military changes are, they won't matter at all unless our political strategy is rethought. First, the Iraqis must change the Constitution as quickly as possible after next week's parliamentary elections. Most important, oil revenues should be declared the property of the central government, not the provinces. And the federal concept must be modified to preclude the creation of a Shiite autonomous region in the south.

Also, a broad initiative to reduce sectarian influence within government institutions is long overdue. The elections, in which Sunnis will participate, will help; but the government must do more to ensure that all ethnic and religious groups are represented within ministries, police forces, the army, the judiciary and other overarching federal institutions.

And we must start using America's diplomatic strength with Syria and Iran. The political weakness of Bashar al-Assad opens the door for significant Syrian concessions on controlling the border and cutting support for the jihadists. We also have to stop ignoring Tehran's meddling and begin a public dialogue on respecting Iraqi independence, which will make it far easier to get international support against the Iranians if (and when) they break their word.

Yes, our military forces are dangerously overstretched. Recruiting and retention are suffering; among retired officers, there is deep concern that the Bush administration's attitude on the treatment of detainees has jeopardized not only the safety of our troops but the moral purpose of our effort.

Still, none of this necessitates a pullout until the job is done. After the elections, we should be able to draw down by 30,000 troops from the 160,000 now there. Don't bet against our troops.

What a disaster it would be if the real winner in Iraq turned out to be Iran, a country that supports terrorism and opposes most of what we stand for. Surely, we can summon the wisdom, resources and bipartisan leadership to change the American course before it is too late.

Wesley K. Clark, a former Democratic presidential candidate, was the commander of NATO forces from 1997 to 2000.

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/opinion/06clark.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=fb65c5e212e9b04b&ex=1134882000)

[Nickdfresh]

WHILE the Bush administration and its critics escalated the debate last week over how long our troops should stay in Iraq, I was able to see the issue through the eyes of America's friends in the Persian Gulf region. The Arab states agree on one thing: Iran is emerging as the big winner of the American invasion, and both President Bush's new strategy and the Democratic responses to it dangerously miss the point. It's a devastating critique. And, unfortunately, it is correct.

While American troops have been fighting, and dying, against the Sunni rebels and foreign jihadists, the Shiite clerics in Iraq have achieved fundamental political goals...

--Wesley CLARK


http://www.insanereagan.com/images/mission_accomplished02-hires.jpg

[LoungeMachine]

Makes perfect sense.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Makes perfect sense.

Actually it does make a lot of sense, and this is an area i am willing to listen to Clark on.
He outlined a very real alternative which is actually more than I ever knew about what Bush's plan is and was.

So, Wesley got my attention and then i come in here to see that Nick used the opportunity to slap me in the face for it with a picture that says something totally different to me than what he intended.

And now, I drift off topic for a bit.

Nick, i get this impression that you think the life of an american is worth more than any other on earth.
When i see that picture i see the coffins of soldiers covered in the red white and blue, with dignity, and proper respect for a job they volunteered to do that resulted in them making the greatest sacrifice one could make to their country.

You should know that joining the service is saying to them, "Use me how you see fit, I am here to serve", and when you signed that contract with Uncle Sam there was no clause for exemption from battle for not believeing in the mission...your job is to fight and overcome the enemy, whoever and however that enemy is or was defined.
You waive your right to a personal opinion of the politics involved when you pick up that weapon for your nation because most soldiers serve under both parties in America.

But no matter how civilized or barbaric any race of people are, all life is equal and where you find some huge boost in your point with that photo, I see hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's that were tortured, killed, and then just rolled over into a hole on top of others who's only crime was speaking out against a brutal government.
May we never have to endure that kind of society for ourselves and our families.

"Mission Accomplished", I don't really see the problem with the sign, though it was a stupid idea to even hang a banner in the first place no matter what it said.
The mission was to topple Saddam, that mission was accomplished.
but he used the phrase, "end of major combat missions" which would be a better talking point than that sign if you want ammo cause that's where he pissed me off.
The sign is a visual attack base for liberals, but it is taken out of context when applied because it was actually an accurate assessment at the time, Saddam was gone.

The insurgent war came after the fact and though you don't agree, it's a different war completely, and one we can, will, and are winning.

Don't rob the troops of their victory, because they did accomplish the mission that banner was hung for, though as i said, the idea was dumb from the start.

Oh, but let's keep in mind that Bush didn't hang it, he didn't request it, so hang the blame for it on the person or people who actually did.

And for crying out loud, learn to have some faith in your country. You're as responsible for our choice in leaders as the next voter, and it starts at the local level when you and i go to the polls.
if we want better choices we have to take every vote we cast seriously and without a partisan straight party voting habit.

As we have seen from the current administration and others in the past, absolute power corrupts absolutely...without an even keel the ship rolls over on it's side at launch.
We've been taking on dangerous amounts of water lately because of a lack of compromise...nobody wants to do that anymore.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Cathedral
I see hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's that were tortured, killed, and then just rolled over into a hole on top of others who's only crime was speaking out against a brutal government.


(carefull, cat, you're sounding like a bleeding heart...;))


actually, i completely agree with you here, except for the fact that this is NOT the reason we went to war.

i do not believe bush is an evil man. i do believe that he's happy that we are offering iraqis a better life (eventually) than the one they would've had under saddam (and his sons.) but that was not the reason bush went to war.

the simple fact is that bush originally wanted full access for weapons inspectors in iraq. had saddam completely agreed to that, and upheld his end, yet still continued to brutally oppress his people, would we have still gone to war?

the administration is using the concepts of freedom for iraqis and democracy as spin to justify the war after the fact. it is much more difficult to say that America was in grave danger because of saddam (which is what WAS said before the war.)

since they cannot undo the decision to go to war, they have begun spinning the reasons we went.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Actually it does make a lot of sense, and this is an area i am willing to listen to Clark on.
He outlined a very real alternative which is actually more than I ever knew about what Bush's plan is and was.

So, Wesley got my attention and then i come in here to see that Nick used the opportunity to slap me in the face for it with a picture that says something totally different to me than what he intended.

And now, I drift off topic for a bit.

Nick, i get this impression that you think the life of an american is worth more than any other on earth.

CAT, I applaud your thoughtful, and thought provoking post. You deserve good long answers for your good long questions...

I take an umbrage to that. I've actually have been flamed or daring to say that American lives are no more important that any others' lives. But actually, I do have a small bias that American lives are a bit more important. So I think we better have damn good reasons for sending good people to die.


When i see that picture i see the coffins of soldiers covered in the red white and blue, with dignity, and proper respect for a job they volunteered to do that resulted in them making the greatest sacrifice one could make to their country.

You should know that joining the service is saying to them, "Use me how you see fit, I am here to serve", and when you signed that contract with Uncle Sam there was no clause for exemption from battle for not believeing in the mission...your job is to fight and overcome the enemy, whoever and however that enemy is or was defined.
You waive your right to a personal opinion of the politics involved when you pick up that weapon for your nation because most soldiers serve under both parties in America.

I agree. But there are certainly servicemen that strongly disagree with this campaign. It is true they serve, but they do not serve a political party, they serve the American people. The military people can no be told what to "think" actually. But you are quite correct that they have some significant restrictions on what they can say. But I am not addressing the troops, I doubt many read this. They don't have to like it.


But no matter how civilized or barbaric any race of people are, all life is equal and where you find some huge boost in your point with that photo, I see hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's that were tortured, killed, and then just rolled over into a hole on top of others who's only crime was speaking out against a brutal government.
May we never have to endure that kind of society for ourselves and our families.

I've never defended SADDAM or his actions. I hope he rots in hell. But did you ever think that horrifying atrocities happen all over the world? I mean, why aren't we "democratizing Africa?" Basically, it's because the oil there is in relatively compliant, if despotic hands. We get what we want from Angola, Nigeria, and the SUDAN, well we've done relatively little to them despite the fact they're one of the worlds most vicious human rights abusers. Mainly because the CHINESE back them (because oil) selling weapons they use to wipe out villages, rape women indiscriminately based solely on their skin color (the ARAB muslims "Janjuweed" [spelled phonetically] militias attack black muslims) but, no one ever thought to send US ground troops to "liberate" them. Just like we dealt with SADDAM fully knowing what a bastard he was, in fact, in 1990, the CIA intentionally declassified part of his file and gave it to TIME magazine for a famous expose' on what a horrible cunt he was. Of course, they had been building this file on him for 30-years, and they always knew what a dick wad he was, but we not only did nothing, we actually helped the IRAQI gov't by giving them vehicles, and by providing satellite intelligence of the IRANIANs, and of course RUMSFELD actually shook his bloody hand....


"Mission Accomplished", I don't really see the problem with the sign, though it was a stupid idea to even hang a banner in the first place no matter what it said.
The mission was to topple Saddam, that mission was accomplished.
but he used the phrase, "end of major combat missions" which would be a better talking point than that sign if you want ammo cause that's where he pissed me off.
The sign is a visual attack base for liberals, but it is taken out of context when applied because it was actually an accurate assessment at the time, Saddam was gone.

The problem with the sign is that it was symbolic of his mistakes. He and his lackeys/puppet masters had been told that it would require a significant number of troops to "secure" IRAQ. Some even went so far as to predict the imminent danger of an AFGHANISTAN like conflict in which we would be pinned down in a desert guerilla war.


The insurgent war came after the fact and though you don't agree, it's a different war completely, and one we can, will, and are winning.

No, it's the exact same war. You can't separate wars into the segments you like and dislike, otherwise the JAPANESE "won" after Pearl Harbor, or the Germans won after conquering France. Remember the adage, "winning the battle, but not the war."


Don't rob the troops of their victory, because they did accomplish the mission that banner was hung for, though as i said, the idea was dumb from the start.

The troops performed admirably, and continue to do so. They deserve better leadership, and a real plan to achieve "peace with honor." There is no military solution to this conflict anymore. In fact, the secular, anti-IRANIAN Sunnis with balls to fight are the ones we need to bring into the gov't. "Winning" will be a stable Mideast, but this administration has not shown it can manage the job, nor make the choices.


Oh, but let's keep in mind that Bush didn't hang it, he didn't request it, so hang the blame for it on the person or people who actually did.

He also didn't take it down. And he didn't mind basking in the afterglow of the blitz-sacking of Baghdad while in his little flight suit, so he better damn well take the fall when things go to shit.


And for crying out loud, learn to have some faith in your country. You're as responsible for our choice in leaders as the next voter, and it starts at the local level when you and i go to the polls.
if we want better choices we have to take every vote we cast seriously and without a partisan straight party voting habit.

Yeah CAT, but aren't you the one that said you would "never" vote for a Democrat? You play right into the spinners hands. Did you read any of BILL CLINTON's comments in that thread I posted?


As we have seen from the current administration and others in the past, absolute power corrupts absolutely...without an even keel the ship rolls over on it's side at launch.
We've been taking on dangerous amounts of water lately because of a lack of compromise...nobody wants to do that anymore.

Well, I think the BUSH administration is showing a little flexibility. In fact, they are withdrawing US troops later this month. But his rhetoric is mind-numbingly unrealistic. The "victory" crap is inspecific: he has neither really defined 'victory,' nor has he stated that eventually all US troops will come home. The truth is that we have to make some very hard, unpleasant choices. Like talking to Baathist "dead-enders" and even people that have done horrible things to promote their cause. The Sunnis make up 20% of IRAQ's population, and they hate the IRANIANS. Maybe, just maybe they need to be in the gov't more than just as elected representatives...

It's either that or civil war...

[BigBadBrian]

Good article, Nick. I agree with it.

Cat, I agree with most of your post. All human life is the same. However, when acting as an American, I do consider American lives more precious than any other. I feel that way probably because I spent a good portion of my life defending this country and its citizenry. Maybe that's the wrong way to feel....so what....that's the way it is. Any American government official has the same responsibility...Americans come first.

:gulp:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
(carefull, cat, you're sounding like a bleeding heart...;))


actually, i completely agree with you here, except for the fact that this is NOT the reason we went to war.

i do not believe bush is an evil man. i do believe that he's happy that we are offering iraqis a better life (eventually) than the one they would've had under saddam (and his sons.) but that was not the reason bush went to war.

the simple fact is that bush originally wanted full access for weapons inspectors in iraq. had saddam completely agreed to that, and upheld his end, yet still continued to brutally oppress his people, would we have still gone to war?

the administration is using the concepts of freedom for iraqis and democracy as spin to justify the war after the fact. it is much more difficult to say that America was in grave danger because of saddam (which is what WAS said before the war.)

since they cannot undo the decision to go to war, they have begun spinning the reasons we went.

KB, you bring up the reasons for going to war in just about every thread. Isn't that water under the bridge, at least as far as this thread is concerned? Wouldn't you agree?

[knuckleboner]

as far as the thread? absolutely.

i was just referring to cat's comment on seeing all the iraqis saddam killed.

you're right, though, probably a dead horse.

as you know, it doesn't mean i want us out this second. probably more for a thread on any future plans.

point noted!

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
CAT, I applaud your thoughtful, and thought provoking post. You deserve good long answers for your good long questions...

I take an umbrage to that. I've actually have been flamed or daring to say that American lives are no more important that any others' lives. But actually, I do have a small bias that American lives are a bit more important. So I think we better have damn good reasons for sending good people to die.



I agree. But there are certainly servicemen that strongly disagree with this campaign. It is true they serve, but they do not serve a political party, they serve the American people. The military people can no be told what to "think" actually. But you are quite correct that they have some significant restrictions on what they can say. But I am not addressing the troops, I doubt many read this. They don't have to like it.



I've never defended SADDAM or his actions. I hope he rots in hell. But did you ever think that horrifying atrocities happen all over the world? I mean, why aren't we "democratizing Africa?" Basically, it's because the oil there is in relatively compliant, if despotic hands. We get what we want from Angola, Nigeria, and the SUDAN, well we've done relatively little to them despite the fact they're one of the worlds most vicious human rights abusers. Mainly because the CHINESE back them (because oil) selling weapons they use to wipe out villages, rape women indiscriminately based solely on their skin color (the ARAB muslims "Janjuweed" [spelled phonetically] militias attack black muslims) but, no one ever thought to send US ground troops to "liberate" them. Just like we dealt with SADDAM fully knowing what a bastard he was, in fact, in 1990, the CIA intentionally declassified part of his file and gave it to TIME magazine for a famous expose' on what a horrible cunt he was. Of course, they had been building this file on him for 30-years, and they always knew what a dick wad he was, but we not only did nothing, we actually helped the IRAQI gov't by giving them vehicles, and by providing satellite intelligence of the IRANIANs, and of course RUMSFELD actually shook his bloody hand....



The problem with the sign is that it was symbolic of his mistakes. He and his lackeys/puppet masters had been told that it would require a significant number of troops to "secure" IRAQ. Some even went so far as to predict the imminent danger of an AFGHANISTAN like conflict in which we would be pinned down in a desert guerilla war.



No, it's the exact same war. You can't separate wars into the segments you like and dislike, otherwise the JAPANESE "won" after Pearl Harbor, or the Germans won after conquering France. Remember the adage, "winning the battle, but not the war."



The troops performed admirably, and continue to do so. They deserve better leadership, and a real plan to achieve "peace with honor." There is no military solution to this conflict anymore. In fact, the secular, anti-IRANIAN Sunnis with balls to fight are the ones we need to bring into the gov't. "Winning" will be a stable Mideast, but this administration has not shown it can manage the job, nor make the choices.



He also didn't take it down. And he didn't mind basking in the afterglow of the blitz-sacking of Baghdad while in his little flight suit, so he better damn well take the fall when things go to shit.



Yeah CAT, but aren't you the one that said you would "never" vote for a Democrat? You play right into the spinners hands. Did you read any of BILL CLINTON's comments in that thread I posted?



Well, I think the BUSH administration is showing a little flexibility. In fact, they are withdrawing US troops later this month. But his rhetoric is mind-numbingly unrealistic. The "victory" crap is inspecific: he has neither really defined 'victory,' nor has he stated that eventually all US troops will come home. The truth is that we have to make some very hard, unpleasant choices. Like talking to Baathist "dead-enders" and even people that have done horrible things to promote their cause. The Sunnis make up 20% of IRAQ's population, and they hate the IRANIANS. Maybe, just maybe they need to be in the gov't more than just as elected representatives...

It's either that or civil war...

Outstanding post, i appreciate the time you invested in the reply.

I just want to say though that regardless of my pissy neocon shithead attitude, when I step into a voting booth i always vote for the better person based on their history. it's just that more often than not we don't have any good candidates that aren't right wing conservatives.

And in my personal opinion, the Sunni's are Iraq's only hope for being secure at all.
But to keep typing about this is redundant...I can at least respect your opinion on what you believe is right.

[Nickdfresh]

I don't think of you as a "Neo Con" CAT. Just a CONservative.;)