Wes Clark penned a masterful op-ed piece (also diaried by
Noel Schutz) for
today's Washington Post that details a plan for improving the situation on the ground in Iraq. He outlines Bush's failures -- "diplomatic failure," "too slow in mobilizing Iraqi political action," ill-conceived training for Iraqi forces, and a failure "to win hearts and minds" -- and instead of advocating 'the same, just more' we keep hearing from the liberal hawks, proposes a new dichotomy. I've distilled his suggestions into bullet points below:
- Form a regional body to help Iraq coordinate with neighboring states on economic and political concerns.
- Ratchet down the "raw rhetoric" coming from the White House and instead engage and work with Iraq's neighbors.
- Declaration that permanent U.S. military bases will not be established in Iraq.
- Abandon the timeline for the Iraqi Constitution.
- Focus on establishing a compromise Constitution that is acceptable to the Iraqis, Iraq's neighbors, and the U.S.
- Obtain a "legal mandate from the government" to legitimize American military and civilian assistance.
- Establishing working governments and judicial systems at both the provincial and local levels.
- Expedite reconstruction efforts, "especially in those areas along the border and where the insurgency has the greatest potential."
- Increase training efforts for police forces as well as military, requesting support from "Canada, France and Germany."
- Request outside "observers and technical assistance" from Iraq's neighbors.
- Focus on "civic action, small-scale economic development and positive daily interactions" to gain support from the Iraqi street.
- Recruit 10,000 Arabic-speaking Americans to act as interpreters.
- Reduce "jihadist infiltration" from other countries "by a combination of outposts, patrols and reaction forces reinforced by high technology."
- Turn over peacekeeping responsibilities to the Iraqis, shifting American troops to a supporting role that will be gradually "phased out."
Now, you may agree or disagree with Clark on whether or not any of this will work. Personally, I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt because he's had first-hand experience with this sort of thing. But the reason I find this so interesting is that, unlike Biden or Clinton, who may support similar suggestions, Clark did not actively back this war. He has the authority to call the war a failure
and a mistake, which he does.
Clark also directly addresses the matter of the administration trumpeting the message of "resolve."
The growing chorus of voices demanding a pullout should seriously alarm the Bush administration, because President Bush and his team are repeating the failure of Vietnam: failing to craft a realistic and effective policy and instead simply demanding that the American people show resolve. Resolve isn't enough to mend a flawed approach -- or to save the lives of our troops. If the administration won't adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that it bring our troops home.
This is a unique message among the fight better 2008 Democrats because it's not just fight better. It's fight better... and if you refuse to, then stop fighting. When I hear some of the liberal hawks talk about Iraq, I get the impression that their position is that we should fight until we win, no matter what the cost.
One of the big concerns I keep hearing (especially among the netroots) is that Bush is criticizing "immediate withdrawal" with an eye toward a gradual withdrawal over the next year or so. The GOP will get to have their cake and eat it to, falsely slamming any Democrat who ever supported a timetable as having wanted to cut and run. By calling out Bush on his failure and providing a clear alternative that does not rely on hard and fast dates, Clark is insulating himself from that charge. And by writing that these changes must be done "before it's too late," he's also making it clear that, because of Bush's failings, there will come a point at which withdrawal will be the only sane option left.
