Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Neither Biden nor Edwards has a workable, realistic plan for dealing with the Middle East.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 08:08 PM
Original message
Neither Biden nor Edwards has a workable, realistic plan for dealing with the Middle East.
Edited on Wed Jan-31-07 08:31 PM by Clarkie1
Wesley Clark, the retired general who is also mulling a presidential bid also told me that while partitioning may eventually occur, or already be happening, in Iraq, it could never be official United States policy.

The problem, he said, is that Iraqis forced to move out from their homes or from the more mixed urban areas like Baghdad or Kirkuk to the strongholds of their respective ethnic or religious group will associate their displacement with the United States. Clark said that feeling will breed even more resentment towards America.

"'Bush did this to me,' That's what they'll say," said Mr. Clark. "Bush drove me out of my home. Or they will name some Democratic Senator. It could come to that but it can't be what we want."

http://thepoliticker.observer.com/2006/12/the-life-and-death-of-an-iraq-plan.html

Next move in Iraq?
By Wesley Clark

What about a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals? Today, setting a rigid, Washington-driven timetable is an option, but a bad one. A precipitous troop reduction could have far-reaching effects: emboldening Iran, weakening U.S. security promises to friendly states, and even sparking military initiatives by other powers — Turkey or Iran — to deal with the resulting security vacuum. Our weakened position in Iraq also could undercut our leverage in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

What about imposing a tripartite division of Iraq? That would merely feed ethnic cleansing and likely lead to a wider, more intense conflict.

The right approach is a coordinated diplomatic, legal, economic and security campaign drawing upon broader dialogue in the region and intensified political work inside Iraq.

Here is how to do this:

Establish an effective, sustained shuttle diplomacy within the region.

Form a high-level interagency diplomatic team, representing the White House and secretaries of State and Defense and led by an experienced, respected diplomat.

Begin talks within Iraq, and with all its neighbors, based on a clear set of principles outlined by the team. The goal would be to seek the commitments necessary to achieve our aims inside Iraq and also advance U.S. interests in the region.

These principles could include: Iraq would remain whole; oil revenue would go to the Iraqi people based on a formula they determine; the rights and security of individuals must be protected; the United States would have no permanent bases in Iraq; the covert flow of military arms and equipment into Iraq would be halted; and the security needs of all states would be respected.

more....
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/11/illustration_by_2.html

The Smart Surge: Diplomacy
By Wesley K. Clark
Monday, January 8, 2007; A15

The odds are that this week President Bush will announce a "surge" of up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops into Iraq. Will this deliver a "win"? Probably not. But it will distract us from facing the deep-seated regional issues that must be resolved.

<snip>
The truth is that the underlying problems are political, not military.

Vicious ethnic cleansing is underway, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment, security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces -- and increasing U.S. efforts is likely to generate additional resistance, especially from Iraq's neighbors. More effective action is needed to resolve the struggle at the political level. A new U.S. ambassador might help, but the administration needs to recognize that the neoconservative vision has failed.

Dealing with meddling neighbors is an essential element of resolving the conflict in Iraq. But this requires more than border posts and threatening statements. The administration needs a new strategy for the region, before Iran gains nuclear capabilities. While the military option must remain on the table, America should take the lead with direct diplomacy to resolve the interrelated problems of Iran's push for regional hegemony and nuclear power, the struggle for control of Lebanon, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Isolating our adversaries hasn't worked.

Absent such fundamental change in Washington's approach, there is little hope that a troop surge and accompanying rhetoric will be anything other than "staying the course" more. That wastes lives and time, bolsters the terrorists and avoids facing up to the interrelated challenges posed by a region in crisis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/07/AR2007010700980_pf.html

Biden and Edwards are playing political games; Clark has larger concerns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
EndElectoral Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. Really would like to see Clark run. Gore is my second choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. clark has the best ideas on the middle east
nothing will ever be settled in the middle east until the the palestine/ israel issue is settled. there will be no peace until america stops backing the israeli government and becomes an honest broker for peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. I think a Clark Gore ticket
Is our best shot in the ride out of hell this administration has brought us to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
4. Clark brings brains and creds to the issue
and looks at the strategic geopolitcal long term aims from multiple angles. That's why he's my numero uno candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveinMD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
5. self delete
Edited on Wed Jan-31-07 10:57 PM by DaveinMD
self delete
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
6. TRUE DAT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
7. God himself (herself?) lacks a workable, realistic plan for dealing with the Middle East.
Why should Biden or Edwards have a leg up on God?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. That's no excuse. nt
Edited on Wed Jan-31-07 11:44 PM by Clarkie1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KingofNewOrleans Donating Member (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
8. Tri-partitioning of Iraq
is already occuring, as Clark notes, and will continue over the next two years. And the Iraqis already resent us. I think diplomacy with Syria and Iran will be needed when the next President takes office (it's needed now, but ain't happening because of President Jack-Squat), but it'll be more of an after the fact type of thing, two years from now.

Quite frankly I don't see a huge amount of difference, despite all the posturing, among the positions of Biden, Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and Clark regarding Iraq.

The piousness of the cult of Clark is annoying too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. If you don't see a significant amount of difference than you haven't been paying attention.
Edited on Thu Feb-01-07 12:31 AM by Clarkie1
And your other comment is just as inane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Would you say the same concerning Iran
There is a well documented thread up now documenting what Clark has been saying for years about Iran:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3089650

Check it out if you get a chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
11. Benchmarks set to a time frame
is workable. I don't think the Iraqi's will believe it unless dates are included in the strategy. Dates will have to be set sooner or later, anyway. Otherwise, I agree. The partition is flat idiotic. I don't know what Edwards plan really entails, but I do know Feingold has said set a date and instruct Bush to figure it out. I don't think that's quite enough right this minute, although it is the plan of last resort.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSlayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 01:29 AM
Response to Original message
13. Clark is the only one who seems to understand the situation.
Everyone else's ideas range from the ridiculous to the dangerous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 05:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC