Richard Clarke on Iraq and the WoT
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Foreign Policy, The War On Terrorism
Clarke freely admits that both administrations were responsible for what happened on 9/11 and that we should drop the blame game and get onto more important matters. You know, like figuring out what we need to do to salvage Iraq and win this new long war.
A broad consensus in America on Iraq may now be impossible. President Bush could, however, move in that direction by admitting there is a serious problem with the current strategy and taking advice from a bipartisan group of respected experts to recommend a way forward that concentrates on protecting such basic national interests as preventing Iraq from continuing to be an anarchic failed state where terrorists can train. The Iraq Study Group, created at the urging of Congress in March and led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Representative Lee Hamilton, might perform that service. [...]If we are going to defeat the enemy, we must learn again to discuss our differences about Iraq and terrorism in civil and analytical terms. We must reject the use of fear and terrorism to divide America for political advantage. And we must not let ourselves get trapped in pointless, partisan debates that result only in having the past obscure the future.
I urge you to read the whole thing.
This entry was posted on Sunday, October 1st, 2006 and is filed under Foreign Policy, The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 1st, 2006 at 5:58 pm
I don’t see any bipartisan effort to make this possible. The democrats only contribution to the debate is to withdraw from Iraq, rather than finding solutions to win. They seem to be banking on the premise that America is the root cause of global terror, and our foreign policy should be focussed on trying to get the world to like us more, rather than the ruthless unashamed persuit of Islamist terrorists.
Republicans aren’t stepping up to Hold Bush’s feet to the flames and fix whats wrong, because advocacy of more troops isn’t particularly popular, and the Democrats would try to exploit that position politically.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:14 pm
Listen, who exploited the WoT politically first? Bush. Dems thought he was going to build bridges and he burned them. I don’t apologize for the Dems, but if you want to look to one side who started this distrust, look at the White House. Everybody was on Bush’s side post 9/11, and then he started acting as if what he said was true simply because he said it. And when people questioned him, they were giving aid and comfort. BS. That’s not how you run a democracy.
In short, Bush needs to reach out first. If he does, I think Dems could be responsive, but once bitten…
October 1st, 2006 at 9:02 pm
The Dems thought the war in Iraq would be easy, just as Bush did. Thats why they had no qualms supporting it when it was popular. After things went to sh*t, and the poll numbers dropped, the Dems bailed out rather than demand Bush fight harder. In fact, the demand is now to retreat.
I’m sorry, but doing this and things like giving Michael Moore a seat of honor at the Democratic National Convention has given aid and comfort. Its not the questioning per se, rather, it is the non-negotiable conclusions the Democrats have come up with that is the problem. McCain questions Bush too, but he claims we should kick more ass.
How is Bush supposed to reach out to his opponents if the Democrats insist on complete withdrawal from Iraq as the only option? Ask Joe Lieberman about what happens if a Democrat has a differing view.
If a republican congress were to be more agressive on demanding the president fix the problems by fighting harder in Iraq (such as sending more troops), the Dems would fight that proposal tooth-and-nail, and you know it!
October 1st, 2006 at 9:50 pm
So let me get this straight – Bush calls this a clash of civlizations in which our very existence may be at stake and then operates as if the opposite were true. We don’t move to domestic war-time footing, we don’t draft, we don’t raise taxes or ration to pay and supply for this thing and – most importantly – we don’t suspend our usual partisan bickering and forma a national unity government of both parties fully participating in the war effort (take a look at what the UK did during WWII for example). Instead, the Bush WH has from day 1 used this as a domestic political bludgeon against the Dems in general and any non-conformists in particular. That’s why we’ve lost this thing so far – our leadership failed to lead. At all. Ever. Just saying you’re a “uniter and not a divider” isn’t good enough. You actually have to take actions to get the job done. But you keep blaming the Dems for this mess the current administration has cooked up if that makes you feel better. Its what Bush would want, after all.
October 1st, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Okay, two things here.
First, the Dems didn’t bail out, but they did want to know why we were seemingly ignoring some pretty stern warnings from inside Iraq that said things we’re going to sh*t. Remember, that was essentially Kerry’s platform in 2004…stay the course, but get some new leadership in there to try and fix things. The idea of “cut and run” is basically about a year or so old, and was not the Dems platform for the last election. Hell, Dems are STILL divided about what to do about Iraq. And by the way, the left blogosphere is not the Dem leadership…just so we’re clear.
Second, what you are saying is that simply dissenting is giving aid and comfort. Remember, the Dems didn’t run this war. They had absolutely nothing to do with the running of the war. They wanted to help run it, but they’ve been shut out of nearly every single decision except giving the President the authority to use military force if necessary and fund that force. And I’m sorry, but when people start to see things that were seriously screwy about Iraq, they’re gonna speak up about it. They’re gonna say, “Hey, you’re doing this the wrong way.” Meanwhile, we’re now finding out that people inside Bush’s own administration have spoken truth to power, but have been repeatedly brushbacked and shunned. So what are we to make of that situation? I’m so much more angry at the administration than I am at the Dems because the administration could actually DO something about all this. The Dems were completely powerless, so they eventually turned to the only weapon you have left when somebody isn’t listening to your private conversations…public dissent.
And while it’s true that both sides have used the WoT for political gain, Bush is the one who has the bully pulpit and is more than happy to use it. And he uses it to paint even the slightest critic as unpatriotic. And if there’s anything that’s more “unpatriotic” than criticizing a President during wartime, it’s using your power to demonize those criticizing the President for exercising the very rights we’re fighting to protect.
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:54 am
http://identitycrisis.name/2006/10/02/richard-clarke-calls-the-kettle-black
is a response to Clarke’s op-ed. He can hardly point fingers, since he’s guilty of the same crimes himself.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:28 am
What is his position now? You just said it. Cut and Run. I guarantee you the same thing would have happened if he became president. This is precisely what I mean by bailing out.
If the dissent includes a call for retreat, then yes it does. But I would also agree that Iraq has become a training ground for terrorists; it is a simple reality and Republicans have to face up to that one as well (which many have not). These are simply unfortunate facts for both sides to consider.
I agree, and the Dems should get behind them, but in reality they have not. David Brooks illustrated this nicely in the NYT Sunday. He said something to the effect that The Dems pur like kittens when a General contradicts Bush and says things are going badly in Iraq, but cringe when the same generals say we need more troops to fight a long war.
Again, simply “dissenting” is not the point. If the Dems advocated a more concerted war effort requirng more sacrifice and determination, I’m sure they could find common ground across the isle and achieve the bi-partisan effort Mr. Clarke is advocating here. But the first step is to want to succeed militarily in Iraq. Unfortunately this basic premise is flatly rejected by one party (but not the other).
I really think this is a strawman, Justin. Bush has stated numerous times in numerous speeches that Patriotic Americans disagree with him. Calling people ignorant or cowardly is not the same as calling them unpatriotic. How many times do Dems and Republicans fight like this over other issues like taxes and spending without addressing patriotism?
Some of these Democrats who are obsessed with “speaking truth to power” need to build this straw man because they always need to portray themselves as victims of something, and cannot argue the Iraq war on its merits. They want to disagree with Bush , yet cannot provide better solutions, and so they need to blame Bush rather than adress these shortcomings for their plan (or lack therof) for Iraq.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:15 pm
The real problem is that anyone who makes a truly objective military, social, and political assessment of the current situation in Iraq comes to the conclusion that it is completely unwinnable with current troop levels, and that we do not have anywhere near enough troops available to increase our presence to the point where we might maybe have a chance to work towards something other than total disaster.
A similar analysis of the extreme negative reaction of the Iraqis to our presence makes “cut and run” as you call it pretty much the best choice for Iraq’s future…or for them to even have a future. Civil war is already fully engaged, and frankly I believe the only real method of ending it is to have Iraq split into three autonomous states, the Shi’ite portion would pretty much end up subsumed into Iraq, the Kurds would be on their own (much to Turkey’s chagrin), and the Sunnis would probably end up dominated by Saudi Arabia. As many have pointed out, that would leave Iran as the only major power in the region, but this administration’s absolute incompetence in handling all aspects of this war and the international politics surrounding it has left this as pretty much the only option short of the draft.
In short, I believe that what we see now are the early stages of World War III, and Bush and his advisors are personally responsible for most of what led us all to this cliff’s edge.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Oops, typo – meant to say Shi’ite portion subsumed into Iran
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Really objective assessment there, sleipner.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Read Bill Frist’s comments on Afghanistan.
Apply carefully and objectively to Iraq.
Repeat until penny drops.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Oh, and Dimmi, I reckon Sleipner has most of it right.
I don’t agree about WW3.