Financial Times:

Just over a week after US president George W. Bush and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s prime minister, met in Washington, Turkish troops remained poised to move across the border into Iraqi Kurdistan in an attempt to destroy elements of the Kurdistan Workers party (PKK). We can only hope that a solution based on the idea of joint co-operation against the PKK that seemed to be forged in the Oval Office meeting, focusing on diplomatic engagement between the US, Turkey, Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government, will trump the still-looming military assault.

The Turks are understandably angry and ready for war. Accumulated frustrations over recent attacks by the PKK erupted in public demands for a decisive military solution. Turkish popular opinion strongly supported attacks on rebel base camps inside Iraqi Kurdistan, and the Turkish armed forces have mobilised more than 100,000 troops on the Iraqi border, setting the stage for a massive Turkish invasion of northern Iraq that would have disastrous consequences.

On paper all wars seem simple. Turkish military planners may hope that one bold thrust into Iraqi Kurdistan will, once and for all, eradicate the PKK. A glance at what soldiers call the “troop-to-task” ratio might suggest that the job could be done quickly. Turkey has a very good army and it would seem feasible that 100,000 well-trained and fully equipped Turkish troops could quickly capture or kill 3,000 PKK rebels hiding in an area somewhat larger than Maryland.

But war is never simple. The friction and fog of war always conspire to make the actual combat far more complex, time consuming and bloodier than the sterile and optimistic plans written in the comfort of remote headquarters. Even a military genius like Alexander the Great was stalled by the inhospitable terrain of southern Turkey and northern Iraq. Despite popular longing for a quick military solution, a Turkish invasion of Iraq would bring only stalemate, frustration and – more ominously – destabilise the region, undermine US-Turkish relations for decades, and jeopardise the stability and prosperity of Iraq’s Kurdistan region.

Continue reading "Clark: Invasion is wrong answer to Turkey’s problems" »

Posted by awcd at 1:02 PM | Permalink

By Wesley K. Clark and Kal Raustiala

THE line between soldier and civilian has long been central to the law of war. Today that line is being blurred in the struggle against transnational terrorists. Since 9/11 the Bush administration has sought to categorize members of Al Qaeda and other jihadists as “unlawful combatants” rather than treat them as criminals.

The federal courts are increasingly wary of this approach, and rightly so. In a stinging rebuke, this summer a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., struck down the government’s indefinite detention of a civilian, Ali al-Marri, by the military. The case illustrates once again the pitfalls of our current approach.

Treating terrorists as combatants is a mistake for two reasons. First, it dignifies criminality by according terrorist killers the status of soldiers. Under the law of war, military service members receive several privileges. They are permitted to kill the enemy and are immune from prosecution for doing so. They must, however, carefully distinguish between combatant and civilian and ensure that harm to civilians is limited.

Critics have rightly pointed out that traditional categories of combatant and civilian are muddled in a struggle against terrorists. In a traditional war, combatants and civilians are relatively easy to distinguish. The 9/11 hijackers, by contrast, dressed in ordinary clothes and hid their weapons. They acted not as citizens of Saudi Arabia, an ally of America, but as members of Al Qaeda, a shadowy transnational network. And their prime targets were innocent civilians.

By treating such terrorists as combatants, however, we accord them a mark of respect and dignify their acts. And we undercut our own efforts against them in the process. Al Qaeda represents no state, nor does it carry out any of a state’s responsibilities for the welfare of its citizens. Labeling its members as combatants elevates its cause and gives Al Qaeda an undeserved status.

If we are to defeat terrorists across the globe, we must do everything possible to deny legitimacy to their aims and means, and gain legitimacy for ourselves. As a result, terrorism should be fought first with information exchanges and law enforcement, then with more effective domestic security measures. Only as a last resort should we call on the military and label such activities “war.” The formula for defeating terrorism is well known and time-proven.

Continue reading "Why Terrorists Aren't Soldiers" »

Posted by awcd at 10:31 AM | Permalink

Averting the Next Gulf War

By Wesley Clark

-snip

With each passing month, as the Iranian program progresses, we come closer to the U.S. military option.

What should the United States do to improve the chances of reaching a peaceful settlement that precludes Iran’s nuclear capabilities? First, it should broaden its efforts at the decisive point in Baghdad and throughout Iraq by surging nonmilitary expertise from the Departments of State, Commerce, Justice, and Treasury into the country. Accompanied by a wholesale augmentation of interpreters, this influx of expertise could accelerate the emergence of effective Iraqi institutions. This is the first and most long-standing requirement for a successful U.S. mission. Second, the United States should intensify its pressure on Nouri al-Maliki’s government to deal with the militias and the Iranian relationships that are undercutting the effectiveness of both the Iraqi government and the United States in the region. Both these measures are necessary to avoid the repetitive failures that have plagued U.S. efforts in the past, and which in this case could leave the United States with no alternative but strikes on Iran.

Whether the surge succeeds or not—and especially if it doesn’t—the United States needs other leverage points. It should immediately open an unconditional dialogue within the region, including dialogue with Iran and Syria. The focus of this conversation should be on providing a future vision for the region, taking into account national and sectarian insecurities and sensitivities, and acknowledging the de jure legitimacy of the existing regimes. While the Saudis and other interlocutors with the Iranians have been helpful, a more direct conversation will accelerate both the application of pressures and the development of the kinds of positive inducements—recognition, admittance to international organizations, resumption of economic relationships, and a regional security structure—that may be necessary for Iran to see the overwhelming advantages of giving up its nuclear weapons programs.

In essence, the policy issues come down to a debate over leverage—how much and what type of leverage is required for Iran to dismantle and bar the resumption of any nuclear weapons programs. The administration would argue that it currently lacks leverage, and so must continue to apply pressure and use indirect dialogue—that the Iranians are stubborn, only understand the use of force, can’t be given the impression that they are winning, and so forth. The administration seems to consider “sticks” the only form of leverage. But the truth is that the Iranians have survived almost thirty years of isolation, hostility, and war. The U.S. intervention in Iraq probably altered permanently the sectarian balance of power in the region in Iran’s favor. And whether our allies in the region appreciate Iran or not, its population of nearly 70 million people, enormous wealth of resources, and strong heritage make it a significant power. A policy of sticks alone is unlikely to persuade Iran to give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Continue reading "Iran: What should Congress be doing?" »

Posted by awcd at 10:22 AM | Permalink

The Smart Surge: Diplomacy

By Wesley K. Clark

Washington Post, 1/8/07

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.

The administration views a troop surge of modest size as virtually the only remaining action in Iraq that would be a visible signal of determination. More economic assistance is likely to be touted, but absent a change in the pattern of violence, infrastructure enhancement simply isn't practical.

Yes, several additional brigades in Baghdad would allow for more roadblocks, patrols and neighborhood-clearing operations. Some initial successes would be evident. But how significant would this be? We've never had enough troops in Iraq. In Kosovo, we had 40,000 troops for a population of 2 million. That ratio would call for at least 500,000 troops in Iraq; adding 20,000 now seems too little, too late.

-more

Rapid Fire - Silver Bullets writes, "Read for yourself the brilliant Op-Ed written by Wes Clark in advance of President Bush's announcement on escalating this war. That's what leaders do, they lead and act--as opposed to RE-acting after the fact to the Bush Surge conference!"

From Newshog: "Gen. Wesley Clark isn't at all confident that Bush's plan will deliver any kind of victory and suggests instead a surge of diplomacy, saying that "underlying problems are political, not military". Other experts agree and also point out that "U.S. attempts to reconcile Iraq's warring factions are excluding the very people who need reconciling -- the Sunni-led insurgents and their archenemies, the Shiite militias."

George Sand at Arkansas Politics Blog says, "When you finish reading it, you’ll know why I think this man should be our next President of the United States and why the Decider couldn’t or wouldn’t recognize dipolmacy if it bit him in the arse."

From Cold Flute: "Ever since Wesley Clark started appearing on TV as a military analyst early in the war, he's been making a lot of sense... If Wesley Clark is going to run, let's hope he does it soon."

Arkansas radio host Clyde Clifford asks on the Beaker Street Blog, "On military matters to whom would you listen? George Bush or Wesley Clark."

Josh Marshall interprets very simply, "It's the diplomacy, stupid."

Skippy the Bush Kangaroo does the math.

Steve Clemons at Washington Note rates it a "zinger op-ed."

Garnet Donkey said, "Clark deals with the issue nicely. He points out that the surge is a foolish and downright dangerous diversionary tactic."

Down With Tyranny laments: "One military man-- one with a great deal of success behind him-- whose advice Bush would never listen to in a million years, is former NATO commander in chief, Wes Clark."

Norwegianity noted succinctly, "Wesley Clark wasted no time in responding to this "surge" bullshit."

Evergreen Politics yearns: "Oh, what we would give to have the grown-ups, like Clark, in charge of foreign policy again!"

The Democratic Daily called it a "a rather Kerryesque stance" on its site started and run by Kerry supporters.

Great Minds Think Like Me called it "A message from the next President of the United States."

Continue reading "Who do we want running our country?" »

Posted by awcd at 7:55 AM | Permalink

Wall Street Journal 8/10/06

A Judgment on Iraq

By Wesley K. Clark

Republican strategists could hardly be happier with the outcome of the Connecticut Democratic primary. And Democrats should be deeply concerned in the near term. But if I were a Republican, I’d recognize this as the beginning of the end. Forget about the neocons. This era is over.

-snip

Perhaps politicians in office will listen a little more attentively now to the outside-the-beltway voices; they’ll challenge more, stand up earlier, fight a little tougher against the administration’s leadership. And perhaps they’ll sweat a little to gain some stand-off from their earlier positions. Longstanding relationships at home, a comfortable bank account, and the continuing blandishments of the lobbying crowd will no longer be sufficient—Joe Lieberman’s defeat shows that the public is now engaged in politics.

The Republicans will suggest that Democrats aren’t up to it. They’ll play the terrorist-threat card, hope for a few more messages of bin Laden, and ask whether an antiwar party can be trusted to keep America safe. But this is just the spin. The truth is the Democratic Party—elected leaders, party regulars and the big-time donors—pretty much agree on the failures of the administration, and even on the policies that need to be adopted, like stronger diplomacy and more reliance on allies and international organizations, coupled with a willingness to fully fund, rearm, strengthen and use America’s armed forces. The Connecticut primary will ensure that the Democrats push their positions—and their differences with the administration—even more forcefully.

Now Democrats have to be able to stand toe-to-toe against Republicans and their failing policies on national security. There’s no dodging it, and no hanging on to the administration’s coat-tails, either. Democrats in every race have to be able to speak the language of national security. And convince the electorate that we are a “full-service” party, as ready to be trusted on national defense as on health care, education, or equal opportunity.

The Connecticut race and Republican spinmeisters will be troublesome for Democrats. But the growing public awareness provides Democrats the opportunity to reshape our party to help America meet the challenges ahead. For Republicans, it signals the end of using patriotism to cover up for persistent failures to deal effectively with pressing national security issues.

Full text on Securing America

Posted by awcd at 4:07 PM | Permalink

Some days he makes it easier

General Clark's New York Times Op-Ed yesterday has stirred up a shitstorm; yes, even among his supporters and sympathizers. Yesterday, on Clark's CCN blog, questions flew fast and furious, but does he slink off and avoid them? No, he gets down there in the Comments section and explains his thinking on why withdrawal from Iraq is not the best course at this time. Then, after he had gone off to who knows what important place to do whatever important thing, we all get an email from his Executive Director, telling us that General Clark has scheduled a followup blog appearance for today at 3PM Eastern.

Below the fold are some of his comments from yesterday's blog.

Continue reading "He makes it easier" »

Posted by awcd at 8:49 AM | Permalink

Some days he makes it hard

It's not that he's wrong. He's right. But try getting anybody to see the long run and see it thoroughly. This is the man I want to run for president in 2008. This is the man I trust can save this country. Getting through the next primary hell to the GE, the GE he would win if only the Democrats have the sense to nominate him, looks more and more remote when he does things like this. But then, politicians tend to finesse the truth and soldiers don't. And I guess it's not the worst part. The worst part is that the circumstances in Iraq are far, far worse than we can ever imagine from our keyboards. Why else would Wesley Clark defy all political reason to tell us we can't make something so terribly hard into something easy?

Mixed reviews: Kevin Drum; Moderate Voice; Taylor Marsh; The Broad View; Secular Blasphemy; Mahablog; Realist Dem; Yglesias TAPPED; Donklephant;

New York Times OpEd 12/6/05

The Next Iraq Offensive

by Wesley K. Clark

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.

Continue reading "Some days he makes it easy" »

Posted by awcd at 6:57 AM | Permalink