Wes Clark on Iraq
From the Washington Post.
Although it's fun for folks like us to sit around typing furiously about Iraq and what should be done, this is amusement rather than serious inquiry. It's the Fantasy Football of international affairs. Most of those in the rightosphere insisting that we stay the course, and most of those in the leftosphere demanding that we pull out, are, frankly, unqualified to speak on the matter. They're just blabbering.
Clark, on the other hand, knows whereof he speaks. He's also smart, experienced, pragmatic, and his heart's in the right place. His opinion is worth about five hundred times more than yours or mine, so I suggest we take him seriously.
From the Washington Post.
Although it's fun for folks like us to sit around typing furiously about Iraq and what should be done, this is amusement rather than serious inquiry. It's the Fantasy Football of international affairs. Most of those in the rightosphere insisting that we stay the course, and most of those in the leftosphere demanding that we pull out, are, frankly, unqualified to speak on the matter. They're just blabbering.
Clark, on the other hand, knows whereof he speaks. He's also smart, experienced, pragmatic, and his heart's in the right place. His opinion is worth about five hundred times more than yours or mine, so I suggest we take him seriously.
posted by Winston Smith at
12:41 PM
7 Comments:
Believe it or don't, I had a stopover in Washington Friday morning, and picked up a WaPo. I read this in actual ink and thought (yes, predictably), what a twat.
There was some castigating of the war up until now, not worth going into, only because what's done is done. But here was the money quote, Gen. Clark's grand plan for the future:
"The United States should form a standing conference of Iraq's neighbors, complete with committees dealing with all the regional economic and political issues, including trade, travel, cross-border infrastructure projects and, of course, cutting off the infiltration of jihadists."
Huh? A conference? A meeting? A committee?
Who shall be invited? Syria? Iran? Kuwait? Israel? It is to laugh.
(WS, if you got some actual wisdom out of this moron that I'm too partisan to detect, please restate it in your own words. I will give it a fair hearing and response. You are not a twat.)
Best regards.
Hey, if both Azael and tvd are against it, you know it's got to be on the right track.
And seriously, tvd, thou shalt not call General Clark a 'twat.' You might want to reflect on the question "who is more likely to be a 'twat' here...the four star general who was valedictorian of his class at West Point, has two masters degrees and stopped the Yugoslavian genocide...or the guy who called him a 'twat'."
"Huh? A conference? A meeting? A committee?
Who shall be invited? Syria? Iran? Kuwait? Israel? It is to laugh."
Notice how tvd conveniently leaves out the context of General Clark's remarks here, in which he stated that a destabilized and civil war-torn Iraq is not in the interest of any of its neighbors.
Instead of considering why these nations might or might not want to participate in said conference, or what they might contribute to it, he preferred to elicit the visceral reaction to such reprehensible countries as Syria and Iran. Ooh no, we couldn't actually TALK to any of these nations, right? Even when a civil war that's in neither our nor any of their interests is brewing on their doorstep, right?
Does that also mean that it was a silly idea to incorporate those model international citizens China and Russia into the talks with North Korea? Seems to me the principle is the same. A non-nuclear Korean peninsula is in the interest of all six nations involved in the talks. Now, I don't know if it was the BEST idea, but my argument against it certainly wouldn't be: "Eeeew, China and Russia. No way"
Exactly.
Similarly: I go to the doctor with an ache, he checks me out and says: "I need to run some tests and consult with my colleagues."
Response: "Run TESTS? MEET with your COLLEAGUES? How is that going to MAKE ME WELL? DO something!"
Egad. It is to weep.
But this just goes to illustrate the big point here: armchair diplomats and armchair generals like us don't know the first thing about what's needed in a case like this. The opinions of bloggers are the foreign policy equivalent of voodoo.
Throw some chicken bones at 'em. Maybe that'll help.
Damn, A, having to admit you were right twice in a row is killing me... I didn't read the Digby. In my defense, I didn't mean to suggest I did, but somehow I took the tone of your comment to indicate disapproval. Also, you'll note, it was kind of a joke, as indicated by the "but seriously folks" comment that came after.
Still, you were right, I was wrong.
Also:
I've given up tv for awhile, so I missed MTP this morning. But, yeah:
Iraq now SEEMS to be a terrorist breeding ground
and
It OBVIOUSLY was not really a part of the GWoT (or G-SAVE or gee!Save or HOT-DAMN or CLUSTERFUCK or whatever it's now being called).
so
I don't see how we can deny that it was a mistake.
hey did you know you can get a free ipod pretty easily?
just go to www.getipodsforfree.com, sign up and do an offer
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home