A Left Turn FOR CLARK

A comment from Juan Cole
Tom Rinaldo

I found it interesting. Keep in mind, for what it's worth in either direction, that the Saudis oppose an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, and their comments reflect their stated concerns about what might potentially develop (obviously with them being more than mere observers) should the U.S. withdraw without regional stability first being reinforced. This was blogged by Cole on Wednesday:

"...Now the Saudis are openly saying that this new Cold War in the region could turn hot. If you don't own a bicycle, I'd buy one, because a regional war of the sort Saudi Arabia said it feared would potentially cut off 20 percent of the world's petroleum."

Scroll down to find this, it's the last paragraph prior to this date stamp:
posted by Juan @ 12/13/2006 06:31:00 AM 32

http://www.juancole.com/2006_12_01_juanricole_archive.html

regional negotiations
welshTerrier2

how long has the US been promoting and aiding and directly participating in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians? one can certainly make a case that broader war in the region is very different than that single, exclusive conflict ... no argument there ... but, what faith can anyone reasonably have in a near-term regional peace pact actively negotiated by the US?

the disturbing and yet simple answer has to be NONE ...

what's the program being sold here? keep US occupation forces in Iraq for the next bizillion years while we sit down at the conference table to "work things out with Iraq's neighbors" ?????

no thanks ... i'll take a pass on that one ... we withdraw and THEN we talk; not the other way around ...

Checkered history
Tom Rinaldo

The camp David Accords under Carter seem by almost all accounts by those who have as a goal peaceful coexistence between Israel and it's Arab neighbors to have been a very significant contribution. Mutual recognition of Israel and the PLO by each party was brokered by the U.S. The original road map to Peace that came out of the Oslo accords, which though not the sole product of U.S. diplomacy was materially assisted by U.S. diplomacy, might well have achieved it's goal had Rabin not been assassinated (Likud won the election to replace Rabin). The Peace treaty between Israel and Jordan was brokered by the U.S. and has held. Clinton got very close to pulling off a breakthrough agreement between Israel and the Palestinian administration at the end of his term in office.

"might well have achieved its goal"
welshTerrier2

yup, it might well have ... but it didn't ...

i'm all for diplomacy but not as a pre-cursor or pre-condition for the US leaving Iraq ... US engagement in Israeli-Palestinian talks has NOT resulted in peace ... Carter and friends were talking almost 30 years ago ...

should we remain in Iraq that long if "regional negotiations" take that long to bring about an accord ???

the real problem i see, btw, is that our institutions have blocked our migration away from an obviously catastrophic energy policy ... that's we're the real solution for the US lies ... regardless of what happens in the ME, we are going to be in for a very, very painful transition and we are going to make a very, very painful transition whether we choose to or not ...

the oil days must and will end ... the sooner we stop "pretending", the better off we'll all be ...

I couldn't agree with you more about Oil
Tom Rinaldo

Nuff said about that part.

I know this stuff seems like splitting hairs or the fine print on a document, but that fine print on documents is often exactly what diplomacy involves, that and the shape of tables. No one, not even Wes Clark, has emphatically said that diplomacy MUST be a pre-cursor or pre-condition for the U.S. leaving Iraq. Clark says that attempting to initiate that type of regional diplomacy prior to announcing any timeline for U.S. withdrawal makes the most sense under the circumstances. Essentially that's because he believes for detailed reasons involving motivations and incentives, sticks and carrots, and all of the sundry building blocks of statecraft and diplomacy, that withholding information about future U.S. plans in that regard prior to opening negotiations increases the likelihood that successful diplomacy will result.

Yes that leaves unanswered questions on the table so to speak, but what it doesn't do is provide the answers that you have used to "fill in the blank". For example, it doesn't say that the U.S. should attempt to pursue meaningful diplomacy for an indefinite or even extended period of time if in fact an attempt to do so is not favorably received by the other intended parties to be involved. And it certainly doesn't say we should put all troop withdrawals on hold indefinitely until we achieve successful negotiations. Clark gives an informed opinion which others may and can disagree with, but unlike most of us, Clark's opinion IS at least informed by his prior relevant experiences involving diplomacy, military options, and negotiating peace treaties.

Clark's stated opinion is that there are powerful reasons why it is in the interest of the U.S. as well as other middle eastern nations, to initiate serious regional diplomacy now. He thinks U.S. troop withdrawals have to be on the table for discussion if that diplomacy moves forward, and that U.S. troop withdrawals are in fact a stated U.S. goal for that diplomacy, but preannouncing our specific intentions and timeline would undercut the diplomacy No where has Clark said that pursuing this plan means that the U.S. is locked into staying in Iraq forever if the results of that diplomacy is not promising, or if serious diplomacy is prevented from happening by any number of the parties involved. Clark is advising on the next step to take here, the one with the best chance, in his opinion, of avoiding further regional warfare.

But if you accept the logic of Clark's position, which of course not all do, then you can't go into that diplomatic process which would have as one goal establishing the timeline and mechanics for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, by first establishing that timeline and those mechanics unilaterally and making that known in public before the diplomacy began.

So in summary. The proposal is to not unilaterally announce a U.S. withdrawal timeline, but to initiate diplomacy that will hopefully arrive at that timeline along with addressing other significant regional issues. Hopefully is an important word here, granted, but all Clark has said in effect is don't tip your hand prior to sitting down at the table. If no one will sit down with you at the table, if the U.S. refuses to sit down at the table, if people are cheating at the table or stalling at the table or falling asleep at the table, then one can conclude that the approach is not fruitful and the second best option should be taken instead. That could even be total immediate withdrawal, you can not assume it is indefinite prolonged occupation.

a bargaining chip of questionable value ...
welshTerrier2

let me make two points in response ...

first, it seems to me Clark's position and the overall position of most if not all Senate Dems encompasses some aspect of not leaving immediately so that we can take a shot at some form of diplomacy ... put any label on this you wish but i see that as a pre-cursor or pre-condition for withdrawal ... the argument being made, as i understand it, is that we should not withdraw until blah, blah, blah ... underlying that argument is that we could still achieve some form of positive, or at least more positive, outcome by REMAINING IN OCCUPATION UNTIL blah, blah, blah ...

i prefer to see such strategies as setting pre-conditions ... i agree that there is nothing cast in concrete that would eventually preclude a US withdrawal but the substance of the argument is that WE SHOULD STAY in Iraq for now ... as you know, i see that as utter insanity ... i won't belabor the point here ...

more interesting is the "bargaining chip" argument ... all skilled negotiators certainly can appreciate your argument that unilateral "submissions" are ill advised prior to negotiations ... no argument with that view from a generic perspective ...

the question that must be addressed, however, is whether removing US troops from Iraq would be viewed by our adversaries in the region as a submission that they would prefer ... i don't think that would be the case at all when it comes to US withdrawal from Iraq ... bush has been threatening the Iranians with military action for several years now ... do you think they'd be pleased as punch to have the US withdraw from Iraq freeing up US military resources? i don't think so ... do you think they are suffering as US power and influence in the world ebbs away as each day passes? i don't think so ... do you think the Iranians are concerned as the US weakens its Treasury and its national resolve to fight as the death counts mount with no visible progress on the ground in Iraq? i don't think so ...

surely you are correct that the US should not unilaterally sacrifice a bargaining chip before beginning negotiations ... but to truly be a "bargaining chip", the chip must have value to our adversaries ... my view is that the "withdrawal chip" not only doesn't have any value, it has negative value ... maybe if we promised the Iranians we will stay in Iraq forever we'd have something to negotiate with ... they might go for that ...

I appreciate the intelligent discussion WT2
Tom Rinaldo

Your questions I believe approach the crux of the matter. What if anything of value is there to negotiate that could give incentive for an involved player in this drama, in this case Iran, to cooperate in arriving at a mutually agreeable resolution which includes U.S. participation while the U.S. has troops inside Iraq?

First I just have to say, that while both of us have pretty good logical skills, there are people with better sources of information and more hands on experience regarding the matter at hand than either of us. Wes Clark is one of those people, and there are others, and those who have that increased information and experience are frequently in disagreement about the conclusions to draw from it. Obviously Clark disagrees with your assessment about the potential for diplomacy in this case, under the circumstances he advises.

At the heart of this I believe, in the case of Iran at least, is whether or not they have sufficient confidence that the net result of not engaging in serious diplomacy, which includes the U.S., will on net be more advantageous to them than not. By the way I do believe that humans are hard wired with some basic instincts, and one that I think is relevent here is that you are much less likely to be taken seriously, to use a poker term, when you don't have something invested in the pot, than when you do. That's a part of it. We have troops in the Iraq pot right now.

Nation states don't only worry about realistic threats, they worry about unpredictable ones also. As long as there are inflamed passions loose in the Middle East, there can always be some unpredictable turn of events that each and every one of the players involved would prefer not have happen. Iran, like any nation, has perceived self interests and strategic goals. To use your own debate points, it is obvious to Iran and everyone else with a brain (which leaves Bush out) that the U.S. can't and won't stay inside Iraq indefinitely. If there were ANY doubt about that (and I don't think there was), the 2006 elections dispelled that. So Iran knows they can't keep us pinned down in Iraq indefinitely under any circumstances. The only question is what we will leave behind when we leave. And I don't just mean physically. I also mean what regional relationships will and will not exist in the wake of Americas withdrawal.

If Iran can, through diplomacy, secure sufficient progress toward it's perceived self interests while reducing the risk of unintended consequences inherent in any confrontational relationship, they might be motivated to negotiate in good faith.

To pick one possible example, part of what Iran's strategic goals might be could involve seeking some new kind of accommodation with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia might be motivated to arrive at a new accommodation with Iran if they believe in so doing they can prevent genocide against Sunnis living inside Iraq. Thus Saudi Arabia might be willing to pursue a diplomatic track involving their relationship with Iran as long as there are American troops inside Iraq delaying the blood bath that Saudi Arabia believes will follow our withdrawal. They may hope an agreement would result in Iran altering it's stance toward it's client Shiite militias inside Iraq, which would then restrain them from attacking Sunnis there. If the U.S. withdraw all forces prior to regional diplomacy, Saudi Arabia may conclude that it is already too late for diplomacy, and would instead fully throw in it's lot with the Sunni insurgency as a check against Iran.

I'm just winging it here WT2, because I am not one of those people in the know. The above example might have logical flaws in this particular instance, that's not the point. I am just trying to illustrate a potential dynamic with it. A better example might involve the strands of the web that touch Israel and Palestine. I am not an expert.

always an insightful discussion, Tom ...
welshTerrier2

or is it inciteful?

you raised all sorts of things to discuss ...

first, let me respond to this point: "First I just have to say, that while both of us have pretty good logical skills, there are people with better sources of information and more hands on experience regarding the matter at hand than either of us." ... i'm not really sure how to address this with any humility or even the pretense of humility but let me try ... i'm an "intp" which leaves me mired in having no special appreciation of so called experts ... perhaps it's a form of personality defect ... it's not that i don't deeply respect their knowledge and even their experience ... as you quite fairly point out, our skills reside in logic ... but, it goes way beyond that to our role as informed voters and citizens and such ... we bring more than mere logic; we bring our values ... no expertise can be claimed as a substitute for values ... and, perhaps in our ignorance, we bring a new perspective not always available to those in the front lines ... we are a step or two removed ... while some are scripted to engage in the daily realities of conflict resolution, we are afforded our comfy chairs to sit in quiet reflection and ask why we're doing all this in the first place ... so, i do yield and certainly appreciate the "facts" that experts can provide but i couldn't be more wary than i am about yielding my equality as a citizen to them ... as Howard Dean frequently says: "you have the power" ... in the end, our role is to learn from the experts but NOT to defer to them in the decision making process ... there, we must all be equals ... is it our job to learn; it is their job to teach ... it is NOT their job to co-opt our power nor is it our job to yield our responsibility as citizens ... i'm, of course, not suggesting that you have or would argue otherwise ...

also, from an earlier post in this thread, you voiced your agreement with my comments on energy policy with a "nuff said" ... the bottom line here is, from my point of view, that every single discussion that tip toes into the ME policy arena should yield its top billing to a discussion about US energy policy and the state of our institutions that absolutely preclude progress in this area ... everything we do, every objective we set, every action and every policy is being strangled undemocratically for greedy pursuits ... it seems to me almost pointless to talk about our ME policy (Iraq, Iran, Saudis, Israel etc) without making a major push for broad-sweeping reforms of our institutions and our energy policies ... when you couple our junky-like desperation for oil with the life-threatening onslaught of global warming, i continue to see all other ME issues as distractions ... my point is NOT that we should ignore the ME but rather that every single discussion on the subject should be headlined under the energy policy umbrella ... if we pretend that building regional stability in the ME (which i couldn't be more skeptical will ever happen btw) is somehow important to the US to help safeguard "our energy future", i think we're badly and dangerously deceiving ourselves ... yes, of course we should make every possible effort to bring peace and stability through diplomacy ... i would never argue against making the effort ... the danger i see lies in "misdirecting" our attention from the "real solution" ... so "yes" on diplomacy as long as it's viewed as a "not too likely but what the heck" effort towards supporting our current energy dependency ... the bottom line is that we have to make serious political and institutional reforms and overthrow the power structure that keeps us hooked on our oil dealers ...

and finally, you made numerous excellent points analyzing Iran's motivations and speculating on how they might engage in negotiations ... i would be the first to tell you i have very little expertise in this policy area ... my belief, however, is that Iran and other adversaries in the region seek instability rather than stability ... the status quo is a massive US military and economic presence throughout the ME ... we buy power; we occupy; we corrupt ... we prop up anyone who is friendly to big oil ... we're in bed with the Saudis and do their military bidding ... i'm just so skeptical that the Iranians "can be bought" with negotiated incentives ... could i be dead wrong? absolutely ... but i see an opposition to US imperialism that is thriving on our quagmire in Iraq ... i see a ME that is loving watching the US "get theirs" ...

and as a bottom line, what's the prescription for negotiation anyway? let's say we do have viable negotiating chips ... let's say there is a "market" there for whatever goodies we might offer ... let me return to my unyielding "out now" posture ... just how patient would Clark, or you, ask me to be? six months? a year? no deadlines at all? wait til bush leaves office? i can't sign up for any of that ... i think we've lost over 30 troops this month and it's only mid-month ... and for what? what the hell are we doing over there, maintaining our "negotiating position" with the Iranians??? the day the last US citizen leaves Iraq, come talk to me about negotiations ... you'll find me very supportive of pursuing a diplomatic approach ... i'm all for it ... what i just can't get past, with Clark or most of the big name Democrats regardless of how some of their supporters spin the whole thing, is that people are still selling a "we can still fix this thing" continuity of the occupation ... nope, i just can't get there from here no matter how much expertise and experience i might lack ...

First, on the role of lay people and experts
Tom Rinaldo

There is an important role for each, there's kind of a needed dialectic there. I want experts to provide me with data and food for thought, but the perspective of the citizenry is best represented by the citizenry. We all deal with this in our daily life. We go to a doctor or a dentist or a mechanic or all three. It is best to be somewhat informed, ourselves, first, and ultimately it is our body our teeth our car, but none of us have time to accumulate expertise in every field.

When I said Nuff said about energy, I was just saying that I fully agreed with your position with nothing I needed to add to a debate, but I agree that there is nowhere near enough being said about energy issues as it relates to world tensions, as it relates to global warming, as it relates to economics, etc. That comment I posted from Juan Cole however points to the very short term vulnerability the world faces, while it is dependent on oil, even if every effort were made starting now to break that dependency.

As to being non experts ourselves, for better or worse yep, but what I was thinking of with Clark in specific was his contacts more than anything else. He has dialog with well placed Iranians and Saudis etc. so he might have more of a clue than I about what is and is not possible now if the right effort were made.

As to your bottom line, I respect it. We all have to throw all of our considerations into the hopper and see what comes out the other end. I'll tell you what simplifies it for me, though I sense this would not work for you. I don't expect Congress to muster the votes to cut off funding for this war over a Bush veto before the 2008 elections. I don't expect Bush to decide on his own to pull all the troops out before the 2008 elections. I don't see Bush agreeing to a tight fixed timeline for withdrawal either, nor do I think he would feel bound by a congressional resolution that set one. I do think that we are at risk of either drifting or driving into a war with Iran. Given all of the above, I am on board for pushing for diplomacy now while troops are still inside Iraq, with or without a timeline for withdrawal.

Since I see the logic in Clark's position, and since I don't see a timeline with teeth as politically viable with Bush in the White House, I can support his plan for now. I would have to look harder at my position if we had 2/3rds majorities in both houses that we could count on, or a Democrat in the White House.

edited to add: However if we had those majorities and/or a Democratic president that would mean we were in a very different political reality, which might open up some better options, it's hard to see there from here. Our diplomacy might be more credible among other things.

the bloody cloak of imperialism
welshTerrier2

what is the character and purpose of these negotiators ... ostensibly, wouldn't we all like to believe they possess wisdom and vision and that they are tenaciously dedicated to furthering American interests and working for peace ... and perhaps Clark, and others, are truly people of character ... perhaps ...

but i must tell you that, overall, i fear that those that step forward to do our bidding do not truly represent our best interests at all ... put simply and succinctly, i don't trust them one little bit ... i fear that sitting somewhere just a little too close to the negotiating table, perhaps hidden just beyond our view, lies some very powerful interests with an agenda all their own ... lurking there, behind "our" representatives, is the sinister greedy voice of big oil ...

curious the symbiosis they suggest exists between their well-being and the well-being of the American people ... "we're out here bringing home the oil you so desperately need" ... what they're bringing home is record profits ... hundreds of billions of dollars earned through the life and death struggles of the exploited American military ... around my house, we call those profits windfall profits ... around my house, we advocate stripping those bastards of their ill gotten gains ... it's a delicate tightrope when we send our negotiators into the trenches ... if you believe that big oil and other multi-nationals wield disproportionate and illegitimate influence in the halls of our government in Washington, is it conceivable such influence and perversion of democracy does not exist as we engage other countries internationally?

of course, there's no real answer to this, is there? i mean, i suppose you either go about your business (e.g. calling for negotiations) or you don't ... unfortunately, because of institutional failure in the US and our desperate need for genuine reform, the BIG STUFF has to be quietly brushed aside so that we can "take care of business" ... i'm offered things like: "well, i agree but we can't just stop the world while fix all these other things" ... the problem is, we just keep merrily marching along and never seem to stop the parade ... viewed in the context of ME negotiations, i again ask the question: "who will really be served"?????

i asked Wes Clark about this when he did one of those public blogs some time ago ... i pushed very hard in my question to him to ask him to discuss US imperialism ... shoddy though my memory is, i believe his response was that "we should BUY the oil" ... but the clear and present danger of US military in the region coupled with the exploitive financing arrangements of the US dominated World Bank coupled with our long history of toppling foreign leaders who get in our way coupled with the power of Halliburton, Bechtel, BP and others coupled with a thousand other factors that corrupt the freedom of a real "arm's length" purchase of oil make "buying the oil" a bit of a Shell (pun intended) game ...

and finally, there's this business about dealing with the political realities with bush in the WH and Dems not having the votes to cut-off funding for the war and such ... i tried to express my thoughts about leadership and vision in this post upthread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3017269&mesg_id=3017348

i couldn't agree with you more that what i'm pushing for is NOT going to happen ... so be it ... if i accepted the argument that some make that "what's the point in fighting for something if you can't win", surely i would not continue posting on DU and promoting the things i believe in ... i certainly agree that we can't ignore the practicalities and realities of the situation ... but surely there is some less tangible benefit to "calling it right" ... surely it is our role to educate others based on our values ... surely a political party that puts too much emphasis on winning and fails to move the nation in the right direction cannot have much of a future ... none of this makes my view the right view or the best view for the country ... nevertheless, even absent any possibility of prevailing (i.e. ending the war and occupation in the near-term), it seems wrong to me to avoid calling for an immediate end to the war if no real hope for progress remains ... my real fear is that too many "leading" Democrats are just plain afraid of the domestic political fallout if they go there ... i think that's tragic ... the truth is, i think they would be rewarded (politically) for their boldness ... i'm not holding my breath ...

Of course we have to contend with Imperialism
Tom Rinaldo

Not to be sarcastic, but what else is new? I kind of write about this in the extended introduction to my new blog (link is in my signature line). When have we NOT had to deal with Imperialism? It will I suspect be a struggle that will minimally last for generations. Meanwhile though Imperialism has been a relative constant in our world for centuries if not millennium, wars have come and gone, and come and gone, and come....

In other words while the struggle against imperialism is a true marathon, the attempt to avert a specific war can be a relative desperate sprint, and since millions do die in wars, it is always worth that effort. Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union had imperialist ambitions, but it was to our mutual benefit that diplomacy between the two super powers helped avert a nuclear war. I in the short term fear a widening war in the Middle East. I also fear a military conflict between the U.S. and Iran over their nuclear program.

I still hear you about Oil WT2, but I have to say I am proud that Clark made a very explicit point in his USA Op-Ed that Iraq's Oil IS Iraq's Oil.

And there's nothing wrong with advocating for what you really believe even if it isn't realistic or whatever. In Clark's case he is talking about what he knows how to do, and I think he is trying to prevent the next war as well as deal with the current one.

congratulations on your new blog
welshTerrier2

you've been added to my list of very distinguished company ... don't screw it up now!!! i'll be watching you ... hey, that would make a good song ...

USA OP ED? got a link?

on marathons and sprints, my only comment, perhaps hinted at in your post, is that all too often the marathon never screams out with the urgency of the sprint ... somehow, because it's so "always there", it gets taken for granted ... and on and on it goes ...

the wars come and go and come and go and come and go because the larger "framework" is wrong ... we're so busy patching up the holes in the ship that we never ask why the captain keeps steering it into the rocks ... my view is that if you get the architecture right, the carpentry will be much easier to manage ...

best of luck with the new blog ... i'm glad i can always say i knew him when he was "just a DU'er" ...

Thanks WT2
Tom Rinaldo

But there's no such thing as "just a DUer". Most of what I put there I wrote here first anyway, lol.

The USA Op-Ed link is here:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20061121/oplede15.art.htm

But in addition I urge you to visit this kos Diary which was prepared by several Clark supporters who researched (and linked) numerous statements from Clark about Iraq including several that followed up on that Op-Ed and gave much more context and detail to the brief comments in USA Today. Some of those links is where you will find Clark speak at more length about the pros and cons of timelines. There is also a story in the New York Observer that is even more recent still where Clark describes how a military presence gets leveraged in a political diplomatic process among other things. I think you can find a link to that at CCN in the blogs area. Numerous hours went into preparing this kos Diary:

"Wes Clark and Iraq"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/7/18592/1665

On your last comment, yes that is true, but you need the people to insist on getting exactly the new architecture they want, or you know the architecture we will be saddled with will continue to be terrible. We have to develop a strong enough and broad enough national consensus to demand it, or our voices will stay marginalized. And you are right about my hint in my earlier post. I do agree with you, but we are not always on the absolute near brink of a new war, during those very specific times I think the priority has to be preventing the war if possible.