October 19, 2003
Official Clark '04 Campaign Blog: Generally Speaking...: Note From The General
Reproduced from above link verbatim. You'd be surprised how many top executives have trouble typing. Not Wesley Kanne Clark.
"Talk about an internet campaign strategy! I flew into Little Rock last night for 3 days to get my voice back! So, it's ALL internet now!We had a great week: released my public service proposal; met some great people in Florida, New York, New Mexico and Nevada; and released my efficiency reports - "OERs" (Officer Evaluation Reports) - yesterday to give folks an idea of what I've done with my life.
There's very strong interest in the candidacy, and it's growing around the country! We need all your support for this. I think many people are beginning to realize how important this election really is...it's not "business as usual." What's at stake is more than the next four years - it is really about what kind of future we want for our country...should government represent the governed, or just direct them? ...should government respect dialogue and discussion, or just brand it as disloyal and unpatriotic. One path leads us to a cleaner, more transparent democracy - I don't like to think about where the other path leads...but it won't well-represent the values of freedom and democracy.
The New American Patriotism I've talked about is emerging strongly around the country. These are people who want to pitch in and help, not just wave flags. And these patriots also understand that what we're protecting isn't just our borders against an invasion but also our rights and ideals against their compromise. That's why one of the strongest reactions I get is in pointing out that in a democracy in time of war, dialogue and debate, disagreement and dissension are the essence of patriotism - not a failure but a celebration of who we are as a nation! No Administration has the right to say that if you disagree, it's unpatriotic!
In the near term, we have problems at home and abroad. On Iraq, I don't see the UN Resolution on Iraq as changing much...but now that it's in place, maybe the Administration will tell us what their strategy is! We hear the President tell us about the strategy succeeding, but we have never heard what the strategy is! Once we've heard it, we'll know better about what's going to happen and how we should move ahead.
On the economy, I'll be speaking about this next week - assuming my voice recovers - and we'll discuss the big picture of the economy. We're so strong, we have so much talent that our economy will fully bounce back, and then some. And I'll tell you about how we'll help that along.
So, it's a beautiful autumn day in Little Rock. I should have been in Michigan talking to Arab-Americans. Instead I'm here, hoping for a speedy recovery. But I want to say to all Arab-Americans, we appreciate you, and your patriotism. And we know in this country, just as I saw in the Army, that diversity is one of our greatest strengths. I hope to be with you soon.
And to all out there in the former draft movement, again, thanks. Thanks for all your faith and support, and thanks for caring about our country. I wouldn't be here without you, and I'll want you with us in January '05!
This election is about our children and grandchildren. And with your continued support we can leave a legacy they'll be proud of!
Posted by Gen. Wes Clark (Ret.) at October 18, 2003 05:17 PM
An Exit Strategy from of all people, an Iraqi: "America Must Let Iraq Rebuild Itself" (NY Times)
Catch these wise words of advice while you still can - Iyad Alawi is serving as president of the Iraqi Governing Council this month. What makes me think Bremer will allow Mr. Alawi's freshness date to expire? Nevertheless, Iyad has been trying to solve our mutual problems while the administration is busy circling the wagons.
In the months since Iraq was liberated, jubilation has given way to insecurity and chaos. When my fellow Iraqis finally go to the polls to elect their government, they must have confidence that state institutions are not only legitimate and independent, but robust enough to guarantee safety and civil rights. That is why the coalition and the council must take several immediate steps to establish these necessary conditions for the constitutional process to succeed.Or as the NY Times piece, "Study Foresaw Trouble Now Plaguing Iraq," put it:First, it is vital to call up the Iraqi Army and the national police force, at least up to mid-officer level. The coalition's early decision to abolish the army and police was well intended, but it unfortunately resulted in a security vacuum that let criminals, die-hards of the former regime and international terrorists flourish. And the coalition's plan to build a 20,000-member lightly armed force mostly responsible for security and border control would make poor use of a valuable resource: the 300,000 Iraqi soldiers who simply went home with their weapons in the face of the American-led invasion.
The group studying defense policy and institutions expected problems if the Iraqi Army was disbanded quickly - a step L. Paul Bremer III, the chief American civil administrator in Iraq, took. The working group recommended that jobs be found for demobilized troops to avoid having them turn against allied forces as some are believed to have done.Mr. Alawi continues:
Most of these soldiers are Iraqi patriots who chose not to fight for Saddam Hussein. Americans should not confuse the Iraqi Army with the hated Republican Guard, which Saddam Hussein created precisely because he distrusted the legitimate military. In one simple process, the coalition authority can support the governing council to call the army back to its barracks for retraining and, ultimately, for redeployment. Most soldiers and their officers will proudly return to their units and contribute to their country's future.As the Future of Iraq Project put it:
After special security organizations that ensured Mr. Hussein's grip on power were abolished, the working group recommended halving the 400,000-member military over time and reorganizing Iraqi special forces to become peacekeeping troops, as well as counterdrug and counterterrorism forces. Under the plan, military intelligence units would help American troops root out terrorists infiltrating postwar Iraq.Back to Mr. Alawi:
"The Iraqi armed forces and the army should be rebuilt according to the tenets and programs of democratic life," one working group member recommended.
The coalition and the Iraqi Interior Ministry can vet officers to remove those who committed crimes under the old regime, and then rapidly redeploy the most capable units to work with, and progressively relieve, American troops of security duties. Iraqi Army units have an established chain of command and esprit de corps. Not only can they be recalled to barracks immediately, but it would be much easier and quicker to retrain and re-equip them within their existing organizational structure than to start from scratch.Since one way or another, Mr. Alawi is going to be out of job soon, WKC would do well to sit down with this guy as soon as possible.By supporting the recall of army units, the United States would not only speed the process of relieving the burden on its troops, it would also gain substantial good will in Iraq. In contrast, any American-led military presence, even if complemented by the United Nations, will never have the credibility and legitimacy that the Iraqi Army has among the people.
In addition, the Iraqi national police must also be recalled. Most Iraqi policemen - as opposed to Saddam Hussein's feared intelligence and security organs - are dedicated to law and order. The United States does not have the time or money to create a police force from the ground up, nor is it necessary, because we have a large, organized force that is ready and willing to serve.Finally, as security improves, Iraqi institutions are re-established and the constitutional drafting process is completed, the United States should support international recognition of Iraqi sovereignty. Then a recognized interim government could quickly present a popular referendum, under United Nations monitoring, on the new national constitution. It would be a grave mistake for the United States to hold out sovereignty and international recognition as the reward for passage of a constitution. Rather, making Iraqis once again a part of the international system is the prerequisite of successful reconstruction and a durable democratic system.
Ambassador Wilson, meet Tom Warrick: "Study Foresaw Trouble Now Plaguing Iraq" (NY Times)
The Times reports yet another thing that makes you go hmmm: "A yearlong State Department study predicted many of the problems that have plagued the American-led occupation of Iraq, according to internal State Department documents and interviews with administration and Congressional officials."
Beginning in April 2002, the State Department project assembled more than 200 Iraqi lawyers, engineers, business people and other experts into 17 working groups to study topics ranging from creating a new justice system to reorganizing the military to revamping the economy.Their findings included a much more dire assessment of Iraq's dilapidated electrical and water systems than many Pentagon officials assumed. They warned of a society so brutalized by Saddam Hussein's rule that many Iraqis might react coolly to Americans' notion of quickly rebuilding civil society.
Several officials said that many of the findings in the $5 million study were ignored by Pentagon officials until recently. . . .
So if Bush gets his news from Rumsfeld and Rice, who does Rumsfeld get his news from?
The man overseeing the planning, Tom Warrick, a State Department official, so impressed aides to Jay Garner, a retired Army lieutenant general heading the military's reconstruction office, that they recruited Mr. Warrick to join their team.Now that's no reason to hold back an invasion.George Ward, an aide to General Garner, said the reconstruction office wanted to use Mr. Warrick's knowledge because "we had few experts on Iraq on the staff."
But top Pentagon officials blocked Mr. Warrick's appointment, and much of the project's work was shelved, State Department officials said. Mr. Warrick declined to be interviewed for this article.Wait until they out his wife.
Administration officials say there was postwar planning at several government agencies, but much of the work at any one agency was largely disconnected from that at others.Just what has Condi Rice been doing when she isn't giving George the Cliff Notes version of the news?
In the end, the American military and civilian officials who first entered Iraq prepared for several possible problems: numerous fires in the oil fields, a massive humanitarian crisis, widespread revenge attacks against former leaders of Mr. Hussein's government and threats from Iraq's neighbors. In fact, none of those problems occurred to any great degree.
Good things these guys don't run 911.
Officials acknowledge that the United States was not well prepared for what did occur: chiefly widespread looting and related security threats, even though the State Department study predicted them.
Those wonks in the State Department spend too much time reading evidently. What they need is a military man in charge, a man who takes decisive action only after digesting credible intelligence from stake-holders on the ground. Does anyone in the White House have Colin Powell's cell phone number?
"It was mostly ignored," said one senior defense official. "State has good ideas and a feel for the political landscape, but they're bad at implementing anything. Defense, on the other hand, is excellent at logistical stuff, but has blinders when it comes to policy. We needed to blend these two together."Calling Condi Rice, you're wanted at home.
The groups' ideas may not have been fully incorporated before the war, but they are getting a closer look now. Many of the Iraqi ministers are graduates of the working groups, and have brought that experience with them. Since last spring, new arrivals to Mr. Bremer's staff in Baghdad have received a CD-ROM version of the State Department's 13-volume work. "It's our bible coming out here," said one senior official in Baghdad.
"Buy just one CD at the regular Club price within a year. Then choose your remaining FREE selections." By the way, the ignored study prepared by the disrepected Iraqi experts cost $5M. But that's just about the average investment banker bonus of a few years ago.
Clark to Congress: "Send the $87B appropriation back to the drawing board"
Gen. Clark's hometown newspaper, the Democrat Gazette, has a direct pipeline to the campaign and is consistently providing background on the stories of the day with the candidate's spin. The D-G is a first-rate regional newspaper that provides the mainstream media context for the expanded remarks of Clark spokespeople. On Friday, Paul Barton covered the general's reluctance to hypothesize about the $87B.
Presidential candidate Wesley Clark, criticized for not taking a stand on the issue earlier in the week, Thursday called on Congress to "send back to the drawing board" President Bush's request for an additional $87 billion in Iraq-related spending.
With due respect, General, this is disingenuous. If there were both political and legislative tactics that could successfully push back the appropriation as the president has framed it, they'd be taken up with all the gusto with which we Dems oppose the majority of Bush's court appointees.
"Now that the administration is finally doing what it should have done all along and is making some headway at the U. N., there are new opportunities that the administration must seize to share the cost and the responsibility of Iraq more broadly," Clark said in a statement released by his campaign.
Gen. Clark, you probably know more off the top of your head about the horrendous Iraqi debt than most Republican politicians currently feeling their annex's pain could learn from reading the Financial Times for the next couple of years. Please let us, and the president, know which countries should be most prepared to forgive their debts to Iraq as a second-best alternative to cash subsidies to the American investment.
Clark also said Bush "should not be playing politics with the safety of our troops" and should divorce the issue of additional aid for Iraq from the need for additional funding for U.S. troops there. The two issues are tied together in the $87 billion request, which Congress began to seriously debate this week.
Good mainstream Dem thinking for the moment and not the way any strong president would go.
Clark campaign spokesman Kym Spell said Tuesday that Clark felt that many questions had to be answered about the request and about Bush's overall plan for Iraq before he could say whether he'd support the aid package.
Nice bob and weave.
Somehow I think questions on these issues are still taking the general by surprise, although they are certainly more predictable than a putative war on Syria. Again and again, the candidate seems to be thinking out loud, as opposed to thinking on his feet. Let's hope the team recently put in place can keep the nuts and bolts campaign on track and in the right place at the right time. So far, I think this month's plan of weekly policy speeches combined with local campaigning and fundraising is strengthening both the candidate and his candidacy.
But he needs someone besides Gert to throw it around with. Wes needs to be in debate prep mode every moment he isn't kissing babies. A Ted Sorensen is called for. Someone who is passionately devoted to the general's principles who can first help him forge them into an agenda, and secondly work closely with him to articulate it.
Some have already accused Wesley Clark of selling us short. Some have accused members of his team of selling the candidate short. What Wesley Clark needs most of all right now is a brother in political faith. Bobby Kennedy types preferred. War experience a plus.