No one seems to be writing opinion pieces quite the way I would, so I decided to do it myself.

The name? Taverns are places where one goes to discuss the interesting events and things in the world, so this is my tavern.

I will offer my views on politics, economics, and whatever else strikes my fancy.
I will occasionally publish the entire article from another journal for purposes of causing discussion.

 

Wesley Clark speaks on how to be successful in Iraq

For Wesley Clarks full Speech follow this link.

This is what Wesley Clark recently said bush did wrong, and what we have to do to succeed in Iraq:

Number one: How did we get into Iraq?

Mr. Bush made a series of strategic mistakes that have put us in danger and plunged us into Iraq. After September 11, all Americans understood that fighting terror was America's number one national security priority. All Americans understood it was crucial that we keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists.

Just as important - the world agreed with this approach. That is why we had international support for our war to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan. But after the Taliban fell, instead of finishing off Al Qaeda, the very terrorists that continued to threaten us, the Administration began laying the ground work for a different war - a war in Iraq.

Our focus should have been on winning the war on terrorism - working with our allies to track down the terrorists themselves; to develop new initiatives in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to rip out the roots of radical terror, stop radical schools indoctrinating a new generation of terrorists day after day. That's how you win the war on terrorism.
Instead, the Bush Administration coined a new phrase - the axis of evil -- which essentially declared three dangerous nations enemies that we would deal with only by ultimatum. This phrase increased the threat it was designed to reduce - by encouraging these nations to speed up their programs to develop nuclear weapon to deter US action.
The Administration then offered the notion of pre-emption. American Presidents have always had the option of striking preemptively - it is inherent in the right of self-defense. And I would not hesitate to use that right if America was in imminent danger. But this policy was intended to be more -- much more. They made preemption the centerpiece of this Administration's national security strategy.

The Administration zeroed in on Iraq. But focusing on Iraq made no sense -- if the real goal was to protect the US either from weapons of mass destruction or terrorism. The hundred tons of loosely guarded nuclear bomb-making material and bioweapons in Russia presents a far more tempting target for terrorists. But this Administration has not made that a priority. The nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea were more advanced and more threatening than Iraq's, but for months they paid little attention. Their actions made no strategic sense; they downplayed the greater threats, and exaggerated the lesser one.

Finally, after training our forces on Iraq, the Administration essentially declared - we're going it alone. Instead of using diplomacy backed by force - as we did so effectively in the Balkans - this Administration's diplomacy was only a fig leaf. The United States was going to war no matter what. The Administration went to the UN with a "take it or leave it offer," which reflected a combination of indifference and disdain. It did not explore every diplomatic option; it did not do everything possible to bring allies with us.
The Administration compounded its error by failing to plan realistically for post-war Iraq. Instead of listening to the experts at the State Department and throughout the government, who predicted the danger of chaos and looting, the Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and his aides ignored their advice. Instead they relied on hope, hope that the Iraqi exiles would be accepted as legitimate, hope that the Iraqi police and military would provide security; hope that Iraqi oil revenues would finance reconstruction; and hope that we would be treated as liberators. How wrong they were - you can't build a plan on hope....

Meanwhile, the President rejected the advice of the uniformed military that we deploy enough troops not only to defeat Saddam's military but also to secure Iraq after Saddam's defeat.

As a result, we saw chaos, we lost the trust of the Iraqi people - and the enemy was emboldened.

When running for President, Mr. Bush assured voters he would have strong advisors in national security. But he didn't say what would happen if his advisors disagreed. Now we know. The advisors feud; the policy fractures, and our security suffers. In a Clark Administration, there won't be any question about whether the State Department drives policy, or the Pentagon drives policy, or the national security advisor drives policy. In a Clark Administration, the President will drive the policy.
Number two: What do we do now?

So how to we get out of the mess that the Bush Administration has created for America and Iraq?
First, we shouldn't give the President $87 billion until he has a plan that will work. President Bush keeps telling us we should stay the course. But what we really must do is change course.
Second, we must be honest with the American people. That's something that President Bush hasn't done. There is no silver bullet - no magic solution in Iraq. There is no easy way out.

Every American should understand: early exit means retreat or defeat. There can be neither. We need a success strategy -for it is only success that can honor the sacrifice of so many American men and women; it is only success that will allow Iraq to stand on its own; and it is only success that will allow our soldiers to come home.
What does success mean?

Success means that Iraq is strong enough to sustain itself without substantial outside forces, but not so strong as to threaten its neighbors.
Success means that representative government has taken root, so that it can be a model for the future in the Middle East.

Success means that Iraq doesn't become a breeding ground for Al Qaeda.
A new and realistic strategy for Iraq should be guided by the following principles. First, we must end the American monopoly on the occupation and reconstruction. Then we must develop the right force mix to fight and win a guerrilla war. Finally, we must give Iraqis a greater stake in our success.

1. End the American monopoly.

From the beginning, the Administration has insisted on exclusive control of the reconstruction and occupation of Iraq. This has cost us the support of other nations and made America a bigger target for terrorists. We must end this American monopoly.
Doing so will change the way this enterprise is viewed -- in Iraq, internationally, and here at home. The Coalition Provisional Authority, by which America controls Iraq today, should be replaced. But it is simply unrealistic to have the United Nations take over this daunting task - it's not able and it's not willing. Instead we must create a new international structure - the Iraqi Reconstruction and Democracy Council -- similar to the one we created in Bosnia with representatives from Europe, the United States, Iraq's neighbors, and other countries that will support our effort.

A high representative would be named to direct this mission, who would then bring in more resources and personnel from the rest of the world. It would have been easier to do this six months ago or four months ago, or two months ago. But even today, it is the only hope for gaining broader international support. Nations are more likely to share burdens if they are also sharing decisions. We would still have a leading role - but you can't be a leader if no one comes along - you're not a leader if you're all alone.
This new international effort should be launched immediately. The world is waiting for our leadership. They know success is critical for them, too. And we mustn't cast them aside any longer. They should have a seat at the table. But fixing the Administration's missteps won't be easy. It will require diplomacy at the highest levels. And I will call a summit of leaders from Europe, the United Nations, Japan, and the Arab World to launch this new international project.

We must also transform the military operation - turning it into a NATO enterprise. General Abizaid, commander of US forces in the Middle East, would remain in charge of the operation, but he would report to the NATO Council as well, as I did when I commanded NATO forces in Kosovo. Why - at this point - would NATO come? Again, it would have been easier if done earlier. But our friends and allies have a stake in a stable Iraq.

And our allies would be more willing to help us on Iraq if we are willing to work together on issues of concern to them, like climate change, the International Criminal Court, and a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. With a US commander, NATO involvement, and UN endorsement, I believe we can also get Muslim countries to step in, as we did in the Balkans. Their presence would prove that this is not an American occupation, but an international effort. Then more Iraqis will see that the people sabotaging their oil pipelines are sabotaging their children's future -- and they will help us stop them.
In these circumstances, it is reasonable to expect other countries to provide tens of thousands of new troops as well as additional personnel to help Iraqis conduct policing, police training, oversight, and border control.

Only by sharing responsibility for the management of this enterprise will we also be able to share the immense and growing burden we now face.

2. Force Mix

Along with NATO involvement, we will need a series of other military and security steps. No plan can be fashioned without substantial contribution from our military leaders on the ground. Their advice will be crucial. But let me tell you as Commander-in-Chief how I would approach this problem.

First off, we want to distribute our resources properly. This requires US forces to run an agile, intelligence-driven counter-insurgency campaign, while Iraqi forces and our allies perform other necessary tasks. When it comes to our force levels, it's possible that some may need to be added initially to create the right mix of capabilities. You cannot measure success by a reduction in forces, and you can't declare failure by an increase in forces. It's better to do the job right so we can succeed and then bring our troops home.
One mistake in Vietnam was trying to use conventional forces to fight an unconventional war. The more conventional forces we have in Iraq, the more logistics we need. The more unarmored humvees and trucks we have, the greater our vulnerability to roadside bombs. Most of our losses are being taken in routine patrolling and transit - not in active counter-insurgency efforts. The right mix of forces -- more special forces and other lighter units -- will reduce our "footprint," logistics tail and vulnerability, while increasing our ability to strike hard.

More intelligence resources: We have to do all we can to find out who's attacking our soldiers, and to produce the actionable intelligence that will enable us to strike accurately and hard. Success depends on good intelligence work and good rapport with the civilian population. Yet intelligence specialists and linguists are scarce.

We need to take the linguists and intelligence specialists now involved in the search for weapons of mass destruction and assign them to our military counter-insurgency efforts -- and we need to augment that with new technologies and more linguists drawn from loyal Arab Americans. We can ask international inspectors to take over the search for weapons They are ready, willing and able to perform this mission. That will make it possible to find the people who are killing our soldiers.

Iraqi Security forces: There is no more urgent priority than improving Iraqi security forces. We need a smart, patient two-tier plan - for police and the military.
We should start by calling the old Iraqi army to duty. We have to have thorough background checks, pay generous rates, and appeal to their sense of nationality. We need these security forces quickly so we can free up US soldiers to focus on our most urgent tasks of counter-insurgency - some Iraqis may go to police, some as guards for installations or borders, and some will be the nucleus for a new, still to be formed Iraqi army.

Better border protection: Today Iraq is a magnet for every jihadist in the Middle East who wants to take a free shot at an American soldier. We have to stop outside infiltration or intervention. Closing the borders will require real cooperation from the countries bordering Iraq. We should engage with the Syrians, the Iranians, and the Saudis, with clear carrots as well as sticks. We have other issues with each of these countries. But right now, closing those borders is most urgent. Unfortunately, this administration has made the region wary of working with us. We must convince them otherwise to show them that cooperation with us is in their interest and will help their region, not with more wars but with more progress.

In both Bosnia and Afghanistan, we recognized that you cannot put a country back together if its neighbors are committed to tearing it apart. In both those cases, we engaged all of the neighbors, no matter how objectionable we found their policies or regimes, in our effort to stabilize those societies. We have yet to initiate such a regional dialogue with Iraq's neighbors.

3. Give the Iraqis a rising stake in our success

Iraqis will be more likely to meet the security challenge if we give them a greater stake in our success. That means establishing a new sovereign government in Iraq right away. There has been a false debate between the French, who recommended turning all government functions over to Iraqis now - and the Bush Administration, which insists on waiting until a constitution is written and elections are held.

The French are wrong: we cannot transfer full authority to Iraqis before they are ready. But the administration is also wrong: we can give the Iraqis a much bigger sense of ownership over their country and move more quickly towards a government that answers to its people. Until Iraqis believe that they can control their future, they will huddle in fear and watch others attack - rather than stand with pride, expose the guerrillas and stop the violence.

We should help the Iraqis move immediately to establish their own government, a government to replace the existing council. Because that council was chosen by Americans, it is not seen as legitimate in the eyes of too many Iraqis. But right now, there are 50 city and regional councils in Iraq - elected by the Iraqi people. Just as the State Legislatures used to elect members to our Senate in our own country, these councils should select new members of an interim government drawing from the existing governing council.

This new government would represent Iraq internationally - and control oil revenues, funds, and any frozen assets through a transparent, internationally audited process. The transfer of government functions to this new government should be ongoing, week by week, as soon as it is ready.

This interim government would then launch a new process to write a Constitution. Such a constitution would be an Iraqi document -- not written by Americans or people appointed by Americans - and would set the terms for free and fair elections.
Finally, we should open the West to Iraq with exchange programs in multiple fields so that Iraqis who have been isolated for years can see the rest of the world -- what we are doing with our economy, schooling, health care, local media, how we run our government and take community action. Then they can return to their country to help guide the growth of the new Iraq.

If I am elected President, I pledge to you that my highest priority will be this: not only to protect America from the threat of Al Qaeda, but to transform the strategy that is failing in Iraq to one that will succeed.

I would draw on my 34-year military career, my experience as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, the lessons of diplomacy I learned in that job, the personal relationships with foreign leaders I developed, my role in bringing peace to Bosnia, my understanding of guerrilla war, and my efforts commanding the victorious war and winning the peace in Kosovo. Drawing on this experience, I will work to promote a stable democracy in Iraq, to recruit other countries to share the burden, to protect our troops, draw them down, and eventually to bring them home - to leave Iraq, but not abandon it.
Number three: How do we make sure this does not happen again?
If I am elected President, I pledge to you that America will never, under my leadership, choose to isolate itself without allies, in a "long, hard slog" that drains our money, strains our military, and squanders our moral authority. We will act with others if we possibly can and alone only if we absolutely must.

A Clark foreign policy would never let it happen - because I would not give away our alliances any more than I would give away the 101st Airborne.

Despite our overwhelming military might, our economic strength and the power of our democracy, we cannot win these battles alone. We can't pursue Arab-Israeli peace, maintain stability in the Middle East, support reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, deal with the challenges of North Korea, track down Osama bin Laden, fight the global war against terrorism, face the problem of Iran, and return to prosperity in this country, unless we have allies to help us.

We have choices. We can ignore the threats. We can confront them alone. Or we can get people who share our interests to share our challenges. That is how America led the world for the last half century. And when we led, others followed -- not because we compelled them, but because we convinced them.

General Eisenhower once said leadership is "persuading the other fellow to want to do what you want him to do." America needs a President who can lead.
As President, I will restore what's been lost. I will rebuild our alliances. And I will strengthen them, so that when America has to act we can call on the military, financial, and moral resources of others.

I will propose a new Atlantic Charter to reinvigorate our security partnership with Europe - a Charter that will define the threats we face in common, create the basis for concerted action from our allies to meet them, and offer the promise to act together as a first choice - not a last. The United States will always reserve the right to act alone in our own defense if we must. No nation will ever have veto power over our security. But we have seen that it is foolish to act alone as a first resort, to determine alone the threat, to decide alone on a response, and then to say to the world, "you're with us or against us." Our first choice should be to act with the power and authority of many nations. This model could be applied to our friends and allies in Asia as well.

I also propose creating an agency that will bring the same skill to solving the problems of poverty, disease, and ethnic conflict that we have brought to the challenge of warfare. We should be using our great capacities to prevent conflicts early so we don't need to use force later. That means drawing on the skills that now exist across the federal government.

This new agency should have a budget for real research and development, real planning, and the ability to draw on the US national civilian reserves which I proposed last month. This agency will give us a power to engage that we don't have right now. Because we don't need a new strategy of preemptive force as much as we need a new capability for preemptive engagement.

It serves our interests to make sure that Afghanistan is never again a haven for Al Qaeda; to make sure the fallen states of Africa don't become breeding grounds for terrorists; to make sure the scourge of AIDS doesn't reverse political and economic gains in the developing world. America should be the best in the world in addressing and reversing the causes of human misery, and we should be known and admired for it.
For much of our history, America has been the most admired nation in the world. People around the globe admired America's strength - because they saw it was on their side. That reputation took decades to build - but only a few years for George Bush to bring down. We must recover what's been lost.

As my record makes clear, I am not opposed to confronting a dictator, setting an ultimatum, and acting with force if the ultimatum's not met. We did it twice. We fought with Milosevic and persuaded our allies to join us. And I wrestled with some of the pentagon brass along the way to get it done. If we have to confront danger again, we will. And we will win.

But we must be a country that listens, and leads again. A country that is respected, not resented. Not for its military might or material wealth, but for its values and vision; for the greatness of its goals, and for the generosity of its spirit. Respected more than feared, by nations rich and poor, Christian, Jews, and Muslim. A country governed by people with ideals, not radical ideologies. A nation where citizens speak their minds, demand more of their leaders, and serve their country. It's what I call a New American Patriotism.

This New American Patriotism recognizes the simple truth that we can't be safe at home unless we're secure abroad. We can't solve our domestic challenges - the economy, health care, and education -- unless we succeed in Iraq and extinguish terrorism around the world.

We need leadership to succeed - and when this campaign is over, I believe the American people will make me that leader.


posted by Richard at 9:52 AM