Wes Clark on Iraq

Retired general and former (and future?) presidential candidate Wes Clark has an op/ed column in the Washington Post today on the future of U.S. policy in Iraq. Clark begins by calling the original invasion of Iraq a mistake - which I did not originally think it was, because I bought the Administration's line on weapons of mass destruction, a line which has turned out to be 'somewhat less than accurate' (yes, I am putting that too nicely).

Clark, realizing correctly that re-arguing the fact that the United States invaded Iraq in the first place is not really of all that much relevance at this point (as much as some don't want to admit it, that ship has sailed), goes on to note that what we need today is a "strategy to create a stable, democratizing and peaceful state in Iraq - a strategy the administration has failed to develop and articulate." On the political, diplomatic, and military fronts, Clark argues, the Administration must take additional steps to enhance long-term stability in a reconstructed Iraq. Here are some of his suggestions:

Diplomatic: "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"; forswear permanent American military bases in Iraq.

Political: "help engineer, implement and sustain a compromise that will avoid the 'red lines' of the respective factions and leave in place a state that both we and Iraq's neighbors can support" (he gets more specific on some of these); "provide additional civil assistance and advice, along with additional U.S. civilian personnel, to help strengthen the institutions of government"; "Monies promised for reconstruction simply must be committed and projects moved forward, especially in those areas along the border and where the insurgency has the greatest potential."

Military: Engage France, Canada and Germany in assisting in the training of military and police forces; "Military and security operations must return primarily to the tried-and-true methods of counterinsurgency: winning the hearts and minds of the populace through civic action, small-scale economic development and positive daily interactions"; "Ten thousand Arab Americans with full language proficiency should be recruited to assist as interpreters"; "A better effort must be made to control jihadist infiltration into the country by a combination of outposts, patrols and reaction forces reinforced by high technology."

I don't necessarily agree with all of these suggestions (I think the Iraqis should do as much of the constitution-compromise as they can without our strong-arming, since an Iraqi document will stand a much better chance of success than something perceived as foisted on the country by the U.S.), but I'm glad Clark's put them out there. As I said of Feingold and Hagel, and others, I think useful contributions to the nation's dialogue about Iraq are necesssary and important.

Clark's main point is key: if the Administration does not take steps to create a workable strategy in Iraq, our chances for "success" there (i.e. leaving in place a stable, flourishing Iraq in a region at least as stable as before the invasion) are seriously undermined. He concludes:

"The growing chorus of voices demanding a pullout should seriously alarm the Bush administration, because President Bush and his team are repeating the failure of Vietnam: failing to craft a realistic and effective policy and instead simply demanding that the American people show resolve. Resolve isn't enough to mend a flawed approach - or to save the lives of our troops. If the administration won't adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that it bring our troops home."

Stay the course is not a policy.