06 December 2005

Wesley Clark on Iraq

In this morning's New York Times, Wesley Clark, the former commander on NATO forces who had a brief fling as presidential candidate in 2004, presents his plan for Iraq. Much of it makes sense. Much of his analysis is focused on Iran, which he and his interlocutors in the Arab World see as the big winner in Iraq. I have read elsewhere that the Iraqi Shiites are by no means as taken with Iran as others feel, but we should work to minimize the influence of Iran in Iraq. One distressing result of a civil war could well be the creation of an Iranian satellite state centered on Basra.

Two other things are noteworthy. First, his critique of other approaches on the table:

"Staying the course" risks a slow and costly departure of American forces with Iraq increasingly factionalized and aligned with Iran. Yet a more rapid departure of American troops along a timeline, as some Democrats are calling for, simply reduces our ability to affect the outcome and risks broader regional conflict.


Note that he has both the Administration and the Democrats advocating departure, only at different speeds. The President is not saying that, but as a matter of practical politics, he may soon have to begin a slow withdrawal.

Second, he advocates a stronger effort to co-opt the insurgents, a bigger carrot to go along with a solid stick:

...these efforts must go hand-in-glove with intensified outreach to Iraqi insurgents, to seek their reassimilation into society and their assistance in wiping out residual foreign jihadists. Iraqi and American officials have had sporadic communications with insurgent leaders, but these must lead to deeper discussions on issues like amnesty for insurgents who lay down their arms and opportunities for their further participation in public and private life.



As I said before, some of the decisions necessary to make such a policy effective will not be easy to make ("...amnesty for insurgents...."?), but this offers a course toward becoming effective on the ground that seems more likely to be successful than what we are doing now.

No comments: