Wesley Clark on Iraq: "The truth is that the underlying problems are political, not military.

"Vicious ethnic cleansing is underway, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment, security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces -- and increasing U.S. efforts is likely to generate additional resistance, especially from Iraq's neighbors. More effective action is needed to resolve the struggle at the political level."

Comments

[Guilford Native]

I couldn't agree more.

The military goes by the plan they are presented.

That's why most people support the military, but are against the war. If the current designers of the war cared about out military, they would provide them with better assistance when they return home.

[The CA]

If we can't secure the city of Baghdad, then it is over for America and our military. Imagine if we had to secure Moscow or Chicago in the event of a civil war here.

The naysayers doubt our military and if they are correct, then we need to seriously upgrade our forces to meet a direct threat to our security if one should arise.

It's also noteworthy to point out that the American Civil War was won militarily, so the notion that military force cannot win a civil war is just false.

[Roch101]

Which side of the civil war should we fight on, Sam?

[The CA]

Roch, what I am suggesting, as have the military and political leaders is that a political solution cannot be achieved in the current climate of instability. If we can stabilize the country with the use of force, then the likelihood of a political solution is increased. If we cannot stabilize Baghdad then our military is nowhere near what it used to be. We liberated Paris and conquered Berlin, surely we can take control of a city in Iraq.

That said, if one side is clearly committed to peace, and the other side is not- then maybe we do take a side. We did the same sort of thing during the Cold War.