Sounds like Clark's ideas for what to do in the future are not too dissimilar from what the present administration intends to do.
Indeed, he even notes that:
While the civil administration in Baghdad would likely agree with most of these ideas, it has not implemented these programmes with the required urgency nor has it specified the end state it seeks.
In other words, just do it faster.
So what can be done now? A successful outcome would be to solve the mystery of the WMD, suppress the Baathist resurgence and hold Iraq together, leaving it self-governing in some semblance of secular democracy, secured by its own armed forces, free from domination by other regional powers or terrorists. Winning in Iraq requires working with the existing forces in that society, not against them. Representative Iraqi institutions - national, regional and local councils - need to be established to work with the US and UK civilian administrators. These institutions must leave no one out, including former Baathists, who should be given an opportunity to renounce their former loyalties.
The US and UK must also recruit and equip tens of thousands of Iraqis to handle the security and reconstruction responsibilities of the occupation. Yes, they must be trained and vetted - but this must be done quickly. Iraqis must be put in uniform and on to the streets alongside the US and British Forces as soon as possible, and thousands of translators must be brought in. Iraqi faces must be seen to carry out some of the tougher chores like the searches for weapons, responses to complaints, guarding facilities and pursuing criminals. And there should be a prohibition of searches in the absence of translators.
Communications with the Iraqi public is crucial. Western forces must take extraordinary measures to combat rumours, fears and suspicions. This means more transparency in decision-making and complete reporting on the results of the patrols and searches. Why can't we have our own 24-hour news channel in Arabic? Military forces must find new ways to provide this transparency without it hobbling operational methods and aims.
In particular, Clark is against a rapid pullout as the antiwar folks call for:
If we are successful, the cost of this mission will be measured in years, tens of billions of dollars and dozens more soldiers' lives lost. But failure will be more expensive, and a premature pull-out will exacerbate regional conflict and undercut the War on Terror.
Think the antiwar folks will notice this? |
