I did a brief diary earlier morning this noting that Wesley Clark was going to be on the Diane Rehm show this morning, a panel discussion of the war in Iraq.
You can listen to the archived audio at:
http://www.wamu.org/...
I've updated below the fold with some highlights about what Clark said....
[These are my quick and dirty transcriptions, but I think are generally accurate--if you think not, say so in comments.]
1. Future of Iraqi government: He stressed that constitutional changes would be needed to reassure Sunni politicians and avoid civil war. “The Sunnis have to be brought into the government and the constitution simply has to be changed.... “All the leverage has to be brought on the Shiite politicians.”
In particular, he mentioned:
* oil revenue must be controlled by the central government rather than the provinces
* the oil-rich Southern provinces should not be allowed to function as a de facto mini-state
The American forces are going to have to apply leverage against the Shiite politicians.
We’re at the decisive point. We’ve got to get these points locked into the Constitution, and if they don’t get locked in we’re going to slide into a situation where the civil conflict deepens. I’m not an optimist that these changes can be done.
2. Bush’s failure of leadership:
“Do the politics interfere with the strategy on the ground and the answer almost certainly is yes. We’ve known for more than a year that the administration thought they had to pull troops back before the 2006 elections.... They know there’s tremendous pressure to get these troop withdrawals under way."
3. Asked about a “timetable for withdrawal”:
I’m certainly not in favor of it. I think that what we’ve got to do is give the ambassador there all the leverage we can possibly give him to try to broker the possible political arrangements that will let Iraq remain a coherent integral state. And putting a fixed schuedle of that means that [everyone] ... is all focusing on on the withdrawal. Let’s let them focus on what they need to focus on which is holding Iraq together.”
4. On divisions within the current government:
“I think it’s going to be very difficult to desctarianize these ministries.Even if you change the people at the top there’s an agenda that’s at work here.... This is issue is an issue that’s sliding the wrong way and it’s something that’s going to take a colossal effort right now.”
5. What he would recommend:
a. Set aside American brigades, give them equipment and training “in case the militias don’t want to disband” to operate in urban areas.
This is a threat.... Our troops would be re-oriented away from the Sunnis to focus on the Shiite militia.... It will be viewed as challenging and provocative. But it’s the kind of leverage without ever re-deploying a force or ever raising your arm against the Shias, it’s the kind of leverage that sends a strong signal.
b. Put more troops on the border with Iran as a signal to Iraqi Shiites and Iran.
c. He suggests that the US might also hold up supplies to the Iraqi army as a “means to send a message.”
6. Asked about the possibilty of a divided Iraq: Clark said he placed the odds of a 3-state Iraq at 50-50.
I don't have time to review the rest, so you can check it out. The other panelists were:
Thomas Donnelly, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of "The Military We Need: The Defense Requirements of the Bush Doctrine" (AEI Press)
Rajiv Chandrasekaran, assistant managing editor, Washington Post
Anthony Cordesman, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies