Much has been done in six months to deal with the ongoing war in Afghanistan. We have restated that our aim is to eliminate the threat of Al Qaeda; built a new leadership team, including Special Representative Richard Holbrooke; reinforced our troop strength and adjusted our tactics; and have begun augmenting our force with synchronized diplomatic, political and economic efforts.

But can we explain how all of this adds up to an effective strategy that will sustain American engagement in one of the world's least accessible regions?

The American people are growing increasingly wary. In a new CNN/Opinion research poll, fully 54% of respondents now say they oppose the U.S.-led fight against the Taliban and their Al Qaeda allies. Those are striking numbers, and a serious warning to the Obama administration.

The difficulty here lies less in PowerPoint presentations and more in the complexities of the war itself. Our real enemy, Al Qaeda, may now be more entrenched in Pakistan than in Afghanistan. Taking the fight directly into Pakistan with ground forces risks expanding the conflict and undercutting a fragile Pakistani civilian government.

The similarities to Vietnam are ominous. There, too, an insurgency was led and supported from outside the borders of the state in which our troops were fighting. There, too, sanctuaries across international borders stymied U.S. military efforts. There, too, broader political-strategic considerations weighed against military expansion of the conflict and forecast further struggles in the region.

And there, too, American public support slid away over time as our engagement ratcheted up and casualties mounted.

Our Vietnam experiences provide powerful lessons in how to explain strategy and retain public support, so we can ultimately succeed.

First, we must maintain a clear and unwavering purpose - and not overstate our accomplishments. In Vietnam, we seemed to change our objectives whenever they were seriously challenged. At one time or another we fought to halt Communist aggression from the North, to avoid the fall of the "Southeast Asian dominoes," to prevent a slaughter should the Viet Cong take over, and to maintain U.S. "credibility." And we kept promising "light at the end of the tunnel," until Tet shattered public expectations and support.

So in Afghanistan, we must avoid confusing Americans by citing too many justifications for our presence. We aren't there to create democracy for Afghans, stabilize a nuclear-armed Pakistan or deal with strategic rivalry on the subcontinent. These may be means to an end, but we must not lose public focus on Al Qaeda. And we must be cautious in claiming progress.

Second, we must realize that, as we ratchet up our military commitment against the insurgency in Afghanistan, we will take increased losses, and this will limit our political staying power. We must get the balance right between the urgency of the mission and the costs and risks of actions to speed up our success. In Vietnam it turned out there were actually extraordinary military measures that might have been decisive against the North, but we were self-deterred from taking them until it was too late. We should have gone after the North by air more heavily sooner; we should have cut off their base areas in Cambodia and Laos sooner and more effectively.

Our military must seek to find more effective measures against the enemy headquarters and base areas in Pakistan - and the Predator strikes are a good start. Let's not wait too long to act.

Finally, we gain nothing by blaming our hosts or their culture. In Vietnam, we constantly complained about the ineffectiveness of our allies and engineered the ouster of South Vietnamese leaders. In the end, we simply ended up owning the problem. In Southwest Asia today, Americans must recognize that local leaders and their institutions do not share our own priorities and values. We cannot really build a nation for other people, and the American public must not expect it. Instead we will be working quietly behind the scenes to focus greater regional efforts against Al Qaeda.

Our commitment to defeating Al Qaeda need be nothing like our tragedy in Vietnam - unless we make it so. Under the Obama administration, we are off to a good start. Let's learn from America's errors, not relive them.

Read More..

Each Memorial Day and Veterans Day, many of us take time to recognize the sacrifices of those men and women who have served in uniform.

But around the country, these solemn holidays often end up meaning little more than a chance to buy things on sale.

Yesterday I did an event with Jill Biden for a non-partisan, non-profit group called Beyond Tribute that's launching a campaign this Memorial Day to convince stores to donate a portion of their holiday promotion proceeds to medical treatment and family support for veterans. By Veterans Day, we hope to be able to raise significant money for veterans in need from the very businesses that usually capitalize on these solemn holidays.

But before businesses will sign on, they need to see that people are committed to truly honoring, and actually helping, former service members.

Sign the Memorial Day pledge to shop at Beyond Tribute business partners today and together we can do a lot of good for some people who really need it.

When I was on active duty as a four-star general in the U.S. Army, the soldiers I commanded were serving me, and they were serving the President.

But above all, they were serving America -- all of us.

So we all owe them a debt of gratitude, especially the troops who have sacrificed their health and well-being in the line of duty.

By signing the pledge to shop at Beyond Tribute businesses during the veterans national holidays, you're doing more than making your own personal commitment to help. You're also showing businesses that their customers will reward them if they do the right thing.

Sign the pledge now.

Anyone who has served, or has a loved one who's served, knows how important this help is.

That's why people like Walter Cronkite, philanthropist Jerome Kohlberg, and Kim Cattrall (Sex and the City's Samantha) have joined Beyond Tribute with me and pledged to do their shopping at participating businesses, too.

Join us in signing the pledge to do your Veterans Day shopping at Beyond Tribute businesses, then ask your friends and family to sign the pledge, too.

The troops we honor are real people, many of whom have very real injuries. They and their families need our help to get back on their feet. This is something we can all do that will really help them.

Sincerely,

Wes Clark

He didn't hesitate to tell President Obama that he needed more troops in Afghanistan, and won an additional 21,000 troops to aid more than 35,000 already there. Despite the popular mind-set that generals always want more, at the highest levels there are constraints — political, military, financial — on what they can have, and asking for more is harder than it looks. McKiernan is not afraid to stand up and ask for what he needs.

When you have troops under you who are dying in combat, as he now does, the conflict carries an even heavier emotional weight. Dave has to work with U.S. forces and allies to strengthen our military response. He has to keep the Afghan people on his side — being sure to order air strikes judiciously, only when there's simply no other way of attacking a high-value target — but he's also got to watch out for the young soldiers and Marines in the fight. It's a delicate balancing act, but McKiernan is up to the task: making sure we don't get forced off the battlefield before the political and diplomatic strategies unfolding in the region take hold.

Read More..

Here we go again.

I know it seems we don't get much of a chance to take a breath in politics, but I can already see the forces working to try and halt the change America needs. We can't let that happen.

We worked too hard to elect Barack Obama to lead our country, to elect Eric Massa to help bring a responsible end to the occupation in Iraq, to elect Kay Hagan to help Americans face this economic crisis, along with dozens of other great candidates across the country.

WesPAC is the vehicle that allows us to fight for what we care about and to be heard on the critical issues facing our country. I need your help to ensure my voice and yours are not lost.

So help me jumpstart our efforts in 2009. Today, we're launching our Jumpstart Fund. Our goal is to raise $25,000 by Friday. Please contribute to our Jumpstart fundraising drive today!

http://securingamerica.com/jumpstart

You have always powered WesPAC and the Clark Community. Whether it's fighting for a specific piece of legislation, highlighting important issues facing our country, or helping a candidate win on Election Day, we could never do it without you.

The next year is critical. Progressives have been elected up and down the ballot to make sure government works for the people again. Sadly, many of our opponents want us to fail.

Nothing will be handed to us. We're going to have to fight to get our economy back on track. We're going to have to fight to bring our troops back home safely. And we're going to continue to find candidates to help bring this change in the coming years.

Give our efforts at WesPAC a charge to start the year. Contribute to our $25,000 Jumpstart Fund today!

http://securingamerica.com/jumpstart

I know these are tough times for many, and I can't thank you enough for your previous support. Together, we've made a difference and accomplished so much. And yet we know we have so much more we can do.

I am asking you to donate to WesPAC's Jumpstart Fund. Make sure we reach our $25,000 goal by midnight Friday!

http://securingamerica.com/jumpstart

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

Wes Clark

By Wesley K. Clark
Sunday, December 21, 2008; Page B01

The last time the United States elected a Democrat as its president to govern with a majority-Democratic Congress, an immediate fracas arose over gays in the military, reinforcing a partisan story line that Democrats can't be trusted with the nation's security. Sixteen years later, some will certainly be watching how deftly President-elect Barack Obama salutes, or how House Speaker  Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader  Harry Reid say the Pledge of Allegiance.

These are symbols, of course, but the national security challenges the nation faces now are anything but symbolic: two wars, an ongoing terrorist menace, a growing list of unmet military needs and a long roster of other threats arising from new quarters. So it's natural to ask: What do the Democrats need to understand about the military? And what does the military need to understand about the Democrats? As someone who has labored in both camps, I offer some thoughts.

Let's start by facing the truth: Democrats have long had an ambivalent relationship with the military, and vice versa. While Democrats profess to like and support the military, Republicans usually win more military and veterans' votes than Democrats, and no wonder: Democrats have been pilloried for supposedly wanting to cut defense spending, for being soft on America's enemies and for wanting to use the armed forces for "social engineering" -- code for letting openly gay soldiers serve. As one senior Army leader told me a few years ago, "The Democrats may be all in favor of using force in a crisis, but can you trust them to stick with us when the going gets tough?" Exit polls last month showed that voters who've served in the military went for the Republican candidate, Sen.  John McCain, over Obama by 54 percent to 44 percent.

And the mistrust runs both ways. To some Democrats, the armed forces appear, in the words of one New Hampshire activist who chided me in 2003, to be an "authoritarian, hierarchical, male-dominated" institution that's out of touch with liberal values. A small number of Democrats can usually be counted on to oppose any use of force and occasionally go after the institution that makes the use of force possible. (I sometimes hear concerns on college campuses that the make-up of our all-volunteer force is not "representative" of America, but I don't see the students rushing to volunteer themselves to redress the balance.)

So it's easy to assume that the military and the Democrats don't and won't get along. It's also wrong. As the 2000 election approached, a member of the Joint Chiefs confided to me: "You know, people wouldn't believe it, but probably no one else will ever treat us as well as the Clinton administration has." From a shaky beginning, including the confidence-battering 1993 "Black Hawk Down" shootout in Somalia, the top civilians on Clinton's team and the president himself took pains to build respect and trust with the military's top brass -- above all by engaging in forthright dialogue.

Building on that, Obama is off to a promising start with the Pentagon, steering clear of a reprise of the fight over "don't ask, don't tell" and picking pragmatic, non-ideological leaders whom top military officers will find highly reassuring -- especially since so many may have discovered from personal experience that a particular partisan label is no guarantee of good leadership. Retaining Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, designating Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (with her six years of experience on the Senate Armed Services Committee) as secretary of state and appointing James L. Jones (a retired four-star Marine general) as national security adviser should go a long way toward assuring members of the armed forces that their concerns will be given a fair hearing at the very highest levels.

But the incoming team and the Democrat-dominated Congress still need to work hard to understand the lower ranks and the culture of today's military. Perhaps as many as 75 million Americans have either served in uniform or have family members who have done so. At any given time, the armed forces total some 2 million Americans on active duty, in the National Guard or in the reserves -- all volunteers. Most read military-focused newspapers, such as the Army Times, and many live on bases, relatively isolated from nearby communities. The majority are married, and almost half have children, creating a subculture of families that endure frequent moves and frightening absences. Most Americans just can't fathom the stress and pain this lifestyle imposes (although Michelle Obama can -- as the future first lady showed by reaching out to military family members during the campaign).

Our military is a values-based institution. Don't think of it as Republican or Democratic. Sure, occasionally someone will pop up, like the radio talk-show host I met while traveling in Arizona, who assured me that he had become a dues-paying Republican while serving as a Marine officer and thought that everyone else should, too. But most of us are uncomfortable with partisanship. True, many in the military, especially those who have served longer, lean toward the conservative end of the political spectrum. (What would you expect? The military must obey the orders of the commander in chief and follow the chain of command, which means giving up one's own liberties and spending time in difficult and often very dangerous circumstances.) But the real military values aren't partisan values; they're service, loyalty, honesty, patriotism, respect, achievement and personal responsibility.

Which brings us to one more core military value, one that Democrats can easily embrace: fairness. Military leaders take care of their troops -- and their unit's families. They don't take advantage of their authority. Captains eat after their troops do, not before. Good officers get to work earlier than their subordinates and leave later. I used to joke on the campaign trail that the Army was a socialist organization: The government owned the housing and all the equipment I worked with, everyone's children went to the same schools and used the same hospitals, and the highest-ranking person (after more than 30 years in uniform) earned only about 10 or 12 times the salary of a raw recruit. In the military, we don't like favoritism, show-boating or elitism.

That's a good base upon which to build. But Democrats must also realize that the military's respect has to be earned. We don't consider ourselves an "interest group." Sure, we will always appreciate more pay, better housing and stronger veterans' benefits. But that isn't how the Democrats will win over the military. They'll win by being straight-up, clear-eyed and professional about national security. And if they are, the military will trust them, even with a painful withdrawal from Iraq and the inevitable defense cutbacks.

Above all, don't think that we are anxious to "use our toys." Forget about the Hollywood dramatics: Soldiers are the last to seek war. We know its personal and professional consequences painfully well. Those in uniform would prefer that President Obama use every other tool and method -- diplomacy, sanctions, calling in the allies -- before sending troops into combat. You're better off leaving political and economic development to others, too. As for crisis response? Please, let the diplomats work their magic first.

But the military will have to show some understanding as well. We don't have a monopoly on knowing what the nation's best interests are. National security now involves such spheres as law enforcement, the economy, the nation's industrial and scientific base and even such matters as health care and civil liberties. The military is just one voice among many.

Nor are our military plans and proposals beyond questioning. There's a lot of judgment involved in strategy and operations, and not a lot of certainty. The military is a cautious institution, and plans and options sometimes reflect just the opinion of the most senior person in the room. Even hard military "requirements" should stand up to public scrutiny. So when new members of Congress, Hill staffers and political appointees question tactics, techniques, troop levels and programs, we have to continue to treat these questions seriously and answer them with respect and diligence.

Recognize, too, that the Democrats have generally been pulling for the human side of the military. Worried about veterans' benefits, on-base child care facilities, health care and troop retention? Since at least the early 1990s, Democrats have been putting the "juice" into the all-important people programs that have made the armed forces such a successful institution today.

Finally, let's put aside the partisan legacy of Vietnam once and for all. We all grieve for the losses there and for the needy, homeless vets today. But almost no one now in uniform served in that conflict, and most of the Democrats who will be moving into offices at the National Security Council, the Pentagon and in Congress are too young to have been part of the bitter national debates over the war. Iraq just isn't Vietnam, and the debates over a U.S. withdrawal need not tear the country apart -- especially if we in the military recognize that the Democratic Party that I have been associated with is every bit as patriotic and service-oriented as any other group in the United States.

We have a president-elect who has set out a pragmatic, nonpartisan, visionary course. It's time to lay to rest the old stereotypes about feckless, pacifist Democrats and authoritarian, war-mongering soldiers. If there were ever a time to get the relationship between Democrats and the military right, this is it.

Wesley K. Clark, a retired four-star general, commanded the 1999 war in Kosovo as NATO's supreme allied commander in Europe. He is a senior fellow at UCLA's Burkle Center for International Relations.

November 4 was an historic day. The Democratic wave created competitive races in "red" areas that the pundits never believed would be close. Two of those races are now headed to runoffs, and we can't back down until they're over.

Jim Martin in Georgia and Paul Carmouche in Louisiana have campaigned tirelessly in their races, and now we have an opportunity to put them over the top. Next month, Jim Martin faces a runoff against Saxby Chambliss for the U.S. Senate seat in Georgia, and Paul Carmouche will compete in a runoff against his opponent for a seat in Louisiana's 4th Congressional District. We have come too far and have fought too hard to back down in these tight races.

Click here to help Jim and Paul in their runoffs next month. Donate to their campaigns today!

I've written to you before about Jim Martin. He has served our nation honorably as a member of the Armed Forces in Vietnam, in the Georgia House of Representatives, and at the Georgia Department of Human Resources. Throughout his career, he led Georgia on health care issues, helped provide quality health care for thousands of children, and put foster children in loving homes.

Jim's opponent, Saxby Chambliss, is doing everything he can to cling onto his seat. In 2002, Chambliss ran one of the most despicable TV ads I've ever seen in which he compared war hero Senator Max Cleland to Osama bin Laden. And now, in a desperate attempt to win the December runoff, his latest ad uses images from 9/11 to exploit voters' fears about terrorism. To top it off, John McCain flew into Atlanta last week to campaign for Chambliss. We can expect more attack ads and other national Republican figures to descend on Georgia for Chambliss, and Jim needs our help now.

Click here to donate to Jim's runoff campaign!

Paul Carmouche is running for an open seat in Louisiana's 4th Congressional District. As the District Attorney for Caddo Parish, Paul has taken thousands of violent criminals off the streets and put them behind bars. He has cracked down on child predators and domestic violence. His opponent, John Fleming, on the other hand, wants to cut taxes for millionaires like himself and raise taxes for middle class families.

Paul has shown an ability to win over Republican voters and current polling has him ahead of his opponent. But we can expect the right-wing to launch full-scale attacks on Paul's record, and he needs our support. Let's help put Paul over the top, and add the 4th Congressional District to the growing list of Democratic seats in Congress.

Click here to help Paul in his runoff next month. Donate to his campaign today!

Runoff races are all about turnout and that depends heavily on the ability to raise money. Please rush a contribution to Jim and Paul today.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Wes Clark