Reading Wes Clark’s first post at TPM Cafe it occurred to me that the US is in a very particular sort of situation right now in Iraq. Clark has made the great observation that President Bush has presented America with a false choice: “stay the course” or “cut and run.” Bush doesn’t allow for a middle ground, but his two poles are to continue on in Iraq with no plan or go home now with no victory or honor (because that’s suddenly what it’s about).

Clark, on the other hand, is advocating a serious look at our options. First, we can seriously invest in Iraq, bring allies aboard, ask the American public to start making sacrifices for the war effort, and send more troops to bring security to Iraq’s fledgling government. Basically this is the “let’s do it for real” option. Alternatively, Clark says (and I agree) that if we can’t put a thoughtful, concrete plan in place to win this war and bring our troops home now, we shouldn’t keep them in limbo and must bring them back to safety. This is in contrast to Bush’s stay the course and keep on truckin’ without a plan.

To properly think about Clark’s options and the Bush plan, think about a child crossing a two-lane road to his house, on his way home with his older sister. The child walks ahead of his sister and is half-way across the road when he sees traffic coming from both directions and freezes, not sure what to do next. He can dash back to the curb he started from, taking himself from harms way. He can relax as his older sister disregards her personal safety and sprints across one lane and carries him to safety on the opposite side of the street. Or he can just stand their, petrified by the situation he has placed himself in and hope that whatever injury that is about to come will not be fatal.

I think this is a relatively clear analogy for Clark’s choices and Bush’s stubbornness. Clark is basically saying we have to do something before it’s too late. Act safely now, even if it preserves a risk in the future or act strongly now, even if it creates a new risk. Bush is all about standing in the middle of the road, paralyzed by the prospect of a decision while hoping that he won’t get hurt too badly. But for the love of God it’s clear that the kid has to move: standing pat is just too dangerous.

I think Clark’s commentary at TPM Cafe and in the Washington Post (linked to by TST below) is the most daring position taking by any political figure and the most astute commentary offered by any expert. Bush has put our country in the middle a busy road and he owes it to the troops overseas and citizens at home to get us out of this. We can’t stay the course: we have no course, we’re stationary. It’s put up or shut up time. This needs to be repeated by Democrats ad nauseum until the nation can’t see the Iraq war any more clearly. Hopefully Clark will use his week at TPM Cafe as a bully pulpit to keep hammering home his analysis.

Philo