The Wash Post has an article about how Democratic foreign policy gurus remain undecided in crafting an alternative to the Bush admin and GOP Congress in Iraq. One takeaway from the story: Madeleine Albright remains a dunderhead, channeling equal parts Yoda and David Carradine in his Kung-Fu days:
"The American military is both the problem and the solution. They are a magnet [for insurgents] but they're also helping with security," she said, adding that Washington needs to ease Middle East anxieties by declaring it wants no permanent bases in Iraq.
Former presidential candidate and unregenerate sweater-wearer Wes Clark vied with Albright for penetrating analysis, sounding more like a '90s-era mid-manager than a blood-and-gutsers:
"Everybody wants to talk troops, but everyone knows we can't win this with troops alone," Clark said. The United States needs to make Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran, "part of the solution, not part of the problem."
Richard Holbrooke–the intergalactic diplomat who most likely would have been John Kerry's secretary of state–puts it this way:
"I don't believe in an arbitrary drawdown, whether it's Vietnam or Bosnia or Iraq," said Holbrooke, adding that a departure must be "based on realities on the ground."
Whole thing here. These guys make the Bush admin look like rocket scientists (and not the sort who work for NASA). Matt Welch took a look at the rationales and rationalizations of "Temporary Doves" Albright and Clark in a must-read essay in the May 2004 Reason. It's online here.