Clark-mentum 2.0

As expected, the fallout from Wes Clark's NYT Op-Ed isn't getting a lot of love from the left. In fact, it's not getting a lot of love from some of the saner folks in the progressive blogosphere.

... like Kevin Drum:

If any of this stuff were possible, we wouldn't have any problems in Iraq in the first place. But the Shiite majority doesn't want to ban militias, it doesn't want to prevent the creation of a Shiite super-region, and it doesn't want to reduce sectarian influences ? and we can't make them. The Kurds don't want to federalize oil revenues, and the Pentagon doesn't have any more translators. As for Iran, good luck.

This might have been a great plan two years ago. Today it's a pipe dream. What's the point of writing stuff like this?

... like Matt Yglesias:

... Clark's notion that the real problem in Iraq is too much Iranian influence is just weird. Or, rather, seems to reflect a weird geopolitical naivet?.

The Big Boys (KOS & MyDD) of the extreme left are, so far, rather quiet. Funny ... if you replaced Joe Lieberman's name on the same Op/Ed, you know they'd set a new bandwidth record. But when it's the guy who's leading your straw polls ... cricket chirping.

Meanwhile, Thomas Barnett seems to think Wes' answer was pretty darned good (which makes it a shame he doesn't elaborate any on that point).

UPDATE: Rep. Adam Smith has a great read on his thoughts on Iraq after a visit.