Our Canary in a Neocon Coal Mine

[Tom Rinaldo]

It’s been over 40 years since LBJ refused to choose between Guns and Butter, and we all came out losers because of it. Had he chosen only Guns, fewer Americans would have paid an economic price, and had he settled on Butter alone, its likely America would not have sacrificed at all. But LBJ couldn’t make that choice; instead he told America you can have this war and eat butter too. Thousands of Americans kept dying in Viet Nam and ultimately butter, along with all consumer goods and services, soared in price in an inflationary spiral until many Americans could barely afford to put margarine on their tables.

We are not exactly fighting a second Viet Nam War now, though Iraq is the closest thing to it for America since Saigon fell. Our military deployment in Iraq remains a fraction of the half a million Army of predominantly draftees that the United States once shipped off to war in South East Asia. Without a draft, most American families don’t have to worry themselves sick over whether their sons, and potentially now their daughters, will be shipped off to fight in a war they want no part of.

You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long.
It’s been over 40 years since LBJ refused to choose between Guns and Butter, and we all came out losers because of it. Had he chosen only Guns, fewer Americans would have paid an economic price, and had he settled on Butter alone, its likely America would not have sacrificed at all. But LBJ couldn’t make that choice; instead he told America you can have this war and eat butter too. Thousands of Americans kept dying in Viet Nam and ultimately butter, along with all consumer goods and services, soared in price in an inflationary spiral until many Americans could barely afford to put margarine on their tables.

We are not exactly fighting a second Viet Nam War now, though Iraq is the closest thing to it for America since Saigon fell. Our military deployment in Iraq remains a fraction of the half a million Army of predominantly draftees that the United States once shipped off to war in South East Asia. Without a draft, most American families don’t have to worry themselves sick over whether their sons, and potentially now their daughters, will be shipped off to fight in a war they want no part of.

With less troops fighting in Iraq than once fought in Viet Nam, it means there are fewer overall casualties also, which means less funerals for those of us at home to attend for the children of friends, neighbors and co-workers fallen in combat, far less than the bloodier days of the Viet Nam era. So much pain averted, for most of us.

Pain is nature’s way of saying change the course. Without the feedback of pain, a person fast asleep could be burned to a crisp without ever knowing it. Without the feedback of pain, a person might not realize that the bramble they were walking deeper into was ripping at their flesh.

Pain is often an urgent warning to proceed at one’s very real own risk, but some dangers are more difficult to sense than others. In the days of old, coal miners brought canneries with them into the mines where they worked, because silent and odorless gases could accumulate in those shafts to a lethal degree before a miner could notice in time. They could notice a dead canary though, one killed by gathering gasses still below a level deadly to humans, but only if they took the time to look at that canary, it didn’t come looking for them.

America’s pain from Iraq is muted now, because of tax cuts for the rich that say; "Why sacrifice anything?" Our pain from Iraq is muted now, because of a rampant culture of consumption that says "Buy Now, and maybe you won’t have to pay later". Most Americans aren’t being asked to sacrifice much of anything now, because of the War in Iraq, so most Americans don’t directly feel pain from it. Yet.

There is an eerie growing sense of unease, a wooziness in the head perhaps, as the gases accumulating in the Neocon dug mine that we have been led into build toward increasingly dangerous levels, but nothing that is piercing in intensity, nothing piercing enough to trigger an alarm over what soon will lay in store for us if we do not change this course. Continuing Neocon mining in the Middle East is disrupting that regions geography, more and more deadly gasses are being released. Now they accumulate inside Iraq, but they are seeping from a wider region, with new pockets forming in Syria, in Lebanon, in Saudi Arabia and Palestine, and in Iran. And when storm winds start to blow they drift closer to Europe and North America as well.

The American public has been temporarily buffered from the full sharp pain of war; the piper has not been paid yet, merely given an I.O.U. But we still have one canary inside the Neocon Coal Mine, if only we are willing to look to see it suffer. That canary is America’s volunteer military. It is the men and women who go where they are sent, no matter how dangerous the destination that awaits them. They are the Americans first placed in harms way. They are the first one’s to sacrifice; they are the first ones to die. And if it goes poorly for them, and if that warning is not heeded, then the rest of us will surely sacrifice next. Watching our volunteer military break in Iraq is watching our canary struggle for breath, while we continue to set off explosives in unstable terrain as the Neocon coal mine grows steadily deeper.

Last week I watched the Democratic National Committee Winter Meeting. A number of great Democrats made numerous important points over the course of those two days. But one image stands out for me above all the others. It is General Wesley Clark addressing our Party gathered, pointing to the canary in a neocon coal mine.

[Tom Rinaldo]

1. I appreciate the R's given, but this needed a K more, lol n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. I apolgize for the repeated text bloc

I wish I had noticed it while I still could edit. I posted this piece earlier on kos, and they use some kind of code script to distinguish the intro text from the full text that got picked up and triggered off when I cut and pasted this piece over to here from there. It wasn't apparent in the edit window. Thanks you all for bearing with it.

[xkenx]

2. Tom, this writing is brilliantly "visual." Too bad so many are not noticing.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

3. Here's a K & R for you Mr. Rinaldo.

Great post. Is there somewhere online where I could see what Gen. Clark said at the DNC Winter Meeting.

I'll admit I was way too wound up over the fact that my beloved Bears were playing in the SB last weekend and I really didn't pay a whole lot of attention to anything. I know that sounds like a totally stupid excuse, but it's the truth...

[CarolNYC]

6. Wes' blog

securingamerica.com/cnn has a link to the speech video....

[Jai4WKC08]

7. There's also a transcript

As well as direct links to the video, at http://securingamerica.com/node/2197

[Cameron27]

4. I'm noticing :-)

Beautiful, thoughtful OP.

It's beyond politics and Clark is the only one who seems to realize it. We haven't seen the worst of this President yet, and it's a frightening thought.

........Iran.........

[AtomicKitten]

5. Another home run, Mr. R.

Excellent work. Thank you for your thoughtful insight.

[dogman]

9. There has been a lot of discussion here about the draft.

Will the death of the canary make it inevitable?

[welshTerrier2]

10. what message do we hear?

that's an excellent post, Tom. just as an amusing aside, check out the last line of this post.

i have a somewhat mixed reaction to viewing the struggles our troops are having as a canary in a coal mine. in one sense, i agree; in another, i don't.

ultimately, the important point comes down to "what message do we hear?" from those canaries. if the message is that continued pursuit of military intervention in the Middle East is putting, first, our troops at risk, and then subsequently, all Americans at risk, i think we have NOT heard the "ultimate" message although i don't doubt for a minute the truth of that observation.

if America continues to see itself as an invincible superpower that can conquer foreign lands at will, surely, like all empires, we will soon learn some very hard lessons. so, to see the failure in Iraq and to recognize our MILITARY limitations is, indeed, a wise interpretation of the canary's chirping.

but i'm afraid, the larger message goes well beyond the risks of military adventurism. you and i have spoken of this many times. the risks of US military intervention creating a catastrophic regional war are very real. the whole world would be lit ablaze. the consequences are unimaginable. but the use of our military in the Middle East and, frankly, all over the world is not the ultimate failing of our vision and our morality and our foreign policy. we need to look beyond the foreign deployment of our military to the underlying mission. why are we in Iraq? why is our military based on permanent installations all over the world? are they there to protect Americans? are they deployed to protect our allies from evil doers? are they there to stop the spread of communism? well, i guess we can rule that one out now. are they there to provide stability to pro-democratic governments?

perhaps we cannot blanket all deployments with a singular purpose. nor is this a call for isolationism.

for me, the canary is not the struggling troops in Iraq. for me, the canary lies within each of us. the canary that warns us is a blend of our values and beliefs as global citizens. and to reasonable people, their canaries must be telling them that the US is an outlaw nation. we are a nation that acts against the beliefs and interests of its own citizenry. we are a nation that uses its military to procure private commercial gain and, in doing so, imperils us all. we are a nation that has lost sight of its founding principles. and we are a nation that has lost its soul.

what is needed, desperately needed, today, is a great awakening and a national commitment to reform. we need to overthrow the powers that, for too long, have exploited America's power for their own greedy pursuits. the message goes beyond seeing the troops as a warning sign; we need to acknowledge the underlying evil that sends those troops abroad in the first place. until we tell the truth about WHY they are being sent, nothing will change.

our political leaders are caught in a conundrum. they fear they would be easy prey if they were to criticize our country in this way. perhaps they're right; i'm no politician. sadly, however, there is no alternative. my belief, or at least my hope, is that someone who comes along and tells Americans the truth will rapidly rise to power. the canary's ultimate message is that, until we the people seize our government back from the evil ones, nothing will change. our mission is clear; thus far, our leaders have not been.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. Excellent post WT2

We virtually always agree on the ultimate big picture while we struggle in good conscience looking for a real path that can lead us to that promised land.

Perhaps the deeper metaphor is that the fate of the canary immediately at hand represents the fate of that entire bird species, I think we agree. There is a powerful and important short term chirping warning, but even if we get this particular canary and these miners out of this neocon cave safe, and seal if off, the forces that dug that mine to begin with are still at work in the world.

I always appreciate your nuanced thinking. You don't simply go for the knee jerk popular leftist analysis. For example neither of us doubt for a moment that the influential special interests that predominantly control our society do not hesitiate to use our military as pawns on their global chess board, to advance their narrow interests whenever they are allowed to control the move. Yet you recognize that the best solution is not necessarily a total call for isolationism. Canada is not isolationist, it is capitalist, but their international policy trends toward supporting peace keeping missions for example.

I think there once was a legitimate dimension to the U.S. military helping to contain an expansionist Soviet Union, but there has always been an imperialist dimension in play there also.

So we continue our basic dialog. This particular fire burning adjacent to a massive ammunition dump must be immediately controlled, and the serial arsonist remains at large.

[welshTerrier2]

13. of fires great and small

none dare call it treason ...

how will things change if not by educating Americans and telling them the truth about their government? how many DU'ers believe this is all just about bush or just about republicans? until serious Democrats and Democratic candidates make telling the truth their primary mission, the only source to American ears comes from those wacko leftist professors or kooky authors or nut cases like Michael Moore. no, the truth is i respect all of them for trying to get out the message. but they are tiny voices pushed way to the back of the room.

truly, i don't know what we can do to awaken Americans. waving our little candidate flags will not get it done. i have great respect for some in the political arena. your man Clark, for example, is obviously an honest man and a man of great integrity. but does he mean to gain power and then "stop them"? is he the voice of real reform that will cast the money men from the kingdom? is that the mission?

if you ask me whether i respect Clark for his experience and geo-political judgment, i say "sure" ... of course ... but to have a read on Iraq like "there was no plan to win the peace" (a kerryism), which has always been my view even before the invasion, doesn't go nearly far enough ... to talk about regional diplomacy, a great idea, does not go far enough either ...

we need to give America a timeout. we need to acknowledge that we have been global abusers. what does Clark really mean when he says things like "we have strategic interests in the Middle East"? the strategic interests we should have is that we should not impose capitalism or greed or anything else on Middle Eastern countries. yes, we have strategic interests. i define them as building alliances with all nations. that should be our strategic interest. when it becomes an issue of power rather than "earned influence", i become concerned. when we allow our country to become hooked on oil by the corporate pushers, and then we're told it is our "strategic interest" to "get oil" from OPEC, i see nothing but hypocrisy and greed.

the strategic interest we should have is one of greatly accelerating, through harsh conservation measures, and technology, and cultural changes, the breaking of our dependency on fossil fuels. our government is so strangled by these corporate interests that the "strategic interests" that Clark and others speak about is highly suspect. it's not that he, himself, isn't trustworthy. it's that, without acknowledging the corruption of our government, exactly what policies are he and others actually advocating.

i suppose i could be accused of having a rigid, singular view of this. i would call that a fair assessment. our government is NOT acting in the national interest. the conduct of the "money changers" is nothing but treasonous. we should first call for a peaceful revolution to remove them from power and then call for their heads chopped into baskets in the public square failing that ... to bring about the beginnings of this revolution, we need to merge our best writers and visionaries with political candidates who have the courage to stand up and tell the truth ... many politicians have what it takes if they would only sign on to the cause. if it hurts them politically, it's well worth the price. frankly, nothing else matters. we, the people, either have power or we don't. either our government serves us or it serves special interests. it cannot serve two masters.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. You always ask big questions WT2. I'll get back to you soon... n/t

[welshTerrier2]

16. your answers, Tom ...

are always worth waiting for ... :-)

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. I'll start out with the relatively simple stuff, and warm up from there

You ask: What does Clark really mean when he says things like "we have strategic interests in the Middle East"?

Well for starters grant Clark the fact that phrases like "strategic interests" are a basic part of his professional vocabulary, devoid of political spin unless it is consciously and intentionally applied. It means, in his professional context, "what happens there can have significant consequences for America." I don't mean this as any kind of cop out, Clark is perfectly capable of speculating on what types of things happening there could bring what types of consequences and why, and people may or may not agree with him about that, but the phrase "strategic interests" isn't some kind of code word for him.

The most obvious strategic interest in the Middle East involves American and world access to the oil reserves there, and I chose my words carefully. There are those, like Dick Cheney I am sure, who would substitute the word "control" for my word "access", and would show little concern for whether the world beyond America and it's key allies had access to Middle Eastern Oil as long as we did. Clark recognizes that the current world economy is dependent on Oil as the primary energy source, and that enough of that oil lies inside the Middle East so that any serious disruption of Oil flowing out of the Middle East would have a dramatic effect on Oil prices which could trigger a major international recession if not depression as a result. Beyond the obvious unfavorable impact that would have on American consumers, that type of world economic shock would be deadly for many people in poorer nations where daily survival is marginal even now. That in turn, in addition to being a large scale human tragedy, would increase political instability in numerous nations, with further unpredictable consequences.

A widening war inside the Middle East, one that draws in Iran and possibly Saudi Arabia, which face each other across a narrow gulf with oil shipping lanes that can easily be blocked, could be what triggers a world depression. I know you take great interest in the imperialist geo-political forces that converge around Oil reserves, WT2, but for the purpose of this question now, I am simply stating what I think is obvious. Even an enlightened future people's repubic of the United States of America would have a strategic interest in world Oil supplies not being significantly disrupted even if we were fully willing to pay fairly top dollar to buy what we needed while working to ween ourselves of an oil dependency.

Of course we have also have a compelling strategic interest in "greatly accelerating, through harsh conservation measures, and technology, and cultural changes, the breaking of our dependency on fossil fuels." They are not mutually exclusive strategic needs, because even if the need for alternative energy sources was fully embraced as our nation's top priority today, it would still take some time during transition for the fruits of that sane policy to come to full fruitition. And until we contribute to providing global leadership for a safe clean energy transition (rather than driving much if not most of the problem) even if we achieved energy independence from the Middle East conflicts involving other nations over Middle Eastern Oil could still have negative consequences for Americans.

Another strategic interest of the United States in the Middle East is for the several religions and sects that hold land in that region to be sacred not to breed ever deepening hatreds between each other over those lands deemed sacred. It wouldn't matter if the United States became a nation of atheists, as long as billions of other people remained believers this would remain a strategic interest. I would be hard pressed to decide which of the two, fanatical religous expression or the lust for material richs, has contributed to more killing and warfare throughout history. Once upon a time religous wars were more likely to be fought along the fault lines of geographic proximity between competing faiths, but as the world shrinks and people disperse and populations become less homogenious in many places, religous fighting brings more potential for death and chaos in more and more places.

OK, I'll post this part and regroup and come back with a further reply fairly soon.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. This took awhile because transcripts were too interesting to read

I kept getting distracted and thrown off on tangents not directly related to your question.

I know you've been over to my blog site WT2, so you've read my semi rant about social and political change that opens up when you click to read more about my blog:
http://www.aleftturnforclark.com/2006/10/more_about_me_and_this_blog.html#more

I've just about reached the 40 year mark now of being (what we used to describe ourselves decades ago as) a "radical" (before that noun got attached to "the Radical Right".) If I had a dollar for every time I heard someone shout "We demand" over those 40 long years, I could personally fund a reasonably large leftist think tank with it. Merely being correct about the state of the wrold doesn't cut it for me anymore, not if that still leaves us largely incapable of changing it in a direction we strongly believe in.

We can debate exactly what we mean by the concept, but sure, I agree some type of conceptual at least Revolution is needed in America. The planet needs a revolutionary shift in thinking too, if we are to have any hope of minimizing the disaster of Global Warming also. I got this image of social change once, a few decades back. It's a picture of pulling a long heavy load toward the left (my prferred direction) with a long chain made of human links. The human links way to the right of me can't directly relate to where I am standing way to the left of them, but each of them perhaps can relate better to the link located immediately adjacent to them to their own left. With every pull to the left every link will shift to the left. Unless there is too sharp, too strong, too sudden a yank that puts too much kinetic pressure on every link in the chain so that one will suddenly snap.

Once that happens everyone to the left of that snap is simply pulling on empty air. On the other hand though, what good is a nice intact chain lying slack without anyone using it to pull our nation where it needs to go as fast as is possible without snapping the chain, since the need truly is urgent for us to move as quickly as possible? OK, that's my analogy. Links aren't really individuals, more like demograhpic groups or whatever. There are potential leaders willing to pull our nation faster and harder to the left than Wesley Clark will, but all of them I fear snap that chain in attempting to make it happen. Once they snap their connection to the current center of gravity of the American people, none will ever become President. Ramsey Clark was once Attorney General of the United States. For a decade now though, if he gets any mainstream attention at all it is always derisive. The chain snapped for Ramsey.

Wes Clark is already on shaky footing pulling steadily on the chain, but he still is getting traction. When Wes Clark began talking about PNAC in the fall of 2003, he wasn't simply opposed, he was laughed at and ridiculed, and accused of having bizzare conspiracy theories plus being a loose cannon. And thus began a steady effort on the part of the main stream media to marginalize Wes Clark into whatever furthest corner they could get away with. Over the last year Clark faced down constant derision over his public advocacy for face to face diplomacy with Iran. I can link you to a great video of a FOX female anchor trying to lecture Clark saying "how can you talk with people who want to kill you and are holding a gun to your head?" or others where he is accused of not understanding that Iran is run by a madman.

There is a line that our politicians aren't supposed to cross. With a Democratic majority in Congress it is now more acceptable for a politician to advocate talking with our enemies, but it is still not acceptable for one to show any understanding for or sympathy for the interests of our alleged enemies. That is why Clark still gets attacked, he is still pushing that envelope. He is still the one explaining that actually we are the ones holding a gun to Iran's head, not the other way around. Clark says (a direct quote) "Excuse me, they're not holding a gun to our head. We are there. It's our military that's in Iraq." In making comments like that Clark is keeping that chain stretched taunt. More recently Clark faced a rash of accusations that he was anti-semitic for telling the truth about where a lot of funding for the neocon push in the Middle East is coming from. That was a direct attempted tactical strike at Clark's not yet launched Presidential campaign.

You graciously noted that you feel Clark is an honest man of great integrity, I do as well. I also feel he is a courageous man of great ability, and those qualities also are critical. Clark doesn't fear political opponents, though he is sharp enough to respect the skills of the ones who operate effectively against him. His reason for wanting to become President is to make real changes in how America operates at home and in the world. If he can't do that, he really isn't interested in the job. Clark already rose to the top of his original chosen life profession. He doesn't need another ego rush so he isn't tempted to trade off principals in return for a better shot at the prize. But Wes Clark takes the threat facing America and the world seriously enough that he will stride carefully enough toward the goal of being elected that he retains some real chance of actually succeeding.

So in talking about a need for some form of revolution, I would say this about Wes Clark. I think he is best positioned of anyone in American politics to accomplish two of the three basic steps involved. One; Clark knows many of the power players, he knows how they operate, he can quickly nuetralize most of their aggressive offensive plans, including virtually all of the most virulent strain ones pushed by the current Administration. Clark can pull American constitutional government back to it's traditional moorings, and negate the current radical right power grab. Two; in doing so and afterwoods, Clark can change the setting, turn the wheel, and allign America to move in a more positive direction, both at home and abroad, with the full support of most of America's public. The third step is essentially to step on the gas and move full speed ahead in a new direction.

I think that full three step program is too ambitious for any one leader to pull off in America as we know it today during his or her time in power. So much political capital and energy will be consumed by doing steps one and two that there will not be the time, energy, or even support needed for that individual to move much past steps one and two. They will be too badly battered in the struggles involved in the first steps to take us much further than that toward the promised land, so to speak. But I think a Wes Clark Presidency will redefine the inertia of America. It will lay the ground work for our next leader to be fully viable while pushing a much more overtly progressive agenda.

I believe Wes Clark can make all of that overtly progressive agenda credible for America to embrace in the wake of his time in office. And that is both because of his personal strengths and gifts, AND because his service to America is held in respect by so many who ordinarilly would not give someone with Clark's views the space needed to make his case to them, but for him they will listen. That plus the communication skills Clark posesses to take a progressive value and pitch it as bedrock patriotism. He is a unique package.

So that is why I have merged my writing abilities to this particular candidate, I see a realizable progressive upside with Wes Clark that no other candidate can actually deliver. Articulate, perhaps, with a Kucinich or a Gravel even they may be able to articulate a lot of it, but deliver it in today's America where even the Democratic caucus is not solidly progressive? No. I think only Clark has an actual chance to do that. I know others feel Edwards can, or Obama can, or Gore can, but I don't think so. There is plenty of time for those discussions still to happen though.

So I originally intended to hunt up lots of Clark quotes to share with you about his vision, which I think skillfully walks Americans up to the brink of understanding how we should and can relate to the world in a manner that is fully just for both our own citizens and for those abroad. I think Clark does it carefully, so that most people won't be scared away from that understanding and bolt back to the jingoistic right when the right tries to paint it as soft and un-American. But I spent my time getting distracted by what I read, and now by writing this instead.

I'll follow up this post with another that has one Clark transcript for starters.

[welshTerrier2]

22. responses pending

hi tom ...

thanks for taking the time to dig into this ... free time has become almost non-existent ... i'll try to get back to you soon ...

wt2

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. From one Clark speech

Clark says lots of stuff like this, but this comes from a speech that Clark gave at the University of Alabama in October 13, 2006


"And we must talk to Iran. The Iranian leader, he's got a real bad mouth on him. He's real ugly. He plays to his right-wing. When he talks tough to America, he gets lots of people saying, 'Way to go Ahmadinejad! You the man!' And when President Bush threatens him, people come in and pat him on the back and say, 'We're behind you. Keep talking tough. We're with you.' It's the way politics works, and he's a political leader. He was actually, you may remember, elected. So, why is it that we can't talk to Iran? Maybe find some common interests. They probably don't want a big war in Iraq either. Now, they want what they want, which may not be what we want, but how are we going to know that if we don't talk to them?

We've got to use our power to build relationships. To win the war on terror you have to have more friends than enemies in the world. There are 50,000 people out there who support Osama bin Laden. That's about two and a half time more than signed up with him on 9/11. That's a pretty good indicator we're not winning, but on the other hand, there's not a single country that supports Osama Bin Laden, not one. So, why is it again that we don't want to work with these other countries? I'll tell you what Osama bin Laden's strategy is. He want's to encourage us to invade Iran and Syria. He wants war. His strategy calls for the creation of zones of chaos and savagery. He wants more Iraqs, where there is no government, no police, and where he can go in and mastermind civil conflict and beheadings, because he thinks from that chaos that he can emerge with leadership. Why do we want to play his game when it's totally against our interests?

What we need is a new strategy that puts us right in the world, that looks at what's important for America's future. We want to back out of Iraq, talk directly to the people we disagree with who are governments, work together with those governments using information exchange, law enforcement, economic development and, only as a last resort, military force to eliminate the hardcore terrorists who can't see the light and come over to our side. It's fundamentally a battle of ideas, and we've got great ideas and theirs, theirs are throwbacks. Most people don't support them. There's probably, there's 6.4 billion people in the world. There's probably 3, 3 billion people who know about the United States of America and there's hardly any of those who don't say they agree with what we stand for, which is protection of the individual, right to have a family, to raise your children to do better. Surely we can win this battle of ideas against 50,000 hardcore fanatics who want to take the world back to the seventh century. Surely that's doable. It's not even a major object of American strategy..."


And this from the follow up question and answer period:

Audience member: We've heard overtone from Iran's President suggesting that the Islamic conflict could be rooted in religion and tied to the coming of the 12th Imam. How do you feel relations could be improved between the Islamic cultures and the West when this is one of their intrinsic beliefs?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, the truth is that most Muslims- I shouldn't say this, but I will. You know, do we have any Catholics here? (laughter) Okay. Do you know how, not to get too personal, but you know how some people only go to mass on Easter and Christmas Eve? You know what I'm talking about? There are a lot of people of the Muslim faith, I don't mean to insult anybody, but there are many who don't, they don't really actively work for the coming of the 12th Imam. In fact, as one of the people told me when I was in, going through one of the states in the Middle East, he said, "You Americans, you are so stupid," he said. "What you have done in Iraq is unbelievable." He said, "Iraq is a tribal, it's a tribal country. The tribes have all the power, and," he said, "members of these tribes overlap the borders and everything, and they're mixed between Sunnis and Shias." He said, "We've tried for over 100 years to take the power away from these crazy Mullahs, and the first thing you do is give them power and authority. You don't understand the first thing about Iraq," he said.

So, there are a lot of people there who don't want the Mullahs to have all that power. There are a lot of people in the Middle East who don't see it the way, a- as a religious conflict. These are people who lived in the United States, send their children here for education, own homes in the United States. They dress like Westerners. They talk like Westerners. They speak fluent English. They get stopped when they go through Kennedy Airport in New York for six hours, and they don't like it. But they want the same thing for their families that we want for ours.

Surely we've learned something beyond the 12th century. I know. Look, the way it works in the world is: People don't start fights mostly for ideas. They mostly start fights for other reasons, and then they drag on ideas to try to give them support. This war didn't begin as an Is- a war of Islam. Osama Bin Laden was angry at the Saudi government, because they stripped him of his citizenship. And then Ayman Al-Zawahiri was angry at the Egyptian government. And so, out of frustration because they couldn't get anything going against the Saudi or Egyptian governments, they joined forces and decided, 'Heck, if you're going to do this, why not go for the big banana. Let's go attack America.' They issued a fatwa in 1998 saying it was okay to kill Americans and now they've dragged in all this religious baggage. It was never there to begin with, and we shouldn't look for it.

I have no doubt that we can have a clash of civilizations and a refight of the Crusades if we want to, because we're proud of who we are. They're proud of who they are. It's natural. It's in the human heart. It's because you love your momma and daddy. You grow up that way. It's part of your family. It's what you believe in. It's why you're- you love the Crimson Tide and know the War Eagles, they're not nothing, (laughter) as we say in Arkansas. But we don't have to have that fight between Christianity and Islam, and we ought to do everything to prevent it.

Audience member: General Clark, I didn't go to the University of Arkansas. I went to Tuscaloosa, the University of Alabama, but I was taught here that the theoretical underpinnings for containment was the 1948 "X" Papers in- published in Foreign Affairs.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Right.

Audience member: And that was a theoretical basis.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Right.

Audience member: I'm not concerned whether we should get in or out of Iraq, whether we should do this, do that. I would like to see a theoretical underpinning for a new policy for America that is overreaching, that will encompass our entire policy structure rather than dealing with this little problem, this little problem. Because if we're putting out brush fires, as you enumerated in your first five days, we'll always be putting out brush fires, unless we know what we're doing. And four weeks ago I was in London. I was having supper with ten Iranians, medical doctors. I travel internationally quite a bit, and trust me when I say this, there are more than 50,000 people that are of the Muslim faith that hate America. They hate Christianity, and they will do anything to bring it down. I have seen this with my own eyes, and I've talked to people. This is not theoretical, but I really want to address the theoretical problems that we have in this country. I don't see it.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, most of the public opinion polling I've seen shows that there may be millions of people out there who hate the American government for its policies, but they don't hate individual Americans, and they wouldn't kill individual Americans if they have the opportunity. Now, you may see it otherwise, and if that's the case, then we've got- we've already gone too far down this road to ever get out of it. And if that's the case, I worry about humanity's future.

Look, we've got big issues to work. We've been trying for fifty years to get lesser developed economies developed. Now they're developing - India, China. We're pumping out carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses at an astonishing rate. Go to, go, go to Canada and look at the recession of the glaciers. Look at what's happening to the world's climate. We don't even know where the tipping point is. You talk about a national security problem. That's global warming, and that's a global security problem, or the spread of disease.

(applause)

We've got important issue to worry about. And you know, I, I feel badly about the ten Iranians you met with, and I don't know, I guess apparently they didn't hate you enough to want to kill you, or they didn't think they could get away with it. But yes, there's a lot of demonstrations out there against the American government and its policies. We've made some serious, serious mistakes, the latest being - it's hard to pick the latest - but one of them recently was the one where we sided with the Israelis in that air campaign in Lebanon, and instead of stopping the bombing, we were cheerleading it. It would hurt Israel. It hurt Lebanon. It hurt us. It helped Iran.

So, I think to solve problems, you have to break them down into their component parts. So, the Sources of Soviet Conduct paper was an important paper. It was written by George Kennan about the Soviet Union. In fact, Islam is not a single entity that can be described and prescribed in a single paper. There's a whole panoply of actions we need to take and a whole set of strategic lines we need to operate on, but the most fundamental strategy is this: Right now, in our relations with the Islamic world, the United States by it's own actions is in a hole. And one of the things I learned in the military was: If you're in a hole and you don't want to be, stop digging. We got to stop digging and start being constructive by talking to people around the world."

(posted with permission)
http://securingamerica.com/printready/Univ_Alabama_061013.htm

[Dinger]

11. Kick,Kick, Kickaroo!

:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[mtnsnake]

14. Kicked again. Tom, that is one beautifully written warning. Everyone should read it.

Thanks!

[SteveM]

18. This warning emerged in April 2005.

I can't give you a cite, but a C-SPAN forum at that time featured a quite young and unrepentent neo-con who was not adverse to imperialism, per se, and a liberal university professor opposed to the neo-con's foreign policy, both debating the future in Iraq. They agreed: the U.S. would be out of Iraq within one year. They even agreed on the reason: the military was breaking down and in the absence of a draft our leaders would not tolerate it. They underestimated Bush. He will not break; he will not even bend. In a sense, he is the independent variable in a some experiment others must solve around him. The Democratic Party is afraid of confronting him (Cheney, really) and it seems, despite all the rage, there is a lot of fear at DU as well. These guys are bullies and they are good at it, especially when many in the Democratic Party have a less than convincing record at standing up to the Cheney-Bush types. Maybe this is part of a culture within the Party that sees tough talk, accusation, strong opposition and aggressive advancement of a philosophy as negative and closed-minded styles; traits indicating non-intellectual "insensitive" footings. Too bad. These traits are needed. In public, Howard Dean's style upset more liberals than conservatives (sub rosa, the GOP was scared of Dean; he knew their language).

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. I agree with your points.

Bush/Cheney are not simply operating as normal politicians who back peddle away from a policy once it is clear that there will be a significant political price paid for continuing to embrace it, It could be a psychological rigidity, it could be that too many high value economic opportunities for special interests are served by plowing on ahead to think of changing course, or a combination.

Meanwhile many in the Democratic Party are falling into a familiar triangulated role, fearing right wing fire for being too soft on national security, or perhaps not wanting to alienate one of their own special interest constituencies organized around a specific type of hard line support for current Israel policies. It's looking like 2002 all over again.

Follow this link to a depressing news story about the split in the Democratic Party over Iran:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3103747&mesg_id=3103747