Clark: "The Democratic challenge to Iraq was - in my view misplaced."

[calteacherguy]

Title: Wesley Clark: A Time to Lead
Location: The Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco, CA
Date: Oct 3 2007

<excerpt>

So the root of the problem is not how many troops are in Iraq, please believe me, don’t be mad if you are a Democrat at your Democratic congressmen because they can’t reduce the troops and frustrate the president. That’s not the issue. And if you are Republican don’t be mad at the Democrats because they are fussing with the troops. Whether you are Democrat or Republican, if you are an American you ought to be concerned about the strategy of the United States in this region, what is our aim, what is our purpose, why are we there, why are Americans dying in this region?

That is the issue, for lack of an effective strategy we are going to lose in this regional battle. David Patreaus, he worked for me, he was a fine young officer, he hasn’t worked for me as a senior officer, I assume he is very competent, no body makes four stars in the United States Armed Forces, no matter what ____ unless they are pretty good. But and David Patreaus is good, darn good, but listen, he doesn’t hold the cards – the cards for America’s success in the region are held by the White House. They have to do with strategy, whether you talk to or isolate Iran, whether you punish or reform Syria, whether you aid or condemn Lebanon, how you motivate Egypt, how you deal with Saudi Arabia, those are key elements in a strategy and there has to be a purpose for it and none of that has been laid out in any coherent way. No, its all about politics, it’s what Karl Rove said in January 2002, in Las Vegas, Nevada, he said, “We going to run this President as a War President.” And you know what? They are succeeding. The Democratic challenge to Iraq was – in my view misplaced. We should not have challenged on troop strength or tactics. Its not about troops and tactics, it’s about strategy and policy. And we failed on challenging the strategy and policy. And Bush won on troops because he knows he has got the Democrats up against the wall. It’s all about politics. If you try to take down the troops, he says you are not – you are not supporting the American troops. If you – if you try to challenge what he is doing, he says you don’t want to win. And now the rhetoric is heating up against Iran.

So where is this going to go? Likely to a strike against Iran – it could be strike against nuclear, could be build as a strike against Iran because there are aiding and abetting the insurgents who were fighting and killing Americans. And how many Democratic congressmen do you think will be able to take a strong and principle stand against this? Well the answer is; any Democrats who want to stand up and say, “No, I believe Iran has a perfect right to kill and attack American soldiers.” Or any Congressmen who wants to say, “No, I have – I favor Iran getting a nuclear weapon.” So, do you see he is kind of – he owns the playing field, the President does. Its not about strategy, it’s about politics. It’s about election politics. I am sorry to say, I am so disappointed, we can't seem to control the dialogue. And I am out here tonight begging you to help us get this dialogue reoriented in the right direction before it’s too late and we are engaged in another and deeper war with more costs, another unnecessary war in this region.

What should we be doing? We should send a diplomatic region – mission to the region. I would put Richard Holbrooke over there in a heart beat. Put him on a golf stream – give him a general, give him a – a couple of assistants. I’d say, “Dick, see you – come back when you got it sorted out. I am giving you two months. Go visit every leader in the region, talk to Iran, here is a Statement of Principles, you can tell them this. If they are good, we will give them this; if they are bad, we are going to do this. And see if you can get – make some sense out of this and build some coherence.”

Iran cannot tolerate a hostile Iraq. We did them a great favor. But Iran is torn between whether they want to be revolutionary power, or whether they want to be recognized and admitted to the world community as a major regional power. They just don’t know. They got an ongoing debate and like any – you know, good group, they are going to push in both directions as far as they can until they run to an obstacle, because they like to have it both ways. Syria, well, they like to modernize – they like to end the conflict with Israel, but on the other hand they – they don’t have the economic resources, they are under threat, they are trying to maintain alliance with Iran; so they don’t get pushed aside. They are at odds with the Saudi’s. There is no one to make peace. Lebanon, completely ripped apart by internal conflict. Israel, the Palestinians – you know about Hezbollah in the north – but did you know that the – that the Hamas moment is heavily infiltrated by Iran and is preparing – in Gaza, the same kind of fortifications that the Israelis went against in south Lebanon.

So, there is a lot of problems in this region, before we use force or threaten force we should talk to people in the region. There is no guarantee, but if it were up to me I would pull out two brigades right now, I would that diplomatic mission over and I’d talk about a big regional strategy. We have got to extricate our resources and change our focus from the Middle East to the broader world around us because while we are bogged down in terrorism, China and India are growing. They are growing at 10 percent; or in the case if India, nine percent a year. They are developing new technologies – new challenges – new relationships and we are both customers and competitors of these countries. And we have got our own challenges. We have got to fix education in this country and healthcare and a business environment and re-ignite American technological ingenuity. We have got to have an energy policy that make sense and gives us greater flexibility and freedom from dependence on Middle Eastern and Russian Oil. We have got to deal with problems that are too big for any one nation to handle but there are national security problems like global warming and climate change.

All of that is being impacted by the politically driven excessive focus on war in the Middle East. We need a real American strategy. And to get that strategy, its about who we are as Americans. Are we dividers or uniters, bullies or people who outreach and make friends? Do we fear others or do we welcome others? Do we build fences around America or build bridges to invite others into see us? Who are we as a nation?

I think we are open. I think we are a nation of immigrants. I think we are a nation of incredible energy, courage, stamina, endurance – don’t ever sell America short. I want you to read my book. I want you to figure out who about America’s future, not just an argument about 10,000 US Troops in Iraq.

Thank you.


Full transcript: http://www.fora.tv/fora/fora_transcript_pdf.php?cid=1680\
video: http://www.fora.tv/2007/10/03/Wesley_Clark_A_Time_to_Lead

"Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn." -Mario Cuomo

[Tom Rinaldo]

1. He is right. n/t

[PATRICK]

2. The simple frustration

and as a military strategist he knows it by sight, is that an obstinate fatal misdirection, machine driven juggernaut of idiocy, as predictable as it is will always be inflexible, is the main affliction of our society. ALL smart plans(most poisoned by violence or its threat) flounder irresistibly in the execution mitigated by political scoundrels at the controls.

The politics necessitate change before we can even dream of thinking or acting wisely in the ME. All opportunities and abilities to do so have been successfully hijacked and flown into American civilization. Any citizen proposing wiser policy should look for a way to destroy our own blinders which will turn into the same or into insanely resisted new wiser policies if the crippled American democracy doesn't face itself and change.

Isolationism is no cure, but in this case the problem is not the ME or anything else but OUR destructive society moving on the wrong path, thinking the wrong things, hearing the off the track messages and committing growing horrors like a drunk's cadillac heading into a bunch of schoolchildren tossing out candy and grenades.

[Hydra]

3. I said this yesterday, and it sunk like a stone

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2033471

Regardless, he is both right and wrong.

My journal covers the problem with the dialogue, and he nails it. As long as Bush has control of the message, he has control of what happens.

On the other hand, his obsession with continuing military adventures there is completely unacceptable. Syria has offered us help in this mess over and over, and yet we keep saying we need to do something about them, and we allow Israel to attack them. "Lebannon is torn apart from the inside"? Israel did a test invasion, and only the fact that Hezbollah fought them kept them from keeping the territory "under protection." We named Iran as part of "the Axis of Evil," and expect them to allow us to run them over???

This insanity has to stop.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. The left often stumbles over patriotism

Because A) in many ways we would rather view humanity as a whole rather than see people pitted against each other by nations, and B) we take emotional responibilty for the wrongs done by and/or in the name of the American people. But patriotism has organic roots in the human psyche; extreme nationalism can be countered but love of home and family naturally is projected onto one's "nation" by most people. Many leftists stumble when it comes to speaking positively and lovingly about America, which creates a void that the Right is more than happy to fill.

I strongly disagree if you think Clark guilty of an obsession with continuing military adventures however. And in specific it is oversimplification to think that all of the major and serious divisions among the people of Lebanon can be laid at Israel's footstep. Clark has been one of the few American leaders continually pointing to how our framing of Iran as an enemy forces Iran to treat us as their enemy. When I last saw him speak he pointed out that Iraq invaded and killed one million Iranian citizens a couple of decades ago, so they have a legitimeate national security interest in having a neighboring Iraq that is not hostile toward Iran.

[Hydra]

5. Thank you for your input

I don't see patriotism at odds with the world community, myself. The greater the nation we can be, the more likely it is that we can live with all of our neighbors and be a positive influence.

We are not acting like a great nation, however, and since GWB is getting to frame the issue, he's made it so that he can abuse our troops and call people who don't support him doing so "unpatriotic"- utter nonsense, when looked at rationally.

As for the Mid-East mess, I assign blame where I think it rightly belongs. Of course Israel is not completely to blame, but with our support both from our military and from our diplomats in the UN, they have completely stepped in it from a human rights standpoint. Lebannon was and should be a PR nightmare for them- they attacked UN peacekeepers, used white phosphorus and cluster bombs in civilian areas, and generally looked like a conquering army. The Attack on Syria the other day for "suspected" activities is putting them more and more in our PR realm of "preemptive actions" which are illegal, as far as I know.

My major disagreement with Clark here was the insinuation that Iran was meddling in all of the countries except the ones we controlled and Saudi Arabia. He may not have meant to put it that way, but the entire mess is a reaction to our presence there, so would shouldn't be adding to Bush's rhetoric that Iran is a threat to the entire middle east and a supporter of terror groups.

Just my opinion.

[incapsulated]

7. There is a difference between stating the facts

And advocating "military adventures" something he is completely against.

You can't deal with Iran if you deny their involvement with Iraq and support of disruptive groups. He never said we shouldn't support Syria. His whole deal is working with ALL the surrounding countries and appealing to the fact that a stable Iraq is in their best interest and everyone getting on the same page to avoid the war spreading out of control.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Adding to what incapsolated said

There is ultimately nothing to be gained either by being naive or by trying to spin away reality that is politically inconvenient. Clark is very matter of fact about Iran. He calls it a great nation with a great history and heritage. More than once I have heard Clark note that Iran is an ancient nation with a long and proud history of being a regional power in the greater Persian Gulf area - hence of course that name.

With very very few exceptions if any, Regional and World Powers always attempt to influence the actions of other nations in their own region or the world respectively. Look at South Africa or Venezuala or Israel today, look at Cuba or Indonesia or Serbia "yesterday". On the world level while a case can certainly be made that the U.S. is the most intrusive world power, Russia China and Japan etc. certainly try to protect their won interests by projecting their own power beyond their borders also.

How regional powers attempt to project their influence varies from situation to situation, and how they and/or others may describe such efforts varies also. Is is foreign aid or blackmail? Is it assistance or interference? Is is economic development or is it imperialism? Is it constructive leadership or strong armed bullying?

Iran sees itself as a regional power, and deservedly so. They have historic interests and ambitions in the middle east that extend beyond Iran's borders. They are no more adverse to giving military aid to their allies than are most great nations, for example. But when Clark taks about Iran attempting to expand their influence in the region he does not use the word "meddling". I have heard him in person describe most of Iran's efforts to influence events inside Iraq as not being military, rather he notes that there is a tremendous amount of economic, cultural and religious outreach from Iran inside of Iraq today, and he sees that as a completely predictable and natural initiative for Iran to take.

The key question is whether or not the interests of Iran and the interests of the United States and American allies in the region must remain at crossed purposes or whether or not a constructive mutually acceptable frame work for regional and world cooperation can be arrived at. That is what General Clark says that the United States should be pursuing.

[eridani]

11. The left stumbles over failure to attack the underlying bogus assumption

Namely, that the elite corporate thugs who want to rule the rest of the world by force are "America", and the rest of us poor saps who just live here are not. People who conflate the elite with "America" perceive attacks on them as attacks on "America", which they are not. Hell, the corporadoes are the ones who relocate to Dubai or obscure Caribbean islands to get out of reach of the real America.

I don't think that Clark is an adventurist at all--if anything, he's the exact opposite. However, I don't like it that he is down with continuing to have 700-1000 military bases all over the world, which is essentially to agree that we should keep blowing all our resources on dominating the rest of the world instead of inventing the next economy, which we need to do pretty quickly.

Re Lebanon--Israel has succeeded in promoting more unity among the various factions in Lebanon. Hezbollah now has strong support among Druze, Sunni and Christian factions as well as Shi'ites. And wasn't 1 million the total casualty number for both Iraq and Iran? (Might not be remembering right here.)

[incapsulated]

6. It's all true

They are falling into the same traps over and over on our side.

Bless Wes.

I truly hope he is wrong and fear he is right. We are truly fucked if this lunatic bombs Iran.

[BootinUp]

10. As stupid as he was to get us into Iraq

I just can't can't can't believe he would launch an attack on Iran, not with the current situation over there. Its akin to suicide for any hopes of a stable ME in the next 50 years. I have to believe his party would stop him. Call me naive.

[Jai4WKC08]

14. Ok, you're naive

;)

Seriously tho, I believe Bush isn't really rational about Middle East foreign policy. Perhaps it's because he sees himself as put in office by God to accomplish some sort Christian mission vis a vis the Muslim world. Maybe it's just that he has surrounded himself with people who tell him what he wants to hear. Maybe his oil buddies are telling him to do it because they believe an unstable Middle East is a profitable Middle East.

Or maybe he's just nucking futz.

In any case, I believe he wants to bomb Iran, and it's only a matter of picking the right time and how best to set it up

[TacticalPeek]

9. K & R

:kick:

[calteacherguy]

12. Kick. nt

[Cameron27]

13. K&R

(if it isn't too late)