Wesley Clark: What must be done to complete a great victory

[Martin Eden]

Clark does not exactly come out as an anti-war candidate in this speech of his:

Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.

--snip--

But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns.

--snip--

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.
--snip--

to read the entire speech:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

[wroberts189]

1. This has really shed some light on him for me THX

and I need to go :puke:



"As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. "

[Ardee]

2. One general in the WH

seemed to work out rather well, but I fear that this candidate is only a handmaiden of the DLC, sent out to counter Deans momentum like a good little soldier .......

[OneBlueSky]

3. Will the real General Wesley Clark please stand up!

to paraphrase Bud Collyer on the old "To Tell The Truth" game show . . . just as I was starting to have high hopes for this guy, turns out his position on Iraq is indistinguishable from that of Joe Lieberman . . . which in turn is indistinguishable from that of George Bush . . . which is the guy we DON'T want, no? . . . consider . . .

"Now the bills must be paid, amid the hostile image created in many areas by the allied action. Surely the balm of military success will impact on the diplomacy to come — effective power so clearly displayed always shocks and stuns. Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights."
sounds like an endorsement of "Shock and Awe" to me . . . and I don't see any Gulf states hustling to praise their "liberation" . . .


"But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns." this is the Bush Doctrine and the PNAC ideology almost verbatim . . . just what we DON'T need . . .


"Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats." sounds like a call to arms to me . . . I thought this guy was ANTI-war . . .

I really did have an open mind about Clark, but I can no longer consider him a viable candidate for the Democratic nomination . . . because I can't for the life of me decide which of his two faces I should be paying attention to . . . very discouraging, but I'm glad I found out his true feelings now rather than later . . .

so my search for a candidate continues . . .

[lindashaw]

10. I have one more note to add....

Because I'm disturbed by war talk, too. Bill Richardson was just asked (in the context of North Korea & Iran) if they should be threatened with force as a last resort.

Governor Richardson, a most gentle soul, said, "You can never take it off the table. You want to win with diplomacy, but you can never take war off the table."

[JDStutts]

4. Wow.

Thanx for posting this. I never saw or heard any of this on the TV news or in the papers. I don't know why anybody thinks Clark can win the party nomination. If Clark was choking on a pretzel I might mistake him for monkey boy Shrub.
Bookmarked.

[Flying_Pig]

5. Betrayed again. Clark is another PNAC/Likud embracing...

militarist, who's positions in this speech, and I hate to say this, ... sound just like Bush's and the rest of his fascist cabal. Oh well....Dean it is...

[Bertrand]

6. Once again, people are misinterpreting

pro-war with pro-victory.

[BeHereNow]

11. What ARE you smoking?

this guy is a PNAC-er!
Anyone can see that by these statements!

God, am I losing my mind or something?
Now even people on DU are telling me
"Black is white, no REALLY, black is white."

Time to get the fuck OUT of this looney bin country-
Good luck to everyone who actually does not
understand at this point what is happening here.

Keep the pipe or bottle handy, you're going to need it.

BHN

[Bertrand]

13. thank you for the constructive response

slander and rhetoric aside, im right. Clark has continuously advocated an anti-imperial foreign policy, so for you to insinuate otherwise because you have a hard time reading things carefully is wrong. Grow up.

[Dr Fate]

7. His last paragraph is a good one...

"Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed."

His speech of months ago was optimistic, but asked the right questions- questions that turned out to be right on the mark...

You cant pin Bush's failures in the "War on Terror" on Clark, and neither will voters...

[PATRICK]

8. Ironically

the great victory for the Iraqi people would be to be visibly liberated from the US-UK occupation. Then you would see cheering in the streets, a chance at democracy and oil profits being used for the people not the "liberators".

If it is a paradoxical choice to "lose face" to attain REAL victory then work it out, not adapt a PNAC failed and evil script the world will never abide.

However, give Clark some credit. An honest and dedicated approach would be like night and day resolving this tangle even if he does not come out as a flaming pacifist which would mangle his election chances against the liars of Bushco. Nor are any other candidates trying to dis the war and the military as a whole which would- paradoxically- give cover to the perps who exploited it and ruined Iraq.

The longer Bush screws up Iraq the harder it will be to get out with any semblance of success or the mystical honor, and the worse it will be to stay. Part of the pproblem was that the iraqis were not beaten or surrendered somuch as brushed aside. Neither crushed nor uplifted the recipe for ongoing and spreading disaster is beyond manipulation by the current crazies in charge. Plus NOT continuing the wars into other countries is another big step to sanity that Clark and the other candidates are hopefully sure to deliver. Bushco is still dead set on forging ahead despite people ignoring that fixed agenda.

[lindashaw]

9. This was penned in April...before the Great Disillusionment...

I see some things I don't agree with in this speech. However, I know it's the military tradition to give it your all once it's begun: Team spirit and all that.

All that aside, I do sense in this speech the ability of Clark to get us out of Iraq. I sense that he has the diplomacy to do it in such a way that we won't be sitting duckies for the next terrorist with a big idea.

I love the boldness of Kucinich and the hard line of Dean. But I also like the verbage of Clark who can "talk his enemy to death."

I don't think we can have a candidate who is perfect. We have to take these people as they are and just pray that one of them can extract us from one of the worst political messes we've been in since Vietnam and save us from going bankrupt.

[IndianaGreen]

12. This article shows that Clark was a cheerleader for the war

and that he also was gushing praises on Bush and on Blair.

Some of the Clark defenders excuse Clark by saying that he uses language of nuances and deep ideas.

Where is the nuance in Clark's joyful endorsement of war, as he did here:

But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns.

and where is the nuance in Clark's gushing endorsement of George W. Bush and Tony Blair, as he did here:

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced.

And where is Clark's nuance when he endorses global war of imperialism as he clearly, and explicitly did here:

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats.

All citations are from Wesley Clark's article, What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory, originally published by Ruper Murdoch's The Times, on April 10, 2003. The article was republished by Common Dreams:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

[Bertrand]

16. Youre Wrong

First off, indiana, i used to think of you as just a progressive trying to come to terms with the political realities of today, but now i realize youre apart of that whole small clique here that tries to slander clark whenver possible. You deserve no respect because you dont believe in rational discussion.

Where is the nuance in Clark's joyful endorsement of war, as he did here:

He didnt joyfully endorse the war. He was commenting on the GeoPolitical stratagy of the Neo-Con led Government.

and where is the nuance in Clark's gushing endorsement of George W. Bush and Tony Blair, as he did here:

He didnt give a gushing endorsement of George W. Bush and Tony Blair. He was admiring (rightfully) the way they poltically manuevered their POV into reality and how they got it implimented through not backing down. It's as if youre not even reading the article.

And where is Clark's nuance when he endorses global war of imperialism as he clearly, and explicitly did here:

He's not endorsing global imperialism. He was pointing out the reality (as we see now) that the success of ousting Saddam isnt the end of the conflict in iraq. He was extremely prescient of the post-war resolve needed to establish a victory under the percieved govt goal - a liberal democracy.

[lebkuchen]

14. Anyone who favored a preemptive attack doesn't get my attention

or vote.

[Bertrand]

15. He didnt

he has always come out in favour of a multilateral resolution to the conflict.

[Emillereid]

17. As democrats I think we need to stick with those who

demonstrated real courage, leadership and vision in being against the war when everyone else was blinded by Bush's delusions of empire and the moral correctness of militarism. To paraphrase Kennedy, we do what we must do ..." Not because
they are easy, but because they are hard." Remember it wasn't easy being against the war even for us regular folks, much less for politicians like Dean, Kucinich, Braun and Sharpely.