Even though his statement was heavily qualified, I was disappointed to read about Clark's "probable" vote in favor of the war. It completely rocked my worldview, since everything I'd learned about Clark had led me to the strong and supported conclusion that he would NOT have voted for the war.
That said, it is also unfair to paint him as a cheerleader for the war, as some here have been trying to do. The article at the bottom of this post was written by General Clark and printed in TIME magazine on October 10, 2002. Based on this article (one of several articles written by Clark on the war), it's quite clear that he holds a sophisticated and nuanced view of the conflict. In my opinion, it is also quite clear that had Clark been the Commander-in-Chief, we never would have gotten ourselves into this mess in the first place.
It would have been easy for Clark to say, "I would have voted against the war." That's because he wasn't there, he wasn't under the same pressures that the sitting Senators were, with half of even their own constituencies toeing an Administration line. He wasn't there, deluged with classified intelligence information, some of which probably turned out to be false. He wasn't there. So it would have been easy for him to have said he would have voted against the war, despite all of the tumult and context surrounding that vote for the people who actually had to make that decision.
I salute Bob Graham and Dennis Kucinich for having the guts to vote "No." I do not excuse John Edwards, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt for ultimately voting "Yes."
But neither do I consider a vote in favor of the Iraq War Resolution a disqualifying event. I was disappointed to hear Clark's position on the vote. Yet that position still does not make him a warmonger, it still does not make him "pro-Iraq War," it still does not mean he would be a bad President.
All it makes him is an honest man, maybe too honest for the Presidency, as sad as that is to say. It makes him an honest man, and it shows him to be a deep, conflicted thinker on a complex subject. Foreign policy, especially as it pertains to partisan politics, is not a black-and-white issue, and it is naive to believe otherwise. Foreign policy is filled with shades of gray.
I am glad my chosen candidate recognizes this. I am glad he is honest enough to say what he really believes, without regard to how it might "spin" among the electorate.
And as a final note, as someone who participated in anti-Iraq invasion demonstrations, I am both glad and thankful for Howard Dean, who has been -- and continues to be -- in the forefront of this issue, mercilessly hammering on Bush and his short-sighted, black-and-white, "America First" foreign policy.
DTH
--
Let's Wait to Attack
By General Wesley K. Clark
<...>
We must also have sustained public support, but so far, our national debate on Iraq has been upside down. The Administration announced its aim to change the regime in Baghdad before it made the case for action. To some, our government seemed to be seeking war as a preferred choice rather than as a last resort. We need a real debate to gain the full and informed support of the American people as we move ahead.
In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know, and probably won't gain them in the next few months. The U.S. has total military dominance of the region. Although Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, he has no long-range missiles with which to deliver them. Certainly, the clock is ticking, because Saddam may eventually acquire the nuclear weapons and delivery systems he seeks. Nonetheless, there is still time for dialogue before we act.
Some would say that since we can't be certain how much time we have until then, we must attack right away. It is true that any delay entails risks. But so does action. So we must balance those risks, and take actions that not only achieve our aim of disarming Saddam--and probably ending his regime in the process--but also help defeat al-Qaeda. How can we do both?
President Bush was right to carry the problem of Iraq to the United Nations. And he is right to stay with the diplomatic process, as we seek to sway international opinion to our side. Even if the U.N. is ultimately unable to give us the strong resolution that we seek, the support of friends and allies will be important--as it was in Kosovo--in gaining worldwide credibility for our aims and legitimacy for our actions. Moreover, while we have the time, we must do everything possible to prepare for some unpleasant possibilities. What if Saddam uses his biological arsenal on his own people in southern Iraq? Are we prepared to deal with the ensuing catastrophe alone, or would we not be wiser to help ready international humanitarian and emergency organizations to come in with us? After Saddam's government collapses, are we prepared to maintain order and prevent mayhem? Wouldn't we be wiser to arrange for police support from other nations and international organizations? And if, as a result of conflict, Iraq's economy collapses, wouldn't we like to have international organizations ready to assist in nation building? Afterward, when agencies from the Islamic world enter Iraq to help rebuild, won't we want to inhibit anti-Americanism and anti-Western sentiment by having thought through the many possible humanitarian problems before we are blamed for them?
The answer to all these questions is yes, if we have the time. Well, we do. The key issue about Iraq has never been whether weshould act if Saddam doesn't comply with U.N. resolutions anddisarm. Rather, the problems are how we should act, and when. As for the how, the answer is clear--multilaterally, with friends and allies, with every possible effort to avoid the appearance of yet another Christian and Jewish stab at an Islamic country, with force as a last resort, and with a post-conflict plan in place to assure that the consequences of our action do not supercharge the al-Qaeda recruiting machine. As for the when, let's take the time to plan, organize and do the whole job the right way. This will only take a few more weeks, and it's important. It's not just about winning a war--it's also about winning the peace.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
