General Wesley Clark New American Strategies for Security and Peace

[robbedvoter]

General Wesley Clark New American Strategies for Security and Peace
http://clark04.com/speeches/008/

Center for American Progress
October 28, 2003

snip
There could be no clearer contrast to America's place in the world today.

The losses we suffered on 9/11 - as tragic as they were - have been magnified by the losses we've suffered since.

• The loss of allied support.
• The loss of moral authority.
• The loss of respect, admiration, and esteem - especially in the Islamic world.

Today we are at risk - a risk perhaps every bit as great as the risk we faced the day before 9/1l.

• Our armed forces are fully committed as an array of new threats are emerging, with no reserves, either physical or intellectual.
• The Secretary of Defense had to leak his own memo to explain that we have no strategy to deal with terrorism - something I've been saying for 2 years.
• And, with this Administration, there is no prospect of help from a world that increasingly revels in our failures.

How could this have happened? How could we have slipped so far? It is a story of pride, arrogance, weak leadership, pure domestic politics, and poor decision-making. All combined with the terrible idea that we must selfishly pursue national interests with a kind of 19th century real politick.

[democratreformed]

1. General Clark

is the best person to lead us out of this mess.

[Rowdyboy]

2. Am bookmarking this so I can read it when

I have a clear enough head to comprehend. A brief scan convinced me its not scanning material. All in all, I found it impressive.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

3. A mix of Fabulous! and Uh-oh! He wants a kindler gentler hegemony.

What this man says and the way he says it is fabulous. Mostly. The first half of the speech indicting BushCo is great. Then he gets to his vision of continued US hegemony, pre-emptive tactics etc. expressed as "a more enlightened American interest."

>snip<

"Going forward, we'll need new labels and new ideas."
Hmm. To accomplish where BushCo failed?

He mentions the NATO Kosovo campaign of 1999:
"During the Kosovo campaign, Tony Blair paid me an unannounced visit at NATO headquarters. He said: "I just want to ask one single question: Are we going to win?" I assured him we would win. He answered: "Good. Because every government in Western Europe depends on the successful outcome of this operation."

Hmmm. Just who was being rescued with that campaign? NATO or Kosovo?
Interesting question. (Comments, The Magistrate? DoveTurnedHawk? BillyBunter? I do value and enjoy your postings on Clark.)

"If we had used NATO to launch the war on terrorism, we would have had the military, moral, political, and financial commitment of 19 nations - including Turkey - determined to make a success of the mission, and determined to defend our actions to their people and the world."

Hmmm. We could've gotten more support for these illegal wars and a better PR image?!!? Sounds like a more efficient imperialism to me.

"It's obvious to me the limits of achieving our world-wide aims by relying exclusively on the military."

>snip<

"This is why I'm running for President - to bring back the core ideals of our democracy - to use them to guide our foreign policy... These ideals have made us great. They can make us greater. They can make us safer and more prosperous. In the end, they will ensure that America is admired for her moral authority -- not just feared for her military might. In this era, we cannot be safe without both."

Hmm. Sounds like 'if we play nice with others, we'll get what we want. But we'll damn sure get what we want, just with more diplomacy before the bombs are dropped.'

Clark continues to express the best of my hopes and the worst of my fears at the same time. We'd probably fare better domestically under his presidency but I would still not want to be in US bombsites.

[FrenchieCat]

4. He's a good man....

and will do great things.....

They are scared......and we know it.