Wesley Clark: Al-Qaeda has changed; Bush strategy also needs to shift

[Clark2008]

In addition, the London attacks remind us how much more devastating even decentralized terrorist strikes could be were they to have employed biological, chemical or radiological weapons. The most profound threat we face is a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists. And yet, despite the president's call to "prevent the worst people from getting the worst weapons," efforts to halt the proliferation of weapons have received short shrift. The latest example has been the administration's failure at the recent review conference to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The United States should also intensify efforts to end the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs, and bring increased resourcing to the control of Russian fissile materials. In addition, we should be working to develop and implement a verifiable biological weapons treaty and strengthen the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The United States will win the war on terror when we bring to bear all the elements of our power — not just our military might, civilian workforce and diplomatic skills, but also the power to persuade our allies in general and those in the Muslim community specifically to engage the culture of hate and terror and change it to reflect the best in all of us.

Both here at home and in the global community, there can be no spectators in winning the war against terror.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-07-10-london-clark_x.htm

This is a perfect example bearing on a discussion held yesterday: Clark does NOT believe that only the military can solve problems. He believes in people-power to solve most agendas. Military force is a last resort.

[Richardo]

1. But he's a Democrat...he's not supposed to have solutions

That's what the White House stenographers tell me...

[Clark2008]

2. He's also not supposed to blast BushCo.

Ooooohhhhh.... Wesley's gonna be in trouble! :rofl:

I dare say I'd lay money on Wes in a grudge match with the chickenhawk bullies over at the White House. ;)

[Richardo]

3. I *did* lay money on him in 2004 and will do so again if he gives me the..

...opportunity. :)

[norml]

6. I sort of defended Clark in another thread.

118. Do you have links to any touting of Hillary by the DLC?
It's the right wing media that's been doing that touting.

As for Vilsack, they'd love having his name to make fun of.

Clark's OK.

I curse out myself when I feel I've failed to nail the repubs on every point in a debate.

There are very few who say everything the way I'd like it to be said.

There are very few who'd do everything I'd like to have done.

I think Clark has inevitability.

I could support Clark in the Primaries, though it's a bit early for that.

I'd like to see how things go.

However It's the perfect time for making predictions, if you want to get your predictions in early, and so I've made mine here.

Once our Presidential Candidate is chosen I hope we can all get real pragmatic about supporting them, as long as it's not Joe Biden.

LOL!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1915733#1918159

[Clark2008]

12. Or Hillary.

I really want someone I can work with to help move portions of the South back to blue.

Hillary and Biden aren't much for me to work with. :)

[rateyes]

19. Here's the ticket to win in 2008...

and turn some red states blue...IMHO....

Two war heroes to boot...

Wes Clark/Max Cleland

[Totally Committed]

22. To be super-honest,

and this isn't just because I am a long-time supporter...

I sincerely and fervently believe that Wes HAS to be on any Democratic ticket in '08 if we are going to have a chance to win at all. Honest. Now, if we can just convince him to run....

TC

[ksclematis]

49. I just hope

it's his and/or our choice and not the DNC/DLC!!!

[Clark2008]

26. I could sell that ticket - easy

Maybe not to the brain-washed fundies, but certainly to a number of disgruntled Republicans and many a moderate.

[rateyes]

29. Yeah, me too...

I could get some people excited about that ticket. I believe we might even have a chance to win the military vote...and I KNOW we could win the veteran vote...and these are two smart cookies!

[Totally Committed]

36. Kick.

:kick:

TC

[Kahuna]

11. The same here, Richardo...

I supported the general down to my last dollar on unemployment. I would gladly do so again.

[Totally Committed]

14. Me, too...

I actually sold my second-hand car to make sure I could donate the legal limit to his campaign. I would do so again in a minute if I had another car, and he were to announce his candidacy.

This is a man who was born to be POTUS. I sincerely believe that.

TC

[Auntie Bush]

41. What a wonderful thing to do TC. If I had a spare car I'd donate

it to you. I'd never doubt that man on anything he wanted to do...trust him 100%. Yes, he was born to be POTUS...the perfect
MADE TO ORDER President. He is our hope for the future.

[Totally Committed]

42. I can't drive anymore due to my health...

Donating to General Clark made a very painful decision easier for me.
I have never regretted it for a moment. If he runs in '08, I'm not sure I'll be able to donate the legal amount, but he'll get every penny I can manage to save between now and then!

I truly believe that he is meant to be POTUS. He truly IS the "real deal".

TC

[phylla]

16. Amen to that Brotha

Gen Clark has inspired me to become active politically.
I would trust him to the ends of the earth.

[existentialist]

39. laying money on Clark

If you're going to lay money on Clark, then, of course you should also do all you can to help him. I'd support Clark in a heartbeat--of course I'd probably support any Democratic nominee in a heartbeat--but the point is that the neoconservatives are going to attack anyone who opposes them on anything as viciously and dishonestly as they as they can, and backed up by tons of money.

We can't just wish Clark well and stay on the sidelines . . .

[returnable]

4. Typical FOX News shill...

</sarcasm>

:hi:

[dogman]

5. But he is a fighter.

He fights for truth and common sense, even though he is not an elected spokesman. What a unique individual. How refreshing it would be to have this kind of leadership speaking for us.

[Coexist]

8. It will be, come 2008

Be it President, Vice President, or Cabinet Member, we need him in deep.

[1932]

7. If you want to read some crazy shit about nuclear proliferation, read...

...Stiglitz's Globablization and its Discontents.

The US used to run a government-owned company that converted weapons-grade uranium so that it couldn't be used in bombs.

Back during Thatcher-Reagan when the Brits were privatizing everything, the US didn't have much to privatize. One of the few things on the shelf was this uranium-treatment company. So that Reagan could say he was walking the walk and not just talking the talk, we privatized that company.

Clinton had Congress allocate money so that that company could buy up uranium from the former soviet union. Guess what? There was a SUCCESSFUL WTO complaint which prevented this private company from getting government money. Ultimately, it couldn't buy up the uranium. IIt was deemed anti-competitive. Guess who brought the claim? People whose name you'd recognize (so read the book!).

We never got that uranium because American values like the free market were more important than national security.

Apparently that company is in dire financial and operational trouble. IIRC, Stiglitz (at the time the book was published) said the Bush administration was trying to figure out ways to re-nationalize it. Obviously, that's tricky. The don't want to freek out the CATO institute.

[CarolNYC]

9. Hey, thanks for posting this....

He reviewed WWII books in the Washington Post too....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/07/AR2005070701739.html

[dogman]

10. Not only a leader, but the mental capacity that is also lacking in the WH.

The ability to walk, talk and chew gum at the same time. Be able to think about the past, present, and future without lamenting about the hard work involved. What a contrast. This is a higher standard of leadership than we have experienced for so long.

[sandyc]

15. Oh yes

Clark has all the details covered. The man has the leadership qualities we sorely need--courage, ethics and intelligence.

[Totally Committed]

24. Welcom to DU, sandyc!

Glad to have you with us.

TC

[Totally Committed]

17. I love Wes, you know that!

But, with all due respect, most grammar schools (left behind or not...) have the mental capacity that is lacking in the White House.

But, Wes is a brainiac... yes he is!

TC

[Clark2008]

13. Well, heck - he's just everywhere.

Yet, the media is still screaming "Hillary! Biden!" and all the "usual" suspects every five seconds.

Burns my hide! :grr:

[FourStarDemocrat]

34. Goodness..how does he find the time?!

Those are very thoughtful, interesting reviews. Good find on the editorial too, Clark2008! Thanks.

[Adelante]

38. Thanks, Carol

I missed that one. :)

[Toots]

18. The most profound threat we face is a nuclear weapon in the hands of terro

Personally I would feel far more threatened if I were to read that Omaha's drinking water had been poisoned with some slow acting poison. If they attack rural areas with systematic raids against our vital needs such as water, food, and air, I believe America would feel terror far more than if they heard a big bomb went off in New York City. I feel we are not focusing on the real dangers. People without real power will seek the simplest way to strike fear into their enemy. Nukes are not simple by any stretch of the imagination. If we were to spend one tenth the amount we are spending in Iraq on securing our real vital interests we would be better off.

[Donna Zen]

20. Are you referring to this passage?

In the meantime, attention and resources must protect not just the airlines but also U.S. mass transit, rail and other infrastructure. Yet almost four years after 9/11, plans are late and resources lacking.

I think Clark agrees with you, although on many occasions, he has expressed the failure of the administration to address the nuclear proliferation issue.

[Toots]

21. I am not sure whether he does or not

If he did agree he would focus a whole lot more on the real threats to America and not some silly "super threat" that is as likely as Bush* admitting he was wrong about iraq.

[Donna Zen]

23. The thesis statement

I've been looking over the article for a thesis statement and have discovered several candidates. Nevertheless, considering Clark's recent fox appearances and past writing, I'll go with his recap that is found in the conclusion.

The United States will win the war on terror when we bring to bear all the elements of our power — not just our military might, civilian workforce and diplomatic skills, but also the power to persuade our allies in general and those in the Muslim community specifically to engage the culture of hate and terror and change it to reflect the best in all of us.

He does with this article, as he has in the past, hit the bush's for their failure to provide "resources" to the domestic side of the national security. But one of the reasons I supported Clark from the git-go is that he fully believes what I've believed since the day I watched the news on 911. Until we are willing to sit down and actually address the political, ideological and economic conditions that provide the seedbed of discontent for those who trive on terrorist's solutions, then we will continue to dig our hole and waste our planet. From the beginning, Clark has called such an approach. He did again today.

[sharonking21]

33. I agree with you

Clark approaches things from a comprehensive perspective. I get so put out at people who have single-minded simplistic answers to everything. That is just what we as humans wish to believe--it is so much easier that way. But real intransigent problems rarely have quick and easy answers.

For example, Bush and his ilk have a fondness for oversimplifying things to the point of distortion and they have gotten by with it for years; I think some people are beginning to see the light on that, however. On the other hand, I find it equally simplistic to pretend that threats of terrorism are mainly the invention of of the Bush political machine. Just because they grossly manipulate the situation to their advantage does not mean there is no threat.

What we have to decide is what are all the factors that contribute to terrorism and what is a proportionate, just, and workable response to it.

Part of that equation is realizing that:

1. No one is going to be able to protect us from all of it. We do not have that much money nor do we want to give up most of our civil liberties. We have to decide if the use of our resources is proportionate to the different threat potentials. We are going to have to accept that we will have some losses. We are spoiled and demand to be protected from everything. On the other hand, we cannot just blow it off.

2. Someone like Clark who employs his considerable intelligence in flexible multi-factorial thinking is sorely needed

[Totally Committed]

35. There are those who say Bush has been successful

with the voters because of his "simplistic" one-syllable-word/two-word-sentence/one-thought-at-a-time approach. The beauty of Wes is, he is capable of the very sort of thought-process you both describe, along with the ability to "sell it" to the "average person" with an extremely common-sense/everyman delivery. He can explain something complicated in the simplest of terms better than anyone I can think of.

It's the elegant thought process that makes Wes a perfect "sell" in the Blue States, and the no-nonsense delivery that makes Wes a perfect "sell" in the Red States.

TC

[Sparkly]

25. "some silly 'super threat'"

Not to discount the possibilities you mentioned in your earlier post, I don't think the notion of a nuke launched from a ship is "silly" at all. It's a real and serious possibility.

[Clark2008]

27. And you allege I was dragging people into a mud pile?

Apparently, you're not a Clark supporter and that's fine. You don't have to be - but don't bitch on another thread that I blasted Hillary Clinton (when I merely pointed out she wasn't supported by the majority of DUers, which is true) and then misquote Clark in this one.

Clark specifically pointed out that there are threats besides the "silly super threat" of a nuke - but you chose to ignore that sentence.

[DemInTX]

28. Is the Panther stalking?

This man is an absolutely brilliant strategist.

I don't mean the articles he is having published. Those go without
question - it's the news organizations he is being published in and
interviewed on.

USA Today is an absolutely brilliant move.

He is in the Washington Post one day - USA Today the next. Huge
readership there.


Anita

[FrenchieCat]

30. Welcome DemIn Tx

Yes.....brilliant. He's actually "doing" by lazer beam pointing his critique toward the administration and actually coming up with workable solutions of the problem all at one...

While Warner gets more PR about is possible "run", and bunch of noise for saying what Clark has been saying about Bush for the last 2 years.

And Bayh gets written up for simply appearing in NH and shaking hands...

Hillary.....well, she just gets press....no reason in particular.

Amazing how the one who does the most (out of these anyways) gets the least recognition.

Wonder why?

Do you think the Corporate Media is setting us up....again?

[Donna Zen]

32. Well ah...

to quote an imaginary Karl Rove: "We can't have those Democrats running a Four Star Southern general. It would shatter our voting base!!! Damn it, I want those network owners in my office tomorrow for some serious horse trading. And I want that "guy" off the air and out of print."

[ksclematis]

40. WWII Book reveiws by Wes

I read and re-read this post, and it finally hit me: I thought Wes has a "key" sentence in each of the reviews that have a subliminal or direct message.

"In the Beginning": (end of lst paragraph) "By the time we arrive at 1942, we're expecting a roaring pace, a broad perspective and telling revelations about events that shape the fate of nations." Insert 2003, Iraq, 'Mission Accomplished', and expectations of the war being a quickie and all the mid-east nations becoming Bushie democracies.

"Hunting the Desert Fox": "This is not only an exceptionally clear and detailed look at the battles in the western desert, but also a superb study of organizational leadership in crisis." Self-explanatory?

"Meanwhile, in Hungary....": (mid-paragraph) Soviet troops encircled the already heavily bonbed capital in December, by the time it fell in February, more than 80,000 Russians were dead and much of the remaining German army was wiped out, while a beautiful city was all but destroyed." American troops, Baghdad, Unknown thousands of Iraqi killed, Iraq/Insurgent army wiped out, beautiful & historic Baghdad destroyed - in ruins.

"Home to Germany": (last sentence) "Often told in the words of participants themselves, Huchtausenn's story reminds of how common humanity is divided by hatred.." self-explanatory?

"Bloodbath": (last sentence): "It should be required reading for every policymaker, strategist and political leader who dares prescribe or trifle with military opertions.? self-explanatory?

Just my take on the review of books which were pertinent in themselves this 60th year anniversary of WWII, as well as a current message.

[ksclematis]

37. If the MSM doesn't go to Wes, Wes will go to the MSM..

I thought the two posts were brilliant and exceedingly timely pieces of commentary. I haven't seen anywhere whether these pieces were in the print papers, or just the dot coms of USA Today and WP. I hope they are in the print media, too. Anybody know?....have you seen them in either place? Wes Clark is a extraordinary strategist!.....He's not a bad writer, either!!!!

[PurityOfEssence]

31. Ah, flexibility: the bane of conservatives

Sure, they can adapt.

[welshTerrier2]

43. Clark, Kerry and other Dems missing the boat on nukes

Clark's understanding of looking beyond "military only" solutions to addressing global terrorism is dead on the money ...

but his failure to call for nuclear disarmament turns a blind eye to the US role in failed non-proliferation negotiations ... the US has no moral authority whatsoever to demand other nations defuse their nuclear programs while it possesses enough nuclear firepower to turn every person on the planet into a gel-like stew ...

in Kerry's recent remarks on the London incident, he too referred to the importance of a more enlightened policy on dealing with "loose nukes" ... to be sure, this is critically important ...

but once again, Democrats seem shy about demanding anything of their own government ... to push for non-proliferation and the securing of "loose nukes" without addressing the reality that many non-Americans feel threatened by the US nuclear arsenal is a strategy that is doomed to failure ... Democrats need to go further if they want to demonstrate the credible leadership on this issue we all so badly need ...

[sharonking21]

44. In some ways I agree with you

I'm a Clark supporter and I do not necessarily agree that he needed to address it in this particular column--but it does need to be addressed--not just by Clark but by all candidates and all citizens.

First, it is somewhat cynical (and embarrassing to me at least) to be the nation that started it all and leads in nuclear armaments and then blather on too much about the sins of other nations without some talk of our role in it all (albeit I do think proliferation is a bad thing and is to be discouraged).

Second, I wonder what the status is now of our investment--past, present and future--in these armaments? This is a personal failing but I think it is shared--I find that I have kept up with terrorism, but not with nuclear issues (other than those related to terrorism). I'm afraid our eye has not been on the ball since 9/11 re: nuclear arms and I wonder what all has escaped our notice.

Third, I do think we have scared the bejesus out of some nations (especially with Bush's Axis of Evil speech) and have practically invited them to redouble their nuclear efforts. We see ourselves as benign; other nations like Iran and North Korea fear us.

I don't champion unilateral and complete nuclear disarmament on our part but I certainly would go for some reductions, some acknowledgment of our role in it all, and a rhetoric that didn't foster fear of what we do have in the way of nuclear arms.

[mattclearing]

47. I don't know if Clark has missed the boat here.

Just because he didn't say something doesn't mean he isn't capable of saying it later.

Also, it's not just non-Americans who are afraid of our nuclear arsenal. Mutually assured destruction ensures that any use of our arsenal likely spells our doom as well.

[fujiyama]

54. If you recall

Kerry actually did make a point of that in his convention speech (or maybe it was the debates) last year - that the US cannot be developing new nuclear arms while it is intent upon securing loose nuclear material and stopping Iran and NK from developing their own.

Also, the Dems, to their credit (including some surprising ones) sided with Feinstein's resolution/amendment to not develop bunker busting nukes. Unfortunately it was defeated.

[CarolNYC]

45. Gen Clark will be on Hannity & Colmes on Thursday....

***Media Alert***

General Clark will appear on Hannity and Colmes on Thursday, July 14th at 9:00pm EDT to discuss his op-ed in USA Today.

[Gloria]

46. 1st Line, 2nd Paragraph: what does he mean by "merits of the war in

Iraq"??? He never spoke of the "merits" before. I hope he doesn't muddy up his message with a sashay too far toward what the Senate Dems boxed themselves in with, ie becoming "Kerryized".


"In the first place, whatever the merits of the war in Iraq, it should be clear that we still face a threat at home."

[Clarkie1]

48. He's engaging those who may disagree with the merits of the Iraq war.

It's a very smart way to begin the article. With this statement, he engages those who may disagree with us on the "merits" of the war in a discussion that leads to an attack on the administrations national security and foreign policies.

The purpose of this particular article was not to rehash the same old arguments about the "merits" of the Iraq war. Clark is engaging his readers in a discussion of the present national security situation in the U.S. in the wake of the London bombings and the present structure of Al Quada, and how we can best going about dealing with real threats we face today.

This isn't an article specifically about Iraq, so it's not the place to engage for the 10,000th time arguing the "merits" of going into Iraq two years ago and thus disengage many readers from a valuable discussion on the failure of the Bush administration to adequately address the homeland security situation here and now.

[Gloria]

50. In the very next sentence he talks about "blowback" (without using the

word) which has been his consistent argument. He has never expressed any "merit" to the war. Why say this at this point? Why inject this into his message? This is the sort of thing that someone can use against him later on as a "flip flop"....

If he wanted to "engage" the pro-war crowd, he could acknowledge that viewpoint without making it seem he sees merit: ie, "Although there are differing viewpoints on the merits of the Iraq war, it should be clear that.......etc."


original
(In the first place, whatever the merits of the war in Iraq, it should be clear that we still face a threat at home. Already there have been concerns that some terrorists have left Iraq to return to Europe. Moreover, Islamic anger about the U.S. actions in Iraq, as well as the continuing conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians, feeds terrorist recruiting worldwide.)

[Boo Boo]

55. Your free, of course, to parse the man's words any way you want, but

when I say, "Look, whatever the merits of 'A' are we really need to think about 'B'," that in no implies that I think there is any "merit" to 'A'.

I believe that's a rather widely accepted interpretation.

[Totally Committed]

56. I totally agree with this interrpretation!

Boo Boo, you said -- in just a few sentences -- what it would have taken me paragraphs to say! Excellent distillation of the message!!!

TC

[Clarkie1]

57. Nonesense.

You are completely misreading the statement.

He never says the war has merit.

[FrenchieCat]

58. This is the meaning of merit that I believe Wes intended...

Main Entry: mer·it
Pronunciation: 'mer-it
Function: noun
1 plural : the substance of a case apart from matters of jurisdiction, procedure, or form <a ruling on the merits of the case> —see also judgment on the merits at JUDGMENT 1a
2 : legal significance, standing, or worth <an argument without merit>
Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
----------
Gloria, considering that we all are clearly aware that Wes Clark has never for a moment believed that this war was justified....even if Saddam would have had WMDs, I believe that the meaning above was the intended meaning.

I don't read him giving merits to the Iraq war in the article....but rather stating, that whatever the "various reasons" (replace that with merits) given for the invasion.....we are still not safer at home.

I think he is addressing both those who saw and those who didn't see any "merits" (aka reasons) in invading Iraq.

[1932]

51. Some quotes from Winning Modern Wars:

"All else being equal the region and the Iraqi people were all better off with Saddam gone. But the U.S. actions against old adversaries like Saddam have costs and consequences that may still leave us far short of our objectives of winning the war on terror -- or, in themselves, may actually detract from our larger efforts."

...

"Unfortunately, we are now engaged and fully committed... Now, if possible, we must transform a successful military attack into victory by helping the Iraqi people to use this opportunity to establish representative government and the political and economic freedoms that can at least serve as an example to others throughout the region, as well as by demonstrating the awesome constructive power of U.S. values, ideas and resources."

---

I'm not sure if this is saying very much since it takes both sides of the argument, but it summarized the book's argument: it was an important, legitimate goal of US foriegn policy to stabilize the Middle East, but it has to be done in a way that's effective.

I think the key point is that he's willing to call the miltary effort successful and imply that there's a political or nation-building stage that could follow on the military effort that could work to make Iraq into something that accepts America's values and isn't a threat to anyone.

Now, there is a broad spectrum on the left on this issue (that includes Clark's position). However, some on the left might say that you can't untangle the military part and the nation-building part and they will never be successful individually or collectively and that it's very misleading (or and impossible dream) to call the military part successful when it's never going to result in success so long as the US is influencing nation-building. Those people would say that Iraq will never be stable until Iraqis own all their industries and live in a democracy that they control, which is impossible under the circumstances Clark implies when he says US "constructive" powers will build that list of things.

For a comparison, consider the Phillipines. I believe Clark mentions the Phillipines in one or both of his books. He's not critical of it and in stating that the US never had colonies, apparently doesn't include the US's half-century colonization of the Phillipines that destablized and impoverished that country up until today, and will continue for a long time into the future.

The way Clark describes Iraq, he is uncomfortably close to advocating another Phillipines.

I believe the Democrats need to argue for a plan for Iraq that distinguishes mistakes like the Phillipines from potentially successful strategies.

(BTW, I admit that I am extra-sensitive to these issues so I might be prone to read meaning that isn't there in Clark's book. The best thing for everyone to do here is to read those books.)

[LandOLincoln]

52. Well, to me anyway, "whatever the merits..." implies

a large dose of implied skepticism as to the possibility of ANY merits of the war in Iraq.

But never forget he's a general, so no matter what the ultimate outcome in Iraq, he'll never, ever come out and say those troops died/were permanently maimed for nothing more than Halliburton profits, and so Dubya could be a "war president."

Wes might well think it, but there's no way he'd ever say it. There's no way he'd ever do that to his troops.

I don't know if you ever saw Richard Cohen's article, Karl Rove's Nightmare, in WaPo 1/15/04, but the following paragraph is surely at least as true now as it was then:

"Wes Clark does not like what George Bush has done with Wes Clark's Army. Make no mistake: It's his Army. He can hardly go a sentence without mentioning the military -- and how, in his mind, Bush has abused it. He sent it to war precipitously and then used its men and women as "props," he says. Clark's sincerity on this point is patent. In a conversation on his campaign plane, he suddenly turned intense, a kind of growling, low-grade rage that lifted my nose from my note-taking. His Army has been abused."

http://tinyurl.com/48psc

[fujiyama]

53. A good editorial

Clark is saying what I've thought for a while - that Al Quada isn't really a centralized network. It's more of a franchise operation.

Democrats should make it clear that Bush really hasn't been interested in putting money and resources into protecting domestic ground public transportation.

Unfortunately I think too many are brain dead and believe these attacks justify Iraq, while the opposite is the case.