NPR "Morning Edition": Wes Clark on the On-Going Tragedy in Dafur

[Totally Committed]

NATO Forces Needed in Darfur
Reprinted with permission.

Listen to the radio broadcast here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4809638

By Gen. (ret.) Wesley Clark
NPR "Morning Edition"
August 22, 2005

Transcript:

After a series of UN Security Council resolutions on Darfur and a donors conference to boost the African Union Mission there, you could be forgiven for thinking the international community has responded adequately to the crisis. Sadly, this is far from the case. The international community urgently needs to take bold new action.

The truth is, civilians are still targeted in Darfur. The pro-government Janjaweed militias still remain unchecked. Humanitarian access is still restricted along key transit routes and in areas where millions of displaced Sudanese have gathered. Women and girls are still being raped as they leave their camps to collect firewood and forage for food. It's a tragedy.

The African Union's priority must be to protect civilians. It must be able to take all necessary measures -- including offensive action -- against any attacks or threats against civilians and humanitarian operations.

But the AU Mission's force numbers and mandate are simply not sufficient to cope with the reality on the ground in Darfur. The AU current plan is to deploy 7,700 troops next month, and possibly 12,000 troops next year. But this is far too slow. A minimum of 12,000 troops are needed on the ground right now, not six months from now.

The African Union should deploy a battalion task force of around 1,000 troops to each of Darfur's eight sectors and maintain another battalion task force in reserve. Each sector would then have close to 1,000 troops, twice as many civilian police, and 1,000 headquarters and other support staff.

Even if the African Union can overcome the political obstacles to strengthening its mandate in Darfur -- and that's a very big "if" -- it's in no position to get such large numbers of troops on the ground in such a short time. Despite the European Union and NATO assistance, the African Union mission looks set to fall short of its target of 7,700 troops by September.

The UN Security Council, in consultation with the AU, should request and authorize NATO to deploy a multinational "bridging force" to bring the combined force level in Darfur immediately up to 12,000 to 15,000 troops while the African Union prepares and deploys its own forces.

This is not an easy recommendation to make for Darfur, where all multinational organizations have been at pains to keep non-African troops out of Sudan. But the notion that the atrocities in Darfur are solely African problems requiring exclusively African solutions has to be reconsidered. These ongoing offenses are crimes against all humanity. They demand an international response that gives human life priority over diplomatic sensitivities.

Working together, NATO and the AU can save the lives of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. They can demonstrate to outlaw regimes like the government of Sudan that the international community will not tolerate crimes against humanity.
And we must do this now.

http://securingamerica.com/articles/npr/2005-08-22

[Donna Zen]

1. Thanks TC!

As always the voice of a leader...it's the leadership stupid.

But the notion that the atrocities in Darfur are solely African problems requiring exclusively African solutions has to be reconsidered. These ongoing offenses are crimes against all humanity. They demand an international response that gives human life priority over diplomatic sensitivities.

Life before politics.

Hey, they said the president was going to be on TV and all that's on is a coke-head in a suit. (Monkey lied.)

[Totally Committed]

2. You are very welcome.

Interesting to see what a REAL "Culture of Life" looks like, isn't it? - From the NPR site: "Wesley Clark, argues the case for sending NATO troops into Darfur to protect civilians and humanitarian operations."

[1932]

3. I heard this this morning and was surprised by NPR saying that an...

...alternative (or counter?) argument will be broadcast tomorrow.

What the hell? Is someone going to say that nothing should be done?

Or maybe the alternative will be UN-troops (rather than NATO) should be used? Or maybe there will be an argument that the AU can actually raise the troops neccessary.

On a similar note, I almost fell out of my chair when I heard NPR report on Nigeria playing an 11 year old interview with Ken Saro Wiwa saying that the poverty in oil-rich Nigeria is denigrating.

I thought I was dreaming.

[CarolNYC]

13. NPR

They actually said they'd have someone on with a "different plan to stop the killing"....I'm just happy someone's paying attention and trying to come up with a plan.

BTW, 1932, I'm curious as to what you think of Gen Clark's commentary.

Thanks much!

[1932]

16. I don't know enough about the issue to have an opinion yet. But:

The second article that came up in my google search was this:

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_printable&report_id=307&language_id=1

It looks like the significance of NATO participation is that it protects US interests. Right now Sudan is cooperating with Bush's war on terror (which Bush doesn't want to publicize because it conflicts with the good vs evil charade of the neoconservatives as the basis for the war on terror). Because of this cooperation, the Bush administration has backed off on its earlier desire to put NATO into Darfur and is letting Khartoum deal with it themselves (perhaps Khartoum is trading temporary sovereignty for intelligence?). However, if NATO doesn't get involved, then the EU will have more control over what happens (by directly assisting the African Union). If the EU takes the lead, it might be harder for American companies to counter Chinese influence in the area. From reading Waging Modern Wars, we know that NATO is very much a creature of American political strategy, whereas, the EU is becoming more autonomous all the time.

So, it looks like this issue -- at least in the context of whether NATO or the EU should lead the mission -- has more to do with oil and geopolitics than about humanitarian aid.

And it looks like Clark, by insisting that NATO lead (rather than the EU, presumably), is sticking up for US (oil) companies (and anyone who has the ear of the US politicians controlling NATO) and thinking long-term about geopolitical conflicts with China in Africa.

[Texas_Kat]

17. Oh please

Clark is suggesting the NATO deal with it until the AU (not the EU) can get their act together. Sometime next year..... isn't soon enough.

[1932]

18. That's not how I read the article in the link.

Read the second last section (before "Conclusion"). It says that this about competing with the EU over influence in the area, with NATO being the mechanism that protects US interests.

[Totally Committed]

21. You and your "read this" or "read that",

Get a clue: How many times do you have to tell people that's not you you read an article or paragraph? Your twisted interpretations come directly from the fact that you despise Wes. And you just have to convolute whatever you read to fit those feelings.

[1932]

25. In college, when you wrote papers, did you just write what you thought

or did you support your argument with references to the texts? Did you research what was out there before you formed your opinion?

[FrenchieCat]

44. In college, like most normal people paying for an education,

when I was assigned to read a book to review it, I had to summarize what the author actually wrote, and not try to translate what the author might have meant by injecting my own prejudicial biases into what I wanted the author's message to be, nor did I substitute the authors views with my own.

Unfortunately, you have not grasped this ability as of yet...not with Wes Clark's book, as far as I can see.

See multiple book reviews on Clark's book here, all that are in agreement with each other, and undermine how you have been trying to deconstruct the General's message as it was written in his book, since you started posting on these boards.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2025864&mesg_id=2027057

An Education is priceless, but an opinion is like an asshole--FrenchieCat 8/22/05

[1932]

47. You wrote book reviews for college papers?

You weren't expected to make an original argument that was a synthesis of facts and either criticized or developed existing arguments?

[Texas_Kat]

22. Well I guess the next time thugs are slaughtering children

by the thousands, we should stop and ask some 'self-styled' political pundit what the geopolitical ramifications of taking the guns away from them might be (of course we need to include opins from every political writer in the universe first).

Oh, I'm all for understanding those implications, but let's do something to stop the bloodshed first.

[1932]

26. Clark wasn't arguing that someone should step in. He was arguing that NATO

should step in.

According to the article I found, NATO isn't the only option, and apparently there are huge geopolitical implications to who is going to help.

You think Clark really isn't aware of those geopolitical implications?

[Totally Committed]

31. Because he already knows NATO

and what they can and cannot do.

Of course I know Wes is aware of geopolitical implications, but unlike you, I don't think they are his overriding concern when people are dying.

The AU would probably rather have NATO than the UN because there are no African nations in NATO. Every African nation is afraid of being invaded by the country next to it, and the tribal conflicts that come with those invasions. They don't WANT peacekeepers from another African country in there. They don't trust them. Wes knows that the the only chance to get Darfur to allow outside troops in is to be able to guarantee that there will be no tribal problems, no neighboring despots's troops, no other African interlopers coming in and taking the place over under the guise of humanitarian assistance. NATO is the only outside entity that has a chance of getting into Darfur. Those are the geopolitical implcations that Wes is probably weighing right now.

[1932]

35. If that's what you believe, fine.

"Every African nation is afraid of being invaded by the country next to it, and the tribal conflicts that come with those invasions."

So much for Pan-Africanism, I guess. And I guess we've come a long way since Namibia begged the UN to intervene to kick out South Africa.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

61. I don't believe the article suggests what having one

entity, NATO vs EU vs AU, etc, is "about" any particular motive in a given situation.

It simply discusses some of the possible repercussions.

It also doesn't seem accurate to go from those statements in that article, and then attribute some possible repercussions as the motives behind General Clark's call to action.

Personally, I'm sickened by the ongoing genocide and the lack of action.

Wes is saying that for lack of another way to get enough forces in there fast enough to help,

"The UN Security Council, in consultation with the AU, should request and authorize NATO to deploy a multinational "bridging force" to bring the combined force level in Darfur immediately up to 12,000 to 15,000 troops while the African Union prepares and deploys its own forces."

[Totally Committed]

20. That is so much bullsh*t and you know it!

This is not the first time Wes has lobbied for humanitarian assistance to stop genocide. And, I maintain that he sees NATO as the logical force to send in because,

1.) He still has strong contacts there and could facilitate an intercession more easily.

2.) Because the AU would be more willing to allow a NATO force in than a UN force in.

3.)Wes probably sees this as the easiest way to build a multi-country coalition.

The EU has troops in NATO, you know. This doesn't mean that he is trying to head off their assistance to the AU at all. Only someone unredeemably cynical or disingenuous could attribute such nefarious motives to this good man's bid for humanitarian aid to stop the killing. You have a problem with Wes, and everything that you write about him should be seen in that light. Honestly!

[1932]

24. Your argument is with the author of the article and not me.

The article very clearly states that the issue with NATO participation is US influence over the operation (and, by extention, has geopolitical ramifications in terms of what China is able to do in Africa).

By the way, why do you think the AU is more willing to accept NATO rather than straight EU or UN aid? And why would Clark's contacts with NATO have anything to do with this? I'm not sure how that's relevant.

As for the EU acting within NATO versus acting outside of it, I think if you've read Waging Modern Wars, Clark paints a vivid portrait of the role of US political concerns in NATO actions. The US has a big say over NATO. They don't have a big say over the EU.

Furthermore, one thing that is very clear about Clark is the argument he sets out in the conclusion of Winning Modern Wars: he believes US ("virtual") empire is a force for good -- it can provide humanitarian help, and market liberalization can help peope -- and he believes that international cooperation (through vehicles like NATO) help America project the values of American virtual empire, and he's concerned with long-term geopolitical considerations in the War on Terror and with China.

Why is it outrageous that this story is about more than just humanitarian aid? If Clark feels that American virtual empire and market liberalization is going to prevent humanitarian crisis, why not point out that his argument that NATO should be involved is part of a strategy which protects the US' influence in the region?

[Totally Committed]

28. Nah, my argument is with you --

you and your penchant for never being able to allow a thread about Wes to go unpissed-on. You can't help it, it seems. You see his name in the OP and you behave like a dog that feels he has to mark his territory by pissing on it.

You have a problem with Wes. If you are honest with yourself, you already know it.

[1932]

30. My first post in this thread:

wasn't pissing on Clark.

I did wonder why he was arguing for NATO participation, but when I posted I didn't know anything about the issue, and was merely posting to comment on the idea that NPR was going to broadcast "another opinion" tomorrow. I was more intrigued by what the other opinion would be than I was about anything Clark said.

However, CarolNYC asked me what I though about Clark's proposal.

So I googled.

And I posted what I found.

And I put it in the context of what I know from reading Clark's books.

And I know that what I came up with isn't the sort of fawning praise that usually gets posted here, but I think it is utterly supported by the facts (by the article linked here and by what Clark says in his own books).

[Totally Committed]

33. Yadda, yadda, yadda....

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

[CarolNYC]

41. ARRGHHHH!!!!

Yes, my bad. I did ask for your opinion and I should have known better after the last time I tried to have a reasoned discussion with you and, after my having asked you a few times to please read a piece that disagreed with what you wanted to push, you finally said something to the effect of, "well, OK, I'll read it but I'm not going to believe it". Anyone who so proudly announces that they are going to discount something before they even read it, who so proudly announces that they will only take into account things that go along with their preconceived notions, is not worth my time....That thinking is way too close to the way the extreme right thinks if you ask me.

Sorry everyone. I should have known from previous expereince that this one would find a way to try to turn this into a bad thing that Gen Clark was advocating....I just have this problem with giving people the benefit of the doubt...I'll learn, I hope. :(

[1932]

48. Do you have a link for that?

I'd like to see what I wrote.

[Tinoire]

51. One neg peep about Clark and his praetorian guard will descend on you

en masse.

Seems he's made of porcelain.

[FrenchieCat]

55. So why are you here?

Ms. 300,000 bodies is just not enough...cause me, I worry about the oil, and only that.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

58. General Wesley Clark is separate from

his supporters.

The exuberance of some supporters is not a definition of who HE is.

He is definitely not made of porcelain.

[FrenchieCat]

85. What you thought is what you googled?

The second article you found after Clark's?

Now, that could be funny if the issue wasn't so tragic!

You've already admitted to not being familiar....so I guess that a 3 minute google search got you all of the right answers? Oh my!

[1932]

89. It all depends on whether that article is right or wrong.

The question I wanted to answer is, "what is the significance of advocating for NATO acting?" and the second article I found explained what the significance of NATO intervention is.

I asked this question because Clark's NPR piece wasn't an argument that someone must intervene. It was an argument that NATO must participate. It appears that this is a debate that has been going on since at least last June. There is a context here, apparently, that is greater than, "someone must intervene." It has moved on to a discussion of what is going to happen over the long term if certain parties do or do not participate. I believe the article said that someone is going to intervene, especially since the AU has now requested help.

If you read between the lines, it looks like the reason nobody helped until now isn't so much because nobody cares about Dafuf, but it's because someone cut a deal, trading intelligence and cooperation in the war on terror for an agreement to stay out. (As the article notes, Bush wanted to send NATO before, because they consider the area important to their geopolotical strategy.)

I will admit that this article might be total crap. I was expecting someone, by now, to google the author's name and come up with something interesting, or provide some informed context that is broader than the context this single article provides.

I expect that might still happen.

[Clarkie1]

29. "why not point out that his argument that NATO should be involved is...

part of a strategy which protects the US' influence in the region?"

Because it is not part of that stategy.

It's part of a strategy to stop genocide, something you clearly care less about than abstract geopolitical theories.

You have very little in common with Clark, but a lot in common with the neo-cons.

[1932]

34. According to this article, which is not even about Clark, NATO involvement

is about more than stopping genocide.

If you think that Clark is just picking NATO to lead this mission because he knows them (when back in June, people were saying this about geopolitical issues), fine.

We'll leave it at that.

This article is literally the only thing I've read about this issue, so I'm probably not qualified to take this argument much farther.

[FrenchieCat]

45. I'm surprised you don't know more,

Considering that Geopolitics seems to be your forte, or so you claim.

You've already foolishly have attempted to paint Wes Clark as advocating a "virtual" Empire, and considering that you don't even know what that means, you should stay out of more debates, at least until you learn the terms and their meanings.

You have consistently attempted to "translate" Clark's books and articles into something that he is not saying...or have tried to make it appear as though there is a nefarious meaning in all that he advocates.

You are wrong about Wes Clark, and it shows!

[1932]

46. Your book reviews all say that Clark advocates a virtual empire

that exists by virtue of contracts and business relationships that have existed since WWII.

Have you read confessions of an economic hit man? It talks about that very same virtual empire tied together with contracts, business relationships and development loans. John Perkins has a very different opinion of virtual empire.

[FrenchieCat]

52. No, you are again wrong.....

I was talking soft sell vs. hard power. You are talking corruption and greed. We are discussing different issues that merge only at points, although you want to interpret it as a all or nothing proposition.

The virtual empire that Clark envisions (since you don't seem to have a high degree of comprehension) is based on trust, of course economic relationships, but fair ones (think of no relationships at all and you are living in another universe), cultural exchanges, fair treaties, respect for international laws (as he demonstrated by testifying at the Hague).

You act as though America has never had good intentions ever.

Clark's vision is of what our America could represent. That is all of the good intentions that America has, at one time or another demonstrated in our history (think Marshall Plan). He's not talking about maintaining the old status quo as it were, but improving upon it, on the things that went wrong. That would include moving away from Multinational corporations being treated as an extension of our government via no bid contracts and the bigger the better, and having a public and open cabinet level governmental department that promotes and conducts foreign aid in an ethical manner.

For you, on the other hand, it's all or nothing. Your lack of complexity is amazing and makes one wonder if that is the kind of flat vision that Bush's has and why we have the problems that we face. Doh!

THE WORLD
Soft Sell
by Robert Lane Greene
Only at TNR Online | Post date 10.07.03
One of the more surprising proposals of the Democratic primary campaign has so far been one of the least reported. Wesley Clark, criticizing the Bush administration for being too quick to seek military solutions to the world's problems, has proposed increasing American foreign aid and creating a cabinet-level Department of International Assistance to oversee it. For those who say the general has only a resumé and no ideas to help distinguish himself from the Democratic pack, the plan, laid out in his book Winning Modern Wars, should stand as a corrective. Right or wrong, Clark seems to be staking out a position as the candidate who is most likely to turn American foreign policy in a less aggressive direction, focusing both on unruffling allied feathers and on placating those who actively seek to do us ill. ...
https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=foreign&s=greene100703

“I Don't think America can lead and influence events around the world if it doesn't pull its weight in the difficult work of peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance and participation in other international institutions. Leadership is not just about reacting to aggression once it occurs--it's about preventing it where we can, helping others in need and supporting those who share our values. This requires generosity of spirit and a willingness to take risks. I believe America has the character and courage for these requirements of leadership.” -- General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Europe

The peace, prosperity and global leadership enjoyed by Americans today is our inheritance from the sacrifices and investments made by our parents and grandparents. The “Greatest Generation” didn’t just win a world war, they also won the post war world. They did it by investing in worldwide social, political and economic cooperation and progress. Even though America’s economy was still recovering from the Depression and World War II, they invested 3% of GDP--$3 out of every $100 they produced--in the Marshall Plan – foreign aid. The Marshall Plan and subsequent international development programs like the Alliance for Progress restored the world economy and political stability and may well have been the best investment any country ever made.
http://www.colead.org/WP%20Restoring%20America's%20Int'l.html

Read this as well for inovations of what a Foreign Aids Department could do.....it's Clark's baby called SENSE. And keep in mind that he's not for status quo....never has, and never will be...unless it works, like Affirmative Action. Ignoring Genocide has been "Status Quo" since before WWII. It's not one of the issues that he agrees should stay as it always was.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2084604/

[1932]

83. Have you read these two books:

(1) Confessions of and Economic Hit Man

(2) Globalization and its Discontents

?

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

59. Totally different concepts

I've heard the author of Confessions of An Economic Hit Man interviewed several times, and no way does that strategy bear any similarity to General Clark's vision or policies.

[1932]

87. You don't think so?

The last chapter in Winning Modern Wars says that because of virtual empire, the US shouldn't have to resort to using the military to promote and project American values (and in the last two pages of Waging Modern War, Clark says there will be times when, in order to promote and project American values, we'll need to risk the lives of young American men and women).

I am in total agreement with that. I agree that in order to promote and project American values, we should be willing to risk our lives. But it's important to be clear about what values we're talking about.

In Confessions of and Economic Hit Man, John Perkins says the very last time we did that was during World War II (when we fought facism). He said that what Eisenhower and Kermit Roosevelt did in Iraq was the start of a very bad trend.

Perkins says that the American values he believed in -- articulated by George Washington and Thomas Paine -- are so far from the values we've promoted since WWII that he sometimes wondered if Paine were alive today would he be on America's side. He says the values America has persued since WWII are wealth polarization and greed.

Clark picks the end of WWII -- the very same moment -- as when virtual empire (a good thing, he believes) got rolling. In Winning Modern Wars, he very briefly notes that the US did something bad in Chile (I can't remember if names any other places where the US did the wrong thing -- like Guatemala, Ecuador, or Iran -- and I believe that he actually cites Panama as a good move by the US).

I don't really know who's right, Perkins or Clark, but there is quite possibly miles between their attitudes about the same events, and I think it's worth our while at DU to discuss these issues.

I'm not trying to spin Clark unfairly, but if my asking these questions means that we might possibly get a clearer picture about how Clark feels about (virtual) American Empire (relative to John Perkins, or even Jim Wallis, who also writes about virtual and "new" (actually, traditional) empire) then we're doing a good thing here.

As someone tells John Perkins in C. of an E.H.M. (either the Iranian guy without a nose or General Torrijo): the US media is never going to talk honestly about American Empire (they ignored the assasination of Ecuador's president shortly after Reagan was elected, and we know from today's media this is true). So we might as well talk about here at DU and hope that in the process of talking about it we have a very informed opinion about for what our politicans stand.

[FrenchieCat]

92. 1932, Why don't you research and discuss this issue....Darfur?

That's what this thread was about....remember?

Are the hundreds of thousand black people that have been massacred and the others who will, not important enough to do something about that issue?

Why would you rather debate about something we can't do nothing about right now, and avoid something where you can take action and possibly make your voice count?

I just don't get it! :shrug:

Since you read and comprehend so well, why don't you get started? I left you some reading material on the last of my posts on this thread.....

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

96. The M.O. of the economic hit man was to snare

third world countries into an indebtedness that would later be guaranteed to overwhelm them, thus leaving their debtors in a position of unreasonable power over them.

When Wesley Clark refers to Virtual Empire, he is basically referring to Globalization.

He says over and over and over that what we want to do is to lead by example and persuasion.

His last chapter in "Winning Modern Wars," "Beyond Empire, A New America."

See page 190 in the hardcover edition, where he cites 3 basic concepts that it is time for America to return to. He is contrasting this with the current Administration's pre-emptive foreign policy and its bogus supply side economics.

In very brief summary the 3 principles are:

1. Inclusiveness
2. Working to strengthen and use International Institutions, UN and NATO named specifically.
3. Place in perspective the role of our military in our overall policy. Yes maintain primacy. But force, he says, must be used only as a last resort and then multilaterally.

I recommend the book, and especially that entire chapter. It really does present much of General Clark's vision for a better, more inclusive, equitable, and safer world.

[FrenchieCat]

40. You need to quit it....

It's obvious that you don't give a shit about dying black people if it helps you denigrate General Clark. As a living black person, I do care.

Now hope you understood that, cause it was really a simple thing to comprehend, Mr. I Read the Book.

Clark talks says this about a New American Empire (the kind the NeoCons want) vs. the kind of empire that we have had since WWII, and which up until the end of the Clinton's years was considered a virtual empire....

Page 200 of Winning Modern Wars:
"We DON'T need the New American Empire. Indeed, the very idea of a classic empire is obsolete. An interdependent world will no longer accept discriminatory dominance by one nation over others. Instead, a more collaborative, collegiate Aemrican strategy will prevail, a strategy based on the great American virtues of tolerance, freedom, and fairness that made this country a beacon of hope in the world"--Wes Clark

Below is some reviews of "Winning Modern Wars", but by folks who "read the book" and have an opinion which in unison agree with each other, and totally differ from your parsing, negative and and cut and paste speculative one...

Review from the Gardian
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,1091146,00.html
The first 100 pages analyse the recent war in Iraq. Clark commanded US troops in the Iraqi theatre in the early Nineties, and provides useful insights. The true problems for senior commanders are supply lines and troop deployment timetables, not battle tactics. The secret of American military superiority, Clark shows, is, in addition to massive transport capability, a hitherto unheard of degree of co-operation between ground troops and air power. Only recently have the secure communications been developed that allow concepts of 'battlespace' rather than 'battlefield' to become a real-time reality.

He is scathing about the failure by war leaders to plan properly for the post-conflict period. This he attributes to a natural tendency of the American political and military establishment to play to their strengths. A marine in Iraq told me his job was to 'shoot people and blow things up'. Moving beyond that has proved difficult for a conservative Pentagon and civilian leadership suspicious of anything smacking of 'social work'.

The latter part of Clark's book is devoted to a sustained attack on the conduct of the 'war on terror'. Clark says the current administration's bullish unilateralism, dependence on military force, disdain for international law and institutions have been profoundly counterproductive and run against everything that made American great. He says, rightly, that military power should be the last resort and can only succeed when used in combination with diplomatic, social, political, economic, cultural and developmental measures.

America, he says, risks winning individual battles, even campaigns, but losing the war and losing itself. His analysis, manifesto or otherwise, is accurate, timely and important.

Review from Asian Reporter
http://www.asianreporter.com/reviews/2005/22-05winningmodern.htm
Drawing on his deep military experience at home and abroad, General Wesley Clark analyzes the U.S. invasion, occupation, and rebuilding of Iraq and its relationship to the struggle against global terrorism in Winning Modern Wars. According to Clark, the American war machine is a dominant force unlike any the world has ever seen, except perhaps the Roman Empire at its apex. Yet the mess in Iraq should be a clear warning that we have much to learn about wielding our power effectively.

snip
In this age of embedded reporters, Internet bloggers, and instant news, "Public opinion itself has become a weapon of war," Clark explains early on. Winning Modern Wars shows that this supposedly retired general is still ready to fight, delivering a "Take no prisoners" assault on the post-9/11 foreign policy of the Bush administration.

General Clark knows what an effective military force looks like, and has nothing but praise for the amazingly competent American soldiers who delivered the decisive victory over Saddam Hussein. But if success results from the work of soldiers on the ground, it is unfortunately errors at the highest levels of leadership that lead to ultimate failure.
Snip
Worse, the whole fiasco in Iraq was nothing but a grave misjudgment by the Bush administration in the first place. There should have been no need for a postwar plan because there should have been no war in Iraq at all. On top of a laundry list of American mistakes laid out by Clark, including spurning of allies, lack of focus on Al-Qaeda, and coddling of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, President Bush’s September, 2003, statement that Iraq constitutes "The central battle in the war on terrorism" encapsulates everything that has gone wrong with the American response to 9/11.

snip
Most of Clark’s criticisms have been raised before, first from protestors on the street and later from disaffected staffers at increasingly higher levels inside the U.S. government. But Clark is no partisan shill, and has real credentials to back up his arguments; he has served as both European Supreme Allied Commander and Director of Strategic Plans and Policy for the Pentagon. The knowledge he displays of the tactics, weapons, and capabilities of the U.S. Army is so thorough that anyone who wishes to understand the campaign in Iraq and the larger war against terror has to sit up and take notice. We can choose to ignore Clark only at our own peril.

"Powell's Books Review"
http://www.powells.com/biblio?partner_id=27104&cgi=product&isbn=1586482181
General Clark criticizes George W. Bush's handling of the American Empire, especially as it concerns the War in Iraq. He argues that the war was conducted with brilliant tactics but flawed strategy and that vital opportunities to go after Al Qaeda were missed. Larger questions of Empire are discussed in concluding chapters, with Clark arguing that the "very idea of a New American Empire in 2003 shows an ignorance of the real and existing virtual empire created since the end of World War II" and calling for a "more powerful but less arrogant" foreign policy.

Review by Intervention Magazine
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?file=article&name=News&op=modload&sid=539
This is actually three books in one, tied together by the common theme of the leadership failures of the Bush administration. The first three chapters recount the history of America’s preemptive strike on Iraq. The next two show how those actions have distracted us so badly from the true battle, against international terrorism. The final chapter could serve as a draft inaugural address, as Clark details his vision of a collaborative American strategy for success in an interdependent world.
snip
As a veteran leader with a global view, Clark also decries how the Bush administration broke treaties and denied international obligations with impunity. Such a unilateralist approach caused us to lose so much of the international sympathy and support which had arisen after the 9/11 attacks. By casting aside more than fifty years of strategic alliances, we have left ourselves at risk legally, financially, and militarily.

The Nation - Book Review
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031208&s=fitzgerald
Most of Clark's views about the general direction of US foreign policy will sound familiar, for most are shared by the other major Democratic contenders. However, this book is nothing like the goo usually served up in campaign literature, for he is also a very good writer: logical, lucid and concise. Moreover, he has much of interest to say about military operations and the relationship--or lack of it--between specific campaigns and the overall US security strategy. He is well qualified for the task.
snip
In his final chapter, Clark attacks the Administration's conception of American power and substitutes his own. Last April, he tells us, there was talk in Washington of Iraq as the first stepping stone to a new American empire. As the US armed forces marched on Baghdad, the perception was that the US military had achieved such a degree of superiority over all its rivals that Bush might fulfill his vision of liberating Iraq and transforming the whole of the Middle East under a Pax Americana. But the truth was that the US Army, the only force available, was not suited to this quasi-imperial vision: It was built for warfighting; it lacked staying power abroad and it lacked nation-building skills. Further, the American public had little taste for empire, and the international community had turned against the war. As it is, Clark writes, the Army has become dangerously overstretched, and US foreign policy dangerously dependent upon it. Clark sees the aggressive unilateralism of the Bush Administration as having roots that go back to the reaction to the cultural revolutions of the 1960s.
snip
In Clark's view, American power resides to a large degree in the "virtual empire" the United States constructed after World War II: that is, among other things, its network of economic and security arrangements, the leverage it had in international institutions and treaty regimes, plus the shared values and reservoir of trust, or "soft power," that permitted past Presidents to lead by persuasion. Clark's forceful book warns that the Bush Administration is undermining this virtual empire and at the same time imperiling the "hard power" Bush counts upon, the power of America's economy and armed forces.

[Texas_Kat]

56. Okay, I went back to read this article that you believe proves a point.

It seems that the author is making the point that France is more interested in protecting their 'interests' than in cooperating with NATO. Particularly in light of the previous request from the AU that NATO intervene. (as indicated by the article you cited.

N.A.T.O.'s Role in Sudan and Alleged French Hesitations

This framework is made even more complex by the European countries' different perceptions of U.S. Middle East policies and China's rise as a great power. As N.A.T.O. is a transatlantic organization, a lack of a common geopolitical concept, shared by its major components, would be immediately reflected in political terms. After the 2003 dramatic rift in transatlantic and intra-European relations concerning the Iraq war, many have continuously called for a new U.S.-E.U. common security policy. The Darfur crisis and the African Union official request for help seemed to be an opportunity to extend the tight security cooperation between Washington and the E.U.'s main powers via N.A.T.O.

However, some analysts correctly remarked how the E.U. and N.A.T.O. seemed to have both become involved in the Sudanese theater of operations without a clear definition of their mutual relations in the mission. The dilemma is that either the E.U. relies on N.A.T.O.'s assets to project its power out of the European region, thus accepting the Atlantic political lead, or the two organizations enter into competition -- which is to be read as another chapter of the Franco-American conflict for influence over the European Security and Defence Policy (E.S.D.P.).

The French daily newspaper Le Figaro reported on April 27 that N.A.T.O.'s intervention in Darfur was a "historical event" in that for the first time the transatlantic organization was planning a humanitarian mission in Africa. However, sources of French diplomacy, quoted by the press in February, said that Paris was opposed to N.A.T.O.'s mission in Sudan because it would reduce the E.S.D.P.'s role and visibility in a geopolitical area considered vital for European interests.

Another constant in the transatlantic relationship appears here: it is Paris that more vigorously insists for a greater European weight in security policy, for France's goal is to transform the transatlantic relationship in such a way that it becomes a partnership much more than American control over Europe.

At present, this evolution appears unlikely for two reasons.

1. The first reason is that U.S. foreign policy -- perceived not only by Paris as unilateral and hegemonic -- is more often than not considered a threat to great and medium powers' geopolitical goals, although not directly in military terms.


2. The second reason is that Germany seems to pursue a more independent agenda than it has in the past.

So, your hesitation is that Franco geo-political goals should outweigh the call for the AU for NATO to assist in stopping the genocide.....

Is that really the argument you want to have?

[1932]

90. The only thing I want to know is this:

"why is the question here whether NATO should intervene rather than the UN or the EU outside of NATO, or any other group?

I'm not taking sides. I'm just wondering what the ramifications are.

You're very confused if you think I'm arguing against NATO intervention or that I have "hesitation." I want someone to stop the genocide. But I want to know why anyone would want it to be any particular group that does the stopping.

And it seems like the ramifications don't have to do so much with who can stop the genocide the best as much as they have to do with geopolitical strategy in the area (whether the US will be represented, or whether European interests will be represented), as the part you reproduced shows.

I guess, in the abstract, I want the US to have sway in the region so they can promote American values like making sure everyone has a good, well-paying job, making sure nobody lives in miserable poverty, and everyone has a democratic say in their own goverment (ie, the values our anti-imperialist nation was founded upon). And I don't want anyone to have sway over the region if their values are greed, exploitation and polarization of wealth. (Incidentally, considering what happened in Rwanda, I'm not sure France is best country to hold sway in Africa -- but I'm also not sure that the US has proved itself to be a friend of Africa either).

[Clarkie1]

27. You priorities are clear: For you, politics is more important than lives.

Assuming, of course, this article represents your personal opinion.

Ironically, this is something you (or the author of this article, or both) and the neo-cons have in common.

In reality, you may have more in common with the neo-con political philosophy than you realize. It is a policy that puts abstract politcal agenda and philospohy before secondary condisderations such as how much blood might be shed in the process of advancing the cause and sticking to the correct political framework.

Incidentally, how many soldiers is the EU going to send to stop the killing? Oh, I forgot...unlike NATO, the EU cannot send help when it is needed, but maybe someday...

[Clarkie1]

36. self-delete: wrong thread

[1932]

39. I think the US should help fight genocide, definitely.

But I don't know -- even after reading this article and reading some of the posts here -- why NATO involvement is key in Clark's opinion. I believe that he wants to stop genocide. But I wonder how he would respond to the points made in this article. It's probably too much for an NPR audience to make an argument based on geopolitics that projects out 25 years the consequences of NATO getting invovled. But it shouldn't be too much for DU'ers.

[kevsand]

32. More likely, Clark is calling for NATO to act

because that's what NATO is designed to do: respond quickly and militarily. The EU is a lot of things, but it is not first and foremost a military organization, and it is not designed for rapid response to a foreign crisis. If the EU wants to join the party with additional troop commitments outside of their NATO forces somewhere down the road, fine. I'm pretty sure that Clark would welcome that. The AU would probably welcome that, as well. (The more the merrier.) But NATO could be there starting tomorrow, if there was an authorization.

Genocide requires an immediate response. We have been jerking around far too long already...

[trillian]

4. Wes is always the voice....

.....of reason and compassion!

:patriot:

[mikelewis]

5. Maybe we can get a pretty white girl to turn up missing in Darfur...

That may actually get the media to look on a map and find out where it's at. Until that happens, those poor "Blackies" are on thier own.

[Totally Committed]

7. I was thinking the same thing!

n/t

[jen4clark]

6. Just another reason

that I respect and admire this man. He doesn't plan his life around what benefits himself, he plans it around doing good when and where he can.

Thank you for posting this TC!!

[FrenchieCat]

8. I guess that this means that this administration is really NOT

about freedom and/or the "culture of life"....because this request would be a "Fait Accompli" if this administration was to make this request of NATO.

But ya know...this administration NEVER, EVER does the right thing. They are not about to break their track record now.

[Texas_Kat]

9. Unlike a lot of 'seasoned politicians'

WKC proposes specific plans and provides clear reasons why it's necessary to act.

I'm tired of lip service responses and platitudes. We need leaders that walk the walk, not just talk about the role of the US in the world, then assign the whole discussion to die in some committee.

The time for action is now.

[Jai4WKC08]

10. I wonder whether NATO would accept the mission

I'd love to see it happen, of course. And see how the Bushies would play. If at all.

But I don't know. NATO is already in Afghanistan. And still in the Balkans, much closer to home. With the right leadership (Ha! Not from this side of the Atlantic), they could probably be pulled into some level of commitment. 12,000 troops, split 20-something ways, isn't all that many. Especially if they're just there until the AU can arrive. And it would be an humanitarian mission, protecting the refugees and aid workers, most likely with no significant threat of ground combat since the militias don't seem like the type to go in for suicide missions.

I also wonder whether the US wouldn't veto any UN action to authorize NATO involvement. Because if BushCo doesn't intend to play, it could make them look worse to the rest of the world than they already do. And rightly so. Better to just let more people die. Politics first.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

11. My favorite part:

"But the notion that the atrocities in Darfur are solely African problems requiring exclusively African solutions has to be reconsidered. These ongoing offenses are crimes against all humanity. They demand an international response that gives human life priority over diplomatic sensitivities."

That concern for all humanity is one of the reasons why I support Wesley Clark.

[mom cat]

12. Unfortunately, no mention of OIL and how it is fueling the tragedy!

[Texas_Kat]

15. Would it be a better or worse idea to have NATO intervene because it's

"all about the oil"?

Genocide for any reason is what's going on..... stopping the killing should be what it's about.

[mom cat]

93. I agree that the killing must be stopped. I think that the best route to

this end is to address the underlying causes. Public humiliation still has some effect:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=14239


War of the Future
Oil Drives the Genocide in Darfur
By David Morse

A war of the future is being waged right now in the sprawling desert region of northeastern Africa known as Sudan. The weapons themselves are not futuristic. None of the ray-guns, force-fields, or robotic storm troopers that are the stuff of science fiction; nor, for that matter, the satellite-guided Predator drones or other high-tech weapon systems at the cutting edge of today's arsenal.

No, this war is being fought with Kalashnikovs, clubs and knives. In the western region of Sudan known as Darfur, the preferred tactics are burning and pillaging, castration and rape -- carried out by Arab militias riding on camels and horses. The most sophisticated technologies deployed are, on the one hand, the helicopters used by the Sudanese government to support the militias when they attack black African villages, and on the other hand, quite a different weapon: the seismographs used by foreign oil companies to map oil deposits hundreds of feet below the surface.

This is what makes it a war of the future: not the slick PowerPoint presentations you can imagine in boardrooms in Dallas and Beijing showing proven reserves in one color, estimated reserves in another, vast subterranean puddles that stretch west into Chad, and south to Nigeria and Uganda; not the technology; just the simple fact of the oil.

This is a resource war, fought by surrogates, involving great powers whose economies are predicated on growth, contending for a finite pool of resources. It is a war straight out of the pages of Michael Klare's book, Blood and Oil; and it would be a glaring example of the consequences of our addiction to oil, if it were not also an invisible war.

more....

[Texas_Kat]

14. Did you happen to see the drawings by children

that are included in the article?

Heartbreaking!

[AtomicKitten]

19. It is disgraceful

that we spend billions of dollars to kill brown people and completely ignore starving black people. It's disgusting. Shameful.

[Mass]

23. Thanks for posting that

And great that Clark is caring about this dramatic issue.

[CarolNYC]

42. Yes, thanks for posting this...

and it is a good thing that Gen Clark is trying to highlihgt this tragedy and speaking out about ways that it can be addressed.

[CarolNYC]

43. Yes, thanks for posting this...

and it is a good thing that Gen Clark is trying to highlihgt this tragedy and speaking out about ways that it can be addressed.

[Fire Walk With Me]

37. Good.Clarke's attention highlights Bush's inattention.

If Bush feels for our fallen(tm), then Darfur must make him weep uncontrollably, intending to offer far more money than Iraq ever cost, sending troops and humanitarian aid and workers on the double...

But I slay me.

[Clarkie1]

38. What can WE do? I'd like to see a DU call-to-action on this.

Any ideas of what would be the most effective way to increase the chance of getting Clark's ideas put into action?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

49. Nutshell= More troops.

Let's occupy this problem away, gang! Whaddaya say?

[FrenchieCat]

54. Actually, I don't think you even have a clue......

That's what I say.

No one is talking about "occupying" with 12,000 troops.

Is that a banana? Did you slip and hit your head?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

57. -snip-

But the AU Mission's force numbers and mandate are simply not sufficient to cope with the reality on the ground in Darfur.

-unsnip-

[FrenchieCat]

74. ok...then snip this

The AU current plan is to deploy 7,700 troops next month, and possibly 12,000 troops next year. But this is far too slow. A minimum of 12,000 troops are needed on the ground right now, not six months from now.

[Tinoire]

50. Oil lubricates these "humanitarian interventions". No tears for Uganda?

The situation in Uganda is much worse, much much worse, but you don't hear a damn peep about it because unlike Darfur, Uganda isn't sitting on a basin of oil reserves. Oil lubricates these "humanitarian interventions".

It's sickening how low the west will crawl, what lip service we will pay to "humanitarian" interventions so we can get in there & secure that badly needed oil before our economies come to a grinding halt.

We need oil. Without oil your military can't move. And without a mobile military, we can't very well go all over the world imposing our will on other nations. The neoliberals make economic threats and when the threats aren't enough the neocons step in and send in the military. And you need oil for that... We've now come to a very low point for US pride... we can barely rattle our sabers anymore because we're crawling for the oil it takes to rattle those sabrers. Wes Clark isn't a stupid man. He's a very smart man but an imperialist who understands that to maintain our way of life, we need to go in where we can and seize that oil.

There's plenty of information out there about the oil greed fuelling the Darfur conflict. The Chinese National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) vs US and European oil companies.

Sudan Darful - 1,200,000,000 barrels of oil - merits an imperialist "humanitarian intervention"

Uganda? no oil? they're own their own to rot.

How many "humanitarian interventions" for oil do neoliberals & neoconservatives want to mount? Yugoslavia was brought to us by the same, the exact same group of people who brought us Iraq. Carlucci, Rumsfeld, Wolfie and Cheney- whose Halliburton made an obscene killing in the Balkans. Dennis DeConcini, James Hooper,Richarde Perle, Don Rumsfeld- there's the Balkan Action Committee that came up with the brilliant concept of calling their Balkan oil war a 'humanitarian intervention". All PNACers. All neo-cons. And they're the same ones crying about Darfur right now.

Some well-meaning liberals are outraged that the Left can be so silent about the tragedy in Darfur. We do not trust neoliberals & neocons anymore. We do not trust our heart strings to them. And I refuse to trust my heart strings to anyone who ever had anything to do with their past oil expeditions.

The PNAC's two co-founders, William Kristol, editor of Rupert Murdoch's The Weekly Standard, and neo-conservative commentator Robert Kagan, also signed the letter.

In 1999, many of the same figures also created the Balkan Action Committee (BAC) in support of NATO's Kosovo campaign against Serbia. Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Perle all served on BAC's executive committee which, like the CPSG, published open letters to the president and took out ads in major newspapers, like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DK06Ak02.html

The Balkan Action Committee, which surfaced in 1999 to promote the invasion of Yugoslavia, was almost exclusively made up of PNAC members; likewise, the Committee on the Present Danger. Freedom House, allegedly an organisation promoting equal rights and justice, and the Council on Foreign Relations, are in reality directed by, and well populated with, those connected to the PNAC.

http://www.reasoned.org/e_pnac.htm

Trans-Balkan oil pipeline

It is now becoming clearer than ever that one primary reason the US has been so involved in Kosovo, Bosnia, and throughout Yugoslavia, has much to do with the immense wealth to be gleaned from oil.

Construction of a major "trans-Balkan" pipeline is underway from Burgas in Bulgaria on the Black Sea, through Macedonia, to the Albanian Adriatic port of Vlore It is being built by US- owned Albanian-Macedonia-Bulgarian company AMBO and is scheduled to be operational by 2005.

The trans-Balkan pipeline passes through what is known as corridor 8--traversing very near the borders between Macedonia, Kosovo and the Presevo Valley see map Furthermore, it is to be connected with another series of pipelines, some of them Soviet-era pipelines A major one of these will pass down the Presevo Valley--known as corridor 10-- connecting with the AMBO pipeline precisely at these same critical borders This system of pipelines not only is designed to transport petroleum to sea ports for shipping abroad, but extends into the heart of Europe Two branches of the AMBO line jut into Greece--one to Thessalonika, the other to a terminal on the west coast.

All of this has to do with the enormously rich petroleum fields of the Caspian Sea basin In order to get that oil to market, one of the best routes is to pipe it to the Black Sea, ship it in tankers across the sea, and then pipe it again across the Balkans to the Adriatic Sea This by-passes the treacherous narrow Bosporous Straits near Istanbul, which Turkey claims could not safely accommodate the heavy tanker traffic from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean By restricting this route, Turkey is also limiting Russian oil transport through the straits and boosting its own interest in the construction of a pipeline from Baku on the Caspian Sea to the Turkish terminal at Ceyhan, which would also by-pass Russia This route also has fluctuating support by the US.

The AMBO trans-Balkan pipeline "will make all countries from the Caspian Sea to the Balkans politically and economically dependent on the US".

The transport of oil through the Balkans is not the only consideration for the giant oil cartels They are also pursuing the development of rich petroleum fields in various parts of the Balkan region itself, especially in Albania.

http://www.politikforum.de/forum/archive/22/2003/07/2/33350

Study this map long and hard and a lot of these crocodile tears for Darfur will make sense. Crocodile tears over oil and nasty Muslims.
Uganda? Not a wet eye in the house.



If humanitarian concerns are what truly motivate us, there's no need to go all the way to Darfur. There's plenty of starvation right here in Haiti for those who care a hoot about our Black brothers and sisters... And of more solace to those who feel we just must help our Black brothers & sisters should be the fact that the misery in places like Haiti is the direct result of 200 years worth of US humanitarian interventions. But there's no oil in Haiti and the lush fields are long gone in favor of US-preferred sweatshops with UN troops massacring the people in cold blood as we speak. And not a peep about it here. No woman, no cry. No oil, no care. http://haitiaction.com/News/HIP/7_13_5/7_13_5.html


A Haitian human rights worker says U.N. soldiers blew off this man’s jaw.


The same Haitian human rights worker says this woman was gunned down with her two babies by U.N. soldiers. Last month on July 6 the UN's Operation Iron Fist was deadly for unarmed residents of Citè Soliel - 22 year-old Sonia Romelus was killed by the same bullet that passed through the body of her 1 year-old infant son Nelson. Next to them was her four year-old son Stanley Romelus who was killed by a single shot to the head.

So Darfur? Give me a break. When Uncle Sam needs to travel that far to be humane, you know it stinks to high heavens.

[FrenchieCat]

53. So 300,000 dead in Darfur doesn't pass your smell test?

What's the matter, not enough?

But then I forgot Tinoire, you didn't believe that 200,000 were enough in Bosnia, Kosovo prevented genocide...so the 10,000 was truly not enough, last I remember your take on it....and likely that the 800,000 weren't enough in Rwanda.

I forgot that the government of America can never ever be called to assist anywhere, lest the extreme left would find all of the nefarious reasons for them to keep their asses at home.

Let them die cause they may have oil. How Liberal of you!

Clark said this about Uganda in an article that he wrote....

The fighting in southern Sudan, Darfur and northern Uganda is part and parcel of the same problem: an autocratic regime in Khartoum that would rather foster divide-and-rule conflict than share power. Peace in Sudan and the region requires a major international investment focusing on finalizing peace in these three interrelated conflicts. Such a move would save hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of millions of dollars in relief assistance. If all three aren't addressed, a peace deal for any one of them won't be sustainable.
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=2848&l=1

Oh, but the way, Clark agrees with you about Haiti. Who would have thunk it! Of course, I'm sure you will dredge up nefarious reasons why Clark is discussing Haiti, Uganda and Darfur, right? Of Course you will! I have faith in you.

Retired General Wesley Clark is on a U-N task force on Haiti. He says unemployment is at about 80 percent and gangs, drug traffickers and former military members pose a security threat.

He says the roughly 76-hundred U-N troops and policemen in Haiti need U-S help. Clark says the force can only deal with "the surface problems."

The head of the Washington-based Haiti Democracy Project says it
looks like Haiti's government is unable "to get things done."
http://auto_sol.tao.ca/node/view/1255

[FrenchieCat]

60. More for the Extreme "let them die cause I'm suspicious" crowd

[Tinoire]

65. & it's just a coincidence that Sudan has Africa's greatest unexploited oil

& it's just a coincidence that Sudan has Africa's greatest unexploited oil reserves, even greater than those of the Gulf of Guinea.

Just another coincidence that we can't stand the fact that China is getting oil from them.

Just another coincidence that the ones shouting "humanitarian intervention" the loudest are the US, the UK, Norway and Italy- every single one of them a big oil country.

It's also no coincidence that US official policy is now to make Africa one of our main oil providers going as far as dispatching Bush down there to make an international ass of himself.

It's no coincidence either that before he even assumed his role as head of the World Bank, Wolfowitz was already spouting off about how Africa would be his number 1 priority.


====

World Can Do More To End Darfur Crisis: Wolfowitz


World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz said on Friday the world -- including the bank -- must do all it can to help Sudan's Darfur region emerge from the suffering of genocide, reports Reuters.

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/ORGANIZATION/EXTOFFICEPRESIDENT/0,,contentMDK:20545394~menuPK:64260201~pagePK:51174171~piPK:64258873~theSitePK:1014541,00.html


Oh yeah... Wolfowitz. From the Balkans to Iraq to Darfur.

I've had enough of Wolfie's humanitarian interventions.

There's nothing like exploiting people's good hearts to camouflage a military intervention in a key oil producing country as "humanitarian assistance".

You want to help the people in Darfur? Send money to the Red Cross or to an African AID organization. That's about ALL America can be trusted with these days. Send cash. Keep those lovely first world militaries and their shiny equipment at home.

[Donna Zen]

70. Read below

If they have oil...let em die. Got it.

I disagree, but hey, we've got your point.

[Tinoire]

73. Naw... You ain't got it. Not even close.

But I'm not surprised; after all, you weren't even trying. That too is no surprise.

[Donna Zen]

79. I'm sure your not surprised:

After all one mark of the extremist is to not accept any idea that might conflict their own.

So it's "let em die" as long as one can hang on to their ideological nonsense.

There is no help coming to Darfur, so if someone suggests a way to help, but it conflicts with an extremist viewpoint, the answer is to just yell with a bunch of tired old suspect links, offer nothing of substance, and make cute childish remarks.

The Janjaweed appreciate your assistance in advocating a policy of doing nothing to stop them. After all, if people have oil, why not let them die.

Hey, that's what bush thinks too. Congratulations.

[Clark2008]

62. Frenchie, that should read "nefarious reasons...

sourced from authors discredited by their own axes to grind why Clark is discussing Haiti, etc.

I just LOVE some of the sources people give when they're dissing Clark. Sources that I wouldn't trust for accuracy even if the Wagon of Truth paid a visit to their source code's back door.

[Tinoire]

63. Ah yes. Oil, Cluster bombs, oil pipelines, sweatshops, depleted uranium,

embassy bombing, the sweet scent of victory in the air, NED chairmanship... How could a Progressive like me, fail to admire the neoliberal wisdom of a great man like that?

I seriously doubt Wes Clark and I agree on anything. Not even the poor little old Haitians being murdered by UN troops for the enrichment of American, French and Canadian corporations. The last thing the Haitians want is US help- they've had quite enough of all that "help" over the last 200 years.

Force only can deal with the "surface problems". Lol. What a laugh.

& Good old Tim Carney, BOD of the Washington-based "Haiti Democracy Project" which was behind Aristide's kidnapping for Andre Apaid's Group of 184. So good ole Wes is hanging around with Tim Carney? My, my, explains more than you think. So nope, we don't agree. Good ole Wes wants more force, I want the US to get the hell out- it's already done quite enough for the moneyed elites who make up the "Haiti Democracy Project" smokescreen.


The Haiti Democracy Project (HDP) is formally established. At its official launching, which takes place at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., .... US ambassador to the OAS, Roger Noriega also speaks at the ceremony. At one point, Noriega says, referring to the contested 2000 Haitian elections (see May 21, 2000), “We have to get them (The Haitian people) that opportunity as they will not participate in a farce.” (what a riot huh!)

Attending the event are some questionable figures including Stanley Lucas and Olivier Nadal. Lucas is said to be the point man in Haiti for the USAID-financed International Republican Institute, which is providing training and funds to anti-Aristide Haitian rebels in the Dominican Republic (see (2001-2004)). Nadal is a Miami-based Haitian businessman and the former president of the Haitian Chamber of Commerce.

Nadal is implicated in a peasant massacre that occurred in the Haitian town of Piatre. In 1990, a group of peasants were killed by Nadal's security after they squatted on unused land that he owned.

The prominent businessman Antoine Izmery said shortly before he was murdered that Nadal had been one of the financiers of the 1991 coup d'etat (see October 31, 1991-October 15, 1994) that ousted Aristide from office. And in 1994, the United States government froze Nadal's assets because of his suspected involvement in the coup. The Haiti Democracy Project is funded by the wealthy, right-wing Haitian Boulos family, which owns several companies including Pharval Pharmaceuticals, the USAID-funded Radio Vision 2000, the Delimart supermarket, and Le Matin. In February 2002, Rudolph Boulos was under investigation for his possible involvement in the assassination of Haitian journalist Jean Dominique who had been very critical of Pharval after contamination of the company's “Afrebril and Valodon” syrups with diethyl alcohol had resulted in the deaths of 60 children. (Haiti Weekly News, 2/28/02; Haiti Democracy Project, 11/20/2004; Knight Ridder, 3/11/2004; Haiti Progres, 7/21/1999)

The project's board of directors includes Rudolph Boulos, CEO of Pharval Laboratories; Vicki Carney of CRInternational; Prof. Henry F. Carey of Georgia State University; Timothy Carney, US ambassador to Haiti (1998-1999); Clotilde Charlot, former vice-president of the Haitian Association of Voluntary Agencies; Lionel Delatour of the Center for Free Enterprise and Democracy (CLED); Ira Lowenthal, an “Anthropologist”; Charles Manus; Orlando Marville, Chief of the OAS electoral mission to Haiti in 2000; James Morrell, the Haiti Democracy Project's executive director; Lawrence Pezzullo, US special envoy for Haiti (1993-1994); and Ernest H. Preeg, US ambassador to Haiti (1981-1983).

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=the_2004_removal_of_jean-bertrand_aristide_foreign_involvement

“We do not want Haitian boat people washing up on our shores again,'' referring to the period in the 1970s and 1980s when some 50,000 and 80,000 Haitians, fleeing poverty and repression under the rule of Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, arrived by boat in Florida. “We're clearly looking at the last days of Aristide in office,'' said Carney, who serves on the board of the Haiti Democracy Project, a Washington-based “advocacy group”. “The challenge is how to do it, how it can happen in such a way that you can have a minimum amount of chaos and blood and devastation.'' In their patently racist policy of dealing with Haitian refugees the U.S. had already set up a U.S. Naval bulwark around the Island to prevent refugees fleeing violence from escaping to Florida, days before.

Haiti: Colonialism Gets A New Pair of Shoes
http://www.playahata.com/pages/eyecalone/haiti.htm

Nope, sorry my dear. Wes Clark and I agree on very little. He's a very smart man but he's a neoliberal working to advance US domination while I seek to stem it.

[jonnyblitz]

66. damn you are gonna have their heads spinning...

at least you left out the "school of the america's" stuff. :hi:

[Donna Zen]

69. Spinning? Whose heads?

All the people she'd rather see die in Darfur than accept a thought existing outside of her closed mind.

[Tinoire]

71. I was feeling charitable. School of the Americas is up there

way up there on my list.

Cluster bombs. Depleted Uranium. School of the Americas. Writing plans for the occupation of Iraq. Heaping roses on people like Wolfowitz and Perle.

So much "nefarious" baggage...

[FrenchieCat]

75. The kitchen sink maneuver......

We've seen it from you already....so many times!

According to Tinoire and her co-horts.....Wes Clark is responsible for all of those issues listed, and yet, congress who appropriates and legislates all of the above, and always have (including Democratic congresses) have nothing to do with any of it....

Such bullshit!

Just like one of those extremist that would say that the military is responsible for the wars, and that the civilian ELECTED officials don't have anything to do with it.

You're heaping much garbage, not baggage.....

[Clark2008]

68. Bullshit.

And I'm calling you on it.

He is no more a neoliberal than I am and I'm nearly a isolationist. You just get your info from some odd sources.

Try actually listening to the man in question instead of reading some of the sources I've seen you cite before (for the record, your last post didn't contain as many awful sources as some, but I have seen some doozies between you and the other Clark bashers).

[Donna Zen]

64. There are those among us

...who would rather cry throughout the entire movie: "Hotel Darfur" than open their minds.

Now let me see, Wes Clark was once SACEUR, so for him to suggest NATO troops is well within his purview. Wes Clark is neither European nor was he an actual member of a European country even though they knighted him. Nope, he cannot suggest publicly that the EU should send troops.

For an oil baron to drive a 1992 car and have a mortgage is just so curious.

So if Darfur has oil the best thing to do is nothing. Let people die. After reading all of the many links to suggest this, I just can't agree. Accept my apology, please.

Apparently some folks just can't wait for the political process to shove Plan A or Plan B right down our ever divisive throats. Got it. It makes me sick, but I do understand the true outcome of all of this negative spew.

[Donna Zen]

67. What about Wellstone?

I wonder why you left out Wellstone... one of the driving forces to do something about the Balkan Wars.

Oooops. Sorry to intrude on your wallowing in intellectual dishonesty.

Really, sorry.

Return to your regularly scheduled hatred.

[Tinoire]

72. Aw. What's the matter Donna. Truth hurts?

Clark's a neoliberal.

His associations with them are long and deep. From the board of the NED where he sat to the hallowed halls of Acxiom.

And now, on the same bandwagon as Wolfie again because Wolfie says there's oil in Darfur and damned Muslims causing chaos.

But be outraged all you want about Clark's greatness being dishonored. It's no skin off my nose. I have to go anyway... on to a more Leftist project sure to seem "nefarious" to supporters, wherever they are, of US imperialist humanitarian interventions.

Just don't expect some of us to play dumb to all this rah rah imperialist cheering for more, more, more interventions in oil-lush lands.

:hi:

[Adelante]

76. "I have to go anyway"

Oh, good :hi:


My ignore list must be broken.

[Donna Zen]

77. Got a "hot date" with the Janjaweed?

Figures.

NED? Either you do not understand the construct of NED, which could be true although I know it has been explained to you, or you are actually smart enough to read, you just don't want to shatter your carefully crafted "I'm-so-great-because-I-can-out-anti-you image." That's my guess.

I'm glad that NED is funding the forces mustered against the Chinese in Tibet.

I'm also glad that someone wants to do something about Darfur even if they have oil. It's okay with me, because as Clark once said, "There are times when things go beyond politics and policy. There are times when it is about life or death."

So there are times that go beyond petty rants, there are even times when being human is more important than being an angry leftest, there are times when it comes down to life or death.

I'm sure the refugees in Darfur could give a fuck about leftest rants delivered by those who are sleeping in safety tonight.

Have fun!

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

78. hmmmm, ....I don't think yer playing dumb , tho

... cause me'see thats you 'ave no nose. :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

82. But you didn't really respond to any points....

other than attempting to throw the kitchen sink on your way out.

Uganda, Darfur and Haiti; Wes Clark discusses these issues, and you can't stand it.

Rwanda and Kosovo, were also areas of his concerns, and you couldn't stand that either.

The best that you can do, Tinoire, is to play a shellgame with Uganda and Darfur and Haiti as though anyone had said that all three weren't an issue....although darfur is the more pressing at the time, something I'm sure you will deny.

Since the bait and switch game didn't work as well as envisioned, you add sentences to justify genocide for the sake of Isolationism for fear of the oil factor.

The neocons have gotten you to a place where you are more than willing, in fact, intellectually proud, to ok the killing of innocent people to die in the hundreds of thousands, so that you can "feel" right about Neo whatever?

Those like you, who care to give more weight to a discussion about pointing a finger at the School of the Americas, based on what happened in the 70s and the 80s, than to the innocents that are dying now, are supposed to be the better humanitarians? :shrug:

Those like you, who would "show" so much concern about Depleted Uranium, which still has questionnable conclusions, while shrugging shoulders and marking time when it comes to 150,000-300,000 that have died in Darfur. That is the kind of idealistic benefactors that we should be proud of?

Clark is no saint....but he is way better than those like you on the extreme left who would want to feel so superior that they would justify the unjustifiable murders of the innocent for the sake of cut and paste "gotchas" and political name calling, while they sit their asses at their computers hating everything that represents the true world as it currently (or as in the past) exists, and choose to do the easy poke a finger in the eye of those who are attempting to come up with working alternate do-able solutions based on the reality of where things stand.

Now, that might be easy for you...but it just doesn't solve anything...and in fact attempts to tie the hands of those who actually can affect an actual solution, imperfect for your "so" higher standards as it might be.

[Crunchy Frog]

80. Wow, what a thread!

Guess you need flame retardant undies to post anything positive about Clark on here.:eyes:

[Texas_Kat]

81. It's really strange that Human Rights Watch enthusiastically

support Clark's initiative on Darfur.


Oh,. yeah.... they must be PNACer's too.

:sarcasm:

[FrenchieCat]

84. No,

they are the Word du Jour....NeoLibs...the new "IN"boogiemen of the left.

Ain't no pleasing 1932, Tinoire et al.....

But do THEY have any rational doable working solutions to get the whole world to sing Kumbaya?

Didn't think so.
Their "rant" is their only solution.

[Donna Zen]

86. WKC knows that word

He reads Chomsky and Arundhati Roy. I saw the books on his shelf, and they had been read.

I read them too.

Extremism will insure we're stuck forever in Plan A or Plan B. The corporate governments best friends, be they left or right. Same difference.

[Adelante]

88. Trying to save lives

It's a bad thing :shrug:


It must be a terrible thing to be Stalinoire, Crunch.

[FrenchieCat]

91. Well in

In the land of Extreme make believe, either one has to offer up a perfect solution like redoing the world from scratch, or fuck it! :shrug:

and to those who must die......the Stalinoire line...."sorry, couldn't help you, cause it had to be done my way or no way" :shrug:

Glad I disagree with that way of thinking....that's for sure!




This child had his face bashed in, presumably with a rifle butt, during a massacre in Hamada in January.



This man was castrated and then shot in the head. This is a common fate of male prisoners taken by the Janjaweed.


These photos show civilians killed by janjaweed militias in Darfur. They were taken by members of the African Union mission in Darfur, and kept in a secret archive. A person of conscience working with the AU passed them to Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, who passed them to us.

We apologize if you find the pictures upsetting. They are the only record we have of the 400,000 people killed in Darfur so far.
http://www.darfurgenocide.org/darfur.php

The Secret Genocide Archive
http://www.darfurgenocide.org/news2.php?article=News/nytimes.htm

Black Churches Taking Lead on Pressing Sudan Issue
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/173/story_17357_1.html

The genocide goes on in Darfur--but has it become passe for politicians as the issue du jour?
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2005/082005/08212005/123090

SUDAN: Conditions in Darfur deteriorating - Annan
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/6c911766d35c07198247b351511c6773.htm

[Donna Zen]

94. Attention!

My dear Frenchie,

I know that you've tried very hard to bring this issue to the attention of this, the DU community. Mostly, the threads have fallen off the page, because it is difficult for people to give up posting about the more popular issues of the day. But I've been following this catastrophe, and considering that the Wes Clark's statement today is one of several that he has made, so has he.

I noticed that Kos ran an ad about Darfur requesting action. Among messages scattered throughout the threads would be accusations of "Why aren't the Dems talking about Darfur?"
The ad was of course by the ICG.

I suppose that this thread, which has managed to stay visible, thanks in part to those who put themselves and their personal imaginings before the "common good," even when their narcissism means death for many, have at least accomplished a high thread count. Although, I'm sorry those smutty posts by usual suspects get any credit for the deed. Nevertheless, thank you Frenchie for keeping this issue before the community.

Hopefully, some sane and caring people listened to NPR yesterday, and heard Wes Clark speaking for those who have no voice.

[Totally Committed]

95. I invite you all to join me at this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2028167

for further discussion.

Thank you.

TC

[Totally Committed]

97. A Postscript:

August 23, 2005
Wesley Clark calls for NATO forces in Darfur

Posted 9:22 am

The United Nations clearly is not making strides in resolving the crisis in Darfur, but there is an institution capable of intervention: NATO. As my friend Eugene Oregon noted, Wesley Clark was on NPR yesterday discussing his proposal for NATO involvement in the region.

Even if the African Union can overcome the political obstacles to strengthening its mandate in Darfur — and that's a very big "if" — it's in no position to get such large numbers of troops on the ground in such a short time. Despite the European Union and NATO assistance, the African Union mission looks set to fall short of its target of 7,700 troops by September.

The UN Security Council, in consultation with the AU, should request and authorize NATO to deploy a multinational "bridging force" to bring the combined force level in Darfur immediately up to 12,000 to 15,000 troops while the African Union prepares and deploys its own forces.

This is not an easy recommendation to make for Darfur, where all multinational organizations have been at pains to keep non-African troops out of Sudan. But the notion that the atrocities in Darfur are solely African problems requiring exclusively African solutions has to be reconsidered. These ongoing offenses are crimes against all humanity. They demand an international response that gives human life priority over diplomatic sensitivities.

Clark, a board member of the International Crisis Group, the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, and someone who's carried out a peacekeeping mission through the alliance, knows of what he speaks.

The scope of Clark's plan may sound modest, but therein lays the point. Just 12,000 troops, serving in a peacekeeping capacity, can, as Ed Kilgore noted, go a long way towards "stop the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people."

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/5035.html