The Presidency and Vietnam: General Clark on CSpan @ 8:00

[Donna Zen]

CSpan will be airing the third forum of this recent conference. The panel features Wes, Hagel, Bob Herbert (NYT) and Pete Peterson. The entire time I watched/listened to this panel, I kept remembering that Florida Dems. had a chance of supporting Peterson in their last governor's election. Peterson is clear light. Wes, as always, is great, and Hagel kept insisting that if we just wait, the republicans will quite kissing bush's butt. Also, Herbert makes some very emotional points.

Please, if you have a moment to spare, tune in. I really enjoyed this, and hope that you will too.

[Tinksrival]

1. Thanks Donna!

I turned it on in time to hear his first comment. :hi:

[Tinksrival]

2. Wow

Pete Peterson is awe inspiring. What a moving opening.

[Tinksrival]

3. Hagel can bearly get the words out

Come on Chuck.....spit it out!

[welshTerrier2]

4. thanks, DZ ...

i'm there!!

[Dinger]

5. Good Stuff - Thanks!!!

:patriot:

[Donna Zen]

6. Forced to steam..no CSpan

...and yet, it is at least as good as I remember. This time I'm not frantically taking notes, just squinting at a fuzzy screen.

[welshTerrier2]

9. it's also on the internet now

here's the link: http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS

[welshTerrier2]

7. "from the afternoon on 9/11 ...

the administration wanted to go to war in Iraq" - Clark

yup ... transcripts of rumsfeld's phone conversations prove this point ...

[Donna Zen]

10. Clark really, really, really wants to nail those bastards

...they used and abused our troops, the Iraqi citizens, and everyone of us and our children yet to be born.

It worries me when Dems. murmer about putting the past behind us thus, letting them get away with criminal activity and leaving us open to other power-hunger assholes. (a la Warner) Fools.

"The congress is not doing a good job of protecting our Constitution..." ~ Wes

[welshTerrier2]

11. troops in Darfur?

hmmmmm ... i'll have to get back to you on that one ... the need is great; i'm not sure about the proposed solution ...

the Darfur refuge can be traced in large part to US oil deals involving the Chinese and i believe another country (can't remember) ... would hate to see human suffering engineered as an invitation to occupy another country ... NATO, the Africans, NATO without the US? ... need to know more ...

allowing bush to control the US military overseas is a very dangerous business ... very dangerous ...

i'll tell you this about my feelings on Clark ... i worry about whether he sees the US as an imperialist nation ... in my exchange with him, when i asked him about this, he said essentially "we should pay for the oil" ... well, i agree ... but if you look at the pressure the US has exerted on the Iraqi government, if you look at Chalabi as the Oil Minister after he got something like .37 of 1% of the vote and you look at Wolwowitz at the World Bank and their tyrannical demands, you have to worry about the integrity of the market to say the least ... the recent round of PSA's the Iraqi government, well actually Chalabi, recently signed was nothing short of rape ... "buying the oil" is very sadly a myth ...

[Donna Zen]

12. Not an imperialist

Clark is more worried that we are losing our democracy. He has said that Rummy's new plans for the military will lead to an army of empire. Also, he said that we must change the strategic framework which is one in which the military is driving the foreign policy. He called that dangerous. I'm not sure many or any of the mentioned candidates has the understanding of what that means. And do any of these candidates have the gravitas to knock on the Pentagon door? Clinton basically let the MIC do what they wanted to in order to keep controversy to a minimum. Personally, I think Clark's stand on what he calls the make-want (Pentagon) budget is exactly why the Democrats will never openly promote the General. One of Clark's heroes is Eisenhower.

As you know, I have long followed Clark's speeches etc. Does he see us as an imperialist nation? He knows that if we pursue that path, we will be consigned to the dust-bin of failed democracies. As he has said: there have been other democracies before ours...what happened to them?

edit: Darfur, which is the original question. Clark thinks that the AU troops will not be ready in time to save Darfur; thus, he believes that NATO needs to provide troops by sector to fortify the current fledging AU. IIRC, he has advised about 2000 troops in each area. It's been a while since I read his OpEd about Darfur, but he might have recommended that it would be one to two years.

[welshTerrier2]

13. thanks for your insights ...

i have more homework on this than i have time for ... the dust bin of history, eh?

[Donna Zen]

14. Strategic Framework

Thinking about this is new to me, and yet it determines where we will find ourselves in twenty years. Currently it is set for a war with China and the Long War. That is driving foreign policy and by reflection, domestic policy. Clark said that this is exactly wrong.

[welshTerrier2]

16. an interesting writer

i always find this guy's stuff interesting: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_060319_centcom_2c_the_central.htm

[Donna Zen]

22. Darfur

The writer makes good points about Darfur, but presents no alternatives. The concept of stabilizing failed states is not evil, but the writer is correct that the reality of decision makers is a problem. So, do we just let people die rather than trust our so-called leadership to do the right thing.

BTW, I do not like the Chinese government.

Anyway, I was off trying to find a great article that I read the other night. I've been looking for two damn days, and can't believe I didn't bookmark it. Anyway, it was an interview with a retired high-ranking Navy officer who had spent his life in and around our foreign policy establishment. He spoke about our imperialism with great insight. His take: that military imperialism is doomed to fail because eventually the economic weight of the effort drags down the host country. Currently we are spending something close to 51% of our resources on this military empire. He said this silent democracy killer can't go on. Certainly no main stream publication's point out the "elephant in the room," and yet, how can they not?

The short of what he said was that before the neocon dream of the Long War is realized, our country will be broke and sliding away. Unfortunately, the plastic politicians are unable to turn any of this around. I'm not hopeful at all. Therefore, while I appreciate the writer's thoughts, I think he needs to look at the further horizon.

ps. The guy said something rather grimly amusing. He said that now our only products are weapons, it is ironic that the weapons we make are not even the world's best. We just make them faster than anyone else.

[1932]

18. A homework primer:

Get a copy of Clark's book and check out the following pages:

1. on Page 180:
"... matter of economics: The United States was a safe place to invest, and the returns were good. In short, American Empire was, to use a contemporary term, virtual. The United States was at the hub of a network of mutual interdependence, sometimes called "globalization." It was built on ..."
2. on Page 185:
"... BEYOND EMPIRE: A NEW AMERICA 185 and the virtual American Empire at risk. The new approach has produced an outburst of worldwide anti-American sentiment. Opinion polls in many nations ..."
3. on Page 188:
"... was expressed most effectively in a boldly assertive foreign policy and in unapologetically patriotic policies that challenged the Soviet "evil empire" with the 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars"), invaded the ... and determination. But the administration's approach not only risked America's virtual empire abroad but also undercut America's hard power as well, for we can be no stronger abroad than we are ..."
4. on Page 200:
"... just the military forces but also the full array of means at our disposal. We don't need the New American Empire. Indeed, the very idea of classic empire is obsolete. An ... the world-our great power, our vast range of opportunities, the virtual empire we have helped create -have given us a responsibility for leadership and to lead by example. Our actions matter. ..."
5. from Front Matter:
"... that the U.S. Army itself is at risk; the notion of Iraq becoming the stepping stone to a new American Empire liberated by force of arms little more than a fading ... in 2003 shows an ignorance of the real and existing virtual empire that America has created since the end of World War II. The failures of the strategy call for alternative ..."

[welshTerrier2]

19. excellent references 1932 !!

you are truly one of DU's best read scholars ...

thanks for the info ...

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Be sure to read it all in full context WT2

I would recommend to anyone that they read all of Clark's book, but there is peril in cherry picking quotes without knowing the full frame of reference that Clark was establishing for them.

This is from Amazon.com's review of "Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism, and the American Empire"


"Our conflicts with Iraq have not been two distinct wars, but an unceasing, 13-year-long military campaign; the ambitious Pax Americana envisioned by Bush administration neocons is not only unsustainable, but a redundant anachronism, America having long ago created a "virtual empire" by dint of its interlocking international business relationships, cultural lure, and (ideally) moral leadership. His critics may label it the political manifesto of an ambitious presidential contender (a charge he quickly addresses in his introduction with a pre-emptive strike that is, given the subject matter, a bit ironic), but Clark's vision of an engaged, enterprising America leading the world instead of dominating it is rooted in an objective understanding of history, our nation's own longstanding philosophical ideals, and no small amount of refreshing horse sense (are we fighting terrorism by creating terrorists? And how safe is a country that starves its very security apparatus with unsound economic policies?)..."

Remember how I noted in my above post that Amnerica will need candor from our leaders? if we are ever to move the electorate beyond forced feeding of nationalistic patriotism fueled by the hatred of an evil alien adversary, it has to start by explaining to people what the actual underpinnings of American foreign policy have been for the last 60 years. That is exactly what Clark does in his book, he levels with people about how American interests have previously been defined and he describes the various models that have been floated by our nation's leaders for pursuing those interests.

Clark starts by calling a spade a spade. The 20th Century has long been called "The American Century" by most historians, why? Because the United States has not only been the worlds foremost military power, but also it's foremost cultural influence, and the political philosophy that the United States has always identified itself with; a "free Enterprise based liberal Democracy with constitutional protections provided for all individuals" outlasted the primary competing ideologies of the 20th Century. The historical effect and aftermath of that is the virtual American Empire that Clark is talking about. I love the fact that he raises all of this for public consumption and discussion. The primary thrust of Clark's thinking is that America's greatest strength in this "virtual empire" should be our earned moral authority, not our ability to project military power, and force compliance with our wishes.

When Clark describes a future world that he thinks Americans can thrive in, it is a world in which America is sincerely respected abroad and looked to for leadership in solving world problems, including endemic diseases, and economic underdevelopment, and environmental hazards. He thinks the good will that engenders will enhance our national security more than force of arms. He elicits a time when students fighting for Democratic rights in oppressive nations would use the Statue of Liberty as their symbol, as the Chinese students in Tienanmen Square did. Clark actually thinks that the United States still has the potential to be a positive force in the world. He thinks the western principles of human rights, religious freedom and tolerance coupled with secular respect for the rights of all, and a democratic process by which people select their own leaders is a powerful message that serves as America's best ambassador. Capitalism is part of it, but not unchecked capitalism. Clark does not believe in a tightly controlled state run economy such as that which existed inside the Soviet Union. But Clark is a strong backer of organized labor and government oversight of fair business practices.

But the point is WT2 that Clark really has the guts to lay it all out there for people to look at and debate, "is this the kind of world I want to live in and if so how do we protect it, and if not how do we change it?"

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Still, that would be the right thing to do, when all is said and done

The evil that is virtually unchecked by the Bush Administration, and which is always present to varying extents effecting our foreign policy in every Administration over at least the last century not withstanding, that IS the correct policy. If people in another part of the world have something that we in the United States want, we should pay them a fair price in order to receive what we want from them. That's kind of a bottom line about how it should be in a more moral universe. And if the United States had not invaded Iraq, had the American government heeded the advice of General Clark and many other fine Democrats and even a few Republicans, then Chalabi would never have become the Oil Minister of Iraq to sign those crooked agreements with the oil companies in the first place.

None of the major Democratic Party candidates for President fully embraces the undiluted language of calling the United States an Imperialist nation driven by imperialist and corporate driven Capitalist policies that exploit underprivileged people around the globe. Conventional wisdom remains that describing the world in precisely that manner is a guaranteed short term ticket to electoral defeat and severe minority status in America currently. We can debate if conventional wisdom is correct, but I think it is beyond debate that that is indeed the current conventional wisdom, and that all of the national Democratic leaders largely abide by it, if they don't already happily embrace it. So we need to see how they all stack up as relative anti imperialists by less direct measures than vocabulary. Having opposed the invasion of Iraq I think is one good indicator. Counseling against a rush to war with Iran and in favor of direct talks with Iran I think is another indicator. Defining global health and environmental threats as national security issues I think is another, and being publicly supportive of international institutions and international laws (like the World Court and the Geneva Conventions) is yet another.

But in truth I don't think the United States will ever move from being an imperialist to non imperialist nation over the course of any one or two Presidential Administrations. It will be accomplished in notable stages, once the boundaries of what is considered normal and appropriate are redefined, which also will happen in stages. Redefining what would be a desirable role for the United States to play in the World from exhaulting in being a dominant Super Power capable of militarily imposing our will on others to one that seeks common ground and partnership with nations across the glove is an important intermediary step. Greater candor and openness with the American people coming from a future President will also be a critical aspect of the political evolution of what is feasible to achieve without setting off counter revolutionary forces of such magnitude that they only further entrench aggressive imperialist collaboration betwen the Federal government and multi national corporations and financial institutions. Bin Ladin baiting Kerry as someone who wouldn't stand up for America in the world resulted in just that last time around (and i'm not blaming Kerry, just commenting on how the game is played).

[welshTerrier2]

17. my point was not about jargon and rhetoric

i also call for capping wealth ... i have no delusions about that idea's political viability either ... but this goes beyond jargon and rhetoric to the real simplicity of right and wrong ...

we are burdened with a WH that may not know the difference and clearly doesn't care whether there is one ... so are Democrats supposed to say things like "we're prepared to stand with the President to make a show of unity to the international community" ???? the guy is raping the Iraqis, exploiting our military, and bankrupting the country all for his greedy, oily friends ... what does leadership demand? political pragmatism in the guise of silence or perhaps a little polite disagreement?

i'm afraid we have become too "pretty" and "sweet" in our collegiality ... we presume that somehow some misconceived notion of "mature statesmanship" will earn respect ... the problem is, even it did, it would result from a lie ...

i don't argue that our leaders should immerse themselves in the kind of rhetoric i might prefer ... but that doesn't mean one can't question bush's motives in Iraq ... are we supposed to pretend we believe he's there to help anyone but his oily friends? we keep hearing this counsel that such aggressive speech would alienate the electorate ... maybe it would; maybe it would NOT ... my view is i'd rather lose fighting the real battle than hoping we can prevail based on lies ... your mileage may vary ...

the real near-term danger, of course, and there are certainly many others, is the total absence of sane energy policy ... toward this end, i'm afraid Democrats are either complicit in bush's foreign adventures or too reticent to highlight the total bankruptcy of his pursuits ... billions are being made, actually about 100 billion, while "Rome burns" ... and that's just what bush was seeking to accomplish ...

if Democrats don't put this issue before the American people, are they not also "fiddling"?? the urgency to mobilize alternative sources has long since passed the crisis stage; the enemy is big oil and the WH they've paid for ... it's not clear to me that Democrats believe US strategic objectives (i.e. imperialism) to obtain and protect our oil sources is illegitimate and unethical ... and it's not clear to me Democrats are fighting to push this critical national choice before the voters ...

my point is not too different than your own statement:

Greater candor and openness with the American people coming from a future President will also be a critical aspect of the political evolution of what is feasible to achieve without setting off counter revolutionary forces of such magnitude that entrench aggressive imperialist collaboration betwen the Federal government and multi national corporations and financial institutions.

the candor and openness you speak of is needed today; not just from "a future President" ... to fear the counter-reaction is always good counsel; to fear it so much we fail to speak out, to educate and to act is unconscionable ... looking out my little window, i'm afraid we're far short of the vision and potency our current crisis demands ...

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. Nice post WT2

If I disagree with you at all it would probably only be on matters of minor tactical emphasis, not on the big picture. We see the same practical political landscape to be navigated, and share a basic common sense appreciation that it isn't wise to risk everything by trying to accomplish something that in the very near term is essentially impossible, while also realizing that we simply can not afford holding off fighting battles that are both absolutely essential and achievable. There are a myriad of specific debating points covered by that statement, but the basic vision is there.

Democrats, Clark among them, have pushed for a sane energy policy, but have they pushed hard enough? Probably not. I've heard Clark candidly directly link our need for true energy independence from imported oil as essential to our ability to not have our economy held hostage to the pursuit of, or attempts to assure dependable access to, Middle East Oil. He also argues that renewable energy technology is a perfect example of an industry that America should and can be the world leader in, one that is capable of providing quality jobs to Americans, and that the Federal government needs to do much more to support and stimulate that type of research. Is that message getting through? Not well. Personally I would like to see Clark and other Democratic leaders amp up the volume on this one.

The fact that you and I for example are temporarily somewhat separated by our views on what can and should be done by Americans on behalf of the Iraq people right now doesn't negate our large areas of agreement. Iraq will be worse off for at least a generation because of Bush's war, even in the most optimistic scenario conceivable whatever that might be to either one of us. Continuation of Bush's foreign policy paradigm on behalf of his multinational corporate interests is leading this nation and possibly most of the world to the brink of absolute catastrophe. Even without use of Marxist terminology there is much that Democratic politicians can and must talk about with the American public.

[Pithy Cherub]

8. Been watching this entire series. This is especially good.

[Disturbed]

23. Wesley Clark is a highly knowledgable and intelligent person.

He should be the front runner in '08 instead of Sen Clinton!