General Wesley Clark's Take on Obama and Syria

[freshwest]

Last edited Sun Jul 27, 2014, 05:01 PM - Edit history (3)

Wesley Clark on Syria; he invokes Bill Clinton

by Max Brantley - Sep 2, 2013



http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2013/09/02/wesley-clark-on-syria

It quotes from this article:

Wesley Clark: Syria vs. Kosovo

...As in the case of Syria today, there was no United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing NATO to bomb Serbia. But NATO nations found other ways, including an earlier U.N. Security Council Resolutionpage 105, to legally justify what had to be done. In Syria, the violation of the 1925 Geneva prohibition against the use of chemical weapons is probably sufficient justification. (The fact that Russia used chemical weapons in Afghanistan in the 1980s should be used to undercut Russian objections to strikes against Syria today.)...

The Kosovo campaign was also less tidily packaged at the time than it appears in retrospect. When the bombing began, NATO had not yet formulated its political conditions for halting the bombing. NATO nations hardened their views when the Serbs retaliated against the civilian population of Kosovo and neighboring Macedonia. These episodes are always fluid, but so long as your political coalition is well organized - and NATO was - objectives can be modified and clarified during the course of military action. Not every "I" has to be dotted or "t" crossed before initiating a strike...

Finally, Kosovo taught us that diplomacy can smooth over hostilities with nations that oppose your policy. At the outset of the Kosovo campaign, Russia pulled its liaison personnel out of NATO HQ, sent a representative into Belgrade, and belligerently threatened to send out its Black Sea fleet to interfere with NATO operations. Intensive diplomacy, including repeated visits to Moscow by Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, eventually brought the Russians into co-leading a diplomatic mission that culminated in Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's acceptance of NATO conditions. Heated protests aren't insurmountable if there is persistent diplomacy before and after hostilities commence...

But President Obama has rightly drawn a line at the use of chemical weapons. Some weapons are simply too inhuman to be used. And, as many of us learned during 1990s, in the words of President Clinton, "Where we can make a difference, we must act."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/29/syria-wesley-clark-kosovo-nato/2726733/

Brantley goes on to say:

And, because after sleeping on it I'm still stunned by Republican Rep. Tim Griffin's sneering condescension on the issue, I'd like to repeat it in full here:

“It will be an uphill battle for the president to convince me because I think he has handled this entire situation quite poorly,” said Representative Tim Griffin, Republican of Arkansas. “And frankly I am reluctant to give him a license for war when, with all due respect, I have little confidence he knows what he is doing.”

Tim Griffin and other Republicans in Arkansas simply do not accept President Obama's legitimacy regardless of issue. It runs deeper than philosophical differences.

That is what it is, for them. Those who seek to make the case that the President is doing a Bush - Cheney PNAC action will fail. He is not their man. He has not, and will not. do as they want and they will never forgive him for not being their servant.

JMHO.

EDIT: I made an OP out of my reply here, and just added more information:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017143855#post21

The OP's video left the impression Clark verified Obama's proposed action was planned in 2001. That is not correct, as PNAC planned that in 1997.

The video has no date mentioned, making it appear new. I found the same video posted in 2011. It is video of a Democracy Now interview March 2, 2007.

Thus the premise the video channel is promoting is incorrect. I posted here since I know the BOG is into factual content.

I hope this will enlighten anyone here upset by it as it would be easy to be disturbed by this coming out now. But it did not come out now.

I noticed the comments on youtube, and there is more than one copy of this, that people are falling for this error. A quick google of Democracy Now, Clark, Seven Countries in Five Years, Syria, etc. yields a more factual picture than an undated video.


ATTENTION: THE BOG A PROTECTED GROUP AND NOT A FORUM.

IF YOU CANNOT RESPECT OBAMA, THE ADMINISTRATION, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OR THOSE WHO DO, PLEASE RESPECT THE SOP AND CONSIDER NOT POSTING.

THANK YOU.

[IrishAyes]

1. Your last sentence says it all.

Good for Clark and Clinton.

And good for you.

[sheshe2]

2. Good to see this article about General Wesley Clark.

I have always admired the man. I read a lot about him when he was considering a Presidential run.

From your link.

"But President Obama has rightly drawn a line at the use of chemical weapons. Some weapons are simply too inhuman to be used. And, as many of us learned during 1990s, in the words of President Clinton, "Where we can make a difference, we must act."

I trust this President to make the right decisions. Those claiming Obama=Bush are flat out wrong.

Thanks freshwest.

[sheshe2]

3. I hope they are considering this too.

As the White House considers taking military action against Syria for its use of chemical weapons against civilians, the president has turned to Congress to authorize airstrikes. Lawmakers weighing their decision on the most consequential policy vote since the 2002 authorization for war in Iraq should encourage the president to also consider using an additional tool to force the Syrian regime to change course: stepping up economic warfare against Syrian banks and institutions that do business with them.

While sanctions are not a silver bullet, properly targeted, they might yet succeed in pressuring the regime to change its ways. Cutting off banks inside Syria and in other parts of the world that are helping the Assad regime gas its people and circumvent the already existing international sanctions regime, which includes an asset freeze, travels bans and oil restrictions, should be a top priority for legislators on both sides of the Atlantic. This type of effort can have measurable impact for a simple reason: the Assad government needs money. Without hard currency and access to the international market, the regime will find it far more difficult to fund its military and its ability to purchase Russian weapons will be limited.

Syria has 24 financial institutions, many with correspondent banking relationships in Europe, Asia and the Gulf. The relationship between the Syrian government and its banking sector enables the regime to maintain access to foreign currencies and markets.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/09/06/syria-banks-sanctions-column/2772799/

[Bolo Boffin]

4. He also appeared on Bloomberg TV Thursday (9-5)

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/clark-says-strike-would-stop-syria-chemical-arms-K_E2g3DjRb6WgiC8AoHUYw.html

[Cha]

5. Thank you for this, freshwest..

I thought I had read that Wesley Clark was against this intervention in Syria so this is even more interesting.

Yeah Griffin, President Obama and TEAM didn't know what they were doing when they sent the SEAL Team to get bin laden, either. And, the Obama Team didn't know what they were doing when they sent the Navy SEALS to free the two aids workers from Somaliaon pirates.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/01/navy-seals-save-two-from-somali-pirates.html

That Obama has singlehandedly turned republicons against golf and going into Syria. Impressive!

[freshwest]

6. UPDATE: Additional important information added to OP.