Experts debate War; Clark, Eagleburger, and Albright spar over Iraq

[FrenchieCat]

Experts debate Iraq War
Clark, Eagleburger, Albright spar over America's Iraq policy during discussion at UMW.
Date published: 10/13/2005
By MICHAEL ZITZ
snip
"We still don't have a strategy," Clark said. "That's the truth about where America is in foreign affairs. There's no connection between the ends we seek," which he described as spreading American values, " and the actions we're taking in the Middle East and elsewhere."

Clark was joined onstage by the forum's other two participants, former secretaries of state Madeleine Albright and Lawrence Eagleburger. Albright began the trio's discussion in a conciliatory tone, but Clark would have none of it. "We've got to very quickly take the military out of the lead role in every action we take around the world," Clark told the forum crowd at UMW's Dodd Auditorium. "Our military's overstretched and overcommitted right now. And there's only so much our country can accomplish by killing people," he said to the cheers of some in the audience.
snip
"And I'm not going to sit here and apologize for our policy in Iraq," Eagleburger said, adding that Saturday's vote on an Iraqi constitution is evidence that George W. Bush's efforts are paying off. Clark said he fears continuing reticence by Iraqi Sunnis about participating in the constitutional process will lead to even more violence. Albright said she sees potential in Bush's efforts to bring democracy to the Middle East. But she added that America must not appear to be forcing its way of life on the Arab world. "And we must be patient," Albright said. "Democracy is not an event, but a process."

Clark said that Bush quickly forgot his promise to pursue the terrorists responsible for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "You haven't heard Osama bin Laden's name in a while," Clark said. "That's because he's alive and well." And, Clark said, America's presence in Iraq has helped boost al-Qaida recruiting. He said the United States' "footprint" must be removed from Iraq.
More....

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2005/102005/10132005/137287

[purduejake]

1. I like Clark...

But it bothers me that he doesn't want to establish a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq.

[EST]

4. Clark needs to talk to Carl Levin.

Tell Iraq we are getting out soon, and if they don't get their scat together, sooner. We're going to just leave with them holding the bag. It is their problem and our patience is not infinite.
So-- a nice, coordinated, timeline scheduled withdrawal if they pull their country together, otherwise -boom-we're gone and they're in deep doodoo.

[LynnTheDem]

7. "It is their problem and our patience is not infinite."

Wowzah.

No wonder we're despised throughout the world.

[Kolesar]

8. Gen. Wesley Clark, that is !

[EST]

10. Did you see the thing about Levin, the other day?

The essence of it was that some groups in Iraq want us to stay foreven-specifically, the Kurds. Most of the rest want us out but do not want us to leave precipitously. They want us to hang around until they are done with us but, if we just hang around they will feel no pressure to become self sufficient. However, they will still hate us because we're there.
The only lever we have, then, to apply enough pressure so they will take over the responsibility for themselves and create a government that works for their needs, is that we are going to leave and will not continue to spend our blood and treasure if they do not.

[LynnTheDem]

18. The vast majority wanted us out 2.5 years ago.

No they do NOT want us to "hang around until they are done with us".

Try this;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5048815&mesg_id=5048815

Or this, from 1/3 down the page at "POLLS";

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4949517

[EST]

21. Ummm-you're preaching to the choir, here.

[Gloria]

68. Re: Levin. Clark had comments along these lines back during the summer

I think it was on Hannity. I have it on tape, just have to find it. I know he didn't express it as harshly as Levin did...didn't have the same tone of "America the bully." Was more of a matter of fact assessment that the Iraqis needed to start taking on more responsiblity.

I have searched all his recent writings, interviews, etc. and have not seen it in writing....

[Donna Zen]

80. The Iraqis need to start giving a 100%

It is on tape. Clark was on with the other general. Boy, I'm not helping here. I do remember the moment, because Clark also said that the Iraqis must understand that we will not stay there indefinately.

[Gloria]

82. Thanks for the clue as I hunt for this segment!! I tape chronologically

so I go from Hannity to the Daily Show to whatever!!!! Silly, but easy! And I can grab things at a moment's notice since the tape is always ready....

I know I nearly fell off my chair when I heard it and my friend and I had long discussions about what that meant at the time!

[tabasco]

48. Self-delete

Not sure if i understood the post correctly.

[Donna Zen]

29. Time Line vs Foreswearing--No Permanent Bases

A time line puts the US at a disadvantage for many reasons, moreover it opens up the Dems to charges of "cut and run." This conversation takes the "heat" off of bush and permits the neocons to control the dialog. Also, what if we can meet the date certain? Have we then failed?

If the idea is to leave, then simply say so: no permanent bases. That will take one of the grievances now being voiced in Iraq off the table. But most importantly, create the plan and the conditions for leaving: diplomacy. A side benefit is that it puts bush on the spot because the regime doesn't want these permanent bases discussed.

It has been pointed out by posters here that bush doesn't "do" negotiations. That needs to be made clear to the majority of the American public; the pressure needs to be applied to form a contact group (the insurgency is supported from without as well as within Iraq) and work with all of the Iraqi groups to find solutions including the role of women. If, or more likely when, bush fails to do what needs to be done, then as Clark has said, the American people have every right to demand that the troops be pulled out.

Note: Both Iran and Syria have asked for these negotiations, bush doesn't answer their requests. Make that the issue, not a time-line that makes the Dems. the issue.

[EST]

86. Well said-I can add little.

[KittyWampus]

52. Levin and Clark ARE Talking & They Are Both Proceeding Accordingly

[EST]

87. Thanks-That's comforting.

Have you a little inside info you'd like to share?

[Boo Boo]

14. It's not that he doesn't want to establish a timeline, it's that he

doesn't think it's smart to do it unilaterally. That is, in order to pull out without total chaos ensuing you're going to have to reach some sort of accommodation with the Sunni insurgency---not the foreign jihadis, but the Baathists that we've been fighting since we got there. Those negotiations would hinge on us leaving; that's our card. People who say we need to announce a date for leaving are suggesting that we throw away a major part of our negotiating position.

Actually, I think people who want a date are really just advocating that we leave and let whatever happens happen. Clark doesn't hold that view. I imagine that he might think that to simply split, with so much hanging in the balance---regionally, for the U.S., for Europe---would be a reckless and self defeating thing to do; sort of like barging in there in the first place.

Clark's position is that we have to talk to the insurgency. Within that context, unilaterally announcing a withdrawal date does not make sense. Clark wants diplomacy, but if one announces a withdrawal date, there's nothing to negotiate over. You just told them that they've won, and all they have to do is wait a little longer.

So, Clark wants a timeline for withdrawal, and he wants to establish that timeline through negotiations that include the major players in Iraq, and Iraq's neighbors.

[LatinoSocialist]

16. so, negotiate with the Baathists already

They've had two years to do so, and there have been reports of envoys from the insurgency trying to broker such negotiations.

The U.S. doesn't want to surrender or negotiate with a weaker insurgency. Its a loss of face. That's all these warmongers with dick-size complex have in mind when they speak of the terrible horrors of withdrawing. "oh, that would embolden the terrorist, that would send the wrong message, then they would know we have small dicks, and we can't let that happen, etc." Bigger Dick foreign policy at work - George Carlin.

Let's get out. Let the chips fall where they may. Let the people of Iraq, who have existed for a thousand years, find their own balance, even if it means a civil war. When they get tired, they'll find a way to live. Staying the course is doing nothing. It just prolongs the status quo of 2-3 American deaths a day, and like 80 Iraqi deaths a day.

[Boo Boo]

17. Obviously, Bush doesn't do negotiations.

I should add to my previous post that it's not just Baathists; we (according to Clark) also need to be talking with Iran and Syria, rather than just threatening them. Again, if one is serious about diplomacy, and Clark obviously is, then announcing a timeline doesn't make sense. Conversely, if one just wants to leave, then announcing a date makes perfect sense, at least in terms of domestic politics.

I expect Bush will announce one before the '06 mid-term elections.

[Gloria]

70. Re: negotiating.....Article by Jim Lobe about Rice...seems to say that

Rice is doing more diplomatically to hold back the neocons....

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GJ14Ak02.html

SNIP

The approval last month of a resolution referring Iran to the UN Security Council for allegedly violating its nuclear-reporting obligations was reportedly seen - by Teheran's stock market as well as its grey beards - as a sharp setback to its international standing, one that had to be taken seriously given rising tensions with Washington over Iran's nuclear program and its activities in Iraq.

"Managers at sector should know that we need diplomacy and not slogans," said Rafsanjani, who was defeated by Ahmadinejad in June's elections. "This where we should use all our leverages with patience and wisdom, without provocation and slogans that can give pretexts to the enemies."

His remarks sounded eerily like Rice's mantra since becoming secretary of state, "Now is the time for diplomacy."

In contrast to Powell, who labored long and hard to achieve the same end, Rice has so far succeeded in getting Bush to try serious diplomacy, as well as rhetorical posturing and military threats, on the two remaining members of the "axis of evil", Iran and North Korea.

On the first, she persuaded her boss to support the negotiating position of Britain, France and Germany (the EU-3) on a deal to provide Tehran with economic and other carrots in exchange for renouncing its production of fissionable material that could be used to build nuclear weapons.

On the second, her chief negotiator in the six-party talks for de-nuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, Assistant Secretary for Asian Affairs Christopher Hill, was given significantly greater flexibility to engage the North Koreans directly in discussions than Powell was ever able to get.

These victories have tended to confirm the assessment that Rice and her team - which features such formidable players as Deputy Secretary Robert Zoellick, Under Secretary for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns and the State Department counselor, Philip Zelikow - are in a much stronger position in the administration vis-a-vis the hawks.

MORE

[calmblueocean]

76. I never get over the fact

that the military general is the one pushing diplomacy, and the draft dodger is the one relying on the military.

[CarolNYC]

97. Perhaps...

it has something to do with actually being in combat making you more aware of the killing and carnage and damage and destruction that war entails....Or maybe Bush just doesn't care about those things....As long as he and his buddies are OK, you know...

[LynnTheDem]

19. YES YES YES.

QUOTE:

"Let the people of Iraq, who have existed for a thousand years, find their own balance, even if it means a civil war."

YES. Let's JUST FOR ONCE do what the IRAQIS want us to do; GET OUT and leave them alone. And let's try doing it WITHOUT BLAMING THE IRAQIS.

[FrenchieCat]

20. Clark wants an Exit Strategy....

and I don't know why establishing a timeline is such a magic bullet! It actually doesn't mean doo-doo squat without a plan for diplomacy as we get our asses out of there!

It's Kinda of like Fiengold, God bless his heart....proposing for a December '06 timeline.

But WTF does that mean exactly? Does that mean that AFTER the 2006 election we hope and pray that Bush gets out? So calling for a timeline is the new "cool" thing? It may be an easy thing for a Democrat to do......but personally I think that in a couple of months we need to get our asses out of there, not in another year.....so I'm with Clark on this....we need an exit strategy (to get out before 14 months time), and we need it now! Fuck a timeline.....

[rfkrfk]

2. how does Clark know that OBL is alive? n/t

[FrenchieCat]

22. Because OBL is alive until otherwise shown......duh!

[roguevalley]

3. because until he is laid out on a slab, he is alive.

[leftchick]

5. Come on Wes! Why not a time line??

<snip>

Clark said he's not advocating a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. "But I'm saying if we're gonna get out of there, we've got to use all the elements of American power, including diplomacy."

Troops Home Now!!!

[FrenchieCat]

23. A timeline is not a magic bullet.....

How's bout Bush announces that we'll get out in December of '06, like Feingold has...RIGHT AFTER our elections? Then Bush and the "R" candidates can talk about that throughout the elections, then Bush can decide against it as violence ramps up after elections. How about that?

No, an Exit Strategy is what we need....and one that gets us out BEFORE END of 2006.....

Calling for a timeline is great PR for one appealing to the anti Iraq War "left" though.......and it may give the Repugs cover for election time.

[Texas_Kat]

27. So, when the Shrub announces a timeline

"fake" though it may be.... will you lead the cheers then?

From all accounts, Bush is going to have to begin withdrawing troops before next summer for the sake of the Republicans chances in 06.

Democrats can't afford to fall into the trap Bush is setting. If they call for a timeline, Shrub can 'beat it' by a month and come out looking like a hero.

[LynnTheDem]

6. "constitution" is evidence bush's efforts are paying off??? WTF???

That "constitution", IF Mr. Idiotburger had bothered to actually READ the damn thing, REPRESSES WOMEN and installs SHARIA LAW in Iraq, turning Iraq into an IRANIAN STYLE ISLAMIC STATE.

Was this what Georgie was trying to accomplish??? Was this what 2000 Americans have died for??? Was this what Americans are paying $7 BILLION/mth for???

I DON'T THINK SO.

[lateo]

9. It figures Albright and Eagleburger...

would be carrying water for the war.

[mia]

11. Changing ideologies and minds

"We've got to go beyond that," Clark said. "We've got to put in place a real strategy for fighting and winning the war on terror, and that starts with the ideology. We've got to change people's minds."

He said America must persuade young Arabs by appealing to their faith. "We have to convince them that the Quran doesn't call for the killing of innocent people."


First we'll have to convince the Bush Administration and the Christian Right Wing that the Bible doesn't call for the killing of innocent people.

[LatinoSocialist]

15. i've always said it,

don't look for salvation in a former American military general. His political scope is already limited by his loyalty to the American war-machine.

The people of the Middle East DO need to be offered something more as an alternative to radical ideology, but that needs to come within, without outside intervention. The people of the Middle East need to support homegrown movements of reform, free of the stink of foreign financing, to change. You don't introduce new "ideologies" behind the barrel of a gun, Mr. Clark.

That's the problem with military types. At least he does a little more thinking than most Fox News "Generals", but Clark, at the end of the day, is yet another Gringo imperial ex-general.

[FrenchieCat]

24. Yeah.....

We should look for "salvation" from the elected civilians who start and vote for the wars! :sarcasm:

How is Clark's political scope limited to loyalty to a War machine? Sounds like someone is grinding an ax....with generalization and stereotypical views......and it ain't the General.

Considering that he was the only one of any stature sounding the alarm on Rawada, lost his job for insisting on boots on the ground to avoid civilian deaths in Kosovo, Clark's mind seem to work to the interest of this country, not for the military war machine!

This was the General's recommendations 3 days after 9/11.....

The steps he outline as most of the elected officials were singing songs on the Capitol steps don't sound like anything Civilians came up with! We ended up in afghanistan, and then Iraq instead....remember?

A Long, Tough Job
By Wesley K. Clark
Friday, September 14, 2001; Page A37
The Washington Post
snip
For the United States, the weapons of this war should be information, law enforcement and, on rare occasions, active military forces. The coalition that will form around the United States and its NATO allies should agree on its intent but not trumpet its plans. No vast military deployments should be anticipated. But urgent measures should be taken behind the scenes, because the populations and economic structures of Western nations will be at risk.

And the American public will have to grasp and appreciate a new approach to warfare. Our objective should be neither revenge nor retaliation, though we will achieve both. Rather, we must systematically target and destroy the complex, interlocking network of international terrorism. The aim should be to attack not buildings and facilities but the people who have masterminded, coordinated, supported and executed these and other terrorist attacks.
snip
Our methods should rely first on domestic and international law, and the support and active participation of our friends and allies around the globe. Evidence must be collected, networks uncovered and a faceless threat given shape and identity.

In some cases, astute police work will win the day, here and abroad. In other cases, international intelligence collaboration may be necessary. Special military forces may be called on to operate in states that are uncooperative or simply unable to control their own territory. In exceptional cases, targets will be developed that may be handled by conventional military strikes.

But in the main, this will be arduous, detailed and often covert work to track, detain or otherwise engage and "take down" our adversaries, rolling them up cell by cell and headquarters by headquarters.

Some will call for full disclosure and near-legal standards of evidence before acting. Others will arm a hair trigger, seeking to use the most readily available information, even if scant. But we must not pose legality and expediency as opposite extremes. To be expedient, we must act within the bounds of international law and consistent with consensus among the allied coalition that is emerging. And maintaining this consensus will be one of the prime challenges we face.
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/usa_attack1.htm

[LatinoSocialist]

38. no wait,

you're twisting my words. I don't support U.S. military types, and I don't support U.S. neoconservatives or conservatives. I think people who look for salvation in yet another military general turned U.S. civilian leader are wasting their time. The entire history of the United States is one of militarism, invasions, conquest, and leadership on the back of military generals or tough-talking civilians who exalt everything military. If it weren't for the fact that we're not having Gestapo troopers smashing down our doors, I'd say we got an environment ripe for the same type of cult to the military that gives life to fascist regime.

I commend Gen. Clark for being infinitely more intelligent and nuanced about world affairs than most generals are. But at the end of the day, his major fault is his belief in the inevitable infallibility of the United States, and his belief that somehow we're gonna win this War on Terror. There isn't a war on terror. It's simply radical elements of the Third World, representing the anger of the poor and imposed-upon. It's the mosquitos from the swamp biting at humans, to follow an often used analogy. Clark is saying we should drain the swamp, which is a step in the right direction, but if he truly believes that logic, he wouldn't support "staying the course" in Iraq, he'd support performing field surgery on that gangrene-infested leg that is the Iraq adventure, and moving on to saving the rest of America and its reputation.

If the election were between Clark and some Republican, yeah, I'd give him my vote. But, I'm not expecting anything incredibly outstanding from an American general. Perhaps it's because I'm not an American, so it boggles my mind how, almost across the board, almost all American leaders all share a common foundation: a belief in America's infallibility, inherent goodness, and "never can do wrong" attitude. The incessant qualifying of our actions by always stating that "we mean well, but", and the persistent belief that somehow, someway, we have a right to dictate to others how they're lives and societies should be. A person with a real moral stand on the Iraq War would say, "I'm not an Iraqi, we should have never gone there, they never did anything to us to deserve our attacks, and we should leave as soon as possible and leave it up to them to decide what they want and how they want to get to point Z from point A". Yet, Clark and the rest of the American political leadership continues, despite their great differences of opinions, to share that common foundation that, at the end of it all, we meant well in Iraq and we should stay the course to prove we "meant well". Hogwash. People from foreign countries are not constrained by such limited debate boundaries. For us, it's quite easy to say, "America...you screwed up, and you're wrong". And that's how I feel.

You could say that's an axe to grind, but, then again, we in Latin America have had a long list of your generals do some very nasty things to us, so we know your generals probably a lot better than most Americans know them.

[ICantBelieve]

47. Infallibility??

Where the fuck do you get that? You haven't been paying attention to Clark at all have you? Why don't you listen to him before you criticize him.

Clark's the one who's been outspoken against this war from the very beginning. Clark's the one who's been saying we won't be proud of the way this turns out. Clark's the one who's been calling this a strategic blunder. And, no, Clark has NEVER said we should "stay the course to prove we were in it for good reasons."

Yeah, Clark thinks we can do better than just cutting and running. That doesn't mean he thinks we're infallible.

Nope, your arguments are just the same old 100% anti-military arguments. Nothing new there. Nothing to see in them. You don't like Wes because he's a retired general. Plain and simple.

[CarolNYC]

64. I don't think that...

....Gen Clark wants us to "stay the course to prove we meant well." First of all, he doesn't want to "stay the course". Second of all, anything he wants to do there is not to prove we meant well but just not to leave the place...and the region...in total chaos. I've also seen him express concern for the many Iraqi citizens who would be targeted...and perhaps executed....for having worked with the US, if we just up and pull out with the place in chaos.

That said, even he sees the window of opportunity for anything at all good to come of this closing fast....and, at this point, I fear whatever we do is only going to end in disaster. Something trully terrible has been put in motion by the criminals in office now and I fear there's not a lot anyone can do to stop it now. God help the innocents that will be caught in the inevitable crossfire.

Oh, and you are right, many in Latin America have not been well served by the actions of this country through the years. :(

[CarolNYC]

62. You don't introduce new "ideologies" behind the barrel of a gun..."

Sounds like you've been reading Gen Clark's piece, "Broken Engagement", in the Washington Monthly from May of last year....

A couple of quotes from the article for you:
"Freedom and dignity spring from within the human heart. They are not imposed. And inside the human heart is where the impetus for political change must be generated."

"It was popular discontent with economic, social, and political progress, and people's recognition of an appealing alternative system, that finished off the repressive regimes of Eastern Europe, and eventually the whole Soviet Union. No Western threat of force or military occupation forced their collapse."

"We must also recommit ourselves to a real peace process between Israelis and Palestinians...We must also recognize that here, the neoconservatives had it backwards: The "road to Jerusalem" didn't run through Baghdad at all; rather, until real progress is made towards resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue in a way that respects both sides, all American efforts to work within the region will be compromised.

Democracy and freedom have been ascendant in most parts of the world for at least the last 15 years, and it's hard to imagine that they aren't also destined to take root in the Middle East. But to play a constructive role in bringing this about, we must understand the facts on the ground and the lessons of history clearly. Our efforts should take into account not just the desire for freedom of those in the Middle East, but also their pride in their own culture and roots and their loyalty to Islam.....Democracy can come to a place only when its people rise up and demand it."

"Any attempt to build democracy in the Islamic world must begin by taking into account Islam itself, the region's major source of culture, values, and law....Inevitably, any lasting constitution there must entail compromises that reflect popular values. Hopefully, a form of government can emerge that reflects Islamic notions of rights, responsibilities, and respect but that is also representative in nature, reflects popular sovereignty, and retains the capacity to make pragmatic decisions."

"We can't know precisely how the desire for freedom among the peoples of the Middle East will grow and evolve into movements that result in stable democratic governments. Different countries may take different paths. Progress may come from a beneficent king, from enlightened mullahs, from a secular military, from a women's movement, from workers returning from years spent as immigrants in Western Europe, from privileged sons of oil barons raised on MTV, or from an increasingly educated urban intelligentsia, such as the nascent one in Iran. But if the events of the last year tell us anything, it is that democracy in the Middle East is unlikely to come at the point of our gun."

If you take the time to learn about Clark, LatinoSocialist, you might find that he surpirses you some. No doubt, you'll probably not agree with everything he says or believes...Maybe you would think he "loves" the US too much (He makes no effort to hide the fact that he does love his country, although he certainly does not find it infallible)...but I think you would find a lot to like there as well....

Be well....catch you later. :hi:

[pokercat999]

12. Enablers all....

The POTUS is a war criminal using his position to conduct an illegal and personal war against a people that have done no harm to the US. His mercenaries have murdered thousands of innocents, he and his regime are modern day Nazis. Until that is stated unequivocally there is no need for further discussion. Those "arguing" the merits and conduct of the "war" without stating the above are enablers and may in the future be considered co-conspirators. Which side will you be on when the trials begin, Mr. Clark, Mr. Eagleburger and Ms. Albright?


I can't believe that numb nuts clark said "There's only so much our country can accomplish by killing people". I hope that quote is incorrect if not he's one and the same with *.

[FrenchieCat]

26. General Clark chose sides long ago.....

and it wasn't with the Cabal. :eyes:

[pokercat999]

50. Photo-op.

[Donna Zen]

54. For a DUer

That photo was taken by someone on DU. The conference generated no newspaper/media photos that I'm aware of, although O'Reilly got a hold of something that he tried to use against General Clark. Of course, the General defended Cindy.

[FrenchieCat]

56. Wow.....

How disappointing that you would show yourself so blatantly.

That's not a press photo....and if Clark was such a "militarist", the last thing he would want to do is have a Photo on record with Cindy Sheehan.....considering the date of the photo, 9/23....at that time, no other high profiled Democrat had even met with her, let alone took a picture with her.

Clark went on the O'lielly show (cause he ain't no scared Democrat)who tried to call him unpatriotic for meeting with Cindy!

It's like, you think that Michael Moore's endorsement helped Gen. Clark during the '04 primaries? Think again! Clark didn't give a fuck however....nor did he run from his cover on the Advocate.

Where in the fuck have you been? :crazy:

[robbedvoter]

46. Clark was one of the first to testify to Congress against war (2002)

Get your facts together BEFORE you throw insults around.

[BikeWriter]

49. Clark's testimony was very sensible.

If the efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, then we need to form the broadest possible coalition including our NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if we're going to have to bring forces to bear. We should not be using force until the personnel, the organizations, the plans that will be required for post conflict Iraq, are prepared and ready. This includes dealing with requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance, and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps even including a new constitution.

Ideally, the international/multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post-conflict operations -- the United Nations, NATO, other regional organizations, Islamic organizations -- but we have no idea how long this campaign could last, and if it were to go like the campaign against the Afghans, against the Taliban, in which suddenly the Taliban collapsed and there we were.

We need to be ready because if suddenly Saddam Hussein's government collapses and we don't have everything ready to go, we're going to have chaos in that region. We may not get control of all the weapons of mass destruction, technicians, plans, capabilities; in fact, what may happen is that we'll remove a repressive regime and have it replaced with a fundamentalist regime which contributes to the strategic problem rather than helping to solve it.

http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/refutingrush/clarktestimony.htm

[FrenchieCat]

57. YUK....how could you even use a source like Limbaugh for anything

That's pretty creepy! :scared:

[BikeWriter]

63. Look again. The site is a slam on the Oxycontin King.

[pokercat999]

51. Was the quote correct? Was he advocating killing

people that never attacked the US or any of it's citizens here or abroad? If correct I rest my case. If not I may have misjudged him, but I think I have him pegged.

[CarolNYC]

65. "Was he advocating....

......killing people that never attacked the US or any of it's citizens here or abroad?"

No.

[KittyWampus]

53. I hope that quote is incorrect if not he's one and the same with *.

would you please explain that twisted thinking?

Cause so far, NeoConservatives only freaking answer to foreign policy is killing people (with perhaps the exception of bullying them and bribing them).

[LatinoSocialist]

13. please...

no more spreading of American values...let's start with that.

How about DISPLAYING American values and letting us in the foreign world decide if we want to ADOPT such values.

That works a lot better, saves you the trouble of invading our nations, and doesn't make a mockery of your "spreading" of your values.

[Donna Zen]

25. Exactly:

"We must live our values, not just preach them." ~Wes Clark

Today, American democratic values are admired in the Middle East, but our policies have generated popular resentment. Although it may come as a surprise to those of us here, there is a passionate resistance to the U.S. “imposing” its style of democracy to suit American purposes. Democratic reformers in the Middle East don't want to have their own hopes and dreams subordinated to the political agenda of the United States. It's for this reason that the administration shouldn't try to take too much credit for the coming changes. Or be too boastful about our own institutions. Or too loud in proclaiming that we're thrilled about Middle Eastern democracy—mostly because it makes us feel safer. A little humility is likely to prove far more useful than chest-thumping...

I think Clark agrees with you in this Op Ed from the Washington Post. By the way, he is very consistent in his advocating this philosophy.

[FrenchieCat]

28. Righto! and I would add......

The growing chorus of voices demanding a pullout should seriously alarm the Bush administration, because President Bush and his team are repeating the failure of Vietnam: failing to craft a realistic and effective policy and instead simply demanding that the American people show resolve. Resolve isn't enough to mend a flawed approach -- or to save the lives of our troops. If the administration won't adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that it bring our troops home.--Wes Clark
http://securingamerica.com/node/253

I think that Clark is advocating for us getting the hell out sooner than 14 months from now.....and he has provided a way to do it.

I don't see or hear of any Democrats doing a better job of it....either! :shrug:

[Donna Zen]

30. Put the the heat on THEM

...timelines, put the heat on us--the Democrats.

Trust the strategic thinker...


psssst: I'm not sure why people don't understand the advantage v disadvantage that adopted positions bring. Let's say we pack today and horrendous civil war breaks out, who takes the hit? Bush? No, the junta just says: the Dems made us do it. But using public opinion by declaring a position of getting out through diplomatic means (something bush will never do, although all signs point to the fact that it could work to stop a civil war) places the Dems. on the high road.

[FrenchieCat]

31. Like you're stating.....

Strategy has never been the Dem's strong suit.

Being right right now is so much better than winning elections and regaining power so that we can actually do something about this shit!! :eyes:

[Donna Zen]

32. Even better

Being right right now and winning elections.

That's strategy.

[1932]

37. Vitenam wasn't winnable. There is no "realistic" or "effective" policy

that could have worked in Vietnam.

The failure of Vietnam was the invasion part, not the conduct or exit part.

[LatinoSocialist]

39. I agree with Wes'

last statement that we're are justified in demanding that the troops be brought home, but since I thought this whole adventure was a farfetched bamboozling of the infinitely gullible American public, I never thought there was a winning strategy. Colonialism and imperial imposition never have a winning strategy for the imperial side because even if they succeed in imposing their will, morally, what they do cannot represent winning. how do you win by putting your boot on someone else's face?

A winning strategy would have been to actually help the Middle East by facilitating the more progressive sections of that society overturn their corrupt, autocratic regimes, demanding that Israel end its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and treat Palestinians with dignity, stop funding Israel's war machine, and stop the incessant macho, chest-thumping against former Arab bed-buddies like Saddam. I'd bet you most Middle Easterners would have a much better appraisal of the United States if we actually acted like a benevolent neighbor in the world, as opposed to the International Gendarme.

A winning strategy would have been to keep our troops home, protecting our national boundaries, and rolling back the unnecessary, wasteful, and imperial network of military bases all around the world.

THAT's a winning strategy. What Wes is talking about is making the best of a LOSING strategy, and while, now that we're in there, one can't do much more than try to "make the best" of whatever one has, by no stretch of any logical debate can one equate it with a winning strategy. We lost the moment we sent troops in there.

[FrenchieCat]

42. Agreed that we lost when we invaded.....

And so does Wes Clark.

Remember.....it's "Exit Strategy".....NOT "Winning Strategy" that applies at this point. And that we do need....but we won't get it, sorry to say.

At the very least, Clark does give us the capability of saying "Fuck you liars" to those in the media and the GOP who will be stating now until the '06 elections that Dems offered no plan. I don't see many Dems doing this. Timetables sound great, but it won't help our strategy to win 2006 elections nor will it really work much in getting Bush to get our troups out....unless he sees some political gains in it for himself and his ilk...

[robbedvoter]

45. "We lost the moment we sent troops in there." - but Wes opposed THAT

as well - in 2002 by testifying to Congress, editorials - every way he could.
He is just being consistent - in the present contest.

[1932]

36. Then there's this:

But while a powerful military has been vital, the chief means of our influence has been an interlocking web of international institutions and arrangements, from NATO to the World Bank to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This network of mutual interdependence, though marginalized by the Bush administration, was largely devised by America, which has also been its chief beneficiary. It is, for all practical purposes, a kind of empire--but to use a contemporary term, a virtual one. Properly used and expanded, it can be the secret to a secure and prosperous future.

{snip}

For decades, the United States has been at the hub of this network of mutual interdependence, sometimes called "globalization." Heavily influenced--some might say dominated--by us, globalization reflected the American values of free-market economics and popular democracy. Enabled by modern communications and transportation, this network facilitated access to markets and investment opportunities abroad, assisted the flow of talent and intellectual property, and fostered the spread of market forces and democratic processes around the world. The major beneficiary of all of this was the United States itself. In short, this "globalization" was the new American empire.

{snip}

But this shift {by the Bush administration to military agression in Iraq}--rather than promoting the emergence of the new American empire--put all that we gained with "soft power" and the virtual American empire at risk.

{snip}

But if leadership is defined as "persuading the other fellow to want to do what you want him to do," as Eisenhower put it, then American leadership is failing. We simply aren't persuading others to align with our interests--we are coercing and pressuring.

-Wes Clark (Winning Modern Wars, Chapter 6)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0311.clark.html

I think a lot of people would say that military intervention or no military intervention, American "persuasion" has been persistently coercive since the Truman administration and right up to and including Iraq.

[dogman]

58. And where is THIS wrong?

The US is the leading economic power at this time. Of course that might come to an end sooner than later with the current GOPonomics. We can do good in this world and we should. Stopping genocide is a noble cause. Ending hunger and disease are good things. Developing science that benefits mankind is honorable. We have done these things and it would certainly make the world a better place for all. Like it or not we are all sharing this globe and have an obligation to keep it habitable for all.

[1932]

60. Hunger and poverty and polarization of wealth has INCREASED!

The argument in confessions of an economic hit man (have you read it?) is that military intervention is the third step in a three step process, of which the first two parts are "soft empire" and the goal of all three steps is coerscion and not persuassion, and making American corporations rich at the cost of equitable and fair economic development.

Where are the examples of soft empire working for anyone other than America.

Below, I linked to an mp3 discussion about empire. Listen to it and we'll discuss it?

Read Globalization and its Discontents and we'll talke about it? Read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man and we'll talk about it.

[dogman]

74. Duh!

And who's in charge. Clark is writing about what could be if the US used its' leadership properly. Clark is not advocating the three step process. You continue to asign to Clark the gloal picture that others observe or visualize. Clark has his own visions.

[1932]

78. American foreign policy under Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton

and both Bush's has not been good for the world.

John Perkins says that Carter had a different model for Latin America (but, I would add, not Afghanistan). Carter didn't last very long. Richard Parker said that JFK had a different model for the world, but he didn't last very long. Every other president -- many of whom Clark voted for -- believe exactly what Clark argues in Chapter 6: soft empire, which makes a few people in America wealthy and polarizes wealth everywhere -- within the US, between the US and foreign countries, and within foreign countries where we exploit people and resources and make a few families very wealthy -- is good.

Clark is not advocating the third step in the three step process in Iraq (which is the limit of his focus). He's arguing that by taking the third step in Iraq, Bush has jeopardized steps one and two everywhere else. Panama is another example of a country where America took the third step, and Clark, IIRC from reading his books, is not critical of Panama at all (he certainly doesn't use it as an example of how Republican foreign policy jeopardized soft empire).

Have you read Perkins's book?

[dogman]

81. No, don't have the time and not interested.

I see enough of the results in your posting. I have read things you have read and cited and don't see what you see anyway. Clark is an evolving thinker. He does not stick ridgidly to an idea when he studies it over time. Clark has changed his views over time and does not pigeonhole himself by dwelling in the confines of the past. He is a capitalist, he feels strongly about the rewards of making the most of the opportunities but undertands the importance of equal opportunity. I don't require myself to agree with everything Clark has done or will do. I'm not going to get that from anyone but myself. I look at his ability to analyze a situation and come up with a solution. I lokk at his willingness to revisit his analyses and adjust. He is a liberal progressive thinker. You can see in the short time he has been out of the military and involved in Democratic politics he has embraced most of the principles that Mant progressive liberals and I share. Is your definition of soft empire his or yours?

[girl gone mad]

72. Clark has too much faith in institutions,

but at least he is honest and thoughtful about it.

I supported Clark in the last election and I would support him again because I see him as a person who recognizes the truth when he sees it. He's a member of the reality based community.

[1932]

79. I think Clark has too much faith in Republican-style trickle down

capitalism.

He seems to think that if big corporations make a lot of money, everything is good.

His problem with Bush is that Bush is jeopardizing the ability of big American corporations to make a lot of money. That's his argument in Chapter 6 of Winning Modern Wars: by using the military in Iraq, Bush is jeopardizing the "persuassive" powers of soft American empire.

The point I am trying to make is that many people would dispute soft-empire's softness. People like John Perkins argue that it has been coerscive and exploitative almost as a rule. Stiglitz argues that Washington Consensus economics has more exploitative than beneficial and has no track record of success anywyere. Hugo Chavez calls it "shock therapy." Richard Parker's Galbraith biography traces the historical argument and shows how much things that the US has done around the globe since WW2 differ from the New Deal vision FDR had for the world.

There is just too much information out there which Clark ignores in order to write Chapter 6. And I don't think this has to do with Clark's personality or character, which I'm sure is just fine. It has to do with fitting a historical argument into a policy orientation. Clark is basically, economically speaking, conservative. I doubt he has had any major shift in economic philosophy since the days he was teaching economics and voting for Reagan and Nixon. He is pro-business, pro-the sort of capitalism that Truman, Nixon, Eisenhower, Reagan and the first Bushes promoted. As I said, he seems to think that Bush is jeopardizing that kind of capitalism by invading Iraq.

[dogman]

83. You continue to define Clark in your terms, not his.

Clark explains the fact that America has become a virtual empire. He explains what that means and how we got there. The world is globalizing, there has been a United Nations for some time. Corporations are not inherently bad. Like anything they can be abused and misused. ther are successful corporations that do there best to operate honestly and responsibly. Not enough. I think primarily, because of the incentives not to. Clark defines soft power as "leading by example, on transparency, and outreach." Of course your selective clipping of Chapter 6 left that out.

[Donna Zen]

84. er...ummmm excuse me, excuse me please

Could I just break into your major opus: putting words and thoughts into Wesley Clark? Sorry, for this....

Of course Wes did say that two things need to be gone from America: the bush doctrine of preemptive war, and trickle down economics.

Sorry. I didn't mean to burst your bubble.

Okay, one more thing: Clark has been talking about "holistic economic theory" which I've been meaning to ask him about. Maybe the next time he writes on line, I'll ask him. Hey, here's a cool idea....why don't you run all the stuff you say he thinks and believes...why don't you run it by him?

I have a list of books from Clark's office...and they looked read btw. Let's see: Chomsky, Roy, Miller.... No. No Milton Friedman. Sorry.

Back to your regular rant. like clock work. Thread-->Clark--->Same posts

[1932]

94. I'm having a tough time deciphering an argument in this post.

I don't want to put words in YOUR mouth, and I'm reluctant to move around punctuation in my mind so that I can form sentences out of some of those extemporaneous thoughts, but I'm going to have to just so that there's somethign there to which I can respond.

Clark has criticized the doctrine of preemptive war in Iraq because he thinks it is jeopardizing America's soft or virtual empire. He says that explicitly in chapter 6. My argument is that soft and virtual empire since ww2 are nothing to celebrate. If you want to put together an argument otherwise, go for it. And if you're going to do that, I really encourage you to read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man and Stiglitz's Globalization and its Discontents.

I would be surprised if Clark endorsed 'trickle down economics' explicitly. Do Republicans even do that now? I'm saying that Clark's general argument about American international economic policy isn't much different from the old domestic trickle down economics -- in Chapter 6 he argues that globalization which has concentrated a great deal of wealth in America's hands is good and that the benefits of this flow down to people all over the world.

Why don't you let me know what Clark says when you ask him about "holistic economic theory."

As for the books on Clark's shelf, great. I can't wait to see them incorporated in his arguments. Has he specifically cited any of those authors for an opinion he holds?

[CarolNYC]

98. like clockwork...

Well, in this crazy mixed up world, it is kind of nice to have something you know you can count on. ;)

[CarolNYC]

99. like clockwork...

Well, in this crazy mixed up world, it is kind of nice to have something you know you can count on. ;)

[Phoebe_in_Sydney]

106. Clark opposes trickle down economics

He often speaks out against the theory. And as a Master in Economics from Oxford and a former lecturer in Economics at West Point, he has quite definite views on economic theory.

This is from a recent speech at Rider Uni, NYC:

... what I see in President Bush's economic policy is he's tilted too far in favor of promoting people with a lot of money at the expense of ordinary Americans. I'll give you an example.

I was on an airplane coming out of Little Rock and a woman right next to me- she's a young woman, attractively dressed, and, um, we were in one of these little tiny jets, so it was pretty hard not to say hello. (crowd chuckles) And she said she's to Tulsa to sell medical equipment and she was maybe in her late 20's, and so we began to talk about things. And so, it was just after the Bush tax cuts had been passed and I asked her if she understood- I said, "Did you get a tax cut?" She said, "Oh yes, I sure did." I said, "Can you (inaudible) tell me how much it was?" She said, "I think I got, you know, 30 or 40 dollars a month." I said, "Well, do you understand that some people got tens of thousands of dollars, millions of dollars out of this tax cut?" She says, "Well no, I didn't really think about that."

I said, "Do you understand what that means?" She said, "Well, we were taught in school that you have to give money wealthy people, because they're the ones that make jobs for the rest of us." (crowd chuckles) And I said, "Well, who taught you that?" (laughter) She said, "Well, our economics professor did at Southern(?) State University."

And I mean, it is a set of ideas called trickle-down economics. And, but you know I'm out there for this every day in the economy. And so I go out there to see my friends in Aspen and their house prices have quadrupled in four years. Along the North Carolina coast, and Cape Cod, on the Pacific coast, and all resort areas where people want to live house prices are way up. Some people say it's the lower interest rate, but that accounts for places across the country. I'm talking about desirable locations. What that money does is that money gets spent on high priced real estate, running up the prices. It gets put in savings accounts, and it gets used in investments abroad and luxury trips and so forth.

If you want to create jobs in this country, you gotta get ordinary people enough money to meet their basic needs. That's the way America got to be a great economy and that's what we've got to do if we're going to keep it a great economy. So, I disagree with President Bush...

transcript Rider Uni

To say Clark believes in trickle down economics is to claim exactly the opposite of what he believes and has made quite clear many times.

I honestly believe people form views on Clark based on what they think a former general would believe. Liberals of all people should be sensitive to stereotyping, but it seems there are some shocking blind spots.

[1932]

107. I'm not saying that he endorses trickle down economics in the domestic

economy.

I'm trying to elicit an ironic reflection from readers on the idea that someone who doesn't believe in trickle down economics for Americans is arguing, essentially, that American corporations getting very rich in Iraq and in all the other countries that have been victims of hard and soft American empire somehow trickle down their benefits (in the form of democracy and exposure to American vlaues) to the citizens of those countries.

Keynesians believe that functioning democracies and functioing economies percolate up by getting power in the hands of the people. Having a powerful US project its empire onto foreign countries from the top down is a kind of trickle down theory. We need to respect foreign governments that want to empower their people rather than support foreign governments that open their doors to the vacuum of American capitalism sucking their wealth back to the US.

[1932]

35. Exactly. What happend to the american values of anti-colonialism,

anti-empire, autonomy, and self-rule?

What happened to the idea that the economic benefits of one's nation should flow to the citizens of that nation and not to foreign capitals (and foreign state capitals, in the case of Texas)?

[LatinoSocialist]

40. never actually existed

The closest I ever heard an official American government make such lofty pronouncements was during the Wilsonian liberalist days of the League of Nations. And Wilson himself was a racist historian who had no problem preaching such lofty platitudes to the world while keeping American troops in Guam, Puerto Rico, Cuba, The Phillipines, and a few other Third World "banana republic".

Clear cut case of Do as I say, not as I do, if you ask me.

If you think about it, everything the U.S. has said it stood for, it never really did. Freedom for all? Bullcrap. Blacks, women, Native Americans, Chinese indentured servants, hello? Justice for all? Again, the same groups, and add a few immigrant groups later as well. Human Right supporting? Read William Blum's Killing Hope, and let us know how human rights inspired are our secret police agencies. A force for democracy? Tell it to all the victims of Third World dictatorships funded and propped up by our government?

I mean, really, what the hell has the U.S. government done to actually lend some backing to its lofty stated values? It's a modern fairy-tale, is what is is. They might as well end every American policy pronouncement with "and they lived happily ever after...well...not really".

[1932]

41. Check out this:

In iTunes, the podcast: A World of Possibilities

Being Number One: Costs and Alternatives to Empire
1/18/05

Guests: Neta Crawford, Richard Falk, Niall Ferguson, James Galbraith, Hussein Ibish

Indispensable and unavoidable, the U.S. holds sway in world affairs. But is the biggest, baddest bull on the block who we really want to be? After all, the U.S. was founded as a rebellion against empire. But today, temptations of power have led some in authority to assert an imperial mission, a sentiment widely resented around the world. Join us for exploration of the perks and perils of empire.

Credits: Music in this program: open- “Imperial March” from “The Empire Strikes Back” original motion picture soundtrack, RCA Records; welcome- “A United Earth I” by Alan Stivell with Yousou N’Dour, Putumayo World Music; break 1- “Eve of Destruction” by Will Hoppey, Orchard Records; insert 1- “The End of the Innocence” by Don Henley and Bruce Hornsby, Geffen Records; break 2- “Empire” by David Byrne, Nonesuch Records; Bottom of the Hour Billboard- “A United Earth I” by Alan Stivell with Yousou N’Dour, Putumayo World Music; break 3- “Kingdom” by The Slugs, courtesy of Pravda Records; close and credits- “One Sweet World” by the Dave Matthews Band, courtesy of Bama Rag Records. Funding: The Ford Foundation – Knowledge, Creativity and Freedom Program

Duration: 55:00 minutes

http://www.aworldofpossibilities.com/details.cfm?id=189

Podcast feed: feed://feeds.feedburner.com/aworldofpossibilities

A World of Possibilities currently airs in 549 markets in 46 U.S. states/territories and 6 Canadian provinces, overseas in South Africa, Guam, England, New Zealand, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and on PRI's Public Radio World Channel - stream 136 on SIRIUS Satellite Radio. The program is currently marketed by the Los Angeles-based Creative PR and the Chicago-based WFMT Radio Network, the thirty-year-old syndication service of 98.7WFMT, Chicago's Classical Fine Arts Station where the legendary Studs Terkel's daily interview program was produced for some forty years. The WFMT Radio Network is distributing A World of Possibilities to public and community radio stations nationwide and to foreign and domestic broadcast services in Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Africa.

[LatinoSocialist]

43. Interesting..

Neta Crawford was one of my professors.

[FrenchieCat]

44. Well, you might be interested in this then.....

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2005/nf20051013_3314_db016.htm

Maybe you can start an OP on it..... :hi:

[dogman]

85. Read the last two paragraphs of the infamous Chapter 6.

Snip>
We don't need the New American Empire. Indeed, the very idea of classic empire is obsolete. An interdependent world will no longer accept discriminatory dominance by one nation over others. Instead, a more collaborative, collegiate American 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.
America's primacy in 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. And we cannot lead by example unless we are sustained by good leadership. Nothing is more important. <snip

[1932]

88. He defines the New American Empire as a purely military empire

and defines the virtual empires as the all the other things the US has done to persuade other countries to engage in policies that have made America rich (and which have polarized power and wealth so much since WW2).

The "collaboration" and "collegiality" he wants to return to is all the things we've been doing for the last half century that have really proven not to have worked.

Read Richard Parker's Galbraith biography. He suggests the kind of world (the kind of globalization) the New Dealers were imagining for the post-war world and he explains who corporate America lured Truman away from those goals. Kennedy, 17 months into his administration looked like he was going to return to that trajectory, but was assassinated before he could turn the tide.

It's one thing for Clark to talk in such an idealized tone about what America stands for since WW2. But, really, progressives from all corners (journalism, scholarship, politics, and people like John Perkins who was out there living it) all say that American ideals expressed in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and WW2 have been abandoned since WW2.

Clark's Chapter 6 is a panegyric for a status quo that is doing a lot of damage. It's also drawing a line that he must know doesn't exist. It's not like invading Iraq was a line that America crossed for the first time ever that is going to make everything bad. What about invading Panama? What about trying to influence elections all over the globe? What about what we tried to do to Venezuela in 2002?

A lot of those institutions Clark lauds are the instruments for coercsion and exploitation that have caused as much damage to US credibility and and have undermined our ability to claim the moral highground even moreso than invading Iraq.

[dogman]

89. Once again, your words not his.

There are a number of nations that have raised their standards with our help. Venezuela? What has that to do with Clark? We all no what PNAC is about and Clark was one of the few high profile candidates and spokepersons to call them out. As I said, Clark is forward looking. Guess what? The entire world and international relations have changed since WW2.

[1932]

90. Anyone with time and interest can read Clark's book.

These are not my words. This is his argument. It's right there in Chapter 6, The link to it is above.

What does Venezueal have to do with Clark's argument about soft empire? You're kidding right? Did you know that Venezuela was in debt at the time of the oil strike in 2003 because the contracts for oil sales (which weren't very favorable) were bringing in less revenue than they needed to pay off their IMF development loans? Cuba had to lend them a million dollars worth of readers on credit so they could implement their literacy program during the strike. Those institutions Clark praises -- and we'll set aside Clark's participation in N.E.D. and his endorsement of the S.O.A. for the moment -- have primarily served to guarantee wealth for the US and HAMPER development in the rest of the world. They have forced countries to forego social spending on health and education in order to pay off debt to large banks which they incurred, according to John Perkins' book C.of an E.H.M., as part of a plan the GOAL of which was default.

Read Stiglitz's Globalization and its Discontents for an hiistorical argument about Washington Consensus economics implemented by the IMF and the US Treasury Department. Watch the documentary Life and Debt...that is, if you're interested and you have time to have an informed opinion.

[dogman]

91. Now you resort to a total distortion of the truth?

Once again, what does the situation in Venezuela have to do with Clark? It has not been dealt with in the manner Clark mentions,it has been dealt with in the twisted version that the PNAC inspired Bush administration uses. Clark describes this, tells why it is wrong, and you continue to attribute these wrong methods to him. You have continued this tack for how many months now? Clark has not endorsed SOA. If he did not participate in the NED, how could he hope to know what is going on and how could he hope to affect change? You cite all these writers that you are so fond of, what are they doing that makes a concrete change in the way things are done? What candidate other than Clark even acknowledges that these facts exist and what are their proposals to change them? Would it be better for the US if we helped other countries develop their resources and then we turn around and pay through the nose for them? There has to be a balance, that is the nature of commerce. That is why in the oft cited Chapter 6, Clark proposes a Department of
Internationl Development.

Snip> Focusing our humanitarian and devlopmental efforts through a single, responsible department will help us bring the same kind of sustained attention to alleviating deprivation, misery, ethnic conflict, and poverty that we have brought to the problem of warfare.<snip

He has therein described the problems that concern you and put forth a proposition to overcome them. What other politician has done this? Instead of trying to assign the problems you see to Clark, who has not enacted any policy, or voted for any existing policy, read what he actually says and work to help him do something about them. At this point, I only see you keeping the status quo by attacking the one person who has proposed a solution to the problems that concern you.

[1932]

92. Cute headline. Your post doesn't back it up.

You should read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Perkins says that Venezuela is another example of steps one and two of the three step process that leads to Iraq-style invasion. He says that the "soft empire" institutions are at play in Venezuela. IMF-encouraged indebtedness, designed-in default, forcing leaders to have to make social program sacrifices, undermining governments which try to help their citizens rather than foreign capital.

Incidentally Clark has endorsed the SOA. He has literally endorsed it. He testified in Congress that it should continue in '98 or '99 around the time he had first-hand experience down there as head of the southern command in Panama, NONETHELESS and despite Clark's testimony, Congress did in fact stop funding the school, so they weren't convinced by his argument. Also, Clark is on the B.O.D. of N.E.D. So it's absurd to say that he doesn't "participate." Talk about "total distortions of the truth"!

What are these writers doing? THEY'RE WRITING THEIR ARGUMENTS DOWN! It's amusing that you ask this question while also refusing to read any of these books. Perkins has an entire chapter devoted to this question. He said that when he was trying to decide what to do with his knowledge, he thought about people like Tom Paine, and the abolitionists and the anti-fascists. He said that long before their ideas turned into action, when very few people agreed that imperialism and slavery and fascism were bad, people who thought about these issues wrote them down. Gradually, ideas that had narrow appeal, because of their power and because of their truth, grew until a majority of Americans realized they were right.

Also, I believe there's a passage in the bible where god tells Habbikuk when Habbikuk asks what he should do in the face of so much misery in the world that Habbikuk should write it down. It looks like the men who wrote the bible at a time when it seemed like injustice was prevailing came to the same conclusion Perkins and all these other authors came to and that was that when you see something that is unjust and the world seems against you, the best thing you can do is read, research, contemplate and then write it down for others to consider.

Incidentally, this thing you say here is interesting:

Would it be better for the US if we helped other countries develop their resources and then we turn around and pay through the nose for them?

The domestic equivalent of your attitude, in my opinion, is the reason we had a Great Depression. FDR was great because he challenged the assumption that exploitation at the bottom created wealth for the people at the top, which then trickled down to everyone else (or that was the lie the rich told so that people wouldn't complain about the concentration of power).

The essence of Keynes and of the New Deal and of progressive domestic and foreign policy is that wealth is a seed you plant at the bottom -- by rewarding people for their labor, by compensating the nations that own natural resources on behalf of their citizens -- and that wealth grows up from this and creates a better economy for more people.

YES, we should as a nation not exploit the people at the bottom. We should not be afraid to pay fair prices for labor and natural resources anywhere in the world. Fair prices for labor and national resources are seeds -- as we learned from FDR and the New Deal -- which promote happiness, health, democracy and aggregate demand which then percolate up and make everyone else better off, including people paying fair prices.

Do you personally benefit when you buy oil that some private company that practically steals it from Nigerians and Indonesians? That profit margin they made helps them buy the government that is currently in power. Did you benefit from that? You would have been much better off if African and Asian citizens were benefitting from their oil resources through fair prices paid to democratic governments, exactly as Venezuelans are now benefitting. (This, incidentally, was the direction Kennedy was heading before he got shot -- read Richard Parker's Galbraith biography, that is, if you have time and are interested in having an informed opinion).

Clark may have proposed a department of international development, but he reveals what he thinks that department should be doing in the rest of Chapter 6, which he also reaffirmed in his response to welshTerrier2's post at TPM Cafe for One which was that we nead cheap oil and we have to do what we're doiing in Iraq so that we don't have to fight wars for oil (huh???).

[dogman]

93. And now you totally distort what I wrote.

Once again, Clark does not conduct policy toward Venezuela, Bush does, and Clark also exposes the faults and failures of Bushco. You are wrong about Clark and SOA. You have been provided links and and facts which you continue to ignore. I stated that Clark is involved with NED and said:
Snip>If he did not participate in the NED, how could he hope to know what is going on and how could he hope to affect change?<snip
So, who is distorting the truth?
These writers have exposed a problem that I was already aware of from personal observation and careful reading of news reports. I don't need there information, I need resolution. Clark offers that.
I wrote:
Snip>There has to be a balance, that is the nature of commerce.<snip
That is my attitude and is not exploitation.
First you misstate Clark's position, now you have the gall to take my writing which is clearly evident and misstate it.
The rest of Chapter 6 is not what Clark thinks we should be doing, it is a narrative of what we are doing, and points out what is wrong about that and what we should be doing to correct it.
Could you distort his response to welshTerrier2 any more? Because you cannot grasp the total picture he describes, you sum it up in ridiculous fashion? Read what he writes, not your predetermined view of what he writes. Answer a few of my many questions instead of raising a smokescreen, please.

[1932]

95. Sound and fury signifying nothing.

How many times must I repeat? Clark lauds soft/virtual empire -- the IMF, development loans, globalization -- everything but war in Iraq (yet, IIUC, he had no qualms about Panama). John Perkins says that Iraq was the third step in a three step process which, since the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran, goes to step one in just about every country in which the IMF and the US does busines, has gone to step 2 in Ecuador, Chile, Venezuela and a bunch of other places, and has goine to step three in Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan and Iraq twice.

I cite Venezuela as an example of soft empire doing bad things (and that's just the step one activities). As I said, during the oil strikes, Venezuela was broke, despite having some of the largest oil reserves in the world, and despite having been pumping oil of something like seven decades. Soft empire left them in a position where, in order to guarantee literacy for their citizens, they had to borrow a millioin dollars worth of books from Cuba. That's not a sign of soft empire working.

I never alleged that Clark made decisions that influence Venezuela. I'm only saying that the things he lauds perhaps deserve criticism instead. And even though Clark might not have "conducted policy towards Venezuela" he is on the board of the N.E.D. which has been very active in opposing that government which placed such a high value on literacy and in retaining the profits of its natural resources for its citizens. Venezuela has been in the news a lot recently. Maybe Clark will clarify his role on the NED boar in relationg to Venezuela. However, I'll be surprised if the story we hear is that he did everything he could to discoruage the undermining of a government that was rejecting soft empire.

What links was I "provided" that rebut any of these claims? This is a rich statement from someone who says he doesn't have the time or interest in reading Perkins, Parkers, or any of the other books I've cited. Not only have I not seen any links that refute anything I've said, I ask, who are you to tell anyone they're ignoring facts? I read Clark's books. I'll read anything you ask me to read. Yet, you won't do the same.

As for Chapter 6 being merely descriptive, do you know that Clark has encourged people to read that chapter because he says it is the fullest argument of his vision? It is not merely descriptive. It is a prescription.

If you really want to address welshTerrier2's TPM post, why don't you (or someone with a star) link to the post here at DU discussing it?

By the way, I asked you a question not as a smokescreen. I asked it with Socratic intention. Furthermore, it was a question that you made relevant with the quesiton of yours which I italicized. I'll ask it again. Do you think you're better off because ChevronTexacoMobilEnron make money of your energy consumption, or do you think maybe we'd have a better world today if Indonesians, Nigerians, South Americans and Central Americans had been making more money off their natural and labor resources over the last thirty years?

[dogman]

96. Other than a continuous assault on Clark, what is your purpose?

Clark describes soft empire, so you claim he is advocating its misuse even though he details its misuse. The links wqere provided to you numerous times in your many posts on this subject, most by Frenchiecat. You ignore them and continue on your merry way, repeating them over and over again. It gets tiresome and that might well be your goal. I don't have the time to research them again, instead i suggest you provide links to back up your assertions. Again you ignore the fact that Chapter 6 gives a narrative history and then provides solutions. those are two parts. to continually blur them is disingenuous.
I am a worker and a citizen, therefore I agree that I should be rewarded for my output and the use of my country's resources. The same should be true for anyone in the world. I see Clark calling for that. I am also an investor and feel my investments should be rewarded if they are made wisely. I also see Clark calling for that. I subscribe to the theory that a rising tide lifts all boats, I do not believe in trickle down, which is better described as rickle on. You can access welshTerriers Q&A with Clark at TPM blog. I have done so and that is how I know you have reduced it to a ridiculous statement. It may even be possible that Clark and I disagree on Venezuela, but I don't see any other leading Dem doing anything about it. He has proposed solutions. He is not my God, he is just another American patriot trying to make this a better world for his grandchildren.

[1932]

100. My purpose: trying show people that the New Deal principles apply to FP

as well as DP. Planting the seeds of wealth as far down the chain of capitalism as possible is good for everyone above.

I don't get that out of Wesley Clark. I think his argument about soft empire should appear naive to anyone who reads it closely and compares it to any of those other books I've mentioned. The problem is that I don't think Clark is naive, which leaves me to put together Chapter 6, his argument at the TMP blog, his capital-friendly tax plan from the primary, his NED involvement, his SOA endorsement in Congress and on the campaign trail all together and come to a different conclusion. That conclusion is that Clark is a very business-friendly conservative with mainstream socially liberal ideas who wants to carry on with the sort of soft empire that has been so destructive for the world over the last 50 years, and would continue to be so if we had never invaded Iraq.

I just finished reading Tom Friedman's the world is flat. Something you said reminded me of it. You say that you're an investor so you appreciate Clark's position on globalization.. Friedman has a long section on WalMart, which he compares to Costco. Walmart is his ideal global company -- they get cheap products from all over the world, exploit the workers at home, but pass the buck on all responsiblity for the political and economic effects of their business activities. But they make so much money for investors! Meanwhile, Costco accepts half the profit margin WalMart does and pays its employees good wages. Investors don't like Costco.

IIRC, Friedman ended this chapter by suggesting that WalMart was going to win this battle. Well, guess what? Costco just say its quarterly profits increase by 25%. So, uhm, maybe exploiting people at the bottom isn't a key part of making good investments. Maybe profits and progress aren't mutually exclusive. Perhaps the investor dogman and the dogman that cares about getting a decent salary can be the same person, and perhaps Friedman and all the other cheerleaders for soft empire are full of shit.

http://ichart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=COST&t=5y&q=l&l=on&z=m&c=WMT&a=v&p=s

I really don't think I've been proven wrong with Frenchie's links. If you have a link to one of those posts, I'd love to see it. If you don't, then perhaps you should stop making that claim.

Some of these exchanges just reach the point where someone says, "but 90% of Democrats arel neoliberals, so why complain about Clark" or, as you did, with the argument that if we don't exploit the world, "we'd have to pay through the nose" to sustain our hyper-consumption. I'm not persuaded by those arguments.

As for the TPM quote, here it is:

Without question, oil is one of many interests that the United States has in the Middle East. Oil is what gives the region much of its significance. But oil is important to America. Until we develop energy independence, we're going to be dependent on imported oil and, increasingly, natural gas.

America's economic strategy with respect to oil is that it is a commodity, and the people that have it want to sell it because they need the money. So our primary approach until developing energy independence should be, if we need it, to buy it - rather than having to fight for it.

Were we to pull out precipitously from Iraq, and destabilize the emerging political efforts there, the consequences would likely be a steep jump in the price of oil and hardship for millions of Americans as a consequence. But the consequences and thus our interests go beyond oil. As I said in my comment to Jai, potential for a civil war in Iraq would be high if we leave before there's an agreement and the militias disarm. But it might not just be civil war, because the Kurds will likely declare independence, which would bring in the Turks and Iranians as well.

So though I was absolutely against going into Iraq, now that we're there it's critically important that we get out in the right way. That means helping Iraq put a new democratic government in place, develop the security forces it needs to defend itself, and ensure that the needs and interests of America and all nations in the Middle East are respected in the process, to minimize future regional conflicts. It's up to the Bush Administration to ensure that happens, and up to the rest of us to hold their feet to the fire until they act.


I find this a troubling (but, I admit, vague) justification for remaining in Iraq. I think iit missed the point of Welsh's question (perhaps intentionally), which included this paragraph:

To be more direct, I want to discuss American imperialism and the foreign policy abuses of America's oil cartel. The oil industry has been realizing record profits since the war in Iraq began. The close ties of the oil industry to the Bush administration are undeniable. Perhaps those on the right might even argue that the acquisition of oil, even through the use of warfare, is in "our interest". But if that is the real reason this war is being prosecuted by this administration, and I believe it is, such issues should be put before the American people for their consent. I, for one, do not approve of such conduct especially where the benefits seem to accrue to commercial interests and not the interests of the American people. {Neither, I would add, are the benefits accruing to the Iraqi people.}

[dogman]

102. And more out of context and distortion BS.

You don't get that out of Clark because you have preconceived your argument against him. His tax plan from the primary was family friendly. Once again you misrepresent his version of soft empire. I have quoted from his book to show that he has a clear vision of fair and just trade.
Snip> Focusing our humanitarian and devlopmental efforts through a single, responsible department will help us bring the same kind of sustained attention to alleviating deprivation, misery, ethnic conflict, and poverty that we have brought to the problem of warfare.<snip
As far as myself as an investor I wrote:
Snip>I am also an investor and feel my investments should be rewarded if they are made wisely. I also see Clark calling for that.<snip
I consider a wise investment to be one that takes more than returns in to consideration.
I boycott Walmart and I have encouraged others in my family to do so also. We patronize Costco. That may be part of the reason they are successful. You must realize however that there is no comparison of the two at this point. Costco is very limited in the goods they offer and it requires our shopping at other union stores to meet our needs.
If you followed the political discussions during the primary you would be aware that Friedman is not in synch with Clark.
As far as Clark's position on SOA, you are the one making an acusation, you back it up. I don't need to refute it since I know you are wrong.
I did not say "if we don't exploit the world, 'we'd have to pay through the nose, to sustain our hyper-consumption". I said: Snip>There has to be a balance, that is the nature of commerce>snip
You quote: Snip>Were we to pull out precipitously from Iraq, and destabilize the emerging political efforts there, the consequences would likely be a steep jump in the price of oil and hardship for millions of Americans as a consequence.<snip
What is the very next sentences that you fail to highlight?
Snip>But the consequences and thus our interests go beyond oil. As I said in my comment to Jai, potential for a civil war in Iraq would be high if we leave before there's an agreement and the militias disarm. But it might not just be civil war, because the Kurds will likely declare independence, which would bring in the Turks and Iranians as well.<snip
Once again that brings us back to the most important question of this discussion. Who, other than Clark, is even discussing these issues and what are their solutions? Secondly, could they appeal to a broad enough segment of voters to be elected?
You sir, are looking the proverbial gift horse in the mouth.

[CarolNYC]

101. Interpretation

I have just one thing to add to this discussion and that is to suggest that anyone interested in what Clark is really trying to say or what he believes read the book and the infamous chapter for themselves (as well as a number of other Clark articles, speeches, books, etc.). The “interpretation” by 1932 of dogman’s statement regarding NED and Gen Clark is an absolutely perfect illustration (thank you very much) of the dangers of counting on this one’s interpretation of what Clark says...or anyone else’s interpretation for that matter.

Obviously, if one goes in looking for a particular thing, one can almost certainly find it, especially with selective reading and selective quoting. Hey, Drudge and the RNC pieced together parts of Gen Clark’s testimony before the HASC in 2002 to make it look like he was advocating the invasion of Iraq when, in fact, he was advocating against it. (And Lieberman, who really should have known better, took it and ran with it.)

So I’d say to anyone interested, read for yourself and make your own judgment. That sounds fair, no?

[1932]

103. And here's the link so that people can read and make own judgment:

But while a powerful military has been vital, the chief means of our influence has been an interlocking web of international institutions and arrangements, from NATO to the World Bank to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This network of mutual interdependence, though marginalized by the Bush administration, was largely devised by America, which has also been its chief beneficiary. It is, for all practical purposes, a kind of empire--but to use a contemporary term, a virtual one. Properly used and expanded, it can be the secret to a secure and prosperous future.

{snip}

For decades, the United States has been at the hub of this network of mutual interdependence, sometimes called "globalization." Heavily influenced--some might say dominated--by us, globalization reflected the American values of free-market economics and popular democracy. Enabled by modern communications and transportation, this network facilitated access to markets and investment opportunities abroad, assisted the flow of talent and intellectual property, and fostered the spread of market forces and democratic processes around the world. The major beneficiary of all of this was the United States itself. In short, this "globalization" was the new American empire.

{snip}

But this shift {by the Bush administration to military agression in Iraq}--rather than promoting the emergence of the new American empire--put all that we gained with "soft power" and the virtual American empire at risk.

{snip}

But if leadership is defined as "persuading the other fellow to want to do what you want him to do," as Eisenhower put it, then American leadership is failing. We simply aren't persuading others to align with our interests--we are coercing and pressuring.

-Wes Clark (Winning Modern Wars, Chapter 6)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0311.clark.html

[CarolNYC]

104. Perhaps this would be the more appropriate link....

...as I don't believe the full text of Clark's book is online anywhere:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=ZK4ZUcGCGx&isbn=1586482777&itm=2

Or you can go to your local library and borrow it. :)

Selective reading and quoting and all that, you know....

As I said, we've seen how you read and interpret in your zeal to jump on all things Clark. Again I thank you for providing the perfect example. Yes, dogman's post contained the phrase "he did not participate in the NED" but, by ignoring all the words around it, you totally changed the meaning of what he wrote,no? Even you must see that.

Now I leave you to continue.....

[1932]

105. That's the entire text of Chapter 6. It's an excellent start.

[CarolNYC]

109. No, actually, it is not.

Unless you're referring to some link other than the Washington Monthly article linked in the post I replied to....

The Washington Monthly article is adapted from Clark's Chapter 6. Some of the words are paraphrased and a lot are direct quotes...but it doesn't contain all that is written in that chapter.

Either you've not actually read Clark's book or you haven't read the article or you would know they are not the same.

If it is indeed the book you have not read, perhaps you should go to your local library and take it out or, if you want a copy to have at hand to read over and over again and to quote from, you can find some really cheap copies here:
http://half.ebay.com/cat/buy/prod.cgi?cpid=1207441876&pr=30234737

In any event, if you haven't actually read the book but are relying on the article as the full text of Chapter 6, perhaps it would be a good idea to read the actual chapter. It may not change the way you feel about Clark and his ideas but at least everyone would be discussing the same thing...

[1932]

111. From the website:

This article is adapted from his forthcoming book, Winning Modern Wars. Copyright 2003. Reprinted by arrangement with Public Affairs, a member of the Perseus Books Group. All rights reserved.

I have read the book and there isn't much difference between the adaptation and what ended up in the book.

None of it is quotes or paraphrasings. Clark might have left out some sections to make it shorter, but it's all Clark's words and it is a very substantially similar version of the chapter in the book. (I presume the magazine asked Clark for a certain number of words so he edited down the chapter.)

Nonetheless, I also encourage people to read the book. But to pretend that Chapter 6 at the link is not the same thing as Chapter 6 in the book...that's a claim that you should probably substantiate by getting out your copy of the book and telling DU'ers exactly what has changed rather that to claim that there are quotes and paraphrasings and that it's different.

[CarolNYC]

112. Actually, I did compare them this morning

to make sure I wasn't misremembering....There are whole pages from the book left out of the article and I'm not going to sit and type them here. Anyone can find them.

I'm not saying the words in the article are not Clark's words. His name is on it. I have to assume he approved of what was published.

I'm saying that your claim that the article contains the full text of Chapter 6 is inaccurate. Anyone who doesn't believe can easily take the book and see that is the case. I'm just saying that if people want to read the actual full text, they should go to the actual full text. That doesn't seem like such a complicated concept to me.

Oh, and I'm not sure what your definition of "quote" is, but by quotes I meant that there are full passages reprinted word for word in the same order as they appear in the book. This would seem to me to be in agreement with what you are saying so I'm not sure what your objection is to my use of the word quote in my post. :shrug:

[1932]

113. Everything in that article is in the book, right?

It's not quotes and paraphrases, right?

"Quotes" is when you put quotation marks around something. It's when someone writes something in their own voice and sets off someone elses voice within their own argument. That's not what Clark has done to himself in this article, right?

Paraphrases are summeries of arguments into shorter versions -- for example when you reduce a paragraph or more to a sentence, or multiple payges to a short paragraph. That's not what happened here, right?

It's Clark's abridged version of Chapter 6, right?

And the argument is no different than the argument in chapter 6, right?

I'm concerned that your post above gave readers the impression that this link doesn't present Clark's argument in Clark's own words and in all the detail Clark intended. It does. I see now that it's an abridged version, but it's very substantially similar.

[CarolNYC]

115. OK, dude (or dudette) :)

You’re kind of missing the point here....which isn’t is everything in the article in the book but rather is everything in the book in the article...but since you asked.....

“Everything in that article is in the book, right?”
Not exactly. For one, this line that you quote everywhere as from “Chapter 6, Winning Modern Wars” is, in fact, not in the article anywhere, not even in paraphrase.

But, again that’s not the point. If you would go back and read my first post in this exchange carefully (if you can), you’ll see that my stated purpose was not to influence anyone on what Wes Clark meant in this chapter but to say that I thought that people should not rely on your interpretation of the chapter...or anyone else’s...but read it and make the judgment for themselves. You then posted the link to the Washington Monthly article as the link to “the entire text” of the chapter. That’s just flat out wrong. I don’t know, perhaps I value accuracy more than you or something but I was just saying that the article is not, in fact, the “entire text”. Whether or not the additional pages of text in the book change the meaning is for the reader to decide, not me.

If people want to know what Wes Clark wrote in Chapter 6 of Winning Modern Wars, I think they should read Chapter 6 of Winning Modern Wars. If people want to know what Wes Clark wrote in the Washington Monthly article, they should read the Washington Monthly article. If they care to know further Wes Clark’s views, they should read and watch and listen to as many Clark things as they can get access to.....and then figure out for themselves what they think he means. Again, it seems a very simple concept to me and you seem to be trying to make it complicated.

Also, for whatever purpose, you seem to be trying to draw me into a discussion of what the Chapter, or perhaps the article, or perhaps the combination of both, mean. I have no desire to go there. So quit trying...or continue as you wish...you will not be successful.

Now, I’m finished with my weekend play here....

This has been an interesting discussion though and it does give me some things to keep in mind should I decide to read any of your future posts in any threads. So thanks, I guess.

Be well...Carol

[1932]

117. Which line is not in the book?

Why would you claim something I've quoted isn't in the book and then not tell people what it was? (And just to avoid confusion, Clark wrote what was in the Washington Monthly, so it's not as if whatever I quoted wasn't an opinion Clark held).

I'll repeat again: the tone of your reply was vague. I wanted to make sure readers were clear that that the link to Chapter 6 was not some third party's paraphrasing and quoting of Clark.

I didn't have the book and the WM article side by side, but even you must admit, they're substantially the same thing (as the note at the end indicates). So, sorry if I said they were verbatim. I don't have the book with me, so I can't tell anyone what's missing. Sorry.

Incidentally, before I found that WM link, I also begged people to read the book. I was glad to find the link, because apparently nobody reads books around here. Despite finding the link, I also encourage people to read the book. However, the linked page is in the book. It's not different from the book.

[CarolNYC]

118. Oh,

I was supposed to be done with this but you're right, I accidentally left out the line I was referring to, which is this: "Properly used and expanded, it can be the secret to a secure and prosperous future."

And I don't know how you think anything I wrote indicates that I think the article and the book are essentially the same thing. I gave absolutely no indication what I think of that...yet you find one there...Just another insight into how your mind works in these things, I guess....It's good to have perspective like that when reading your posts.

[1932]

119. "quotes" and "paraphrased"

You said, "Some of the words are paraphrased and a lot are direct quotes" (which isn't accurate, incidentally -- there are no quotation marks around any of material that appears in Waging Modern Wars, and, I suspect, there's very little paraphrasing -- I'll check myself, but I anticipate that the only different is that some material is edited out for length).

As I said, I thought that that statement left readers with the impression that Clark didn't write the WM piece or that it was substantially different from the book.

I also encourage people to read the book, as I've done for months. But I don't want people to be mistaken about the content of that WM article.

Incidentally, I wonder why Clark put that in the WM article and not in the book.

I'm going to track down my copy of that book and double check that that sentiment isn't anywhere in Ch. 6.

[FrenchieCat]

59. Of course.....but we know that....doh!

and so does Wes Clark! :patriot:

There are still a few good men out there you know...

Clark advocated intervention in Rwanda...and in fact, was the only one! Saving 800,000 Black Folks from Genocide is an American Value that we could use.

Check out what's happening in Darfur and with Aids in Africa when you have a chance. Clark has got a lot to say about those values too.

It's called the "saving human life" value.

[mike_c]

33. this is interesting....

If Clark calls for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq-- not "finishing/salvaging the mission" or any of that nonsense, but an unabiguous call for immediate withdrawal, I will support him. I've been one of the most consistent critics here of letting generals-- even ex-generals-- take control of civiilian government, but repudiating the war against Iraq is the single most important issue for me, and it would be enough to make me rethink my stance on Clark.

[Gloria]

67. See this thread...Clark on Geraldo recently.....shift...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2130013


Gen. Clark made a major move tonight on Geraldo....


Edited on Sun Oct-02-05 08:56 PM by Gloria

If the video goes up anywhere, watch it!!

First off, Clark said that what Abazaid said today was basically a "theory"...all the "ifs" about how we could succeed in Iraq.

More importantly--Clark said that there was only a window "of a few weeks" for Bush to engage nations in the region etc. and that at that point, it would be time to get the troops out, in the right way.

Now, what he did tonight was switch the emphasis on his plan, the plan he presented a couple of weeks ago to the Out of Iraq Caucus, that was impressed by his presentation.

He is moving his plan along in terms of boxing in the "pro-more troops crowd" of the DLC, etc.

For several months he has talked about a "window" of a few to 6 months for Bush to execute a bunch of suggestions, knowing full well Bush wouldn't do it.

Well, the "window" is up in a few weeks. And, appropriately, he shifted the emphasis from all the suggestion to getting the troops out in the right way. Previously, he spoke of executing several suggestions, and that if it wasn't done, the American people would have a right to demand the pullout of troops.

Clark is working his way to the that goal, it seems as if the clock is ticking for him to start emphasizing pullout, rather than "success" in Iraq....

This should get interesting!!! Clarkies???

[mike_c]

71. I will be paying close attention to this....

Right now utter honesty about the war against Iraq is an absolute deal maker/breaker for me with regard to any democrat. I am ready to WORK for anyone who has the courage to do this without equivocating.

on edit: reading this thread, I'm hearing an awful lot of equivocating-- no timeline, etc. We must get out of Iraq as quickly as possible-- I agree, no timeline in the sense of no announced future withdrawal. The U.S. must withdraw from Iraq IMMEDIATELY. Leave the infrastructure behind. PULL OUT NOW.

[DemoTex]

34. L. Eagleburger is on the board of directors of Halliburton.

How can he even pretend to be objective?

[SlavesandBulldozers]

69. he's not going to apologize for the policy

but on Donahue, before the war, Eagleburger said if there were no WMD found the US would have "egg on its face".

There's an Eagle-egg burger joke in there somewhere.

[shadowknows69]

55. that's all I needed to hear General

"We've got to very quickly take the military out of the lead role in every action we take around the world," Clark told the forum crowd at UMW's Dodd Auditorium. "Our military's overstretched and overcommitted right now. And there's only so much our country can accomplish by killing people," he said to the cheers of some in the audience.

Clark for President in 2008

Just made up my mind this minute

[goforit]

61. Sounds like a DLC shop talk!!!....Osama?, Personally trained by Poppy

It's been a scam from day one and the Dems look really
bad for pretending along with it!!!

Albright....Clark.....Eagleburger all get a F-

[FrenchieCat]

73. You, on the other hand get expelled

for lack of substance with your poo-poo post.

[CarolNYC]

66. An aside....

I understand that Eagleburger got all worked up when giving his remarks after Clark's, saying "where's my water 'cause I'm getting all worked up", at which point Wes grabbed the water pitcher, poured Eagleburger a glass, and walked it over to him. I wonder what Eagleburger's face looked like then. :)

Also, Clark was asked by the moderator about the VP character on Commander-in-Chief and said he hadn't seen the show. Albright thought the character was based on Wes though...

OK, sorry for the interruption, back to the topic.....

[Cults4Bush]

75. Bull Shit! All of this is shit until impeachment proceedings start.

We can jockey plans and schemes and ideas and principles etc... all we want but its all BS until we start lobbying not only congress but the American people to impeach.

Want election reform so bad it makes you cry? Had it with the poverty levels? Fed up with environment raping corpos? Tired of seeing the little guy getting screwed by his managers and CEO? Want to stop making terrorists? Want to stop torturing innocent children? ect etc... ad nauseum.

Well, tell everyone you know impeachment is the only way out of Iraq... and that is the only truth we have right now.

Clarks a good person as are many of our Dem leaders but any progressive action plan is doomed to uselessness until chimpy and his cohorts feeel the heat.

I believe we can bend this congress to the will of America by shameing them into action. I fervently believe this. Shame and any attachments one may have to an article of guilt laid open to the public eye is a grand motivator when consistantly picked and prodded like an open wound.

For me there is no other agenda because no other agenda will be enacted until this admin goes down in flames and is drowned in its own sewage.

[Maestro]

77. Great words

from a smart man. I hope he at runs for the nomination to be pres soon.

[entanglement]

108. Two criminal thugs Albright and Eagleburger

I'm guessing Clark won this debate

[callady]

110. To substantiate your claims

Clinton laid siege to Iraq with sanctions, "no fly zones" and bombings, killing 1.5 to 3 million people.  UN-approved sanctions on Iraq were originally imposed at the start of the Gulf War in response to the invasion of Kuwait, but continued after the end of the war at US (and UK) insistence.  The United States used sanctions as a weapon against Iraq.  One military intelligence document titled Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities noted:

"Iraq depends on importing-specialized equipment-and some chemicals to purify its water supply ... With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations sanctions to import these vital commodities. ... Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease and to certain pure-water-dependent industries becoming incapacitated, including petrochemicals, fertilizers, petroleum refining, electronics, pharmaceuticals, food processing, textiles, concrete construction, and thermal power plants.  Iraq’s overall water treatment capability will suffer a slow decline, rather than a precipitous halt ... Unless water treatment supplies are exempted from the UN sanctions for humanitarian reasons, no adequate solution exists for Iraq’s water purification dilemma, since no suitable alternatives ... sufficiently meet Iraqi needs. ... Unless the water is purified with chlorine epidemics of such diseases as Cholera, Hepatitis, and Typhoid could occur ... Iraq could try convincing the United Nations or individual countries to exempt water treatment supplies from sanctions for humanitarian reasons. It probably also is attempting to purchase supplies by using some sympathetic countries as fronts. If such attempts fail, Iraqi alternatives are not adequate for their national requirements. ... Some affluent Iraqis could obtain their own minimally adequate supply of good quality water from northern Iraqi sources. If boiled, the water could be safely consumed. Poorer Iraqis and industries requiring large quantities of pure water would not be able to meet their needs. ... Alternatives are not adequate for their national requirements."

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html

And of course Madeleine said "It was Worth it" to Leslie Stahl.

[Field Of Dreams]

114. Will this replay on C-SPAN?

eom

[CarolNYC]

116. As far as I can tell...

C-Span wasn't there to tape it...But someone who attended is attempting to find out if it was taped and is perhaps available for purchase...