Excerpts from Clark's "Winning Modern Wars"

[wyldwolf]

Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark writes in a new book that when he went back to the Pentagon in November 2001, he had a chat with one of the senior military staff officers about the plan against Iraq. "This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Somalia and Sudan. So, I thought, this is what they mean when they talk about 'draining the swamp.' It was evidence of the Cold War approach: Terrorism must have a 'state sponsor,' and it would be much more effective to attack a state than to chase after individuals, nebulous organizations, and shadowy associations," Clark writes.

"He said it with reproach -- with disbelief, almost -- at the breadth of the vision. I moved the conversation away, for this was not something I wanted to hear. And it was not something I wanted to see moving forward, either. What a mistake!" Clark writes in the book, "Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism, and the American Empire," (2003, PublicAffairs), which is exclusively excerpted in the September 29 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, September 22).

"I reflected -- as though terrorism were simply coming from these states. Well, that might be true for Iran, which still supported Hezbollah, and Syria, complicit in aiding Hamas and Hezbollah. But neither Hezbollah nor Hamas were targeting Americans. Why not build international power against Al Qaeda? But if we prioritized the threat against us from any state, surely Iran was at the top of the list, with ongoing chemical and biological warfare programs, clear nuclear aspirations, and an organized, global terrorist arm," Clark writes.

The excerpt continues: "And if we wanted to go after states supporting terrorism, why not first go to the United Nations, present the evidence against Al Qaeda, set up a tribunal for prosecuting international terrorism? Why not develop resolutions that would give our counterterrorist efforts the greater force of international law and gain for us more powerful leverage against any state that might support terrorists, then use international law and backed by the evidence to rope in the always nuanced Europeans that still kept open trade with Iran and the others?"

[tsipple]

1. Well Said

I don't think any Democrat in the race disagrees with anything you've just quoted, although there are differences among the Democrats in their applications of these principles.

But clearly we have a President who has different ideas.

[returnable]

2. Yep. Sounds like a PNAC plant to me!

:kick:

[WilliamPitt]

3. Simple brilliance

"And if we wanted to go after states supporting terrorism, why not first go to the United Nations, present the evidence against Al Qaeda, set up a tribunal for prosecuting international terrorism? Why not develop resolutions that would give our counterterrorist efforts the greater force of international law and gain for us more powerful leverage against any state that might support terrorists, then use international law and backed by the evidence to rope in the always nuanced Europeans that still kept open trade with Iran and the others?"

[Zuni]

4. excellent quotes

I do not care what anyone says about Clark--it looks to me that he has the right idea.

[tjdee]

5. And he wrote this BEFORE DECIDING TO RUN.

I just want to be clear here.

Clark knows about PNAC, and is AGAINST it. From his own lips, and this book was in the can before he decided to run.

Clark is the only one who has mentioned PNAC--there's been another issue where he was the only one to address it, but I'm blanking now.

I like the way his mind works.

[OKNancy]

6. The Fairness Doctrine?

I hadn't heard that mentioned from any other candidate. ( but I could be wrong)

[tjdee]

11. Yes, that's the one I'm thinking of. n/t

[vernon_nackulus]

7. Re: "And he wrote this BEFORE DECIDING TO RUN."

I've personally heard Kucinich talk about PNAC, and I've heard Dean blast PNAC talking points, if not mention it specifically.

Nothing against Clark, of course. I think he would make a great candidate. I'd love to see him debate Bush one on one. LOL!

[tjdee]

10. Thank you for correcting me...

I should have expected as much from Kucinich, actually--I don't know, obviously this is the first time I've heard explained quite this way.

But thanks for correcting me!
Welcome to DU, as well.
:toast:

[newyawker99]

12. Hi vernon_nackulus!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[vernon_nackulus]

14. Thanks guys!

I feel so loved :)

[RandomUser]

16. I like the way his mind works too

This was what sealed the deal for me. His resume earned him a look over, but his intelligence and the way he communicates it sealed the deal. I'm impressed by him analytical abilities, and the way he thinks strategically to devise solutions to problems. After Bush, I want the opposite, someone who can add 2 and 2. I'm starting to like Kucinich too. He's grown on me. A Clark/Kucinich ticket would be nice. But I don't think that's likely. I do hope Clark makes Kucinich part of his administration though. Smart people are hard to find. One of Clark's superior intensely disliked him, but promoted him anyway, saying Clark was too smart to waste.

[maggrwaggr]

8. I believe this is the reason he's running

because he sees Bushco for the evil, world-destructing force that they are and he's realized that there's no good way to stop them except to try to bump them out of power.

A while back I suggested that perhaps if Bush "won" in '04 there would be some sort of military coup because the military has a LOT of reasons to not want Bushco in power anymore -- they're denigrated the military, they've turned the personnel against the leadership, they're TIED DOWN in Iraq and are basically completely useless at this point etc. etc. etc.

I think Clark is probably not alone in being a military guy that wants these guys OUTTA THERE!

And I'm all for it. Clark knows shit that other people just don't know. And he doesn't like what he sees.

[Zuni]

9. The Uniformed military and Rumsfeld

Ranking officer have been leaking information about widespread discontent and anger at being run roughshod over by Rumsfeld and his chickenhawks.
Apparently Rumsfeld acts like he is a military genius, always knows what is right, and ignores or speaks down to uniformed officers. Seems likely, knowing Rumsfeld's arrogance.
I get the impression that the military would love to have anyone but Rumsfeld in 2004.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

13. Incredible

Where are all the Clark-bashers? Once again, shine the light and they go scurrying for cover.

DTH

[Ruby Newsbee]

15. Thank you very much for this post.

This is what I love about posters on DU. You bring knowledge from both sides of an argument. I will want to read Clarks book now, to see what he reveals.

All he needs to do for me at this point and time is give me a reason to trust him. In order to make an informed decision I need to see all sides of each candidate.