Excellent report on Wes Clark's talk at Terrorism Conference today....

[Gloria]

http://www.raisingkaine.com/blog/?p=791 (Cross posted from Kos)

(SNIP)

To begin, General Clark emphasized that his thoughts were currently focused on the Gulf Coast, the victims of Hurricane Katrina, and the heroic work of America’s “first responders” there. Pointedly, Clark asserted that “We don’t want to have to call on them in response to terrorism.” Unfortunately, Clark believes that such a day could come to pass, despite the fact that we have gone four years without another attack on American soil. In Clark’s words, it’s not time to “call it a day” or have a “victory parade.” Quite the contrary, “it’s not over, it’s not even clear who’s winning” the “war on terrorism,” especially given the fact that “the number of terrorist attacks has increased since 9/11.” In particular, Clark expressed grave concern that “precious little has been accomplished” on preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Regarding Iraq, Clark was harshly critical of the Bush Administration. Calling Iraq a “recruiting magnet” and a “feedlot for terrorists” in terms of training opportunities for honing their killing skills, Clark stated point blank that “it is time to change the course.” Clark added that the American public has “a right to expect more than leadership has delivered.” Clark’s five-pronged prescription for Iraq, and the “war on terrorism” in general, went as follows:

1) We need to correct our overdependence on use of the armed forces. Speaking powerfully and emotionally, Clark declared that “we can’t kill all the terrorists…this is not like World War II, this is not like the invasion of Iwo Jima.” In other words, we can’t win this war ONLY through military force, although it certainly is PART of the solution.

2) We have to win the “war on terror” ideologically. To do that, we have to understand exactly who we’re fighting, what their aims are, how they recruit, and why they are willing to kill themselves for their cause. We have to stop assuming that they are “irrational in the sense that they don’t have cause and effect.” We have to “remove the grievances that fuel the terrorist movements,” grievances like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Russia/Chechnya war (a “bleeding sore,” in Clark’s words). We also have to “support movement towards democracy” in the Muslim world. We need to make sure that torture is never allowed in our armed forces, and that “someone at the top… held accountable” - not just some low-level grunt. The bottom line is that torture (and “renditions” of prisoners to countries that we know utilize torture) is wrong, “undercuts our legitimacy,” and must be stopped.

3) We need to “deal realistically with Iraq.” And realistically, in Clark’s view, right now “we are NOT winning.” Instead, the Bush Administration has fallen into the “same mistake as Vietnam,” with its “repeated claims of progress” and no “strategy for success.” As soon as possible, we need to bring in Iraq’s neighbors as part of the solution, as opposed to their being “part of the problem.” We need to “broker a compromise to hold Iraq together” and make sure that the country does not disintegrate. We need a strategy that effectively encompasses military, diplomatic, and political elements.

4) We need a “new global framework” for how we think about our own security. In Clark’s view, the U.S. military should be used as the LAST resort, not as the FIRST resort which the Bush Administration apparently prefers. Instead, we need to develop a “diplomatic and legal framework to advance our interests.”

5) We need to “rebuild our security structure here at home.” In Clark’s opinion, the pitiful response to Hurricane Katrina was “frightening to the rest of the world.” The question is whether or not this represents the “tip of the iceberg,” with the Department of Homeland Security possibly a failure as “the largest of all corporate mergers.” If so, what does this imply about the U.S. response to a terrorist attack, four years after 9/11?

Also regarding the home front, Clark spoke passionately about how “you cannot win the war on terror by sacrificing the rights and freedoms that we’re fighting to protect .” Clark added that “we still are a great people,” that “we still have the constitution” and that “we’re still the greatest nation on earth.” However, we definitely need to “change the course” as soon as possible.

(MORE)

http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=event&EveID=510

The New America Foundation is posting video of the talks....Clark's should be up shortly

[Donna Zen]

1. This is the first report I've seen:

I've waited quite some time for this conference, but must wait a little longer it seems. The video's not up yet. Did you get to see it?


Geesh...I wonder what Biden had to say?

[Gloria]

2. NO, waiting for the video...looks like the finished the AM speeches...

Clark spoke after (during?) lunch so it should be up in the next batch

[Donna Zen]

3. Checking around the blogosphere

looking for comments about this.

As der fearless leader would say: Vaiting ez sech hurd verk. <---I'm hating bush more than usual today. To much blood.

[MrSlayer]

4. Clark Rules.

Although the only new parts are about recent events. General Clark has understood this situation from the beginning and has expressed these views for a long time now. As a man who has been to war on the front lines and as Supreme Allied Commander, Clark truly understands the horrors of combat and will avoid sending our troops into it unless it's absolutely necessary and then he'll kick your ass. "President Clark" has a nice ring to it.

[phylla]

5. Yer dern tootin'

I believe in Wes Clark.

He has been correct about most everything.

And I have been following his orders to become active in the local party and am busy supporting even the lowest level official races.

The man is just amazing. I trust him completely.

And when he says the word, I am going to double and de-double my efforts to get him in the Whitehouse.

We need him there.

[Donna Zen]

6. From Tapped/Garance Franke-Ruta

While Clark's vision may not please everyone, there is something about his clarity that should give us pause. I do think that Clark's plan to get out may be 'it." That bush is neither capable of following it, nor appointing diplomats to implement it is just part of the frayed fabric of life in America. Change the course and where the hell is the leadership.

Garance Franke-Ruta


snip....

After his speech I asked Clark what he thought about the fact that such a large portion of the Democratic base now favors immediate withdrawal. "I think the president better pay attention," he replied. "I think he's in danger of losing support for his policies in Iraq."

It was pretty clear from listening to Clark that he thinks that losing the support of America for the war can be counted as another one of the administration's errors in fighting it. That said, it really is possible that there are ways of getting out of Iraq that are superior to others, and also ways that make both America's long-term security and the situation on the ground even worse than the war is making them on its own. Clark sees immediate withdrawal as the latter.

Given that Clark had a pretty clear-headed view going into the war of what operational realities might be like -- just reread this 2002 USA Today op-ed if you want an example -- it might also be wise to listen to him now.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Well I just reread Clark's 9/14/01 od-ed (3 days after 9/11)

that was published in WAPO.

That op-ed tells me everything that I need to know about how he would have dealt with 9/11...and its head over shoulder what we ended up doing. Clark didn't even think that going into Afganistan was the real answer, barring going there only to get Osama and his Al qeada folks. But he wasn't even close to thinking, as this administration did, of going off into fighting a conventional war in Afghanistan.

If only.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=108x122187