Does Clark sound like a Neoconservative on Defense?

[Printer70]

Listen to Clark's language and assumptions. Are they not reminiscent of neocons on defense.

Exhibit A:

--
"New Yorker" excerpt

Clark said that Saddam "absolutely" had weapons of mass destruction, adding, "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this." In the April 10th London Times, Clark predicted that the American victory would alter the dynamics of the region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express." Clark praised the Anglo-American alliance, saying that Bush & Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.

Clark called for victory parades down the Mall, and in another column, cheered the spectacular display of coalition force: "American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try!"

Source: The New Yorker magazine, "Gen. Clark's Battles" Nov 17, 2003
--

Exhibit B

"The Nation" excerpt

"On June 12, 1999, in the immediate aftermath of NATO's air war against Yugoslavia, a small contingent of Russian troops dashed to occupy the Pristina airfield in Kosovo. Clark was so anxious to stop the Russians that he ordered an airborne assault to confront these units....But British General Michael Jackson, the commander of the NATO international force K-FOR, told Clark: "Sir, I'm not starting WWIII for you," when refusing to accept his order to prevent Russian forces from taking over the airport.

After being rebuffed by Jackson, Clark, according to various media reports at the time, then ordered the American Admiral James Ellis to use Apache helicopters to occupy the airfield. Ellis didn't comply either. Had Clark's orders been followed, the subsequent NATO-negotiated compromise with the Russians might well have been undermined."

Source: The Nation, Opionion, "Wesley Clark's 'High Noon' Moment" Sep 17, 2003
--

[JVS]

1. Yes!

[JVS]

2. Do I win anything?

[Printer70]

7. A Clark bar

Yes. Either that or a Sharpton "Nutrageous"!!

[JVS]

12. A Clark bar. Now that is a Clark that I would like!

[IranianDemocrat]

3. I have an idea.

Let's bring up stuff that has been discussed 300+ times before in the past to put down other candidates and therefore try to raise the status of the candidate you support.

[Printer70]

10. I have a better idea- answer the question!

Liberation?

Don't mess with America?

Attack Russian troops unnecessarily?

I await your response.

[Clark Campaigner]

4. Maybe Clark's experience means he knows something you don't?

Could it be that Clark is right?
Ever considered the possibility?

[Printer70]

11. Who said this?

Liberation?

Don't mess with America?

Attack Russian troops unnecessarily?
--

Who does this sound like?

[jonoboy]

39. I dig these Clark posters

[Clark Campaigner]

40. yeah, cool aren't they?

I'd like to see more Clark supporters use some of them.
Hopefully they'll make some more, too.

[BootinUp]

5. Its late

gotta go, if your going to be around check out my post here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=87066#87438

[rogerhall]

6. To me, a neocan can't stop thinking about Syria and Saudi ...

and Clark is nowhere near invading those countries.

As for your two quotes:

1) Powell was still defending the intelligence today. Someone, somewhere, did a serious reaming on the intelligence community.

2) clarkmyths.com :}

[Printer70]

13. Please elaborate on #2

I don't excuse Clark because Powell fell for it. Powell has always been on the wrong side. But can Clark Myths explain why Clark thinks like a neocon?

[rogerhall]

18. Elaboration

2) http://www.clarkmyths.com/myth4.html

Please read the above, and feel free to pursue elsewhere. It has been explained many times. Thanks.

As for Powell, if you have no respect for him at all, then I find it hard to believe that you could ever respect Wes. Powell is the best Republican on the planet. :}

Ok, still a Republican, but no devil. IMHO, Powell has saved many lives, both American and Iraqi, by acting as the only voice of what-comes-close-to-reason within our current Presidential Administration. He often argues for the things I argue for - UN, affirmative action, and PEACE!

IMHO, Doves are not on the 'other side'.

Seems as if you actually have decided he is one, and you are not really asking.

Edit: Conclusion, spelling, title for connotation

[Printer70]

23. Now I know what Romney was talking about...

...Pentagon brainwashing:

"When the Russians actually occupied the airfield on June 12, NATO initially wanted to place troops and armored carriers on part of it to block it--not to storm it--because there was a relatively low risk of a confrontation at the airfield--which was large and occupied by only a token force--whereas there might be a very serious risk if the Russians decided to force their way through Hungarian airspace. "

...everything in this response sounds reasonable except for two things: A) Assumption Russia would escalate the conflict through posession of the airfield and B) We had no choice to prevent the taking of the airfield aside from bombing the Russians.

Look, Clark's obviously got some pretty good spinners, probably from military PsyOps, but the fact is, at that moment, cooler heads prevailed...thankfully.

[rogerhall]

27. Printer, I'm not sure about everything here, but

I do know that Russia has a bad temper in it's backyard, and that Clark was very possibly told to send troops there. He certainly had the administrative authority to do so. Russia did give us a lot of shit during all this, and always refused to place any troops into the NATO chain of command. They were a thorn, not a rose.

But if this is your deal, then dude, vote elsewhere.

As for the rest of us, I doubt we really feel as qualified to debate the specifics of international military strategy as a General officer of the Army who graduated first in his class from the most successful military college in history.

Besides that, I do not see how a *single tactical decision* makes one a neo-con.

Now, a Kennedy democrat maybe.

[Printer70]

29. No, I meant neocon assumptions

Look, I don't know exactly what people think of when people utter the word "neconservative". Ask 10 different people and you get 10 responses with variances. But NeoCons have an ideology like any other group. That ideology is constructed from assumptions about the way the world works and manifests itself in certain attitudes about defense. Wes Clark seems to share some of these core assumptions- whether it's American exceptionalism or underestimating the consequences of military decisions. I certainly think NeoCons underestimated America's alienation in the world as a result of the Iraq war. It's a reliance on even questionable intel, when it comes from the CIA or Pentagon, rather than healthy skepticism.

[rogerhall]

30. Oh. Ok. Yeah, it is a loaded word. Clark is ...

absolutely a multi-lateralist that wants a strong relationshop with Europe (and anyone who wants to play nice).

Does that fit a definition of neo-con you are familiar with? ('Cause neo-con is about military-might-matters and we-better-flex-it-or-our-dick-will-shrivel as far as I know the strategy. I just heard that Iraq/Syria/Saudi was part of the tactical plan. :)

[rogerhall]

32. Actually, may favorite definition so far was from ...

David Brooks a couple of days ago.

He said that 'neo' was short for 'Jewish'.

I emailed him and asked him WTF a 'neo-Nazi' was then ...

Edit: title spelling

[rogerhall]

36. Well, here is the goods, thanks to Tameszu

http://slate.msn.com/id/2091194

Kosovo was the United States' first post-Cold War experiment in "humanitarian intervention." Clark, who was the U.S. Supreme Allied Commander in Europe (and who, before that, had been a military aide in the Dayton negotiations over Bosnia), supported going to war in order to protect the Kosovars from the savagery of Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic. Secretary of Defense William Cohen and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, who had no taste for interventions of practically any sort, opposed it.

That much, Boyer has right. But much else, he does not.

For instance, he portrays Clark as not only maneuvering around the chiefs in his advocacy, but also as drawing a lackadaisical Clinton White House—distracted by domestic troubles over Monica Lewinsky—into war. In fact, however, Clinton may have been distracted somewhat, but Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was not. Albright was a fiery supporter of military intervention in the Balkans (many have written of the famous meeting where she appalled the reticent chiefs by saying, "What good are all these fine troops you keep telling us about if we can't use them?"). Albright was the prime mover; many observers at the time—supporters and critics alike—called it "Madeleine's war." And her prime collaborator, Richard Holbrooke, Clinton's envoy to Bosnia, also enjoyed direct access to the president.

So it is more than a bit startling to read, in Boyer's article, the following sentence: "Clark's view, which had the support of Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Holbrooke, prevailed." It would be more apt to say, "Albright's view, which had the support of Holbrooke and Clark, prevailed." She welcomed Clark's endorsement, but she didn't need it to make her argument or to win it.

[jfiling]

20. That's news to me

Who has talked about invading Saudi Arabia? A direct, verifiable quote would be wonderful.

[rogerhall]

22. About Saudi

Okay .. not really trying to say 'invade' Saudi, with soldiers and all, but instead to put so much American pressure in the region (and to make such nice-nice with the new Iraq), that we can tell the Saudi's to kiss our collective backsides. It is simply the understanding that I have based on my seconds and seconds or over-hearing some talking head. :}

And I'm a little tired tonite, so I am probably writing in mental shorthand.

As for a direct, verfiable quote. I don't have one. I have heard rumour of a document that was part of the foreign policy planning which originated in Bush 41's administration that some of the head neocons were involved in (seems like it is supposed to be Wolfowitz, Pearle, Rumsfeld, and Cheney) which lays out something along these lines.

I have a long list of things to research, and this is on it.

If you have any info to the contrary, please post! :}

[DuctapeFatwa]

8. If he wants to be the PNAC boysinger, he better sound like one

[hellhathnofury]

9. NO! Don't post this again.

We've gone through all these things and my god man, Clark neo-con? You've got to be kidding.

[Printer70]

14. Liberation, Don't mess with America, Bomb russians

...that seems very aggressive and in line with Neocon thought.

[hellhathnofury]

17. Well...

I believe the Russian thing was disproved and praising the military is not a bad thing. I was impressed too.

Neo-con's are very different thing, I suggest you do your hw.

www.newamericancentury.org

[Printer70]

21. Boasting to the rest of the world

...that our military can steamroll you so don't even try doesn't engender trust, confidence, or friendship. It's the kind of thing Bush or Rummy would say. Yes, his plan to bomb Russians was ruled out because his own subordinates refused to obey his orders...which is not common in an organization which operates on rank like the military. Neocons believe in American exceptionalism and a weird compassionate/aggressive position to the rest of the world I see that in Clark's bombing campaign in Kosovo and bravado.

[hellhathnofury]

24. Clark is a general, I would expect some rah-rah.

I don't think he's advocating a neo-con world at all. There have been tons of threads about the Kosovo-Russian thing, I doubt feel like rehashing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. I suggest you READ his book

waging modern war.... just like you need to read everything
put out by ALL candidates.

Once yuo do, you will realize that this is a very nuanced man...just as Dean is... and Kucinich, and the rest

[Crunchy Frog]

16. No he doesn't

Thanks for more of the same tired old quotes out of context. Maybe next time you could get a little more creative.

[Printer70]

19. Don't give me the "context" cop-out

I posted paragraphs. The rest of the story doesn't put the General's remarks in any friendlier of a light.

[BootinUp]

31. The context is important. Lets talk about it.

The context was Iraqi's dancing in the street, and one of the most successful campaigns/invasions in modern history, and 90% of Americans thinking we accomplished something.

Clark basically did these things in the article:

First he commented on the military campaign successes.

Second he commented on Bushes and Blairs steadfastness.

Third he correctly identified that there would be some positive reaction from both Arab states and Germany.

He then chided them for alienating our allies, for not planning for the post war, and for not justifying the invasion.

Now what the heck is the problem? Clark has a way of digging the knife in without you even knowing it. That is the spirit of that article. Go read it again please, and then read this speech is you want to know his ideas on Foreign policy and what is wrong with ours today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=87066#87438

and then read his 10 pledges to us:

http://clark04.com/issues/10pledges/

thanks you for taking the time to read this.

cheers

[Dover]

25. I think Clark relies on the fear factor, much like the GOP

Of course that is necessary if Clark is to convince people they need him and his military experience.

[Printer70]

26. I think you're right- his volunteer plan

...stresses the need for people to be around "when" the next terrorist strike takes place. I don't object to the idea per-se, but it's as if he's trying to give people this impending sense of doom. And you're right, it's convienient, because he thinks voters will gravitate to him if they feel that way.

[rogerhall]

34. I would argue that Clark relies on the hope factor.

In fact, I have yet to meet a supporter of Clark's that isn't inspired.

Come to think of it, Dean et al seems to have inspired their followers a touch, too.

Maybe we just get inspired about different things. I'm pretty sure we all facing the same direction though.

Well, except maybe Joe's group. (joke!) :}

[maxr4clark]

37. Clark has run the most positive campaign among the Dems

...and the word "anger" is used more frequently in descriptions of Dean's campaign than any other, and still there are claims that Clark is trying to scare people into voting for him. Amazing.

Clark's tax plan is more progressive than Dean's; Clark's healthcare plan adds just as many Americans to the ranks of those with healthcare as Dean's does, but costs less; Clark supports cutting the Defense budget, but Dean does not. And still Dean supporters claim that Clark isn't really a Democrat like Dean. Amazing.

Clark authors a book that promotes international law and argues forcefully against the neocon plan for an American Empire, and Dean campaigns for a year without proposing a foreign policy alternative--and still Dean supporters try to label him a neocon because he is retired military. Simply amazing.

The last time I heard this kind of campaign rhetoric was in 2000--from the Governor of a little state named Texas.

[cprise]

28. Compare w/Richard Perle (neocon) here:

http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?display=day&todayDate=01/08/2004

[tameszu]

33. Easily countered

New Yorker piece:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2091194/

Pristina Airfield:

http://antidotal.blogspot.com/2003_09_14_antidotal_archive.html#106364517252030920

Can you answer these? If not, I don't want you serving that tripe again.

[rogerhall]

35. Thnx 4 the cites! :} -eom-

[Printer70]

38. Slate piece is a weak defense

Summary of "defenses"

-Clark is not so stubborn, others are stubborn too!
-Kosovo is not like Iraq. Ignores fact we also defied UN then as well.
-Misses irony that we justified meddling in Yugoslavia on humanitarian reasons and now we're justifying involvement in Iraq on same basis
--

I don't see how this addresses the fact that Clark's worldview and assumptions are formed along the same lines of Neocons are far as American exceptionalism, starting wars for "humanitarian" reasons/values, etc.

[bowens43]

41. He spent 30 years in the military

he is a hawk by nature and indoctrination. Military solutions will a valid consideration for every foreign policy issue.