Clark: U.S. should be "streaming supplies to Lebanon"

[Clarkie1]

Also blames Bush administration for not doing enough to help the government of Lebanon previously, and handicapping our response by refusing to talk to Syria and Iran.

From an radio talk-show interview today in Colorado, where he was campaigning for congressional candidate Jay Fawcett:

<snip>

Jay Marvin: And, and how much, how satisfied are you with the US response?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, the United States doesn't have the, the, the basis for, for an adequate response, because over the last four or five years we have cut off relations and refused to (drop-out) people that we should have been talking to, like Syria and Iran. The result of that is that now when we could go back and try to bring all this together, we can't talk to Syria. Also, we haven't been effective really in assisting the government of Lebanon. You know, the Bush administration took a lot of credit for Democracy in Lebanon, but they never followed through after the UN Security Council resolution was passed saying that Hizbullah had to disarm and, and so forth. They didn't help the government of Lebanon, and right now this administration should be streaming supplies in there, not just to get our people out, but to help the government of Lebanon.

<snip>

Jay Marvin: Give us three things you would do immediately. If I, if you were, if you were sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue right now, what would you do?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, with respect to the specific crises at hand, I'd tell ambassador Chris Hill to have a one-on-one talk with North Korea. That's the first thing I'd do there. Secondly, I'd, I'd send a high level emissary to talk to the Iranian leadership and have direct dialog with Iran. And third, I'd be working with the President of Lebanon to strengthen his government and bring together an international coalition of support to, to help him deal with the needs of his people, at the same time, helping him build up the strength he needs to force Hizbullah out. So, those, those are three quick things that, that I would do.

Edit: link

http://www.securingamerica.com/node/1243

[ShortnFiery]

1. The good General was right on two out of three points.

You will NOT ever force Hezbollah out of operation completely. However they must disarm and then we can have dialog to change their goals. AS the Brits changed the IRA, from a terrorist organization into a peaceful political branch of their government.

[bdamomma]

2. it is so nice to hear someone like Wes Clark

with a plan, and to talk to people, instead of invading, bombing and killing people. I am waiting for the pendulum to swing back and when it does I hope it knocks those neo cons right back into their holes.

[Clarkie1]

5. He's the only Democrat I've heard say something besides "I support Israel"

which is simply parroting the Bush administration. Yes, Clark supports Israel, but he is also critical of the administrations approach not just to this but to what lead up to this and is actually talking about what we should be doing to help bring peace to the region.

What other Democrat is doing that? For that matter, what Republican, Green, Liberaterian, or Independent is doing that?

[jsamuel]

3. Sec of Defense

he would be awesome at it

I know some would say that it is a "demotion" but he knows what he is doing better than any other Dem at this stuff.

[MadMaddie]

7. Yes...he would be amazing in that role....

[Clarkie1]

8. I'd rather see him setting policy, not following policy. nt

[DanCa]

9. He's my guy in 08

Hell I don't agree with him on everything but when he's right he's right.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. I don't think that he can be Sec of Defense by law

I think he has to have been out of the military for a certain period of time and I don't think that period of time will have lapsed by 2009.

[jsamuel]

18. really

what about state?

[Hippo_Tron]

27. Yea he can be Secretary of State

Which honestly I think is a better gig. The Secretary of Defense is generally supposed to have a lesser role in actually determining foreign policy than the Secretary of State. The Secretary of Defense is more involved in logistics.

[Mz Pip]

25. 10 years

So 08 would be about right.

I'd rather see him at Sec of State than at Defense. He's such a diplomat IMHO.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[w4rma]

4. Shit. Just tell Kofi to call Assad and make something happen.

"They" need to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it’s over.

Its all very very simple.

:sarcasm:

[Clarkie1]

12. You nailed one of the key problems with the neo-con approach

to foreign policy.

By refusing to talk to Syria, Bush has taken away any leverage the U.S. might have had with Syria in the present crises.

Of course, Clark makes several points besides the obvious one that we should have been talking directly with Iran and Syria all along, because everything is related to everything else.

[Ilsa]

34. Yeah, now you're thinking like a Bushie! LOL! eom

[oberliner]

6. Another important excerpt

Another important excerpt to highlight:

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Essentially, Hizbullah took advantage of Israel's distraction to attack. They did it to gain credibility, gain more (drop-out) funding, and, and raise their prestige. They probably did it in coordination with Iran to distract the attention of the world from the Iranian nuclear programs. And so, Israel was attacked. Israel's not occupying any of Lebanon. There's no cause for this. It's simply a unprovoked attack. So, Israel's fighting back, and Israel has a right to defend itself. It's running an air campaign, going after Hizbullah. It's going to try to take a significant bite out of Hizbullah and try to get the Lebanese government and the international community to force Hizbullah out of Southern Lebanon. That's what's happening.

I wonder, would most DUers agree with General Clark's assessment there?

[Clarkie1]

10. Probably not. But every senator in the senate would

along with all except 8 members of the House.

So, are you going to single out Clark on this if you disagree?

Clark has a PLAN. All I've heard from others is just the part about supporting Israel and this being Hezbollahs fault...which I agree with, by the way.

[oberliner]

16. I agree with Clark's comments.

I agree with Clark's comments.

His assessment of the situation, like that of numerous other well-liked-on-DU Democrats, does not seem to be a popular one here.

I'm trying to understand the dissonance.

[mmonk]

19. No.

[jsamuel]

23. no, i don't

[shance]

37. "Israel's fighting back, and Israel has a right to defend itself."

This sounds more like the Wesley "Hawk" Clarke I've heard speak. Mr. PNAC lite.

Looks as though he's once again unfortunately speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I would love to trust him, but his affiliations plus double speak like this continue to discolor the heroic image he and others continue to try and paint.

I'd settle for the truth.

[Clarkie1]

38. So 100 senators are also "PNAC-lite."

:eyes:

[Donna Zen]

41. Got Education?

There is a very informative post currently on Kos' recommended list, "Hezbollah For Dummier...or Bush". What you have quoted by Clark is exactly what is happening. Both Stratfor.com, and the ICG are in agreement about the greater dynamics of this situation agree on the major points of their assessment, and they not only have monitored this for years, they have people on the ground.

Anyone chosing to comment on these current events owes to the readers here to understand the facts. If we want to condemn the Israelis for a disproportionate response, that is perfectly fine with me. But intellectual honesty demands one to understand the nature and goals of Hezbullah; they are not saints.

Lebanon will not be able to move forward with becoming an effective, stable government as long as they have a private militia within their borders. That is why the UN resolution not only drove Syria out of Lebanon, but also called for the disarming of Hezbollah.

"The Middle East--What's Really Driving the War?" It's not a political paper. It didn't come from the blogs. Rather it was emailed to me by a coworker who received it as part of a series of "Investor Insights." It was written to give stock brokers some background info on the conflict, and to forecast what impact this geo-political issue will have on the markets. Largely it relies on information provided by Dr. George Friedman's intelligence service at Stratfor.com I don't know anything about the guy, but if he has an axe to grind I had a hard time finding it in his commentary. I don't get the sense from his writings that he's pro-Israel, pro-Hezbollah, or pro-Palestine. His writings sound very much like those of a dispassionate observer. Long story short--this piece contained a lot of stuff I didn't know that I found more than a little interesting.

First, a condensed history of the goings on in the region to set the stage...

Two things converged to destabilize this situation. The emergence of Hamas as a major force among the Palestinians meant the Palestinian polity was being redefined. Even before the elections catapulted Hamas into a leadership role, it was clear that the Fatah-dominated government of Arafat was collapsing. Everything was up for grabs. That meant that either Hezbollah made a move or would be permanently a Lebanese organization. It had to show it was willing to take risks and be effective. In fact, it had to show that it was the most effective of all the groups. They moved... The second part of this occurred in Lebanon itself. After the death of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, outside pressure, primarily from the United States, forced a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. Now, do not overestimate the extent of the withdrawal. Syrian influence in Lebanon is still enormous. But it did relieve Syria of the burden of controlling Hezbollah. Indeed, Israel was not overly enthusiastic about Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon for just that reason.
Syria could now claim to have no influence or obligation concerning Hezbollah. Hezbollah's leadership lost the cover of being able to tell the young Turks that they would be more aggressive, but that the Syrians would not let them. As the Syrian withdrawal loosened up Lebanese politics, Hezbollah was neither restrained nor could it pretend to be restrained. Whatever the mixed feelings might have been, the mission was the mission, Syrian withdrawal opened the door and Hezbollah could not resist walking through it, and many members urgently wanted to walk through it."

There is too much included in the Kos diary to include here in snips; therefore, for those who wish to back their words with knowledge, I would suggest they take the time to educate themselves. If you want to blindly rail against Wes Clark, well that is another story, but sorry, he is correct. So this DUer does agree with Clark, and I agree with him when he says that what we are seeing is "a bush foreign-policy meltdown."

[Spazito]

11. It is my honest belief that had General Clark been the Democratic

nominee in 2004, he would have won the election, Diebold or not, and NONE of what is happening, not Iraq, not Afghanistan, not the Middle East, none of these horrors would have occurred. The respect he has throughout the world combined with his proven skills at diplomacy, negotiating, using force as a LAST resort would have ensured none of what is happening right now would have occurred.

It is a very sad thought.

[mmonk]

21. We tried until he dropped out.

Joe Lieberman kept attacking him for not being a "real" democrat. I'm sending Lamont a donation. It will be kind of a thank you for Joe.

[Spazito]

24. I watched the primary with great interest, I have been a fan of

Clark from the time he was SACEUR and was delighted when he threw his hat in the ring and was devastated when he bowed out although I understood why he did it when he did and with such grace and dignity.

I hope he tries again in 08.

[mmonk]

29. I still have supplies from the campaign.

I even still have stuff from the draft Clark movement as well. I met alot of good people as well.

[Spazito]

33. I have NO doubt you met great people, from what I read and saw

he had/has (I hope)wonderful people that worked for his campaign. I watched all the CSPAN archived video of the town hall meetings, etc, and my respect for him only increased after each one I watched. I found myself wishing we had someone with his abilities to run here in Canada as a Liberal candidate.

Edited to correct sentence structure.

[DoYouEverWonder]

13. So now that Clark say we should help Lebanon

you seem to be changing your tune?

[Clarkie1]

14. How am I "changing my tune?"

I believe it was just a few days ago I posted that we should be increasing our aid to Lebanon dramatically.

[DoYouEverWonder]

20. Aside from posting insults

Here's just one example. Seems Clark would disagree.


"A cease-fire too soon would serve no useful purpose, because Hezbollah is not going to stop attacking Israel until they are unable to do so. A premature cease-fire would simply give Hezbollah time to regroup and refire their rockets at a later date (that is the only reason Hezbollah would agree to a ceasefire...if they thought it was advantageous to their long term goal of destroying Israel)."

[Clarkie1]

22. I think Clark would agree with that.

Although the question was not asked directly in this particular interview. Hezbollah needs to be at the very least, severely crippled so with international assistance the Lebanese government can finish the job and provide much need social services to Southern Lebanon.

Perhaps if the Bush administration had done it's job in supporting Lebanon and talking to Syria and Iran, as Clark suggests, there never would have been a need for Israel to defend itself.

We have to deal with the situation as it exists today; more than anything else Clark is a pragmatist, I believe.

[DoYouEverWonder]

26. But Israel is not attacking just Hezbolla

who for the most part are in the South, they are bombing the whole country and targeting civilian populations with weapons like bunker busters. This is illegial and immoral to say the least.

Before now you have made little distinction between Hezbolla and Lebanon. Everything is all about Israel and their right to do whatever the fuck they please.

If this is also Clark's stand then he just lost my vote, because up until now he's been my #1 choice since he ran in 2004.

[Clarkie1]

28. I don't want this thread to retread this same ground.

It's not just Clark's stand, by the way. It's the stand of 100 senators and all except 8 U.S. House members.

I wish you well in finding a candidate that inspires you in 08'.

[DoYouEverWonder]

30. Thank god Clark

isn't a US Senator then.

[DanCa]

32. I know this is not the what you meant but

You said, : Thank god Clark isn't a US Senator then.


I agree see Clark has he's good points. Who would want to be a US Senator :hug: JK Sorry I am just goofing on you a bit :wink:


I all truthfulness though I wish that we would choose our next nominee from outside the senate.

[Donna Zen]

42. Clark has repeated said

...that Israel must directly target Hezbullah. I don't think that he disagrees with you at all. However, Clark blames bush for this debacle.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. Clark nailed it

Bush has put us in a position where we can't do much of anything to solve this problem.

[Cameron27]

31. He's absolutely right

I'm so glad he's my candidate. (If Lebanon had been given adequate financial and military aid at the time Syria was pushed out, they could have prohibited hezbollah from digging in.)

[Ilsa]

35. Clark is wonderful. He doesn't see "talk" as a weakness like the

neocons, but a way to get what you want and need without a bunch ego-bullshit getting in the way of stopping the violence.

I'm hoping sometime soon Mike Malloy can see past some of his perceived weaknesses or disagreeable parts of Clark's history and get behind a winner. Clark would make a fabulous president, espcially to clean up Bush's foreign policy messes.

[Crunchy Frog]

36. I'm glad to see any Democrat offering analyses

and policy suggestions that are more complex than the simplistic, mindless repetitions that we're hearing from most of them. I don't agree with him on everything. I'm far more critical of Israel than any significant American political figure is likely to be. He at least is thinking about the situation in terms that have the potential to offer genuine solutions.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

39. Clark on the importance of understanding the Arab point of view

“There is a legitimate difference of opinion between the way we see the problems in the Middle East and the Islamic perspective. One of the most important things we must understand is their perspective and their view of the facts."

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=33074&d=5&m=10&y=2003

[lastknowngood]

40. Why bother? He already stated he stands with Israel. There is no

reason to try to save the brown people except to kill them later. After every american politician and pundit stands up and cheers this damn slaughter next week when the PM of Israel addresses a joint session of CONgress we are done. We will be in WW3 just like the neocon want.