Carnegie Endowment for Peace - Oopsy on C-Span

[Adelante]

It happens that expert commentators on television news channels sometimes are taken as advocating a position when they are actually analyzing it. It's understandable when it happens with ordinary viewers with no particular background in complicated subjects. But when it happened with the Senior Associate and Director for Non-Proliferation of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace this morning on C-Span's Washington Journal, referring to something Clark said on Fox News last week, it left a lot of gaping mouths.

As we say online, WTF??, Mr. Cirincione?

General Clark was asked on Fox News, where he is a military and foreign affairs analyst, if it came to military action against Iran, which of two military strategies would he favor. Clearly reluctant, his position urging diplomatic resolution of the current crisis being well-known and long-held, so reluctant, the Fox anchor had to repeat if it came to that twice, Clark said, "If it comes to this, then I would favor a broader military option. I think the broader military option is the one that forestalls the Iranian options coming back at you."

The statement followed this exchange:

Bridgette Quinn: And I guess that would let them produce enough bomb-grade uranium for a single atomic weapon if it's operating at full capacity. Anyhow, would that be the number one target for military action, if it were to come to that?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, it would be one target for military action, but there are two different ways that the military option could unfold. On the one hand, there could be an effort to interdict the nuclear program at a sensitive node or two. Or on the other hand, there could be a broad-scale take-down of the Iranian nuclear capability and their defense capability so as to forestall an Iranian response against the United States and our friends in the Persian Gulf.

Citing two ways a military option could unfold and deciding between two possible military strategies, in a theoretical sense, as a military analyst, surely, is not "advocating" for a massive military strike against Iran, as Cirincione erroneously claimed on C-Span. Maybe he should watch more Sunday morning news shows.

General Wesley Clark on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" 3/5/06

George Stephanopoulos: Let me turn to Iran. You told the Council on Foreign Relations earlier this month, that before we take Iran to the UN Security Council over their proposed nuclear weapons program, we should try talking to them directly and doing business with Iranian businesses. That's a very different approach from what other Democrats, like Senator Evan Bayh and Senator Clinton, are calling for. They say we need tough sanctions now. Why are you convinced that your approach is better?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, maybe we will need tough sanctions later on. But before any of that happens…years ago we should have talked to Iran, and it's not too late right now.

George Stephanopoulos: Directly.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Directly to Iran. The Iranian state is not unified. There are differences of opinion in Iran, but rather that passing a $75 million Iranian Liberation Act funding proposal, why don't we just talk to the Iranian leadership and see if there's not a way <crosstalk>

George Stephanopoulos: But don't you believe that if they're this intent on developing a nuclear weapon…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think they are intent and the more we press against them, the more difficult it would be for them to change their direction. Iran represents an historic opportunity for the Shias to have leadership in the Islamic world and this nuclear issue is being crystallized in such a way that it's going to make it extremely difficult for them to back off.

George Stephanopoulos: But don't they know that the message is 'if you don't give up your nuclear program then you're not going to be able to join this modern world'? Isn't that what the United States is saying; isn't that what the European community is saying?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, it's a very mixed message going to the Iranians, frankly. We're not saying we're not going to buy their oil. China's not telling the Iranians 'we won't help you build subways'. The Russians aren't telling the Iranians 'you're not going to get our billion dollars worth of weapons that you've ordered'. It's a very mixed message and really it's the United States which hasn't taken its leadership responsibilities seriously enough to go and talk to the Iranians first before this crisis comes to a head.

Does this sound like a man who wants to nuke Iran?

[Cosmocat]

1. YEP ...

Overall, I thought the guy was VERY, VERY solid ... But, his statement about Wes took me back ... The way he said it, intentionally or not, was that Wes' PRIMARY position was a fullscale military attack ... I have heard him talk about a half dozen times the last two months about Iran, and his position was ALWAYS the above ... Talk to them directly and work it out ...

[KoKo]

2. I heard that and almost fell over, myself! I figured someone here on

DU would get to the bottom of it. Thanks for the quotes....

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. Clark speaking about Iran in January:

General Wesley Clark on Big Story Weekend Edition
January 1, 2006

Jamie Colby: Let me ask you, General Clark, about public sentiment. Uh, the Iraq war, the American public has at times supported it and felt that it was the right thing to do, that we needed to stay until we left democracy in place. What about gaining public support for the potential for an invasion in Iran? How difficult a challenge is that, politically, for the president?


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, a couple of points. First, there's going to be a lot of skepticism about the exact nature of the Iranian program because the record of our intelligence agencies on the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program wasn't very good. Secondly, of course, when the president calls for strikes, he's going to strengthen his hand at home once these strikes are underway because his critics are going to be faced with the dilemma of going against a threat to the United States and our allies abroad if they challenge the president. So he's going to pick up support. At least that's the way I believe the White House will read this. So I would guess there would be a program of consultation with allies. There would probably be the appearance of some last minute diplomatic measures and then there would be, um, the buildup here at home, politically, and then the strikes. And…<crosstalk> I think the administration would calculate that this would be the end of it.



General Wesley Clark on Fox News Live
January 2, 2006

You know, the United States still hasn't talked to Iran and, on the other hand, I mean, we don't like the Iranian president, but on the other hand, before we bomb him, we could at least try to have a dialogue. We've gone through the Europeans, why can't we talk to him before we bomb him?


General Wesley Clark on Fox News
January 16, 2006

"GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think it's possible to construct a military option that could be, could approach adding five to eight years to the development cycle of the Iranian nuclear weapon. In other words, you could set them back.


Brigitte Quinn. Mmm Hmm.


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I don't think that you can totally eliminate the possibility, and remember after such a strike, it's very possible that A.Q. Kahn and Pakistan or some other country would come rushing to the aid of Iran."



General Wesley Clark on Your World with Neil Cavuto
January 25, 2006

Neil Cavuto: When you say it's over-stretched, too over-stretched to do something about Iran right now?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Depends on what you're going to do about Iran. Now, you can certainly run bombing strikes and Special Forces activities and you can go after those nuclear sites. You could-

Neil Cavuto: You have to know where those nuclear sites are.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think that's less of a problem. I think the, the greater problem is figuring out what's the end state. Let's say you, you run eight to fourteen days of bombing against Iran. You take out thirty sites, maybe fifteen of them were the nuclear sites. You've taken out some command and control, his missiles, his air bases, some of the stuff that would threaten us along the literal of the Persian Gulf. Okay, and then what? What happens? Does he then say, 'Oh, I give up. I surrender. I'll be your friend."? No, he's not going to say that.

Neil Cavuto: But who cares, if he's less of a threat?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Because what he's going to do is he's going to be a magnet-

Neil Cavuto: I see.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: - pulling in all kinds of anti-American resistance. How do we know A.-

Neil Cavuto: So, it'll actually galvanize Arab-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: How do we know A.Q. Kahn's not going to replenish that nuclear stock right away.


Neil Cavuto: Yeah.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So, it's a danger. We've got to think through the thing, not just from the initial strikes, not 'Can we hit the target? Can we penetrate Iranian airspace?' Of course we can do that. It's 'What's the end state- strategically, geopolitically? How do we handle the conflict in this part of the world?'

[Pilgrim4Progress]

4. Thanks, WesDem

Nice summary - very comprehensive.

I sent something similar to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in an attempt to correct the record.

Also referenced this quote from General Clark's speech at Emory University Monday night:

"If we set up that our challenge is not to kill terrorists but to lift up mankind ... then that kind of leadership will make America safe," he said.

Hardly the perspective of a someone trying to out-hawk the administration.

[Jai4WKC08]

5. Excellent summary, WesDem!

I heard what Clark said on Fox. So when I listened to WJ this morning, I was in absolute shock that Ciricione would lie about what Clark said so blatantly.

Now that I've cooled down a little bit, I'm wondering if Ciricione didn't hear it second hand. He doesn't strike me as the type to listen to Fox much. But I have to wonder, is this lie being passed around among his collegues? And maybe in a larger circle liberal policy wonks? And if so, why? Who would have started it? For what reason?

There's no excuse for what Circione said and more so, the way he said it. It's not like he and Clark don't belong to some of the same organizations. If he really thought Clark had said something that over the top, he could have easily given Clark a phone call and cleared it up.

I want to give Circione the benefit of the doubt, that he was just mistaken, but I dunno.

[Pilgrim4Progress]

10. That's what concerns me, Jai

That this was said by someone who travels in the same intellectual and foreign policy circles as Clark. How could he be so wrong?

Since we don't travel in those circles, I think Gen. Clark needs to know about this so he can follow up with the appropriate people to correct the record if he sees a need to do so.

[Texas_Kat]

6. Apparently Mr. Cirincione needs to hear from us

I'd like to relay some of these points to him directly...

Anybody got his email?

[Adelante]

7. Good idea

Let's let him know he screwed up.

[e-mail]

[Pilgrim4Progress]

13. Thanks for that address, WesDem

I revised my earlier letter to the organization and sent one directly to him. :argh:

[Pilgrim4Progress]

8. E-mail addresses

I didn't find one directly for him, but used these two for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, with which he's affiliated, and which he represented on the WJ show this morning. He has several articles at their website. Up until he made that outrageous statement about Gen. Clark's position, I thought he was making very good points. After that, though, I went ballistic. . .

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

[Texas_Kat]

9. Sent him an email..... either he's seriously misinformed

or he intentionally mis-stating what Clark has said.

[trillian]

11. Thanks for clarifying WesDem.

This guy definitely needs to be set straight.

[FrenchieCat]

12. And I'm sure that many of us will!

I mean.....getting on TeeVee and making shit up seems to be in fashion these days! :eyes:

[Adelante]

14. Ugh, they aired this again today

Have there been any responses from Cirincione? How does he explain himself?

[Texas_Kat]

15. Yes, he was kind enough to respond.

Apparently he didn't "hear the question" clearly and didn't realize that it was "of the 2 military options" variety of questions....

He asked for a link to the transcript and video file to be able to re-hear it .... and said he loves Wes Clark.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Great. We were posting at the same time...

I'm really glad to hear this. Thanks for writing him Kat.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. Cirincione is usually more solid than this

I am assuming that he was given Clark's comments completely out of context. Unless one also heard or read the FOX News Jock repeatedly asking Clark to give his military opinion on which of two military options would be more effective "if it came to that", it is possible to think Clark was suggesting a military course of action. It was damn sloppy on Cirincione's part to just run with that impression though without further checking. Clark even made a point out of repeating "if it came to that" before giving a purely military analysis to that specific set of two military scenarios.

[leftchick]

18. Thank you for clearing that up so well

I was shocked to hear that! I am very disappointed in Joe. Perhaps his horror at the approaching nuke bombing of Iran has rattled him. At any rate he should make a correction somehow.

[FrenchieCat]

19. I wrote to this guy this morning.....

He needs to clear this up publicly.

This is too serious of an issue for him just to shrug his shoulders and say....Oh well, no harm done!

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. "No harm done." That's hard to know...

Far more people were watching CSPAN than will ever read this thread. It simply isn't good for people to get the false impression that Clark is advising military action against Iran, and I'm not focused on Democratic politics now. I'm worried that some might have watched that misinformation about Clark and come away thinking that the drive toward war with Iran is developing strong bipartisan support.

This really does need to be corrected if at all possible.

[FrenchieCat]

21. Write him a letter Tom!

Let him know just that!

[Pilgrim4Progress]

22. Yes, Tom, please do

I think he's heard from many of us and has at least admitted that he didn't have the whole picture, but the problem is just what you say.

A public perception that Wes might be condoning such an action is really dangerous. We need all those recommending negotiation and restraint working together getting the right message to the public.

[Adelante]

23. A friend passed me this important response from Cirincione

Dear XXXXXXX:

Go to the fund raiser. General Clark is a great American. I heard his interview and was surprised, as you are, by the position he seemed to be taking. His staff has since contacted me and explained that he was responding to a hypothetical question and did not mean to endorse the idea of military attacks. He got drawn into a discussion of “…if it comes to that, what would you do?” As a military expert, he explained what would be necessary for an effective strike.

However, he has made numerous statements in the past criticizing the idea of war with Iran and has advocated, as you say, dialogue with Iran. I may have done him a disservice by citing him on this one interview. I hope nothing I said or this one interview on Fox distracts from your support for all his fine work.

Please pass this along to your friend if you think it will help. You should ask him at the event what he thinks and find out directly from him.

All the best,

Joe

Joseph Cirincione
Director for Nonproliferation
Carnegie Endowment
[phone]