Blog For Arizona

DaBait in Da Desert (Part 5 - The General's Splendid Little War)

The first topic tackled was Iraq. Most noteworthy, due to his somewhat ambiguous record on the issue and his recent entry to the race, are the views of General Wesley Clark. General Clark opined that the main problem was that we went into Iraq without a strategy for success. Not that it was unethical to attack a nation which presented no threat. Not that our unilateral attack destroyed our international credibility. Not that it was wrong to mislead the American people into war. Not that the Iraq distraction has harmed our ability to fight terrorism. No, we just lacked a strategy.

To be fair, he may have stated that these issues were of concern at some point or another, but before the Nation and one of the largest audiences the candidates ever enjoy, he said, "what I say we should do in Iraq is we should have a strategy for success." His concern is the lack of a strategy for success, and not that the war was wrong, wasteful, should never have happened, and must be ended as soon as possible.

What is success in Iraq according to the General? He laid that out in The Times on April 5, 2003. He said that conditions for "real victory" would be:
1) replacing the Ba'ath regime,
2) finding the WMD,
3) stemming terrorist recruitment CAUSED BY the war,
4) putting a new government in place, and
5) making Iraq democratic.
By these standards, we may never win. We did 1; 2 may be impossible, as there is very likely nothing to find, 3 is impossible, because we will always lack sufficient control to accomplish it; 4 we are unwilling to do (and the UNSC just passed a new resolution 15-0 legitimizing continued American control under the current conditions); and 5 would take 50 years or more according to anyone rational.

And where does withdrawal of American troops and an end to the low level conflict and terrorism now endemic to Iraq fit in to the General's plans? Nowhere. The General foresees a military solution to a problem of excess militarism. He said in the debate, "we need to keep control of the military piece and support our armed forces. We need to bring our allies in around us and we need to work for that success strategy." Peace General my ass. Clark is advocating Bush's policy without the bribery and coercion of allies. If fact he praised Bush and Blair for their determination in driving home the attack.

In the debate the General said, "I did praise George Bush and Tony Blair for sticking with the offensive in Iraq once it had begun. But I also noted in every op-ed and every comment I ever made that there was not enough forces there, there was not a plan for dealing with it afterwards."

This isn't quite true. The General praised the military planners who went with a lean force, saying on 4/11/2003 in the London Times:

"The regime seems to have collapsed — the primary military objective — and with that accomplished, the defense ministers and generals, soldiers and airmen should take pride. American and Brits, working together, produced a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."

"They certainly made the right call." Doesn't sound like criticism to me.

The General did not consistently claim there was no plan. He consistently said we mustn't celebrate victory too soon, because there are long-term goals to achieve. For instance, he said in that same 4/11/03 op-ed:

"Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed."

"Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats."

Perhaps the plan was unrealistically optimistic. Perhaps the General is skeptical that the plan would be executed correctly, but his own words leave no doubt that he recognized that Bush had a plan, perhaps a valid one. There is also no doubt that the General sees the resolution of the Iraq issue as a military one as much as a diplomatic one.

To say the Gen. Clark's position is the same as Dr. Dean's, or Ambassador Braun's, or Sen. Kerry's, or Rev. Sharpton's, or Rep. Kucinich's, or Rep. Gephardt's positions on the war is simply a lie. Clark is no anti-war candidate. He's a warmonger in peacenik's clothing.

Next Time... the Debate continued: A Republican in Democrat's clothing?

posted by Michael Bryan @ 10/17/2003 08:50:00 PM