This is a short review of some of what Clark said on Democracy Now! program this past Friday.
There are some areas where Clark is right – like in repealing the Military Commissions Act, in shutting down
However, I do think the threats and posturing towards
On to Clark’s interview earlier this week and what I see is wrong with his position to continue the war on
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think Congress should stop funding the war?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I think Congress should take a strong stand to get the strategy changed. I don't think that if you cut off funding for the war, it’s in the -- right now that's not in the
' interest. What is in the United States ’ interest is to change the strategy in the war. You cannot succeed by simply stopping the funding and saying, “You've got six months to get the Americans out.” That's not going to end the misery in United States . It's not going to restore the lives that have been lost. And it's not going to give us the power in the region to prevent later threats. Iraq
First off, NOTHING is going to restore the lives that have been “lost” as he said. That is because these lives are not “lost” they are ENDED. They are DEAD. And to say that we should stay in
He mentions that cutting the funding is “not in the
Well, he does think the Congress should take a strong stand to change the strategy. No mention of how they might make bush/cheney follow such a strategy – they sure did not listen to the Iraq Study Group, did they? But, assuming that Congress could force the bush/cheney administration could change the strategy, he’s what he proposes:
CLARK: What we do have to do is have a strategy that uses all the elements of
's power: diplomatic, economic, legal and military. I would send a high-level diplomatic team into the region right now. I’d have no-holds-barred and no-preconditioned discussion with America Iranand . And I would let it be known that I’ve got in my bag all the tricks, including putting another 50,000 troops in Syria and pulling all 150,000 troops out. And we're going to reach an agreement on a statement of principles that brings stability and peace and order to the region. So let's just sit down and start doing it. Now, that could be done with the right administrative leadership. It just hasn't been done. Iraq
And it won’t be done either, but let’s pretend it will. What’s wrong with this picture? Clark wants to discuss things with
And when looking at the statement above about the strategy needed – and his prior comment about “giving us power in the region to prevent future threats” I have the suspicion that he is fully on board with bush/cheney’s plan for American expansionism – that is, control of the oil resources in the region. It’s like they all got together up there in DC and decide that we are such special people that we are actually own all that oil underneath their sand! The only “threat” from the region, with the exception of terrorism, is the “threat” of them not selling us their oil at the price we like or maybe, not sell it at all. But the fact is we have no rights or claims to that oil. NONE! It is not ours! And as far as the terrorism threat goes – well, that got started by the US setting up bases in Saudi Arabia, which really pissed off our former ‘friends’ known as al Qaeda. Of course, our stand on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was another excuse for terrorism.
Discussing what would happen if the
CLARK: But when you leave, the Saudis have got to find someone to fight the Shias. Who are they going to find? Al-Qaeda, because the groups of Sunnis who would be extremists and willing to fight would probably be the groups connected to al-Qaeda. So one of the weird inconsistencies in this is that were we to get out early, we’d be intensifying the threat against us of a super powerful Sunni extremist group, which was now legitimated by overt Saudi funding in an effort to hang onto a toehold inside Iraq and block Iranian expansionism.
This is exactly what bush/cheney is doing right now – funding and arming extremist Sunni groups in
And Clark is wrong to think that pulling out will intensify the threat of a Sunni extremist group – it is actually the opposite. After all, if the occupation of a Islamic country (
It is our occupation of
Clark is right that there is more and more threat of a conflict between
CLARK: (regarding an invasion of
Haitiin 1994) And so, Shali came back, and so I said to him, I said, “Well, sir, we've been talking amongst ourselves, and we're happy to work all weekend to get all this done, but this is just a drill, right, on ?” Haiti
He looked at me, and he said, “Wes,” he said, “this is no drill.” He said, “I’m not authorized to tell you this. But,” he said “the decision has been made, and the
United Stateswill invade . The date is the 20th” -- I think it was this date -- “of the 20th of September. And the planning must be done, and it must be done now. And if any of you have reservations about this, this is the time to leave.” So I looked at Jack, and I looked at Walt. They looked at me. I mean, we kind of shrugged our shoulders and said, “OK, if you want to invade Haiti , I mean, it's not illegal. It's not the country we'd most like to invade. The opposition there consists of five armored vehicles. But sure, I mean, if the President says to do it, yeah, we're not going resign over it.” And so, we didn't resign. Nobody resigned. Haiti
I find his casual acceptance of an order to invade another country that was not a threat to the
We do not have 170 military bases around the world for the benefit of the world’s people or for our own safety and defense. We have them to control other countries and resources. We have them to promote expansionism that the bush/cheney and the PNAC paper spells out so well. This concept of American “expansionsim” must be stopped.