Today’s article in the WaPo (written by wes
For the next war is always looming, and so is the urgent question of whether the U.S. military can adapt in time to win it.
And then he goes on to say the next conflict with be with
Has not violated the NPT
Has not invaded another country
Has not air bombed another country
Has not sent troops to occupy another country
In short, they have acted like the next Nobel Peace Prize recipient compared the
Clark makes the accusation that
Think another war can't happen? Think again. Unchastened by the
fiasco, hawks in Vice President Cheney's office have been pushing the use of force. It isn't hard to foresee the range of military options that policymakers face. The next war would begin with an intense air and naval campaign. Iraq
He then goes into detail about how he would run this air and naval campaign, and lists how he would basically destroy the society and the fabric of life of a country that has not invaded or bombed another country (except in self-defense) in hundreds of years.
Let’s play a game and change the nouns in clark’s piece to the
Let's say you're planning the conflict as part of the staff of the German Joint Chiefs. Your list of targets isn't that long -- only a few dozen nuclear sites -- but you can't risk retaliation from
. So you allow 21 days for the bombardment, to be safe; you'd aim to strike every command-and-control facility, radar site, missile site, storage site, airfield, ship and base in the Washington, DC . To prevent world oil prices from soaring, you'd have to try to protect every oil and gas rig, and the big ports and load points. You'd need to use B-2s and lots of missiles up front, plus many small amphibious task forces to take out particularly tough targets along the coast, with manned and unmanned air reconnaissance. And don't forget the Special Forces, to penetrate deep inside the United States United States, call in airstrikes and drag the evidence of Washington's nuclear ambitions out into the open for a world that's understandably skeptical of assertions that yet another world rogue is on the brink of using the bomb. Germany
Now, doesn’t that sound lovely? Would you want this man to write op-eds in
No, of course not.
He goes on with some criticism of how such a war might go (again, I changed the noun to the
We certainly could not occupy the nation with the limited ground forces we have left. So what would it be:
as a chastened, more tractable government? As a chaotic failed state? Or as a hardened and embittered foe? United States
Clark goes on with his scary war-mongering, and he even indicates that war could be more wide spread and could be against countries like
But he is where he does offer up his “words of wisdom”:
Here, the lesson from
Iraqand couldn't be more clear: Don't ever, ever go to war unless you can describe and create a more desirable end state. And doing so takes a whole lot more than just the use of force. Afghanistan
Of course, FORCE has to be part of the equation, per
Here’s another clip of his “words of wisdom”
Now, in an age when losing hearts and minds can mean losing a war, we find ourselves struggling in Iraq and Afghanistan to impart the sort of cultural sensitivities that were second nature to an earlier generation of troops trained to eat nuoc m?m with everything and sit on the floor during their tours in Vietnam.
Yeah, those troops in
Another example of
One of the most important lessons from the wars in
Iraqand Afghanistan-- and , for that matter -- is that we need to safeguard our troops. Vietnam
Yeah, right. We need to go into other countries and bomb the hell out of them, then occupy them and do that “hearts and minds” thing --- ALL, SUPPOSEDLY FOR THE GOOD OF THE OCCUPIED COUNTRY ---- and the most important lesson is that we protect our troops. You know, protect them from those ingrates who don’t appreciate having dinner with US troops.
Of course, our troops would be vastly safer STAYING IN OUR OWN COUNTRY and that would likely also be vastly safer for the rest of us also. But where would be the fun and profits in that?
He does not mention, and I am certain it never occurred to him, that saving the lives of innocent civilians are of any importance. With all this talk of better body armor for the troops, what about better body armor for the children of
He is anti-losing wars. And that was his position on the invasion of
He warned the US Senate about pitfalls ahead of time – because he did not want to see the
He goes on to criticize the leaders of our current military, and then goes on to praise the troops. He even presents them as “stands head and shoulders above any other military in skill, equipment and compassion”. Now, I think it is great that we are ahead in skills and equipment in our military – but COMPASSION? What the hell does COMPASSION have to do with defending our country? Do we want troops who are compassionate towards enemies who want to kill us? Well, of course not! This is part of the unending bullshit put forth by leaders (military and political) when they want to invade and bomb a country that did not hurt us. They want the
Iraqi people do not see the bombs we dropped on them (and are now dropping in 2007 at a higher rate than ever) as compassionate or kind or helpful. They hate us for it. They grieve the losses from our unending violence. The majority of the
Clark goes on for the rest of his piece claiming how we didn’t do war right in
But the big lesson is simply this: War is the last, last, last resort. It always brings tragedy and rarely brings glory.
He waits to the end to bring this up, as a minor last point, instead of making it the theme of his entire piece. He then goes on to claim that he was a ‘general that won’ which I think many victims of his bombing runs would totally disagree with, except the dead ones of course. They have nothing to say, and no life left to live.
I am so sick of all this war-mongering and militarism here in this country.
As one commenter pointed out – even talking like this about bombing