Wes Clark comes out as pro-war again

Today’s article in the WaPo (written by wes clark) shows his true colors once again. First, he praises petraeus and the US military. Then he goes on to frighten the people who think this man has something worthwhile to say:

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 Iran. He repeats all the known talking points about how Iran is doing this and that – none of which are proven true, and most of which are clearly false. Even a basic knowledge of current events and past history for the last twenty years shows that Iran:

.

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 USA. Yet, clark goes on and on, just like the corporate democrats do, about how Iran is such a threat and how they are destabilizing the entire Middle East. It is clear to me that the main destabilizes in the Middle East are the countries dropping bombs from airplanes. That would mainly be the USA, with Israel kicking in now and then.

Clark makes the accusation that Iran is acquiring nuclear weapons. Just like the WMDs claim in Iraq, there is nothing to substantiate this claim, not that that ever stopped any politicians in power (or close to power) from making these insane war-mongering claims.

Clark goes on to say:

Think another war can't happen? Think again. Unchastened by the Iraq 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.

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 United States instead of Iran. And instead of “getting” a bomb, lets accuse them of using it – since we all know the USA has a load of nuclear bombs.

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 Washington, DC. 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 United States. 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, call in airstrikes and drag the evidence of Washington's nuclear ambitions out into the open for a world that's understandably skeptical of Germany assertions that yet another world rogue is on the brink of using the bomb.

Now, doesn’t that sound lovely? Would you want this man to write op-eds in Germany’s leading paper like this? Would you want this man promoting the candidacy of a leading politician to the highest office in the land?

No, of course not.

He goes on with some criticism of how such a war might go (again, I changed the noun to the USA):

We certainly could not occupy the nation with the limited ground forces we have left. So what would it be: United States as a chastened, more tractable government? As a chaotic failed state? Or as a hardened and embittered foe?

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 China. He points out that who could have imagined that the US would invade and bomb the snot out of Afghanistan in a couple of months, back in August 2001? No indication that this might not have been our ONLY CHOICE OF ACTION after 9/11. No, it’s war, war, and more war, with this guy.

But he is where he does offer up his “words of wisdom”:

Here, the lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan 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.

Of course, FORCE has to be part of the equation, per clark, just have to do it right. This was pretty much his criticism of the Iraq war and occupation also….. just do it right, or don’t do it. He does acknowledge we need “more than just the use of force” without noting that a lot of political outcomes would be a hell of a lot easier if we weren’t seen at the United States of Monsters by a large part of the world.

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 Vietnam really had that “hearts and minds” thing down. That’s why we killed two or three million of them – we knew some of them (about 10% of the population?) did not deserve having our troops over for dinner. And then we sprayed them with Agent Orange so they could remember the US forces forever by looking at the deformed bodies of their children. A lovely souvenir, to be sure.

Of course, Vietnam never attacked us or was a threat to our country, but why let those silly little facts stand in the way when you want to get a war on?

Another example of clark’s “wisdom”:

One of the most important lessons from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and Vietnam, for that matter -- is that we need to safeguard our troops.

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? Clark goes on to complain that the Pentagon did not have their priorities right – they didn’t save the lives of US troops well enough.

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 Iraq? Why not make about 12 million child sized body armor suits and sent that over there, so maybe the children of Iraq will have a chance to survive?

So, clark’s position is not anti-war or even anti-unneeded war. His position is WE GOT ENOUGH TESTOSTERONE TO DO THE JOB RIGHT, SO LET’S DO WAR RIGHT!

He is anti-losing wars. And that was his position on the invasion of Iraq. In the movie, WAR MADE EASY, you can see clark on CNN promoting the vast splendor of our military and how proud he is of them. He carries the Pentagon and the bush administration’s water for them consistently during the early stages of the war.

He warned the US Senate about pitfalls ahead of time – because he did not want to see the US military to lose. He was not really trying to stop the war, in my opinion. If he really felt that way, he would support candidates like Kucinich instead of hillary clinton. And he is raising the same concerns now about Iran – not that war is unneeded and immoral and illegal – but that we need to do the war right.

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 US public to think that we drop bombs on other countries out of the kindness of our hearts, to actually help other people. Now, there may have been times in our history when the end result was helpful to other people, but those times were very, very few and very, very far apart. When we drop bombs, WE KILL INNOCENTS. And there is nothing moral or compassionate or even intelligent about that.

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 US ignores this reality.

Iran will feel exactly the same way.

Clark goes on for the rest of his piece claiming how we didn’t do war right in Iraq or Afghanistan. Sure brings back memories of Kerry claiming, in 2004, he would do war right in Iraq, which is why we should vote for him. Kerry started right off with glorifying his military career and totally ignoring how he felt about his Vietnam service in the early 1970’s.

Clark finishes up his piece with this disclaimer:

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 Iran is total nonsense, unless your goal is endless war and violence. Yet many of the Democrats feed and fuel this endless American myth – that we do violence out of loving kindness and the basic goodness of our nature. The rest of the world does not agree with this stupid mythology. I suppose it is the last comment that makes people think clark is anti-war. He is not - he is anti-losing. Don't get fooled again.