Questions 25-26: Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA):
Question 25: Chairman Duncan Hunter: (R-CA):
Summary: Are you overstating the potential danger of pushing back the dictatorships (in the Middle East)? Are you overstating the dangers of freedom?
(question summary by incap)
Play Audio
Response from General Wesley Clark
transcript by Reg NYC
No, I don't. I'm not in any way overstating the dangers of freedom. But first of all, you know how much a high regard I have for you and what you've done for the Armed Forces. We've got a long relationship, going back a long way.
I did review the testimony from 2002 prior to coming here, and you were, you had a theme then about how long we could wait before we went into Iraq, and why I kept saying time was on our side, and you kept challenging me about the efficacy of inspections. And I never could quite satisfy you with my answer, but - and I'll let the records speak for themselves on the urgency of going into Iraq. Now, with respect-
Chairman Duncan Hunter interrupts: ...
Well, without replaying that debate, I think in terms of 2003 and the urgency of going to war, even though I couldn't answer the logic of your question, I think what we're trying to do here is discuss judgment. So, let me just talk about the issue you raised now.
First of all remember that in Europe, it wasn't just Ronald Reagan and his labeling the Soviet Union and The Evil Empire that brought it down. Although I'm very proud of what President Reagan did, and I'm proud of Richard Perle's policies at the time, which helped us succeed.
It started with the Helsinki accord. It started with discussions and dialog. The Pope was a huge factor in bringing down Eastern Europe. So were the labor unions and the AFL-CIO, which had strong liaison and were used as a channel. So was Citibank and all of the Western industrial and economic institutions, which gradually undercut the legitimacy.
President Reagan never invaded Eastern Europe. In fact-
Chairman Duncan Hunter interrupts: ...
Actually, if I can be-
Chairman Duncan Hunter interrupts: ...
But let me- let's be technically accurate.
The relationship with the Pope began under President Carter, not under President Reagan. It was Brzezinski who went to Afghanistan and said, "We can do something here." And it was General Hague who called for an answer to the SS20 during the Carter Administration. So, I want to give full credit- but I don't- to the United States, but I don't want this to be a partisan issue.
What I want to do is try to put in in context. It was- Reagan was a very sophisticated player. He talked to Gorbachev. Reagan, when the Marines were struck in Beirut, and we lost 283 Marines, Reagan did not invade Lebanon to seek vengeance on, for those Marines' deaths. He pulled back out. So, he was a subtle and sophisticated player.
Now, when you translate that to where we are today, I think the example of elections is an important example all the way around the world. The example of Eastern Europe has had a powerful impact on the Middle East. The example of Ukraine has had an impact on the Middle East.
But you're not suggesting, are you, that the invasion of Iraq pressured Hosni Mubarak.
Chairman Duncan Hunter comments: ....
That's fine.
Chairman Duncan Hunter comments: ...
I think that- I don't disagree with what you're saying, that it has political meaning. All of US policy has been pushing for elections for a long time. I think we should've been pushing harder on Hosni Mubarak.
But you know, I want to be very, very careful on two points here I think are critical.
Point number one: The President has said that we want Democracy in the, in the Middle East for our own national security purposes. I think we have to be very careful with that notion. We want Democracy for them, because we want people everywhere to have the benefits of the same rights and liberties and dignity that we enjoy. That's what their citizens come and immigrate to America to have. There's no reason why they shouldn't have it at home, but to trumpet that we want this for our purposes excites a resistance, which in fact is counterproductive.
And secondly, we have been pushing for destabilization of regimes that has nothing to do with Democracy. The majority of the terrorists, of course, came from Saudi Arabia. Why then are- did we invade Iraq and are we pushing on Syria, the way you've heard Richard Perle describe, for other reasons? Now, I'm happy to push Syria out and push Assad out. I'd love to see a democracy there.
But here's the point: if it- if Assad leaves and we destabilize this, we have to be prepared to help pick up the pieces. How would we do that? With a United Nations mission? Calling on the Saudis, maybe get the Egyptians there? We don't know that, but it's irresponsible for the United States, as the dominant player in the world right now, to be threatening governments and pushing them down, and then not being prepared and working to help create the conditions which can meet their citizens' needs.
People in the region say, "Look, give us a chance." They say they want, they all want Democracy, but they don't want to go through, they do not want the condition of lawlessness that we've allowed to happen in Iraq.
Question 26: Chairman Duncan Hunter: (R-CA):
Summary: Continuing discussion of previous question
Play Audio
Response from General Wesley Clark
transcript by Reg NYC
Mr. Chairman- Mr. Chairman, I think we're talking past each other. I'm trying to talk about national strategy and big picture. And I feel like what you're trying to do is take political credit. Now let's talk about-
Chairman Duncan Hunter interrupts: ....
Then let's talk about the Iraqi model.
Chairman Duncan Hunter comments: ....
Well, we moved in Eastern Europe. We, we didn't- We moved in Poland, in the Czech Republic, in Slovakia, in Hungary.
Chairman Duncan Hunter interrupts: ....
And we did that without a war.
Chairman Duncan Hunter interrupts: ....
Okay, but what's happening in Iraq.
Chairman Duncan Hunter comments: ....
Well, that's what I've been trying to talk about, Mr. Chairman. What I'm suggesting is that in the first place that there, there's a fundamental difference between- Let me just say this. Yes-
Chairman Duncan Hunter interrupts: ....
Look, first let me say - and my Democratic colleagues know this - Mr. Chairman, I voted for Ronald Reagan. That's a matter of public record. I've said it. I supported it. It's not just in hindsight. I believed in it. I believed in what he said and what he stood for for the advance of freedom.
The difference is: We did not invade Eastern Europe. We did not excite patriotic East Europeans to fight American soldiers. We did not kick down people's doors, throw their women on the ground, rifle through their belongings and, and shoot them up. We've had to do that in Iraq. So please, be very careful when you say 'The Iraqi Model.' 'The Iraqi Model.' To you it may only mean, when you say it, that there are elections. But to the rest of the world what it means is: The United States invaded a country under false pretenses that turned out to be false, bad intelligence, weren't weapons of mass destruction, had ulterior motives that Mr. Perle has suggested, didn't go in there just for WMD, went in for a lot of different reasons, and then occupied the country and finally got elections, and in the meantime, put the Iraqi people through chaos.
So, what I'm suggesting is: I'm all in favor of the liberation of the Middle East and democratization. I don't think Hosni Mubarak is putting elections in Egypt because we invaded Iraq, though. I think he recognizes - just as the Saudis do and everybody in the region - that governments, if they're going to survive, must have legitimacy.
These governments, these ruling families, they're trying to survive. And they know that they've got to be legitimate. Part of it is they're seeing it in television, but it's not just in Iraq. But part of it is the threat of Al Qaeda, who's coming in and undercutting their legitimacy.
So, I'm sure you wouldn't want to give Al Qaeda any credit for the Democracy movement in the region, but when I travel through the region and I listen to rulers speak, what they're telling me is, what they're telling other people is, "You either reform, or you will be thrown out."
So, there are a lot of influences at work here.
My concern is for the United States government and for our Armed Forces, if we are pursuing actively, overtly or covertly, a policy to destabilize and topple old regimes, like Syria, then we just better be prepared to pick up the pieces or help somebody else do so, because we don't want the reputation of going in and knocking down governments and abandoning people.
And there's still chaos in the streets of Iraq. You're not hearing it in the newspapers, but I talked to people who've been there. They tell me horrible stories of kidnappings and abductions and murders and beheadings and common criminals in the streets. We don't want that to happen.
And you know, when it first started in Iraq, I remember Secretary Rumsfeld said, "Well you know, freedom's a messy thing, and you know, these things are going to happen." He couldn't have been more wrong.
The first thing we learned when we went into Haiti in 1994 was the United States Armed Forces are on the ground. They're responsible. If we destabilize these governments, we are responsible. And that's all I'm trying to say.
I'm all in favor of Democracy and freedom. I supported Ronald Reagan, and I want to see every person in the Middle East have a vote and have the same rights we do. I just want to do it in a smart, intelligent fashion that supports our national security, not detracts from it.
Response from Richard Perle (not transcribed but available on audio)