UPI Story about Wes's views on Iran
Submitted by mad4clark on February 5, 2007 - 1:44pm.
Iran | Wes Clark | Wesley Clark DNC Winter Meeting | Iran
|
This just came in through Google Alert...
US Features
Outside View: Wes Clark warns Iran
By Claude Salhani
Feb 5, 2007, 15:56 GMT
WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- Gen. Wesley Clark is concerned by Iran`s nuclear ambitions and cautioned the Islamic republic to take U.S. warnings 'very, very seriously.'
In a private conversation with this reporter, the former warrior-turned-politician at the same time admitted being worried by the Bush administration`s strong-arm policies in the Middle East.
'I`m concerned,' said Clark, a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe -- SACEUR -- (from 1997 to 2000) and a potential Democratic presidential candidate in the 2008 race for the White House. Clark, who commanded Operation Allied Force in the Kosovo War, is worried that the rising tension between the United States and Iran could escalate to a point of no return. As a former soldier who has seen his share of action from Vietnam to Kosovo, Clark is not someone who scares easily.
But the Iranians, too, have reason to be concerned, says Clark. Speaking to United Press International Friday after addressing a meeting of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, Clark said that the Iranians should take 'very, very seriously the prospect of air strikes and missile strikes as well as other operations directed against Iran`s nuclear capacities and all other elements of their military power.'
When it comes to war Clark has an advantage over other presidential candidates. He has tasted the ugliness of war; he knows firsthand what it means seeing men -- sometimes boys hardly old enough to shave -- killed in battle.......
You can rate the article and leave a comment.
EllenG aleady commented. Thanks Ellen!
"Some of them put on their cowboy boots and put their feet up on the desk." -Wes Clark
for putting it all together for us
<blockquote> "Clark, who commended Operation Allied Force in the Kosovo War, is worried that the rising tension between the United States and Iran could escalate to a point of no return." </blockquote>
...some families can't earn a paycheck at all - Wes Clark 2/2/2007 [zero sum - reality teevee people survivor island or American idol VIEWERS are a focus group for commerical interest$ entertainment and study.)
Clark could see where the drumbeats of war is heading and he has been astride trying to head it off. Where are the other candidates on this issue? There is only one candidate (candidate to be) with the credentials to lead us in this war-permeated times!
Wesley K. Clark... your country needs you!
Thanks so much!!
The General gets it right.
Competence--What a concept!
I just read this on my Google Alerts and came over here to post it. Lo & behold, It's already made the front page! Thanks for beating me to it, Maddy. This piece demands to be broadcast far & wide.
And thanks for posting this. This might help explain why Gen Clark has taken Iran on with the urgency he has shown. From Pat Lang's Sic Semper Tyrannis via Vanity Fair
"Another serious development is the growing role of the U.S. Strategic Command (StratCom), which oversees nuclear weapons, missile defense, and protection against weapons of mass destruction. Bush has directed StratCom to draw up plans for a massive strike against Iran, at a time when CentCom has had its hands full overseeing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Shifting to StratCom indicates that they are talking about a really punishing air-force and naval air attack [on Iran]," says Lang. Moreover, he continues, Bush can count on the military to carry out such a mission even without congressional authorization. "If they write a plan like that and the president issues an execute order, the forces will execute it. He's got the power to do that as commander-in-chief. We set that up during the Cold War. It may, after the fact, be considered illegal, or an impeachable offense, but if he orders them to do it, they will do it." http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2007/02/unger_on_the_ne.html
Wes knows this and God bless him & Col. Lang, too.
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
Gen. Omar Bradley
Those who are beholden to the money men are beholden to the warmongers. What is the common denominator of the money men and neocons? Both are warmongers! How could one serve two masters? If you are for the American people you cannot send our troops into another unjust war. You cannot accept blood money from these money men who are masquerading as American patriots. Who took money? Who is silent against a rush to an Iran war?
Wesley K. Clark... they know not what they do!
....explaining Congress, via McJoan at dKos:
What I think is happening is that the Washington consultants, particularly those who were part of the previous Democratic administration, come in to a room with the leadership and tell them, "Look, if you propose a timeline or if you try to cut off the funding Republicans will tear you apart. So I think it comes from the other side. I think it comes from teh Washington inside crowd that sets the parameters of this debate. This Washington inside crowd was for this war and they can't figure out how to get out of this situation. . . . So this assumption that somehow it's Democratic Senators coming in saying you know this is a tough vote for me--I don't think that's where it's coming from. I think it's coming from the power structure in Washington that's desperately trying to figure out how to explain how they made one of the biggest mistakes in the history of our country. And that's why you have to go right at them. The people of this country want this over. Washington consultants supported this. So it's us versus them on this issue.
Run Wes Run!
Don't think I'll say any more on the topic.
DC is out of touch with the rest of the country. They lost the election in November for that very reason.
Everyone here seems to only be looking at his stance as a call on Washington to show restraint. He's also sending out a firm warning to the Iranians - which is a good thing. And I don't think he just means "Be careful because the President is a loose cannon" (even though that's true). I think he's warning Tehran because he sees the Iranians as potentially a danger to the region and the world, which is the truth.
Hi Guyman!
(BTW, you are fast becoming one of my favorite correspondents here, because our discussions always seem to zero in on key issues!)
Iran is certainly a potential instrument of change in the region and the world. A nascent Iran encourages Shi'a political movements in other Middle East nations where the Shi'a have significant minorities or even majorities, but no political voice. Its Oil Bourse would radically shake the world's financial markets, ending the petrodollar monopoly and perhaps ushering in the Eurodollar as the world's reserve currency. A nuclear-armed Iran -- unlike Pakistan, Iran's focus would be in the Persian Gulf and Levant -- would end Israel's regional nuclear monopoly, greatly shifting the balance of power.
I guess the question is whether those changes are seen as "bad," and thus the instrument of those changes as "dangerous."
For example, ending the oppression of the Shi'a ought to be a U.S. goal as well. The Iran Oil Bourse would not be "good" for America, but neither would it be a disaster if it happened in the context of a new Bretton Woods type agreement fixing a rate of exchange between the U.S. dollar and the Eurodollar. Such an agreement would no doubt include clauses that require us to be more fiscally responsible -- the EU would not accept our current levels of defecit spending -- but that's not a bad thing.
It would be bad if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons, not only in terms of regional balance-of-power, but in terms of "proliferation creep." But Iran does not yet have even the foundations for a nuclear weapons capability; the IAEA estimates that Iran is still 5-10 years from developing weapons. Iran insists that its uranium enrichment program is intended to produce fuel rods for power stations, and the IAEA found no evidence to the contrary. The "nuclear-armed Iran" card may turn out to be just like the "WMD in Iraq" card ... an ideological fiction.
The neocon platform is, at its core, an attempt to hold the world in statis circa 2000, with the U.S. economy dominating the world, backed by the U.S. military, enforcing a petrodollar-driven empire. The neocon vision sees any change to that status quo as "dangerous."
But the one certain thing in the world is change. If Iran is not the instrument of that change, China and India and Africa will be. The Davos Conferees all agreed that the world's economic center of gravity will shift away from the U.S.-Europe-Japan, toward China-India-Africa, over the next two to three decades.
If we accept the inevitability and even desirability of that change, and make plans to participate in and even lead in that change, those changes needn't be "dangerous."
Iran seeks to be an instrument of change. Whether she is a "danger" depends on how we prepare for and manage those changes. Because I don't think we can -- or even should! -- prevent them.
Crissie
I enjoy debating with you also, although with some things we just have to agree to disagree. Like on this subject - I agree that we consume too much energy, things like that. However I'm glad we are the most powerful country on earth, and want to keep it that way. That doesn't mean a continuation of the Bush foreign policy. But you and I can go on and on about that - we have a different world view. When it comes to Iran sure you can make the arguement that we want to dominate the Middle East and Iran stands in our way, etc. Even if that's true I'm talking about more basic things - Tehran sponsors international terrorism for instance. Nobody disputes that, and no civilized person condones terrorism for any reason. So it's things like that I'm talking about that make Iran a potential threat. As far as the nuclear question I doubt there is much we can do about it if the Iranians are hell bent on getting nuclear weapons - short of invading the country which no sane person wants. Hopefully economic sanctions can make the present regime so unpopular that they change course. I don't lose sleep over the Iranians having a nuclear weapon as much as some people do - I don't think they would ever use it frankly. But at the same time I am not as comfortable with it as you seem to be. I know Israel has the bomb, and I know it might seem hypocritical to condone one country's nuclear program (like India) while condemning another (like Iran). But that's if you view every nation and every regime as basically the same. Perhaps you do, I don't. I'm comfortable with Great Britain having nuclean weapons - I'm not as comfortable with the mullahs of Iran having them. Again, my guess is we are not going to be able to reconcile our views.
at some global security meeting. McCain was there to say it wasn't so, but Putipoot pretty much said the instability in the world is all our fault and we are driving a new nuclear arms race. I'm inclined to see it the way Puti sees it over McCain. McCain thinks he's going to inherit the mess Bush will create when he leaves office in both Iraq and Iran. I suspect he'll run with Lieberman as VP, what do you think?
Hi Guyman,
In my lifetime, we've invaded: Vietnam, Cambodia, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), Haiti, Somalia (after and apart from the humanitarian mission), not counting the coups de etat we've sponsored, the insurgencies (read: "terrorists") we've funded in Central America and Afghanistan, or the stand-off strikes we've launched.
Remember the School of the Americas? How about our current training and funding of MEK, a group which our own State Department includes on its terrorist list? MEK has launched a wave of bombings and assassinations in Iraq, which we claim to have nothing to do with ... except that our Special Ops people are training them, and our CIA is giving them weapons....
I'm not saying all of those operations were wrong. Some were just. But not all were, and many were naked self-interest being sold as "preserving freedom."
Is Iran doing the same thing in the Middle East that we've done worldwide? Is it okay when we do it, but not when anyone else does it? Is the ultimate test of "rightness" whether a given act benefits the U.S., protects our access to resources, and maintains our global supremacy?
Is our moral touchstone to be "What's good for America is good for the world?"
Crissie
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2010086,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark will be the national security candidate.
Couldn't get it on the recommended list though. Did you read the article that went with it about Irans new friends?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/10/05350/3149
If everyone who voted had also hit recommend, it might have made it.
Chirac:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2004389,00.html
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark will be the national security candidate.
I appreciate your finding this and sharing it with us.
Wes will tell the American public the truth. I hope they can handle it! I, for one, am SO ready for authenticity. Along with intelligence, experience, wisdom, etc., etc.
Leadership means lifting people up. --Wes Clark
(Comments may be sent to
.)
Great find, mad!! I'm sending a short thank you to Mr. Salhani.