C.A.P. -- America in the World Conference Roundup
Submitted by Stan4Clark on July 10, 2007 - 5:48pm.
Climate Crisis | Events | Global Warming | International | Iraq | Middle East | National Security | Wesley Clark
July 12, 2007
Roll over the icons on the right to access full event footage from each panel and speaker.
The Center for American Progress and The Century Foundation hosted the “America in the World” conference to explore how the United States can restore its leadership for a more peaceful, prosperous, and secure world.
The conference brought together leading thinkers from government, academia, the military, and the non-governmental sector to discuss the peace and security issues that will shape the public agenda over the coming years. Keynote speakers included former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR), and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. Panel discussions focused on four topics: energy and the environment, the Middle East, America’s defense posture, and the global economy.
<snip>
For the third panel, Michele Flournoy, Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, moderated a discussion between Lawrence Korb, Center for American Progress Senior Fellow, Gordon Adams, former Associate Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. The four identified several vulnerabilities to American’s national defense: instability in the Middle East, weakening international alliances, strained military capacity, and the long-term challenge of economic globalization. Iraq was cited as the main culprit, having sapped both national attention and the military’s resources, particularly with respect to readiness and number of available troops.
Clark argued that against this array of challenges, America is no longer as powerful as it once was because it has lost much of its legitimacy by violating “virtually every standard of just war theory.” He also called for a larger army to relieve the stress on the current force, and suggested a draft for the National Guard and reserves was one way to fill this gap. We must also develop a cadre of civilian experts who can be deployed to provide “nation assistance,” since these capacities are invaluable in post-conflict scenarios.
Korb counseled restraint, noting that the world is not a more dangerous place compared to the Cold War, and that we should not overreact. The priority should be “resetting” the ground forces (including the National Guard) to their pre-Iraq levels of readiness without lowering standards—which would require growing the army. We can afford a stronger and smarter military if we stop buying obsolete and expensive Cold War weapons that no longer serve our needs.
Adams criticized what he referred to as “political hysteria to grow the army.” The key questions we must ask are: what are the missions that we need to fulfill, and what kinds of forces will we need to do so. The notion that we would ever occupy and stabilize a collapsed Pakistan, for example, is not realistic and should not be used as a force-sizing scenario.
The panelists agreed that the United States must push for a smarter approach to internationalism and burden-sharing. “We can’t solve international problems on our own,” remarked Clark.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Don't settle for less.
Make America All It Can Be!
I'm so glad this is now available. It was a terrific conference.
If you go to nearly the end of this one:
http://www.americanprogress.org/events/2007/06/nsconf/transcripts/g_economy.pdf
You can see the question I asked. One the transcript, it doesn't nearly show how much I wanted to jump down the throat of that Blinder jerk.
Can't wait to read/hear it all. :)
at CAP? Edit: Have my earphones on and can hear better, ... just a suggestion for anyone else having trouble listening as I am without the earphones. Thanks. :)
Reading. This jumped out bigtime:
MS. FLOURNOY: The one word I would add to this description of the challenges, which I think is very rich, is when you look at these challenges together and you consider them as an inheritance - what is being bequeathed to the next president - it's probably the most daunting and disturbing collection of challenges that's been passed on in more than a half-century. I think it's going to be incredibly difficult for the next president to prioritize. All of these issues are deserving of senior leader attention. All of these issues are deserving of U.S. action and priority, and yet it's just going to be a very daunting set of challenges.
And look at the field of candidates... :(
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
I didn't hear that same remark from Flournoy, I heard it in so many words in Madeleine Albright's remarks.
It is "daunting" when one thinks about everything that is tumbling down at our feet and need solutions YESTERDAY. And yes,... the field of candidates that belong in a three-ring circus rather than in the WH?
HOW do we wake up everyone to make them see that these people are not leaders, not with the problems our country faces (globally) now.
(((((Wes Clark))))) It seems like too much to ask one man in a time of crises mounting daily in our country and in the ME, and elsewhere.
is from the panel Wes was on. Way later if you're listening to the whole thing. Near the end I'd guess?
Yes, I agree. It is too much to ask of one man. BUT if we have to ask one man, there is but one man we here feel confident would be the best for the job.
Problem is getting those who are fans of the top 3 to even listen to or read this conference. If they would, they'd get it that their "rock star" isn't up for the job at this point in our history.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
they are all there to burnish their credentials; they are DLC they are the Clinton machine - Podesto - please and they want another run at government positions; they are past;
they will not create a good future for US(a) or America; if you want a democracy run by elites - they are your group-think dream;
Do you know 9/11 official investigation cost only $14 million but Lewinsky affair cost more than $ 60 millions?
to take a test for you shortie you know what I mean ;
don't pretend you don't - THEY ARE THE PAST and they ARE THE STATUS QUO; AND THEY WON"T LET GO THEY ARE THE CLINTON MACHINE: thanks for your for hostility pointing it at me by misplacing your aggression on my comment -
you want Wes in - we are all waiting - we all feel frustrated don't point your frustration at me;
Do you know 9/11 official investigation cost only $14 million but Lewinsky affair cost more than $ 60 millions?
Are you saying Wes was the only one there we should listen to? I thought a lot of them, even Albright who pissed me off with the "she" thing, had a lot of good things to say.
I have major problems with the Clinton machine, but a I do think a lot of their ideas are solid. I don't think they are exactly "the past." Obama is the past. Bill Clinton took us on the first step into the future. He fucked a lot of it up. But I think we were going in the right overall direction.
Their "ends" don't bother me so much as their "means" do. Clearly, the ends don't justify the means. But bad means don't mean that the ends are bad.
Workfare is better than welfare. We are going to have to adapt to a global economy. Abortion should be safe, legal, and RARE. These ideas are sound.
IMO, what's awful about the Clinton machine is what they do to get there. Bill Clinton left the campaign trail in 1992 to fly back to Arkansas to execute a retarded man to show he was "tough on crime." Hillary Clinton voted for the IWR to show she wasn't a dove. These are evil, awful things. The DLC and the Clintons are all about ignoring one's principles to get to the desired end result. And that is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. But that doesn't mean the end result they desire is also wrong.
children; if you want friends in Washington get a dog; they play for keeps at that level in politics son't they; Wes works with them like he works with everybody; he'll talk until it time to drop bombs;
I think they have major political differences at least I hope to God they do;
they are smart people they have good ideas; it is their loyalty to the Clinton's that is the problem - they want to be in the game again they want executive power; and they are stuck in the past; all you have to do is contrast them with Wes and compare them to Wes; he was there but they gave him very small standing next to themselves if you measure how they regard him look at his panel and position; hierarchy of Clinton machine want to keep him down - what are you thinking?
Bill Clinton is very conservative NAFTA internationalist coroporatist politician; he is for the elite; the elite got millions and billions under him and people who work for a living ( suppose to be the core of Dem party ) got pennies on the dollar;
the issues you are repeating from the Clinton years mean nothing to me in the light of their ambition they threw Gore under the bus they threw US(a) all under the bus to give Hillary her shot in 2008 that is meglomanic - I don't want either of the Clintons meglomanic/minds to lead the Dem party again; if she is the nominee I won't be a Democrat - ( have been lifelong Dem)
they designed the DLC/GOP lite - party we have today; the NAFTA model for government for the international global corportists is feudalism;
the first thing they are going to do if they get the presidency is sell off the internet;
they are not neutral and neither am I -
we have to do better than the Clinton's and their ideas;
sorry you got my been a long night under a lot of pressure last couple of weeks unedited wording - I have a tooth ache - I'll bet you can feel it across the keyboard
I didn't mean any offense to your Clarkster- ship LOL
Do you know 9/11 official investigation cost only $14 million but Lewinsky affair cost more than $ 60 millions?
"Daunting,." indeed. But of all the candidates and possible candidates, who is the one who can't be daunted no matter what faces him? Who is eclectic enough and enough a Renaissance man with both academic and life experiences to deal with the challenges? Whose mind is organized enough to keep all those balls in the air simultaneously and never drop one of them? Who can leap tall buildings...? (Ooops...got a little carried away, there, but you get the point.)
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Don't settle for less.
Make America All It Can Be!
without reading just looking overall first impresssion does it seem like they are very weighted to past power figures; it seems a universal principle kinetics and such LOL that to go forward you need new leaders and new voices people who have been toiling in the right way making achievements and taking responsibility but have not yet been put on the A team; where are they
ideas vision in the right direction - forward
personnel weighted in the wrong direction - past
Do you know 9/11 official investigation cost only $14 million but Lewinsky affair cost more than $ 60 millions?
I haven't read it - all the transcripts and tapes but don't you feel that the conference is a way to burnish their credentials because they anticipate a Dem 2008 presidential win; I think they are holding back - this is a warm up session for gov folks who expect to be appointed to office after Nov 4 2008 and I think they have very staid idea of who should lead;
vision of future still cloudy for me;
Do you know 9/11 official investigation cost only $14 million but Lewinsky affair cost more than $ 60 millions?
In their summary of his statements, they wrote that he "called for a larger army to relieve the stress on the current force, and suggested a draft for the National Guard and reserves was one way to fill this gap." I didn't interpret his statements as a "call" for a larger army. His leading and summarizing statement was, "I am very ambivalent". When he discussed the need for raising the number of troops in the military to remedy the problems the military is facing right now, he followed up with, "that’s probably something we’re not going to do with this foreign policy." so "don’t change the size of the military, change what you’re asking it to do. Get out of Iraq and do it as rapidly and effectively as you can." But, what he came back to was, even that won't be so easy to do. So, all I think he is really calling for is an honest debate about the "burden of manning the armed forces." Huge difference!
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Don't settle for less.
Make America All It Can Be!