GEN CLARK VS HOLBROOKE & SEN. MIKULSKI’S GRANDMA- WHAT SIZE NATO?

“So it all came to a head on Labor Day weekend of 1994” Wes says.” Vice President Al Gore was going to make a speech in Berlin.” Richard Holbrooke was Ambassador to Germany at that time. And Holbrooke, per Wes, continued to shape and reshape Vice Pres Gore’s speech… Wes was the J5 Strategic Plans and Policy at the time.

“It was Labor Day weekend, a beautiful weekend and every 3 hrs I got called back into the office to review a new transcript of the speech. And every time I scratched out the part in VP Gore’s proposed remarks testifying that we believed in the enlargement of NATO… The version would come back 3 hours later with that part put back in. I finally took it to General Shalikashvili and he said, ‘Go ahead and take the rest of the day off. I’ll take care of it from here.’ So that was a great speech by Al Gore. Within 3 days Holbrooke left Germany and became Asst Sec of State for European Affairs. And the next week I was called to a meeting in the State Department. And there was Richard Holbrooke. He had about 40 of us sitting around a circle.” NSC staff, Pentagon staff, Intel agencies, Treasury, etc. - anyone related to US international policy was there.

Holbrooke

Wes (as Holbrooke) bellows:

“And he said, ‘Barbara Mikulski’s [Sen-MD- D] grandmother turned over the picture of FDR on her dresser and for 40 yrs - she wouldn’t look at FDR’s picture because of Yalta. Because he gave away Eastern Europe! This is the time to set this straight! The policy of the United States is for the enlargement of NATO… Is there anyone that doesn’t agree with this?!’”

A chorus of giggles erupts in the California room as we knowingly anticipate Wes’s now legendary 5.5% about to surface and knock him in the head again….

“So I raised my hand… Holbrooke didn’t know me from Adam.

He says, ‘Yes General?’

I said, ‘Well, I don’t think that’s the US policy-‘.

He says,‘That IS the US policy. I know it on first authority and anyone who says it isn’t is being ….’ And he went on and on, but the final phrase was ‘… is being disloyal to the Commander in Chief, General!’

The way he did it… I… I don’t know what it was… maybe it was the article I’d read about him in Vanity Fair. My ears turned RED! And I just felt this flush come on [..] and when he accused me of being disloyal, I unzipped my jacket and I said, (slams table) ‘You’ll take that back. And you’ll take it back right now.’

And he took it back.

People came up to me afterwards, Dan Freid, from the NSC, was one -- and I’d been in job for about 4 months—and he said – ‘It’s really been great knowing ya’. (laughs) So I got back to the Pentagon to see Shalikashvili and I said ‘Sir, I’m in trouble… I have to tell you what I did here.’ And he said,(deep voiced) ‘Wes…. I already know.’ “

Gen Shalikashvili told Wes that the US Ambassador in Brussels, Robert Hunter, had already called to offer his congratulations to General Clark, and Shali said,

“Wes – you are a hero in the Alliance!”
(big applause)

General Shalikashvili

Wes says he won tactically on that and wasn’t fired. But his ‘reward’ was…. He got to brief Holbrooke at the Pentagon as to why a NATO enlargement would be wrong. Gen Clark went through a point by point and Holbrooke said, “Well the decision’s been made. So, I think we can fix this…. Can’t we say as a condition of enlargement that these countries have to be democratic? Can’t we say that they have to have their border disputes resolved? Can’t we say that their armies have to be under state control?” and on and on rebutting each of Wes’s objections. He then suggested Wes do a study like this to prove all of these things and then they’ll take it to NATO….

“And you can lead the study!” Holbrooke told Wes.

“This is so classic. I couldn’t believe it.” Wes chuckles, “This is like out of ‘Bureaucratics 101’, you know…. You find the guy who’s in charge of the opposition and you say… now let’s see you be a turncoat here and sell your principles down the drain in return for recognition. So I went to Shalikashvili … and he said ‘Wes, this is over.’ And that was the end of that! So Holbrooke won. Barbara Mikulski won. And Barbara Mikulski’s grandmother could then look at a picture of Bill Clinton, if not FDR.”

Senator Mikulski

They went on and set up a new kind of a roadmap for membership which was approved. Grudgingly, Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Warner in the Senate approved it – but it was a vicious fight. Hutchison kept saying, “How much is this going to cost the United States of America? General, can you give us an estimate what it will cost to defend Poland and Hungary and the Czech Republic? We have to reduce expenditures, and be careful of the deficit…” etc.

It became a vicious partisan fight in which the decision was made that meant Poland, Hungary and the Czech Rep. and no more, and Republicans KNEW what it was! They knew - that what the Democrats were going after was Barbara Mikulski’s grandmother… And all the rest of them that vote Democratic in the big cities. And this was one more arrow in the Democratic quiver to nail the Republicans after the victories of 1994.

RUSSIA

The original problem with NATO enlargement was Russia. What could you do with Russia? In 1994, I led the US-Russia staff talks, went to Moscow to do this, they said, (Wes shouts) “General, how long will it be before your NATO ships are in our harbor at Riga?” I said, “Well, excuse me but the last I checked Latvia is an independent country, and so it’s not your harbor…. But the more vehemently you ask that question… the sooner our ships will be there.”

KOSOVO

“We worked Kosovo really hard. We never gave up on using the promise of NATO enlargement to bring other nations in. So here we are worried about Slobodan Milosevic and we fired a missile it had mistakenly gone awry and landed in Bulgaria.” (Bulgarians were 90% against the bombings next door to them at the time) Wes went over and asked the Pres (Zhelyu Zhelev?) if he wanted to be a member of NATO? He said, Yes! Certainly! Well, Wes explained, you need to earn your membership. So to prove you’re worthy to the alliance, we’d like to use your airspace to bomb Serbia from the back door - and we’d like your support of NATO.(!)

Couple weeks later Wes fired a missile at Milosevic’s house – (it was a command and control center replete with bunkers etc)- and hit it. Wes went back to Sofia and Zhelev said to him --

“Yes. You’re very popular now with the Bulgarian public. They like the fact that you struck a missile at Milosevic’s house… and SO DO THE SERBS…”

Bulgaria moved to a 55% favorable for the bombings after that. Bulgaria and Romania threw their weight in behind NATO and this boxed in Milosevic... he had no hope. He was then totally isolated and surrounded.

Wes remarked that when Bush became Pres in 2001 –it was amazing that suddenly the Republicans -and Kay Bailey Hutchison- were no longer asking how much NATO enlargement would cost or even complaining about it. Then in early 2003 NATO brought in Slovakia, Slovenia, the 3 Baltic countries... “For eastern Europe," Wes says, "NATO is a great shield”

ON AFGHANISTAN

“The question has to be asked…. Can NATO survive a less than optimal outcome?

In the case of Kosovo, we won in a 78 day air campaign. We lost not a single allied soldier, sailor, airman, or marine to a hostile action. We saved a million and a half Albanians. We broke Milosevic’s grip on power and a year later he was forced from office. It was an incredible success. NATO almost tore itself apart in finger-pointing and blame and antagonism in the aftermath. “You Americans can’t tell us where you’re gonna bomb!”-“You Europeans have gotta do more, you’re so weak, we had to do it all for you!”

And this orgy of Trans-Atlantic finger pointing went on for months.

How will it be … in Afghanistan?”

Wes concludes that NATO is an enormous consensus engine and he’s optimistic about its future.

Final applause and-- “The General has time to take only a few questions.”

First question up is about our future role in Afghanistan.

In response, Wes rattles off the three lessons that stick out in his mind from Vietnam - that he finds “very salient when we consider Afghanistan.”

THREE WES LESSONS FROM VIETNAM

1)The more troops you send - the more casualties you can take. The more casualties you take, the less public support you get and the quicker the public support vanishes.

2)If the enemy headquarters is not in the country in which you’re waging war… it can cause difficulty in achieving success. It was very clear from the beginning that the N. Vietnamese army was running the campaign in the South... There was no doubt about this.” He cites the developments of the war from 1970 in Cambodia, Laos in 1971, and the mistakes incurred at each instance. Nixon sends the bombers in 1972 against Hanoi. The problems of acting too late once you’ve lost the public support- (See #1…)

“It’s a lot easier to keep goin’ and doing what you’re doing and hoping for the best - than it is to bite the bullet and take the pain of diplomacy.“ In the mid sixties when they could have made a big difference in the outcome of the war….we waited till the 70’s when we had no public support.”

3) “We never liked the South Vietnamese government. They were always either too Frenchified, too high falutin’, too corrupt, etc. It was exactly what you’re hearing about Harmid Karzai today. So I look at Afghanistan and I say well…. Actually, our enemy is Al Qaeda. They’re not mostly in Afghanistan. They’re mostly in Pakistan. "[…]

"And we don’t like the government. And then you want to put more troops in. So, what exactly is the 'defeat mechanism'? Other than simply covering the country with troops? […] Let’s say you put the entire United States Army over there… What would they do? I mean, we don’t speak Pashto, or Dari… I mean we can’t tell friend from foe… We’re waving at ‘em and… they’re probably giving us the finger… and we don’t even know it." […]

"I think the President is really looking hard at this… And he should."

If you were going to ask me for a prediction as to what he WILL do, I’d say he’ll probably put more troops in.[…] And hope for the best.

But if you were going to ask me what I’d like to see... well, I’d like to find a way out of there... as rapidly as possible.

And a thundering applause erupts over his words.

As we all digest the gravity of what he'd just said.

----

“One more question.”

A soft-spoken, middle aged in a brown suit man stands up--and in a thick accent says:

“General, I have no question for you. I am Consul General of Croatia in Los Angeles, and I have a big Thank You for what you have done on our behalf….”

And then he is drowned out by hearty applause. I may have teared up at that closing comment.

...

On his way out Wes walked over and shook my hand, chirping, “Good to see you”, then proceeded to be ambushed on all sides by those who wanted one more word, one more question. I fell to the back of the group and walked out with him as the UCLA ‘handlers’ struggled against all odds to whisk him out in time for his next appointment. (which I believe was the Larry King Show. But then maybe that was Wes number #3 doing the King show….?)

Walking out with Wes is not unlike filming a scene from the 'West Wing'. Wes - briskly walking and talking, rapid fire responding to each and every person en route; first about nuclear missiles in Soviet states, then Afghanistan policy, never missing a step or a beat.

As we made our way outside in to the glare of another sunny LA day - Wes was told he had only one more duty before leaving - to shoot photos with some UCLA interns waiting there…. I quickly asked if he had any words for the blog, and he said, “Just thank them for being there… for their support. I really appreciate it.” I said that we follow all his travels, ventures, and news - as always.

Then… walking alongside Wes beneath that perfect cloud-free sky, I felt I needed to tell him about my best friend’s son; a 22 year old medic stationed at Camp Pendleton, who’d recently committed suicide. This literally stopped General Clark in his tracks. The brisk pace suddenly came to a screeching halt. He turned to me with genuine pain in his face and exclaimed, “No! Oh... that’s awful!”

I asked his opinion on what he thought could be done - as I’ve been voicing here at CCN - about the systemic problem of unrecognized and untreated mental health issues in the military. Told him how, like so many others, this young man was reluctant to open up about his problems fearing reprimand or reprisal, from either within the military or professionally, down the road. Wes said that he expected the Ft. Hood incident would thrust the issue into the spotlight to be dealt with. (paraphrased)

I told him I really hoped he was right. And sighed a little.

And left him with a dozen excited students on the lawn anxious to take pictures with him.

Based on the utter humanity and compassion of his response.... I feel pretty confident that it was in fact - Wes Clark number #1.

The original one.