Ed Kilgore - Clark's Consistency
Submitted by John on August 30, 2005 - 10:33pm.
Rapid Response
Clark's Consistency - By Ed Kilgore
In and beyond General Wesley Clark's Table for One posts, he's showing a really admirable consistency in his national security views, and his particular take on Iraq.
It's well known that Clark opposed the invasion of Iraq on national security grounds, but it's sometimes forgotten that he, like many other war opponents (including Howard Dean) took the position that the U.S. could not afford to lose the post-invasion struggle to make a post-Saddam Iraq stable and semi-democratic.
Aug 30, 2005 -- 09:23:43 PM EST
Now that the Bush administration has gone the extra mile to screw up Iraq, Democrats are understandably under a lot of pressure to simply call for a quick withdrawal. Clark, who's emerged as the Democratic blogosphere's early front-runner for the 2008 presidential nomination, has no particular political incentive to dissent from the "fixed timetable" trend, but he did so very conspicuously in a Washington Post op-ed last week.
His own proposals for Iraq hit a lot of important points: the need to use some diplomatic muscle to keep "foreign fighters" out of Iraq; the demand for a truly robust, and Iraqi-directed, reconstruction effort; the wise injunction to engage non-Iraqi Sunnis from around the region and the world to work with Sunnis on the ground; the urgent necessity of making American military power a temporary help-meet rather than an imperial presence. And Clark hit exactly the right moral note in scoring the administration's unwillingness to call on other Americans to sacrifice for an Iraq engagement that is now taking American lives, jeopardizing American security, and eroding American influence around the world.
These are pretty much the same themes Clark hit in his 2004 campaign. At a time when some Democrats are being told they have to publicly recant every positive statement they ever made about the war, while others are still trying to change the subject to domestic issues, the General's consistent unwillingness to follow the path of least resistance is welcome.
--
Be sure to check out Ed's blog and add your comments!
This is an excellent assessment from Kilgore. Thanks for sharing it, John. I also appreciate your thoughtful response, California. Wes saw it from the beginning - the big picture - the complexity of the context, etc. With all the bad news in the U.S. today - and the newest tragedy in Iraq, I am so grateful we have a leader like Wes Clark. Bush had made so much of a mess of everything he could possibly influence.
Does anybody know for sure?
"It's time to protect our nation and take it forward. No party can do it better." - Gen. Wes Clark to Arkansas Democrats, 8/13/05
I am someone who has a background in the area of foreign policy. Like General Clark, I was opposed to the Iraq war from the outset because I knew that it would be tantamount to unleashing pandora's box. I even wrote an article in 2002 explaining how invading Iraq could mobilize separatists in the power vacuum left by Saddam's removal, which could lead to the kind of ethno-religious based violence that occurred in the Balkans. I wrote about how invading Iraq would tip the balance of power in the region towards Iran's favor.
What I saw in General Clark from as early as 2002, was that he realized and publicly warned of these consequences at a time when few people would listen to him. He was essentially ahead of the curve. But he is still ahead of the curve.
Now that we are in Iraq, now that we have mismanaged post-war reconstruction and failed to ensure basic security for Iraqis, I believe that we cannot leave Iraq until some basic functioning government takes power. If we do not and leave right now, then we invite the following consequences:
1. Expect oil prices to surge. Iraq controls 15-25% of the world's petroleum reserves, so prolonged instability there will likely send prices even higher, which in turn, will affect Americans from investors to a family that doesn't have enough money to buy heating oil for the winter.
2. The greater the instability in Iraq, the more likely Iran/Syria/Saudi Arabia/Turkey/etc will promote desperate actions in Iraq.
3. A failed Iraqi state with no solid institutions and government, could serve the same purpose to "undesirables" that Afghanistan did during the 1990s.
Currently, no single state in the region has total control in Iraq. While Iran controls the Shiites, it nevertheless has no influence over the Kurds. While Saudi Arabia controls the Sunnis, it has no control over the Shiites. While the US has no influence over the Sunnis and Shiites, it is the only power that has influence over the Kurds. So in effect, what the general is saying that these factors will make the prospect for diplomacy and cooperation among the regional players highly likely if that route is elected.
General Clark has already publicly stated that we should not build permanent bases in Iraq and furthermore, realizes that we need to leave eventually. I don't think he envisions the US staying in Iraq for 5-10-15 years, but more to the effect of a shorter duration. Our only goal should be to leave Iraq with a self-sufficient government, preferably in a flexible federal structure so as to lessen the long-term prospect of future tensions.
And if the administration doesn't want to listen to General Clark's advice, then they admit that their hubris is worth more than the well-being of the troops and their families..
"I am the blogger formerly known as clarkuistador"