First Person Account: Remembering September 11 with Wes Clark
September 12, 2006
By Susan ClevelandOH | Clark Community Network
I listened to the latest ClarkCast - Thoughts on 9/11 - this morning. Great stuff. Really great stuff.
I got the longer and more dynamic (read that: stellar, mindblowing, electrifying) version of the those remarks last night, live and in person, at Bethany College in WV.
We were running a little late and walked into the packed hall just as the General was beginning to speak, so I didn't try to take notes. I'm more of a watch and listen person anyway--I know, old fashioned of me in this new century. Truth is, I'm an idiot when it comes to technological things like filming, recording, and even taking pictures. So I'll give you the essence of my recollection of what he said.
He made clear early on that this was not a political speech, that it didn't matter what party those in the audience chose to affiliate themselves with--there's too much division in the country these days-- that he was speaking to the universal of what Americans want ----they want to be secure, they want the country to be safe, they want jobs and the ability to take care of their families and educate their children and get along with their neighbors.
He gave his (familiar to us who have been following him) history lesson on what happened to American foreign policy with the breakup of the Soviet Union and how we suddenly had no strategy; how it became his job in strategic planning and policy at the Pentagon to create one, and how they did indeed create one, called A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement --which no one has ever heard of (and if they did, they would think it was a male pharmeceutical product). Because when the Bush administration came into office, they chose to pursue a different course.
He hit back at the neocons' "blame Clinton for 9/11" strategy, asserting that it was an American system failure, with plenty of blame to go around, and we'll never know if it could have been prevented. But WE KNEW back in the 1990's that Osama bin Laden was the biggest threat we faced, we knew that he was responsible for the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, that our military installations were having to take extra security measures against attacks, and that firing cruise missiles at training camps in Afghanistan was the best effort we could manage at the time with the intelligence we were able to obtain on bin Laden's location. When the Cole was attacked in October of 2000, it was assumed that bin Laden was behind the attack, but it took the CIA and FBI a couple of months to gather the necessary evidence, and by then, the election was over and the new administration was coming in, so it was decided that it was best to turn the evidence over to them for action. They were thoroughly briefed, Richard Clarke gave them a 20-page report on what needed to be done. And then Bush took office and ignored Osama bin Laden until 9/11 made ignoring him impossible.
It was right to go into Afghanistan, go after the Taliban, and hunt down bin Laden, and we had the support of the world. But we should have finished the job and gotten Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" like the President promised, instead of moving resources to Iraq. The General is not optimistic about the future of Afghanistan because the Taliban is back, "they want to nail Karzai's hide to the wall," and there is no replacement industry for the opium poppy as a means of support for people there. All industry was destroyed by the Soviet Union and has never been rebuilt.
And then he talked about it. About being told by a three-star general at the Pentagon in the aftermath of 9/11 about the plan to take down seven countries in a 5 year campaign, starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. He linked this back to things Paul Wolfowitz was saying after the first Gulf War and connected the dots with the Project for a New American Century, the Bush administration's "grand plan" for the Middle East that they didn't think they had to be forthcoming about because they thought it was going to be a cakewalk, and that there would be a tidal wave of democracy washing over the region.
American policy in Iraq is failing and it is simply not going to be the western style democracy that Bush wants it to be, he said. We never should have gone in but now that we're there, we can't just tell the troops to line up, start up their vehicles and head to Basra and Kuwait and get out, it would be a disaster for us. We need a regional strategy that includes talking to Iran, need to bring the militias under control, put in resources (advisers) to help them build their political and economic institutions, which may not end up being especially friendly to the US, but a C- or D solution is probably the best we can achieve out of this.
He talked about the direction we need to be moving in--having more friends than enemies in the world. Need to respect international law and institutions. We need to be applying ourselves to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, not sitting back and letting them fight it out like two third graders on the playground. When people are being killed, something needs to be done. We have to stop the killing in the Middle East. Heads nodding in the audience and applause. He reminded them that this wasn't a political speech. Laughter.
Speaking earnestly to the predominantly student audience, he told them that it was important for their generation to dream of what could be and to take action to make those dreams become reality. He does the vision thing so well. I think I heard echoes of Robert Kennedy quoting George Bernard Shaw. It gave me chills. Good ones and bad ones.
Enthusiastic standing ovation.
Then the Q and A.
First question:
Why not run and get elected Governor of Arkansas to better position yourself for the Presidency?
He gave a stellar answer for why not. Had been asked in 2002 but having only recently moved back to Arkansas, he didn't think he wanted to do that. Got propelled into politics anyway. Talked to Jimmy Carter in 2002 and was urged to run for President. Didn't think he was qualified Carter told him he was as qualified as anyone, because he commanded NATO. He had worked with heads of state, worked with administrations and congress, worked on strategy, negotiated peace accords, etc Has always been involved in international big picture stuff and there isn't much call for that in Arkansas.Maybe when he grows up, he will be Governor of Arkansas. Right now he feels it is important to remain engaged where he is, in trying to get them to fix foreign policy mistakes.
Second question:
"Are you going to run in 2008? I'm for you!"
(It wasn't me, honest!) He deflected to 2006, and how he feels these elections are crucial, and that he fears too much focus on the midrange will keep us from seeing what's right in front of our faces now. Said he had figured out that in order to run for President you either have to be independently wealthy or already elected to office and have a staff and the travel opportunities of the job helping you to raise money and position yourself, and he is neither. He sees himself as a career public servant and continues to serve where he is best able.
Interesting point made in answer to another question, regarding the profit motive in war:
He dismissed it as a primary motive for our war in the ME and explained the military-industrial complex (and it was complex, as in mind-boggling) as a kind of self-perpetuating behemoth that started during the Cold War, but now that there is no more Cold War, they have to create hypothetical scenarios and plan for them and defense contractors ask them what they want and they tell them what they think they need and continue to feed off of each other.
The ultimate hypothetical is war with China.
Apparently, China got wind of that recently and wondered what we thought we were doing planning for war with them. We need a cooperative strategy with China, because we are the countries big enough to work together on global problems that are too big for any one country to solve.
At the end of the Q and A the college president (I think) wrapped up by mentioning the plaques hanging in the hall of the 4 men, JFK, LBJ, Nixon and Ford who had spoken there all within 2 years of their Presidencies--two Dems, two Republicans, and said, "So no matter what party you choose to run in, we'll be happy to put up your plaque!"
A reception followed in the corridor outside the Commencement Hall. Wes stayed for a long time meeting and talking with people, signing autographs, having pictures taken. I spoke with him briefly, but mostly stood back and watched and listened, thoroughly enjoying his interactions with the young future leaders of our world.
It was all over too soon, but there's nothing like a Wes Clark "fix" to motivate you to keep going when you're getting world weary. His forward-thinking, problem-solving, can-do approach to the world picks you up and pulls you along in his wake.
It might be time to remind ourselves why we were drawn to this man in the first place, and if we ever want to move beyond politics as usual and make our dreams of a better world reality, then we need to dedicate ourselves to serious action that will make it so.
The important stuff--he looked and sounded great, was hitting on all cylinders and in overdrive. Damned if I know what color his tie was. As I shared last night in my very short flyby post when I got back home, I was wearing my four-star pin, which he noticed. "Thank you for wearing my stars," he said, with that smile. "Thank you for being in the world," I said.
