General Wesley Clark on C-SPAN's Washington Journal
November 30, 2006
Transcript by RegNYC
Pedro Echavarria: General Clark, your thoughts on the Iraq Studies Group recommendation for pullback?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think they're pretty common sense. I think its- there's no other way to proceed other than to have a regional diplomatic dialog, and, and I agree there should be a fixed timeline in front of the dialog. So, what I'm hearing about the Iraq Study Group I like. I've got to see the report. I haven't read the whole report, but I think this is a common sense way to proceed if the Bush administration will take it.
Pedro Echavarria: What are the benefits of a fixed time-back, and what are the liabilities?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, the benefits are that I guess you have clearly indicated your pressure on Maliki, that you're not going to stay there, and you've- it has political ramifications in the United States. So, it looks like a simple, clear-cut answer to the American people to the problem of casualties in Iraq. The, the drawbacks of the fixed timeline are that you might need that flexibility when you're doing the diplomatic discussions as to where your troops go, how many are there, when do they leave and so forth. It'd be a lot better to have the timeline come out of the dialog so that you've got- When you go into this regional dialog, you need a bag of carrots and sticks, and part of that bag of options is what you do with your troops. And so, I wouldn't want to see us get pinned down in advance of the diplomatic discussions. I think there have to be some events, an event-based scenario that we're working on in the region. There should be some notional timelines to it, but, and it's fine to draw those out internally, but to release those and commit to those before we've done the diplomatic discussions in the region, I don't think, I think it puts the, the, the cart before the horse.
Pedro Echavarria: : When it comes to the Iraq Army and the Iraq Security forces, what is, what should be done about them to strengthen them if U.S. troops are to make their way out?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, it, it's- We, we know what has to be done to strengthen them. You need, first of all, you need the right people in there. You need to vet the people who are coming in, and you need to continue to observe those people to make sure they're not infiltrated by militias. That process is not working. You need to train them effectively, including leadership training, which doesn't take six weeks. It can take years, and that means going back and getting some of the leaders from the original Iraqi Army who have military experience and know how to put these things together and bring them in and vetting them politically and giving them updated training. You have to provide them adequate equipment. So, they need high quality protective gear. They need good weapons. They need night sights. They need armored vehicles. That equipment's not coming on time. And when you stand up these units, you need to put them out with modern communications and probably some Americans who can help them draw on artillery support or air support, and we don't have enough of those teams embedded right now in the right units.
Pedro Echavarria: There's a Op-ed in The Financial Times this morning by Jacob Weisberg of slate.com, and he says maybe a NATO, a NATO-style force should be employed at this time to kind of deal with the after-effects of Iraq.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I, I don't know, you know, I, I hear these terms bandied about, but look, the, the heart of NATO is the United States. We're the largest power in NATO. There's nothing that NATO's going to do that we're not, other than give a diplomatic coverage and take some of the load off the American troops, and when you bring in NATO, you bring in additional complications in command and control. I've long favored NATO involvement in Iraq, because we need NATO for the diplomatic work. But the idea of a NATO-style force, it doesn't, it doesn't signif- signify anything to me. We've got the best Armed Forces in the world in the United States Armed Forces. The problem is, Iraq's not a war that you can fight to win. It's a political problem with a military dimension. You can lose it military. You can't win it militarily. There's going to be a long-term presence in Iraq in all probability unless we can get a grip on the political dimensions of the conflict, and that's why the most important aspect of the Baker Group Commission is the regional dialog. I wish we wouldn't, in the United States, focus on troops levels. I know why we're doing it, but I wish we wouldn't, because the most important thing is to deal with it is to solve it as a political problem.
Pedro Echavarria: How is Iran a part of that regional dialog?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, Iran's, first of all, Iran has hegemonic aspirations, and so Iran would like to have a greater grip on Iraq, make sure there's never any opposition there, dominate the religious communities that are in Iraq, and use it as a bridge to the Mediterranean and Lebanon. So, they've got regional aspirations. They also have nuclear aspirations to support that. And from the time of the American intervention, Iran has been acutely aware of the fact that this administration sought regime change and wanted to go after Iran, and so the presence in Iraq was a threat to Iran - the American presence was . And they've reacted against it in a predicable fashion by training and arming and inciting insurgent forces and militia forces that could oppose the Americans and also constitute a threat should the Americans take any aggressive move toward Iran.
Pedro Echavarria: Our guest is with us until 8:30. First call for him is Downingtown, Pennsylvania.
Caller: Morning, General.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Good morning.
Caller: I'm very happy to even see you.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: : Thank you.
Caller: That's my question here, and I want a very, very earnest answer.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, you'll get that from me.
Caller: Okay. I'm originally from Africa.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Mm hm.
Caller: I've been here for probably seven years now. Okay, back in Africa when I was there, we all knew Saddam Hussein to be the most wicked man in the world - evil, the devil. From what you see now, do you still consider him to be a wicked man, or you are trying to do what we are doing now? Thank you.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think Saddam Hussein was a leader who committed terrible crimes. He's been brought to trial by his own people. I think he's been convicted, and, and justly so for the, for the offenses he perpetrated - the use of force, the murder of people, innocent people in his own country. So, for that he's, he's wrong. But it's also true that Iraq lacked the political development to support a Democracy, and it was contending factions kept in check by strong-arm leadership from the top, and I think people have to recognize that.
Pedro Echavarria: General Clark, Firm Park, Florida.
Linda: Yes. My name is Linda, and my, my son is in the Marine Corps and currently deployed in Iraq. First of all, I want to thank you for your service, General Clark.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Thank you, Linda.
Linda: And thank you also for you support for our troops.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Thank you.
Linda: I'm just a mom who loves her boy and would love for him to be home so I can take the yellow ribbon down in front of my house.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Mm.
Linda: But I don't want him or the rest of our troops to come home until they've completed their mission, whatever that is supposed to be.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Right.
Linda: I think we have a moral obligation to our troops. I think we have a moral obligation to the Iraqi people, especially the Kurds. And so, I don't have any of the answers. I, I leave that up to the President. I leave that up to the Generals and the military people and wise people like you, but as a mom, I would just say, please let our troops do their jobs and don't bring them home before their job is complete.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, Linda, let me just say to you, thank you very much for your support for allowing and, and supporting your son and his decision to serve in the United States Armed Forces. I know it's a tough decision for a mom or a dad and, and thanks for doing that, because we couldn't be safe as America, we couldn't be the country we are if young men and women aren't willing to risk their lives for our country. I, I- The mission's changing in Iraq. A lot of people are trying to work that mission, and I think the consensus from the election was that people are- they want, they want a strategy in the Middle East that will work. They don't want the United States to lose. They want us to succeed there, but they perceive that what the administration's doing is not working. So, I hope that the administration will take the message from the baker Commission and engage in a broader regional dialog, including talking to people that the United States doesn't agree with, because they have a very important role to play and a lot of power in that region-
Pedro Echavarria: Does-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -whether we like it or not.
Pedro Echavarria: Does the dialog include Muqtata Al Sadr?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Oh absolutely, absolutely. We have to talk to everybody inside Iraq, except Al Qaeda. But you know, Muqtada Al Sadr has ambitions. He has power. He is a le- He is a, a, a de facto force in the country, and if you're going to try to broker a political arrangement, you have to talk to Muqtada Al Sadr. He controls 30 seats in the Parliament. He's a major force behind al Maliki, but he's got broader ambitions clearly, and you can't exclude him. He's there. What, what, what we have to do inside Iraq is persuade people that - the, the leaders - that they've more to gain by political dialog then they do by using their militias and, and killing innocent people and, and spreading fear and destruction. That can't be done by dialog only within Iraq. It's got to include the broader region, but a good dialog in Iraq can help.
Pedro Echavarria: When it comes to his case, how do you sway him then? What do you say and what do you promise.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well I don't th- I, I think that the Shias in Iraq have to understand one thing, that they will not be allowed to dominate and control all of Iraq. There are more Sunnis in the world than there are Shias, and one thing about violence - and it doesn't matter your faith or your, your confessional - violence begets violence. So, the kind of militancy that Muqtada Al Sadr has put forward will provoke a countervailing force on the part of the Sunnis. And if it's not, there are not sufficient Sunnis inside Iraq, they'll draw Sunnis in from all over the world. And Muqtada Al Sadr has to realize this. His resources are limited. They may look very powerful now, because Iran may be behind him and egging him on and enco-, encouraging him, giving him a few missiles and a little bit of training, but Iran also doesn't want a long term war that will bleed the Iranian people, like the 1980s between Iraq and Iran. And you, we're on the fault line of Shia and Sunni Islam inside Iraq. It's got to be stabilized. It's got to be stabilized through dialog, not through bloodshed.
Pedro Echavarria: Memphis Tennessee.
Caller: Good morning, Pedro and General Clark.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Good morning.
Caller: Thank you for accepting my call. I have an analogy to make, and I hope you are familiar with it, General. But we know, you know how we capture monkeys. We put something shiny into a small-necked bottle and they reach in to get it and they keep hanging onto is so they can't pull their hands out. Right?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, that's what I've heard.
Caller: Okay. To the victor goes the spoils. When we went into the war, we went in unilaterally, because we refused to grant our would-be allies, our longtime allies a share in the spoils. They have the ability to help us. They can help train the troops. They can replace American troops with some of their fighting forces, not the coalition that we have now that's like a partnership with in mayors of these little provinces. They'll actually fight and help us. We have to give up that unilateral hardy notion that we're going to take it all.
Pedro Echavarria: Caller, thanks.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Okay, I'd like to see more allied participation and support in Iraq, yes, and, and I've seen that from the beginning. I think though that that's only one dimension of why we went in there, and it's only one dimension of a solution, because as I was saying earlier, it's really not about the number of troops that you have and it, it really is about being able to deal with the political realities of the situation as they have emerged today. You've got to talk to the actors in the region, the forces in the region. That includes Iran and Syria. It includes countries that are far removed that, that want to have an influence - like Egypt and, and, and Jordan and, and, and neighbors like Saudi Arabia and Turkey. You've got to talk to all of them. They've all got interests at stake in the outcome there. And then you've to really talk to the factions inside Iraq. You've got to tease out the common interests. You've got to convince the parties that they've more to gain by building their common interests than by trying to eliminate to other parties.
Pedro Echavarria: Militarily, our, our previous guest said that Robert Gates is, in his opinion was being brought to just look at Iraq and to take care and fix problems there. Would you agree with that?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think the, the White House is really torn on the Issue of Iran and Syria. You know, from the beginning, there've been factions in the White House that, that saw the invasion of Iraq as just the first step, and then they'd move on to Syria, and then get Lebanon under control, and then eventually sweep back and get regime change in Tehran. But I think what people in the White House may not have fully appreciated is that these countries have enduring interests. It's not a matter of regime change in Iran. It's the fact that Iran is a major power - 70 million people. They've got enormous wealth in their petrochemical industry. They've got a culture. They, they have sought regional dominance there for years and years and years, even before Ahmadinejad became the power. They want to be consulted and we've frozen them out now since the late 1970s. It, it's time to open a dialog with Iran. We may not agree with them, but even during the Cold War, we talked to nations we didn't agree with, like the Soviet Union, when we had missiles aimed at each other.
Pedro Echavarria: So, Robert Gates, what does he bring to the future then?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, he doesn't bring enough unless the White House changes the policy and looks at the problem of Iraq in a, in the regional context. You cannot solve Iraq in isolation. You cannot solve it as a military problem. The White House has always preferred this solution as a military problem, because it meant that if you question their judgment, they could say you were questioning the troops. I think it's clear we're not questioning the troops. We got great soldiers, great leaders over there. This is a problem of national strategy, and the White House strategy's been wrong. Got to look at the Middle East as a region. Got interconnected problems - Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Israel-Palestinians, Iran's nuclear aspirations and the problem of Al Qaeda - Six interrelated problems in that region. They're not solvable in isolation.
Pedro Echavarria: For General Clark, Omaha, Nebraska.
Caller: Good morning Mister- General Clark and (inaudible)
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Morning.
Caller: I am dealing with a lot confusion as an American citizen. I was one of the ones who said back in, one of what was probably 10 %, at the beginning of this conflict that disagreed with the whole, the whole process, and by listening to the news and seeing what was going on, I knew it wasn't going to work. And I'm just a high school graduate in America to sit back and hear what's going on, and these people - the President on down - gets paid a lot of money to make these decisions, and I was able to see that this wasn't going to work. So, the problem I see as you were saying is not even in what's going on in Iraq. It's going on with the confusion of the American people and how we see this problem that we're dealing with, how it was brought to us and how, again, how we see ourselves in the role as leaders in the world. We are told that we're this great power. We have the right to go about doing this stuff with military. We're not understanding the consequences of the military actions that we are doing-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: You-
Caller: -as American citizens. So, to help us as Americans deal with this confusion that we are seeing come about in this time. Can you help us as Americans come to look for where can we get these true answers, because we are all confused?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don't, I don't know. I think you've asked- you've made some really good points in, in your statement. Look, you cannot win the war on terror without making more friends and fewer enemies in the world, and you cannot win the war on these terrorist, these Islamic extremists, the jihadists, the silophists or whatever label you want to put on them. You can't win it single-handedly, and you can't win it with military force alone. There may be times you have to use the military, but first you win the battle of ideas. Then you use your friends and allies around the world with intelligence collection, sharing of information, law enforcement, and only as a last resort should you use your military and especially not your armed forces. You have to treat people with respect anywhere, whether you agree with them or disagree with them, and you have to have a little bit of humility, and you have to understand that most people are pretty much alike. If you go in and, and bomb and kill people's relatives, they'll hate you for it. And that's, that's the lesson that we found in the Balkans in the 1990s, and that's the lesson that we've had to relearn at such tragic expense in Iraq. We should use military force as a last, last, last resort. It's not a shortcut. There may be times when you have to use it, but you better be very clear that all other alternatives have been evaluated or exhausted and are not available.
Pedro Echavarria: Could you gives us a few moments and give your assessment of NATO's role in Iraq this week and the call for more troops and your thoughts on how Iraq- not Iraq - Afghanistan-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Afghanistan.
Pedro Echavarria: -is going actually?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I, you know, I, I think that it, it was- I'm happy that NATO has stepped up to the, to the challenge beyond its, its own borders. NATO did that first in the Balkans, and I think it's a logical thing for NATO to take action in Afghanistan, and I hope that NATO will demand a comprehensive policy for success. NATO British General David Richards over there clearly sees the problem. There's a security problem, and you need some military to help you with that. But there's an enormous economic problem in Afghanistan, because when half of the domestic product depends on growing opium poppies, which are feeding opium and heroine addicts around the world, then you know that you, you can't sustain an economy built on that. And there's a sanctuary in Pakistan. So, you can't just focus on the problem in Afghanistan alone. What NATO can bring is enormous diplomatic clout. It can bring the demand from all of its nations for realistic planning, and it can put the military actions that are necessary in the proper political and economic context in Afghanistan. I think there's still time to do something with Afghanistan, but if we continue on the present course of emphasizing the military, not dealing with the economic problems and not dealing realistically with the border issues with Pakistan, we will also spiral into failure in Afghanistan.
Pedro Echavarria: Brooklyn, New York, good morning.
Caller: Good morning, Pedro and good morning, General Clark. I'm so delighted with the, the gentleman who was on earlier, Bing West, and I, I'm delighted with your presence also.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Thank you.
Caller: I've read some of the things that, you know, your comments in the newspapers and often times in newspapers are very depressing and I find very prejudiced against President Bush. I, I don't know your true feelings about, you know, his decisions. I do realize now that we, as one of you had said earlier, we screwed up in, in some of the things that we've done, but I, I just want to say, I'm a single person. So, I don't have any immediate family overseas, but I, I'm so proud, I'm so proud of the troops, men and women over there going back two and three times. And today, I was totally impressed by what you said, because at one point I felt you were really against President, the President's decisions and the decisions of his body of advisors, but what I would like to know - my comment or my question is - I, I- when I hear you on, on C-SPAN and I hear Mr. West and other Generals who have retired, I'm, I'm proud of your great intelligence and, and the work that you've done for your country. We're told that like you're a retired General and that Mr. Bing was a former advisor, a defense advisor. Are you having close relationship with the leadership of the country despite the fact that you are technically retired, because what you're saying sounds so sensible and wise. I want to know, are you getting your source about being diplomatically active in trying to bring about better solutions to what's going on?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I thank you for you question, and thanks for the support for the troops. It means a lot to the men and women over there, but it also means a lot to their families, because as you indicate, the families they've really, they're really suffering. They're going through a lot, and they're making heroic efforts to support our country. I, I disagree with President Bush. You know, I was, when I got out of the military six years ago, I was a, a Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas, and I tried to help after 9/11. I was, I basically, I, I had some meetings in the Pentagon, but ultimately I determined that the best way I could help was to speak out publicly. So, I did, and a lot of people rallied to me and I, I ran for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the United States last time. So, I've got a lot of followers. There's a lot of people that talk to me. A lot of people agree with me inside the administration, inside the Armed Forces and elsewhere, but I do have to confess that President Bush hasn't called me recently, nor has Carl Rove. I do a lot with the Congress and, and I'm very proud of the, of the, the Congress I'm proud of the American people that they can see the issues clearly enough to have made the change in the Congress that I think is necessary to, to get the, the American ship of state, to help it get back on course.
Pedro Echavarria: Are you thinking about running for President again?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I, I've asked people questions and so forth. I haven't raised any money. I don't have a committee set up, but, but I am going through the thoughts of, you know, would this be the right thing to do, and should I do it, and if so, you know, why and when and so, I'm having to think that through. It, it was a- I really loved running the last time. I had a great time meeting people. I went all over the country. We won Oklahoma, and I've got a lot of people who've come to me and asked me to run, but I, I- This has to be a real decision, not like the last time when I just, I bowed to the entreaties of Democratic leadership and, and 70,000 people online. So-
Pedro Echavarria: Have you given yourself a deadline of when you decide-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No, I haven't
Pedro Echavarria: -if you will or not?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No, I haven't. I, I'm- to be honest with you, I'm so caught up in the policies and trying to work the policies that to me the politics of it are secondary. I mean, right now we're at a crucial point in Iraq. We cannot afford to fail there. So much is riding on this mission. It's not just about the troops in Iraq. It's about the ability to bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It's about Lebanon. It's about, it's about the Persian Gulf, Iranian Nuclear aspirations. It's a whole- it's 30 years worth of American power and influence thrown up for grabs in what could be a single decisive moment here in the next month or two months or three months as this mission starts to unravel on us. And it's unraveling at an increasing rate as our military forces there are losing their ability to influence the political outcome, and we don't have a political strategy in place.
Pedro Echavarria: Boston, Massachusetts for General Clark.
Caller: Thank you. Good morning, General.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Good morning.
Caller: The reason I'm calling is early on when the war in Iraq started, the Turkey government said that they would come in and train the Iraqis. As the NATO Supreme Allied Commander, I'm sure you're familiar with Turkey and how effective they are doing wars. They were with us in Korea-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: That's right.
Caller: -Vietnam and several other wars, and I really think one of the biggest errors that was made was by flatly saying to Turkey, 'No, we do not want you to come in and train the Iraqis.' With your experience as a General and as a Rhodes Scholar - I believe that was the biggest mistake that the U.S. made - I'd like to hear your comment on that and as President, will you implore Turkey to come in and help with the situation. I thank you so much.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, let me just, let me address the issues of mistakes. In my view, it was a strategic mistake to go into Iraq. It wasn't necessary to go into Iraq at the time. They did not constitute an imminent threat to the United States, and as I said earlier I don't believe you should use force unless it's a last, last, last resort. I had no problem with going to the United Nations and asking them again to put pressure on Saddam Hussein. I probably wouldn't have done it of I'd had any influence on it, but if the President wanted to do it, fine. Our principal problem was Afghanistan. It was Al Qaeda. That's where we should've stayed focused. Having gone into Iraq, we sent a great group of soldiers in there. They did the immediate military tasks well, but they didn't have a follow-on plan. When the civilian representatives, like Paul Bremer and others, came into Iraq, they didn't, apparently, understand the culture, or didn't have a, a plan either. So, the Iraqi military either was disbanded or allowed to fall apart, probably a combination of factors. The, the government and- was run by Ba'athists. They were prevented from coming back in. Looting was allowed. And our allies weren't, weren't brought in in an effective way, nor was the United Nations. So, there were a series of errors and this is one of them. Were I to have the opportunity to, to change some of these things, I'd be working regional diplomacy. I'd be working closely with allies, and I'd be trying to, to solve the six interrelated problem in the region through a sustained diplomatic dialog with a team of shuttle diplomats in the region the way the United States, under Richard Holbrook's leadership and that team in the mid 1990s, tackled the problem in the Balkans.
Pedro Echavarria: Last call, Houston, Texas.
Caller: Yes, good morning, Pedro and to the General. Common sense with good sense with reasoning, it can't hurt, but I was look- reading the Book of Ezekiel, and I had voted for Bush, but then it stated he's going to put hooks in his jaws and draw him into this war. Now, if this is what some people call an Armageddon, how distant are the major powers from the current issues at hand. In other words, can a nuclear hellation take place with a bad decision, and since civilizations have all things, have one thing in common, civilizations have all been utterly and totally destroyed, and can this bad decision have been it? Because look what's at, at, at, at hand. Final.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I, I think, you know, you come at it from an interesting perspective. I, I grew up as a Christian. I read the Bible a lot, and I believe God gives us a certain amount of free will in our lives, and we choose which way we go in the world. I, I don't think there has to be an Armageddon here. I don't think there has to be a nuclear confrontation, but I do think it requires some understanding of some basic principles. And amazingly enough, you can find those principles in the Bible. There are things like treating people with respect, loving your neighbor as yourself, in the words of, of Jesus in the Bible. So, you can, you can use these principles if you will. If you used those principles, you'd be talking to people you disagreed with in the region. You'd be listening to their concerns and their interests. Most people have a point of view. Most people are pretty much alike. Most people, if you push them into a corner and dare them to fight, they'll fight. If you threaten their families, they'll fight. Most people have pride. Most people believe in the countries they've been brought up in. Most people believe in the, in the religious faith that they've been taught to believe in as children. It's just what I've seen in the world, and if you approach it from that way then I think there's no reason to think that this could lead to an armageddon. I think it's possible to deal with these problems in the region, and eventually, over time, at great expense and with difficulty see our way through them, and I hope we could do so. It's up to our leaders.
Pedro Echavarria: General Clark, Thank you.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Thank you, Pedro. Good to be with you.
