General Clark: "It's time to withdraw, we need politics and diplomacy."

Corriere della Sera | 9/11/2007

Washington—For the last few weeks General Clark, ex-commander of NATO, winner of the Balkan War, has led a campaign against the war in Iraq. Clark, who is not running for president as he did in 2004, but who might be part of a Democrat government should the Republicans lose the elections in 2008, accuses Bush of "hiding behind the generals" and exhorts congress to confront him. In his speeches he warns that the war in Iraq is a failure, that it has exacerbated the problems in the Middle East and damaged America's image in the world.

What do you think of Petraeus' report?

I know Petraeus, he is a good general and some military progress may have occurred in Iraq. But it is tactical progress, and I don't think it's enough because you can't win just by fighting and silencing the opposition. We need to stop discussing tactics and soldiers and shift the debate on to President Bush's strategies and policies, not just in Iraq but in the whole region.

Whose job is that?

Congress. They need to tell President Bush clearly that it's not Petraeus who is under scrutiny, but him. They have to ask him to forge a strategic regional plan and warn him that if he doesn't they will cut funding for the war in Iraq and will adopt other measures. The administration doesn't want to hear it but even moderate Republicans are beginning to protest.

Wesley Clark: The military in Iraq are resolving nothing

There are more important issues than troop numbers and withdrawal dates. The US should take a lead in talking to Iran – now

The Independent | 09 September 2007

When well-qualified retired officers speak out against their political masters' policies, the public should take heed. General Sir Mike Jackson, the recently retired UK Army chief, is now speaking out, and his concerns warrant full consideration. I've known Mike well over the years – and while we haven't agreed on everything, he is on solid ground in his criticisms of US and Coalition policy in Iraq, at least as they are reflected in what I have seen of his book, Soldier: The Autobiography.

As US Secretary of Defense, Don Rumsfeld exerted a heavy hand on American foreign policy. I had first got to know him working around the White House in the Ford administration. He was the brilliant 42-year-old who would certainly be president some day: tough-minded then, even tougher 28 years later. Strike quickly, and then leave. Invading Iraq would serve two agendas: first, to finish off Saddam, the bête noir of the Republican right; second, to cement his military "transformation" plan. But, ultimately, this is George Bush's war.

Mind you, Mike Jackson isn't the first retired general to criticise Bush, Rumsfeld and their policies. I began, in early 2002, questioning the necessity for war, and the haste with which the Bush administration was pushing the US into the invasion of Iraq. By early autumn of 2002, I was warning against giving the President a blank cheque to take the US to war before all other alternatives were exhausted. Secretary Rumsfeld's aversion to "nation-building", Nato activities in the Balkans, and peacekeeping in general, were well known. He and his team were preventing adequate post-invasion planning. I urged in testimony to the US Senate that full postwar planning be developed before the invasion – just as Mike and I had done as part of Nato before the 1999 operation against Serbia. And I warned that US actions in the region would serve to supercharge al-Qa'ida recruiting. The retired US marine, General Joe Hoare, supported me then, and warned of civil war in Iraq following the invasion.

Karen Ballard

Questions for Wesley K. Clark

Generally Speaking

Interview By DEBORAH SOLOMON | New York Times Magazine | July 1, 2007

As a retired four-star general and former presidential candidate, you’re about to publish a memoir whose title, “A Time to Lead,” might seem to suggest you’re personally eager to lead this country. Is that an accurate reading?

“A Time to Lead” is a time for America to lead. That is the intention of the title. Certainly we are having a leadership crisis. We have an administration that has lost all sense of strategic purpose in the Mideast. I am very concerned that we have lost the foundation of America’s worldwide power and influence. It has been squandered.

Are you referring to our military strength?

The most important element of power is not the military. After World War II and through the end of the 20th century, we had a legitimacy that magnified our military strength and economic strength. We weren’t like other powers. We weren’t after an empire. We didn’t torture. What we’ve lost is our legitimacy. It’s time for every American to be a leader.

Is that practical? If every American were a leader, there would be no one left for them to boss around.

Leaders don’t boss. Not if they’re any good. They persuade. And I think America needs a whole lot more persuading and a lot less bossing.

It sounds as if you’re running for president again as a Democrat.

I haven’t said I won’t. I think about it every day.

The field is already overcrowded with aspiring presidents. Do you think we’ve become a country where everyone wants to be in charge and no one can tolerate being second?

Every American should strive to be all they can be. And that striving will make them better even if they end up in second place.

What do you make of all the how-to books and seminars on leadership? What true leader would ever take a leadership seminar?

I’ve never met an effective leader who wasn’t aware of his talents and working to sharpen them.

Clark slams Lieberman on Iran

UPI | June 13, 2007

LITTLE ROCK, Ark., June 13 (UPI) -- Retired Gen. Wesley Clark has slammed Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., for threatening military force against Iran.

Clark, the former Supreme Allied NATO Commander and chair of the Board of Advisers of VoteVets.org, Monday said in a statement that Lieberman, the former Democratic candidate for vice president in the 2000 presidential election, had been irresponsible in saying Sunday that such action against Iran might be necessary.

"Sen. Lieberman's saber rattling does nothing to help dissuade Iran from aiding Shiite militias in Iraq, or trying to obtain nuclear capabilities. In fact, it's highly irresponsible and counter-productive, and I would urge him to stop," Clark said.

"This kind of rhetoric is irresponsible and only plays into the hands of (Iranian) President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad and those who seek an excuse for military action," the retired four-star general said.

"What we need now is full-fledged engagement with Iran," he said. "All options are on the table, but we should be striving to bridge the gulf of almost 30 years of hostility before, and only when all else fails should there be any consideration of other options."

"Only someone who never wore the uniform or thought seriously about national security would make threats at this point," Clark said. "What our soldiers need is responsible strategy, not a further escalation of tensions in the region. Sen. Lieberman has to act much more responsibly and tone down his threat machine."

Clark, Lieberman Spar Over Iran

Hartford Courant | David Lightman | June 12, 2007

Joe Lieberman has triggered a war of words over Iran.

The senator told CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday that the U.S. should be prepared to strike Iran if necessary. He repeated that view Monday on the Fox News Network, saying, "It's time to understand we're prepared to take military action" to "take out" the bases where Iranians are training extremists to kill U.S. military personnel in Iraq.

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark had heard enough.

"Sen. Lieberman's saber rattling does nothing to help dissuade Iran from aiding Shia militias in Iraq, or trying to obtain nuclear capabilities," said Clark, who in 2004 was one of Lieberman's rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"In fact," said Clark, "it's highly irresponsible and counter-productive, and I would urge him to stop."

Lieberman wasn't stopping.

Asked about Clark's remarks, he said, "We've got some enemies out there ... we're not going to defeat them with a lot of talk and warm embraces."

Clark took further aim at Lieberman: "Only someone who never wore the uniform or thought seriously about national security would make threats at this point."

Lieberman got military deferments during the Vietnam era because first he was in college and was later married with children.