The Next War

It's always looming. But has our military learned the right lessons from this one to fight it and win?

By Wesley K. Clark

Washington Post | Sunday, September 16, 2007; B01

Testifying before Congress last week, Gen. David H. Petraeus appeared commanding, smart and alive to the challenges that his soldiers face in Iraq. But he also embodied what the Iraq conflict has come to represent: an embattled, able, courageous military at war, struggling to maintain its authority and credibility after 4 1/2 years of a "cakewalk" gone wrong.

Petraeus will not be the last general to find himself explaining how a military intervention has misfired and urging skeptical lawmakers to believe that the mission can still be accomplished. For the next war is always looming, and so is the urgent question of whether the U.S. military can adapt in time to win it.

Today, the most likely next conflict will be with Iran, a radical state that America has tried to isolate for almost 30 years and that now threatens to further destabilize the Middle East through its expansionist aims, backing of terrorist proxies such as the Lebanese group Hezbollah and Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, and far-reaching support for radical Shiite militias in Iraq. As Iran seems to draw closer to acquiring nuclear weapons, almost every U.S. leader -- and would-be president -- has said that it simply won't be permitted to reach that goal.

Think another war can't happen? Think again. Unchastened by the Iraq fiasco, hawks in Vice President Cheney's office have been pushing the use of force. It isn't hard to foresee the range of military options that policymakers face.

General Wesley Clark on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer

September 16, 2007
transcript by Reg NYC

Wolf Blitzer: When General David Petraeus was getting grilled on Capitol Hill this week, my next guest must've known how he felt. After all, he's been there as well. Wesley Clark is a retired Four-Star General. He was the NATO Supreme Allied Commander during the Kosovo crisis. He ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination back in 2004. He's just published a new book entitled A Time To Lead. General Clark, welcome back to Late Edition.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Thank you, Wolf. And yes I did know how he felt, because I would sit there and I'd look up at the Senators. And of course, the roles were reversed, because I was serving during a Democratic administration and there were the Republicans, very skeptical, very cynical about the Balkans and Kosova and Bosnia.

Wolf Blitzer: But, but no one ever said to you something like "General Betray Us"-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely not.

Wolf Blitzer: -that MoveOn.org ad that caused so much-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No, and I wish, I wish they hadn't.

Wolf Blitzer: Nobody questioned your patriotism, or, or, or, or what your motives were.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I wish-

Wolf Blitzer: None of the Republican- Correct me if I'm wrong.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I wish that the MoveOn people had talked to me in advance. You know when a General's put there, he serves under the Commander in Chief. He's like you put the quarterback in in the, halfway through the fourth period and you say, 'Kid, get in there and pass the ball and win this game for us.' The quarterback's not going to come out after the first series of downs and say, 'Coach, they're too big. The ball's too slippery, and take me out.' I mean, his job is to produce success It's the responsibility of the President to have the right strategy. And so, this is President Bush's war. It is not General Petreaus' war.

Why Terrorists Aren’t Soldiers

By WESLEY K. CLARK and KAL RAUSTIALA | New York Times | August 8, 2007

Email this article via the NY Times

The line between soldier and civilian has long been central to the law of war. Today that line is being blurred in the struggle against transnational terrorists. Since 9/11 the Bush administration has sought to categorize members of Al Qaeda and other jihadists as “unlawful combatants” rather than treat them as criminals.

The federal courts are increasingly wary of this approach, and rightly so. In a stinging rebuke, this summer a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., struck down the government’s indefinite detention of a civilian, Ali al-Marri, by the military. The case illustrates once again the pitfalls of our current approach.

Treating terrorists as combatants is a mistake for two reasons. First, it dignifies criminality by according terrorist killers the status of soldiers. Under the law of war, military service members receive several privileges. They are permitted to kill the enemy and are immune from prosecution for doing so. They must, however, carefully distinguish between combatant and civilian and ensure that harm to civilians is limited.

Critics have rightly pointed out that traditional categories of combatant and civilian are muddled in a struggle against terrorists. In a traditional war, combatants and civilians are relatively easy to distinguish. The 9/11 hijackers, by contrast, dressed in ordinary clothes and hid their weapons. They acted not as citizens of Saudi Arabia, an ally of America, but as members of Al Qaeda, a shadowy transnational network. And their prime targets were innocent civilians.

By treating such terrorists as combatants, however, we accord them a mark of respect and dignify their acts. And we undercut our own efforts against them in the process. Al Qaeda represents no state, nor does it carry out any of a state’s responsibilities for the welfare of its citizens. Labeling its members as combatants elevates its cause and gives Al Qaeda an undeserved status.

If we are to defeat terrorists across the globe, we must do everything possible to deny legitimacy to their aims and means, and gain legitimacy for ourselves. As a result, terrorism should be fought first with information exchanges and law enforcement, then with more effective domestic security measures. Only as a last resort should we call on the military and label such activities “war.” The formula for defeating terrorism is well known and time-proven.

Wes Clark: Iraq- Military and Diplomatic Solutions

August 3, 2007 | Chicago IL

Now, from the President's perspective, Iraq is just a war. And he's real happy General Petraeus is over there, because General Petraeus is a General, and George Bush always listens to Generals. (laughter) He's told you that. And when he gets-

When he gets tired of listening to them, he replaces them.

I know these guys. They're all my friends. Many of them have worked for me or worked with me and, and I admire them, and they're doing a terrific job. And I admire Dave Petraeus. He's a fine officer, but he's going to do his best to make the surge work. That's his duty, and I think you can see by the results that where you put American troops, they're competent, they're capable, they're well led, they're well motivated, they're fearless, they do their duty, and of course they do make a difference. If you're a terrorist or you're Al Qaeda in Iraq or you're the Madhi's Army and you come face to face with American troops, you're in trouble. You take a shot at them, they shoot back. You miss, American troops hit. Our soldiers, they hit what they shoot at. They're trained to do that, and they're good, and I'm proud of them.

But what we've got to do is create not an argument in the United States over the troops or their tactics, but raise the debate to the administration's strategies and policies in this region. Here's why. We can't succeed in Iraq with the numbers of troops, no matter how good they are, because you can't succeed in this war just by killing people or intimidating the opposition.

Dave Petraeus would be the first one to tell you that. The military's part of the solution. It's not the answer. The answer's the politics. The politics inside Iraq are not just people who are afraid. It's not just a group of people who say, 'Gee, if I just, if I could just let my kids go to school, I wouldn't have to join a militia.' Maybe there's some of that, but there's a lot more than that going on. This is a power struggle within religious factions. It's a power struggle between religious factions. And it's a geo-strategic struggle between different nations in the region. - All playing out on the ground in forms of violence, intimidation, blackmail, corruption, payoffs, influence, healthcare, coaching, counseling, there's no telling how many different intelligence agencies and means of action and influence from different nations are present in Iraq. It's a whole lot more then the number of nations participating in our coalition. I can promise you that. (Applause)

And so, we're not going to solve this problem unless we work it at the diplomatic level and that means we've got to stop isolating people we disagree with and start engaging those people.

Click here for the complete transcript

Wes Clark: President Bush, Stop Hiding Behind Your Generals. Defend Your Strategy!

But now, here's our problem. Okay? We- the administration doesn't want to talk about this. What they want to talk about is troops. They want to say they support our troops, and if we question the numbers of troops or their effectiveness, they want to say, 'You people don't support our troops. If you don't support our troops then you're not patriotic, and if you're not patriotic, then you don't have a voice.' I mean, that's what leaks out from everybody from Undersecretary Edelman and Vice President Cheney all the way down in every dialog.

.... But you're not going to change the policy by arguing about the troops strength. We've done it. We're on record. We want the troops home, but may I suggest that if we can raise the dialog, take it away from George Bush's safe ground of troops and people in uniform and 'How dare you question these Generals and these people in uniform that are so patriotic,' and say, 'No, we're not questioning the Generals. Mr. President, we are questioning you, you're administration, your leadership!'

I want you to say to President Bush, 'Mr. President, stop hiding behind Dave Petreaus and come out here and defend YOUR strategy! This is your war. You defend it.'

Click here for the complete transcript

Wes Clark: George Bush - a Rookie Pitcher

George Bush reminds me of a rookie pitcher who thinks he's got a no-hitter going in the 7th inning, and he's just trying to skate through so the loss can be given to the relief that's coming in. ...

But it's not about the military. It's about the political. And it's not only about the political in Iraq. It's about the political here at home, and that's what I want to talk a little about today.

In the last year I've traveled all over the world. I've been in Asia, in China. I've been in the Middle East three times - Dubai, Qatar, Saudi Arabia twice. I've been in Turkey. I've been in Eastern Europe - Ukraine, Estonia. I've been in Scandinavia - Finland, Denmark. Been in Central Europe in Netherlands and in Italy three or four times. I've been in England a couple of times. Been in, in, in the Caribbean and in Panama twice.

Everywhere people love what America stands for. They respect Americans. They love us as people. They've read what we say we believe in. They just don't understand where we are.

...why is it that at every international foundation and forum, the official U.S. position is to block forward movement on issues of global warming, quarrel with the data, disagree with mandatory controls, push timelines back, argue, argue, argue, stall, stall, stall. Where is America?

...they ask me, they say, 'Well look, you know, the biggest cause of terrorism, the thing that we're most worried about is that you Americans haven't done your duty in trying to bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

And oh, by the way, they get around to mentioning Iraq too. (laughter) Not one of them, not one, no statesman, no scholar, no businessman has come to me and said, 'What you Americans did in Iraq, you know, getting rid of Saddam Hussein, thank you very much. Come and do it to my country!'

Click here for the complete transcript

But what we can hope for still is a state that holds together, that doesn't break apart. And we can hope for a state that tries to work law and order issues with its own, within its own territory and doesn't become a breeding ground for future terrorist activities or for exporting violence in the region. And we can hope for a state that in some way will allow the wonderful, industrious, smart and capable people of Iraq to make their own way forward. And we can hope for a state in which thousands of Iraqis aren't dying every month.

Those are pretty modest, those are pretty modest objectives, and as we move toward those objectives, if we do it the right way, I think we can protect the larger U.S. interests in the region and we can withdraw our troops, but we can't do it without a change in the United States strategy of engagement in the region. We must engage people we don't agree with. We must take seriously our responsibilities to help bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

And, and we must do all this soon, because that war in Iraq is costing something like 100 billion dollars a year, and our children need healthcare and our country needs innovation and our roads need repair, and there's a long list of things we need to do for our country and the world that we can't do until we get out of Iraq. And if we are going to get out of Iraq. We got to get out the right way, because history doesn't stop when the last American troop heads down the road to Basra. We've still got our interests there. We need American leadership.

So, I'm looking to you, this community, you Kossacks.

Help put the intelligence in U.S foreign policy. Help put the intelligence in this debate. Help America get its priorities right. Help us recapture this vision of America, this great and noble country that protects human rights, that's generous, that welcomes strangers, that gives to the world its ideals, its ideas, its wealth, its technology, its selfless service. That's the America they're looking for. It's the America we're looking for, and it's the America that you can help us achieve.

Click here for the complete transcript

On August 3, 2007, General Clark delivered the keynote address at the YearlyKos convention in Chicago, IL.

We encourage you to listen to the speech. Watch the Gen. Wesley Clark Keynote, Courtesy UStream.tv Read more at Taylor Marsh and The Washington Note Additional interviews are available from TalkingPointsMemo and UStream.tv.

General Wesley Clark's Keynote Speech at Yearly Kos 2007

August 3, 2007
transcript by Reg NYC

"We are not questioning the generals. Mr. President, we are questioning you! Stop hiding behind Dave Petraeus." - Wesley Clark

Jon Soltz: ...an Iraq war veteran.

(applause)

(laughs) I find that so funny, because whenever you go to a Republican event, they don't seem to cheer for the troops. So, I (laughs) I, I thank you guys for that applause. I'm also the Chairman of VoteVets.org a group that (cheering) y'all have been so supportive of that without, without the support of the Kos community we would never've been where we are today. We obviously penetrated the political system from the outside much like everybody in this room, and for your support I, I thank you.

It's obviously an honor to be here. I'm here this morning to introduce General Wesley Clark who, who sits on the board of, of VoteVets.

(applause and cheering)

Click here for Jon Soltz's complete introduction

Ladies and gentlemen, please give a round of applause for General Wesley Clark.

(enthusiastic cheering and applause)

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.

(more cheering and applause)
Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.
(more cheering and applause)
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
(persistent cheering and applause)
Thank you very much
Etc., etc.

Thank you. It makes me feel good and I haven't even announced yet.
(laughter and cheering)

That was a joke.
(laughter)

I'm, I'm really happy to be here, and I'm really happy to see all of you here. This community's made a huge difference in American politics. This is the centerpiece of a new politics, and you can feel it. You can feel it in the energy. You can feel it in the ideas. You can feel it in the enthusiasm and the commitment and the, the, the selflessness that you all have brought into the business of politics. You didn't work your way up to get positions. You weren't after a claim. All you wanted was an opportunity to have your ideas heard and to be able to resonate with others who have the same concerns and the same love for America that you have. And you built a community that's incredibly powerful, and I want to thank you for that, and I want to thank you for what you did for helping Democrats take over the House and the Senate in 2006. You're wonderful.

(applause)

And I want to, I want to also recognize we've got a lot of people here who are working in this community now, you've got a lot of people here, you may not have met them, but who are candidates for elective office in the 2008 cycle. And could I ask all the candidates in 2008, if you're here, would you stand up and let this community get a look at you, because they want to meet you?

(applause)

I'm real proud of those people who are running, because it takes a lot of courage to go out there and run for office. It's not the kind of courage that you might get a Silver Star for in the military. It's the kind of courage where you really think about it, where you worry about your family. You worry about what the impact is. You worry about what it's going to do to your life and whether you actually are pursuing a, a dream that's got some chance of becoming real. It takes true, deep courage to make those kinds of commitments. So, I salute the candidates, and I'm really proud of you. I hope every one of you win.

(applause)