What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory (Gen. Clark on Iraq 4/10/03)

Anti-War Candidate? What Must Be Done to Complete a Great Victory by General Wesley Clark

Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.

Gen. Wesley Clark In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured. Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad. The regime’s last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight. And to the north, the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul are still occupied by forces that once were loyal to the regime. It may take some armed persuasion for them to lay down their arms. And finally, the Baath party and other security services remain to be identified and disarmed.

Then there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people.

Still, the immediate tasks at hand in Iraq cannot obscure the significance of the moment. The regime seems to have collapsed — the primary military objective — and with that accomplished, the defense ministers and generals, soldiers and airmen should take pride. American and Brits, working together, produced a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call.

Also See: Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate? Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as "Right Call"

But no one ever won a war or a battle with a plan. Every soldier knows there are only two kinds of plans: plans that might work and plans that won’t work. The art of war is to take a plan that might work and then drive it to success. This, General Tommy Franks and his team did very well indeed.

Everyone who has ever served knows that battles are won at the bottom — by the men and women looking through the sights, pulling the triggers, loading the cannon and fixing the planes. The generals can lose battles, and they can set the conditions for success — but they can’t win. That’s done by the troops alone. And nothing could have been more revealing than those armored fights in which a handful of US tanks wiped out a score of opposing Iraqi armored vehicles, again and again, and usually without suffering any losses, while in the south, the British troops worked their way through the suburbs of Basra with skills born of sound training and firm discipline, minimizing friendly casualties, civilian losses and destruction.

It’s to the men and women who fought it out on the arid highways, teeming city streets and crowded skies that we owe the greatest gratitude. All volunteers, they risked their lives as free men and women, because they believed in their countries and answered their calls. They left families and friends behind for a mission uncertain. They didn’t do it for the glory or the pittance of combat pay. Sadly, some won’t return — and they, most of all, need to be honored and remembered.

As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn’t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome.

Now the bills must be paid, amid the hostile image created in many areas by the allied action. Surely the balm of military success will impact on the diplomacy to come — effective power so clearly displayed always shocks and stuns. Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights.

Germany has already swung round from opposition to the war to approval. France will look for a way to bridge the chasm of understanding that has ripped at the EU. Russia will have to craft a new way forward, detouring away, at least temporarily, from the reflexive anti-Americanism which infects the power ministries. And North Korea will shudder, for it has seen on display an even more awesome display of power than it anticipated, and yet it will remain resolute in seeking leverage to assure its own regime’s survival. And what it produces, it sells.

The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. This could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West.

But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns.

And there will be more jostling over the substance and timing of new peace initiatives for Israel and the Palestinians. Whatever the brief prewar announcement about the “road map”, this issue is far from settled in Washington, and is unlikely to achieve any real momentum until the threats to Israel’s northern borders are resolved. And that is an added pressure to lean on Bashir Assad and the ayatollahs in Iran.

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats.

General Wesley Clark was Supreme Allied Commander Europe 1997-2000 and led Nato forces during the Kosovo campaign

Here's another leftie article (FAIR) mercilessly bashing the kneecaps of Clark. PObviously FAIR is part of the A.N.S.W.E.R. pro Taliban crowd.

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 6:28 PM CONTACT: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) Newsroom: (212) 633-6700

Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate? Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as "Right Call"

WASHINGTON - September 16 - The possibility that former NATO supreme commander Wesley Clark might enter the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination has been the subject of furious speculation in the media. But while recent coverage of Clark often claims that he opposed the war with Iraq, the various opinions he has expressed on the issue suggest the media's "anti-war" label is inaccurate. Many media accounts state that Clark, who led the 1999 NATO campaign against Yugoslavia, was outspoken in his opposition to the invasion of Iraq. The Boston Globe (9/14/03) noted that Clark is "a former NATO commander who also happens to have opposed the Iraq war." "Face it: The only anti-war candidate America is ever going to elect is one who is a four-star general," wrote Michael Wolff in New York magazine (9/22/03). Salon.com called Clark a "fervent critic of the war with Iraq" (9/5/03).

To some political reporters, Clark's supposed anti-war stance could spell trouble for some of the other candidates. According to Newsweek's Howard Fineman (9/8/03) Clark "is as anti-war as Dean," suggesting that the general would therefore be a "credible alternative" to a candidate whom "many Democrats" think "would lead to a disaster." A September 15 Associated Press report claimed that Clark "has been critical of the Iraq war and Bush's postwar efforts, positions that would put him alongside announced candidates Howard Dean, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio as the most vocal anti-war candidates." The Washington Post (9/11/03) reported that Clark and Dean "both opposed the war in Iraq, and both are generating excitement on the Internet and with grass-roots activists."

Hearing Clark talking to CNN's Paula Zahn (7/16/03), it would be understandable to think he was an opponent of the war. "From the beginning, I have had my doubts about this mission, Paula," he said. "And I have shared them previously on CNN." But a review of his statements before, during and after the war reveals that Clark has taken a range of positions-- from expressing doubts about diplomatic and military strategies early on, to celebrating the U.S. "victory" in a column declaring that George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt" (London Times, 4/10/03).

Months before the invasion, Clark's opinion piece in Time magazine (10/14/02) was aptly headlined "Let's Wait to Attack," a counter-argument to another piece headlined "No, Let's Not Waste Any Time." Before the war, Clark was concerned that the U.S. had an insufficient number of troops, a faulty battle strategy and a lack of international support.

As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way. Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

On the question of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, Clark seemed remarkably confident of their existence. Clark told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "does have weapons of mass destruction." When O'Brien asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark was resolute: "Absolutely" (1/18/03). When CNN's Zahn (4/2/03) asked if he had any doubts about finding the weapons, Clark responded: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this."

After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate. "Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03). "Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."

Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." The way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having been silenced is instructive, since he presumably does not include himself-- obviously not "temporarily silent"-- in that category. Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."

In another column the next day (London Times, 4/11/03), Clark summed up the lessons of the war this way: "The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact."

Another "plain fact" is this: While political reporters might welcome Clark's entry into the campaign, to label a candidate with such views "anti-war" is to render the term meaningless.

Face The Nation (transcript)8/24/03 SCHIEFFER;And we go now to Little Rock, Arkansas, where former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley Clark is standing by. General Clark, thank you for coming.

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you, also, quickly: Have you made a decision yet as to whether you're going to run for president?

CLARK: No, I have not.

SCHIEFFER: And when will you make that decision?

CLARK: Sometime in the next week or two.

SCHIEFFER: And why are you being so coy?

CLARK: It's not a matter of being coy. It's a matter of making a complete career transition. It's a matter of asking: Is this the right thing for my family? Is this the best way to make a contribution? Is this a serious effort or is this just an effort to sort of have a beauty contest? And what's it gong to be like, and what's the impact on the armed forces? What's the impact on the people I work with and my business community and so forth? So there are a lot of considerations here. This is not like, I would think, being already in an elected position and saying, `I'll just take a stab at moving one more step up the career ladder.' This is an entirely different matter. And so it's taking a lot of soul-searching to get through this.

SCHIEFFER: OK. Tom?

FRIEDMAN: General Clark,Do you think, from your experience in Bosnia, there's a way to finesse this, to have a -- still a supreme allied American commander and a European deputy in a way that wouldn't turn out to be a multi-headed monster?

CLARK: Certainly, one can do that. There may be some intelligence sharing problems. There always are separate national channels of intelligence that never get fully revealed to allies. That's -- and they don't reveal everything to us, either. That's just the way it works in this business.

But yes, we know how to set up -- just as Dicky Myers said, we can set up that channel. The real issue, Tom, is: What's the overarching strategy in the country? Is it simply to grind the terrorists down, to, as the president said, bring 'em on and then we try to kill 'em one by one as they go after us? Is there some other strategy? And what is that strategy and how well are we executing it?

General Myers says it's a little beyond his authority, and yet this is an area that's coming up. Apparently, the Defense Department is completely in charge of this policy. We know there's been a problem getting State Department involved in it. And the issue here is: What is the strategy?

We've never gone through a nation-building process like this. We don't have the research facilities. We haven't done a year's or two years' war-gaming study of it, like we do for how to destroy an enemy's armed forces. And we're really doing this off the cuff.

And it seems to me that many of the issues you've raised many times are very obvious here. More interpreters -- why haven't we enlisted the Arab-American community? Why haven't we brought 20,000 fluent Arab speakers, Americans, over there to Iraq to help us?
FRIEDMAN: You're aware, again, from Bosnia, the capabilities the Europeans have in some of these nation-building projects. Do you think French troops, German troops, NATO troops, as NATO, not as individual contingents, could be helpful to us at this time?

CLARK: They can be helpful in taking the American troops out of the sectors where there's less of a threat but I just want to underscore something that General Myers implied here.

This is much more than a military problem. The military security, a secure environment, as we like to call it, is the fundamental. You have to have a political development strategy above it. For that we really need the legitimacy of the United Nations.

We need a UN mission in there. I'm just heartsick over the loss of Sergio Vieira de Mello. He was an outstanding individual. He was a great leader in the United Nations and in all of these crisis situations. We need him desperately right now. He needs to have the authority to put the pieces in place to move rapidly toward Iraqi self-government.

SCHIEFFER: General, let me give you a chance to -- I just want to get your comment, because you have been quoted -- or you have said on television, that after September 11th, almost immediately after September 11th, you received calls from what you described as `people around the White House' urging you at that time to link Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attack. Now subsequently I think you have said it was not somebody directly in the White House. But what exactly did you mean? Because that's a very -- fairly serious charge if...

CLARK: Well, Bob, you have to go back and look at exactly how that emerged with Tim Russert. But there was an effort from...

SCHIEFFER: Who?

CLARK: I got a call on September 11th as I was broadcasting on CNN from Little Rock about the strikes, from a think tank in Canada, who also wanted me to blame Saddam Hussein. Said, `It has to be Saddam Hussein.' And I called back and said, `Why? I mean, tell me why is -- what's -- and he said, `Too big. Nobody could do this without state sponsorship. Has to be Saddam Hussein.'

SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, I think we'll end it there, General. Thank you very much.
____________________________________________________________Notice how he didn't mention what is best for the nation.-It's a matter of making a complete career transition.Is this the right thing for my family? And what's it gong to be like, and what's the impact on the armed forces? What's the impact on the people I work with and my business community and so forth?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.