Wesley Clark’s Unanswered Questions

MuslimWakeUp.com ^ | 09/11/03 | Ahmed Nassef

[Andy from Beaverton]

Wesley Clark’s Unanswered Questions: Will His War Record Hurt His Chances with Liberals and Progressives?

By Ahmed Nassef

Guesting on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher last weekend, Retired Gen. Wesley Clark was affable, articulate, and funny. He even defended being a liberal in a way that Michael Dukakis could only have dreamed of.

Although details on most of his policy positions remain a mystery, Clark is galvanizing support from a growing number of Democrats who are desperately looking for a presidential candidate that can defeat George Bush in 2004. Because of his strong military credentials, his supporters argue, Republicans will be unable to challenge Clark’s patriotism or his commitment to the nation’s security.

Clark does present an attractive candidate. Backed by his military title, he’s not afraid to criticize the Bush Administration’s war on terrorism and its impact both internationally and domestically.

In a June appearance on Meet the Press, he called for a “thorough review” of the Patriot Act. “I think one of the risks you have in this operation is that you’re giving up some of the essentials of what it is in America to have justice, liberty and the rule of law,” Clark said. “I think you’ve got to be very, very careful when you abridge those rights to prosecute the war on terrorists.”

In the same broadcast, Clark pointedly criticized President Bush’s stated reasons for invading Iraq, called for a thorough investigation of the circumstances leading up to the September 11th tragedy, opposed the Bush tax cut, and came out in favor of affirmative action.

Recently, Clark has been one of the most vocal mainstream critics of the Administration’s policy in Iraq. “The simple truth is that we went into Iraq on the basis of some intuition, some fear, and some exaggerated rhetoric and some very, very scanty evidence,” Clark told CNN in August. “The president said this is the centerpiece of the war on terror. Seems to me that the only terrorists we're finding there are the ones who have come back in to attack us since we arrived,” he continued.

Clark has also been a reasoned advocate of multilateralism and diplomacy. When he criticizes the Bush administration for not working with allies, Clark almost always cites the example of the 1999 Kosovo war, where he was the NATO Supreme Allied Commander in charge of the military campaign against Yugoslavia. As he sees it, the US defeated Slobodan Milosevic precisely because the war was fought under the NATO umbrella, and not as a unilateral American adventure.

But the Kosovo war also raises some of the biggest questions regarding Clark’s own judgment and character, questions that he will need to address if he hopes to drive liberal and progressive Democratic Primary voters away from Howard Dean and, to a lesser extent, Dennis Kucinich.

The Kosovo Questions

On June 12, 1999, a convoy of armored personnel carriers carrying 200 Russian soldiers crossed over from Bosnia, where the troops had been part of the peacekeeping force there, into Kosovo. The convoy quickly moved in to the capital Pristina and moved to secure the airport.

Just three days earlier, Russia had played a critical role in ending the conflict by forcing their Serb allies to sign a military technical agreement that effectively called for the withdrawal of Serb military and police forces from Kosovo.

The war was finally over. But the Serb civilians who remained in Kosovo were understandably nervous, worried that they had been abandoned and left to the mercy of the militant Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). When the Serb residents saw the Russian soldiers, fellow Orthodox Christians and longtime political allies, they were relieved and welcomed them with open arms.

Although it came as a surprise to NATO military commanders, the Russian troop movement—in the bigger picture—would serve to reassure the Serb residents of Kosovo and help implement the peace agreement.

But the war wasn’t over for Wesley Clark. Furious at the Russian move, he ordered British paratroopers to storm the airport. British General Sir Mike Jackson refused the order. "I'm not going to start the third world war for you," Jackson is reported to have told Clark.

Even after the Russians took full control of the airport, Clark planned to order British tanks to block the airport’s runways to prevent Russian aircraft from landing. Once again, the Brits refused.

A senior Russian officer later revealed that thousands of Russian troops were poised to be flown in to Pristina within two hours of any trouble.

Although this incident may have been the most disturbing, questions had persisted throughout the air campaign against Yugoslavia regarding Clark’s handling of the war. Clark’s decision to target the television station in Belgrade, killing 20 journalists and other civilians, was condemned by the International Federation of Journalists as a violation of the Geneva Conventions. But Clark remained unapologetic, “We've struck at [Milosevic’s] TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces.”

In another incident during the war, NATO jets mistakenly attacked a refugee convoy, killing 70 Albanian civilians. Soon after news of the incident, Clark denied NATO responsibility and pointed the finger toward the Serbs, even claiming that he had “strong evidence” of Serb responsibility for the attack. “By the next day,” reported Time’s Douglas Waller, “Embarrassed NATO officials admitted that their first claim was wrong and that an American F-16 had indeed attacked civilians.” Just what was that “evidence” that led Clark to his false conclusion?

The Challenge

Wesley Clark is a highly intelligent man (like his fellow Arkansan, Bill Clinton, he’s a Rhodes scholar). He has shown rare insight and courage, especially for a prospective politician, in his analysis of the current “war on terrorism.”

Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in February, Clark carried an unusual message for someone who just four years prior was preparing a relentless aerial assault on Yugoslavia.

“We've got to understand that in American foreign policy, force is the last resort,” he told the audience. “Yes, you may have to use it. You may even have to use it preemptively. But the use of force is not the guiding principle of American foreign policy. Military might is not the guiding foreign policy principle.”

Once again, he stressed the importance of working with allies around the world, and of embracing Muslim Americans, whom he regarded as crucial in the fight against extremism: “We should be empowering them and encouraging them to speak out. They're part of us. They came here because they wanted the same things in America that everybody wants. They came here for freedom, for equality, for opportunity, to have their children live in a better world and have a better life. We've got to help them as they speak out inside Islam. They are us.”

But will voters reconcile Clark’s well-articulated commitment to dialogue, diplomacy, and human rights with his reported actions on the battlefield?

Ironically, the toughest test for candidate Clark may not be the general elections. The incidents in the Kosovo war that may raise eyebrows among some Democrats are likely to help Clark in the general elections among conservatives and independents. Clark’s insistence on confronting the Russians and his calls for a devastating air campaign could be spun as testaments to his resoluteness and independence.

However, Clark will need to answer these questions before he can count on the votes of progressives and liberals in the primaries. If he can do that convincingly, he may just become the next president.

[Andy from Beaverton]

CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence." ---

He still has yet to name who called him. He is most likely just lying.

As far as Kosovo is concerned, I could go on forever about our mistakes and choosing the wrong side. Clark was a failure, especially when he started supporting the terrorist KLA/UCK Muslims on the ground. Thanks for the blowback, Clark.

[JohnGalt]

Nice work, and liked the blowback reference to the KLA, the completely ignored chapter of the 9/11 story.


Was Clark at Waco?
http://www.counterpunch.org/waco.html

[duckln]

Bump

Very odd article in a way, no mention of Milosevic. Gen. Clark has a lot of opinions on why and why not we should be in Iraq.

He should tell us again why we went into Yugoslavia's Kosovo. He should be hauled back and court martialed!

[Incorrigible]

Here are some of General Clark's accomplishments:

Waco Texas

Yugoslavia:

[Commiewatcher]

"Although details on most of his policy positions remain a mystery...."

He has said he believes America was founded upon the principles of "progressive taxation" (Plank #2 - Communist Manifesto) and has shared the stage several times with Worker's World, an international Marxist organization devoted to the destruction of capitalism.

That should give you a clue.

[Bringbackthedraft]

How many armies had this general commanded? 4 stars? He must have one very impressive resume. Gee he must be another Eisenhower, Mac Arther, Bradley, Hodges, or Patton. Or maybe on the dark side, just a political appointee?

[cwb]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but Clark's "stars"...4, as you noted, started to rise after Waco.

[McGavin999]

The incidents in the Kosovo war that may raise eyebrows among some Democrats are likely to help Clark in the general elections among conservatives and independents. Clark’s insistence on confronting the Russians and his calls for a devastating air campaign could be spun as testaments to his resoluteness and independence.

Conservatives condemed Clark at the time of the incident and we didn't know if he was a republican or democrat. We just knew that he was a lousy military leader with an uncontroled temper that was extremely dangerous.

[cwb]

"As far as Kosovo is concerned, I could go on forever about our mistakes and choosing the wrong side. Clark was a failure, especially when he started supporting the terrorist KLA/UCK Muslims on the ground. Thanks for the blowback, Clark."

Ya know what's really sad, Andy? Most people have no idea of what Kosovo was really about. Oh, sure...they heard the clap-trap about genocide and Milosevich, but they don't know who the KLA was or that this region was ripe with ethnic/religious strife just like the Mid-East has been for hundreds of years. It's as much a religious war as Israel/Palestine was...but unlike that conflict, we took the side of the radical Islam supported KLA and Albanian Muslims. And now, Macedonia is on their list of new lands to conquer.

[martianagent]

Many Americans were freaked at the extent to which the world doubted our motives in the recent move against the baathist regime in Iraq. There is usually more than one reason for such a thing of course, and the extent to which all money trails from Hussein led back to France, China, Russia, and Germany is one part of it.

The other part, however, is a sort of an elephant in the living room problem which arises from our recently having bombed a totally innocent nation into the stone age for the benefit of narco-terrorists, and to take a credible rape allegation against an impeached president off the front pages of our newspapers.

Aside from the fact that all available evidence indicated that the whole problem in Kosovo was the Albanians and not the Serbs, there is another phenomenon which I notice, and I'm wondering if I'm the only person on the planet who has noticed this. It concerns the manner in which the US military conducts itself when given unreasonable orders, versus its conduct in carrying out reasonable orders.

As near as I could tell during the Kosovo operation, NATO commanders realized that this thing was another episode of dog-wagging which they could not ask pilots to risk their lives over and ordered bombing attacks practically from orbit, and then when they realized they could not harm the Serbian military from 25,000', embarked upon a wholesale campaign of what most people would call war crimes, targetting the Serbian people and their infrastructure hundreds of kilometers from any legitimate military target.

The Geneva conventions of 1947 totally outlaw the kind of warfare which was waged in WW-II and by those conventions as well as every other concept of the laws of war which have existed since WW-II, Wesley Clark is a war criminal. The idea of bombing the petrochemical plant at Pancevo, for instance, was called an act of international terrorism by the Russians and, as far as I am concerned, they're right.

That's aside from all the horror stories you read about thousands of little slavic orthodox kids being killed in the process.

During the Iraq operation on the other hand, American troops clearly saw a just cause and were completely willing to put themselves into harms way for it, and the results were vastly different. Kosovo created a seething cauldren of hatred against the United States which has yet to be dealt with. Iraq has created a reservoir of good will amongst Iraqis, and many middle easterners are having to rethink a number of standardized opinions on account of it.

Aside from every other problem with Kosovo, the precedent which it represents cannot possibly be allowed to stand. If ethnicity is everything and ownership and sovereignty don't mean anything anymore, then what are we going to say when the UN comes here demanding that we hand Texas, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and California over to Mexico on the same perverted basis?

[jmaroneps37]

Who really cares what this dope is going to do?

[MadelineZapeezda]

For more about Clark read Clark .....A War Criminal? . It contains a 1999 link to FR.

[steve8714]

you said it brother.

[MadelineZapeezda]

Everyone needs to read Clark Freeped by Stella and Col. Jatras at Borders Bookstore.

[ravingnutter]

called for a thorough investigation of the circumstances leading up to the September 11th tragedy

***Sigh***...

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

I'd venture to say he was lying about the call...if he was that much of an insider, he would know about the Commission.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[cwb]

#1) The KLA was on the US State Dept's terrorist list prior to our support. The connections to UBL and Al-Qaeda have been well documented

"Many European Christians converted to Islam during that period. Not by any force, mind you, but by choise. At that time Islam was experiencing a rennaisance of peace and culture. This was sorely needed in that part of the world and very appreciated."

#2) A rennaisance of peace and culture? They were one of the most expansionists empires in world history. It's very presumptious of you to speak for those who converted to Islam and those who didn't....because many didn't convert. And how do you know that others "willingly" converted? And those who didn't were treated like second class citizens who often lost their land and were not allowed to be land owners.

Regions of Kosovo are considered to be sacred to the Eastern Orthodox people who didn't want Islam taking over their land. The situation only grew worse after WWII when it was the Christain Serbs who were displaced from their homeland. This region used to be about 50-50 around the turn of the last century...but has since dropped significantly against the Serbs thanks to the Muslim occupation of the Balkans. And now, they are attempting to do the same to Macedonia, which has been a relatively successful mixed-culture country. Please...talk to some Serb families.

[martianagent]

Many European Christians converted to Islam during that period. Not by any force, mind you, but by choise. At that time Islam was experiencing a rennaisance of peace and culture. This was sorely needed in that part of the world and very appreciated.

Do you believe that Al Capone brought culture and civilization to Chicago?