Reply #68: You know what? I don't think this thread was required......

[FrenchieCat]

but then, I'm not the one that wrote it.

However,

There are 6 paragraphs missing between the first and 2nd paragraph you posted and you forgot to type "SNIP" to tell folks that, and there 6 other paragraphs after the last that you posted.

This article is always pulled out by Clark's distractor.....but never is it discussed in its entirety....only in the cut and paste aspect as seen here.

This article was NOT supportive of the war but rather questioning the fact that many were, at that time, saying "Mission Accomplished".

Most journalists and columnists, at the point that Clark wrote the article in April of 2003, very shortly after the fall of Bagdad, were bragging up and down the media that Mission had been accomplished; that Bush was brave and bold to have persevered under so much pressure, etc., etc...
{read such articles... http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030410-25191517.htm , http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030407-usia07.htm , http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030410-whitehouse-2.htm, http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030410-usia13.htm , http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030410-usia09.htm ,

Clark's article was clearly stating ..... Sure, it may appear that we are victorious in Bagdad, but hold on for just a minute now! Maybe it will be said that said that Bush and Blair stuck to their guns in the face of much opposition, and maybe Baghdad has fallen, but winning this war would take a much more than this.
(Clark's article was reminiscent of this one.... http://www.counterpunch.org/grossman04102003.html dated the same day)

Clark warned about the looting, the mayhem and stated what needed to be done from a strategic point in order to keep Chaos from breaking out. He points out that the Weapons of Mass destructions had not been found, and any goals set by Bush and Blair, i.e., Democracy in Iraq; and stability of the ME hadn't yet happen...and basically stating that we were NOT to yet REJOICE, cause the shit wasn't over......

Most folks , at the point that Clark wrote the article in April of 2003, very shortly after the fall of Bagdad were bragging up and down the media that Mission had been accomplished. This article clearly was stating that .....just a minute now!

"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.

and here....same article (of which you quoted two sentences), he gives full credit to the military for the fall of bagdad....

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.

In the following paragraph, he is providing possibilities as to what will occur.....(one happened; the strive by Al-Qaeda to mobilize their recruiting efforts, as well as the lasting humilitation of Iraq....the other options did not).....but does NOT give credit for the policy that got us into Iraq, nor does he paint the future as very rosy....

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.

The following passage found at the end of same article summarizes the main point that Clark was articulating in this article written at a time when many thought that Iraq was a "mission accomplished"....

"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."--Wes Clark

Here is are past DU posts analyzing the article as a whole as opposed to looking at the snippets without context of what was really being said...:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2482830&mesg_id=2484142

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2482830&mesg_id=2484240

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=321522

Roger L. Simon posts an op-ed Wesley Clark wrote on April 10th of last year, and claims that it proves that Clark supported the war. Had I read the op-ed quickly without knowing anything about Clark, I might very well have concluded that he was expressing qualified support for the war. However even a passably careful reading of the thing reveals that it fails to provide significant evidence that Clark supported the war. Everything Clark writes is consistent with opposition to the war--though perhaps combined with recognition that the world is better without Saddam and a desire to to portray the whole enterprise in a good light. All of these things are, of course, consistent with thinking that the self-defense case for war was a crock and that the decision to go to war was a sub-optimal one.

The most important passage for those who would portray the essay as strong (or even conclusive) evidence that Clark was for the war are as follows:
"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."

Needless to say we have to resist the urge to strain for a non-pro-war message here. Intellectual integrity is in short enough supply these days. Our question is not can we force a non-pro-war reading on this essay? but rather is there a sensible non-pro-war reading of it?

Well, I was against the war (torn, but just barely more against it than for it by H-hour), but I could have written this op-ed (er, were I smarter...and if I knew more...and if I were a better writer...and...oh, you get the picture...). I was happy to see the tyrant deposed, the statue come down, etc. And who could NOT think of liberations past? The only part of this passage I probably would not have written is this part:
"Liberation--the powerful balm that...erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions."
(Note: these are not drudgelipses--they indicate that I have elided words rather than pages.)
This proposition is almost certainly true--liberation (like success in general) erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions--but I wouldn't have written that because it could easily be interpreted to mean that the war was a smart idea, or that this success should embolden us to undertake more actions of this kind in the future. But that's not what the sentence means. On the face of it, it's not a claim about what our reactions ought to be, but, rather, a claim about what kind of reactions we tend to have to such events--it, for example, makes us forget our doubts, it doesn't make them unreasonable (so it doesn't make forgetting them reasonable). If we are being urged to do anything here, it is to resist indulging too much in these reactions, to sober up a bit and contemplate the task ahead. In fact, the following seems to me to be a perfectly sensible gloss on what Clark wrote:
The scenes from Baghdad inspire us. They make us think of the fall of the Wall and the defeat of Milosovic. It's good to see those statues of that SOB smacked with shoes. Liberation is at hand. In general, liberation makes sacrifice worthwhile, makes you forget whatever doubts you had about the undertaking, and emboldens you to try other hard and risky endeavors. But, um, let's not get too excited yet--there's there's more work and more thinking to do.
I want to make it clear--on a first read, that's not how I interpreted it (I didn't know how to interpret it)--but we usually don't interpret things correctly on a first read if they are even moderately subtle or complex. And my guess is that what Clark is trying to do here is rather subtle and difficult--he's trying to counsel caution at a time when celebration seems to be in order, and he's trying to do it without sounding like a nattering naybob of negativism.

The rest of the op-ed is consistent with this interpretation. It praises the soldiers who carried out the battle plan, points out the good things about the planning and execution of the war, and notes the rough spots too. It's a sober and balanced assessment of the war, in my opinion. Clark notes problems without carping and dispenses praise when appropriate and without fawning. But there is nothing in it that shows or even strongly suggests that Clark thought that the war was a good idea. (Though there are some passages that can kinda sorta be read that way with a little effort.)
At the end of the essay, Clark does write:
"As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."
Again, this might rather naturally be taken to indicate approval of the war, but it probably shouldn't be. Resolve in the face of doubt, if it is a virtue at all, is a virtue even when one has undertaken an enterprise in error. (I myself am not sure that it is a virtue at all, but that's probably just one difference between a pointy-headed geek such as myself and a four-star general...) Again, Clark is apparently simply giving credit where credit is due. But saying "you stuck to that project with admirable resolve" obviously does not mean the same thing as "boy, you sure were smart to undertake that project."
And note that Clark continues:
"And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe."
So even (approximately) the resolve Clark has just praised he now characterizes as "almost irrational." So if these two components taken together constitute a compliment, it is (re: Blair at least) a highly attenuated one at best. Hardly unalloyed approval.
And I think that the end of the essay provides reasonably strong confirmation of my reading:
"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."

3.
Well, you probably know the kinds of things I'm going to whine about at this point. But I haven't slept in quite some time (note the crappy writing...sorry!), so I'll keep the whines short. Go back and read David Brooks's comments on The Great Unhinging (or better, of course, my own comments on those comments!). What we have here is probably a case of Mr. Simon seeing what he wanted to see and/or what he expected to see, plus perhaps the effects of political polarization and the pervasive influence of the gotcha atmosphere. And maybe something else I've been meaning to note as well: everything happens so fast in the blogosphere...speed is of the essence...nobody thinks very much about what they write. It's getting to be like academic philosophy--people get famous by saying outrageous things that they haven't really thought through very carefully, and then lots of other people waste their time going through the initial poorly-thought-out position explaining why it's wrong. Note that I don't mean to insult Mr. Simon here, he's just doing what what's done around these parts. But we should all do less of it. Of course I may be the one who's wrong here, but you can be the judge of that.