Just so that no one gets confused about that. What you are quoting was part of Clark's 7/12/07 testimony in front of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and Clark's full statement can be found here:
http://securingamerica.com/node/2552The heart of Clark's prepared statement I believe was actually this:
"The deeper truth is that we are engaged in a civil war inside Iraq aided and abetted by outside powers. It is not at all clear that the "surge" will, even were it to succeed in reducing the violence, bring this war to a successful conclusion. We are playing on others "home court." They own porous borders, language skills, long term relationships inside Iraq, and sufficient means to ratchet-up resistance and encourage divisiveness when and where it suits their purpose.
When well-trained and equipped troops are thrown into stabilization missions, they normally do succeed in temporarily tamping down violence. This is the historical record of occupying armies, from Europe to Asia. Local opponents watch for vulnerabilities, redeploy to elude the occupier’s grasp, and deepen their structures in preparation for the resumption of hostilities. But unless mechanisms for political reconciliation take hold, violence seems inevitably to resume and escalate as aggrieved parties find ways and means to pursue their aims despite the presence of an occupying force.
In the case of Iraq, these tendencies are exacerbated by the competitive struggle between Iran and its Shia surrogates, and the Saudi and Jordanian support for the Sunni's. The Iraqi government itself lacks the legitimacy and capability to resolve this struggle, whatever its "legality.". And so, no matter the vicissitudes in civilian deaths, or car-bombings, or disappearances in Baghdad, the underlying dynamics of the struggle continue. This Administration has refused to address their strategic causes and has left our brave soldiers and Marines hostage to a regional power struggle."
As to your questions WT2; the first one is easy to answer assuming that one recognizes that Clark was NOT asked to speak on the history of America's relations with Iran, and that he was allotted very few minutes to addresse that committee on the topic that he was asked to speak on; the current situation in Iraq. In the section you quote from, Iran was referenced in Clark's third point, and he framed the current challanges facing America in that regard dating back to Ayatollah Khomeini coming to power there. While the Shah was in power in Iran, the U.S. was not confronted by active Iranian islamic extremism, and had not been for decades.
Wes Clark was only one of three persons on a panel giving testimony about the mess we are now in in Iraq. His time was limited and the context of that panel did not allow for a half century plus examination of the history between the U.S. and Iran, especially since Clark is often alone in pointing out that the failure of the U.S. to deal directly with Iran has a direct negative impact on Iraq. Clark was straying off the defined reservation to even inject a discussion of overall American strategic issues in the Middle East into his testimony to begin with. I think it both unfair and unrealistic to expect that Clark would have used those few minutes on a panel discussing America's current options in Iraq to launch into a whole scale historic review and scathing critique of the history of American imperialism in the Middle East region.
Clark acknowledged the reality of current of U.S. foreign policy covered by the bipartisan over arching agenda that both the Democratic and Republican Parties have adhered to for in most cases decades regarding the Middle East. His point in bringing all that up was that it is foolhardy to discuss American options regarding Iraq outside of the broader Middle Eastern context.
I think you have read enough of Clark's comments regarding Iran when a discussion about Iran was in fact the central topic, to know that Clark more than any other national Democrat speaks at great length about Iran's legitimate interests and valid reasons for relating to the U.S. as if the U.S. is Iran's sworn enemy, and why the U.S. needs to change course in that regard. Here are but a few examples:
Clark took on two advocates for bombing Iran recently on MSNBC's Kudlow & Co:
"GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Larry, the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein done by the Bush administration was a victory for Iran. HE was their big enemy. We got rid of him. We did the Iranians a huge favor. Now, the truth is that Iran came, has come to us at least three times since 2002 looking for an opening and a way to talk, and we've rebuffed them. So, we haven't tried diplomacy. This administration's not trying. This administration is-
Jed Babbin: (sigh)
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -on a countdown, and here's what's waiting at the end of the road: a nice air strike, 14 days or so of air strikes, Special Forces operations. We've already got SF going in there. We've got over-flights, at least that's what I'm told. So, we're, as far as the Iranians are concerned, we're doing to them what they're-
Jed Babbin: (sigh)
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: doing to us. And at the end of it, if we are able to execute this strike and we've really got Iran then up in arms against us, what is accomplished other than a five year or so delay in the nuclear.
Jed Babbin: Well-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: We don't have the capacity to occupy Iran. We don't have to capacity to calm down the Islamic world after the strike."
http://securingamerica.com/node/2530 And when advocates for military action against Iran attempt to exploit any indication of Iranian involvement inside of Iraq that is adversarial to American efforts there, Wes Clark has the guts to turn the tables and point out how the United States is already supporting conducting operations against Iran, and that the United States gives Iran every incentive to make Americans lives hell inside Iraq because the Bush Administration has long made it clear that their true intention has always been to overthrow Iran's government. Wes Clark recently made this comment in reply to that type of accusation against Iran on Diane Rehm's PBS show 7/12/07:
"GENERAL WESLEY CLARK We've known from the beginning that when we went into Iraq, as we told everybody, including a lot of the NeoCons who testified before Congress that Iraq was just the first step. So we gave Iran and Syria every reason to oppose us. If you were in the Iranian's position right now, you'd see themselves surrounded by US forces with US aircraft carriers there, an insurgency trying to be fomented from Baluchistan which would be hard-pressed not to blame on the United States, the continuing rumors of special forces operations inside Iran and perhaps overflights from unmanned aerial vehicles."
http://securingamerica.com/node/2544 Clark is constantly blasting the Bush Administration for refusing to engage in real negotiations with Iran, and he always points out that the U.S. has more than enough cards to play without being forced to use military force. He made the following comment during a speech at UCLA's Law School in January:
“We need to keep the threat of Iran in perspective. And in dealing with them we have to realize that we are the most powerful country in the world. We have incredible economic strength. We hold the key to the G-8, the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund...the key to advanced technology, energy development—We have that. So when I hear rumors that the President is unable to talk to Iran right now because we don’t have “leverage”...
--- If you have 1000 feet of leverage – do you need another half inch?
We have 1000 feet of leverage over Iran. We’re completely dominant over the country. Cant the most powerful nation in the world deign to speak to an aspiring regional power?"
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10663 I'll post this now and start a second reply to you...
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
