Reply #99: I think it's a fundemental failure to grasp what makes Clark tick

[Tom Rinaldo]

That coupled with what I believe is an off the mark theory about what Clark wants to accomplish for America in the world. (Since I will enter this into my DU Journal let me preface that this post is written in response to a specific individual which the text reflects).

I answer you in this way because I think theories are an attempt to give life to isolated "facts" which when isolsated by themselves can never provide adaquate context. It is a fact that the United States and the Soviet Union were allies in 1945 but that fact by itself hardly begins to describe the real three dimentsional relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union at that time. So in a sense, as much as I often am critical of you for reading meaning into Clark's words that I do not believe belongs there, I understand the lure of trying to do so. I understand and share to a large degree your desire to make sense out of both politics and politicians that you refer to in your post above.

Wes Clark would never describe himself as a revolutionary, he clearly is not one. However to a large extent he gladly accepts the mantle of being a guardian of America's revolutionary legacy, of the guiding spirit that animates the best aspects of our national identity. Clark is a student of history and he knows the American Revolution well. He knows both the transcendent aspects of some parts of our heritage and the deep shame found in others, but he consistently attempts to summon what is best about our history in service to an enlightened view of our future. For that reason rarely will you find him speak in terminology that could be remotely be mistaken as being anti-american by hardly anyone.

The other thing about Clark is that he is a brilliant engeneer more than a revolutionary theorist. As I wrote above, Clark works from idealistic blueprints but he attempts to concretely build what is currently realizable, starting at point A, advancing toward point B, while anticipating points X, Y, and Z. In that regard he will buck the established order, hard sometimes, but only to a point. That point tends to be the point at which his efforts would lose all real traction and whatever long term influence Clark could potentially muster would be disappated with hardly anything to show for it in the present and very little chance to contribute to making solid practical progress in the future. I view Wes Clark as a highly idealistic pragmatist.

There are far too many simple pragmatists in American Politics; Congress is full of them. There are far too few real idealists, Congress has a scattering of those. But there are precious few men or women with an idealistic vision and the chops to move it forward in a political and even cultural climate where idealism is soundly scoffed at, and I think Wes Clark is one of those precious few.

There is a wonderful Blog up today at Clark Community Network by CarolNYC. It's possible she has posted it at Democratic Underground also - I haven't looked yet, but in case she hasn't and even if she has I want to quote from part of it here, because to me it captures who Wes Clark is. Carol just attended an event last night in New York City where Wes Clark spoke and was interviewed. I will give the title and the link below to the full Blog, and then quote from part of it:

"Wes addresses the Oxonian Society in midtown Manhattan"
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13371

"Asked if he thought terrorism could be defeated, he said yes...but you have to do it from the outside in and the bottom up....get rid of the conditions that enable the terrorists to get recruits. He talked about the wonderful people in the Middle East and how we need to respect them. If we treat people with respect, we’ll get respect back...

...They spoke of Iraq and he said a lot of the things we’ve heard him saying so many times...If only more people would listen. He said that Iran is involved heavily in the conflict in Iraq and “Why not? They got invaded by Iraq! They lost a million people! They’re not going to sit by and say hands off. No way! That’s their national security at stake.”

He stressed, as always, the need for diplomacy with Iran and Syria both. And he said it doesn’t mean we go over there and ask what will it take for you to go along with us. He likened it to how Americans would feel if the Chinese came over here and said, We’re a powerful nation. If you upstarts will play along with us, we’ll give you some money. He said we’d be outraged so why do we think the people in Iran would be any different? “You can’t buy your way....You have to win respect. To win respect, you have to give respect.”

There was a Q&A after the interview...and maybe some of what I wrote above was part of the Q&A.....but someone asked what about the possibility that diplomacy won’t work. Wes said that was certainly a possibility but the thing to remember was the trouble with using force is that you can’t predict its outcome. “It’s always better if you can not kill people....better personally, morally...”

He spoke of the incident in Kosovo where they thought they’d found a Serbian police headquarters and bombed it one night only to find that it was a prison for Albanian refugees. The police were there guarding the prisoners. They killed, I think, 80 Albanian men that night. “How do you think we felt about it? Pretty sick.” Things like that happen daily in war and that’s why you must avoid it if you in any way can.

He said Holbrooke told him during the Bosnian war “Let’s get the killing stopped.” Let the diplomats argue. It’s what they get paid for. If you can keep people from killing each other, that’s the accomplishment.

He said he’s talking to people in the most sincere way he can when he says use force only as a last resort. It’s blood on your hands, it’s blood on future generations. People never forgive you when you kill their relatives."