The Next War by Wes Clark (WaPo) OpEd

[katty]

more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091401973_pf.html

The Next War
It's always looming. But has our military learned the right lessons from this one to fight it and win?

By Wesley K. Clark
Sunday, September 16, 2007; B01


Testifying before Congress last week, Gen. David H. Petraeus appeared commanding, smart and alive to the challenges that his soldiers face in Iraq. But he also embodied what the Iraq conflict has come to represent: an embattled, able, courageous military at war, struggling to maintain its authority and credibility after 4 1/2 years of a "cakewalk" gone wrong.

Petraeus will not be the last general to find himself explaining how a military intervention has misfired and urging skeptical lawmakers to believe that the mission can still be accomplished. For the next war is always looming, and so is the urgent question of whether the U.S. military can adapt in time to win it.

Today, the most likely next conflict will be with Iran, a radical state that America has tried to isolate for almost 30 years and that now threatens to further destabilize the Middle East through its expansionist aims, backing of terrorist proxies such as the Lebanese group Hezbollah and Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, and far-reaching support for radical Shiite militias in Iraq. As Iran seems to draw closer to acquiring nuclear weapons, almost every U.S. leader -- and would-be president -- has said that it simply won't be permitted to reach that goal.

Think another war can't happen? Think again. Unchastened by the Iraq fiasco, hawks in Vice President Cheney's office have been pushing the use of force. It isn't hard to foresee the range of military options that policymakers face.

[PDJane]

1. I respect Gen. Clark.

But I don't agree with him in this case.

First of all, Iraq is not a war; it's an invasion and occupation, and it was illegal under international law.

Secondly, Iran is not an enemy, radical state. It has been named so only because the people took back the state from the US-installed dictator, the Shah. The US deposed the legally elected leader of Iran because he wanted to nationalize the oil fields, and the US couldn't have that, could they?

This is blowback from US policies in the middle east, and it is time the US learned to live with what has been done there.

[sce56]

3. I second that Emotion!

Got Fascism Yet?

http://web.archive.org/web/20030602211200/

[katty]

4. yes, think most is blowback and creating even MORE serious

blowback problems-which, in my opinion, Clark is (and has been)playing town crier here. The fact that this was/is an invasion has never mattered to the hawks&the warparty profiteers-the point is moot. They want to control the oil in the middle east and have/will invade, create conflict, violate international law (one way or another)promote perpetual war if they must in order to manifest their ultimate fantasy in the middle east: total control
How we got where we are today or how we get into yet another bloody mess tomorrow DOES NOT MATTER TO THEM IN THE LEAST.

[5fingersurfer]

2. Wow

I have't always paid attention to what Gen Clark say. Now I can see why. I watched a lot of the Patraeus testimony, and I didn't come away with anything near what W Clark describes in that first sentence. Maybe that's just because I'm a pinko, tree huggin, somewhat liberal, america hatin, traitor (well at least according to rush, anne c, savage, and the like). I guess I just jumped to the conclusion that gen p was pandering to bush's policies and not actually telling the truth. It had nothing to do with his actual testimony.