Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

General Wesley Clark explains his strategy to avoid war with Iran.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 07:36 PM
Original message
General Wesley Clark explains his strategy to avoid war with Iran.
From AAR radio yesterday. This is a snippet from a larger interview which covers a lot of ground. Here, Clark explains how he would deal with Iran directly:

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think what we need to do is try to find a solution that holds Iraq together and that holds it above the Sunni-Shia quarrel, but we can't do that without talking to Iraq's neighbors.

Mark Green: But what, what if they don't want to talk?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But that's, that's the problem with the Bush administration approach thus far. They simply won't recognize what kind of a position they're in strategically.

Mark Green: Well, Baker-Hamilton said let's talk to neighbors. What if hypothe- What if Bush and Cheney tried to talk and then Iran and Syria said, 'Screw you. You, you blundered into this, and we're not going to get you out of it'? what would General Clark do then, if you had a comparable speech last night, if you don't- if the diplomacy card was played and ignored?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, it depends on what you mean by diplomacy. Look, if you go over to Iran and say, 'Gee fellas, I really need your help so I can leave,' they'd say, 'Leave! Just leave. Leave right now.' I've heard their National Security Advisor say it. He says, "America's failed. You should leave." If you heard it, it'd make you mad, because it's a, it was a very arrogant and triumphalist statement.

Mark Green: Mm hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: : But that's not what diplomacy's about. Diplomacy's about trying to create a different vision for the region. Do people in this region always have to fight? Does every issue have to be settled by force? Do people have to hate each other all their lives and pass that hatred on to their children? Do they have to live in fear? Can there be a better way? That, that, that sounds idealistic, but it can be implemented step by step. If we had approached Eastern Europe the way this administration has approached the Middle East, if we'd approached Eastern Europe that way during the 1980's, we might have had a war. Instead, President Reagan went to Reykjavik. He sat down and talked to Gorbechev.

Mark Green: Mm hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I remember all the criticize, criticism of him at the time. People said, 'Oh my Goodness! He offered to negotiate with Gorbechev.' Yeah, he saw something when he met with Gorbechev.

Mark Green: You know, Bush says he's a Reaganite. Why won't he emulate that piece of Reagan, who was a tough ideologue, but a realist.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think, I, I don't know. I don't want to speculate on President Bush. I don't, I don't know the man personally, and i-it's just not the right thing. He's making a mistake. Not that you can ask Iran for help, but you can help Iran. They have, we have things they want. They want to be admitted into the world community. They'd like to have their assets unfrozen. They'd like to be able to get new technology for their oil fields.

Mark Green: Mm hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: They'd like to be recognized as an important power in the region instead of blocked and turned away. We're the key to unlocking all of these things for them. We could do that for them if they do what needs to be done for us, but there's no trust between the two of us right now. We don't trust them. They don't trust us. They're working against us in Iraq, because they've always wanted to have greater influence over Iraq. Iraq's been a threat to them for a long time, and now if they can work and make sure that the government in Iraq is friendly and, and, and, and, and, and responsive to Iran's needs, then they're more secure at home. Also, their work in Iraq probably-

Mark Green: Mm hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -advances their regional interests in strengthening Syria and preventing us from knocking off Syria and going after their friends in Lebanon.

Mark Green:: General Clark-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So-

Mark Green: I, I'll have, I have to interrupt, because we have to take a hard break. Then we'll be back with you unless your flight comes in at Newark Airport as our listeners can tell. This is Mark Green on Politically Direct. Stay with us. We'll be back with General Wesley Clark.
(break)

Full interview here: http://securingamerica.com/node/2121
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Wesin04 Donating Member (188 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. Clark's been saying this for years
We're hearing other politicians, including those probably running in 08, saying similar things now, including the necessity of talking to Iran, Syria and other countries in the region. Wes Clark has been clear and straight on this for years, never wavering on what he believes are the necessary steps to take, and now, he'd be pleased to know that his advice on strategy was heard and has been adopted by the other Democrats. Mark Green suggested that Clark go to Iran to do the "talking" and if you listen to the answer, he said he'd go and he'd get it right. The interview is very good and worth listening to, though you have to filter out the Newark Airport noise. He did the interview while waiting for his flight out.

:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. Good stuff General, but c'mon....
....Sign the damned paperwork and get in the race!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I think Clark is more interested in affecting the policy than becoming President.
Edited on Fri Jan-12-07 08:18 PM by Clarkie1
His greatest concerns are with the troops, the future of America, and the world community. However, he has not ruled out possibly running for Commander in Chief. He said in this interview he would make a strategic decision in the next few weeks as to the best way to accomplish his priority, which is affecting the policy (paraphrasing here). My guess is it will be after the State of the Union, at which time Clark may have comments on the real State of the Union and what he plans to do to help move the country forward to a better place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xkenx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
15. He and everyone should realize that, as POTUS, he can accomplish the most.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
16. Not so much that he's less interested in being president imo
But that he thinks the policy must change NOW, and he wants to do everything he can to help it along.

One of the things he said the other night was that, when you're running for office, people hear everything you say thru a filter than assumes you're only saying whatever it is to win votes. Clark wants to have as much impact on the policy as possible, right away, and doesn't want people tuning him out or spend time and attention wondering about his motives.

'Course, imo, they will anyway. At least, the ones running for office themselves will. And their allies. And the ones trying to decide who they will ally with. And probably everybody else inside the Beltway too. But maybe, with some or all of them, the cynicism will be just skosh less than if he were in the news as a declared candidate.

The good news for those of us who are Clarkies (and everybody else, but they just don't know it yet ;)) is that this pretty much proves he hasn't decided not to run, or he'd just say so. I think it indicates that he will run, or is at least leaning heavily that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nealmhughes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
3. He is making 3 appearances in Alabama on Monday.
Montgomery to swear in the ag commissioner, then onto Birmingham with Charles Barkley for MLK festivities, then in the early evening a potluck supper at the UAW hall in Huntsville. I plan to go to the potluck and shall have my ears wide open and my old note taking hand practiced. I really want to hear what he has to say in person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alittlelark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
5. I was a Clarkie in 2004 - I am hopeful for 2008
He is logical and cogent in every interview I have heard. He is strong and contemplative. He seems to be the right man in the right place at the right time (but I still LOVE Gore and Feingold)!


Damn, I wish the MSM would give him the time of day!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Rock2111 Donating Member (36 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
6. I am confident that will convince the Mullahs to give up their nukes too!
The Iranian leadership is no Gorbechev leadership. Does one realy believe that we are going to negotiate with someone who believes the 12 th. Imam is comming (the end of time)and it is his duty to hasten the return?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. The short answer: I believe we can and we must. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Rock2111 Donating Member (36 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. There is passion in your belief!
However, I feel it may be useless to negotiate with one who's intentions are bogus. I guess the only way to find out is to try.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. The Iranians love their children, too.
Edited on Fri Jan-12-07 09:03 PM by Clarkie1
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, the truth is that most Muslims- I shouldn't say this, but I will. You know, do we have any Catholics here? (laughter) Okay. Do you know how, not to get too personal, but you know how some people only go to mass on Easter and Christmas Eve? You know what I'm talking about? There are a lot of people of the Muslim faith, I don't mean to insult anybody, but there are many who don't, they don't really actively work for the coming of the 12th Imam. In fact, as one of the people told me when I was in, going through one of the states in the Middle East, he said, "You Americans, you are so stupid," he said. "What you have done in Iraq is unbelievable." He said, "Iraq is a tribal, it's a tribal country. The tribes have all the power, and," he said, "members of these tribes overlap the borders and everything, and they're mixed between Sunnis and Shias." He said, "We've tried for over 100 years to take the power away from these crazy Mullahs, and the first thing you do is give them power and authority. You don't understand the first thing about Iraq," he said.

So, there are a lot of people there who don't want the Mullahs to have all that power. There are a lot of people in the Middle East who don't see it the way, a- as a religious conflict. These are people who lived in the United States, send their children here for education, own homes in the United States. They dress like Westerners. They talk like Westerners. They speak fluent English. They get stopped when they go through Kennedy Airport in New York for six hours, and they don't like it. But they want the same thing for their families that we want for ours.

Surely we've learned something beyond the 12th century. I know. Look, the way it works in the world is: People don't start fights mostly for ideas. They mostly start fights for other reasons, and then they drag on ideas to try to give them support. This war didn't begin as an Is- a war of Islam. Osama Bin Laden was angry at the Saudi government, because they stripped him of his citizenship. And then Ayman Al-Zawahiri was angry at the Egyptian government. And so, out of frustration because they couldn't get anything going against the Saudi or Egyptian governments, they joined forces and decided, 'Heck, if you're going to do this, why not go for the big banana. Let's go attack America.' They issued a fatwa in 1998 saying it was okay to kill Americans and now they've dragged in all this religious baggage. It was never there to begin with, and we shouldn't look for it.

I have no doubt that we can have a clash of civilizations and a refight of the Crusades if we want to, because we're proud of who we are. They're proud of who they are. It's natural. It's in the human heart. It's because you love your momma and daddy. You grow up that way. It's part of your family. It's what you believe in. It's why you're- you love the Crimson Tide and know the War Eagles, they're not nothing, (laughter) as we say in Arkansas. But we don't have to have that fight between Christianity and Islam, and we ought to do everything to prevent it.



And we must talk to Iran. The Iranian leader, he's got a real bad mouth on him. He's real ugly. He plays to his right-wing. When he talks tough to America, he gets lots of people saying, 'Way to go Ahmadinejad! You the man!' And when President Bush threatens him, people come in and pat him on the back and say, 'We're behind you. Keep talking tough. We're with you.' It's the way politics works, and he's a political leader. He was actually, you may remember, elected. So, why is it that we can't talk to Iran? Maybe find some common interests. They probably don't want a big war in Iraq either. Now, they want what they want, which may not be what we want, but how are we going to know that if we don't talk to them?

We've got to use our power to build relationships. To win the war on terror you have to have more friends than enemies in the world. There are 50,000 people out there who support Osama bin Laden. That's about two and a half time more than signed up with him on 9/11. That's a pretty good indicator we're not winning, but on the other hand, there's not a single country that supports Osama Bin Laden, not one. So, why is it again that we don't want to work with these other countries? I'll tell you what Osama bin Laden's strategy is. He want's to encourage us to invade Iran and Syria. He wants war. His strategy calls for the creation of zones of chaos and savagery. He wants more Iraqs, where there is no government, no police, and where he can go in and mastermind civil conflict and beheadings, because he thinks from that chaos that he can emerge with leadership. Why do we want to play his game when it's totally against our interests?

What we need is a new strategy that puts us right in the world, that looks at what's important for America's future. We want to back out of Iraq, talk directly to the people we disagree with who are governments, work together with those governments using information exchange, law enforcement, economic development and, only as a last resort, military force to eliminate the hardcore terrorists who can't see the light and come over to our side. It's fundamentally a battle of ideas, and we've got great ideas and theirs, theirs are throwbacks. Most people don't support them. There's probably, there's 6.4 billion people in the world. There's probably 3, 3 billion people who know about the United States of America and there's hardly any of those who don't say they agree with what we stand for, which is protection of the individual, right to have a family, to raise your children to do better. Surely we can win this battle of ideas against 50,000 hardcore fanatics who want to take the world back to the seventh century. Surely that's doable. It's not even a major object of American strategy.

http://securingamerica.com/printready/Univ_Alabama_061013.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Rock2111 Donating Member (36 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I am certain they do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Check my previous post again...I edited to supply you with the long answer...
Edited on Fri Jan-12-07 09:05 PM by Clarkie1
For it is the long view of history we must surely take.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Rock2111 Donating Member (36 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Another viewpoint
There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so.

France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology at least as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan, paid for with billions of dollars Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his son.

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs - they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world, and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated.  They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, purge the world of Jews.  This is what they say.

There is a civil war raging in the Middle East - for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas.  Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition, or the Reformation.

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, and the OPEC oil. The US, European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC - not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

You want gas in your car?  You want heating oil next winter?  You want jobs?  You want the dollar to be worth anything?  You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses and the Islamic Reformation wins.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist movements.  We have to do it somewhere.  We cannot do it nowhere.  And we cannot do it everywhere at once.  
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. We help the Reformation win with our ideas, and theirs. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-12-07 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. What do you think would be a better way to go? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
17. Well, if we all remember....
One of the MOST SIGNIFICANT STATEMENT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE during the '04 PRIMARY DEBATES that folks didn't really pay attention to.--

"...This administration's preemptive doctrine is CAUSING North Korea and Iran to ACCELERATE their nuclear weapons development. Now there are some of us who aren't in Washington right now, but I'd like to ask all those who are...lets see some leadership in the United States Congress. Let's see you take apart that doctrine of preemption NOW. I don't think we can wait until November 2004 to change the administration on this threat. We're marching into another military campaign in the Middle East. We need to stop it." —Wes Clark

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 04:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC