Clark: "It's a fantasy...it's a dangerous course of action."

[Clarkie1]

General Wesley Clark on Washington Post Radio
January 9, 2007
transcript by RegNYC

<snip>

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: They've (Iran and Syria) continued to feed the conflict. Iran's got its hand on the rheostat, I believe, and can turn the violence up and down as suits its purposes. At first, they were happy to have us in there. We eliminated Saddam Hussein for them, got rid of the Ba'athists Army that they had fought in the 1981-88 period, and improved their security. Now they're ready for us to leave.

Ms. Anchorwoman: Now, what can diplomacy do that you don't think a troop surge can at this point?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think that, I think we have to come to terms with where, where we're going in the region. What is it that we're after in the region? What do we want? If we believe that we can take each of these governments, diverse as the peoples are, and sweep away what's there and install democracy, then I think it's a, it's a, it's a fantasy. It- Democracy emerges from a society. It's not imposed on it.

Ms. Anchorwoman: Mm hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So, if that's not a feasible vision, what is? It seems to me a much more feasible visions is to tamp down the expectations of conflict in the region. Get people to build bonds of economic cooperation, which are so strong and so interconnecting the societies, that they would view war as something they don't want, and then use the bonds of economic cooperation gradually to help transform the societies the same way that Eastern Europe was transformed through the policies of Ostpolitik and Detente.

<snip>

Anchorman: Alright, I, I, we started out, General - we're talking with General Wes Clark here on Washington Post Radio - I started by asking you what you would go on television - the President's going to go on tomorrow night, face the nation, and he's going to give us his sort of 'new way forward' for Iraq - be specific on what you'd recommend in terms of our troop levels now and in the future.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I'd recommend a surge of diplomatic activity in the region. I'd put together a flying squad of top diplomats representing the President, State, DOD. I'd let them carry a bag of tricks. There'd be some carrots. There'd be some sticks. There'd be some sanctions. There'd be some troops withdrawals. there'd be some troop enhancements. There'd be some repositioning options and they would talk to the Syrians, the Iraqis, everybody except the Al Qaeda in Iraq, and they would talk to the factions in Iraq. They'd talk to the Iranians, the Kuwaitis, the Jordanians, the Turks, the Saudis, everybody who has an interest in the region.

Anchorman: A-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: They'd put together some ideas on common interests, and they'd come back and work on a program. We did this in the Balkans. We know it can be done if you put the right people over there with the right charter.

Anchorman: And-

Ms. Anchorwoman: Now we've fired things up, and there's so much violence between the Shia and Sunni that's spilled over actually, you know, outside of Iraq now into neighboring jurisdictions. We see fighting between Hezbullah and, and Hamas. I mean, i, it, how, how do we even begin to tackle all of that?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, we can't begin to tackle it by adding to the violence. That should be our last resort-

Anchorman: Well, you mention-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -because, you know in the, in, in the world, when you kill people, their relatives don't like it. And in that part of the world-

Ms. Anchorwoman: Mm hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -they vow revenge, and so if you, you may have to use force, but it should be the last option.

Anchorman: Well, a lot of what's going on there is sectarian revenge and, and fighting-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely.

Anchorman: -and you, you said it yourself, 'When people's relatives get killed, they seek revenge.' You know, we would have to see if that spins out of control, but you, you mentioned Iran, General Clark, and a lot of this seems to come down to Iran. We keep reading reports about the Saudis, the Jordanians, the Egyptians. These are all Sunni governments, and other Sunni governments in the Gulf States being very concerned about what happens in Iraq, but all of the eyes are on Iran and not giving Iran influence there, So, it, it, it seems to me that this whole machinery and, and even what the President says about Iraq, is geared to Iran as well.

Ms. Anchorwoman: A, a, and in fact, those countries are now saying that they'll support the Sunnis if they continue coming under fire from the Shi'ites.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: And I think that's precisely the problem that, with the President's approach. He is, he is going after the smaller of the issues and the dependent issue. The independent issue, the overarching issue that has to be dealt with is Iran. What he's doing by surging troops into Iraq is he's buying time. It's 'stay the course'. It's more of the same. I'm sure that when you put more troops on the ground, you can put up more roadblocks, and I think if you had more roadblocks, you'll stop more traffic. And I think if you can stay in more areas, you'll have more intimidation of the militias, make it more difficult for them to move.

Anchorman: Right.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: And I think you will, hopefully, be able to suppress some of the violence, albeit at the risk of greater U.S. casualties. But what will be the significant lasting effect of this? Iran can generate additional conflict inside Iraq. I think that's the conclusion of the people who've been there, and most of the informed observers in the region. And so, we're putting 22,000 troops in or so. They'll up the ante as well, and what we'll have is a more intensive conflict but still a conflict.

Anchorman: Well-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: What we're doing is buying time while the Iranians are building nuclear capability. It's a dangerous course of action.

Anchorman: I wonder, I wonder, General, how you'd respond to Senator Lindsay Graham, who said this the other day on Meet The Press.

On tape:


Lindsay Graham: My biggest fear, as a United States Senator, as an American, is that we will make a political decision to leave Iraq without thinking about what's left when we leave. Nobody wants to talk about what happens when we leave. I understand it's not popular, but this war is not about the moment. It's about the next decade and the decade to follow. It's about our national security interests. It's about the war on terror - moderates verses extremists.

Anchorman: There is some concern about that, General, and it's a point the President is likely to make tomorrow night and again and again.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: Well, I think it's a straw man argument. The Democratic Party understands very well what the consequences would be of a premature or a rapid immediate departure from Iraq. And so to set that up as the argument and say, 'If you don't agree with us, you must be arguing for this,' is a straw man argument. It's not coming to terms with the real issue. Here's the real issue: Are we able to deal with Iraq and Iran directly, or are we simply marking time with Iraq and waiting to come to the point where there are no other options for Iran but a military strike? Because if you look at that option, it's not a very good option.

Anchorman: And we're going to have to let it go there.

Ms. Anchorwoman: Army General Wesley Clark, thanks for being here.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Thank you.

http://securingamerica.com/node/2101

It is very important that there are knowledgeable Democrats with expertise in foreign affairs, such as Clark, pointing out that an escalation of the current policy in Iraq is not only wrong, but DANGEROUS. As far as a know, Clark has been the only Democrat to so explicitly tie the escalation of the Iraq War, to real dangers from Syria and Iran. The administration is following a reckless, dangerous foreign policy. They are trying to make it all about Iraq, when it is really about the region, especially Iran. They are trying to make it all about supporting the troops or not supporting the troops, dividing America and hiding from the real issues. They are trying to make it about immediate withdrawl or support an escalation of the current policy, which as Clark points out is nothing but a straw man argument.

The neo-con way of thinking is not just wrong, it's a dangerous fantasy. And know one is better equipped to explain why it's a dangerous fantasy to the American people with more credibility than Wes Clark.

[Tom Rinaldo]

1. Are we able to deal with Iraq and Iran directly, or are we simply marking time with Iraq and waiting

...to come to the point where there are no other options for Iran but a military strike? Because if you look at that option, it's not a very good option."

That is exactly the real issue. In that same interview Clark also said this:

"Here I, I see a chorus of voices beginning to sound the trumpet that Iran is a, a grave threat that has to be dealt with by force, that there's no way for diplomacy to deal with the Iranian's aspirations for nuclear capabilities and regional hegemony."

Without a new diplomatic initiative, Clark knows exactly where this runaway train is headed, and he has a pretty good sense of exactly how deadly the crash will be.

[sandnsea]

2. They're trying to expand it to Iran

by blaming the violence on Iran instead of creating an environment where Iraq is independent of the rest of the region. The LAST thing we want to do is let anybody spread this war beyond the borders and regionalize the conflict in the minds of the US people. That is helping Bush turn it into the global war on terror that he always wanted it to be.

That's not what Clark did, btw. Thank goodness for him.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Excellent, and here's the link the actual broadcast!

http://www.mediamax.com/securingamerica/Hosted/public/wapo_070109.mp3

and then, there's
"Wesley Clark Sucks The Hot Air From Bill O'Reilly"
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/01/10/wesley_clark_sucks_the_hot_air_from_bill_oreilly.php