Audio also available at www.securingamerica.com
May 14, 2006
transcript by Reg NYC
Narrator: This past weekend Wes Clark traveled to Iowa to continue his mission of helping Democrats win back Congress in 2006, including campaigning with Iowa Congressman Leonard Boswell. While on this trip, General Clark recorded a special Common Voices ClarkCast with Iowans discussing the important issues of today, including the Middle East. We hope you enjoy Common Voices From Iowa.
Panelist #1: It seems like through history whenever a Western power has involved itself in the Middle East, it's made things worse for the Western power and really hasn't hurt- helped too much in the Mid East. What do you think about a timetable to get out of Iraq?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think we should be saying as a declaratory policy that we have no permanent bases in Iraq. I don't think it's possible with as good operating practice to a fixed timetable. You can't legitimately do it unless it's in reference to events on the ground, but you can't control the events on the ground. They're a function of factors that are really out of our control. If you announced a timetable, it would only be in response to US domestic political needs. Believe me, no one wants to get out of Iraq faster than this administration does. They've been trying to get out of Iraq for three years, starting with President Bush's first visit to the aircraft carrier declaring 'Mission Accomplished'. What they've always wanted, I suspect, is a nice parade down Constitutional Avenue, like his father had, with the troops marching in formation and then the medals being pinned on, saying "Successful Conquest of another-" sorry, "Successful Deliverance of Another Country to Freedoms" banner. But it hasn't quite worked out that way. So, I've always cautioned my friends, "Don't feed into this hasty pullout." Instead, you should recognize that the mission in Iraq has been a failure by their own standard of accomplishment. It's a failure. They did not succeed in liberating Iraq and establishing a Western-style Democracy. It hasn't happened, but now having admitted that Bush has failed, now we need to see if can we salvage anything for the United States of America. If you pull out right now, what you get is an F. What will happen is that the militias will protect themselves. People will be wracked by fear. The conflict will grow. Outside powers will be tempted to intervene. They'll be met by other outside powers, and you'll have a large-scale Lebanon-type civil War, with a war of movement. As long as the united States forces are there, there's no power that's going to be able to form up armies in formation with technical vehicles and machine guns and go through and conquer cities and so forth.
What the United States must do is use this year as a period of transition, and then begin a responsible redeployment of forces from Iraq. We ought to get out of there as quickly as it's feasible to do so, aiming to have left behind an integral Iraq, not broken up into three components, an Iraq that doesn't threaten its neighbors and an Iraq that is not a training ground, a wholesale training ground for terrorists any more than it is already. But that's the C-/D+ solution. You're going to leave behind a government that is, an Iraq that is much more Islamicized, Islamist in its laws than, than the secular, mostly secular Iraq under Saddam Hussein. You're not going to leave behind an Iraq that says, 'Oh gee, let's encourage the Palestinians to talk with the Israelis.' They're not going to do that. And you're not going to leave behind an Iraq that says, 'We really appreciate you Americans and thanks for imposing Democracy on us.' They're not going to do that, not in the near term, anyway.
So, that's a C-/D+, but remember this is not about iraq. This is about American interests in the region. It's about oil, our friends Israel. It's about how we structure America's role in the post-9/11 world. It's about the problem of terrorism, and ultimately it's about how the Islamic world comes to terms with the West. All of those things are riding on our activities and actions in Iraq. And so, I always tell my friends that want to set a timeline, I say, "Look, let's, let's recognize this is not about Iraq. We need to be pulling our forces down as rapidly as is feasible to do so, but we don't want an F on the report card on Iraq." We can still get a C- or a D+ if we do it right.
Panelist #2: You had mentioned Israel and the Palestinians. What are, what are your feelings about Hamas winning victory in the elections, and what do you think the United States can do to help resolve the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, we should've a long time ago stepped in to try to help. Because the Clinton Administration did, this administration wouldn't. And I think they actually welcomed the conflict and tried to blame it on Clinton's failure, but in fact we came very close in 2000 to getting a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I always had reservations, personally, about the Oslo agreement, because we had permitted Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian school system to continue to teach hatred. One of my friends was saying the other day that if, if some of these people had ever learned the lessons of, of Ghandi in India, they'd have solved their problems a long time ago, that it's not violence that wins, it's the power of the idea and the selflessness of a struggle. But that's too late for that right now and in this case, because violence is endemic and entrenched in the region, and there are terrible passions afoot.
Hamas is an organization was created on the basis of terrorism. It doesn't recognize the existence of Israel as a state. It's not a participant in the Oslo solution, which traded ultimate two-state solution for recognition of the State of Israel's right to exist. Until those conditions are met, I don't believe the United States should be supporting Hamas. I don't believe the European Union should be supporting Hamas. And I realize that there are people in the Arab world who are supporting the Palestinian people, and I know that we all have tremendous sympathy for the Palestinian people. But that's separate from supporting Hamas as a state, as an organization of government. And I think what we've got to do is we've got to work our way very carefully through some very strong conditionality on aid to the Palestinian people. We've got to help them make the decision to either convert Hamas or throw it out of office, because ultimately you can't resolve the problems in the Middle East by force. You've got to have negotiating partners on both sides who are willing to sit down and talk. 'Til that is obtained, the conditions that will make peace possible aren't there.
Panelist #3: What's your opinion? The President of Iran sent an eighteen-page letter to President Bush. I've not seen a full transcript of that, and I don't think-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Neither have I.
Panelist #3: -probably we ever will. Right. What would be your idea of, of a correct response to that letter. Do you see that as, as a good opening?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Everything in diplomacy is intended to advance the interest of one party at the expense of another. I mean, diplomacy is, it's another form of struggle. This was a measured strategy on the part of Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad's been no friend. On the other hand, my experience is need to talk to people, especially before you bomb them, you should talk to them. And so, I've been pressing the United States to have- open a dialog with Iran for some time. I'm not sure if the dialog will talk them out of going for a nuclear option, but I think the dialog is the right place to start. I think it's still possible to start with a dialog to propose some regional security measures that could raise the sense of security of nations and people throughout the region that might be productive. And you might be able, you might be able to avoid what seems to be an almost certain showdown coming with Iran.
I've said the military option has to remain on the table, but in truth the United States government should be planning for three options. It should be planning for first, how to dissuade Iran from getting, from wanting to have a nuclear weapon. That's the first option. Second option is how to live with an Iran if they get a nuclear weapon. And I'm not saying you could ever solve that option, but you should be looking at it. I'm not saying that it's an acceptable option, but you should be asking yourself, 'What would it take for us to be able to accept an Iranian nuclear weapon?' What would it take? A change of government? A disarmament? An international presence? What would it take? We should be asking that question, because it's only when you've asked that question that you can then go to the third line of analysis, which said, well, what if you can't dissuade them, and you can't live with it? Then what are your military options? There are clearly two set's of military options. One set is a very narrow option that goes after the nuclear production facilities themselves, and another is a much broader military option that says, not only are we going to take out your nukes, but we're going to make sure that you have no means to retaliate against us after, after you do so. So, we're taking action against Iranian interests throughout the Gulf. We're going to go after Iranian interests in Lebanon or wherever you might be, and that includes, you know, Hezbollah worldwide. We're going to arrest you wherever you are. It's, it's a huge, big option, and I don't know how feasible it is, and I don't know how you get out of it once you launch into it. But again, these three lines of analysis, they're the responsibilities of the government, and if we're not doing that, then shame on us. We should be. If they were serious, they'd be talking to the Iranians as a first step. And they're not.
Panelist #4: It seems like there's many people all over the world both underdeveloped and Western developed areas who are very disappointed with the United States in the last few years. Where it used to be a beacon for rule of law and not, not invading other countries and treating prisoners with a certain amount of respect and respect for world organizations, that now we may still say some of these things, but we don't act them anymore, and we've become a hypocrite. Is there anything that we can do or should we do to try to rectify this position?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: The problem is that this is not something you can resolve by talking. The opinion of the United States was formed on the basis of US action. When we fought for Muslims in the 1990s in Bosnia and in Kosova, it was appreciated and understood in the Islamic world. And when we forced nations to sign agreements excusing our soldiers from being charged under the International Criminal Court for possible violations of international law, that was noted. And when we released the photos of Abu Ghraib, and it wasn't just the photos, it was people understood what was happening at Abu Ghraib, It was a lot of shameful humiliation of Iraqis there. That was noted. People knew that torture was going on, and we don't believe in mistreatment of people. We don't know what's happening in the secret CIA prisons, for example. I'm pretty sure that the story in the Washington Post that revealed them was, was true. I've never seen these secret prisons, and the US hasn't admitted it, but I'm sure that they wouldn't have been so upset about it if they didn't actually exist. If you have prisons that are secret, you must be having them secret for a reason. If you won't let the International Red Cross interview prisoners, there must be a reason for that. What are we doing to these people that we're ashamed to let people know?
I have to tell you, I'm ashamed as an American that we can't live up to the values we've professed. I never believed, when I was a soldier, I was in uniform fighting to protect a government that tortured its prisoners - or let's say we don't support torture, we use stressful interrogation. I believed that the best way to treat people was to treat them humanely. In the military, we always taught the five S's. When you take a prisoner you search them, you secure them, you seize any documents and other intelligence related material that's on them, you safeguard them, and you speed them to the rear. None of that in there says you abuse them in some way. Of course you'd like to get immediate information of battlefield utility, and if you talk to people, maybe they will give you that information. But after you've captured them and sent them to the rear, the best way to get reliable information is to persuade them that they should want to talk to you. And the best way to do that is with unexpectedly humane treatment, not through abuse. So, all of these matters have caused the United States to lose the respect of some throughout the world. And you can't win the War on Terror unless you make more friends than enemies, and we haven't done that. That's the responsibility of this administration. It starts at the top with leadership that understand what the realities are in the international community and put together real strategies for success, not just strategies that appeal to one slice of US domestic opinion.
Thank you all.
(applause)
Narrator: Thanks for listening to this week's Common Voices ClarkCast: Common Voices From Iowa. Our thanks to Brewed Awakenings in Cedar Rapids, Iowa for hosting this week's podcast. Have a productive day. Make a difference somewhere.
http://www.securingamerica.com/
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
