![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
A Primary Fisk
Posted by Stephen Green · 7 November 2003
Wes Clark on how to build the New Iraq: Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander, said Thursday that if elected president of the United States he would convert the occupation of Iraq into a U.S.-led NATO operation, turn over Iraqi reconstruction to a civilian from an allied country and quickly establish an interim Iraqi government. Let's tackle the last point first. We are moving quickly to establish an interim Iraqi government. Not as quickly as some would like (and when I say "some," I mean, "people who think we shouldn't even be there"), but perhaps more quickly than is prudent. We're talking about a people with zero experience in self-government. Actually, we're talking about three peoples. There are the Kurds, who have about ten years worth of decent government under the US-UK northern No-Fly Zone. Then we have the Sunnis, whose idea of self-government is to repress, rape, torture, or kill anyone who isn't Sunni and/or Arab. And finally, the Shi'a "marsh Arabs" who would like to experience self-government, but fear that the Sunnis -- or their theocratic religious brethren across the border in Iran -- would do their self-governance for them. Again. So, really, any talk of moving faster than we already are is just silly -- the dangerous kind of silly, like we got from eight years of Bill Clinton's non-response to Islamic terror. Clark also wants to turn over the US occupation over to NATO. Well, not completely: "A US-led NATO operation." Practically, what does that mean, other than flying the NATO white-star-on-blue-field flag instead of the Stars and Stripes? Frankly, I'm not sure what it would mean, other than some window dressing for the internationalist crowd, and a new venue for Franco-German obstructionism. In one respect, having NATO involved on the ground would be nice. A division or two of NATO troops (French and German, that is, since most of the other important NATO countries are already in Iraq) would relieve the US of some of our responsibilities. Our Army is too small and stretched too thin already. What Clark leaves unanswered is: If the French and Germans didn't approve of us going into Iraq in the first place, what makes him think they'll answer the call now? And if they do, then what would be their motive for doing so? A chance to make more cynical oil-for-weapons deals with what's left of Saddam's Ba'ath Party? To frustrate our chance at building a real democracy there? To just plain humiliate us yet again? And if you think I'm being too cynical, remember what the French did to us -- with German cheerleaders -- in the UN last winter. As a side note, I'd like to apologize for putting the image of German cheerleaders into your head. Clark's middle point was mostly pointless. He wants Paul Bremer out, and anyone else in -- provided the new guy isn't American. Thanks for the vote of confidence, Wes! Seriously, I understand what he's going for here: Clark thinks it will look better to have someone other than an American in charge. What nationality would that person be? The French can't be trusted, the Germans can't be allowed, India can't be bothered, the Russians or Chinese would make the French look incorruptible, and an Arab would frustrate our entire reason for reconstruction. A Brit or an Aussie would do just fine -- but wouldn't provide enough window dressing to cover a pair of granny glasses. Secondly -- look better to whom? To the Arabs? The Ba'ath Remnant needs to see the US as unflinching, not as accommodating to their sympathizers in Paris. And the Arab Street only comes out when they perceive us as weak. Make us look better to the French? The only way the French like to see us is with egg on our faces and our boots deep in the merde. The Russians? The Chinese? Look, buddy: we're at war. And the way you want to look during war is steely at home and fearsome abroad. Clark's plan would nibble away at both, and he's the second- or third-closest thing the Democrats have to a hawkish presidential candidate. If his new plan is any indication, Wes Clark lacks the guts, instincts, and temperament to lead this nation at war. Comments
Hey, I just realized what is wrong with Clark. He's like the occasional famous scientist that goes off his rocker and starts advocating stupid stuff (like Linus Pauling and his late advocacy of the miracles of Vitamin C). People would tend to say that the famous scientist must be right "because he's a famous scientist" even if he was spouting garbage. Wesley Clark is like that. He clearly has no fucking clue how the world works (that's the charitable explanation, the other option is that he's a traitor who hates the US and wants us to lose), but people act like what he says matters "because he's a famous general". It's sad when it happens to famous scientists and it would (just) be sad with Clark except that he's trying to ruin our country by becoming president. Let's hope the bastard doesn't have a chance in hell of winning (and I suspect he does not). Posted by: Brent Michael Krupp at November 7, 2003 12:17 AMI think he honestly believes that what Bush couldn't accomplish--you know, getting the "allies" on board (France and Germany, natch)--that HE would be able to. Andy Sullivan had a post about this a few back that if a Dem candidate came who said, Mr. President, your end goal was correct, but in your arrogance, you damaged our alliances and alinated most of the world, so you need to be replaced, blah, blah, blah, that that would get a lot of people like Sullivan noticing. Considering that a considerable majority of the population approved of our actions in Iraq, and that they probably don't appreciate being told that they were wrong to do so, I think its smart politics to play it like that. Clark, of course, doesn't seem to be doing that. He seems to be completely skirting the issue of how France treated us to focus solely on how America treated the rest of the world and he doesn't address AT ALL how he would handle another rebuff from France and Germany. Posted by: javier at November 7, 2003 09:44 AMWell, if Clark thinks he can get German/French cooperation, then go OVER to Europe now and get them on board. He would really be a hero to his followers then and get some independents thinking that maybe he knows of what he speaks. Just think, he'd be the only Dem candidate to actually DO something solid. I don't know though, is this legal to do? Posted by: rulen at November 7, 2003 09:59 AMStephen: I wish I could get all my friends who believe in the miracles of multinationalism (read, French/German/Russian approval) to read this post. Brent: Vitamin C as cure-all was about the least loopy thing Pauling advocated. Certainly it was less harmless than blaming the US for the Cold War. Posted by: JPS at November 7, 2003 10:26 AMShould have written, "less harmful." Sorry. And I suppose he was right on banning above-ground nuke testing, but I think he was more afraid of the Sovs than of test fallout. Posted by: JPS at November 7, 2003 10:28 AMClark is clueless! His plans failed before as a NATO leader and we can only hope even the majority of Dems will see through this smoke and mirror cadidate. Posted by: jon at November 7, 2003 10:32 AMRulen, Isn't that essentially what Truman did with Eisenhower in '52? Eisehower said he had a plan to end the Korean war and Truman called his bluff and said something to the effect of, well give me your plan, man, so i can end the war now. Posted by: javier at November 7, 2003 01:22 PMI think the part about replacing Bremmer with an "allied" administrator sounds like he wants to sell Iraq to the highest bidder. Whoever contributes the most new troops gets to run the place. I wonder if he's going to specify a minimum bid? It would be a shame, if France got the bid for a couple of platoons from the 348th Surrender Assistance Battalion. Riyadh delenda est! Posted by: Cato the Youngest at November 7, 2003 04:42 PM |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"Even when he has nothing to say, I still like looking at his picture."
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |