Posted on 08/29/2002 4:08:27 AM PDT by konijn
Why war should be America's last resort by General Wesley Clark
THREE THOUSAND deaths in the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre last September underscored the stakes in the conflict with Osama bin Laden and the shadowy al-Qaeda network. And from the first moments some were asserting that the terrorists must have had help from Iraq. But before we rush off against Iraq, let’s put our situation in context.
Despite successfully dismantling the Taleban regime, the United States and its supporters failed to eliminate the threat from al-Qaeda. Thousands of fighters are scattered worldwide. They have good training, discipline and resources, including probably chemical and perhaps biological agents. They are receiving encouragement, financial support and recruits from the Muslim world and particularly from Saudi Arabia. Destroying this network is the primary strategic challenge we face.
The United States cannot win single-handed, no matter how capable its military. Terrorists are living and planning their attacks within friendly countries. Thus, winning requires better co-ordination of intelligence, law enforcement, and the judicial systems within and among states.There is yet no evidence that Saddam was involved in the September 11 attacks, though he does have capabilities the terrorists seek.
He agreed to give up his weapons of mass destruction and submit to UN inspections, but has prevented inspections for more than four years. He maintains a reserve of Scud missiles and the chemical and probably biological warheads to arm them. He has nuclear know-how and is seeking nuclear materials.
If we attack Iraq, we have to use sufficient military power to overthrow the regime, dismantle the special weapons capabilities, and create a new government. We have this power, but a US-led attack on Iraq is not without risks. Although much of the Iraqi military probably will not fight, some elements might.
At best it will be over in a few days, but fighting in cities, especially Baghdad, could be costly and time-consuming. Saddam will try to provoke Israeli involvement by using weapons of mass destruction against Israel. War is likely to disrupt the oil market. Afterwards, we shall likely have thousands of troops tied down, and billions of dollars in post-conflict reconstruction costs.
Attacking Iraq will detract from our primary mission against al-Qaeda, supercharging anti-American sentiment in the Arab street, boosting al-Qaeda’s recruiting, and causing difficulty for moderate Arab regimes.
Taking out Saddam Hussein is not going to bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians in and of itself. Saddam’s meddling there now is marginal. Conversely, though, were Saddam to acquire nuclear capabilities, the risks of highly destructive regional war would grow, either through his use of enhanced capabilities against Israel or other neighbours or through Israel’s pre-emption.
The issue of Iraq is every bit as much a problem for Europe as for the US. Europe is more dependent on Middle East oil than the US, refugees from fighting will flow more rapidly into Europe than the US, and Europe is far closer and therefore more vulnerable to Iraqi weapons than the US.
In this context, what should be done about Iraq? With what urgency? Should we continue the current programme of sanctions to restrict his weapons development? Yes, but with modifications. We need to tighten the focus of sanctions and strengthen their enforcement. We should continue to restrict his oil sales. But we should also be reaching out with humanitarian programmes to undercut Saddam’s police-state repression.
Will containment be enough? Probably not. He is continuing to build his capabilities, and eventually — we cannot predict when — there will be a leakage of vital materials or technology that will enable a breakthrough. Containment simply buys time.
Can Saddam be deterred from using his weapons, even if he acquires them? We don’t know. He has had biological weapons for years and has not used them. However, most psychological profiles indicate that he has a strong, irrational messianic streak. He proved in 1990 that he can start a war through irrationality or miscalculation.
Would on-the-ground inspections help? Yes, if they are sufficiently intrusive, including no-notice access and full inspections of the presidential sites. Put them in place.
Can Saddam be removed from power by means short of war? Perhaps. President Bush has apparently authorised covert activities, including aid to Iraqi opposition groups. We should also seek to create and assist secular and human rights organisations there.
But if every delay raises the risks that Saddam will acquire nuclear and more powerful biological weapons, why take such risks? We have to balance risks. So far as we know today, there are no Iraqi nuclear tipped missiles. We may have a year, two years, or maybe five or more years before he can acquire nuclear capabilities. And we need this time.
Our overriding priority must be to bring greater international resolve and co-operation into the war on al-Qaeda, to cut their support from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, and to harmonise intelligence sharing and law enforcement in Europe and North America. This will take months and years of sustained effort.
Meanwhile, we should forge international consensus on Iraq. Focus sanctions; open access and humanitarian assistance into Iraq to help to undercut his regime; educate the international community; and gain a new UN authorisation for intrusive inspections using “all available means”. This approach will reinforce international law and our strategic priorities. It will distribute the responsibilities for action and its consequences and help ready us for further challenges ahead.
But if none of this works: containment crumbles, UN inspections falter, no international consensus emerges, and Saddam remains in power, should we then go to war? At the end of the Gulf War, Saddam pledged to give up his weapons of mass destruction. He must be held to his pledge. We should not seek war, but we must recognise the paradox of dealing with Saddam: unless he sees that we are prepared ultimately to use force, we have little chance of interrupting his weapons programmes short of war. War must remain an option. It should be the last resort.
As NATO supreme commander, Gen. Clark was in position to eradicate Al Qaida network in Europe, but he chose not to do so. To the contrary, he assisted Al Qaida allies in Bosnia and Kosovo and thus helped Al Qaida grow.
WITHOUT BOSNIA, THERE WOULD BE NO MOHAMMED ATTA's CELL IN GERMANY
pls. see this: P> "The skill level and organizational capabilities of those leading terrorist activities is demonstrated in the career of a 41-year-old German citizen of Syrian descent, Mohammed Haydar Zammar, an al-Qaida operative interviewed by Der Spiegel.
Gaining experience in guerrilla tactics in al-Qaida training camps, Zammar plied his deadly skills in what militant Islamic fundamentalists referr to as the "holy war" which raged in ethnically strife-torn Bosnia in the 1990s.
Afghanistan offered another theatre to Zammar for further honing his skills, so that, after returning to Germany, he commanded deep respect among Islamic youth considering involvement in militant activity. Zammar had already obtained German citizenship in 1982.
Zammar played a key role in the terrorist ring operating in Hamburg, Germany, acting as a recruiter, youth leader for al-Qaida, and liaison between operatives in a city known to be a hotbed of terrorist activity.
German investigators have learned that one of the individuals whom Zammar tied into the al-Qaida network was Mohammed Atta, the pilot of one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. Zammar also brought two of Atta's lieutenants into the al-Qaida network, Ramzi Binalshibh and Said Bahaji."
Hopefully, the name of Gen. Clark will be added to the list in $1 trillion lawsuit against Al Qaida supporters.
Clark should be up on treason charges.
The Kosovo Liberation Army is a Narco-Marxist-Islamist group whose elite were trained in Afghanistan by al-Qaida. Several Albanians were captured in Afghanistan fighting for al-Qaida and are at Gitmo, Cuba as we speak.
If I had to be drafted and fight for scum like Clark I would burn my draft card in front of everyone and go to jail happily.
Bump to that - this is worth checking out.
You have seen the news article of the US wanting "to know why the world hates the US", right?....
But you wouldn't rely on it to cook an egg, let alone to run a 'precision bombing campaign'.
Good phrase though. Here's another for you: The only smart bomb is one which refuses to be launched.
What do you think Hoplyingforthestatedepartement, I guess you would like to be part of the gaycrew here, hah? I know you, you would like to touch Wesley's small wi*ner...!! These gays, Bernard, Agim, Wesley, Thaci and Michael your once best friend that betrayed you, in the gloriest hour of gaymankind have failed! Next time please stick your small pen**ses together instead of your dirty, rotten hands and be ashamed! Comprende!
The problem with Clark's reasoning is that it lacks coherence and consistency. It's all over the place. He tries to have it both ways. He essentially agrees with virtually every argument Bush made about Saddam: He has nuclear desires, has WMD, has history of attacking other countries without provocation, admits containment of Saddam hasn't worked, etc. But then he runs away from seriously confronting the very things he said were true about Saddam.
More sanctions, more international consensus (eck, he actually wrote that), more humanitarian access, blah-blah... Clark's suggested solutions here are no different than those offered by the French and the American Left: Let's all make nicey-nice in the international community because we want people to like us and otherwise we can't focus on catching Al-Qaeda or solve the Israeli-Palastinian problem.
Hard to believe that this man graduated first in his class. Even harder to believe he was a man who led others into battle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.