Decline of the Wes (Clark's hypocritical obstructionism on Iraq)

Slate/MSNBC ^ | 10/28/03 | William Saletan

[NYC Republican]

If you think U.S. troops are outnumbered in Iraq, you should have seen President Bush fending off the White House press corps Tuesday morning. "You just spoke about the suicide bombers in Iraq as being desperate. But as yesterday's attack show[s], they're also increasingly successful," one reporter told Bush. "There's been a much more somber assessment [of the U.S. predicament] in private," noted another. "Senior U.S. intelligence officials on the ground in Iraq have estimated that we have, at most, six months to restore order there and quell the violence, or else we risk losing the support of the Iraqi populace," said a third. "Do you feel that the attacks that have happened recently will discourage some countries to contribute troops or manpower?" asked a fourth. "Isn't there a limit to American patience, particularly in an election year?" asked a fifth.

Bush did his best to puncture the pessimism. "The foreign terrorists are trying to create conditions of fear and retreat," he argued. "[They] believe that we're soft, that the will of the United States can be shaken. … They want countries to say, 'Oh, gosh, well, we better not send anybody there, because somebody might get hurt.' That's precisely what they're trying to do. And that's why it's important for this nation and our other coalition partners to stand our ground." To questions on every aspect of the postwar conflict—U.S. troops, Bush's $87 billion appropriation request, donations and reinforcements from other countries—Bush responded with the language of intimidation, defiance, and will.

I've seen this struggle for the psychology of a nation at war before. Four years ago, NATO's military commander, Gen. Wesley Clark, faced a similar barrage of pessimism from the press and from members of Congress hostile to President Clinton's war in Kosovo. The skeptics argued that our adversary, Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic, had proven to be too mentally strong for us and that we should back off. Clark turned that argument on its head: By refusing to let Milosevic break our will, we would break his. Milosevic "may have thought that some countries would be afraid of his bluster and intimidation," said Clark. "He was wrong. … He thought that taking prisoners and mistreating them and humiliating them publicly would weaken our resolve. Wrong again. … We're winning, Milosevic is losing, and he knows it." I never believed Bush's claim that overthrowing Saddam Hussein was essential to the war on terror. I'm angry that Bush continues to invoke that bogus rationale for the invasion. But the assassinations and indiscriminate bombings we're witnessing in post-Saddam Iraq really are part of the war on terror. We can't crumple under this pressure any more than we could have crumpled four years ago in the showdown with Milosevic. Bush is right, just as Clark was right: War is a contest of wills.

That's why it's so troubling today to see Clark join in the same self-fulfilling wave of determined pessimism and obstruction he battled four years ago. "This president didn't know how he wanted [the Iraq war] to end. He doesn't know what he's doing today," Clark charged in Sunday's Democratic presidential debate. "I would not have voted [for the] $87 billion. … The best form of welfare for the troops is a winning strategy. And I think we ought to call on our commander in chief to produce it. And I think he ought to produce it before he gets one additional penny for that war."

I don't know whether we'll win the postwar if Congress approves the money Bush asked for. But I know we'll lose it if Congress doesn't. That's what happens when a nation at war starts to think like the Wes Clark of 2003. Just ask the Wes Clark of 1999.

[battlegearboat]

We need to protect our precious bodily fluids.

[Wolverine]

Clark didn't finish the job in The Balkans:

KOSOVO SERB FARMERS UNDER FIRE
Seven Serbs from the village of Banje in the municipality of Srbica were shot at from submachine guns as they set out with two tractors to harvest apples from their property near the village of Radisevo, which is inhabited exclusively by ethnic Albanians.

Beta News Agency, Belgrade
October 27, 2003


SRBICA - Seven Serbs from the village of Banje in the municipality of Srbica were shot at from submachine guns as they set out with two tractors to harvest apples from their property near the village of Radisevo, which is inhabited exclusively by ethnic Albanians.

Village spokesman Milutin Kovacevic advised today that they were under fire at from several directions for over an hour and that they were extremely lucky that no one was hurt or killed.

The Serbs sought sanctuary in the nearby woods. Individual shots continued even after Danish KFOR troops rushed to their assistance and provided an escort so they could return home, said Kovacevic.

Banje and the neighboring village of Suvo Grlo are the only two villages in the municipality of Srbica where Serbs are still living, completely cut off from their surroundings and subject to frequent attacks by their Albanian neighbors.

[NYC Republican]

While these acts of barbarity are disgraceful, no one was killed, or even hurt in these incidents, so I don't think this will tarnish Clark... There are tons of other areas that will cause him to implode (WACO, flip-flopping on major issues, etc).

[cwb]

"I've seen this struggle for the psychology of a nation at war before. Four years ago, NATO's military commander, Gen. Wesley Clark, faced a similar barrage of pessimism from the press and from members of Congress hostile to President Clinton's war in Kosovo."

This is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. The media was not pessimistic to Clinton's war in Kosovo. To the contrary, it was the US media who practically acted as the WH Press Secretary as they helped sell the war in Kosovo to the American people. Christiane Amanpour has accused the US media of toeing the WH line in Iraq while she openly supported the war in Kosovo The media was only to happy to show the anti-war demonstrations during Iraq, while there was an almost complete "anti-war blackout" during Kosovo. And I know there were demonstrations around the globe as well, as it was in Greece that Cinton recieved a literal "egging" for his participation in this conflict.

I rememeber watching the refugee exodus and how it was described as a human catastrophy; but not one word on how it was the threat (and act) of US/NATO bombing that caused this carnage. No..instead we were presented with images of helpless victims who needed to be rescued by the unilateral US. After all, there was no UN resolution for this war as that president intentionaly avoided the UN because he knew Russia and China would've vetoed it. At least Bush made several atttempts with Iraq. At the same time, in Iraq, we heard how Bush would be responsible for causing a humanitarian crisis as Iraqi's would flood nearby countries, as they exited the war zone. Not! So Bush gets blamed for a humanitarian crisis that never occurred while Clinton gets a pass on a crisis that did occur. Yeah...I can just see the media's pessimism.

In Kosovo we were told of the mass graves and how we had to stop the genocide. The media was only too happy to "inform" the pubic of these atrocities to build pubic support for this war. In Iraq, the opposite was true; the media knew about the atrocities but decided to keep that a secret in exchange for access to Saddam. The irony being, that genocide (Kurds, Marsh Arabs) was more rampant in Iraq than it ever was in Kosovo. If we had an honest media, the humanitarian crisis in Iraq may have been enough to justify war, but it was obvious from the beginning we didn't have an honest media.

How the media can beat-up on Bush about civilian casualties in Iraq when all effort was made to avoid them, is another example. In Kosovo, Clark waged an all out 78-day aerial bombardment from 15,000 feet that intentionally targeted life-sustaining infrastructure. This included power grids that provided electricity to hospitals and water supplies...and yet, not a word was mentioned about this to the American public. But by golly, a bomb explodes in an Iraq market place and the media has already assigned blame, even though no proof existed of who did it.

What I found most interesting when looking at these two conflicts, was the Media's natural inclinations (or lack thereof) for investigative journalism. In Iraq, the media wanted to be everywhere...including embedded. While there were no ground troops, or frontline per se, in Kosovo, there was absolutely no "public" follow-up. I don't recall Christiane Amanwhore or CNN tracking through war-torn Kosovo/Serbia to show us the damage that was caused by US/NATO bombs. I don't recall the visits to hosptials to show the public the victims of this war....I don't recall the media showing one child who was the vicitim of US/NATO aggression. And we know there were civilian casualities, because some counts have listed it as high as 4,000-6,000, which is over twice the count of the supposed genocide that occurred. In other words, more people may have been killed during the war than before the war..but you won't hear about this statistic during Clark's campaign. Just like you won't hear that, that war is not over.

[NYC Republican]

One thing to note, it was Klinton's war. Most of the demonstrators throughout this country are lefties, so... it's not unusual that they wouldn't demonstrate as forcefully as they would have had Bush been in power. You could have the same exact situation occur, and the media would either support or oppose the action based on their politics...

The other thing you have going on - a totally different situation between events on the ground in Kosovo and Iraq during out actions... The events in Kosovo, which I happen to support, come on the heels of several of years of war in neighboring Bosnia, Croation, and to a lesser degree, Slovenia. Everyone knew what was going to happen in Kosovo had there been no intervention - the 200,000+ deaths in Bosnia paled in comparison to what could have happened in Kosovo, given the intense hate between these two groups. This is the one major action I supported from Klinton... He was an unmigitgated disaster everywhere else

We all saw the carnage in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo, and we needed to act... The action in Iraq, which I wholeheartedly support as well, and the need for action wasn't as immininent, and easier to ask the question "why now" (not by me, but by anyone looking for an excuse to oppose the war). We didn't see masses of people becoming instant refugees- the images - had they been available- could have been equally as dire in Iraq, but the media didn't have access.

[Steve_Seattle]

"that war [Kosovo] is not over"

True - I believe we're in a lull before the storm over there. The major questions about Kosovo's future have not been resolved, and I predict the day will come when Islamic terrorists - strengthened by NATO's intervention - will begin to raise hell over there. Even now, there are flare-ups, as this story shows.

[Coop]

I never believed Bush's claim that overthrowing Saddam Hussein was essential to the war on terror. I'm angry that Bush continues to invoke that bogus rationale for the invasion. But the assassinations and indiscriminate bombings we're witnessing in post-Saddam Iraq really are part of the war on terror.

That's as clear as mud.

[NYC Republican]

It's clear that Weasel Clark has adopted a policy of opposing anything Bush does or says. If you were to get inside his head and see what he really thinks, I'd bet my bottom dollar that he supports the war wholeheartedly. He's just playing to the looney liberals that he needs in order to win the nomination.

I'd ask him one question. How can he support the Kosovo effort and not support the Iraq effort? Pure hypocrisy on his part.

[Steve_Seattle]

Largely unknown to the general public, liberal political scientists [approvingly] characterized the NATO intervention in Kosovo as an attempt to curry favor with Muslims by supporting them against Milosevic. Two years later, the jets flew into the Twin Towers, the Muslims hate us as much or more than ever, and Kosovo's future status remains as uncertain as it was in 1999. The presence of Militant Islam has been fortified in the Balkans, and future war and/or terrorism in the region is a virtual certainty.

[NYC Republican]

The presence of Militant Islam has been fortified in the Balkans

You can't seriously believe that, can you? Come on, really- you can't be that misinformed, can you? Albania is more pro-American than any other country in the region, save Italy. They've been 100% supportive of the Iraq effort, and have sent troops to assist.

[Terry Mross]

I'm reading "Legacy" and it's obvious Clinton convinced the world we have no resolve. Saddam thought he could get away with anything and he did under Clinton. He still thinks he can outlast us. And if the dims keep it up, he will outlast us. Just like in Viet Nam. Our enemy will see Bush's support falling and he'll hang in there. As will the terrorists. I think all these dims should be brought up on treason charges.

[cwb]

While I know you supported the war in Kosovo, you and I have gone over his before. The Clinton administration lied about the number of mass graves and the Racak Massacre. This is a conflict that is over 500 years old with both sides committing atrocities against the other and the only reason we took the Muslim position was to, as Steve put it, curry favor with the Muslims. It was Europes attempt to make nice with a religion that is knocking on their back door...and has been knocking for centuries. The point is, the media did not question the validity for the reasons for this war...and in fact, helped sway public opinion for support of that war.

[Incorrigible]

This looks to be turning into a Balkans thread!

[NYC Republican]

The Clinton administration lied about the number of mass graves and the Racak Massacre.

Agreed.

This is a conflict that is over 500 years old with both sides committing atrocities against the other and the only reason we took the Muslim position was to, as Steve put it, curry favor with the Muslims. It was Europes attempt to make nice with a religion that is knocking on their back door and has been knocking for centuries

That certainly may have been one factor, but you can't discount the intense hate the two had for each other, and considering that the Serbs had the Yugoslav army supporting it, you can only imagine the outcome had it been allowed to continue. Just look at Croatia and Bosnia for examples- and magnify it

The point is, the media did not question the validity for the reasons for this war...and in fact, helped sway public opinion for support of that war.

Absolutely!

[NYC Republican]

It wasn't intended to be a balkans thread. This is a political discussion. There's so much more at stake here with this moron than Kosovo. He's a threat on many, many other levels.

[NYC Republican]

The Clinton administration lied about the number of mass graves and the Racak Massacre. Agreed.

I should clarify... There very well could have been mass graves, but he certainly inflated the number to help build support for the war.

[wayoverontheright]

" I never believed Bush's claim that overthrowing Saddam Hussein was essential to the war on terror.

I'm sorry, but we simply cannot allow this statement to become fact.

There is no scenario whereby terror can be eradicated that doesn't include the deposing of Saddam Hussein, who had been financing terrorism openly, and who's to say he wasn't enabling terrorist acts against our country in a covert manner.

The rest of the terror cabal now has a possibility of being dealt without military action, but only because of the presence of our guns in Iraq.

[NYC Republican]

I'm sorry, but we simply cannot allow this statement to become fact. There is no scenario whereby terror can be eradicated that doesn't include the deposing of Saddam Hussein, who had been financing terrorism openly, and who's to say he wasn't enabling terrorist acts against our country in a covert manner. The rest of the terror cabal now has a possibility of being dealt without military action, but only because of the presence of our guns in Iraq.

Exactly! Excellent post.

[Tailgunner Joe]

From Of Paradise and Power, by Robert Kagan, pp. 48, 49.

General Clark and his colleages complained that the laborious effort to preserve consensus within the alliance hampered the fighting of the war and delayed its conclusion. Before the war, Clark later insisted, "we could not present a clear and unambiguous warning to Milosevic," partly because many European countries would not threaten action without a mandate from the UN Security Council - what Clark in typically American fashion, called Europe's "legal issues." For the Americans, these "legal issues" were "obstacles to properly preparing and planning" for the war.*

During the fighting, Clark and his American colleagues were exasperated by the need constantly to find compromise between American military doctrine and what Clark called the "European approach."**

"It was always the American who pushed for escalation to new, more sensitive targets...and always some of the Allies who expressed doubts and reservations." In Clarks view, "We paid a price in operational effectiveness by having to constrain the nature of the operation to fit within the political and legal concerns of the NATO member nations"***

* Clark, Waging Modern War, pp. 420, 421.
** Ibid., p. 449.
*** Ibid., p. 426.