Wesley Clarke

Amy Goodman interviewed Ret. General Wesley Clarke at the 92nd Street YMCA Cultural Center in New York City on Tuesday February 27th, which I mentioned and linked to here. After a softball about the presidential race and whether he is going to declare his candidacy, she got down to brass tacks and asked him about Iran, the situation in Iraq, and how much influence flag officers in the military have on the policy implemented by administrations with agendas that aren't necessarily based in reality.

One of the most telling things he had to say about the decision to go into Iraq came up when he was recounting a conversation he had with another officer in the Pentagon a week or so after 9/11:

Officer: "We've made the decision to go to war with Iraq."

Clarke: "We're going to war with Iraq? Why?"

Officer: "I don't know. I guess they don't know what else to do."

Clarke: "Did they find some information connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda?"

Officer: "No, no, there's nothing new that way.They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq. I guess it's like, we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments, and I guess if the only tool we have is a hammer, then every problem has to look like a nail."

This cuts to the quick about how the administration was going to justify its actions about whatever it decided to do. It goes beyond the whole issue of inventing intelligence or discounting existing intelligence that does not support the desired course of action.

Clarke went on to relate an exchange with the same General a few weeks later after the bombing in Afghanistan had started:

Clarke: "Are we still going to war with Iraq?"

Officer: "Oh, it's worse than that. I just got this down from upstairs. This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years. Starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and then finishing off with Iran!"

Clarke: "Is it classified?"

Officer: "Yes, Sir!"

Clarke: "Well, don't show it to me..."

Seven countries in five years, eh? Didn't they learn that the Domino theory isn't worth the air it takes to utter that phrase? Or maybe they were so enamored by the cinematography of the domino sequence in The Fog of War. Countries are not dominoes. They're not going to tumble over just because you line them up and push the first one over.

Clarke goes on to point out that while Iran was glad to see the US go into Iraq and remove Saddam, they also viewed the US presence with some trepidation because they knew that the US would be setting its sites on them as soon as Iraq was a done deal. So, in the interest of self preservation, Iran began trying to influence the situation in Iraq to their benefit. They have a large undefended border with Iraq, and they are perfectly aware that the US and Saudi Arabia (a majority Sunni nation) have mutual interests and goals where the ultimate resolution in Iraq is concerned. The recent developments which have brought the leaders of these two Middle East countries together to discuss the situation and hopefully avert conflict and catastrophe are positive signs in a climate that seems to reflect a desire on the parts of European powers and the US to force Iran further and further into a corner.

They then move on to talk about the ramifications of an (unlikely) immediate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Clarke states that it is:

"mechanically possible, you could line up the battalions on the road, and you could put the gunners in the Humvees and lock and load and shoot their way out of Iraq. You'd have a few roadside bombs, but if you line everybody up, there won't be any roadside bombs, maybe some sniping, you can fly your helicopters over, get your air cover, you can get safely out of there."

I imagine that once the insurgents that did plant the roadside bombs realized what really was going on, they would melt off into the shadows and let the US get on with it as fast as possible. They're not attacking US patrols to inflict damage per se, they're primary objective is to persuade the withdrawal of the occupying forces. Why in the world would they want to disrupt that once they see it actually happening?

What is curious to me are his next words on how the situation might develop after the US was gone:

"when you [the US forces] leave, the Saudis have to find someone to fight the Shias. Who are they going to find? Al Qaeda. Because the groups of Sunnis who would be extremists and willing to fight would probably be the groups connected to Al Qaeda. So, one of the weird inconsistencies in this is that were we to get out early we'd be intensifying the threat against us of a super powerful Sunni extremist group which was now legitimized by overt Saudi funding in an effort to hang on to a to a toehold in side Iraq and block Iranian expansionism."

Well, the Sunnis and the Shia have been at loggerheads for centuries. They're going to have to hash things out and learn to live with each other at some point in the course of history. It probably won't be pretty, but it will happen at some point, no matter what any other country tries to dictate. The US can get out now, or it can get out in twenty years. The fact that there is oil in the region that we don't need and don't import right now, but that we'd like to be able to keep from others at present won't keep the two major sects of Islam from eventually working out their differences.

Clarke continues to talk on this topic by stressing that the focus of change needs to
be placed on the policy as opposed to troop strength and deployment. It seems to me that the time for new policy which can then be implemented with the forces in place or even with additional forces has passed. The only policy change that has a realistic chance of being effective is that which engages and empowers the new Iraqi government as well as the other nation in the region. As long as there is a sizable military force in the region the empowerment part of that new policy will not be there.

There are a lot of angry people in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East, and they're not going to be any less angry when they see the US forces staying and even growing, but saying that they're there with a "new mission".