Iraq: What Went Wrong
October 1, 2003 11:46 AM   Subscribe

Iraq: What Went Wrong By General Wesley K. Clark. I appreciate this article. It is simple, easy to read, and represents what I've been feeling for quite some time now. (NY Review of Books)
posted by y2karl (21 comments total)

 
Good link, thanks y2karl.

Here's a thread from a year ago on another article by Clark.
posted by homunculus at 11:57 AM on October 1, 2003


Where have I seen that before? Brilliantly funny lead in y2karl!
posted by filchyboy at 12:05 PM on October 1, 2003


Hot of the presses, TPM has a good, rather lengthy interview with Clark.
posted by stonerose at 12:10 PM on October 1, 2003


couldn't this have been posted in the link it refers to (or was that merely coincidence). oops, sorry, no, of course, another iraq link bashing bush is just what we need. isn't mefi great?
posted by andrew cooke at 12:17 PM on October 1, 2003


From the TPM interview:

In other words, this administration was more worried about embarrassing itself in front of its right-wing base by talking to the North than it was in preventing the emergence of another nuclear-armed power that could proliferate nuclear weapons.

Yeeouch.
posted by goethean at 12:20 PM on October 1, 2003


isn't mefi great?

Yes.

another iraq link bashing bush is just what we need.

I'm happy you understand. :-)
posted by nofundy at 12:20 PM on October 1, 2003


another iraq link bashing bush is just what we need.

No one could believe at this point that bringing about such a democratic transformation would be easy, quick, or cheap. It is true that if a primary but unspoken purpose of the military campaign was to demonstrate the skills and courage of the American armed forces, then it was surely a success. Thirty years of dedicated effort have built a US military without peer in its ability to defeat enemy forces on the battlefield. But power creates its own adversaries, and those who are determined to contest American strength will seek methods that minimize the military advantages we have accumulated. Much greater work remains to be done if the United States is to achieve success in promoting our values, our security, and our prosperity. All else being equal, the region and the Iraqi people are better off with Saddam gone. But the US actions against old adversaries like Saddam have costs and consequences that may still leave us far short of our goal of winning the new war on terror. Indeed, the effects of the war may actually impair our efforts to achieve that larger goal.

You know, I don't really see the name Bush anywhere in there...
posted by y2karl at 12:29 PM on October 1, 2003


Here's Col. David Hackworth's take on Clark.
posted by homunculus at 12:33 PM on October 1, 2003


But after spending three hours interviewing the man for Maxim’s November issue

Oooo...I hope it's a pictorial.
posted by goethean at 12:45 PM on October 1, 2003


But goethean, you know Maxim's just going to airbrush him until he looks as fake as Howard Dean.
posted by Stan Chin at 3:08 PM on October 1, 2003


I may have seen a similar post, but somehow this represents what I've been feeling for quite some time. Indeed. Thanks y2karl.
posted by alicesshoe at 4:03 PM on October 1, 2003


Who cares what Gen. Clark thinks. He was removed from his command of NATO forces for ethical lapses and moral defects. Further, he was the fucktard who gave Janet Reno the military equipment to burn women and children to death in Waco, Texas.
posted by paleocon at 5:33 PM on October 1, 2003


interesting, paleocon. so, can you cite some reputable sources for that information, or are you just taking a dump in the thread?
posted by whatnot at 6:36 PM on October 1, 2003


He's taking a dump, and making it all up, too.
Lies and the lying liars who tell them, indeed.
posted by y2karl at 6:54 PM on October 1, 2003


so, can you cite some reputable sources for that information, or are you just taking a dump in the thread?

I think the use of the word "fucktard" indicates the post wasn't looking to be reputable.
posted by nath at 1:40 AM on October 2, 2003


wasn't Gen. Clark also the one that shot Vince Foster?
posted by mcsweetie at 6:50 AM on October 2, 2003


yeah, and I think he was the one who said all that stuff about McNabb, too.
posted by whatnot at 7:49 AM on October 2, 2003


It's all Bill Clinton's fault!

Just thought I would do a pre-emptive strike.
posted by nofundy at 8:10 AM on October 2, 2003


Since the more I read about him, the more I like the guy, let's see if we can get this thread back on track. Spencer Ackerman, writing in the New Republic, clears things up for folks like me that thought Clark was implicated in Clinton's gutless Balkans policy. [Link is currently flaky, I hope the NR site will sort itself out soon]

And Amy Sullivan, writing in the Washington Monthly, makes the case he's got a reasonable chance to get the nomination. Since Lieberman seems to have as much chance of getting it as my dog does, I'm glad to see there's still some possibility of a Democrat I could vote for.
posted by mojohand at 8:35 AM on October 2, 2003


the more I read about him, the more I like the guy

Before you get too misty-eyed, reflect that much of what he's telling us now is stuff that he knew back when revealing it might have helped head off the war; why did he hold back then, and why is he telling us now?
posted by languagehat at 11:30 AM on October 2, 2003


"I've known Wes Clark for 20 years. He's one of the most gifted soldiers that I have ever had work for me."
-- Colin Powell, CNN Late Edition, Sept. 28, 2003

posted by y2karl at 4:19 PM on October 3, 2003


« Older Beeman's, Brillo, and Cream of Wheat in 3-D   |   Excuse me while I slip into... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments