General Wesley Clark on Iraq
By Joe Rega Posted in User Blogs — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Our colleague Neil recommended General Wesley Clark's essay on our strategy in Iraq as a good Democratic Party alternative and since it concerns both my political interests and my research I decided to take a look at it. You'll have to read it and decide for yourselves (www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.clark.html) but if I may be allowed to summarize his argument it would be: Democracy in the Islamic world is a good thing, but our current strategy was wrong-headed from the start. This no doubt will be the Democratic platform for the rest of Bush's term, so on that basis it's worth examining some of the General's comments. Since I'm more concerned with what he calls Arab People Power than presumed parallels between Iraq and the former Soviet Union, I'll limit myself to his remarks in that area. For example, regarding the current strategy, the General writes:
Seeking to intervene and essentially impose a democracy on a country without real democratic traditions or the foundations of a pluralist society is not only risky it is also inherently self-contradictory. All experience suggests that democracy doesn't grow like this. But we are where we are, and we must pull together to try to help this project succeed.
One of the General's blind spots is his ignorance of Islam, its history and its traditions, which results in his confusion between the geographical entity of a country and the society that is contained within its borders. His sense of American history also seems a bit skewed, since he does not recall that the history of our own country was hardly the `coming together' of a mass of people completely unified by the same democratic traditions. Every Tory, and there were many, had democracy imposed on them after the Revolution, and the embryonic United States could hardly be called a pluralist society. Besides, democracy in the United States was earned at the point of a gun, a method that the General asserts does not work. More to the point, however, is the fact that Arab-Islamic society is historically one of the most democratic on earth, far more than the class-ridden European societies whose democratic traditions Clark extols earlier in his essay. The current situation in much of the Middle East has arisen from the importation of such Western ideas as fascism and nationalism (really a South American construct that was imported to Europe), a fact known to many Moslems, not just the elite that Clark is so enamored of; ordinary Moslems are also aware that many Arabs fought for independence in the First World War, only to have the French shell Damascus and the British betray their promises - but we, and the Arabs, need our European allies. To assert that Iraq is a country without a pluralist tradition is even more wrong-headed, considering that it is the conflict between Kurds, Sunni and Shia, not counting the array of tribal and clan considerations that form the background of the current difficulty in constructing a democratic Iraq.
Central and Eastern European history is not my area so I'll have to take the General's word that countries there had a long democratic tradition, although I seem to recall the Habsburg Empire and the Romanovs and the fact that they only broke up at the point of a gun, too. However, such areas did maintain contacts with the rest of Europe:
This is evidently not the case in the Middle East. The Enlightenment never much penetrated the Ottoman frontiers, and so the great conflicts of faith versus reason and the value of each individual and his conscience which defined Western civilization were largely screened out there.
Earlier in his essay, the General refers to the neo-conservative backed invasion of Iraq as a geo-strategic disaster, perhaps the worst in our history. I don't know if the General means disaster for us, or the world in general, but given his fondness for the UN and our European allies he probably means the latter. Yet I wonder if this disaster is as bad as our decision to enter World War I on the side of the Allies, a decision which led directly to the rise of National Socialism and Soviet communism, and thus indirectly to Chinese Communism, all of which are representative examples of the end-product of the Enlightenment, i.e. the complete triumphalism of reason over faith, and which resulted in the cruel deaths of at least 80 million people and the enslavement of Eastern Europe for nearly 50 years, to name only a few of its generally unacknowledged achievements. We would also have to remember that Germany, an ally much beloved by the General, gained its democracy at the point of a gun. Here, the barbarity of the General's thought process is reflected in the clumsiness of his phrasing.
Of course, the Enlightenment is holy ground for the secularists, never to be questioned in terms of its less-desirable consequences - omelets and eggs, and so forth. However, that the Enlightenment never managed to break through to the Islamic world might have something to do with the fact that it was the Islamic world, functioning as a balance between faith and reason, that helped to instigate the European Enlightenment in the first place, mainly through the reintroduction of philosophy and science made possible by contacts between the Crusaders and Moslems. Thus it is not Reason that Moslems object to, but rather the complete discrediting and abandonment of Faith, which lies at the heart of the Western secular project. However, as a good liberal, the General is aware of this:
Any attempt to build democracy in the Islamic world must begin by taking into account Islam itself, the region's major source of culture, values, and law. There has been no "Protestant reformation" within the Muslim world. The teachings of the Koran tend to reflect an absolutism largely left behind in the West. When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that he would not accept the emergence of a theocratic state within Iraq, he gave voice to a profound concern: that even in Iraq, one of the more secularized Arab states, the majority of people look to Islam for their values and beliefs. (Indeed, Saddam himself in his final years in power increasingly turned to religious rhetoric to shore up support among his impoverished people). Inevitably, any lasting constitution there must entail compromises that reflect popular values. Hopefully, a form of government can emerge that reflects Islamic notions of rights, responsibilities, and respect but that is also representative in nature, reflects popular sovereignty, and retains the capacity to make pragmatic decisions.
The General is a master of tautology. First of all, there have been hundreds of Reformations in the Muslim world, the entire science of `itijihad' or Koranic interpretation, has been an ongoing process for nearly 1300 years, and the current swing towards fundamentalism is as much a reaction to the perceived decadence of Western culture as anything else. Furthermore, the absolutism of the Koran pales before the absolutism of the secular left, whose arrogance is revealed in the last sentence of the quote above. This is tantamount to telling Leon or any other dedicated pro-life advocate that we respect deeply your religious principles in regard to this matter but we are simply going to ignore them, reason over faith again, in much the same way that Saddam was able to placate the religious at the same time he turned Iraq into a metaphor for depraved indifference to Islamic cultural and religious values. Sound familiar?
I have neither the time nor patience to address all of the General's historical and religious non sequiturs but the following example is perhaps a good summary:
We must also recommit ourselves to a real peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. We should measure success on the progress we make, not merely on final resolution. We must also recognize that here, the neoconservatives had it backwards: The "road to Jerusalem" didn't run through Baghdad at all; rather, until real progress is made towards resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue in a way that respects both sides, all American efforts to work within the region will be compromised.
This seemingly reasonable statement contradicts nearly everything the General says in his essay, beginning with the fact that if there is one group that has less democratic traditions than the Iraqis, it's the Palestinians. Don't get me wrong, I strongly agree with the necessity of a two-state solution, but let's say that a Palestinian state had existed before the overthrow of Iraq. Would respect for Palestinian sovereignty or "Islamic" values preclude the rights of Palestinians to invite Saddam to install military bases in such a state? What if Palestinian sovereignty fails in Gaza, resulting in the importation of foreign terrorists? Should we then continue with plans for a fully realized Palestinian state? The General is no doubt saving his answers for the first debate.
The ultimate resolution (the General's near periphrasis of `final resolution' is telling) between the West and Islam will come when enough Westerners remember their own spiritual traditions and enough Moslems realize that the threat to their culture comes not from Christianity but from the secular humanists who have done much to destroy Christian values in the West. The General would also do well to remember that the course of American history, as rational and as Enlightened as he thinks it has been, has also witnessed numerous religious awakenings, which suggests that, like the General, a person can be enlightened and asleep at the same time.
The first is his piece in Wash. Monthly was a critique of the strategy. He was wrong then, in my opinion, as the only legitimate strategy was the one we followed. Second, I've already seen the piece you link to, it's more a question of tactics based on the original strategy.
Since I spent over a year in the Islamic world and know quite a lot about both Islam and what ordinary, non-religious Moslems think, being one of them, I would hardly say my analysis is from Pluto, although your comment seems to come out from another planet.
Since Day 1, the strategy and tactics have been criticized; the strategy hasn't changed but the tactics have. If you think we are no closer to achieving what we set out to do then I disagree. A lot of people have made a huge committment to success in Iraq - Clark was not and is not one of them. I prefer to listen to Generals Petraeus, Abajid and the comments I read on milblogs then to the politically motivated speechifying of Clark.
His comments in the article you link to are based on winning the hearts and minds of ordinary people. IMO we have already done so, at least to the extent possible, thanks to the mindless violence of the jihadists and the efforts of every 19 year old Army and Marine Corps private who has come to know more about Arab-Islamic culture then the General ever will: do you think that he can tell the difference between a Shia, a Sunni and a Kurd? Do you think a recently trained interpreter arriving in Iraq could?
In less than a week, the Iraqis are going to vote on a constitution that they wrote, after which they'll have their elections. Within 18 months, our guys will be home. What the Iraqis do with their country will be up to them. The point is that they would never have had a chance if Clark was in charge.
I might tend to take your article a bit more seriously if you hadn't tried to rewrite US history in your argument.
The Revolutionary War had nothing whatever to do with winning a democracy. An afternoon's stroll through Colonial Willaimsburg, or a brief dip into a history book would correct that misconception. The colonies already had bicameral representative government at the local level and Colony level. Remember the slogan "No taxation without representation"? What representation did you think they were discussing? King George wasn't following the rules already established - that's what we were fighting for. The founding of our republic came as an afterthought when George Washington declined to be King of the newly independent country. The colonists, all English subjects, did in fact have a common democratic tradition - very similar to the system we use today. This tradition had been evolving since the 11th century, and it still took fourteen years or so to write our own constitution.
If the rest of your analysis is as sloppy and misleading, then I'd say Wes Clark has a better handle on the Iraq situation then you have on the US situation. I invite your guests to visit both links regarding the General's ideas and judge for themselves.
I'm beginning to get the feeling that General Clark's defenders are legion. First, while the colonists did have a common English democratic tradition, they did not have a pluralist society -they were nearly all English or Scots-Irish. Second, you imply that the revolution was fought merely to overthrow British, more specifically Royal, hegemony over the colonies, and that democracy was merely an afterthought; had control of the colonies reverted to the British Parliament, the revolution might not have occurred at all, is that not correct? Wasn't that the rationale behind the Olive Branch Petition, a final effort to have King George reconsider? But then why was said petition so violently opposed by patriots like John Adams? After all, they would have maintained their representative democracy and would have been able to send representatives to Parliament had the King accepted. So you're point must be that they wanted an independent country that could have been other than a democracy, even a monarchy. How about Jefferson, care to include him that category?
The question of King was a matter of title, not of authority, although it hardly mattered what Washington wanted since both the Congress and Senate voted on making the title of the chief executive President before he took office. Besides, there was no popular support for a King of any sort - that was the brainchild of Adams and Hamilton. A play called The Contrast, the first American play performed on stage, began with:
Exult each patriot heart! This night is shown
A piece which we may fairly call our own:
Where the proud titles of "My Lord!" "Your Grace!"
To humble "Mr." and plain "Sir" give place.
My analysis of Clark's comments is accurate. Disagree if you want, but don't assume that pithy attacks constitute analysis on your part.
Not only is the original poster's analysis of an old Clark article incorrect, his analysis of the entire Iraqi situation is incorrect.
We aren't building any democracies in Iraq - or maybe we are, but it certainly won't be a democracy we'll be proud of as Americans.
Clark is right on target - and has been during this entire war. It was an elective war fought either to secure oil or fatten the coffers of those who partake of the military industrial complex, such as Halliburton and Bechtel.
And, for some reason, I believe that a four-star general who is a student of foreign policy and international dimplomacy and who commanded the northern no-fly zones of Iraq would know a tiny bit more about Iraq than either the orignial poster or anyone else, includind me, posting on this forum.
Certainly, he knows more than Bush or Cheney, who told us all that the Iraqi's would throw flowers and candy at our feet for "liberating" them.
Your almost completely incorrect assertions regarding the Revolutionary War have already been pointed out so I won't get into that too much.
You say in one sentence that we weren't a pluralistic society but then also say.....
His sense of American history also seems a bit skewed, since he does not recall that the history of our own country was hardly the `coming together' of a mass of people completely unified by the same democratic traditions
Well which one is it? Were Revolutionary Americans homogenous people with generally the same cultural experiences or were they a pluralistic society?
then you go on to this point....
More to the point, however, is the fact that Arab-Islamic society is historically one of the most democratic on earth, far more than the class-ridden European societies whose democratic traditions Clark extols earlier in his essay
Please defend this claim. Arab-Islamic society consisted of mostly tribal entities. While I guess it is technically correct to say that these tribes were democratic in some fashion the same could be said of Native American tribes or the Visigoths.
And where in the world did you come up with the notion that nationalism is a European construct?
But then we come to the crux of your point....
The ultimate resolution (the General's near periphrasis of `final resolution' is telling) between the West and Islam will come when enough Westerners remember their own spiritual traditions and enough Moslems realize that the threat to their culture comes not from Christianity but from the secular humanists who have done much to destroy Christian values in the West.
So really the problem is with Western society. It isn't "Christian" enough which scares the Muslims into being hostile to the West. Gotcha.
We aren't building any democracies in Iraq - or maybe we are, but it certainly won't be a democracy we'll be proud of as Americans
I love it: three positions in one sentence. First we arent't, then we are, then, even if we are, it is flawed.
Keep on singin' that song, all the way to the loser party at the Best Western in November, 2008.
The only solid position I've seen from the Democratic Party is that they're Anti-Republican.
The Master said that the answer to ignorance is silence, but I'm in the mood to slug it out a bit. Someday, if G-d wills it to be so, Iraq will be a country where people like Saddam and his henchmen are safely stored in the double bottoms of hell. Until that day, he, and his enablers in the Islamic world, the MSM and the American left, will pull out every stop to sabotage what, IMO, is one of the noblest efforts our country has ever undertaken - the liberation and restoration of a people that had been subjected to the level of beasts in order to satisfy the whims of dictators.
But you, and your blesséd General, opposed this elective war, believing in no-fly zones and sanctions that were responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children, so spare me the histrionics and Halliburton rhetoric.
If you want to challenge me, challenge me on substantive points. I don't deny Clark's qualifications as a general, if you read my post you'll see that I restricted my comments to very specific things, of which, I repeat, his opinions are ill-considered. Judging by the responses I have received, and how I longed for a debate about secularism versus religion!, his supporters are as myopic as he is.
As far as I know, your reply this time is concise and correct except for a couple of small nit-picky details. Had the Stamp Act been repealed or not imposed to start with, the revolution would not have occurred when it did. If the colonies had Parlimentary representation in 1760 - the revolution would not have occured when it did. If the minutemen hadn't assumed incorrectly that the British were burning down Concord - the revolution would not have occured when it did. Adams and Henry are considered patriots because they were on the winning side. Subjects of the Crown, they were traiters to England. The most famous of our Revolutionary War patriots were in fact propagandists, and inflammatory in their rhetoric.
Enough for me - I concede any remaining points in the US history portion of the discussion.
I suspect we are talking past each other. My point in this regard was that own own birth as a nation was difficult and time-consuming, and we did have democratic traditions the Iraqis do not. We also did not have the pluralist society that Iraq does have. Both of these factors reduce the chances of establishing a stable representative state in Iraq. This is the point that General Clark is making.
Is it your opinion that one or both of these factors would ease the way for them?
Careful and honest diplomatic efforts should be made with all of the players in the region to permit the Iraqis to reach whatever form of government they choose to have, as free as possible from outside interference. Who needs a 3-way civil war in the region with The Syrians and Saudis supporting the Sunni minority (for different reasons), Iran backing the Shia majority, and the Kurds being opposed by damn near everybody?
This particular Democrat isn't all that Anti-Republican. I respect many traditional republican values, like less government intrusion into private lives, and fiscal responsibility. It's NeoCons that hack me off.
I will gladly defend Arab-Islamic society as being democratic, on any level you choose. But first, I said that nationalism was imported from South America, which it was; Bolivarian nationalism was imported by Europe, I did not say it was invented there. I can take a good critique, but not on something that I didn't say.
Second, and this baffles me, I said that our early society was neither pluralistic in cultural terms nor in political terms. If it was, how can one explain the presence of so many Tory sympathizers, who were out and out monarchists? Perhaps I should have explained it better, but our own example seems to contradict the General's comments, which I intended to point out.
To the main point, tribal leadership was rarely, if ever, hereditary. Similarly, early Islam was perhaps the most democratic society ever known to this planet, based strictly on merit. The central politico-religious difference between between Sunni and Shia is based precisely on this: the most qualified leader versus a descendant of the Prophet. If you read anything about traditional Beduin culture, you'd realize that leadership in these communities was nearly always based on personal charisma and leadership skills, not on hereditary right (See Wilfird Thesiger's Arabian Sands for a non-academic treatment of the subject). This society gave rise to early Islam. To this day, there is no priesthood or clergy in Islam; the recent rise in the Mullocracy goes hand in hand with the rise of dictatorship. The Prophet himself never permitted the kind of adulation reserved for some of the self-righteous hypocrites that pollute the Islamic world nowadays.
Further, during the Soviet-Afghan War, in which the peace-loving Soviet Union managed to kill over a million Afghans, leasdership among the Mujahadin was awarded on the basis of personal courage and skill, i.e. not on governement appointments or hereditary right.
Finally, go to a small village in the interior of Afghanistan and say you're an atheist, better, say the name of Jesus in vain. You'll get your head handed to you. I'm not a Christian, if you had read my first response to a Clarkista you would know that, but I admire all sincere religion. The reason that Moslems fear Christians is that they have been convinced by state-run media to believe that Bush is a crusader, in the same way that you can buy a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on the streets of Damascus. Moslems have nothing to fear from Christians, but much to fear from a completely secualrized society that has raised pornography to the status of an industry and eliminated the very mention of the name of G-d from public arenas because it is unconstitutional.
Unlike members of the left, it is the dream of some people to live in a peace where the notion of a higher Being is worthy of praise and respect, not just as a football for lawyers. A Christian, by definition, is not an infidel, nor is a Jew, but an atheist is.
per se, they oppose the Republicans.
There is a difference, I humbly suggest.
Remember, most of them voted for the war, before they voted against it.
you are correct. Though, I struggle to believe that Democrats, from a platform view, would respect any Republican values as you have.
Hats off to you.
I'm curious to know what neo-con issue has you up in arms.
Cheers-
Why are you calling attention to something he wrote last April, instead of a more current piece like this http://securingamerica.com/node/253
Clark was giving a 40,000 foot critique of events on the ground. You're analysis was from planet Pluto and has absolutely no relevance to improving the situation in Iraq.
Question, are we just experiencing a few bumps in the road and stay the course in Iraq or are things broken and we need to fix things? If you feel the latter is true, then Clark has some ideas to offer.