1.
Via Instapundit:
Roger L. Simon posts an op-ed Wesley Clark wrote on April 10th of last year, and claims that it proves that Clark supported the war. Had I read the op-ed quickly without knowing anything about Clark, I might very well have concluded that he was expressing qualified support for the war. However even a passably careful reading of the thing reveals that it fails to provide significant evidence that Clark supported the war. Everything Clark writes is consistent with opposition to the war--though perhaps combined with recognition that the world is better without Saddam and a desire to to portray the whole enterprise in a good light. All of these things are, of course, consistent with thinking that the self-defense case for war was a crock and that the decision to go to war was a sub-optimal one.
The most important passage for those who would portray the essay as strong (or even conclusive) evidence that Clark was for the war are as follows:
"Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation ? the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph."
Needless to say we have to resist the urge to strain for a non-pro-war message here. Intellectual integrity is in short enough supply these days. Our question is not can we force a non-pro-war reading on this essay? but rather is there a sensible non-pro-war reading of it?
Well, I was against the war (torn, but just barely more against it than for it by H-hour), but I could have written this op-ed (er, were I smarter...and if I knew more...and if I were a better writer...and...oh, you get the picture...). I was happy to see the tyrant deposed, the statue come down, etc. And who could NOT think of liberations past? The only part of this passage I probably would not have written is this part:
Article comments
1 - JB
I think that you have to spin REALLY FAST to minimize the degree to which Clark was praising the war.
Comments like "Russia will have to craft a new way forward, detouring away, at least temporarily, from the reflexive anti-Americanism which infects the power ministries." and "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." could have been written by a hardened neocon.
"Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice " indeed, may have been already " that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns." is a warning completely in keeping with the most extreme neocons (those calling for the US to forcibly remake the Middle East), and there is not a hint of disapproval or disagreement voiced.
"Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent", while Clark - who is notably NOT silent - praises the war and preaches the neocon doctrine to remake the Middle East.
Maybe Clark really did secretly oppose the war at this point. Without time travel and telepathy, no one will ever know. But his words in this op-ed clearly indicate that he was outwardly trying to hop firmly on the pro-Iraq War bandwagon.
What we have here is probably a case of Winston Smith seeing what he wanted to see and/or what he expected to see, plus perhaps the effects of political polarization and the pervasive influence of the gotcha atmosphere. And maybe something else I've been meaning to note as well: everything happens so fast in the blogosphere...speed is of the essence...nobody thinks very much about what they write. It's getting to be like academic philosophy--people get famous by saying outrageous things that they haven't really thought through very carefully, and then lots of other people waste their time going through the initial poorly-thought-out position explaining why it's wrong. Note that I don't mean to insult Winston Smith here, he's just doing what what's done around these parts. But we should all do less of it.
2 - Winston Smith
JB,
Maybe, but, in all honesty, I have to say that I just don't see it. I didn't even quote the parts you included because they didn't seem to be anywhere even NEAR an endorsement of the war. Upon reflection, I'm starting to see why people think they DO count as endorsement: Clark is admitting that the war will have certain effects, some of them beneficial, that the neo-cons *intended to achieve by instigating the war.* But you don't have to have been pro-war to think that those ends are likely to be achieved.
Look, *I* think that those ends are likely to be achieved, but I don't think that we should have initiated a war to achieve them. Why think that Clark doesn't think the same thing?
Let's look at specifics:
JB writes:
"Comments like "Russia will have to craft a new way forward, detouring away, at least temporarily, from the reflexive anti-Americanism which infects the power ministries." and "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." could have been written by a hardened neocon."
Two issues: 1. could such sentences have been written by a neo-con? answer: yes. 2. do these sentences show that Clark endorsed the war? No.
You've gotta realize: we're dealing with a different kind of politician here. Clark is an intellectual with deep knowledge of world affairs. He's not one of the numb-nuts we're used to listening to who think *well, if ahm agin' this war, I gotta say that it's badbadbad in all possible ways.*
JB writes that Clark writes:
"DonÂ’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice Â" indeed, may have been already Â" that they are “next” if they fail to comply with WashingtonÂ’s concerns." is a warning completely in keeping with the most extreme neocons (those calling for the US to forcibly remake the Middle East), and there is not a hint of disapproval or disagreement voiced.
Uh, I'm really really really trying not to spin or be dense here, but I just don't hear the "hint of approval." I don't "hear" a hint of *disapproval*, either, but it's just a snippet. I WILL go back and read the whole thing and see what I think, honestly. But note: none of us should base our position on this matter on hints and hunches and guesses about tones of voice when there's so much better evidence available.
Clark writes: "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent",
JB writes:
"while Clark - who is notably NOT silent - praises the war and preaches the neocon doctrine to remake the Middle East."
Again, it's not praise exactly. It's acknowledging certain effects of the war, some of them positive. *We all have to acknowledge that the war has had certain positive effects.* There's no doubt about that. (Libya gave up it's WMDs, etc.) To note that the war has had positive effects is not to agree that it was a good idea.
All we can say about this op-ed is that it was NOT written by someone apoplectic with anti-war sentiment. But it also couldn't really have been written by a neo-con--there's too much criticism, overt and implied. If you are really interested in whether Clark supported the war, you need to find stronger evidence than this letter. It's consistent with limited support for the war, but it's consistent with thinking it's a bad idea that had *some* good consequences.
I'll read it again, though!
WS
3 - Winston Smith
I've added an addendum/appendix to the original post on my blog. There I address the kinds of questions JB raises about the rest of Clark's op-ed.
Perhaps to my shame, I haven't changed my mind about how to read the thing.
4 - Azul
If we criticized the war, we weren't patriotic, or we weren't supporting the troops; none of which is true of course. I foresaw such a mess over there with the destabilization of the region, that I have often expressed the desire to be wrong so that all could go well for the Iraqi people and for the soldiers. But, alas, that doesn't seem to be coming to pass. Some good will surely happen but we have not made America or the world safer. Wesley Clark is such a good diplomat that he can express support for the good that may come out of a bad course of action and for his country while expressing his reasoned opinion. Either way he would have been criticized. He was trained to walk fine lines with different administrations. He could really bring people together and this is proof of that! Meanwhile Bush gets away with murder and robbery. I wonder if Clark is too good for the mainstream to understand. He is very good at getting his message across in a way that doesn't seem overly intellectual and isn't full of soundbytes, since he has so much of substance to say. I hope he can get his message through. Thanks bloggers for clarifying these fine points.