2.
The rest of the op-ed is consistent with this interpretation. It praises the soldiers who carried out the battle plan, points out the good things about the planning and execution of the war, and notes the rough spots too. It's a sober and balanced assessment of the war, in my opinion. Clark notes problems without carping and dispenses praise when appropriate and without fawning. But there is nothing in it that shows or even strongly suggests that Clark thought that the war was a good idea. (Though there are some passages that can kinda sorta be read that way with a little effort.)
At the end of the essay, Clark does write:
"As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."
Again, this might rather naturally be taken to indicate approval of the war, but it probably shouldn't be. Resolve in the face of doubt, if it is a virtue at all, is a virtue even when one has undertaken an enterprise in error. (I myself am not sure that it is a virtue at all, but that's probably just one difference between a pointy-headed geek such as myself and a four-star general...) Again, Clark is apparently simply giving credit where credit is due. But saying "you stuck to that project with admirable resolve" obviously does not mean the same thing as "boy, you sure were smart to undertake that project."
And note that Clark continues:
"And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe."
So even (approximately) the resolve Clark has just praised he now characterizes as "almost irrational." So if these two components taken together constitute a compliment, it is (re: Blair at least) a highly attenuated one at best. Hardly unalloyed approval.
And I think that the end of the essay provides reasonably strong confirmation of my reading:
"Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.
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.