|現在地 HOME > 掲示板 > 戦争３９ > 286.html ★阿修羅♪||
下記の『Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism, and the American Empire』
Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism, and the American Empire
by Wesley K. Clark
Hardcover: 240 pages
Publisher: PublicAffairs; (October 2003)
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 184 （２００３年９月２５日現在）
General Wesley K. Clark's Waging Modern War: Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Future of Combat, a Washington Post bestseller, examined his experience directing the NATO- led war in Kosovo. As Clark saw it, the Kosovo war--limited in scope, measured in effect, extraordinarily complex in execution, waged with an uneven coalition, with instantaneous media coverage, and with a duration measured in days and not years, would serve as a model for contemporary war. He has been proven right.
In Winning Modern Wars, General Wesley Clark writes about how the issues and principles discussed in his earlier book were evident in Afghanistan, Iraq, and wherever the war on terrorism has taken us or may take us next, providing a frank and revealing analysis of the gains, risks, and shortfalls of America's current approach and offering informed alternatives to that approach.
What Clark, currently a much-watched and much-admired military analyst on CNN and one of the most decorated and influential officers of his generation, has to say on our national plans and tactics--and the lessons of empire--is invaluable, reminded us that as we celebrate our successes, we must also tend to their consequences.
●About the Author
General Wesley K. Clark, U.S.A. (Ret.), was Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, from 1997 to 2000 and is currently a military analyst for CNN. He served previously as director of strategic plans and policy for the Joint Staff at the Pentagon from 1994 to 1996 and was the lead military negotiator for the Bosnian Peace Accords at Daytona in 1995. He is in business in Little Rock, AR and Washington, D.C.
Source: Ether Zone http://www.etherzone.com
WESLEY CLARK: BRILLIANT GENERAL? OR ANOTHER NEO-CON STOOGE?
By: Murray Sabrin mailto:email@example.com
Last week, after several months of speculation, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley C. Clark announced he would seek the Democrat's nomination for president. Clark now is the tenth candidate to enter the field.
A media consensus apparently has emerged about Wesley Clark's candidacy: He is brilliant and a centrist, with just the kind of national security credentials to give President Bush the greatest challenge in next year's presidential election.
In his Washington Post column Richard Cohen wrote, "He is undoubtedly brilliant -- a Rhodes scholar and first in his class at West Point". Asked about General Clark, humorist, author and political commentator Al Franken said, "he is brilliant".
Just how "brilliant" is Wesley Clark? Based on his interview with "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert on June 15th, 2003, there is every indication, the general, as he likes to be addressed by aides, is no "Einstein". In fact, there is ample evidence that Wesley Clark is no more smarter than the current field, and in fact he may not be as smart as most of the other nine Democrat presidential candidates.
In response to Russert's question about Bush's tax cuts, Clark responded:
"First of all, they were not efficient in terms of stimulating the kind of demand we need to move the economy back into a recovery mode, a strong recovery and a recovery that provides jobs. There are more effective ways of using the resources. Secondly, the tax cuts weren’t fair. I mean, the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation (emphasis added). In other words, it’s not only that the more you make, the more you give, but proportionately more because when you don’t have very much money, you need to spend it on the necessities of life. When you have more money, you have room for the luxuries and you should?one of the luxuries and one of the privileges we enjoy is living in this great country.
"So I think that the tax cuts were unfair. And, finally, I mean, you look at the long-run health of the country and the size of the deficit that we’ve incurred and a substantial part of that deficit is result of the tax cuts. You have to ask: "Is this wise, long-run policy?" I think the answer is no."
So according to the first in his class at West Point Wesley Clark, the signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged their "lives, fortune and sacred honor" to establish a progressive income tax in a free America.
Not only does this statement reveal an incredible ignorance about the founding principles of our nation, for a prospective presidential candidate to have made this inaccurate statement on national television is simply mindboggling. So far, no one in the establishment media has challenged the general about his misstatement.
Why? Is it because Wesley Clark is the neo-con's favorite Democrat? And, any criticism of the general is off-limits for the time being? Time will tell.
In another vein, Wesley Clark is being perceived as a "peace" candidate, or at least a harsh critic of the Bush's administration's conduct of the Iraqi invasion. But, according to Gregory Bresiger, writing on www.lewrockwell.com more than two years ago, a few months before the attacks on September 11th ….
"…General Clark displays the same sort of Kennedy Administration New Frontier arrogance, a belief that American power and values should guide the world. This kind of thinking dates back at least to the administration of Woodrow Wilson, a liberal icon of the last century along with FDR and Kennedy. Wilson was another American president who pursued a policy of 'missionary diplomacy,' which meant the frequent use of force to bring to heel the "heathens" who happened to resist the imposition of American values.
"General Clark is arguing in favor of these Wilsonian/New Frontier ideas. He believes that the United States’ prestige in the world is huge so our nation can and must provide direction, institutions and anything else for struggling nations. The problem is, General Clark says, our nation hasn’t been doing nearly enough up until this point. Like Wilson arguing for an America establishing, 'a just democracy throughout the world,' which meant that Wilson reversed our traditions of no entangling alliances, General Clark now insists that America must live up to its responsibilities. Soon we will likely hear General Clark, or one of his friends, say that they have to, 'get the country moving again.' "
In short, Wesley Clark, 34-year military veteran, who nearly set off World War III in Kosovo, is another Democrat who embraces the Welfare-Warfare state with all his heart and soul.
Unlike another general who occupied the White House and warned about the influence of the military- industrial complex in America, Wesley Clark is a member of the military-industrial complex.
The neocons thus are placing their bets on a "brilliant centrist" who is a wounded decorated Vietnam veteran. If President Bush gets "cold feet" next year in Iraq and the Middle East, get ready for a Clark presidency, or will that be a Clinton-Clark administration?
If it is a Clark or Clinton presidency in 2005, the neocons will have an opportunity to take the next president into more military adventures.
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
Murray Sabrin is a professor of finance at Ramapo College of New Jersey, where he is executive director of the Center for Business and Public Policy, and the author of Tax Free 2000: The Rebirth of American Liberty. He was the New Jersey Libertarian Party candidate for governor in 1997 and after rejoining the GOP after 25 years, sought the party's nomination for the United States Senate in 2000. He is vice-chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.
He can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Published in the September 23, 2003 issue of Ether Zone. Copyright c 1997 - 2003 Ether Zone.
We invite your comments on this article in our forum!
by James Ridgeway
Conspiracy Theorists See Clark as Another Piece of the Waco Puzzle
September 24 - 30, 2003
In the dumps since Bill Clinton pretty much dropped out of sight, conspiracy buffs awoke with a start last week to learn that Wesley Clark had jumped into the presidential race. Not only do right-wing conspiracists hate the Rhodes Scholar and goody-goody Clark for being what they see as yet another Clinton puppet, but they remember him as a possible collaborator in the Waco attack in 1993. At the time of the government's storming of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Clark was commanding officer of the First Cavalry Division of the Army's Third Corps, based at Fort Hood, Texas. Equipment and personnel under his command had some involvement in the Waco fiasco. There is nothing to suggest that he took part, although it's hard to imagine that the top military commander in the area didn't know what was going on.
There is some evidence to suggest orders came directly from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who were led at the time by Colin Powell.
More than any event up to that time in recent American history, Waco rekindled latent hatred of the federal government in the hinterlands and helped jump-start the militia movement. It confirmed in one crystal clear moment what the far-right nativists had always feared: Behind the hand of the local police lay the Justice Department and behind the Justice Department was the U.S. military and behind the Pentagon was the United Nations. (During the 1980s, they believed that the Soviet Union was behind the UN and that behind the Soviet leaders were the ghostly figures of the Illuminati, the secret cabal that runs the world. When the Soviet Union went down, some nativists began to discern that the Antichrist was behind the UN.)
All during the 1980s the suspicions had festered in the heartland: The road barriers erected on interstate highways, so you heard, were to ease the path for the 101st Airborne, which was a front for Soviet army. There were artillery pieces being hauled by giant horses across the Siberian wastes and over the ice into Alaska. There were illegal Latino aliens carrying backpacks loaded with mini-nuclear bombs trudging north along the Mississippi River?all these suspicions and fears gained sudden credence at Waco. Tim McVeigh, fresh out of the army and just back from the Persian Gulf, was so moved at what he saw on TV that he drove to Waco to watch. He blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City on the anniversary of Waco in 1995.
In the spring of '93, Attorney General Janet Reno and Texas governor Ann Richards had met with U.S. military officers, and conspiracy theorists speculated that the meetings were to lay plans for an army assault on the Branch Davidians, rather than set up defensive maneuvers to protect the women and children in the compound. In a startling documentary, filmmaker Mike McNulty showed footage of helicopter machine guns spitting bullets into the compound and a tank attack with figures deploying out of the tank. There are muzzle flashes suggesting that these people are shooting into the compound, and there are sniper pits with shell casings scattered below gun ports?all of which undercut the government's claim that it was engaged only in defensive fire.
It was McNulty who first brought to light the presence of the Delta Force unit at the Waco compound. The film argues that military operators were in the attacking tanks. If the military actually ran ground operations at Waco, they did so on command of the Joint Chiefs, who, in turn, were working on orders from?or at least in concert with?the White House. The government has admitted to sending active-duty soldiers, tanks, and other materiel, and McNulty claimed to have found evidence in government files that all sorts of military officers and intelligence operatives (from Germany, Israel, and Great Britain) had come to Waco as if to observe a training maneuver and that the CIA tried to help out with super-duper audio equipment to sort out the different bugs, taps, and other transmissions.
(The filmmakers tried to trace the decisions involving Waco back to Vince Foster, who supposedly felt so bad about killing the Davidian kids that he turned the gun on himself, and to Hillary, who may have hidden key papers and perhaps was the person to issue the orders. This is all a bit thin, to put it in polite terms.)
How much of this might actually have happened isn't really known. Did, for example, the military violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which mandates a separation of military activity from most domestic law-enforcement situations? A congressional investigation chaired by the very conservative Dan Burton concluded with this careful statement: "The committee uncovered no evidence that any member of the armed services present at Waco, including the National Guard, violated the Posse Comitatus Act. Representatives from the U.S. Special Operations Command were present, but the available evidence indicates that they acted only as observers and technicians."
However, the Burton report said that although military officers practiced "diligence" in trying to stay out of an active role at Waco, there was "disregard of the Posse Comitatus Act on the part of the civilians"?meaning high government officials.
The report pointed out that "two senior Army officers were asked to evaluate the FBI's proposed operations plan for April 19, and consistently refused to do so, as such support would have made them direct participants in planning the arrest of the Branch Davidians, and would have therefore violated the Posse Comitatus Act." The two officers also attended a briefing with Reno on April 14 in D.C., and here the Burton report takes the Clinton administration to task: "While Attorney General Reno has stated that these officers told her the FBI's plan was 'excellent' in one case, and 'sound' in another, both officers have clearly stated they were careful not to evaluate the plan during the meeting. President Clinton and Attorney General Reno have deceived the American people for over seven years by misrepresenting that the military endorsed, sanctioned or otherwise approvingly evaluated the plan."
Wesley Clark's name does not surface in any of this, but one of the two officers who met with Reno was Clark's second in command, General Peter J. Schoomaker. However, it appears that Schoomaker might have been summoned to D.C. because of his past experience with "hostage rescue" situations, not because he was the second in command of the First Cavalry.
Additional reporting: Phoebe St John and Ashley Glacel
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
The New York Times
Clark Calls for a 'New American Patriotism'
By ERIC SCHMITT
CHARLESTON, S.C., Sept. 22 -- Gen. Wesley K. Clark called today for "a new American patriotism" that would encourage broader public service, respect domestic dissent even in wartime and embrace international organizations like the United Nations.
General Clark, a former NATO commander and Army officer who last week announced his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination, accused the Bush administration of neglecting economic problems and of pursuing a dangerous go-it-alone foreign policy.
But he also used the setting of the Citadel, the military college here, to appeal to about 150 cadets and civilians on the parade grounds to help restore something loftier, a sense of national spirit that he suggested that the administration's campaign against terror had corroded.
"We've got to have a new kind of patriotism that recognizes that in times of war or peace democracy requires dialogue, disagreement and the courage to speak out," General Clark said. "And those who do it should not be condemned, but be praised."
General Clark made it clear he believed that the administration had unfairly focused on whole classes of immigrants, for fear of a minority within them.
"Three million Muslims have come to this country from Asia and the Middle East," he said. "They didn't come because they were afraid of our values. They came because they wanted to live under them."
Today was Day 6 of the campaign, and General Clark's 20-minute stump speech at the hastily arranged event here had a few rough patches.
"Patriotism doesn't consist of following the orders, not, not not when you're not in the chain of command," the general said, stumbling over his words and catching himself before he inadvertently encouraged insubordination in the ranks.
Despite the stumbles, General Clark heard good news in a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll that showed he had jumped ahead of the other Democrats. The poll, conducted over the weekend, showed him tying President Bush head to head.
General Clark was invited to speak here by Philip Lader, a visiting professor of political science who is a close friend of former President Bill Clinton. Many former top Clinton aides have roles in his campaign.
General Clark directed his attacks against the administration, never mentioning the other nine Democratic hopefuls. He criticized the Bush team as doing little to stem the job losses and mounting deficits that have weighed on the economy since he retired from the Army in 2000.
"I'm running for president because I could not stand by and watch everything that we fought for, everything our nation had accomplished and become, unravel before our eyes," General Clark said.
He said the administration had failed to shore up health care and education, but he offered no detailed plans.
"One of the principles we learned in the United States armed forces was the principle of accountability," he said. "Americans today are asking, `Why did we lose three million jobs over the last three years?' "
He fired the other barrel of his attack at the handling of Iraq and at overall foreign policy, especially given that Mr. Bush is requesting $87 billion from Congress to finance reconstruction and military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"What was the strategy?" he asked about Iraq. "What was the purpose? What is the success strategy? How are we going to finish the mission there?"
General Clark did not discuss what are apparently his reversals on the the war. Last October, he said that he would support the Congressional resolution that authorized the use of military force in Iraq and then spent months criticizing the execution of the war. On Thursday, the day after he announced his candidacy, he said, "I probably would have voted for" the resolution. On Friday, he backtracked, saying, "I never would have voted for war."
By coincidence, his aides said, General Clark spoke here nearly four years to the day after George W. Bush, then the governor of Texas, visited the Citadel to lay out his most explicit thinking on military policy.
General Clark did not delve into such detail, but said he would map out a foreign policy, drawing on his experience leading tens of thousands of troops and working at the highest levels of the government, first as a senior general in the Pentagon and later as NATO supreme commander in the 1999 war in Kosovo.
He said his approach was based on three basic pillars. First, his strategy would reach out more aggressively to allies. He said he would also work to improve relations with international organizations like the United Nations, which he said were created decades ago to "to distribute the burdens of leadership, to share the responsibilities and to share the benefits of security."
Finally, he said, he will always support a well-financed military, strong enough to deter or, if necessary, defeat any threat.
After his remarks, General Clark bounded into the audience, shaking hands, signing copies of his memoirs and getting a feel for what life is going to be like in the campaign.
Terry Tranen, 61, a retired aerospace engineer, said General Clark was the Democrat with the best chance of beating Mr. Bush.
"I think I might send him some money," Mr. Tranen said. "That's the real test, isn't it