Newsweek has an excerpt from Wesley Clark’s book in last week’s issue that shows how schitzophrenic Clark’s foreign policy strategies are.
A bit of context. Throughout Waging Modern War Clark talks about how the constant tension between Europe and the US in NATO hampered his ability to get the job done in the Balkans. He argues that the structure of NATO itself is flawed, and the international tension makes it simply unable to bring the kind of surgical air victories that he believes to be the wave of the future.
So, what’s Clark’s idea for American foreign policy? More entanglement with those agencies that Clark said hamper US power.
And if we wanted to go after states supporting terrorism, why not first go to the United Nations, present the evidence against Al Qaeda, set up a tribunal for prosecuting international terrorism? Why not develop resolutions that would give our counterterrorist efforts the greater force of international law and gain for us more powerful leverage against any state that might support terrorists, then use international law and backed by the evidence to rope in the always nuanced Europeans that still kept open trade with Iran and the others?
What Clark never considers is that the United Nations might not have an interest in seriously fighting al-Qaeda. Certainly Egypt has plenty of links to al-Qaeda, especially as Ayman al-Zawahiri is an Egyption as was Mohammed Atta. Syria has no interest in persuing their links to al-Qaeda as well as their funding of Hamas and especially Hizb’Allah which is based and funded in Syria. The Pakistani government supported the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and the ISI (Pakistan’s military intelligence service) may still be harboring bin Laden and other Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders.
Clark doesn’t seem to have a plan for exactly what we would do if the international community becomes a roadblock to fighting terror, which seems to be exactly what they are becoming. Even if he could get a real tribunal, what difference would it make? It still requires troops on the ground, and Pakistan isn’t going to stir the hornet’s nest by going to the wild tribal provinces where bin Laden is hiding, even if there’s a UN order to do so.
Clark just assumes that the international community has the political will to effectively fight terrorism. When Libya holds the chair for human rights in the United States, when the UN clearly is biased against Israel (just see the results of the Durban Conference on Racism and Xenophobia for a plethora of examples of that), and when Iraq was to have been named the UN chair on disarmament without a hint of irony, it is clear that the UN is not serious about dealing with terror.
To effectively fight terror you need to be as free as possible. That means covert operations that would violate the normal principles of international law. That means targeted assassinations of terrorist leaders without due process. That means using whatever means, including the use of military force without months of negotiation that would give terrorist leaders time to flee.
Given the world situation, it is clear that Clark’s policies do not stand up to the demands of the times. If Clark knew exactly where Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan, would he attack or try to get UN approval? If Clark found that Iran had a nuclear weapon and was about to eliminate Tel Aviv, would he be willing to violate international law and destroy it? If Clark (quite rightly) accepts that Egypt, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are the locus of international terror, how does he intended to deal with them given that they are also influential members of the UN?
Clark never gives a satifactory answer to these questions, and it is clear that his transnationalist plan for dealing with terror would hamper rather than help the war on terrorism. Given that we are engaged with a network of terrorism that has no consideration for borders, sovereignty, or the rules of war, we do not have the time or the luxury to play compromise with states that are actively assisting these movements.
Undoubtedly there is a need for international diplomacy to help stop the spread of money, arms, and terrorists across international borders. However, such an effort requires the genuine cooperation of all states. As Indonesia found out, one cannot say they support the war against terrorism and then fail to root out terrorism – the bombings in Bali and Jakarta forced the Indonesians to increase cooperation, resulting in the capture of the terrorist ringleader Hambali and his brother.
However, while we can’t go it alone entirely, no can we allow ourselves to be bound militarily and diplomatically by groups like Europe which have already publically proclaimed the idea that American power must be restrained. If Clark believes that the same groups that want to restrain US power are going to give us the kind of latitude needed to effectively combat terrorism and engender democratic transfer in the Middle East he is simply naive.
Remember after September 11th, 2001 when the whole world sent sympathies to the U.S. and everybody was on board to do something about terrorism and then remember George W. systematically insulting and alienating almost every single one of our former allies- folks who really could have helped in an international war on terrorism? How is it that one country is to be granted total autonomy to chase terrorists wherever they may go? It seems you are suggesting that for the U.S., borders should be dissolved and our special forces should be allowed to go wherever they want and do whatever they want. That really really scares me.
“Undoubtedly there is a need for international diplomacy to help stop the spread of money, arms, and terrorists across international borders. However, such an effort requires the genuine cooperation of all states”
What you mean by this is cooperation with the U.S. agenda by all states. What makes you think that everyone ought to jump on board with us? What reason have we really given them to do so? Even if you agree with Bush and Co.’s endgame, can you honestly say that our President is doing a good job making the world and the U.S. safer? I say, bullshit.
I also can’t believe that you accuse Indonesia of “fail[ing]to root out terrorism”. Like it was a choice- why has the U.S. failed to root out terrorism? It doesn’t make sense.
Indonesia did not act against the terrorist group Jemiyaah al-Islam which was operating in its borders. Last year JI killed over 200 Indonesians and Australians by bombing a nightclub in Bali. Only a few weeks ago the Marriott in Jakarta was bombed. Only then did Indonesia give the go-ahead for their military to capture Hambali and the other al-Qaeda associated terrorists operating in Indonesia. If President Sukarnoputri had acted earlier, both those bombings could be avoided.
Again, look at Indonesia. Look at Tunisia and Saudi Arabia. Because all three of these states did not act to fight terrorists operating within in their borders all three of them were attacked by al-Qaeda.
Look at your argument. If there is not international cooperation in the fight against al-Qaeda then then al-Qaeda will be free to have a base in Southeast Asia or elsewhere – meaning that they can begin training new operatives, and they will strike again. All they need is the time to plan another attack.
So what you’re arguing is that other countries should not cooperate in fighting al-Qaeda. With all due respect, that’s simply idiotic.
Are we safer now than before September 11? Absolutely. Mohammed Atef – dead. Khalid Sheik Mohammed – captured and singing like a bird. Abu Zubaydah – captured. Ramzi Binalshibh – captured.
2/3rds of al-Qaeda’s top leadership is dead. Osama bin Laden is either dead or so incapacitated that al-Qaeda had to use two-year old footage of him and he has not been able to release anything that conclusively proves that he’s alive and in charge.
The Taliban is routed and won’t be coming back. Saddam Hussein is routed and won’t be coming back. There is not been an single major act of terrorism from al-Qaeda outside those states like Indonesia that had not cracked down on al-Qaeda.
al-Qaeda is scattered and on the run. Hamas and Hizb’Allah have been weakened. Whenever the Taliban tries to do anything in Afghanistan they get slaughted – and by the regular Afghan Army no less.
If that isn’t progress, I sure as hell don’t know what is.
The problem with the argument that the capture of all these al-Qaida higher-ups equates to our nation being more secure is that these guys shoes are being filled with newcomers with dizzying speed. This may not be the case if we hadn’t lost focus on the War on Terrorism and replaced it with an ideological crusade against Saddam Hussein and the unrelated Iraqi regime he led.
America has effectively made herself the bad guy once again in the eyes of the world, and all reports indicate that America’s public relations loss is al-Qaida recruiters gain. Thus, the notion that we’re safer after 9-11 because of the capture of top al-Qaida operatives is much less certain (at least in the long-term) than you infer. There are hundreds of bloodthirsty 15-year-old Khalid Sheik Muhammed clones waiting to take his place in al-Qaida training camps this very day. Last year at this time, there wasn’t nearly as many.
The same was said about Afghanistan. Two years ago everyone was talking about how the “Arab street” would rise against us if we acted against the Taliban. Instead, the Afghanis were glad to be rid of the Taliban.
Then they said the same about Iraq. Instead, the Iraqis greeted the US with open arms. The Ba’athists represent a small segment of the Iraqi population numbering less than a few thousand, and mainly other Arabs are supporting the attacks on US troops.
If actions against oppressive regimes created hundreds of new footsoldiers, why are we not still fighting Nazis in Europe? Why aren’t the Japanese still launching kamikaze attacks on the US?
The simple answer is because those ideologies were destroyed.
Furthermore, such an argument is racist. You have to argue that all Arabs hate the West, hate freedom, can never be democratic, and no one should try to liberate them from such tyranny.
The only way to end terrorism is through victory, a complete crushing the ideology of radical Islam by removing the states that support it, destroying terrorist groups and killing and capturing their leaders.
One would think that after a decade of half-assed attempts at dealing with terrorism that culminated in the worst terrorist attack in recent history one would start realizing that negoitation and vacillation in the face of the terrorist ideology is a sure-fire recipe for disaster. Then again, there are all too many who are unwilling to remove their partisan blinders and take an objective view of the world.
Whether or not Iraqi civilians are the ones spilling the blood of a half-dozen American soldiers nearly every day is ultimately irrelevant. Even if most Iraqis don’t hate America enough to kill our soldiers, a simple walk down the street in Baghdad by a reporter with a microphone and a camera leaves little doubt that the majority do resent us….a resentment that is growing with each passing day and each Iraqi civilian death. To suggest this resentment doesn’t exist is about as believable as insisting that the allure of Third World labor isn’t worth the cost of moving there while waving goodbye to Levi-Strauss as they castaway into the Pacific Ocean or cross the Rio Grande.
Even sillier is to accuse me of being “racist” because I cited the documented fact that al-Qaida recruitment has soared in the past year. Does that mean that everybody in the Arab world “wants to destroy America, hates freedom, hates democracy, hates (fill in the blank with standard nationalistic bullshit)”? No. Does it mean that more people in the Arab world want to destroy America than did a year ago? Pretty much. 2 + 2 equaled four when I went to school….and we weren’t called racist for coming to that conclusion.
Strange, becuase the people who are actually there are saying the exact opposite.
Of course, you could also easily find what the Iraqi people think themselves.
Considering that every poll of public opinion in Iraq says that the Iraqi people are glad we’re in Iraq, I’d rather take their word than from someone who can’t be bothered to actually do research before saying something stupid.
You’re spinning. The polls show that Iraqis want Americans to stay in Iraq now that we’re already there because they know subsidizing the cost of reconstructing the country is dependent on US presence. Does this mean their our buddies and are glad we’re there in the first place? A resounding no! In fact, as more Iraqis bury their sons, daughters and mothers caught in the crossfire of attacks geared towards Americans, more and more Iraqis seem to be of the mind that simply living in the wreckage America left behind would be better than keeping America around to incur even more wreckage.
No, you’re the one who is spinning. Would you care to present your credentials on international relations and Mideast area studies or shall I just assume you’re talking through your ass?
I couldn’t agree more with Kerri & Mark.
Regrettably, the USA -not exactly so: the Bush clique- has developped a theory implying that multilateralism is no good & that it should be replaced by unilateralism (preventive wars, pre-emptive wars, systematic diplomacy by-pass…), that is a revisited version of isolationism to the extent that the World is considered a US playground & independent States are viewed as old-fashioned attributes more or less pertaining to US ecosphere (glocalisation).
Now waking up seems so hard for Bush & al. Not only reality taught them how biased their seductive mental construction was, but the USA has also won itself rivals & allied rivalry.
The question now is to know whether this so far ad-hoc & temporary alliance made up of numerous leading nations will survive a régime change in Washington or will disappear with the Bushist danger.
NB: the terrorism-related Bushist programme is totally counterproductive. This per se isn’t a real problem since wrong premisses & poor implementation may well be changed or fixed up, provided new policy-makers are (duely) elected in 2004. The worst thing is the World’s perception of the USA. It is bad, but that isn’t much of a problem. What’s more worrying is that the USA is universally perceived as weak, incompetent & unefficient. In other words: unreliable. This effect is like a second 9/11…
Again, the seeds of anti-Americanism were sown long before Bush came to power.
Given that multilateral institutions like the United Nations have completely and utterly failed the people of Iraq and failed in their mission to create a more peaceful world, something must be done. If the UN will not act, the US has no choice but to act.
Also, the last time I checked, the prefix uni meant one, not the dozens of countries assisting with the rebuilding of Iraq.
Given that multilateral institutions like the United Nations have completely and utterly failed
The UN are bound to fail provided the rogue USA displays systematic obstruction to problem-solving (Israel, South Africa during apartheid, Iraq…).