The short answer to why progressives should be paying close attention to Wes Clark is that he is enlightened, skilled at problem solving and isn't burdened by the baggage that sitting U.S. Senators are laden with. His knowledge of military affairs makes him a credible candidate for Commander in Chief especially when compared with "AWOL" and his ilk.
He correctly analyzed the dire consequences of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld pre-emptive war and has gained the respect of people on both sides of the aisle in Congress and in countries around the world including the Middle East. In this diary I am focusing on his policy positions on Iraq and the Middle East, but if you read what he says, carefully, it is clear that his focus on transparency, fairness, equity and other progressive values reflect an enlightened vision of how people can overcome differences peacefully to avoid conflict.
The long answer with links follows:
My argument that progressives should be paying close attention to Wes Clark, begins with Wes Clark's testimony 9/26/02
http://commdocs.house.gov/...
before the House Armed Services Committee. He brilliantly analyzed why a preemptive unilateral war on Iraq would lead to a breakdown of order in Iraq possibly leading to civil war. He argued before the committee. including some very skeptical Republicans that time was on our side and taking unilateral action was the worst possible thing we could do, because it would not work for us or for Iraq or for achieving stability in the Middle East.
General Clark returned to the House Armed Services Committee (skip down to 4/6/05 on this link to listen): http://www.house.gov/...
to testify before a now very respectful bipartisan group who now thanked him for his foresight while they chastized Richard Pearle for what were now seen as his delusional prognostications
In today's New York Times, General Clark argues http://www.nytimes.com/...
that the irony of the Bush/Cheney War is that it has succeeded in helping Iraqi Shiite Clerics allied with Iran to achieve their fundamental goals:
While American troops have been fighting, and dying, against the Sunni rebels and foreign jihadists, the Shiite clerics in Iraq have achieved fundamental political goals: capturing oil revenues, strengthening the role of Islam in the state, and building up formidable militias that will defend their gains and advance their causes as the Americans draw down and leave. Iraq's neighbors, then, see it evolving into a Shiite-dominated, Iranian buffer state that will strengthen Tehran's power in the Persian Gulf just as it is seeks nuclear weapons and intensifies its rhetoric against Israel.
The American approach shows little sense of Middle Eastern history and politics. As one prominent Kuwaiti academic explained to me, in the Muslim world the best way to deal with your enemies has always been to assimilate them - you never succeed in killing them all, and by trying to do so you just make more enemies. Instead, you must woo them to rejoin society and the government. Military pressure should be used in a calibrated way, to help in the wooing.
On Diane Rehms American University radio show today,
http://www.wamu.org/...
Wes Clark answered questions on his Iraq position and took call ins.
I cannot articulate why I feel that Wes Clark would be good for this country and that I also feel he may be one of the very few Democrats who could unite the country and win the election. If you have time to listen and read at the above links, perhaps you will come to the same conclusion I have.