For those who didn’t want to slog through the fan mail (879 comments!), here are edited or paraphrased versions of the questions Clark was asked and answered, with his responses in full.
What’s the optimum Senate resolution, Wes?
The real problem isn't the troop strength - it is and has been all along the strategy the Administration has pursued for the region. The purpose of any Resolution is to demonstrate strength of resistance to the President's strategy- so a non binding resolution is ok as a first step if it gets a broad measure of support. But in order to affect the president's strategy, the Democrats have to threaten something the President wants. This is what our Congressional leadership should be working on...is it confirmation of judges, approval of budget requests, supplementals, or whatever...the power of the purse, as well as the power to investigate, are essential powers of the Congress. I would like to see our top Congressional leaders go to the White House - after they've shown they have the leverage - and force the President to modify his strategy. I've pretty much explained what the strategy should be...but the key question now is, do we have the Congressional leverage?
Could you talk more about the part of your blog where you say that you believe this confrontation is inevitable?
I explained in my second book that I made a visit to the Pentagon in November 2001 and was shown a memo by a senior officer that he said was a memo outlining a 5 year campaign - first, Iraq, then Syria and Lebanon, then Libya, then Somalia and Sudan - ending up with action to change the regime or otherwise impact Iran. The memo was classified, and I didnt read it. It was simply a concept for moving forward written by someone authoritative from the Office of the Secretary of Defense. That was their thinking at the time. And although the effort in Iraq hasn't succeeded the way they wanted, I believe their intent endures.
The US would be approaching Iran from a position of weakness. What's to prevent the Iranians from running the table in any negotiations? And more importantly, what could/should the US do to maximize the strength of our diplomatic position?
In entering discussions with Iran, we shouldn't be bargaining...we should be trying to establish a new way of looking at the region.. we should be discussing problems, trying to create agreement on principles, and looking for next steps to widen the dialog.
Bargaining never works well in diplomacy...it's about relationships...
As for weakness now, well, yes and no. It is certainly true that our Army and Marines can't fix Iraq, please understand that our major leverage has always been organizational and economic. We strongly influence all the organizations which affect Iran - everything from WTO and G-8 down to and including OPEC...so we actually have plenty of leverage....we jsut need to commence an "unconditional" dialog
Do you consider Iran to be an enemy of the United States?
I wouldn't want to be branding people as enemies too soon. That was one of Bush's many mistakes. Iran is a nation we have many disagreements with...and that's why we should be discussing, not sabre rattling.
Little more is needed than a few men with shoulder fired or easily transportable anti ship weapons to bring the whole gulf oil transportation system to halt. Also, our borders are still wide open. I shudder what a team of 24 or more special forces from a country like Iran could do if unleashed here.. We are a VERY VERY vunerable nation.
Everyone is vulnerable, and not just us...That's why we need to talk. But perhaps I am not as quick as some to say that nothing can be done. Sometimes the use of force is necessary, and sometimes it can work. It's just that i see no reason to resort to that or the threats yet....We have to try to see this from their side, too. They wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of what we could do, either. So that's why I believe there is plenty of "leverage" for us to commence discusssions.
The American people do not understand the complete catastrophic ramifications of attacking Iran....and will be led blindly by the administration and media. But on the other hand, many others don't seem to believe Iran is a true threat.
I do believe that the Administration is laying a lot of groundwork to convince people that Iran is a threat...And once the Administration starts talking about how close the Iranians are to completing their nuclear capacity, it will be difficult even for Democrats in Congress to stand up to them. That's why right now is the time that Congress must speak about the strategy!
What if congressional leaders used their power to prevent the President from attacking Iran without a formal declaration of war (which would require Congressional approval)?
Iran does not present an imminent danger to our homeland, although it does present a very real danger to our forces in Iraq. Naturally, if Iran launched any major attack against our forces there, the President would be right to defend against such an attack - although not necessarily through a counter-attack into Iranian territory without Congressional approval.
But, there should be a full scale Congressionl debate before any "pre-emptive" escalation of this conflict into another country.
If Congressional leaders care at all about the separation of powers, shouldn't they proceed in a bipartisan group to the White House and draw the line in the sand? Either Bush agrees to propose a declaration of war, or they open up impeachment proceedings the moment he launches an air strike on Iran.
Congressional leaders should absolutely be pressing the White House to defend its strategy of not speaking with and isolating Iran. The strategy has been totally counterproductive. I would like to see a series of Resolutions expressing the displeasure of the Congress with the strategy...followed by hearings, and a lot of behind the scenes pressure on the Administration.
Vali Nasr has written a very interesting book, Shia Revival, and explains that the Shia of Iran are not necessarily enemies of the United States. It would seem he U.S. forces in Iraq are merely fighting a battle for the Saudis. Why not take up the Saudis on their "threat" to intervene should we withdraw?
Read his book and i recommend it...but before we take up anybody on their threat, i would like us to engage in an unconditional dialog in the region....we don't have much time left to do this...before other decisions will be forced on us...
I am reading American Fascists : The Christian Right and the War on America by Chris Hedges. Is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy a major motivating factor for the Bush administrations war aims in the Middle East?
I havent read the book. But there is a general clamor out there in some quarters that would support climactic action in the region...I don't believe the policy-makers are influenced by that - but it may impact some of the Congressional support.
Aside from the Office of the Vice President, I don't get the sense that there is overwhelming enthusiasm for a military confrontation with Iran inside the Bush administration.
You're right - the military doesn't want another conflict to handle. On the other hand, they have to do as they're told, and there is no doubt in my mind that the Iranians have sought and gained influence inside Iraq and that they have used that influence to our disadvantage. My sense that the conflict is coming stems from my reading of the President and Vice-President. Go back and look at their language. They have stated flatly that Iran cannot have nuclear capabilities. So, if diplomacy and UN sanctions don't work, the President will have to choose between leaving office with the Iranians getting a nuclear capability or not...I would hope the Iranians understand how serious the President is about stopping them...I think he's very serious...and unfortunately, he's going about it all wrong
General, what’s the best point of leverage in your opinion, Sir
Find a way to use the powers of the purse, confirmation, and investigation - and apply it directly to the President and Vice-President.
Sniper sights and IED triggers
General, you seem to accept the latest administration spin that Iran is actively killing US soldiers. They're playing the same PR game they played in 2002; I don't believe a thing any Bush lackey says, especially when it comes through MSM, as the allegations about Iranian involvement have. Why do you believe them, sir?
I don't doubt that they're providing assistance to the militias and maybe even, indirectly, to Shia insurgents. It's simply the way things are done. And the sniper rifles and IED devices would be the exact items that would likely be supplied - they are small, hard to trace, and directly assist the Iraqi factions to inflict casualties. Plus I hear things from people whose opinions I trust
Obviously, what you've written here tonight is very encouraging, and your opposition to a war in Iran should be saluted. However, I wish you would talk about morality and legality as opposed to just strategy - an attack on Iran would be an act of aggression, defined at Nuremberg as the "supreme international crime".
I didn't discuss the legality and morality beceause these factors are worthy of whole articles themselves. But, briefly, the legality of a strike could be arranged...either from the UN or from the US Congress, or both...whether it would be moral would have to be discussed at the time in light of the threats and counter-threats....SO I've been suggesting that the direction we are headed isn't WISE...it's foolish. To me, this is the place to start.