From
The Moderate Independent
DECEMBER 19, 2003 - Yes, we know we're supposed to be pretending the trial of Slobodan Milosevic is not occurring this week, thanks to the unprecedented, Bush-imposed media blackout on the hearings. But we are The Moderate Independent, so we don't care.
While many people at home and abroad, and most of the Democratic Presidential hopefuls claim they might have handled Saddam in a better way than President Bush is, this week brought the reality that President Bush got his man. And with it came the question, what was so bad about President Bush's plan then?
One by one the Democratic hopefuls lined up to praise Saddam's capture, all but Howard Dean saying it indeed made the world safer.
So what is the problem then? As the press pushes forward covering one aspect after another, it seems that, in the end, things didn't really go so badly. And the question arises, was there actually a better possible way to do this? Would things have been so different with another President who sought out a world coalition?
As this question comes to the forefront of the national story this week, the answer is playing out on the other side of the Atlantic.
Half a decade ago, there was another dictator as brutal as Saddam Hussein, a flat-out genocidal maniac named Slobodan Milosevic. Within the former Yugoslavia, Milosevic slaughtered, at times systematically, over 200,000 people, and he drove over a million people from their homes.
As President Bush was faced with a world that wasn't quite ready to take action against Saddam Hussein, General Wesley Clark, serving as the head of NATO under then-President Clinton, was faced with the same. In the case of Milosevic, there was not the threat of WMDs, but there was a verifiably greater and more immediately pressing problem: Milosevic's genocide was picking up steam.
Europe did not want to get involved militarily. President Clinton didn't. The US top military brass, outside of Clark, didn't. But Clark felt something had to be done.
While President Bush never did manage to rally NATO or the world around his cause, Clark did. There were only 500 civilian casualties. How many have occurred in Iraq is not being made public, but it is estimated easily in the thousands.
General Clark's testimony this week was the culmination of one of the greatest moments in the history of mankind, and is a true testament to his valor. Rarely in history has one powerful civilization come to the aid of another when it had no financial or major security issues at stake. There was no oil to worry about, no real threat to the economy at all. Milosevic did not have nor claim to have WMDs. Yes, there were some parallels to the start of World War I, which emanated out of turbulent events in Yugoslavia. But in this case, it was simply a powerful nation doing the right thing for the sake of humanity and asking nothing in return. America - led, by all accounts by General Clark - rallied the world and, putting its own troops in harm's way, fought simply to stop a genocide.
When the war was over, the US withdrew itself, did not attempt to occupy, did not ask a ransom. Unlike every major empire to ever exist, this was simply a favor - and not even a favor to an ally, but simply a favor to decency.
This point is not lost on the General.
"The military industrial complex is bigger and more powerful than it was in Eisenhower's time," Clark said recently at a campaign event. He directly related this fact to the choice of military action taken by the current administration, saying, "In (a place) like Liberia, there is no profit to be made," and so the military industrial complex decides against intervention for purely humanitarian reasons.
Clark, on the other hand, made clear that the worthiness and need of the mission were the only things he bases his judgment upon. And in Kosovo, though the military industrial complex had nothing to gain, and so protested - and still complains about - the mission, he only cared about what was the right thing to do.
Clearly, the Kosovo air campaign marks the highest point thus far in the American story. While World War II was a great victory for the US and mankind, to have undertaken such a mission as America did in Kosovo without having been attacked, without even being threatened, and truly, clearly, and without question for none other than humanitarian reasons - and to do so with such efficiency and success, without losing a single person in combat, is an unparalleled achievement of greatness of benevolence in the history of mankind.
In a world where so many nations, once powerful, become conquerors or indifferent to the plight of others, in this one instance, America shined like the lamp at the tip of the Statue of Liberty, fulfilling all the lofty goals this greatest of nations had claimed to stand for.
And this was seen again this week, in the way the conclusion is being handled. There was no brutal, bloody rush to justice. Here it is years after the fall of Milosevic and still the process is being carried out. The entire world is being allowed to try, through due process of law, this butcher, and to deal with him as they may. This, indeed, marks this moment as high point for all mankind, not just America.
Yes, the entire non-Moderate Independent American press, acting in its usual right-wing puppet manner, has chosen to ignore this great episode that is unfolding. Even as a perfect parallel unfolds in Iraq, the media politely follows its orders from the Bush administration and not just fails to report on the greatness of what is playing out in the Hague, but instead issues smear after insinuating smear about General Clark and the Kosovo mission.
But this week, as well, those personal, seemingly politically motivated smears were put to rest once and for all by former President Clinton. As reported by the New York Times ("Milosevic Trial Helps Clark Try To Gain Notice"), Clinton issued the following statement regarding General Clark and his role in the Kosovo campaign this past Tuesday:
"General Wesley Clark carried out the policy of the NATO alliance, which was to stop massive ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, with great skill, integrity and iron determination."
So while the rest of the media may adhere kindly to blacking out any positive news about General Clark, though missing no opportunity to continue their smear campaign of him - and while the media gloats in the "wonderful" moment of Saddam's capture, the testimony this week given by General Wesley Clark should be celebrated and heralded as the crowning moment on one of the greatest episodes in world history.
His "skill, integrity, and iron determination" set a shining example. The world and the nation can compare these to how Iraq has been handled and see that there clearly is a better, more civilized, decent way to do things.
General Clark is, in fact, not a man of war. Asked recently about how we should deal with Iran, he said, "Something I learned in my years is that you can always find a fight if you are looking for it. The challenge is to win the peace."
Rather than threatening Iran with bombs, he said we should attack them with hip hop music. "I bet you they would love Outkast in Tehran." He then joked, "And no, they aren't broken up, they are just making separate CD's now."
But his point was clear. "We should fight the way we won the Cold War. We won it with our music. We won it with Citibank, which went in a gave the countries loans, and led these countries to follow Western financial principles." Yes, as it is with the General himself, he thinks America's greatest strength is its charm and appeal.
Woo the world, says the General, that's how we defeated the Soviet Union, with blue jeans and Madonna. That's how you find peace, not just fight after fight after fight. "You can't just go through the Middle East like toppling dominoes. It won't work."
And yet, when it is necessary, as it was in Kosovo, and as he inferred it might have been in Liberia, the General is ready to do what's necessary. Charming the world to come along, without profit motive, General Clark believes in a world united for decency and peace. And he helped lead it on behalf of just that, defeating a horrible dictator and bringing him to justice, while strengthening America's alliances and standing in the world, with minimum casualties of both American troops and civilians.
So now that he is running for President, the American people can look and see that what they have before them: a chance have this golden moment of world unity and benevolence written as but a brief footnote in American history, followed by a starkly different era, or as a moment that lit the path the nation chose to follow in creating its next chapter.