Just got back from UCLA, where the Ronald W. Burkle Center for International Relations hosted Gen. Wesley Clark's talk on "Legality, Legitimacy and Public Support: Reflections on Winning Modern War."
Clark was, as usual, brilliant, outlining the evolution of the theory of "just war," and parsing the difference between the "legality" and the "legitimacy" of the war in Iraq. He spoke for half-an-hour or so, and fielded questions very deftly.
His bottom line: The invasion of Iraq may have been legal, but it's been illegitimate since it was a gleam in W's eye.
For the sake of argument, Clark accepted the legality of the U.S. invasion of Iraq; after all, both Congress and the U.N. gave the U.S. formal authority for action. But he demolished the argument that the occupation was in any way legitimate.
In fact, Clark was so brilliant that it begged a couple of questions about whether it's too late:
Is it too late to restore a sense of legitimacy to American use of force in Iraq?
And, importantly: Is it too late for Clark to enter the race for the Democratic nomination?
Some answers, and questions, after the jump.
Forgive me for not taking notes or photos: msinla will almost certainly blog about this soon, and hopefully she'll provide all kinds of documentation.
Clark's speech was great rhetoric, tracing the development of the idea of "just war" from the Old Testament to St. Augustine to the Geneva Conventions. Likewise, he outlined the legal case for war with an attorney's acumen.
It was a brilliant performance -- and if I can't recite chapter and verse, it's only because I'm much more preoccupied with whether or not Gen. Clark will throw his hat in the ring.
He didn't answer that question today.
Frankly, I'm a little concerned about the prospects of our Democratic contenders if he doesn't run: When our candidates discuss the war, we run the risk of looking a bit like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. When Chris Dodd, or John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton talk national security, they're not playing their long suit.
I really, really want Clark to be on the stage when Democrats debate national security... but I fear that he's already waited to late to declare. Have Hillary and Barack and John and Bill already sucked the oxygen out of the room? Clark has never been a fundraising whiz, and it seems to me that it's all but too late for him to make a well-funded run.
What say the rest of you? Is it too late?
And don't we need Wes Clark to outline alternatives to W's disastrous war and foreign policy?
How can he be an effective leader for the Democratic Party if he doesn't run?