George Stephanopoulos covered many issues with Wes Clark this morning on This Week. It started with the Dubai Ports Sale, then went to Iraq, Iran, and finally onto whether Wes plans to run in 2008. But, to me, it all came down to one common theme: leadership--the Bush administration doesn't fulfill that role and that's what we need to solve the problems we're facing today.
Update [2006-3-5 14:13:19 by mariawells]: See Eric Massa's post on General Clark's appearance at CCN: http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/4872
What Wes said about ports: basically the issue is not simple. There's no easy answer, such as passing a law that all US ports should be owned and operated by US companies. Here are some excerpts from the interview:
"I think it [port security] ought to be reviewed. There's no reason why American companies can't own and operate ports. Our security doesn't depend on who owns and operates the ports... we've got to strengthen port security overall.. it's weak... port security starts abroad... it's too late once the they reach our ports...rather than labeling countries, what we need to do is take a very pragmatic look at our homeland security problems are; even if we owned every port in the US that wouldn't be adequate; security has to start over there. We have to work with Dubai, Rotterdam, Korea, Japan, China; there's no walling off America; we're in a global economy whether we like it or not.... Senator Clinton's done a good thing in terms of raising the visibility on this issue. ... We really need to take this apart. Homeland Security has not received the emphasis it needs.. in particular, port security has not. .... It hasn't been pulled together.... Issue of ownership, control, regulation, how we relate to ports overseas .. all of that has to be on the table. It's a very complicated place out there economically. Even labeling who is an American to own it... it gets pretty complicated. How the ports are regulated and how we're dealing with the ports abroad."
I'm sure lots of people won't like his answer. Stephanopoulos tried very hard to get Wes to say he disagreed with Senator Clinton's bill. But it's just not that simple. We need real leadership, not simple one-sentence answers to extremely complex problems. That's what Wes was talking about. We need leaders that recognize and address the complexity and don't just provide us with sound bites. Hey, I'm not, and I don't think Wes was, criticizing Senator Clinton for not doing that. She's bringing attention to an important issue. But the American public has got to stop asking for easy fixes. This is a complex issue. It requires real study, asking of, investigating, and answering hard questions. That's real leadership. And we're desperately in need of it. We haven't seen real leadership in this country in over 5 years. The ports issue is a prime example of that. Democrats need to avoid falling into the trap that Bush is laying. We can't just suggest an easy "no foreigners" solution; even if that's the right thing to do, it's NOT ENOUGH. No simple one-bill answer will ever be enough.
Next, Stephanopoulos went onto Iraq. Again, he tried very hard to get Wes to proclaim there was a simple yes or no answer to pulling out the troops. Again, Wes focused on leadership in complex times. It's not about yes or no answers. It's about having a strategy where the USA takes a leadership position on the politics inside Iraq. We shouldn't have gone in there. But the only way out is to LEAD our way out. Here are some excerpts from that part of the interview:
"We have to get Sunni leadership into the government...We have to take leadership on the ground politically....It's not just about US troop presence.... We're at the edge of the abyss.... We have to use all of our leverage to get the Sunni leaders into this government....What's happening in Iraq is not about the military. It's about who controls the country and what the future policies of Iraq will be. Those are political questions.... We've never established the regional dialog we need to... we just haven't given the military the help it needs to resolve this problem... I just have to shy away from the excessive focus on the military. This is just not a problem the military can solve...military forces can be used to create political leverage. It won't be enough... we've got to use the leverage.. to get the responsible Sunnis into that government now and the constitution changed before it's too late."
Again, General Clark is saying that there are no easy answers. It's about real leadership. It's not about bombs. It's not about "staying the course" and it's not just about "bringing them home." It's about real leaders, REALLY doing "hard work." We need leadership -- political leadership -- in Iraq. We're focusing on the wrong things there now. It's not about the military. The United States cannot lead by force. The United States must lead by taking the responsibility for finding political solutions. That's the number one thing we need to do to get out of Iraq. The need for the military will follow from that. The politics drives the use of the military, not the other way around.
Next, Stephanopoulos talked asked about Iran. I thought this was probably the least "leading" question he asked. When he talked about ports, Iraq, and 2008, Stephanopoulos was really pushing for yes or no answers. But I think on Iran, he let General Clark just talk, which was nice for a change. General Clark has been saying all along that we need to talk to Iran, and he continued to say that today. As with the rest of the interview, Wes focused on leadership; the US needs to take the lead on negotiating with Iran because the rest of the world is sending mixed messages. Here are some excerpts from that part of the interview:
"Maybe we will need tough sanctions later on. .. Years ago, we should have talked to Iran and it's not too late right now....Why don't we just talk to the Iranian leadership? The more we press against them, the more difficult it will be for them to back off....Very mixed message. It's the US that hasn't taken its leadership responsibilities seriously enough."
It's about leading the rest of the world on Iran. It's about not forcing Iran into a situation where they can't back down. It's about sending strong messages about carrots and sticks. This is leadership. Bombs aren't leadership. I've seen General Clark speak often. He almost always talks about leadership. He almost always quotes Eisenhower, "Leadership is about getting the other guy to WANT to do what you want him to do." That's what we need to do in Iran. And we, the USA, need to take the lead by talking directly to them.
Next, Stephanopoulos asked about 2008. Some might say that General Clark side stepped the question. I'm glad he did. I wish others would follow his lead. The Dems need to make progress in 2006 and not focus on 2008. Here are some of Wes's words from that part of the interview:
"[There's a] lot of speculation on 2008... If we look at what qualities are needed in a President today, Americans are engaged and responding to foreign affairs like never before...we cannot wall off the outside world... Having said that, my focus is on 2006 and helping the right Democrats get in office... we need a two party system that works... we need Congress to do its job... we need real investigation of some of the abuses of authority...I think Americans are best served by a strong 2-party system."
In other words, we need a Congress, starting in 2007, that takes the lead in getting our country back on the right track. We know that this administration is weak on leadership. We've seen it over and over, probably most clearly shown during Hurricane Katrina. That means Congress has to demonstrate that leadership. And we need to get that Congress in place now. That's why Wes is focusing on 2006.
I'm sure everybody knows by now that I'm a big Wes Clark fan. I'm a big Wes Clark fan because he's a leader. I think he showed that in his interview today. It's not about Wes Clark. It's about the right kind of serious leadership taking the United States of America into the global realities of the 21st Century.
