Clark talks to the News-Letter

Retired General Wesley Clark spoke with News-Letter Editor-In-Chief, Maany Peyvan, about his military career and the upcoming presidential election.

News-Letter: Can you give me some background on what your speech, "Strategic Leadership in the Information Age, is going to cover tomorrow?

Wesley Clark: What I want to talk about is what's happened to America's national strategy and how we've reached a real decision point on 9/11 and the two roads in front of us, and then tie that into the defense budget and other important elements of public spending.

N-L: In terms of Iraq, what lessons do you think we've learned about this war?

WC: It's always difficult when you're in the middle of it to talk too much about lessons because this war will be discussed and argued about for a long time, but I think you have to start first with the lessons in terms of the intelligence apparatus, secondly with respect to decision making, third with respect to international diplomacy and planning, and finally there are a lot of military lessons that come out of it...I think the most important lesson here, the lesson a lot of the defense intellectuals took from the Cold War, was that the CIA habitually understates the significance of a threat and that American actions had to rely on, to some degree, worst casing, or what we call "red teaming." ...The lesson is that when you act on your worst fears, preemptively, the consequences can be enormously damaging.

N-L: At the start of the war did you feel that Iraq was the United States' biggest threat to peace?

WC: No.

N-L: If not, what did you think was?

WC: Osama bin Laden. I was one of those who advocated staying the course in Afghanistan. I don't know if you guys are distributing my book tomorrow night or not, but in my book, Winning Modern Wars, I talk about the strategic failures of the administration in Afghanistan in 2001 and early 2002.

N-L: Do you think that this election then is sort of a referendum on the future of war? On how we wage war, on whether wars are fought through alliances, through NATO, through the UN or whether America acts unilaterally whenever, wherever it pleases?

WC: It's certainly one of the issues, but as in a lot of political dialogue that gets carried through in elections, the issues are muted and clouding by the time they reach the public. You have the real issue that is being presented, which is that the president is trying to make it appear that he was courageous and strong by invading Iraq because Saddam Hussein helped bring about 9/11, when in fact there is no evidence showing any linkage between Saddam and 9/11.

N-L: How do you think Senator Kerry, if he were elected president, would carry American policy to the UN?

WC: Well, in the first place, I don't necessarily think he would have gone. ...What was motivating the Bush administration early on, right after 9/11 ... was the effort to use 9/11 as a pretext for invading Iraq. ...I know that the intent was never to fight the war on terror.

N-L: Let me take you away from the war in Iraq a little bit. You've had certain familiarity with ethnic conflict and specifically with Kosovo. What's your perception of how the US is handling the current ethnic conflict in Darfur and the humanitarian effort?

WC: We've done a poor job of providing the leadership that is necessary. There is no country other than the United States that can lead an effort of the magnitude that is required. After all, we were instrumental in encouraging Sudan to reach a peace accommodation with Uganda, and the same time the Sudanese military was supporting the Janjaweed. It was the United States that had to act and we've been woefully slow in doing so.

N-L: You've had first hand experience with this during the Rwanda conflict. Do you see the same mistakes being made?

WC: I think Darfur is different, but what's common to the [two] is that they can't be resolved until they're labeled for what they are.

N-L: Do you have any regrets about joining [the presidential campaign] in general?

WC: Well, certainly I've learned a lot from it, but if I had it to do over again I would.

N-L: Michael Moore spoke at our school last year and I was wondering how you felt about the backlash you faced about his comments when he endorsed you as his candidate for the nomination.

WC: Michael Moore is a man of conscious and courage, but when he spoke at the rally in New Hampshire and labeled Bush as a deserter it provided a huge distraction for the Republican machine and was used to whiplash me.

N-L: How you think college students our age see the military at this point?

WC: The greater the separation the greater the respect and admiration for the military and that's not altogether appropriate. People in the military make mistakes and they're no different than anyone else. So it's not appropriate to turn the military loose.

N-L: More than almost any political figure, you've been shaped by the decisions you made as a college student. Why did you choose West Point?

WC: I saw the United States as under threat and I believed that service in the armed forces as an effective way of aiding and securing America. I believe it's an important part of public service.

N-L: Of that contribution, how strong do you think the college vote will be in this election? Do you see that as the contribution our generation is making at this point?

WC: I think the contribution of your generation remains to be defined. I think, certainly, increasing political participation is warranted at this point. Because fundamental changes in America will be determined in this election. It's arguably the most important in my lifetime. I see a lot of passion in young people, in both parties, and a lot of concern. And some are so indifferent that they don't even ask themselves why they are indifferent. Now it s just a question on whether we can get a high proportion, there are always some people who don't care enough about our freedoms to use them.

N-L: As a man of service, how do you feel about the charges leveled against Senator Kerry and his military record?

WC: First of all I honor his service in Vietnam. I think people who call his awards into questions are attacking veterans and people who won awards, they are attacking [all of us]. And I don't like that...It was brought out deliberately by people who simply don't want him elected. It's purely partisan politics.

N-L: Were you disappointed that you weren't tapped to be his vice-presidential candidate?

WC: No, I'm very pleased with the ticket. I think it's a great ticket and I think he made the right decision.

N-L: And, if newly-elected president John Kerry offers you a cabinet post, what do you say?

WC: Well, I would like to talk policies not positions, and for me, I'm interested in getting John Kerry elected because I think he can do more for the country. It's not about me and I'm seeking nothing in this.