Serial Wars: The Secrets Clark Kept
*********************************************

Courtesy Of: The Village Voice
By Sydney H. Schanberg
September 29th, 2003

Wesley Clark, the retired four-star general who is one of 10 candidates for the democratic nomination for president, has written a new book that is Just arriving in bookstore shelves.

Called Winning Modern Wars, it's mostly about the Iraq war and terrorism--and it is laced with powerful new information that he held back from the public when he was a CNN military commentator during the Bush administration's preparations for the war.

For example, he says he learned from military sources at the Pentagon in November 2001, Just two months after the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, that serious planning for the war on Iraq had drawn up a list of six other nations to be targeted over a period of five years.

Here's what he writes on page 130:

"As I Went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan." Clark adds, "I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned."

..."After 9/11, during the first months of the war on terror, a critical opportunity to nail Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was missed. Additionally, our allies were neglected and a counter-terrorist strategy was adopted that, despite all the rhetoric, focused the nation on a conventional attack on Iraq rather than a shadowy war against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks: Al Qaeda.

I argue that not only did the Bush administration misunderstand the lessons of modern war, it made a policy blunder of significant proportions...[E]vidence and rhetoric were used selectively to Justify the decision to attack Iraq...[W]e had re-energized Al Qaeda by attacking an Islamic state and presenting terrorists with ready access to vulnerable U.S. forces. It was the inevitable result of a flawed strategy."

And on page 135, still another previously unspoken analysis:

"And so, barely six months into the war on terror, the direction seemed set. The United States would strike, using its military superiority; it would enlarge the problem using the strikes on 9/11 to address the larger Middle East concerns...and it would dissipate the huge outpouring of goodwill and sympathy it had received in September 2001 by going it largely alone, without the support of a formal alliance or full support from the United Nations. And Just as the Bush administration suggested, [the conflict] could last for years."

...These are very potent observations, coming from a military man with more than three decades of experience who is known for his intellectual cabdlepower. He was a leading commentator on television, chosen for his expertise in military strategy and geopolitics.

Why didn't he share these opinions with us then, when an informed public might have raised its voice and demanded more answers from the White House?


Source:
http://villagevoice.com/news/0340,schanberg,47436,1.html