A Response to General Clark

Since retiring from the Army, General Wesley Clark has done much to advance the foreign policy debate in this country. Thankfully, Gen. Clark has taken the time to speak out against escalating tensions between the United States and Iran, going so far as to establish the website www.StopIranWar.com. Recently, however, Gen. Clark has expressed his support for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, a tragic non-binding resolution that does more to undo Gen. Clark's own work toward diplomacy than even the most confrontational words by the Bush administration.

In his piece "I Support Hillary's Position on Iran," Gen. Clark went out on a limb in supporting an amendment that, in his words, "designates the odious Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization in order to strengthen our diplomatic hand." Rather than strengthen diplomacy, this amendment gives the Bush administration carte blanche to continue in its non-diplomatic track toward a war with the Islamic Republic -- the last thing we need when over 160,000 of our troops are still in neighboring Iraq and with no return ticket home.

The amendment suggests that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps be designated a terrorist organization. More alarmingly, it calls for the use of various means, including "military instruments," to "roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran." Needless to say, this amendment sends a signal to the White House and the international community that the United States Congress, not just President Bush, desires a confrontation with Iran.

As many readers already commented on the original post, the Revolutionary Guard is not a terrorist organization, but an elite, multi-faceted armed forces that is responsible for some of the most revered tactical victories of the Iran-Iraq War. Certainly, the Revolutionary Guard's "Qods," or "Jerusalem" force has been associated with terrorist support operations, and the Bush administration, as well as the Senate, had the opportunity to limit their terrorist name-calling game to the Qods alone. Instead, they chose to label "terrorist" an entire, far-reaching organization that manages the most sophisticated naval air force in the Gulf, along with many of Iran's advanced research and development ventures, including the domestically popular nuclear program.

It is the Revolutionary Guard, whose majority of members actually voted for reformist President Mohammad Khatami in the 1997 and 2001 elections, that the Iranian people will look to in the event of war with a foreign power. Like every other aspect of Iranian politics, there are sides of the Guard that are horrific, and others that make the Iranian people proud. They are certainly not all terrorists.

I applaud much of the work that both Gen. Clark and Senator Clinton have done for our country. But they have made mistakes. Their early support for the current war in Iraq is chief among them, and one would hope that as this president pushes for yet another unwarranted conflict, the rest of us would be pushing back. I hope that Gen. Clark reconsiders his support for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, and continues his useful and far-reaching work for a diplomatic solution to the current crisis.

Follow Nathan Gonzalez on Twitter: www.twitter.com/engagingiran

Comments

[arethabaez]

Right on Nathan!

[americanwhocares]

I agree with your post Sir: The Kyl-Lieberman-AIPAC Amendment will just drag America into another war that the rich will not pay for or have any of their family member in. Disgusting.

[therealredstateblues]

A war the rich will not pay for but also to make obscene profits from

[dr4Will]

what the hell do you know? you must be a veteran like most of us---or are you one of those mouthy cowards that thinks his opinion means as much as wes clark--except on the battlefield==

[frost]

.

Clark was espousing Hillary's position.. she has never served in the military..

i served 10 years in the USMC and don't like this foolish killing of our soldiers as an exercise in foreign affairs any better than the author Mr. Gonzalez does..
.

[ljm]

Bill Moyers had a program about what's driving something like the K-L thing. It was all about the radical religious right and their end times fixation. When you see that program, you realize we have much more to be worried about besides us calling the Revolutionary Guard terrorists and them calling the CIA terrorists. BTW, millions of pounds of ground beef was recalled by one of the largest producers in the US, due to potential e-coli. I can't even imagine over 20 million pounds of ground beef. It's just shocking. Now the company is going out of business. We have serious serious problems in our country. Also, the Iraqi foreign minister says Iran is all over in Iraq. He also is telling the US not to even think about a military strike on Iran. He says it will make things in Iraq and the entire M.E. much worse. He's calling for Iran and the US to talk to each other. Wes Clark has always said talking is the only real solution.

[prichard]

Nathan Gonzalez said: "I applaud much of the work that both Gen. Clark and Senator Clinton have done for our country. But they have made mistakes. Their early support for the current war in Iraq is chief among them. . . "

Wes Clark was one of the earliest and most astute in warning what would happen if we invaded Iraq. He has continued to explain how our policy in Iraq is unworkable and immoral. He has and will no doubt continue to warn that attacking Iran would make our bad policy much worse.

[CaseyBabes]

K, so Clark disagrees with tagging the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. I'll pass that on to The Pentagon so they can ignore the Iranian troops infiltrating into Iraq and killing GIs as well as Iraqis. Clark may have been a mighty soldier, but he sure is a lousy politician.

[MrLiberal53]

I believe most of the attacks on our troops have been carried out by Sunni and Shiite insurgents, not by Iranians.
As for Clark, you are sadly mistaken.

[factanonverba]

It is hard for me to envision what a war or even a confrontation against Iran would look like but thank god for Fox News because those fair and unhinged folks already have had numerous reports on how to dismantle the mullahs in 50,000 missiles. Call it the primer.
If the US does decide to plow ahead into a confrontation then using the air force to wage the Pentagon's "Leviathan/NCO" arsenal is likely the course of action. An invasion seems far-fetched but I am hesitant to discount the stupidity of the Bush Administration. These "optional" wars of desire seem likely to one over-extend the US military and the US financial system but I don't think that really worries policy-makers in the Bush Administration. Let's face it, this showdown isn't about Iran going nuclear or even Iranian support for Shiites factions in Iraq much less American lives, it is about grabbing power. If we go to war with Iran, I doubt that elections in 2008 will even occur. John Edwards got it right the other night- we can not give this President a first step in a war in Iran and Stephen Colbert was also wryly right when he noted that to go off a cliff you only need one step. Going to war with Iran isn't stepping off a cliff, it is jumping off head-first after a running start.

[vippy]

I am afraid that Hillary will be our next president too, whether we vote or not. But I do have to say, if it is her then I will vote
for Ron Paul.
I want someone who does something for the middle class who pay most of the taxes and are
overtaxed as is. The rich don't pay taxes, they re-invest or haul their loot off-shore.
Congress/Senate they are all rich and have no clue why we are struggling. Imagine making
$ 100,000 which is a lot to earn, is said to be
sufficient to take care of any medical emergency without a strain, which is ludicrous but this is how politicians think. Now let us vote for someone who cares and who makes benefits available to those who pay the most taxes.

[Lemeritus]

I revisited the amendment to see if I'd missed anything, looking for that "ah-ha" clause. But, no, it seems just as ill-advised and provocative now as it seemed when it was passed. I still cannot see the sense in roiling the ME waters or giving Bush one centimeter more rope to hang us with.

[UtahLiberal435]

I love the way an academic and campaign operative knows more about international strategy than General Wesley Clarke.

And the netroots cheers.

As noted in more cogent posts, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, while odious, is non-binding and symbolic.

The upcoming funding battles, however, are ground-level knife fights that will actually determine whether the administration war hawks are allowed to blunder forward into future hostile involvements with Iran.

As usual, congressional complexities, and the rather depressing reality of flyover state American votership attitudes, totally elude the screaming, simplistic netroots.

Keep your eye on the real enemies here: The GOP and its think tank gerbil enablers. In the meantime, Democratic candidates will need to win the White House, and red state swing voters, before getting us out of Iraq.

No amount of pressure will ever sway the current administration. They could care less about any opinion other than the one in the mirror.

[ljm]

You don't get it. He supports it in conjunction with the Webb-Clinton ammendment that makes Bush have to come to congress before he can strike Iran. He was uneasy with the Kyl-Lieberman legislation as a stand alone non-binding thing. We just have to make sure that Webb-Clinton passes and that Bush doesn't disregard it like he always does. In which case, it doesn't matter who supports what. Bush/Cheney decide to do whatever they want and apparently this is a messianic thing with Bush.

[bethinCary]

Webb-Clinton has not and will not passed-Hil knew this when she put her name to Webbs's bill-while putting her name to another one like Kyle-Leiberman. Why? AIPAC.

[OrvilleHLarson]

Damn straight.

Hillary Clinton is AIPAC-owne­d-and-oper­ated. She voted for the Iraq war, and she just voted for the infamous Kyl-LIEberman amendment.

The Israel lobby's cash pipeline is gushing to Mrs. Clinton.

Dr. Ron Paul for President.

[zeph]

For those who missed Nathan's post in the comments, after TexasKat pointed out the errors in his OP, he said:

Hi TexasKat,

Nathan Gonzalez here.
Thank you for pointing out the mistake. I apologize to you and Gen. Clark for having looked at an older draft. It's inexcusable.

I still stand with my analysis of the hurtful consequences of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, including any language that designates the IRGC as a terrorist organization, whether or not Barack Obama or Chriss Dodd agree with it. They're both running for president, and they're both very wrong on this issue.

I also disagree with the general purpose of the amendment, which is little more than an echo of the Bush administration's position on, and accusations against Iran. Rather than enabling President Bush, the Congress should be pushing for talks.

I should have gotten the facts 100% right before posting, so again, I apologize to Gen. Clark and everyone else. I still hope the General will change his mind and stick with the diplomatic approach.

[Overd0g]

The fact that 160,000 troops are in Iraq actually makes war with Iran far more convenient than if they were back in civilization.

[outnow]

Well said, Mr. Gonzalez.

[ElkoJohn]

most readers know that the US, via the CIA, is sponsoring covert operations against Iran, and that Iran is sponsoring covert ops in Iraq to empower the Shias against the Sunnis. If the war in Iraq is ever resolved, then perhaps the covert operations will stop.

[bethinCary]

I have yet to hear any politician who endorsed Kyl Leiberman give ANY answer whatsoever to WHY they designated the Iranian guard as terrorists.

[ConnieInCleveland]

This is the new America, we don't need an explanation. All they have to do is say it. As though they have any credibility left. Nothing to see here, move along.
Warmongers, the lot of them.
Everyone who cares should be going to http://z8.invisionfree.com/Al_Gore_Support/index.php?showforum=3
Let Al Gore know, he needs to announce TODAY! We need someone to put America back on course. Let's here from someone who did not and does not support more war!

[mommadona]

And they are 'playing dumb' with fire.

I am sick of the double talk, and VERY dissappointed in Wes Clark.

This damn alpha-dog peeing contest has GOT to end.
Money, money, money controls it all.

Stop this crap now.
Get rid of the Democratic 'Leadership" Council and its enablers immediately. They are a danger to the security of our nation (I'LL BE DAMNED IF I EVER USE THE FASCIST PHRASE 'HOMELAND' FOR MY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)