Gen. Wesley Clark: Iraq war based on 'misjudgment'

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: konichiwa
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: BOBDN
From retired Gen. Wesley Clark, the former NATO supreme commander.

Bush-bitches, do you know more about the military than Retired General Clark? How do your views compare with his?

Gen. Wesley Clark: Iraq war based on 'misjudgment'

"First of all, the idea that this was going to solve the war on terror. The president said this is the centerpiece of the war on terror. Seems to me that the only terrorists we're finding there are the ones who have come back in to attack us since we arrived.

There was a misjudgment about what would happen afterward. The idea that we would go in, be welcomed as liberators. They'd quickly move to the ballot boxes, we'd bring our troops home, out before the heat wave hit.

That didn't happen either. There have been a whole series of issues associated with this campaign, starting from why we went into Iraq, to how we dealt with our allies, to how we prepared for the aftermath, that are very, very troublesome."
Nothing you posted nor anything in the article you linked to has anything to do with Gen. Clarks military experience. They are all political issues, not military ones and of course the General now has the benefit of hindsight to declare there have been "misjudgements".
I think it's fair to hold our Commander-in-Chief to a slightly higher standard than anyone else in terms of forsight, especially when it comes to a near-trillion-dollar war in which hundreds, nearly thousands of our troops and innumerable Iraqi troops and civilians were killed.

He has the most sophisticated and accurate intelligence in the world, not to mention the most qualified advisors behind him. To simply chalk the blunders that Clark mentions up to "hindsight is 20/20" is idiotic.
There's nothing idiotic about it (as long as we disregard your reply).
Ah, good one UQ! Always on top of your game. Your inability to argue never gets in the way of your insults...no one is fooled; try to address the content, huh? Thanks, kiddo

I didn't hear Clark saying before the war what all these problems were going to be and my comment about him having hindsight is dead on. I am in no way "chalking" anything up to his having hindsight except for it now makes it very easy to point out what the "misjudgements" were. What is idiotic is lending credence to someone who is now sitting 8th row-center and doing nothing put pointing at things that have already happened and saying, "That was a misjudgement, so was that, and that, and that one too." Thank you Captain Obvious you've been a big help.
So you're saying that no criticisms that come after the war are valid, and anyone who says anything negative is merely pointing fingers? I guess congressional committees and the like have no place in our country either then, eh? You're just being obtuse...

Not to mention G. Clark has been skewered from both sides now:

"he sat at the 'map board' on CNN night after night bashing every military leader"

"I didn't hear Clark saying before the war what all these problems were going to be"

You can't have your cake and eat it too!
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
There's nothing idiotic about it (as long as we disregard your reply). I didn't hear Clark saying before the war what all these problems were going to be and my comment about him having hindsight is dead on. I am in no way "chalking" anything up to his having hindsight except for it now makes it very easy to point out what the "misjudgements" were. What is idiotic is lending credence to someone who is now sitting 8th row-center and doing nothing put pointing at things that have already happened and saying, "That was a misjudgement, so was that, and that, and that one too." Thank you Captain Obvious you've been a big help.

So Clark was supposed to use his "mind-powers" to see the future? Oh brother, your logic is incredible.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Ah, good one UQ! Always on top of your game. Your inability to argue never gets in the way of your insults...no one is fooled; try to address the content, huh? Thanks, kiddo
Check and see who used the word "idiotic" first. Try not to be a hypocrite.

So you're saying that no criticisms that come after the war are valid, and anyone who says anything negative is merely pointing fingers? I guess congressional committees and the like have no place in our country either then, eh? You're just being obtuse...
Don't try to put words in my mouth you can barely form any of your own. This thread opened under some far reaching premise that because Clark was a former General that his comments somehow have greater credence because of that. The comments Clark made in the article have nothing to do with his .mil experience, they are political in nature and not part of any investigation. So yes, in the context that Gen. Clarks comments were given, it is nothing more than finger pointing and most probably political in nature given Clarks rumored Presidential ambitions.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Interesting... but you seem to be ignoring one faily important piece of information about Gen. Wesley Clark - he retired in May 2000. He has no idea what Bush and the current military leaders know.
They apparently did not know much about the WMD and the intent of the Iraqi to launch them against the US interests as alleged in the Resolution to invade Iraq provided to the Congress in Oct. '02 and used as the means to circumvent the UN Security Counsel. It seems the argument about who knew what also makes the argument that the US knew one thing and said another.
It seems to me.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Ultra QuietDon't try to put words in my mouth you can barely form any of your own. This thread opened under some far reaching premise that because Clark was a former General that his comments somehow have greater credence because of that. The comments Clark made in the article have nothing to do with his .mil experience, they are political in nature and not part of any investigation. So yes, in the context that Gen. Clarks comments were given, it is nothing more than finger pointing and most probably political in nature given Clarks rumored Presidential ambitions.
That seems to be a common tactic around here - attack the credibility, cite some sort of agenda. However, I think a lot of people would lend more credence to a former general and former NATO supreme commander over some pud on the Internet. Fact is, you aim to discredit him because you don't like what he's saying.

 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Ultra QuietDon't try to put words in my mouth you can barely form any of your own. This thread opened under some far reaching premise that because Clark was a former General that his comments somehow have greater credence because of that. The comments Clark made in the article have nothing to do with his .mil experience, they are political in nature and not part of any investigation. So yes, in the context that Gen. Clarks comments were given, it is nothing more than finger pointing and most probably political in nature given Clarks rumored Presidential ambitions.
That seems to be a common tactic around here - attack the credibility, cite some sort of agenda. However, I think a lot of people would lend more credence to a former general and former NATO supreme commander over some pud on the Internet.
Why shouldn't questioning the credibility or looking for an agenda be a valid tactic. It certainly is in a court of law. And you're right I give him a lot more credence than I do you.

Fact is, you aim to discredit him because you don't like what he's saying.
I have no problems with what he is saying. I was simply putting into perspective where his comments were coming from. He's not calling for Congressional investigations, he isn't an investigative journalist, he's is someone who has political ambitions looking to discredit the admin. to further his own ends. The fact that he was a Gen. has no bearing on what he said in that article. It was all political in nature, not military.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
When someone cites a source as supportive of an argument it becomes fair game to attack the source. Debates invoke sources when the source is unimpeachable by both sides, generally. Logic and reason are the tools of debate, however, this then allows the person propounding them to be subject to scrutiny. So if that is not acceptable either... what is left. ..... silence, and or acceptance of what some - in this case political office seeker - person says is truth. If you disagree, what is the basis... you supply a source and it is shot down... you argue its merits and you are shot down... You shoot back at the other side and its source and logic.. Then we turn off the computer and go to sleep and hopefully vote in November..
 

da loser

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,037
0
0
gen. clark is not a johnny come lately. and victory is in iraq is in no way clear. also, that's not to say clark was against war.

house statement sept 26, 2002
this is the end of the statement

"If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear.

Force should not be used until the personnel and organizations to be involved in post-conflict Iraq are identified and readied to assume their responsibilities. This includes requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance, and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps including a new constitution. Ideally, international and multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post-conflict operations, including the UN, NATO, and other regional and Islamic organizations.

Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as ?preemptive.?

Once initiated, any military operation should aim for the most rapid accomplishment of its operational aims and prompt turnover to follow-on organizations and agencies.

If we proceed as outlined above, we may be able to minimize the disruption to the ongoing campaign against Al Qaeda, reduce the impact on friendly governments in the region, and even contribute to the resolution of other regional issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iranian efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, and Saudi funding for terrorism. But there are no guarantees. The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere.

I look forward to answering questions and helping the Committee assess the costs and risks of the alternatives before us.
"
i couldn't find the answering part, so if someone can find those i would be pleased.

many people have warned against what might happen in the aftermath, that's nothing new; people do risk analysis all the time. in fact the military is better than any other part of the government. and i think clark does have important things to say. this is a military operation that involved planning and effected by political decisions. war is part of politics. he has ambitions sure, but so does every other management/officer in the world, that's not a reason to discount what he says.

the administration knew what might happen. the people that weren't quite clear about what might happen is the media and general public. i believe because the media concentrated on the wmds issue and the antiwar crowd.

because of the turmoil the administration was reluctant to start planning because then people would get to say, ah ha, see you're already going to war. for ex:the hallibuton/bechtel contracts. plus, i think it's clear their hate for the UN.

 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
There is nothing sinister in discussing a source's bias because it puts the comments of that source in proper perspective. A comment in isolation of that information cannot be properly evaluated because few OPINIONS are rendered without reference to one's background or political stance. Further, discussing a source's history also puts that source's opinion into context -- if a particular source has a history of trumped up allegations or outright lies (Gen Clark does not, this is just an example), then obviously that has validity when examining the source's most recent information. Sometimes the background information will have no bearing on the comment in question, but you must always know that information to make an informed judgement of the comment.

Some apparently see this activity as a "tactic" when in reality it amounts to critical evaluation. You can never take information on face value because you can easily miss the underlying agenda or aim by doing so. If you fail to do this, you are naive, not enlightened.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY