He just 'came out' for Billary:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/09/clarks_with_clinton.html
Never forget that he's first & foremost, a war criminal, who at the
time of his NATO command in the Kosovo theater, was also in command of
the KLA mercs (al Qaeda), for whom good ol' boy osama was recruiting.
Leigh
On 9/16/07, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Next War
> It's always looming. But has our military learned the right lessons
> from this one to fight it and win?
>
> By Wesley K. Clark
> Sunday, September 16, 2007; B01 / Washington POST op-ed
>
> Testifying before Congress last week, Gen. David H. Petraeus appeared
> commanding, smart and alive to the challenges that his soldiers face
> in Iraq. But he also embodied what the Iraq conflict has come to
> represent: an embattled, able, courageous military at war, struggling
> to maintain its authority and credibility after 4 1/2 years of a
> "cakewalk" gone wrong.
>
> Petraeus will not be the last general to find himself explaining how a
> military intervention has misfired and urging skeptical lawmakers to
> believe that the mission can still be accomplished. For the next war
> is always looming, and so is the urgent question of whether the U.S.
> military can adapt in time to win it.
>
> Today, the most likely next conflict will be with Iran, a radical
> state that America has tried to isolate for almost 30 years and that
> now threatens to further destabilize the Middle East through its
> expansionist aims, backing of terrorist proxies [sic!] such as the
> Lebanese group Hezbollah and Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, and
> far-reaching support for radical Shiite militias in Iraq. {General,
> did you know that Hamas is Sunni?] As Iran seems to draw closer to
> acquiring nuclear weapons, almost every U.S. leader -- and would-be
> president -- has said that it simply won't be permitted to reach that
> goal.
>
> Think another war can't happen? Think again. Unchastened by the Iraq
> fiasco, hawks in Vice President Cheney's office have been pushing the
> use of force. It isn't hard to foresee the range of military options
> that policymakers face.
>
> The next war would begin with an intense air and naval campaign. Let's
> say you're planning the conflict as part of the staff of the Joint
> Chiefs. Your list of targets isn't that long -- only a few dozen
> nuclear sites -- but you can't risk retaliation from Tehran. So you
> allow 21 days for the bombardment, to be safe; you'd aim to strike
> every command-and-control facility, radar site, missile site, storage
> site, airfield, ship and base in Iran. To prevent world oil prices
> from soaring, you'd have to try to protect every oil and gas rig, and
> the big ports and load points. You'd need to use B-2s and lots of
> missiles up front, plus many small amphibious task forces to take out
> particularly tough targets along the coast, with manned and unmanned
> air reconnaissance. And don't forget the Special Forces, to penetrate
> deep inside Iran, call in airstrikes and drag the evidence of Tehran's
> nuclear ambitions out into the open for a world that's understandably
> skeptical of U.S. assertions that yet another Gulf rogue is on the
> brink of getting the bomb.
>
> But if it's clear how a war with Iran would start, it's far less clear
> how it would end. How might Iran strike back? Would it unleash
> Hezbollah cells [???] across Europe and the Middle East, or perhaps
> even inside the United States? Would Tehran goad Iraq's Shiites to
> rise up against their U.S. occupiers? {Isn't the current Iraqi
> government Shiite, General?] And what would we do with Iran after the
> bombs stopped falling? We certainly could not occupy the nation with
> the limited ground forces we have left. So what would it be: Iran as a
> chastened, more tractable government? As a chaotic failed state? Or as
> a hardened and embittered foe?
>
> <snip>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091401973_pf.html
>
> --
> Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
> way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
>
