Wesley K. Clark: Still the Essential Alliance

NEWSWEEK

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

Was President Bush's membership push for Georgia and Ukraine productive?
The idea that you bring these countries into NATO and then there's no problem doesn't make sense. … One of the problems we saw [in the Bush years] was the overmilitarization of U.S. foreign policy and too much focus on just the areas where there was an imminent national security threat.

What does NATO do now that the U.S. has stepped up ownership in Afghanistan?
When the U.S. gave this mission to NATO, it didn't deliver a success strategy. It was more like, "Take the mission. We'll leave a few forces there just in case, and good luck!" In terms of development, you can't simply corral villagers when they don't have a livelihood. You can't limit yourself to poppies just because the Taliban makes money from poppies. So do villagers! … NATO is not really able to deal with economic developments.

If the U.S. resets relations with Russia, does it still need a missile shield in Poland?
It's really about Iran. If there's a way to assure Russia of our intent, we should.

They don't seem to want to be assured.
It's something they use; it's an asymmetrical issue. For them it's about Europe, for us it's about Iran.

So it shouldn't be halted.
Well, I'd like to see it work. But barring a breakthrough with Iran, it's an essential ingredient of Western security.

« Prev Page

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: Alfred di Genis @ 05/12/2009 6:57:08 AM

Gen Clark is wise to warn us against the residual threat from the Soviet Union. They could come back anytime. The missile shield in eastern Europe will protect us from the Persian Empire. The last time, after all, they burnt down the Acropolis.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: libertyfirst @ 05/05/2009 3:02:40 PM

Clark's experience has blinded him to the changing practicalities of the world today. NATO has outlived its usefulness...just as the UN did some twenty years ago. You can't blame Russia for seeing NATO as a negative influence since it was created with the mission to oppose the growth of communist Russia. To try and give NATO a new face and new mission but keep its same structure i-- n light of the growth of the EU, of a perilous Middle East, and of a utterly changed Russian landscape -- is of dubious value to anyone. Technology and the ever "shrinking" of our world has made communication much more readily available. Throw in a few diplomat summits and some drinks and dinners and we can "accomplish" what we need.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: Aditya Mookerjee @ 05/05/2009 9:14:21 AM

Why is an alliance like NATO important? Nations can act without the presence of alliances like NATO, if a friendly nation is attacked. Also, how can an intellectual like General Clark, depend on bad relations with Iran, to formulate policies for NATO? It's good, that General Clark has joined politics, so that he can influence diplomacy in The United States, towards Iran. I admire the achievements of General Clark. But to be fair, The United States Armed Forces, in Afghanistan, are not fighting a regular army, like they are not, also in Iraq. This is not the role perhaps, for any national military. Why cannot The United States help purely to develop the Afghanistan armed forces to it's full potential, so that all the people of Afghanistan can be proud of their armed forces? The same should also be followed in Iraq. It does not brook well, when the national army fights insurgency.