Wesley Clark on War and Democracy

From the Washington Monthly, Gen. Wesley Clark's address "War Didn't and Doesn't Bring Democracy:"

Certainly, the sight of Iraqis voting on January 30 was welcome, and a tremendous credit to the U.S. military efforts to provide security (though it was the Iraqis themselves who were most determined to hold the elections then, rather than delay the vote). The image of those purple Iraqi fingers was a powerful reminder that democracy knows no ethnic, religious, or geographic boundaries, and that freedom-loving hearts beat just as soundly under Arab robes as they do under grey suits.

At the same time, the demonstration effect of those elections has to be weighed against the immense damage our invasion has done in the region. Intensification of anti-Americanism and the ability of regional leaders to point to the chaos in Iraq as a reason to maintain the stability of current regimes are just some of the negative consequences of our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

...

Today, American democratic values are admired in the Middle East, but our policies have generated popular resentment. Although it may come as a surprise to those of us here, there is a passionate resistance to the U.S. “imposing” its style of democracy to suit American purposes. Democratic reformers in the Middle East don't want to have their own hopes and dreams subordinated to the political agenda of the United States. It's for this reason that the administration shouldn't try to take too much credit for the coming changes. Or be too boastful about our own institutions. Or too loud in proclaiming that we're thrilled about Middle Eastern democracy—mostly because it makes us feel safer. A little humility is likely to prove far more useful than chest-thumping.

...

Democracy can't be imposed—it has to be homegrown. In the Middle East, democracy has begun to capture the imagination of the people. For Washington to take credit is not only to disparage courageous leaders throughout the region, but also to undercut their influence at the time it most needs to be augmented. Let's give credit where credit is due—and leave the political spin at the water's edge.

Of course, Clark is making a gesture toward political criticism, in a very political way. There are those of us who couldn't have been more excited for a Dean/Clark ticket of some kind, but it's important to recognize Clark's gentle style- he is not brash and incisive, he refuses to build argument based on conjecture. He is making this argument based on the irrefutable fact of experience: not simply his experience, which he effectively uses to illustrate, but the nation's experience at war, and the experience of the Administration trying to sell America on the disconnect inherent between "War/Invasion" and "Peace/Democracy" that they want you to buy.

I believe Clark is setting himself up, and rightfully so, for a strong position in the coming years. I want him to become more critical; I want him to shout and yell and scream at the American Experience, the foolhardiness of our greed and arrogance. I want him to walk down hallways and point out the banners on the walls and how they've been misleading us, intentionally, maliciously, for the past five years.

Because this debate is more than just the Invasion of Iraq; it's the Invasion of our culture that Clark must strike out against. In the way that Dean inspired hundreds of thousands to engage with him in a very personal way, in rejection of these cultural memes and virii of the Administration ["activist judges;" "no child left behind (but always underfunded);" "clear skies initiative;" "nuclear option;" etc etc etc] ; that's what we need from a leader.

I respect Clark's statements and look forward to more. If not Clark, hopefully somebody will take the bullhorn by surprise, and Clark can be the level-headed voice of centrist reason that he operates best as.