|
DECEMBER 19, 2003 – Yes, we know
we’re supposed to be pretending the trial of Slobodan Milosevic is
not occurring this week, thanks to the unprecedented, Bush-imposed
media blackout on the hearings. But we are The Moderate
Independent, so we don’t care.
While many people at home and abroad,
and most of the Democratic Presidential hopefuls claim they might
have handled Saddam in a better way than President Bush is, this
week brought the reality that President Bush got his man. And with
it came the question, what was so bad about President Bush’s plan
then?
One by one the Democratic hopefuls lined
up to praise Saddam’s capture, all but Howard Dean saying it indeed
made the world safer.
So what is the problem then? As the
press pushes forward covering one aspect after another, it seems
that, in the end, things didn’t really go so badly. And the
question arises, was there actually a better possible way to do
this? Would things have been so different with another President
who sought out a world coalition?
As this question comes to the forefront
of the national story this week, the answer is playing out on the
other side of the Atlantic.
Half a decade ago, there was another
dictator as brutal as Saddam Hussein, a flat-out genocidal maniac
named Slobodan Milosevic. Within the former Yugoslavia, Milosevic
slaughtered, at times systematically, over 200,000 people, and he
drove over a million people from their homes.
As President Bush was faced with a world
that wasn’t quite ready to take action against Saddam Hussein,
General Wesley Clark, serving as the head of NATO under
then-President Clinton, was faced with the same. In the case of
Milosevic, there was not the threat of WMDs, but there was a
verifiably greater and more immediately pressing problem:
Milosevic’s genocide was picking up steam.
Europe did not want to get involved
militarily. President Clinton didn’t. The US top military brass,
outside of Clark, didn’t. But Clark felt something had to be done.
While President Bush never did manage to
rally NATO or the world around his cause, Clark did. There were
only 500 civilian casualties. How many have occurred in Iraq is not
being made public, but it is estimated easily in the thousands.
General Clark’s testimony this week was
the culmination of one of the greatest moments in the history of
mankind, and is a true testament to his valor. Rarely in history
has one powerful civilization come to the aid of another when it had
no financial or major security issues at stake. There was no oil to
worry about, no real threat to the economy at all. Milosevic did
not have nor claim to have WMDs. Yes, there were some parallels to
the start of World War I, which emanated out of turbulent events in
Yugoslavia. But in this case, it was simply a powerful nation doing
the right thing for the sake of humanity and asking nothing in
return. America – led, according to all accounts, by General Clark – rallied
the world and, putting its own troops in harm’s way, fought simply
to stop a genocide.
When the war was over, the US withdrew
itself, did not attempt to occupy, did not ask a ransom. Unlike
every major empire to ever exist, this was simply a favor – and not
even a favor to an ally, but simply a favor to decency.
This point is not lost on the General.
"The military industrial complex is
bigger and more powerful than it was in Eisenhower's time," Clark
said recently at a campaign event. He directly related this
fact to the choice of military action taken by the current
administration, saying, "In (a place) like Liberia, there is no
profit to be made," and so the military industrial complex decides
against intervention.
Clark, on the other hand, made clear
that the worthiness and need of the mission were the only things he
bases his judgment upon. And in Kosovo, though the military
industrial complex had nothing to gain and so protested - and still
complains about - the mission, he only cared about what was the
right thing to do.
Clearly, the Kosovo air campaign marks
the highest point thus far in the American story. While World War
II was a great victory for the US and mankind, to have undertaken
such a mission as America did in Kosovo without having been
attacked, without even being threatened, and truly, clearly, and
without question for none other than humanitarian reasons – and to
do so with such efficiency and success, without losing a single
person in combat, is an unparalleled achievement of greatness of
benevolence in the history of mankind.
In a world where so many nations, once
powerful, become conquerors or indifferent to the plight of others,
in this one instance, America shined like the lamp at the tip of the
Statue of Liberty, fulfilling all the lofty goals this greatest of
nations had claimed to stand for.
And this was seen again this week, in
the way the conclusion is being handled. There was no brutal,
bloody rush to justice. Here it is years after the fall of
Milosevic and still the process is being carried out. The
entire world is being allowed to try, through due process of law,
this butcher, and to deal with him as they may. This, indeed, marks
this moment as high point for all mankind, not just America.
Yes, the entire non-Moderate Independent
American press, acting in its usual right-wing puppet manner, has
chosen to ignore this great episode that is unfolding. Even as a
perfect parallel unfolds in Iraq, the media politely follows its
orders from the Bush administration and not just fails to report on
the greatness of what is playing out in the Hague, but instead
issues smear after insinuating smear about General Clark and the
Kosovo mission.
But this week, as well, those personal,
seemingly politically motivated smears were put to rest once and for
all by former President Clinton. As reported by the New York Times
("Milosevic
Trial Helps Clark Try To Gain Notice"), Clinton issued the
following statement regarding General Clark and his role in the
Kosovo campaign this past Tuesday:
“General Wesley Clark carried out the
policy of the NATO alliance, which was to stop massive ethnic
cleansing in Kosovo, with great skill, integrity and iron
determination.”
So while the rest of the media may
adhere kindly to blacking out any positive news about General Clark,
though missing no opportunity to continue their smear campaign
against
him - and while the media gloats in the “wonderful” moment of
Saddam’s capture, the testimony this week given by General Wesley
Clark should be celebrated and heralded as the crowning moment on
one of the greatest episodes in world history.
His “skill, integrity, and iron
determination” set a shining example. The world and the nation can
compare these to how Iraq has been handled and see that there
clearly is a better, more civilized, decent way to do things.
General Clark is, in fact, not a man of
war. Asked recently about how we should deal with Iran, he
said, "Something I learned in my years is that you can always find a
fight if you are looking for it. The challenge is to win the
peace."
Rather than threatening Iran with bombs,
he said we should attack them with hip hop music. "I bet you
they would love Outkast in Tehran." He then joked, "And no,
they aren't broken up, they are just making separate CD's now."
But his point was clear. "We
should fight the way we won the Cold War. We won it with our
music. We won it with Citibank, which went in a gave the
countries loans, and led these countries to follow Western financial
principles." Yes, as it is with the General himself, he thinks
America's greatest strength is its charm and appeal.
Woo the world, says the General, that's
how we defeated the Soviet Union, with blue jeans and Madonna.
That's how you find peace, not just fight after fight after fight.
"You can't just go through the Middle East like toppling dominoes.
It won't work."
And yet, when it is necessary, as it was
in Kosovo, and as he inferred it might have been in Liberia, the
General is ready to do what's necessary. Charming the world to
come along, without profit motive, General Clark believes in a world
united for decency and peace. And he helped lead it on behalf
of just that, defeating a horrible dictator and bringing him to
justice, while strengthening America's alliances and standing in the
world, with minimum casualties to both American troops and
civilians.
So now that he is running for President,
the American people can look and see what they have before
them: a chance to have this golden moment of world unity and
benevolence written as but a brief footnote in American history,
followed by a starkly different era, or as a moment that lit the
path the nation chose to follow in creating its next chapter. |
