After seeing Wes Clark speak twice in NYC yesterday, once on his own at a book signing, and later with Hillary Clinton at a fund raiser for her, it is becoming clearer to me how Clark's concern over stopping a war with Iran factors into his decision to endorse Hillary Clinton for President.
At the book signing Clark was asked, as a last question with time running out, if he thought the U.S. would bomb Iran, and he said "Yes". Clark focused his answer on what appeared to be most likely and why, he wasn't giving his personal views, though Clark repeated that he thought that bombing Iran was a "bad option." Clark pointed out that not only is it the stated policy of the Bush Administration that Iran must not be allowed to acquire weapons grade uranium, but he indicated that he personally talked to all of the current Democratic candidates about their views on this contengency, and they all essentially agreed with that bottom line (though it was not something that they embraced a chance to proclaim).
Clark then backed up and said actually that was the position of all the Democratic candidates with one or two possible exceptions - which he did not clarify further. I took that to indicate that all of the major candidates, minimally including Obama, Edwdards, and Clinton, were prepared to bomb Iran if need be to stop them from getting nukes. Kucinich most likely is one exception, and my guess is Gravel is the other that Clark is not sure about. Perhaps it is another Democrat, not Gravel, who is not clearly in that bomb Iran at the point of "A bomb making" camp, but I am confident Clark would not have started his comment with the word "all" if one of the likely nominees disagreed with that position.
Clark said that though Iran denies it, there are continuing strong indications that Iran is developing the capacity to build nuclear weapons. He envisioned a day some time possbily soon when a top intelligence official might walk into the oval office and tell whoever is president then that Iran started producing weapons grade uranium leaving the United States with a 15 day window to take that process out before dangerous quantities of bomb grade uranium got dispersed to the far corners of Iran where it could no longer be tracked or pin pointed.
Earlier in his comments at the book signing Clark very strongly made the case for United States full court region wide diplomacy in the middle east that engaged both Iran and Syria in comprehensive talks NOW. Clark returned to that position as the wrap up to his reply to the question and time ran out for further questions or discussion.
Here is how that ties back to Clark's endorsement of Hillary Clinton in my mind. When earlier Clark was asked at the book signing what he would do if he were President now regarding Iraq, one part of his answer was to say he would immediately get Richard Hollbrooke, who he called a good friend, a personal gulfstream jet and send him off to the middle east to do non stop shuttle diplomacy involving all of the players with a stake in what happened to Iraq and the entire region, as his personal representative there. He would ask him to try to hammer out a set of agreements that would meet the needs of the nations in that region without further escalating the arms race there, while simultaneously defusing military conflicts. As most here already know, Richard Holbrooke is currently a key adviser to Hillary Clinton.
Both at the book signing and at the Clinton fundraiser, Clark stressed that Hillary Clinton is by far the most experienced candidate in our current field, on foreign affairs and national security in particular. Clark stressed that Hillary will need very very little orientation to her new responsibilities as President, let alone on the job training, since she has already been a full partner at the highest level of an 8 year Presidential Administration, to go along with her 8 years also spent in the U.S. Senate. And not just any administration, but one that developed a coherent grasp while in office on how to handle the full range of security threats facing America, which fully embraced diplomatic initiatives including those with current adversaries, as a central tool of state craft.
Wes Clark clearly thinks Hillary Clinton is already fully up to speed to begin working the entire middle east at the highest levels from day one in office. And with a diplomatic break through now seemingly the only option that could prevent looming military conflict with Iran under any conceivable administration that voters may install in office through the 2008 election, time will be of the critical essence in preventing the next war.
Hillary Clinton was very respectful of Wes Clark at the event she had him appear at, she neither seemed intimidated by nor dismissive of his expertise. I believe Clark now feels that not only is Clinton our near certain nominee, but of anyone who we may elect she is most supportive of and competent at the type of region wide diplomatic offensive that Clark believes the U.S. must launch in the middle east ASAP. It goes beyond her intellectual support for that policy, it goes to having the contacts already in place inherited from Bill Clinton's presidency, both with a seasoned team of her own advisers who all are comfortable working with each other at the highest levels while playing for the largest stakes, and with various world leaders who will view a Hillary Clinton presidency as a reprise of Bill Clinton's presidency - knowing full well that Bill will be there in the White House too.
That is the combination of skills, experience, good will and contacts that will allow Hillary Clinton to hit the ground running, soon enough if we are so fortunate, to find a diplomatic way out of the looming show down with Iran before the clock runs out on peace. Months matter. Weeks matter. Even days matter.
If Hillary Clinton is elected Wes Clark is now part of her inner circle, one way or another. It seemed clear to me from last night watching them interact together that she is absorbing at least some of Clark's counsel already. That was clear to me from the broadly defined language she used in describing the types of security threats facing America in the coming decade. Her words were embracive and not confined to a check list of potential direct military threats, and in that way very reminiscent to how Wes Clark talks about our national security. I got the feeling that they have already begun working together. Given the high chance that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, and my high regard for Wes Clark and the positive contribution he could make in any Democratic Administration, that clearly is my hope, but it also is my intuition.
