|
September
18, 2003
Citizen
Clark?
Or, Why Electing a Mass Murderer Is a Really Bad
Idea
by Nebojsa Malic
KLA leader Hashim
Taqi, Viceroy Bernard Kouchner, General Sir Michael Jackson,
KLA commander Agim Ceku, and General Wesley Clark celebrate
the victory of their joint enterprise; Pristina, 1999, credit
unknown
It
is normally not within the bounds of this column to offer
commentary on internal American issues, with the notable exception
of consistent advocating of non-intervention in foreign quarrels
and stepping back from the assumed role of World Empire. Such
policies, harmful as they are to the very fabric of American
society, nonetheless do far more damage in target countries,
where any "help" that is proffered soon proves to
be but another form of grievous
injury.
Many
a harsh word has been expended here upbraiding the misguided
and malicious politicians of the Balkans for a veritable train
of abuses against the lives, liberty and property of their
own people and others. In the process, similar harshness has
been employed against the agents of Empire, who have set to
remake the fractious and complex peninsular tapestry by brute
force and power of prejudice. Now one such agent seeks to
apply his Balkans experiences at home, here in the United
States, seeking the office of President – but in truth, coveting
the laurels of Emperor.
Candidate
Number Ten
Wesley
Clark, former US Army general and Supreme NATO Commander in
Europe, announced Wednesday that he will run for President
of the United States in 2004 as a Democrat, joining nine other
Democratic candidates vying for the opportunity to challenge
George W. Bush.
Incongruously,
Clark supporters and mainstream
media seem to purport that he is running on an "antiwar"
ticket. Only a few, including the Christian Science Monitor,
believe that Clark could outflank
Bush in his belligerence.
It's
as if everyone has forgotten Wesley Clark was the Bomber of
Belgrade, the highest-ranking military official in a cabal
that systematically violated international law, the NATO Charter
(and with it the US Constitution, Article
6, Section 2) and committed the greatest crime under the
Nuremburg principles: that against peace.
Even
Michael Moore, the gut-punch filmmaker who challenged the
NATO attack (after a fashion) in his Oscar-winning feature
"Bowling for Columbine," recently gushed
over Clark. What has possessed all these people to believe
that the answer to George W. Bush's policy of Global
Balkanization lies in a man whose hands are drenched in
Balkans blood?
War
Criminal
Clark's
BBC
profile notes the general's words at the beginning of
NATO's 1999 aerial aggression:
"We're
going to systematically and progressively attack, disrupt,
degrade, devastate and ultimately, unless President Milosevic
complies with the demands of the international community,
we're going to destroy his forces and their facilities and
support," he said.
Systematically,
he said. Destroy, he said. Facilities and support, he said.
The bombing was indeed systematic
– bridges, schools, hospitals, passenger trains,
buses, refugee columns, marketplaces,
anything that could be hit except the Yugoslav military,
which successfully
camouflaged its systems and avoided most attacks. Apparently,
for Clark and his coterie, the "facilities and support"
of the Yugoslav military were the people and infrastructure
of Serbia itself, from the roads and bridges to the power
grid and TV
networks.
One
of the Nuremberg
prosecutors warned in vain that war crimes laws applied
to Americans also. Comfortable in their knowledge that no
court in the world would ever touch them – proven later on
by their ICTY pawns' abject refusal
to even consider an investigation – Clark and Co. committed
war crimes freely and often.
Unlike
Slobodan Milosevic, who was accused of "command responsibility"
for alleged genocide and crimes against humanity in the Balkan
Wars without a shred of reliable evidence, there is plenty
of proof in Clark's case. That is, if there were an honest
war crimes court in the world.
Starting
World War III
Despite
the barrage of propaganda, and a tailor-made
"indictment" of Milosevic by NATO allies at
the Hague Inquisition, the campaign of terror was failing.
Only the intercession of a Russian government envoy and the
"neutral" Finn Martti Ahtisaari (later amply rewarded
by NATO
supporters) convinced the Serbian authorities to make
a truce with their attackers. No one knows whether Chernomyrdin
or Ahtisaari knew that the Alliance had no intention of honoring
the agreement, or the UN resolution that codified it.
Russia
tried to ensure NATO lived up to the bargain by sending
troops to Kosovo. When the invading British troops encountered
the Russians at the Pristina airport, Clark hysterically ordered
British commander General Sir Michael Jackson to dislodge
them by force. Jackson
refused, reportedly saying, "I'm not going to start
the Third World War for you."
Events
have vindicated Jackson's judgment; earlier this year, Russians
completely
withdrew from Kosovo, having failed to do anything but
legitimize the illegitimate
occupation of the province. For NATO's – and Clark's –
"humanitarian intervention" in Kosovo has only ever
been a crudely manufactured lie based on most despicable deception.
What
Victorious Soldier?
BBC's
profile
of Clark's candidacy also claims that his "credentials
for running against President George Bush in 2004 rest squarely
on his military reputation." If so, that is great news,
for Clark hardly has any.
There
is little respect for Clark among his colleagues in the military.
An investigative report by CounterPunch
magazine in 1999 reveals a man of gargantuan vanity, arrogant
to subordinates and subservient to superiors, obsessed with
micro-management, and politically savvy at the expense of
military expertise.
One
officer who served with Clark termed him "The poster
child for everything that is wrong with the [general officer]
corps," and said that under Clark's command, the 1st
[Armored] Cavalry Division at Fort Hood was "easily the
worst division I have ever seen in 25 years of doing this
stuff."
One
of America's most decorated soldiers, Col. David H. Hackworth
(Ret.), speaks
of Clark thus:
"Known
by those who've served with him as the 'Ultimate Perfumed
Prince,' he's far more comfortable in a drawing room discussing
political theories than hunkering down in the trenches where
bullets fly and soldiers die."
Wesley
Clark boasts about "Waging Modern War," but he is
hardly a Maximus
Decimus Meridius. One would be tempted to compare him
to Lucius
Cornelius Sulla, but for the Roman tyrant's record of
actual military competence.
Some
might protest that Clark was, after all, knighted by the British
for his "boundless energy" in the terror-bombing
of Yugoslavia; awarded the French Legion d'Honneur;
and the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom. That these
governments profaned their highest decorations in support
of their criminal endeavor speaks more about their (dis)honor
than about Clarks' alleged "accomplishments."
Was
He at Waco?
It
has long been known that US Army tanks took part in the tragic
and lethal 1993 storming of a religious commune in Waco, Texas.
But was one of the officers involved Wesley Clark? Records
indicate his second-in-command advised federal officials in
preparation for the assault. One official Congressional report
mentions the involvement of two high-ranking officers.
In the spring of 1999, Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St.
Clair of CounterPunch speculated the mystery officer may have
been no other than Clark:
"Certainly
the Waco onslaught bears characteristics typical of Gen. Wesley
Clark: the eagerness to take out the leader (viz., the Clark-ordered
bombing of Milosevich's private residence); the utter disregard
for the lives of innocent men, women and children; the arrogant
miscalculations about the effects of force; disregard for
law, whether of the Posse Comitatus Act governing military
actions within the United States or, abroad, the purview of
the Nuremberg laws on war crimes and attacks on civilians."
(CounterPunch)
Soon
thereafter, they unearthed the names of the two officers,
and it turned out Clark was
not involved. So, Clark's defenders can say with
pride that their champion did not rain death and destruction
at demonized Americans, but only demonized foreigners.
Let voters' conscience be the judge of such an ethical distinction.
Blood
Sacrifices
It
is one thing to worship the fallen
and false god of democracy by pretending elections actually
mean something. But is the American public ready to take the
next step, and start endorsing blood sacrifices? Wesley Clark
has sacrificed many lives at the altar of power, and he will
do so again.
By
now it is obvious that a vote for Bush/Cheney will be a vote
for Empire. It should be equally obvious that a vote for Clark
would have the same effect. The very fact that Clark walks
free, that he is proud of what he has done, that he
is running for President, is proof of the ethical abyss
which seems to have engulfed the world.
Clark's
methods of "waging war" – approved by his superiors
at the time, be it noted – hardly differ from those espoused
by Osama Bin Laden: cowardly attack civilians with missiles
and bombs, hoping their spirit breaks and they capitulate
to your demands. Yet this man would be President.
Surely,
Americans know better.
–
Nebojsa Malic
|
comments
on this article?
|
|
|
Please Support Antiwar.com
Send
contributions to
Antiwar.com
520 S. Murphy Ave., Suite #202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
or
Contribute Via our Secure Server
Credit Card Donation Form
Your
contributions are now tax-deductible
|
