MSNBC's Schultz Says Stay Out Of Iraq -- His Military Expert Disagrees By Larry Elder

Photo credit:  ISIS

By Larry Elder, Jun. 18, 2014

On what to do about a the gruesome images of civilians slaughtered Iraq, MSNBC's Ed Schultz accused "neocons" of "fear mongering."

He argues that we have no real national security interests in Iraq, and any suggestion that we engage in military action amounts to Republican "dirty scare tactics."

Unfortunately, Wesley Clark, the retired, liberal four-star general who once ran for president as a Democrat, did not get the memo. After politely saying that he disagreed with Schultz -- and his other GOP-is-out-there-warmongering guest Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash -- "a little," the general proceeded to disagree.  A lot. He said:



"But I see this a little bit differently. I do think there is a real threat here. I don't think we want to let ISIS run rampant. And I don't think we want Iran in there on the ground in Iraq.

"I think this is one of these points in history where if the United States is able to take modest military action, it could have a significant benefit. And so I've felt, as I watched this situation emerge, that if we put in the right kind of liaison with the Iraqi leadership and use the special forces assets that we have available, that we could bring in the right kind of combat power, get the intelligence we need and have a decisive impact militarily.

"Now the military impact is less important than the diplomatic impact. A U.S. power and resolve in this crisis has a big impact -- should have a big impact on Maliki. It's a job of our diplomats and our president to take that leverage and use it. It should also have an impact on Iran.

"As I watch the Iranian nuclear talks I sometimes get the impression Iranians think they are still the most powerful force in the region -- or now that the United States no longer has boots on the ground, they’re the most powerful force in the region, Iran. And that's a mistake. We don't want that to happen. So -- you know, Ed -- the hardest of all military operations is to withdraw on the battlefield under pressure. The United States has done that in Iraq. We're doing it in Afghanistan.

"And we have to be very careful because we're a global power, we're the most powerful country in the world. We do have global interests. And, by the way, we have to watch very carefully the price of oil, because while some people might tell you even if ISIS took over they would be pumping oil like mad, they might.

"But, any problem with that oil market is going to impact directly on the American economy. And it's just an unfortunate fact of life."

Does that sound like a slight disagreement between Schultz and Clark? These are two very different responses. Schultz believes that we have zero national security interest in Iraq, and apparently does not believe we should be worried that the area might conceivably be used to plan and launch attacks against America and American interests the way Afghanistan was used to train for the 9/11 attacks.

Clark, on the other hand, is interesting. Not in Congress at the time of the vote on the Iraq war resolution, Clark said, at various times, that he would likely have supported the resolution (but that it is not a permission to rush); that he would probably not have supported it; and finally to asserting that he “would not have” voted for the resolution. And while Clark evolved into a strong a critic of the Iraq war, he has a very different worldview that that of the host -- and that of the President of the United States.

In 2011, Obama declared an “end” to America’s involvement in Afghanistan, the “nation’s longest war.” But the liberal general Clark understands that, as fervently as Obama may hope, the war on terror cannot be telepromptered away.

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter

"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook