I'm an American and I don't want
anything to do with any of our parties... :mad:
:wry:
Don't think anyone on active duty
has the slightest question -- Selil and I are long off active duty and merely mentioned there were some restrictions (details not deemed required) to some who may not have have been aware of that.
The issue is simply to avoid partisan or ideological commentary that has no bearing on warfighting.
Now let's all talk about Wesley... :D
Clark's version of his Vietnam combat time
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...711.clark.html
Rhetorical question: So how is his experience at getting shot differ from McCain's getting shot down? :confused:
Good that it's rhetorical, I think you answered your
question in the asking if you'll just look...
They differ? Why yes, they do differ, don't they; one got shot, the other got shot down. Sounds different to me.
Immaterial, though, neither action has much effect on the professional reputation of Clark as a retired General. John McCain's getting shot down -- or his reputation in the Navy -- do not have the slightest thing to do with Wesley Clark's reputation in the Army. Nor does your question have anything to do with the question posed at the start of the thread.
Take the politics elsewhere, please.
On Clark and Political Craziness. . .
. . . I second Ken's remark of "I want nothing to do with any of our parties." Unfortunately, I also believe it is folly, and potentially dangerous folly, to claim that the military - and particularly the [senior] officer corps - is beyond politics. What the military does is political (one hopes), and thus will become fodder for partisan politics.
Indeed, I believe this can be a good thing. One needn't look far in history to find the consequences of a military hierarchy believing itself unaffected and unrelated to political sea changes in the country. A quick reading of Liddell-Hart's "The Other Side of the Hill" reveals innumerable German generals claiming innocence in Hitler's ascendence - when in fact they were duplicitous in their silence. That instance may be extreme, but would anyone suggest the services were better off with GENs Wheeler or Johnson's silence over Vietnam? Or Generals Myers, Franks, or others before OIF? On the flip side, Admiral Mullen's willingness to interject himself into a potential campaign issue (his comments on Iran the other day) or Generals Powell, Shilikashvili, and Shelton influencing the decision-making of the Clinton administration, I believe, have been important "interjections" into political decision-making and the political process.
Like you all, I believe the military and its personnel deserve the utmost respect. Where appropriate, their advice and role in our political and policymaking processes are important. I do not desire uniform worship, or the belief that military men are somehow infallible experts, or the stolid, stoic guardians of the Republic. Often lost in Once in Eagle is Anton Myrer's hidden warning of the "prestigious uniformed junta" that World War II created. The respect the military, and particularly the officer corps now commands comes with a price, and I do not believe we can afford a military entirely divorced from the political proceedings of the nation.
Ok, there's the soliloquy. As far as Clark's comments - if they were made in a casual conversation, I would say they were fair. As with the Kagan flap over at Abu Muqawama months ago, just as fair as questioning someone's lack of service is questioning the strategic insight one gains as a low-level serviceman.
But Clark's comments weren't made in some political vacuum - they were made in support of a candidate with no military experience on the campaign trail. They were inherently political and shouldn't have been made.
Don't ask me how to the two of those comments are consistent, but somehow, I'm convinced they are. . .
. . .and my apologies if in any way the above violated the clear and consistent political ROE of SWJ.
Regards,
Matt