GEN Clark's Comments about Sen. McCain

I'm sure everybody heard about it:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4217971.shtml

I won't lie, I haven't watched the interview, but heard some of the comments on the radio.

I know we have some very wise elders on this council and was curious if any of you personally worked for or with General Wes Clark. What was his reputation while in Uniform? Did his political aspirations begin while he was in the military?

Is the consensus that these comments were of his own accord or did the Democratic leadership put him up to it? (Did Bob Schieffer [sp?] lead him)

Is Clark a potential VP candidate? Did he ruin his chances? What has Obama said in response?

I try to stay as non-partisan as possible; which is ethical for all active duty military; but this is quite interesting...

In one sense, he's right, in that being a pilot and a prisoner of war are not qualifications, in and of themselves, that one would make a good executive, but I don't recall McCain claiming that it would. His Vietnam experience is the measure of his devotion to his country. So I think it's a graceless thing to say, but it is politics. Of course, that means Clark is fair game, too, and thus it's pretty rich that he should harp on qualifications based on wartime command experience, based on his record in Kosovo, especially with the airport incident.

I never served under him but know some folks who did, they say he was a jerk, interested in his rater and senior rater, not so much for his troops. FWIW.

From the article cited by the OP:

Quote:

---

"If Barack Obama's campaign wants to question John McCain's military service, that's their right," McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said after Clark's appearance Sunday. "But let's please drop the pretense that Barack Obama stands for a new type of politics. The reality is he's proving to be a typical politician who is willing to say anything to get elected, including allowing his campaign surrogates to demean and attack John McCain's military service record."

---

Wow. Cuts cleanly through about 17 layers of ju jitsu that were trying to get started there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevely

...I never served under him but know some folks who did, they say he was a jerk, interested in his rater and senior rater, not so much for his troops. FWIW.

---

with him by telephone in 1991 when he was the CG at the NTC, in addition to a lot of anecdotal evidence from a couple of contemporaries, former seniors and some former subordinates, I think you are, as they say, too kind...

Way too kind. Aside from Pristina, the fact that Clark helped Holbrook set up the Dayton accords which were a direct lead-in to Kosovo and the fact that the entire Kosovo operation was almost a farce in a great many respects, one should also recall Wesley's electric Bicycle for combat troopies (LINK).

I'm still pondering the pandering and patent stupidity in that idea -- and how a bicycle rider is going to use a weapon. Talk about questioning the judgment of others...

The foregoing is military-related and has nothing to do with his politics.

My thoughts on Wesley Clark and his conduct of the Kosovo campaign are here. In his own account of the events leading up to the conflict and the course of the Kosovo conflict, he railroaded the U.S. into a conflict that probably didn't have to happen as he placed foreign interests ahead of U.S. interests. His agenda was to "prove" the relevance of NATO (at the request of Javier Solana of Spain, according to Clark's version of the story), when the reason for NATO (the Soviet Union) was no more.

Clark's credentials as an authority on international affairs, as an authority on the qualifications to be a head of state, and as political commentator leave much to be desired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

I'm still pondering the pandering and patent stupidity in that idea -- and how a bicycle rider is going to use a weapon. Talk about questioning the judgment of others...

---

This cannot really be serious...maybe we can put a turret on the handlebars?

My only experience with him was sitting in a waiting room just prior to us going on Larry King Live with one other guest. I spent my entire adult life in or with the Marine Corps and we have our egos. His trumped all - hands down. There was a good moment though - the guest on the CNN show just prior - another Marine and a good friend of mine - was walking out and Clark commented to him that he did not like appearing or discussing with others (one-man show I guess). The Marine remarked (in a way I can't do justice to here) - then how are you going to handle the debates? Clark was in the mix (putting out feelers if I remember correctly) for a presidential run at the time - April 2003.

of the US Army School of the Americas when Clark was CINC Southcom. I was seated next to him at dinner. My dinner conversation was pleasant but entirely non-substantive, not even about USARSA which was his purpose for being there.

I knew and had dealings with every Southcom Cinc from Dennis P. McAuliffe through Tom Hill. I respected all of them to a greater or lesser extent - save one. I particularly liked Jack Galvin, Goerge Joulwon, and Chuck Wilhelm. I established a friendly working relationship with Paul Gorman (on the USARSA BOV) and a strong personal friendship with Fred Woerner.

Wes Clark is the exception I refer to above.:rolleyes:

Cheers

JohnT

I was at EUCOM for almost all of Clark's tenure as SACEUR including the war in Kosovo. Although I never met him, I watched his morning VTC's almost daily and based on the "unvarnished" Clark I saw and heard there I formed a negative opinion of him and his leadership ability, especially when compared to the public, polished persona he projects.

I know Clark is "famous", but is telling the obvious really a good reason for so much attention?

Might this somehow be related to the 2004 Kerry/GWB Vietnam story where some spin doctors managed to portrait a Purple Heart 'winner' as not patriotic or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuchs

I know Clark is "famous", but is telling the obvious really a good reason for so much attention?

---

The issue is whether he should be famous and if so, for what...

I suggest he's living proof of the Abrams comment; "Generals should be noted for their silences."

Quote:

---

Might this somehow be related to the 2004 Kerry/GWB Vietnam story where some spin doctors managed to portrait a Purple Heart 'winner' as not patriotic or something?

---

You really don't want to go there.

Clark was military, Kerry served but was not military in any sense. He was a politician and that story you cite is essentially political. This isn't a political board but there are plenty out there if you want to visit them to discuss Kerry. Doing that here would not be a good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuchs

I know Clark is "famous", but is telling the obvious really a good reason for so much attention?

Might this somehow be related to the 2004 Kerry/GWB Vietnam story where some spin doctors managed to portrait a Purple Heart 'winner' as not patriotic or something?

---

It would be nice if we could stay above the political punditry. There are MANY members that have served with Clark and have FIRST HAND knowledge of his command and service. Leave the politics to other places it is unfair to the members who can NOT comment, and inappropriate for a variety of other reasons. The original poster opened a reasonable question but don't expand the scope to other things unless you can be way more specific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuchs

I know Clark is "famous", but is telling the obvious really a good reason for so much attention?

Might this somehow be related to the 2004 Kerry/GWB Vietnam story where some spin doctors managed to portrait a Purple Heart 'winner' as not patriotic or something?

---

Not an efficient or effective post!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by selil

It would be nice if we could stay above the political punditry. There are MANY members that have served with Clark and have FIRST HAND knowledge of his command and service. Leave the politics to other places it is unfair to the members who can NOT comment, and inappropriate for a variety of other reasons. The original poster opened a reasonable question but don't expand the scope to other things unless you can be way more specific.

---

But the comments by Clark are political in nature so I don't think the post is way off topic. The original questions are rhetorical and Clark is a hot button. No need to act surprised or humiliated if someone strays off topic or interjects out of place. The reader doesn't know if Fuchs served under Clark or met him at one time or another. So, the wrath is a little too soon and most of the posts by others support Fuchs comment; right or wrong.

pure political comments first, Selil just added to my warning and clarified my rather poor attempt to suggest that this is not a political board. It is not, as I said to Fuchs, however, there are plenty out there for those who want to engage in that stuff.

Technically, the originating comment in this thread was broadly political -- but only because Clark himself has made that the case -- and thus was on the borderline of not being a good idea. However, the Poster is a relatively new member and Clark was a long serving member of the Armed Forces so I didn't wade in on it.

So you're correct that Clark is a political issue at this time but the original question to which most here are responding was this:

Quote:

---

"I know we have some very wise elders on this council and was curious if any of you personally worked for or with General Wes Clark. What was his reputation while in Uniform? Did his political aspirations begin while he was in the military?"

---

I submit that transcends the purely political and that few questions on Kerry would do so.

I'll also note Selil's comment with respect to the fact that many who post here cannot enter into a political discussion. Those of us who are out can; those still serving cannot. So, no wrath involved nor any surprise or humiliation, just a gentle reminder to stay apolitical while here.

No problem. I'm a little confused after reading Fuch's post again. It isn't written very well. I was also looking at the other questions by the author of the thread. That is why I used the word, "rhetorical". I can state from experience that one of the moderators probably has already or will take care of the problem. I know they don't like one liners without substance. It may be gone by tomorrow.

...that the thread would go in this direction. I'm sorry for any one or set of rules that I violated. I just didn't know much about Clark and was curious about his past and reputation while in uniform; although for that purpose, I got some of my questions answered. So for me it was worth it. Maybe this discussion wasn't so valuable to others. This AO is called "Politics in the Rear". I'm sure some of you can see how I thought my post was appropriate.

regards,

jkm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jkm_101_fso

...that the thread would go in this direction. I'm sorry for any one or set of rules that I violated. I just didn't know much about Clark and was curious about his past and reputation while in uniform; although for that purpose, I got some of my questions answered. So for me it was worth it. Maybe this discussion wasn't so valuable to others. This AO is called "Politics in the Rear". I'm sure some of you can see how I thought my post was appropriate.

regards,

jkm

---

Actually I don't think anybody thought your original question was incorrect. Asking what people thinking of a retired general is certainly not wrong and has been done many times before. Asking how a particular policy decision would effect small wars doctrine, or even a plank in a candidate campaign would certainly not be wrong. I certainly was interested in hearing from people who had served with Clark.

Bringing up the unrelated highly controversial political "Swift Boat" campaign even by reference from a previous election was punditry by Fuchs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuchs

Might this somehow be related to the 2004 Kerry/GWB Vietnam story where some spin doctors managed to portrait a Purple Heart 'winner' as not patriotic or something?

---

It could be considered whether intended or not to be disparaging Clark in the same way it was used against Kerry. As Culpepper also noted nobody likes a drive by slam with little content or reason. There is inherent bias in the structure of the sentence whether intended or not and as noted could be considered rhetorical.

I guess my original reaction was to the fact that people had been critical of Clark who had first hand knowledge of him, then Fuchs throws in the implication (intended or not) the current discussion might be the same as the Bush and Kerry 2004 issues. Thereby creating the perception of massive negative political bias by every previous critical poster.

I'm not so arrogant to think that it isn't possible that I over reacted. However, I stand by my reasoning if flawed as my perception of the events. Discussing politics and how they effect the affairs of small wars is important. Engaging in political punditry, feeding the propagandist machinery of politics, prosecuting ideology over reason, and failing to consider the issues even when disagreeing is not a good idea. There are a lot of other places where people can fling BS at each other.

I don't always agree with everybody and I enjoy seeing the perceptions and thoughts Fuchs brings to several of the debates. Heck I get yelled about one-liners too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jkm_101_fso

...that the thread would go in this direction. I'm sorry for any one or set of rules that I violated. I just didn't know much about Clark and was curious about his past and reputation while in uniform; although for that purpose, I got some of my questions answered. So for me it was worth it. Maybe this discussion wasn't so valuable to others. This AO is called "Politics in the Rear". I'm sure some of you can see how I thought my post was appropriate.

regards,

jkm

---

There was nothing wrong with starting this thread. I think it was a good idea and you got some good responses. Then someone posted something that was grammatically confusing. I used the term "rhetorical" to your questions not as a criticism but as a basis of influencing the readers on thought and conduct. Since, Clark is such a hot topic the questions may be rhetorical and result in a post that may be perceived as "punditry" as selil pointed out. Fuch's post is choppy and has an element of subterfuge built into it. It needed some clarification by other members to come to that conclusion. In hindsight, Fuch's post can easily be perceived as hostile and something we try to avoid on such things as political topics. I fell for the subterfuge embedded in Fuch's post and perceived it incorrectly. It is straightened out now and the thread can get back on track. These forums have a complex company language that takes time to learn. I'm still learning. You're doing OK. This is a good thread you started.

It's interesting how we read things....

I read Fuch's post as a serious question about the application of a political spin campaign applied to Clark's comments. Certainly here, in Canada, a lot of the reporting of the last Presidential campaign focused on smear tactics from the Karl Rove machine on both Kerry and Sen. McCain. I suspect that many of us outside of the US perceive that tactics like hat are the normal ROE for US politicians <shrug>.

And, while I wholeheartedly agree that this is not a political board, in the sense of punditry etc., I think that a certain amount of politics and political discussion is inevitable. After all, we certainly discuss politics in Iraq, Afghanistan and Turkey! Personally, I think that discussing politics as it relates to both small wars and the Long War in the US is quite valid.

Marc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

It's interesting how we read things....

---

Pesky humans... :D

I'll juggle your comment a bit:

Quote:

---

And, while I wholeheartedly agree that this is not a political board, in the sense of punditry etc., I think that a certain amount of politics and political discussion is inevitable. After all, we certainly discuss politics in Iraq, Afghanistan and Turkey! Personally, I think that discussing politics as it relates to both small wars and the Long War in the US is quite valid.

---

Totally true -- the trick is to avoid introducing partisan or ideological bias that will lead to a thread or sub thread that is purely political and has no military or warfare connection. Mostly because the serving folks cannot comment on it...

As for this:

Quote:

---

...I suspect that many of us outside of the US perceive that tactics like hat are the normal ROE for US politicians <shrug>.

---

Here you go, reminder of a well known fact; LINK. :D

I suspect that we could go back a long way before the founding of the US to find equal mud slinging :D.

Your point about having things dissolve into a partisan bicker is well taken, Ken. I think that for those of us outside of the US, which is about 25% of the council at a rough guess, we don't view it as partisan per se since we have nothing really to do with your parties. Ideological, possibly ;).

anything to do with any of our parties... :mad:

:wry:

Since I've been a member here, the SWJ has made a conscious effort to remain apolitical and does a great job. However, the nature of small wars inevitably crosses into the political realm. The key is to discuss politics in a non-partisan manner (the swift boat comment above at least pushes the envelope on that).

In reading the posts it seems that some members may be unclear as to what level of political discourse they may engage in if they are active duty. Active duty members are permitted to engage in political discussion, but must remain non-partisan in doing so. They may express these personal, non-partisan opinions regarding political candidates and issues so long as they do not claim to do so as an official representative of their branch of service. Of course, there may be some service-specific issues involves (and yu should contact your local JAG to resolve these issues), but generally speaking this is how it is for active duty folks.

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

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:

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.

. . . 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdamG

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:

---

That is a deliberate rhetorical question that I will try to answer without rhetoric. Based on my own experience, McCain's name came up more than once during my training in the USAF. I never heard of Clark. McCain's experience was needed to train future aircrews. Clark getting shot was was slightly less traumatic than LCPL David E. Padilla receiving a direct hit from a mortar round and KIA-BNR. Except, I knew about LCPL Padilla long before I even heard of Gen. Clark. Neither Padilla nor Clark's name ever came up during training in the USAF. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I hope this answered your question.

Originally posted byjkm_101_fso:

Quote:

---

Is Clark a potential VP candidate? Did he ruin his chances?

---

When picking a V-Presidential running mate, they usually come from one of four (4) categories, which can pretty much be defined as follows:

1) Political asset. Campaigning skills, increases the odds that a certain interest group/geographic area not currently allied with the presidential candidacy will vote favorably toward the candidate. Best recent example: Lyndon Johnson for JFK.
2) Political Attack Dog. Campaigning skills, willing to spend time out on the road - almost constant, ready to do the dirty work. There really isn't a good recent example. Maybe LBJ, or Nixon when he was VP.
3) Liaison With "The Faithful". If you have a presidential candidate who can't easily 'connect' with a critical segment of the party faithful, well, giving then a VP candidate strongly aligned with their interests can sooth the pain of having the candidate move to the center for the general election. Recent Examples: Both Dick Cheney and Al Gore could qualify here.
4) Post Election Operator. This category is most interesting, at least to me. It's the one that all the recent presidential candidates seem to aspire to, but fewest seem to accomplish. This tends to be an individual who can walk into the DeeCee environment and be an operator from Minute 1, at least in specific areas. Think of this person as "Mr. Inside" or "Ms. Inside".
Recent Examples: Both Dick Cheney and Al Gore could qualify here. But, the best recent example would probably be George H.W. Bush for Ronald Reagan.

That's an extremely basic criteria on selecting a VP running mate.

But there are other critical factors involved with selecting a V-P. Endurance, ability to think on your feet, likability/compatibility (much more important than people realize - remember these are all Type-A personalities), being a team player, having a selective memory. V-P is a hard selection to make and get it right, because everybody makes their decisions based upon their past experiences (Fighting The Last War syndrome), but that's rarely what they get if they win the office.

Just a few observations.

Unfortunately political commentary reached its pinnacle on October 27, 2004. It was nailed for the ages, Caveat lector.


Related:
Platform 2008