General Clark on the Daily Show

I was listening to a talk radio show this morning on the way in to work and the host brought up the topic of General Clark's comments about our troops roughing up women and children in Iraq. I haven't found a transcript yet, but if someone finds them please post.

I can tell you that I just lost the last small measure of respect I had for Clark. He evidently wants to be a cabinet member in Clinton's administration so bad he is willing to turn his back on the very institution that made his popularity possible.

Disgusting, just disgusting. He must have no shame at all. These are certainly not the kinds of things he was saying when he was on active duty. I remember him giving a speech at CGSC around 1999/2000 and he criticized the Bill Clinton's handling of the Balkans so much that he had the student body in stitches.

I guess he's changed his mind.

Naw...just being a good general. Find the prevailing political current and ride it for all its worth....:eek:

No transcript, but here's the vid:

Wesley Clark on the Daily Show

(You have to sit through the Starbucks commercial first, then the interview)

I'm not going to listen to the pretty boy and his political pandering - I've seen enough of him on prior occasions - he doesn't have the balls below the stars in this former EM's opinion.

I'm so disappointed that he's not running for president.

It would be a perfect chance to drag his conduct as SACEUR out into the daylight. By his own admission (in "Waging Modern War") he and Javier Solana ramroded the U.S. into Kosovo without any effort to understand the Serb perspective of the conflict, and without any real thought to whether or not the U.S. had any interests there. We won't even go into his reputation among Army leaders. He comes across in his writting and interviews as a self-serving careerist, shameless self-promoter, populist, and opportunist.

I look at a guy like that and all I can think is that a biography of Gaius Marius should be required reading before receiving a commission in the military forces of a democracy.

Seems to me that since the first Gulf War we only have two types of military leaders: those that admit they ramrodded the country into a war without considering the other side or US interests and those who refuse to admit it.

I can also say, from experience, that if you insist on considering the other sides interests, you're highly likely to be perceived as dangerously naive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rank amateur

Seems to me that since the first Gulf War we only have two types of military leaders: those that admit they ramrodded the country into a war without considering the other side or US interests and those who refuse to admit it.

I can also say, from experience, that if you insist on considering the other sides interests, you're highly likely to be perceived as dangerously naive.

---

Why not take it back to before Vietnam and be done with it?:wry:

Seriously, the issues I have with Clark are in some ways similar to those I have with Powell...although Powell has managed to keep a lower profile. I don't recall Zinni ramrodding anyone into a war, or Steiner (although he does fall before your GW1 cutoff), or any number of other commanders. There have been some (very) vocal exceptions, but I think for the most part those are individuals who are deeply in love with the sound of their own voices and consistently overestimate their own ability to either influence or properly execute policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rank amateur
Seems to me that since the first Gulf War we only have two types of military leaders: those that admit they ramrodded the country into a war without considering the other side or US interests and those who refuse to admit it.

I can also say, from experience, that if you insist on considering the other sides interests, you're highly likely to be perceived as dangerously naive.

---

I was pretty specific about the circumstances around GEN Clark's collaboration with Solana, and I sourced it.

RA-Could you please cite some specific examples of military leaders emulating GEN Clark's bad example since Desert Storm? Note that Colin Powell was Secratary of State, a civilian although a retired officer, during the run-up to the Iraq ground war 2003.

Quote:

---

considering the other sides interests

---

Saddam Husein's interest was holding on to personal power. The Taliban was a little more complex, but not a lot more complex. The Serb's however were fighting organized crime, much like the Russians in Chechnya. Their methods were heavy handed and ill-considered, but certainly allow for more ways to resolve the conflict than the pursuit of NATO's agenda to make itself "relevant". The popular but misguided perception of Iraq as a peaceful nation prior to 2003 fails to take into account Iraq's routine threats to U.S. military personnel (enforcing the no-fly zones), Iraq's unwillingness to cooperate with U.N. inspectors (every inspection trip was a race to get to sites before the Iraqis played a grand shell game), and Saddam Hussein's unwillingness to trade oil for medical supplies for his population.
Regardless, the decision for war in Afghanistan and Iraq came through duly elected civilian authority with congressional approval. Read "Waging Modern War", GEN Clark, at a Spaniard's urging, was beating the "Bomb Serbia" drum when the U.S. civilian leaders wanted no part of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

Why not take it back to before Vietnam and be done with it?:wry:

---

While that's not possible, it is possible to move in that direction. I'd argue that Powell insisted on using many preVietnam techniques - many of them diplomatic - that were hugely beneficial. We could've recruited 90% of the world to our side in the GWOT. Instead, we decided to invade Iraq and said, "You either with us or against us."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

Seriously, the issues I have with Clark are in some ways similar to those I have with Powell

---

They both won. To me, the only reason to study how a war was won, is to improve your chances of winning future ones. (I think that the fact that so many here don't care that Clark won, can be used to demonstrate why so few care that things are getting "better" in Iraq. I just need to some time to develop a coherent thesis.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

I don't recall Zinni ramrodding anyone into a war

---

I liked him. I really wish generals were willing to sacrifice their pension as much as they're willing to sacrifice their lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

I think for the most part those are individuals who are deeply in love with the sound of their own voices

---

I think you can say that about any leader, or anyone who posts on an internet forum.;) To me, great leaders are self aware enough to adapt when they're losing or when the people stop following. (Sadly, Oprah is the best example I can think of. I don't know if that is because she is so impressive, or our leaders have so much room for improvement.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van

RA-Could you please cite some specific examples of military leaders emulating GEN Clark's bad example since Desert Storm?

---

If you agree that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld acted like Clark - source, Plan of Attack, Bob Woodward - I'll concede your point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Van

The Serb's however were fighting organized crime, much like the Russians in Chechnya.

---

What you call "fighting organized crime" most called "ethnic cleansing." I'll just say that I support most methods of fighting organized crime and always oppose ethnic cleansing, even if it is a tactic in pursuit of a "good" objective. (I think that after 9/11 we should be able to agree that targeting innocent civilians is never justified.)

Fighting crime is an interesting theory for why the Serbs killed 8,000 unarmed men in Srebrenica or why the Russians invaded Grozny and are implicated in widespread massacre and kidnapping for ransom throughout Chechnya. Despite growing up in Brooklyn around a decent amount of crime, organized and otherwise, I do not recall the NYPD putting entire neighborhoods into camps like this or using heavy artillery on the local housing projects.

I thought both actions had something to do with declarations of independence by Bosnia and Chechnya from political entities that chose military action to suppress such actions. Perhaps I was simply a victim of GEN Clark's lies.

First, the Srebrenica atrocity was part of the shattering of Yugoslavia, 1991-1996 not the Serb incursion into Kosovo circa 1998-99, hence not relevant to the example I used.

Second, there is seldom, if ever, a single reason for a war (even from just one side's perspective). Kosovo and Chechnya were, from the Serb and Russian points of view, the equivalent of sending the Marines into L.A. to attack the Crips' and the Bloods' bases of operation for their enterprises throughout the U.S. (in addition to several other issues; look at the distribution of land under cultivation in Serbia, and you'll note that the cradle of the Serbian identity is also their breadbasket).

I didn't say these were good anti-crime operations, but in both cases that was the central justification. Understanding this would have given Clark a much better starting place for negotiations. Both the Serbs and Russians had hammers, so their problems had to be nails...

Re: Clark's Lies... Lie is such a strong word. If someone is willfully ignorant, and repeats conclusions that don't consider all the facts, they haven't lied...

RA-

Quote:

---

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld acted like Clark

---

President Bush and VP Cheney; yeah, they acted like GEN Clark, but- 1) this is nothing new from the civilian leaders of sovereign nations, who was that Roman who ended every oration with "Cartageo Delenda Est!" until the Romans delen..destroyed Carthage? And Nikita Kruschev "We will bury you!", etc. 2) SecDef Rumsfield; he was a bureaucrat who fell in on the boss. Right, wrong, or indifferent, this is what bureaucrats do, but again, a civilian. 3) Unlike GEN Clark, they didn't do it as military officers working outside the framework of the constitution at the behest of the Secratary General of NATO, in order to pursue a European agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rank amateur

They both won. To me, the only reason to study how a war was won, is to improve your chances of winning future ones. (I think that the fact that so many here don't care that Clark won, can be used to demonstrate why so few care that things are getting "better" in Iraq. I just need to some time to develop a coherent thesis.)

---

My dislike for both Clark and Powell has nothing to do with their "winning" records, but more to do with issues of integrity. That's still an important quality in a good leader (at least to me, but I guess I might be slightly old-fashioned).

R.A. Says:

Quote:

---

"Seems to me that since the first Gulf War we only have two types of military leaders: those that admit they ramrodded the country into a war without considering the other side or US interests and those who refuse to admit it

I can also say, from experience, that if you insist on considering the other sides interests, you're highly likely to be perceived as dangerously naive."

---

Clark isn't -- wasn't -- a military leader; he was always a politician in uniform. Unfortunately, a few of those slip through the cracks.

I suggest from experience that if you do not consider the other side's interests in selecting your strategy, techniques and methods to counter them you are being beyond naive.

Quote:

---

"They both won. To me, the only reason to study how a war was won, is to improve your chances of winning future ones. (I think that the fact that so many here don't care that Clark won, can be used to demonstrate why so few care that things are getting "better" in Iraq. I just need to some time to develop a coherent thesis.)"

---

Actually neither won anything. In Desert Storm, it was Schwarzkopf and crew that won; in Kosovo, we got suckered into a war that Holbrook and Clark fomentend in the process of the Dayton Accords and the Air force 'won' it. :rolleyes:

Clarks only contribution was to order then MG Michael Jackson to refuse the Russians the airfield at Pristina and Jackson, wisely and corectly (if too politely) told him "no."

Tequila says:

Quote:

---

"I thought both actions had something to do with declarations of independence by Bosnia and Chechnya from political entities that chose military action to suppress such actions. Perhaps I was simply a victim of GEN Clark's lies."

---

You might want to look into it a bit, the Dayton Accords --particualrly the role played by Holbrook and Clark at those meetings -- and at what they effectively forced the Serbs into. Might also be advantageous to read into the entire Kosovo effort and see the degree to which we got suckered by the then current Administration -- who, in fairness, got played for fish by the Albanian Kosovars...

And we're still there... :D

Posted by Ken White:
I suggest from experience that if you do not consider the other side's interests in selecting your strategy, techniques and methods to counter them you are being beyond naive.

Ain't that the truth!

Quote:

---

You might want to look into it a bit, the Dayton Accords --particualrly the role played by Holbrook and Clark at those meetings -- and at what they effectively forced the Serbs into. Might also be advantageous to read into the entire Kosovo effort and see the degree to which we got suckered by the then current Administration -- who, in fairness, got played for fish by the Albanian Kosovars...

---

The Serbs had plenty of opportunity to solve Kosovo peacefully in the years prior to the KLA's insurgency. Returning autonomy would have been a positive step and might have led to negotiations with the LDK. Instead they chose the path of obstinacy, and then massacre as counterinsurgency. After previous Serb behavior in the Bosnia, the world was legitimately predisposed to believe that Racak was to be the Serb prescription for the Kosovars as it had been for the Bosniaks and the Croats. The KLA played its hand very well, but it would have never worked if the Serbs hadn't worked so hard over the past decade wrecking Yugoslavia in the guise of saving it.

own worst enemy and there's enough egg in Kosovo for everyone's face -- which was my point. US 'idealism' and meddling made a bad situation worse and we got suckered. Kosovo was a lose-lose for everyone.

Clark has nothing to bragg about there...

The Balkans aside, Wesley Clark is simply making a monkey of himself everytime he appears on a talk show.

The list of lies and contradictions that I know he has committed is almost unbeleivable. As I said before, this man wants a cabinet appointment to a possible Clinton Administration so badly that evidently he is willing to lie in order to carry the water for the Democrats.

Stunning, absolutely stunning. Did you see him on Tucker Carlson's show over the weekend? Tucker tore him up, I mean tore him a new one but he wouldn't waiver. The man has NO honor!