GEN Clark's Comments about Sen. McCain

[Ken White]

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

Pesky humans...

I'll juggle your comment a bit:

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:

...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.

[marct]

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

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 .

[Ken White]

anything to do with any of our parties...

[LawVol]

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.

[Ken White]

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...

[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?

[Ken White]

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.

[MattC86]

. . . 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

[Culpeper]

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?

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.

[Watcher In The Middle]

Originally posted byjkm_101_fso:

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.

[bourbon]

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


Related:
Platform 2008