Posted on 10/17/2003 11:11:09 AM PDT by robowombat
[CTRL] The Real Wesley Clark
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: flw Subject: [CTRL] The Real Wesley Clark Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 19:58:05 +0000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Caveat Lector-
THE WESLEY CLARK MYTH
NOW THAT establishment favorite Edwards is fading in the Democratic primaries, there is increasing talk in similar circles of launching a campaign for General Wesley Clark, some of it so absurd that it compares Clark to Eisenhower.
But the Clark boosters better do a bit more homework. For example, this from a piece by Lowell Ponte
"[Clark] was named Commander of the 1st Cavalry Division, III Corps, at sweltering Fort Hood southwest of Waco, Texas. On a late winter day in 1993, Texas Governor Ann Richards suddenly called the base, later meeting with Clark's Number Two to discuss an urgent matter. Crazies at a Waco compound had killed Federal agents. If newly-sworn-in President Bill Clinton signed a waiver setting aside the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits the military from using its arms against American citizens within our borders, could Fort Hood supply tanks and other equipment?
"Clinton did. Wesley Clark's command at Fort Hood "lent" 17 pieces of armor and 15 active service personnel under his command to the Waco Branch Davidian operation. It is absolute fact that the military equipment used by the government at Waco came from Fort Hood and Clark's command.
"The only issue debated by experts is whether Clark was at Waco in person to help direct the assault against the church compound in a scene remarkably similar to the incineration of villagers in a church by the British in Mel Gibson's movie "The Patriot."
"What happened at Waco was the death, mostly by fire, of at least 82 men, women and children, including two babies who died after being "fire aborted" from the dying bodies of their pregnant mothers.
"Planning for this final assault involved a meeting between Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno and two military officers who developed the tactical plan used but who have never been identified. Some evidence and analysis suggests that Wesley Clark was one of these two who devised what happened at Waco."
Ponte also reports that "when Russians landed and took over one provincial airport in the region, General Clark commanded British forces to attack the Russians. British General Sir Mike Jackson reportedly refused, saying: 'I'm not going to start the Third World War for you!'"
And this from military writer Col. David Hackworth: "Known by those who've served with him as the 'Ultimate Perfumed Prince,' he's far more comfortable in a drawing room discussing political theories than hunkering down in the trenches where bullets fly and soldiers die."
Clark, by the report of some who have worked with him, is an egocentric, marginally qualified officer of questionable judgment who made his way to the top with the help of fellow Rhodes Scholar Bill Clinton.
MORE ON CLARK http://www.counterpunch.org/clark.html
COUNTERPUNCH - "The poster child for everything that is wrong with the GO (general officer) corps," exclaims one colonel, who has had occasion to observe Clark in action, citing, among other examples, his command of the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood from 1992 to 1994. While Clark's official Pentagon biography proclaims his triumph in "transitioning the Division into a rapidly deployable force" this officer describes the "1st Horse Division" as "easily the worst division I have ever seen in 25 years of doing this stuff."
Such strong reactions are common. A major in the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson, Colorado when Clark was in command there in the early 1980s described him as a man who "regards each and every one of his subordinates as a potential threat to his career".
While he regards his junior officers with watchful suspicion, he customarily accords the lower ranks little more than arrogant contempt. A veteran of Clark's tenure at Fort Hood recalls the general's "massive tantrum because the privates and sergeants and wives in the crowded (canteen) checkout lines didn't jump out of the way fast enough to let him through". . .
Observers agree that Clark has always displayed an obsessive concern with the perquisites and appurtenances of rank. Ever since he acceded to the Nato command post, the entourage with which he travels has accordingly grown to gargantuan proportions to the point where even civilians are beginning to comment. A Senate aide recalls his appearances to testify, prior to which aides scurry about the room adjusting lights, polishing his chair, testing the microphone etc prior to the precisely timed and choreographed moment when the Supreme Allied Commander Europe makes his entrance.
"We are state of the art pomposity and arrogance up here," remarks the aide. "So when a witness displays those traits so egregiously that even the senators notice, you know we're in trouble." His NATO subordinates call him, not with affection, "the Supreme Being".
Imagine the face of Hillary Clinton behind the face of Clark...
Any questions?...
As they say of Rhodes Scholars in general: "They suck up and kick down..."
Wesley Clark complied with the instructions of his Commander-in-Chief when he lent armored equipment to use against the David Koresh armed cult that had deliberately ambushed and killed several federal marshals. I cannot blame Clark for the mass suicide of those people, some of whom would surely have been convicted of murdering federal law enforcement officers, a crime that carries the death penalty.
Considering that the Republicans once considered, seriously, nominating Douglas MacArthur, a highly neurotic and undependable general, and that they've now got George A.W.O.L. Bush, they're hardly in a position to quibble about Wesley Clark.
I wasn't aware of that. But if it can be set aside by a waiver, what's the purpose of it in the first place? Can the president set aside other legislation with just a waiver?
To compare Mcarthur or Eisenhower to a Nato commander who handle Kosovo airstrikes during the Clinton Administration is ludicrous. Further, Clinton's Defense Secretary FIRED Clark from that command. No nuance there, he was absolutely relieved of his command. That should pretty much sum it up.
The article is poorly written because it mixes the assault on the Waco Compound with the Pristina Airport siezure (by the Russians). I can understand your confusion.
BTW, Clark was fired for cause because he gave an order to his British subordinate to prevent the Russian Airborne unit from taking the Pristina airport. The British general had the good sense to refuse the order by appealing it through NATO channels, as was his right.
Wesley Clark complied with the instructions of his Commander-in-Chief when he lent armored equipment to use against the David Koresh armed cult that had deliberately ambushed and killed several federal marshals. I cannot blame Clark for the mass suicide of those people, some of whom would surely have been convicted of murdering federal law enforcement officers, a crime that carries the death penalty.
I don't want to argue the Branch Davidian standoff. Let's just say that I agree that Clark was duty-bound to render assistance once Clinton set aside the Posse Commitatus Act.
Considering that the Republicans once considered, seriously, nominating Douglas MacArthur, a highly neurotic and undependable general, and that they've now got George A.W.O.L. Bush, they're hardly in a position to quibble about Wesley Clark.
Clark is not, and never will be, in the same class as Douglas MacArthur. I'd put him in the George B. McCelland category -- a gifted officer who blamed his subordinates for his failures and wasted his command opportunities by meddling in things that were above his pay grade.
Little mac was loved by his troops, and eventually reinstated to his command.
But yeah, I think you were only off by a few feet, compared to miles in the case of MacArther.
McClelland was also a great "organizer" and the Army of the Potomac was largely his creation. Lincoln gave him every opportunity to succeed, but he couldn't deliver on the battlefield.
Little Mac had aspirations for the White House (like Clark) and was fond of saying things like "I will not be a Dictator" without any prompting -- which probably means that is EXACTLY what we would have gotten had he been elected in 1864.
The problem with Generals-being-President is that the ones that you'd really want to elect are too professional to want anything to do with politics. OTOH, the Generals that really "Want it" are just too scary to contemplate.
Lets see...hmmm...MacArthur neuroticly drove the Japanese out of New Guinea and liberated the Phillipines. To which he was given the honor of personally accepting their surrender in Tokyo Harbor at the end of WWII. And then acted as military governor of Japan overseeing its reconstruction on the post-war years. At the start of the Korean conflict he unreliably invaded South Korea at Inchon, throwing the North Koreans back north of the Yalloo River into China. He only stopped because Truman lost his nerve in the face of the communist chinese.
Douglas MacArthur was probably the greatest general the army has ever known next to George Washington. He served in the Army for 50 years. He was a four star general and the Army chief of staff 10 years proir to his glory years of WWII. Major Dwight Eisenhower was his aid-de-camp!!! He was one of only seven men evre to recieve a fifth star. Wesley Clark couldn't even hold his jock strap!
Go back to the crack you are smoking..
Have another bong hit and read your history
MacArthur stayed 'till the end after the fall of the Phillipines Does the phase "I shall return" mean anything to to you? MacArthur's escape with wis family after the fall of Bataan and Coregidor was nothing short of miraculous and a tribute to the courage of the the Navy PT boat comanders to get him through the Japanese blockade. In his own words:
The President of the United States ordered me to break through the Japanese lines and proceed from Corregidor to Australia for the purpose, as I understand it, of organizing the American offensive against Japan, a primary objective of which is the relief of the Philippines. I came through and I shall return.
He was ordered to leave General Wainwright and his troops to surrender to the Japanese and spend 4 years in a Japanese POW camp. But to an egomaniac what do friends like that matter? Oh, I guess it would have been a great moral booster to the US public to have him in the hands to the enemy, one of our notable top commanders to be photographed in Japanese hands 2 months after Pearl Harbor! Sort of the same effect on the Germans when the Russians caught von Paulos at Stalingrad!!!
Take another bong hit and pray that your freedom is in such hands as guys like this!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
