Posted on 10/03/2003 2:08:11 PM PDT by dirtboy
"What do you think of General Wesley Clark and would you support him as a presidential candidate," was the question put to him by moderator Dick Henning, assuming that all military men stood in support of each other. General Shelton took a drink of water and Henning said, "I noticed you took a drink on that one!" "That question makes me wish it were vodka," said Shelton. "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."
Shinseki, regardless of what people think of his decisions as Chief of Staff of the Army, was highly regarded in the Army as a man of honor & integrity & character. For a guy like that to feel he needed Clark's orders in writing seems to say something significant about Shinseki's view of Clark's trustworthiness.
This piece clearly reveals the slavish devotion of the New York Times leadership to the Clintons. Pinch and his merry band have their noses so far up Bill's and Hillary's butt that they know what the royal couple had for breakfast.
This particular piece has got to earn them some bonus brownie points.
It's especially interesting to me how Gordon describes the position of the Pentagon, relative to General Clark.
"[Clark] believed that NATO could not ensure victory by relying on airstrikes alone and needed to have the option of using ground troops — a view that that put General Clark at odds with a risk-averse Pentagon, but one that was supported by many strategic experts."
As you characterize it, this is preventative maintenance.
But let's consider the odd position the Pentagon found itself in, shall we? Not then-Secretary Cohen, the Clinton appointee, but the position of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
They are military men. They are aware of their responsibility, not only to the country, but toward their men. And would they not be aware of exactly why this war was being fought? That is, to preserve the political ass of the President, who so urgently needs a media distraction from the threatening triad of a.) impeachment, b.) the Cox report and c.) Juanita Broadrrick.
They may be generals or admirals. And they may be apolitical, but they aren't politically dumb. They know. Of course, they know.
In the interest of full disclosure, I went to high school with one of these guys. I haven't seen him for forty years, but have followed his career through common friends and I know what kind of man he is.
The JCS is composed of career military men. They have a sworn duty to do the bidding of their Commander-in-Chief. They also have consciences.
So, naturally, the JCS is "risk-averse" in Kosovo. Why would they want to sacrifice the life of one infantryman, a single pilot, or a solitary seaman to the PR-needs of a self-absorbed President?
Gordon fails to point out that this embattled President is also "risk-averse". All he wants is a media distraction, he doesn't want body bags -- which might lead to even more political trouble. Clinton, you'll recall, was all in favor of a "bloodless war" -- because a bloody one didn't suit his purposes.
On the other hand, the JCS also knows their commander in the field -- the overly ambitious, ego-driven, brown-nosing General Clark. This is a guy with a "glory complex" -- he wants foot soldiers, he craves the Apaches of Task Force Hawk, all so that he can command that much more power and authority!
For all the right reasons, the JCS determines that he shall not have them.
Subsequently, my high school buddy wrote an article in, I think it was Army Times, that described the role he and the JCS had in the deployment of Task Force Hawk. Recall how long it took them to assemble this force, send it to Albania, construct a base and undertake training in the field -- even as the commander in Brussels (and the media) was demanding they be thrust into battle?
General Dennis Reimer wrote that there had never been any intention of actually committing the Apaches of Task Force Hawk to combat. They were deployed a.) as a "threat" to Milosevich and b.) as a training exercise. Because the Apaches and their tactics were unsuited to the distances they would have to negotitate through rough terrain that would leave them vulnerable to attack by MANPADs from both above and below. He admitted that he had issued orders which purposefully kept Task Force Hawk out of the order of battle.
Net:net, in the view of the JCS, valuable military assets (equipment and personnel) were not worth risking for a C-in-C who had no integrity. Nor should they be assigned to a theater commander who had no integrity, either.
Someday, I expect that the JCS's conduct during the Kosovo Adventure will be examined and a good book will emerge -- something to match McMasters' classic "Dereliction of Duty", which studied the JCS vis-avis LBJ during Viet Nam. And this book will applaud their behavior, as representing the best traditions of duty toward their country...and of honor toward the men under their command.
Separately, do you not find it ironic that Gordon and the NYTimes award Clark bonus points as follows:
"[Clark is] a cerebral West Point graduate who believes that building the United States' military might is just one of the nation's priorities; a multilateralist respectful of the United Nations; and pro-active on humanitarian intervention."
Yet, neither Clinton nor Clark had any interest in involving the UN in their Kosovo Adventure. And Clark gets a gold star for "humanitarian intervention", even as he focussed on killing Serbian civilians, while Bush gets no credit for rescuing the Iraqis from a brutal dictatorship.
Clark, of course, started bypassing the JCS with his requests for manpower and material. It was well known that he began reporting directly to Secretary Cohen, because the JCS was foot-dragging him (as above). Then, when he wore out his welcome with Cohen, Clark dealt directly with his Benefactor-in-Chief, King Willie.
Then, of course, even the First Felon had to wash his hands of Clark's sorry ass, bringing him home in disgrace. I've always suspected that Tony Blair (justifiably) demanded Clark's head on a platter, after the ill-advised order to Brigadier Jackson to "start World War III" became known.
Man, does this slimy lickfest from the NYTimes piss me off!
Military men, as a group, are good men. Patriots, bound by their oath of duty. And, here, we find that a group of these good men were deeply distrustful of one of their own.
I believe this tells us all we need to know about 'Wes' Clark's character and integrity.
That he also seems so obviously a creature of the Clintons -- and worthy of a lickfest from the Slimes -- only underscores this fact.
Lord, after bathing in Gordon's slimy balm, I need a shower...
This little ditty
It is no secret that General Clark's relationship with the Pentagon was strained during that conflict.
is what the Democrats REALLY like about Clark!
Just what we need: a CIC who doens't get along with the military!!!!
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.