Defending Wes Clark
The controversy over my colleague General Wesley Clark's comments on John McCain have generated a lot of media comment, much of it negative. I have known General Clark for many years: we served in the same Army and for the same country. He's a patriot. So to suppose that somehow Wesley Clark would denigrate John McCain's service to his country, while praising his bravery during the time that Senator McCain spent in an enemy prison, is absolutely ludicrous. So let's check the facts.
On CBS's Face the Nation, General Clark said that he believed John McCain was "untried and untested." Journalist Bob Schieffer asked him to explain what he meant. How could Clark make such a claim when "you're talking about somebody who was a prisoner of war? He was a squadron commander of the largest squadron in the Navy. He's been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for many years. How can you say that John McCain is un-untested and untried?" And here's General Clark's answer:
Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility.
As a retired military officer and a soldier who served his country for over thirty years, I can tell you that there's nothing in what Wes Clark said with which I disagree. He has not only stated the facts, he knows something about them. John McCain was a prisoner of war, an officer who served as a squadron commander, and has been and is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. John McCain can put his service to country up against anyone's. But General Clark has served also -- and with great courage: he was wounded four times in Vietnam -- and like John McCain, he has met and seen the enemy.
Is what Wesley Clark said true? Let's check some other facts: John McCain made claims about progress in security by walking through the streets of Baghdad. But as I recall, he was protected by at least a platoon of American soldiers and helicopters lying overhead. In matters of national security, as General Clark pointed out, "it's a matter of understanding risk," and it's "gauging your opponents;" and it's also a "matter of being held accountable."
So I too honor John McCain. And, like General Clark, I acknowledge his sacrifice for his country. But being a prisoner of the Vietnamese and serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee does not automatically qualify one for the position of Commander-in-Chief -- understanding risks, gauging your opponents and being held accountable does. We must end this glib obeisance to sacrifice and ask deeper questions: is a man who sings "bomb, bomb, bomb ... bomb, bomb Iran" a man who understands risks? Is a man who says that we must keep our troops in Iraq until we achieve an ill-defined "victory" really know how to gauge America's opponents. If we want to hold people accountable, then let's stand behind my friend Wes Clark -- and hold John McCain accountable for what he's said.
Oh, and one more thing: today President Bush signed the GI Bill -- which Senator Barack Obama has unstintingly supported. The bill will spend $63 billion over ten years for increased college aid for military service members and veterans who served after September 11, 2001. Good judgment?
John McCain opposed it.
Lt. General Robert G. Gard Jr. (USA, Ret.) is the steering committee chairman of Vets for Obama. Visit their official site or join them on Facebook.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
General Wes Clark is of course absolutely right; it's rather obvious, unless you are a midget-brained squawking cartoon character commentator on the MSM. But that's a whole other world anyway. A theater of idiots for idiots.
OK, so according to Clark, because McCain was never an executive officer in his military career, he is unfit to lead as commander-
If you're going to use military service as the litmus test for ability to be commander-in-chief, then how is it that a man with a 23 year military career is less qualified than a community activist with no military background?
I think you're missing the difference between the two campaigns. The difference is that Senator McCain's campaign is based upon the premise that his military service makes him more qualified to be the Commander-in-Chief. That is the principle point to his argument, the foundation upon which his campaign rests. Senator Obama's principle argument is that he is more qualified because, in his view, his good judgment serves the country better than McCain's experience does.
McCain is the only one who is arguing that military service is a litmus test. What General Clark is pointing out is that McCain's military service, while unquestionably heroic, did not include a leadership position where he actually had to use his judgment while leading others into battle. He's not making an argument that Obama's experience makes him the better choice. Clark is arguing that McCain's military service isn't an automatic qualification to be President.
Now, if you're asking does that argument play with the average voter, who doesn't take the time to consider nuanced positions.
He may not have led others into battle but he certainly led them. Even in peace time squadrons are working. They are constantly training. There are also a host of logistical issues to deal with. He was ultimately responsible for every man in the squadron. To say he never used sound judgment is absurd.
You are correct, that it will come down to which position the average voter will agree with. And I think most will think that military service makes you a better leader than an Ivy league school. 90% of the people who vote do not follow politics that closely. General Clark, and Obama need to realize that. It isn't the truth that matters, it is the perception that does. If there is a perception, even a wrong one, that Obama through Clark is insulting McCains service during war, it will hurt Obama. This is a can of worms that you want to stay away from. If Obama thinks he is the better candidate, and his supporters think he is a better candidate, there are many other issues that they can take a stance on. This issue is McCains greatest strength when it comes to the average voter (I personally think his greatest strenght is his promise to veto all earmarks, and I believe he will do that, I wish Obama would make that promise).
Part of Clark's point is that military service should not be used as a litmus test. That is, because someone has served, even honorably and heroically, in the military, doesn't mean he's qualified to be President by that fact alone. We should ask more questions; that's what Clark was doing.
Clark does support Obama for President. Obama has never served in the military. Clark is making the point that you don't have to have served in the military to be qualified for President. You don't have to have been shot down in combat to be qualified for President.
Instead of torturing logic so that Clark does not support the candidate he supports, why don't people accept that maybe they misunderstood what he meant in the first place.
No that is not what General Clark said. He said that McCain has not demonstrated good judgment and just being a POW, even a horribly abused one, does not automatically make you end up with good judgment. McCain has demonstrably shown that he has poor judgment already by his unconditional support of this idiotic war that cost our country its good name, our treasure, the lives of over 4,000 men and women and pulled our military from a logical and legal target, Afghanistan that has now allowed the reformation of the Bin Laden's bad guys in Afghanistan. For me, all of those reasons (get it, REASONS) tell me McCain is not fit to lead. he has demonstrated very graphically he does not get it. Nuff said.
No, that is what Clark said. But you can try to spin it anyway you want.
Nuff said!
This is so typical. Nothing but manufactured outrage.
I defy you to find the word "unfit" or any of it's synonyms in any of General Clark's (or General Gard's) statements. Until you can do that, just STFU.
What they said of course, is that McCain's experience does not automatically QUALIFY him to be President (or even commander in chief). That is absolutely true, and of course it applies to Obama as well.
Are they using trolls that don't understand the language now? Maybe outsourcing to the third world?
Totally agree with you - those of us with triple digit IQ's get it. I don't know who thought that Barack had to come out and say something, but it didn't make any sense to say John McCain's patriotism was attacked. Because it wasn't - It was his qualificatoins. And I tell you - I'd rather have Wes Clark's judgement at the helm than John McCain's.
Side note - People who want to get a better sense of what could happen if Iran is attacked should es Clark's book about petrol-dollars.
If you could somehow get this story on the MSM, (fat chance), you would actually be reaching people that don't whole heartedly agree with you. Most of the people on this site see nothing wrong at all about what Gen Clark said. There was nothing in his remarks that was in the least way untrue.
Here's what's freaky about McCain's military experience: what he learned didn't learn from Vietnam. He didn't learn the tragedy of a war based on lies. He still wants to win that one, it still rankles. The Iraq war is a senseless lie, and our military is deployed to kill and subjugate innocent people who should be as free and respected as we think we should be. It's a tragedy all around, for us and them. Yet John McCain doesn't regard that, to him it's only about "winning" and "coming home with honor."
I want a reality-based president. With this result, I'd say McCain's Vietnam service DISqualifies him. He can't think straight about reality. He can't regard others as equals. He's like Captain Ahab forever chasing the white whale of victory.
I couldn't agree with you more. I'm really glad to see another General come out and comment on the merit of Gen. Clark's analysis of how military experience does and does not, or rather MAY or may not but not automatically, prepare an individual for the role as president. In industry, it's a truism that people are generally promoted above their actual skill level--you tend to find out that that's the case only afterward. It's not surprising that the same would apply to military positions.
I'm with you. I'm sorry but over 5 years of thatkind of abuse has got to leave some serious psycholgical scars. Just the fact that I couldn't raise my hands over my head would serve as a daily reminder of what they did to me. He wants to beat the gooks still, and this war is a surrogate for it.
Also on the point of commanding a large naval squadron. That was VA-174 at Cecil Field, FL. My first command as an enlistee in the Navy in 1984. An A7 training squadron. It was shore duty. Oh we worked and spent a week or two at sea training, but it was gravy duty. It was also generally the kind of command duty a Captain took towards the end of his career when Admiral just wasn't in the cards.
Thank you sir for your service to our country and your support for Obama.
I too believe in General Clarks words of McCain. And I thank you, General Clark for your words and your support for Obama.
It's time to stop this madness.
All this fury from folks who wore purple bandaids to denigrate John Kerry who actually chased down and killed the enemy. The MSM will always favor McCain because if elected he will allow their bosses to form even more monopolistic control of everything we see and hear. The internet is next. McCain will water down and eviscerate any attempt of the people to place any limitations or controls on the use of the airwaves which belonged to the people prior to whoever was President while Reagan sat in the corner.
Is the Constitution in error when it states the only qualifications for being president is that you be a born American citizen and about 35 years of age? What's the hoopla about all this other stuff? All the candidates past and present qualify for the office. Experience seems not to be an issue as far as the Constitution is concerned.
Hey, Bush got in, hook or by crook, shall we say?
Thank You General
in speaking here, however, you are preaching to the choir
We do not get our information from the MSM
and We very much appreciate Gen Clark and his words
Please spread your message far and wide
I will be forwarding this link to as many as I can
It's the MSM creating a foodfight and then feeding off it.
What Clark said was respectful, and honorable. It never attacked McCain's military service, and no one can ever attack his courage and dedication.
But that does not stop McCain from being woefully ignorant and one-dimensional on foreign policy.
You're right about that one, for sure. This would be a slow news week otherwise on cable news seeing as they're bound and determined to cover the presidential race to the exclusion of investigative reporting that would actually take some money and effort to produce.
Actually, though I agree with General Clark, I don't put this one on the media. It is a big deal when a supporter of one candidate attempts to take out one of the legs from the other candidate's table. I think the problem was more from Clark's remark about McCain's getting shot down. It came off a little snide, and he could have put it a little less bluntly. Then again, if the words stick in people's minds and cause them to reexamine McCain, then it's probably worth the flak (no pun intended) coming Clark's way.
I would agree, except for one thing - General Clark was REPEATING the phrase that the stenographer used in asking the question.
They were not even his words.
I'm so sick of manufactured outrage - is that really all they have left?
The point is that Obama was against authorizing the war and McCain was for authorizing the war. It gave Mr. Bush the green light. NOW, who showed better judgement?
Since Obama wa snot servign in the senate, one will never know if he would have authroized the war or not. He claims he would not have but he is showing to be just another poltician (apologies to the Tuna) so my guess is he would have gone with the flow at the time.
Actually, not. He spoke up at the time the lemmings were running over the cliff.
McCain is simply not he right man for the job of president ...but we all know that!
Thank you Sir. Personally, I thought General Clark was right on target with his remarks. I want someone as President who has brains and the ability to negotiate.
.
Wes Clark need no defense. I have yet to hear anyone show a factual error in his statement.
.
I believe it is the constitution that decrees that the president must be a civilian for a reason.
It can be argued that McCain's military experience disqualifies him for the presidency
As a Dem, Obama supporter, absoltue Mccain oppoent, and non-militray expereicned all I cna say is htis;
That is a ludicrous argument.
Civilian control of the military
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Advocates of civilian control generally take a Clausewitzian view of war, emphasizing its political character.
[t]he point of civilian control is to make security subordinate to the larger purposes of a nation, rather than the other way around. The purpose of the military is to defend society, not to define it [4].
Civilian control of the military is a doctrine in military and political science that places ultimate responsibility for a country's strategic decision-making in the hands of the civilian political leadership, rather than professional military officers. One author, paraphrasing Samuel P. Huntington's writings in The Soldier and the State, has summarized the civilian control ideal as "the proper subordination of a competent, professional military to the ends of policy as determined by civilian authority" [1].
Civilian control is often seen as a prerequisite feature of a stable, liberal democracy; use of the term in scholarly analyses tends to take place in the context of a Western democracy governed by elected officials, though the subordination of the military to political control is not unique to these societies: One example is the People's Republic of China. Mao Zedong stated that "Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party," reflecting the primacy of the Communist Party of China (and communist parties in general) as decision-makers in Marxist-Leninist and Maoist theories of democratic centralism
As noted by University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill professor Richard H. Kohn, "civilian control is not a fact but a process" [3]. Affirmations of respect for the values of civilian control notwithstanding, the actual level of control sought or achieved by the civilian leadership may vary greatly in practice, from a statement of broad policy goals that military commanders are expected to translate into operational plans, to the direct selection of specific targets for attack on the part of governing politicians. Leaders with limited experience in military matters often have little choice but to rely on the advice of professional military commanders trained in the art and science of warfare to inform the limits of policy; in such cases, the military establishment may enter the bureaucratic arena to advocate for or contest against a particular course of action, shaping the policy-making process and blurring any clear-cut lines of civilian control.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
