Clark's Controversial Comments

"John McCain represents the wonderful value tradition of the American military," commented General Wesley Clark at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies last Wednesday, June 25th.

General Clark, who wrote the foreword to an excellent new book on national security issues entitled Ideas for America's Future: Core Elements of a New National Security Strategy by Jeff Bialos, spoke out on how the United States needs to "re-affirm our commitments to our allies" and "respect the rule of law" under the new administration whether it be Obama or McCain.

Acting as the moderator for his talk, I asked the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Europe from 1997-2000, about Senator McCain's ability to be the next commander-in-chief.

I was somewhat surprised by his statements, which echoed what he stated on Face The Nation with Bob Schieffer yesterday.

While answering my question he spoke very respectfully of McCain's long public service to the country, but then said the Arizona senator may not have the command experience necessary to be a capable commander-in-chief.

The general, who graduated first in his class from West Point in 1966, questioned McCain's judgment on the war in Iraq and other foreign policy issues.

General Clark did say that there are no real requirements to be president other than those in the constitution and that we have to look at the nominees' overall views and judgment.

Clark, a native of Arkansas and friend of the Clintons, indicated to our audience at SAIS that Senator Obama had better judgment on issues like being against the war in Iraq from the very beginning that would, in his opinion, make Obama more qualified than McCain to be president.

His comments on McCain are true but they do seem somewhat of a stretch as Obama also doesn't have much executive experience, hasn't served in the military, and hasn't been tested in combat as has McCain.

McCain can point to years of foreign policy experience in the Senate and his strong support of the military throughout his years in public service.

On the other hand, Clark does make sense in saying that judgment matters, and he has a point that Obama has been consistent in his views against American military involvement in Iraq from the very beginning.

However, of all the things one can criticize McCain for -- from lack of a background in economics to no concrete energy plan -- taking him on for "lacking command experience" doesn't seem very important.

Clark, speaking on Face The Nation yesterday, stated "that large squadron in the Navy that he commanded-that wasn't a wartime squadron." This would indicate that McCain does have command experience--just not in wartime.

The controversy over McCain's lack of command experience seems irrelevant in today's campaign with so many more important topics like keeping the U.S. out of a deep recession and having a workable energy policy.

These comments aside, I also asked General Clark if he would be interested in being Obama's vice-presidential candidate.

The retired four-star general who briefly ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004 and, as he said at our event, did win the Oklahoma primary, should be a serious candidate for Obama to consider for the second slot on the ticket.

Clark brings an impressive military record to the table; he is a very good and effective speaker; he was a supporter of Senator Clinton; and he is involved with investment banking, showing that he has knowledge of finance and economics. He is also telegenic and would add gravitas, military and foreign policy experience, and an overall knowledge of how to deal with our allies to the ticket.

The former Rhodes Scholar and author should be on the short list for vice president for Obama but the general might think of criticizing McCain on other issues rather than his lack of command experience. It would make more sense and make Clark more credible for the vice-presidential position.

Comments

[GLaB]

Mr. Guttman,
I hope you're still reading these comments.

You said, "These comments aside, I also asked General Clark if he would be interested in being Obama's vice-presidential candidate."

You never told us his answer.

[MaryT63]

Gen Clark is right on. More power to giving voice to what a lot us are thinking. I can't think of a better person to point out McBush 'strengths' than a nato supreme commander. Go V.P. Wes Clark!!! I supported you in 2004 and still today, now for Obama's VP.

[darkladyofala]

I saw the Face the Nation interview Sunday, I confess that I fast-forwarded the Lieberman part, I always do with Rapepublicans and other liars of their ilk, I did not hear Gen. Clark (Ret.) say anything that was not a fact.
As I recall the general said something like, being shot down and a pow is not experience needed for the presidency. Bob Schieffer replied, 'really?' Really!
Personally, I believe Gen. Clark said what should have been said a long time ago; I almost drown once, so I should be a swimming instructor! Really?
It takes someone like Wesley Clark to be the truth teller on this one; his cred as a military man is unimpeachable.

[guitrock]

Clark is taking what McCain says is his strong suit and correctly pointing out that McCain is lacking on what he thinks is such a great qualification. McCain keeps the Republican fearmongering theme going by implying, if not outrightly asserting, that America would be safer if he were president. Why? Because he has served in the military and the Armed Services Committee. McCain does not have command experience, just as Clark says. Clark's comments are relevant because McCain is touting his experience and belittling Obama as a neophyte. Clark is saying that Obama showed superior judgment than McCain in opposing the Iraq war before it ever started, and this judgment trumps McCain's so-called experience which served him poorly both in his zest for the Iraq war and his continued identification with the neocon agenda.

[dctackett]

"taking him on for "lacking command experience" doesn't seem very important."
ummm... isn't that John McCains central argument for his own candidacy?... "vote for me because there are terrorists and we've got wars to wage..." the John McCain crew constantly pump up his military service, so I think that would be the best thing to shed some light on...
Clarks comments equal to... having played basketball doesn't quality you to be the coach of the top NBA team...

[JimR]

"taking him on for "lacking command experience" doesn't seem very important."

I respectfully disagree... many people feel that because McCain has military experience, that he would automatically be the better commander-in-chief. And while the economy has arguably become the most important issue to most voters, they still care very much about national security.

[JudeWaves]

I've always liked Wes Clark, even though he's Hawk, by definition ... at least he stops to think about the reasons one would engage in warfare. This outrage on the Right due to Clark's FTN performance is preposterous and hypocritical, the usual cry and hew because one of their own takes a hit, while they're busy trying to make Michelle Obama look like Mrs. Malcom X.

The GOP does its best to be Rambo'esque from the top down, and mud-slingers from the bottom up; what Mac has going for him is the flawed notion that the Republicans own "security" and that their boy is a war hero. This whole conversation ... indeed, this entire campaign ... is still about the damned Flag Pin. The Republicans don't need facts when they can manipulate emotions; we've seen how that works for eight years. If Clark can punch holes in that wall of smoke to let some air in, God Bless him!

Without the war ... and Mac's status as POW hero/sufferer ... what else does the GOP have to run on? More tax breaks for corporations? Wes said what better than half the nation is thinking; now that Obama has distanced from the remarks [and coming on the day when he's making a major address on patriotism,] I hope it doesn't turn out that the General threw himself on his sword for the party good.

[research]

MSM = GOP fascist corporatist Propaganda.

Why do you buy into it?

[woodsywizz]

I'm a war veteran, an Air Force Flight Engineer during DESERT STORM, and my take on McCain is similar to Bush, jr., and Rumsfeld: they are fighter pilots, and fighter pilots lack strategic depth. They zoom high and fast over the battlefield, then fly home and don't observe the ground-level consequences of their actions. They are sealed in a fast-moving bubble.

I don't mock their courage nor accomplishments. I've flown with too many (former) fighter pilots to ever forget the magnitude of their deeds.

But fighter pilots are often lousy leaders (they fly alone) and often bad commanders (they cannot command groups of people as easily as they command an aircraft). There are of course exceptions, in my opinion about one out of four.

This is hard-won military experience talking, from a professional aircrewmember with seven years flying experience and a stack of medals topped by the Air Medal ("for actions not quite deserving the Distinguished Flying Cross", according to the originating legislation from WWII Congress).

It may be just one opinion, but it's valid and based on military ground-crew AND aircrew experience, beginning in 1979. Thirty years, and I'm still in (Reserve) Service.

McCain may be a former hero, but we need a leader equipped for the 21st Century, not the 20th.

[GLaB]

You know about McCain's record as squadron commander, right? The record that Gen. Clark dismissed because it "wasn't a wartime squadron?"

"In August 1974, he was assigned to the Replacement Air Group VA-174 "Hellrazors". This was an A-7 Corsair II training squadron located at Naval Air Station Cecil Field outside Jacksonville, Florida and the largest aviation squadron in the Navy. He became its executive officer in 1975, and on July 1, 1976, he was made VA-174's commanding officer. This last assignment was controversial, as he did not have the required experience of having commanded a smaller squadron first (something that he now had too high a rank to do). While some senior officers resented McCain's presence as favoritism due to his father, junior officers rallied to him and helped him qualify for A-7 carrier landings. McCain removed personnel he thought ineffective and sought to improve morale and productivity by establishing an informal rapport with enlisted men. Dealing with limited post-Vietnam defense budgets and parts shortages, McCain's leadership abilities were credited with turning around a mediocre unit and improving its aircraft readiness; for the first time, all fifty of its aircraft were able to fly. Although some operational metrics declined during the period, the pilot safety metrics improved to the point of having zero accidents. The squadron was awarded its first Meritorious Unit Commendation in twenty-three years, while McCain received a Meritorious Service Medal."

That hints at leadership and executive experience to me.

[nsiah7]

What is it about a military service in America that one cannot critisize? All military personnel (both serving and retired) are so full of themselves that critisizing them is an absolute taboo. What General Clark is agueing is that McSame is using his military service record as a reason why he is best suited for the Commander in chief postion. But is that the criteria for the selection of president? Being in the military has nothing to do with being the president. It is more than that except of course if your only reason of being presdent is to wage and continue an unncessary war. Even that alone is not enough.

[bigtimepatriot]

"However, of all the things one can criticize McCain for -- from lack of a background in economics to no concrete energy plan -- taking him on for "lacking command experience" doesn't seem very important."

Well, it wouldn't be important, except that McCain claims it to be important and so it needs to be debunked. I give McCain credit for being a veteran and for surviving his POW time. However if we call McCain a "hero" for being shot down and for recording videos for the North Vietnamese, what title does that leave us for those who DIDN'T get shot down and who REFUSED to record videos for North Vietnam?

[rabidAtheist]

bigtimepatriot:

Absolutely spot on! You hit the nail on the head with this comment.

It seems that the term "hero" has gotten thrown about a bit too much. McCain is a war *veteran*, to be sure; it may even be the case that he did some heroic things while in the service. The upshot, however, is that General Clark is right; it has no relevance to the question of fitness to be president! Everyone keeps calling this job "Commander in Chief". But that's such an appalling mind-set! This is not (yet) a military dictatorship. The task of the president *includes* the direction of military forces, but is vastly larger, more complex and more sophisticated than that. To the extent that McCain's POW status has any bearing on the matter at all, it may even be *negatively* relevant; I cannot imagine that one survives that kind of experience with all of one's faculties intact. And it sure looks like McCain's are fractured (at best). And, while one might be able to say positive things about McCain, that he is intellectually sophisticated just ain't one 'em.

[mmerose]

I don't know if the famous "working class" electorate can stand that much academic excellence. Rush Limbaugh will end up BRAGGING about McCain's bottom-of-his-class finish! Me, I think America deserves excellence, but there's a strong tradition of reverse snobbery in this country. So we got George Bush, the screw-up aristocrat with the biggest silver spoon ever but sticking out of his a, thus marketable in our bizarre culture.

Me, I think America deserves excellence, but I haven't voted for a winner in a long time.

[obamagirl1968]

Both Clinton and Gore are Ivy League educated and Bill was a Rhodes Scholar to boot. Hillary, oh she of the working class, is also Ivy League educated.

[TexasDem0]

Military experience covers a broad spectrum. There is a significant difference between the experience of a pilot dropping bombs from a jet, and that of veteran who held a rifle, saw the face of his enemy, and had to choose between killing and dying.

[aplegrand]

All the hoopla about McCain's qualifications to be president, but where was the same disgrace when the McCain campaign consistently insinuated that Barack Obama could possibly be the "candidate of Hamas" or a "terrorist?" Get a grip.

[Gma11]

Clark's statement makes perfect sense to me. THAT is what McCain is running on. His military experience.

As Maslow noted, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you will see every problem as a nail."

That's the only tool McCain seems to have. And he seems to want to hammer everything! But he lacks the judgment to utilize even that simple tool wisely.

Wes Clark was absolutely correct.