Warrior

[Lexie]

Hey guys, the following passage is about General Wesley Clark who’s running for President. It’s from a book that was published a couple of years ago (“War in a Time of Peace,” by David Halberstam).

I don’t know about you guys, but I think I found my candidate!

Whatever else, Clark was perceived by many as an army intellectual.? But to others who knew him well, he was also, in every sense, the complete warrior.? Lieutenant General Dan Christman, later superintendent of West Point and one of Clark’s oldest friends in the army–they were a year apart at West Point–admired him greatly.? “There is no one I’ve known in my years in the army who embodies the warrior ethos more completely than Wes–he’s excelled as a commander at every level,” Christman said.? “He’s fierce and he’s absolutely fearless, and above all he is a warrior.? He’s always ready not merely to go into combat, but to excel.? If you were going into battle, you would want him in command–company, battalion, brigade.? He would do everything right, he would think out every option, he would be selfless and he would be fearless.? No one would do it better.? But within the army he rarely gets credit for being a warrior.”

From the start of his career, Clark was marked for greatness and senior command, but despite his self-evident talent, some of his superiors always questioned whether he passed one of the army’s critical tests, the ability to show sufficient concern for the men under him, something that distinguishes great commanders.? His friends thought that criticism was unfair.? No one, they believed, would do a better job preparing his men and bringing them into combat in the best kind of fighting shape, but he would do it coolly and professionally.? There would be nothing warm and avuncular about him.? His combat credentials were worthy.? Clark had graduated from West Point in the middle of the Vietnam War, had commanded a company in the First Infantry Division, and in an early battle had been seriously wounded four times in a single engagement, in the hand, shoulder, leg, and hip.? Yet had continued to command his unit, and for that he received the Silver Star.? The battle and the wounds, some thought, had made him more aggressive than ever, as he rose in rank, he seemed to be on a hair trigger, spoiling for a good fight or a worthy war.

In time Clark had held every command position the army offered and had excelled at each level, but somehow he did not get credit for being a commander.? Probably it was a function of personality.? He was never one of the boys.? You could, thought one colleague, use Wes as a litmus test on some of his peers: their reaction to him would say as much about them as it did about him.? If they were bright and confident, then they overlooked his occasionally irritating qualities.? But if they were a little insecure about their own place as they rose to higher ranks where the challenges were more complicated, then Clark, who met those challenges so readily, created resentment.? He was, as one colleague noted, the kind of guy who in college took at three-hour exam, was the first to leave the room (by about an hour), and then let you know how easy it was.

[Damici]

I was going to try to post a link or two, but I don’t have the time right now (maybe later). My basic point was, though, that there appears to be a BROAD consensus among those who have served with, under or over Wes Clark in the Army that he is a complete primadona, political animal, far-less-than-impressive military tactician, and essentially got his fourth star through ass-kissing and pulling political strings as opposed to deserving it. I have not met the man personally, but from what I have heard and read, from the grunts that served under him to those like Hugh Shelton (former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), he has stirred a uniquely powerful feeling of loathing in all who have had the chance to watch him work, moreso than any general I can remember hearing about – and they all seem to say the same thing, things like, “Of the five commanding officers that I served under, no one was so widely despised by every single one of us as Clark.” (I’m paraphrasing there, of course, but that’s really the widespread impression I’ve gotten). Just something to ponder. I’ll try to provide some links later.

[Damici]

Here’s one such article:

(But first, here’s the entire thread where I found it over on SpecialOperations.com: http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28705 ). If you peruse the whole thread, which is populated by military and ex-military guys – guys who should know – they fucking HATE him: ).

Tracing Clark’s Military Map

By Jack Kelly

Retired General Wesley Clark has thrown his helmet into the ring. He has improved the Democratic presidential field by entering it, just as he improved the Army by leaving it. Clark is a brilliant man, and a brave one. A Rhodes scholar, he was decorated three times for heroism as commander of an armor company in Vietnam. “Those of us who knew him as a captain thought the country would be short-changed if he didn’t rise to very high rank,” said a retired Army colonel who was a student of Clark’s when Clark taught at West Point. But Clark’s kindergarten teacher probably noted that he doesn’t play well with others. Clark “is able, though not nearly as able as he thinks, and has tended to put his career ahead of his men to the point of excess,” said a defense consultant well acquainted with the Army’s senior officers. “He is opportunistic and lacks integrity. He will be an absolute menace if he gets into a position where he can exert influence on the Army because he lacks true vision and is prone to be vindictive.” Clark “regards each and every one of his subordinates as a potential threat to his career,” said an officer who served under him when Clark commanded a brigade of the 4th Infantry Division in the 1980s. An officer who served under Clark when he commanded the First Cavalry Division said he was “the poster child for everything that is wrong with the general officer corps.”

Clark doesn’t get along terribly well with superiors or with allies either, which lead to his premature departure as commander of NATO. Clark was CINCEUR when the Kosovo war began, and bears muchof the responsibility for President Clinton’s decision to try to bomb Serb dictator Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo. Clark argued that after a few days of bombing, Milosevic would fold his tent and slink away. When the Serbs didn’t budge after months of bombing, Clark lost Clinton’s favor.As the war dragged on, Clark advocated the use of ground troops. This put him at loggerheads with Gen. Henry Shelton, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and with Gen. Eric Shinseki, chief of staff of the Army, who thought this was a terrible idea. These generals faulted Clark for getting America into an unnecessary war, and for having done a poor job of preparing for it.

“NATO did not expect a long war,” wrote former Clinton national security aide Ivo Daalder. “Worse, it did not even prepare for the possibility.” The conduct of the war drew unprecedented criticism from Clark’s predecessor, Gen. George Joulwan, and a quiet rebellion by subordinate commanders. “Clark found his control over ongoing operations eroding,” wrote retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich. “Rather than the theater commander, he became hardly more than a kibitzer.” What may have triggered Clark’s early departure from NATO was a confrontation with the British general who was to command NATO peacekeepers. After a Serb surrender had been negotiated with the help of the Russians, Clark ordered Sir Michael Jackson to parachute troops onto the airport at the Kosovar capital of Pristina, so that NATO would hold it before Russian peacekeepers arrived. Jackson refused. “I’m not going to start the third world war for you,” he told Clark, according to accounts in British newspapers.

Shortly after the confrontation with Jackson, Clark was told his tour as CINCEUR would end two months early. Neither Shelton nor Defense Secretary William Cohen attended his retirement ceremony, a remarkable snub for a four star general.

Clark read Milosevic wrong, helping to provoke the Kosovo war, which he then fought badly. Clark picked up where he left off in his second career as a television kibitzer of military operations. As an analyst for CNN, Clark harshly criticized the war plan for Iraq devised by Gen. Tommy Franks, the CENTCOM commander, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Clark turned out to be completely wrong. It says something fascinating about the Democratic field that this failed general is the class of it.

Jack Kelly, a syndicated columnist, is a former Marine and Green Beret and a former deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force in the Reagan administration. He is national security writer for the Pittsburgh (Pa.) Post-Gazette.

[SteelyEyes]

He has a chance, he looks good on TV and that counts the most.

I won’t vote for him though, I expect more than a pretty face. I’ve driven a few top brass around in the past. They tend to forget you’re even there like you’re part of the car, or van. By listening to them enough I’ve come to the conclusion that the majority of them get in the way of the ones that know what they are doing. Gen. Clark seems to be in that minority.