"Clark's war" - Article in the Boston Globe

[kiahzero]

Came across this on TNR.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2003/10/19/clarks_war/

IN HIS NEW BOOK, "Winning Modern Wars," recently excerpted in The New York Review of Books, former NATO commander and current Democratic favorite Wesley K. Clark took the Bush administration to task for its performance in Iraq. It was, he wrote, "all too easy to concentrate on the fighting, killing the enemy and destroying his forces. But every serious student of war recognizes that war is about attaining political objectives -- that military force is just one among several means, including diplomacy, and that all must be mutually reinforcing."

<snip>

Just last month, however, H. Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, publicly impugned Clark's "integrity and character." The remark set reporters and commentators to wondering: Does Clark's record show the mix of idealism and forcefulness his admirers celebrate, or the reckless grandstanding his detractors decry?

<snip>

In fact, the qualities that made Clark a thorn in the Pentagon's side -- his refusal to separate military affairs from political ones, his willfulness and independence of mind -- may serve him well in political life.

"He's a little more sloppy than might be expected from a Rhodes scholar, valedictorian, American superhero," says Michael O'Hanlon. But he's also "capable of admitting to himself when he has made a mistake and of taking corrective action." And that may be exactly the breath of fresh air Democrats yearn for in 2004.

<fin>

I like TNRs take on the article:
There is one big takeaway from the piece. To do the right thing in Kosovo, Clark had to play an exquisite game of bureacratic hardball. His colleagues in the Pentagon truly did everything in their power to stymie the mission and to stymie Clark. Among other things, Secor details how Hugh Shelton and William Cohen kept denying Clark access to the White House. She quotes former NSC official Michael O'Hanlon, who says, " were abusing the chain of command prerogative in a way that was counterproductive to the nation's interests." In addition, Secor reveals that Cohen essentially abandoned interest in the Kosovo campaign, ceding Clark huge responsibilities normally reserved for the Secretary of Defense.

After reading her piece, there's only one appropriate response to Hugh Shelton: Piss off!

[FrenchieCat]

1. Yes, Piss off is appropriate!

Her article is more in line with the press accounts reported at the time.

Shelton, Cohen and Ralston all have financial interest in keeping Bush in office. See Cohen's web site for details:

http://www.cohengroup.net/team.html (pic with Clinton is to confuse you)

http://www.cohengroup.net/expertise.html (pic in the middle tells it all).

[VolcanoJen]

2. Awesome Cohen pictures, Frenchie!!!

Damn, those are brilliant. Nice try at "confusing" us, Cohen.

:-)