Here's a question mostly for Clark supporters

[Hippo_Tron]

First of all, this is discussion question I'm throwing out there. I'm not trying to criticize Clark in any way, in fact he is quite high up on my list for presidential choices.

Alright, here's the question...

Given Clark's background and expertise, do you think that as President he would try to micro-manage foreign policy too much?

My personal opinion is that there is almost no way that he could avoid it for the simple reason that he is one of the most knowledgable men on foreign policy in the country. Chances are good that he will be hard pressed to find a Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, National Security Advisor, and a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs who understand foreign policy better than him, because there are very few people out there that do. Generally the President is supposed to delegate a lot of responsibility in decision making out to his advisors, but if Clark is better at his advisors' job than his advisors, then I can't see how he could manage to delegate this authority.

Anyway, this is a hypothetical and I asked Clark supporters because I figure that they would know the most about him. What does everyone think?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. I think he'll have a greater hand in determining

foreign policy than Dim Son. But then a head of lettuce would have a greater hand in determining foreign policy than Dim Son, so that's not saying much.

[robbedvoter]

2. Competence should NOt be a disqualifier for POTUS

Dan Ackroyd skit on SNL as Carter giving advice to callers comes to mind. Him and Clinton - also very knowledgeable.
I think Clark would muddy through being a decider (before W decided he's the only C.I.C - Clark was one)

[femmocrat]

3. And this would be a problem... how??

We should pray to be so lucky to have the most knowledgeable person as head of the government, don't 'cha think?

[billbuckhead]

4. We should hope for such a problem

Wes Clark really is the smartest guy in the room.

[sandnsea]

5. He has advisors now

Any one individual cannot keep on top of everything in the world without listening to experts in specific regions and cultures and issues. He couldn't be an effective leader if he didn't listen and know who to listen to and when. That's true of any leader.

[Schema Thing]

6. I've read many firsthand accounts of Clarks management....

style, all very, very favourable. None of them mentioned any tendencies towards micromanagement.

I think Clark would be an amazing chief architect for the team rebuilding our foreign policy.

[Bryan]

7. Good question! It depends...

If you mean that a Presient Clark would try to micromanage foreign policy to the extent of neglecting domestic policy or other duties, that would certainly be bad.

Even so, at this point in history, a President who micromanages foreign policy, as opposed to being disnterested in any element of foreign policy that doesn't stand to personally enrich him, would be a godsend.

The fourty-fourth President is going to have an incredible mess on his hands, and if Clark were to win and work himself sick trying to mend our international standing all by himself, it could only be positive. The Doris Kearns Goodwins of the world can worry about whether he was a "micromanager". We need help, and lots of it.

[Prophet 451]

8. Always a danger with a gifted man

Put any very bright person in a position of responsibility and there's always a danger that they'll try running everything. If they're really bright though, they'll also realise that they simply can't do everything alone and bring in others to help them out.

Besides, if it's a choice between Dim Son leaving everything to his Cabinet (who now comprise the greatest collection of pure evil since the 2005 Serial Killers convention) or Clark trying to run everything with good intentions, I'll choose Clark any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

[Texas_Kat]

9. I think that the degree would depend on the circumstances

Blessed with the talented and competent foreign policy team he could attract (Albright, Holbrooke, Jamie Rubin among others), I suspect Clark would NOT be a micro-manager.

HIs background as a general officer demands that he understand how to delegate. However, and this is a biggie, Clark is huge on accountability. He definitely believes that the office of the President is RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE for ALL actions carried out by staff.

One thing to keep in mind, in addition to usually being the smartest guy in the room , his greatest talent is strategy, not just tactics. Creating a stragetically viable foreign policy is where I see him spending most of his energy. Along with his unerring ability to 'see beyond the horizon' in world affairs, the truth is that world leaders already respect his views. He talks to many on a regular basis.

We can't underestimate his personal powers of persuasion with other world leaders, though. Holding together a coalition of 19 fractious nations, all with competing interests, was a task that Bill Clinton called "Mission impossible."

Clark does more than talk the talk and walk the walk. He has LIVED it, inside and out.

[Kerry fan]

10. I don't think he would micro manage.

Have you ever been in the military? You progress in rank by being able to listen to orders, follow orders and give orders. You also learn to work as a team.

Clark is a smart man, and a team player. I think he is smart enough to realize that he might not know everything there is to know, while being smart enough to also recognize good advice and what he thinks may be bad advice.

And, he is smart enough to fully discuss what he thinks may be bad advice or good advice. I sense that he is a patient and a thinking man. I don't think he would "get tired of swatting flies".

Having seen the ravages of war, he would be damned sure that war was the last resort before he sent troops into battle.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. I'd look at it this way ......

.... He got four stars on his shoulders. I dare say that didn't come from excluding a boatload of advisors from the process, but rather, they got there **because** be listened to them. The military is is the ultimate team sport.

Besides, isn't he a Rhodes Scholar, too? Last one of those we had gave us eight years of peace and prosperity.

But mostly, as RobberVoter said, above, competence is NOT a disqualifier. :)

[Tinksrival]

12. The military is all about team building,

and delegating to competent people. Rarely does cronyism play a role.
*Wes Clark was part of a very competent team of foreign policy experts, Richard Holbrooke and Madeline Albright and others, during the Clinton Administration complicated but very successful Dayton Accords.
*As NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Wes was in charge of all European bases. This was everything from troops and their families, schools, hospitals, housing, public works, utilities etc.
*Wes also did time at the Joint Chief of staff. This is coordination of all military branches, The Joint Chiefs include: the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief of Naval Operations, The Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. This requires cooperation and delegating.
*Wes also taught political philosophy and economics at West Point. He is more than foreign policy.:hi:

[Mz Pip]

13. Someone with knowledge

will pick people who also have knowledge. We are not without people who are knowledgable and capable. Clark will find them. He is not the only one with Foreign Policy credentials.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[merci_me]

14. He not only listens, he asks!

I've been in a few small groups with Wes Clark. Groups of 20-40 people. General Clark speaks off the cuff, with brilliance and humor and after a short talk, always says, "That's enough from me. Now I want to know what YOU all think. What are YOUR ideas? How do YOU think we need to approach....(fill in an issue)?"

He doesn't just ask and move on, he enters a dialog with those around him. He soaks up people's concerns and thoughts like a sponge. His eyes lock on the speaker and you'd swear he's committing every word to memory.

I think he'll manage by knowing who has the best answers and not hesitating to ask and work closely with them to achieve what's best for the country.

[Prophet 451]

18. That would be the ideal

One man, no matter how gifted, can't run everything. From what you say, I get the impression he'd pick a cabinet of Democrat All-Stars and govern that way. Personally, I find that thought reassuring.

[Lena inRI]

15. Au contraire. . .

General Clark is a MACRO-minded guy, not a micromanager. . .that is, if you're talking reasoning skills here.

Critical thinking skills from highest to lowest are:

EVALUATION i.e Wesley Clark
SYNTHESIS
ANALYSIS
APPLICATION
LITERAL COMPREHENSION
ROTE MEMORY i.e. Dim Son B* as he regurgitates Cheney/Rove
electronic coaching

Only way Clark could EVALUATE foreign policy or anything would be to take into consideration OTHERS' input.

Are you confusing the word "micromanaging" with "meticulousness" ? Clark may be exceptionally meticulous but I don't see how his thoroughness is a problem as President. . .damn, for once we'd have someone who'd see that his subordinates would get their jobs done!

And all this with that fabulous smile of his. . .oh, if we could be so lucky to have him as POTUS!

Pray for such luck. . .starting now.
:grouphug:

[HawkerHurricane]

16. I wouldn't worry about...

him micro managing foriegn policy, or military stratagy... it's what he's good at and all.

I'd worry about him trying to micro manage things outside his expertise... like enviormental policy, or perhaps law enforcement...

LBJ's problem wasn't micromanagement... it was micromanaging things he knew little about.

[Toucano]

17. Having background and expertise doesn't lead to micro-management

Plenty of leaders have been experts in a field without micro-managing.

The propensity to micro-manage is a personality trait of people have control issues. Clark knows how to delegate. He demonstrated this as a general and a candidate.