Last night, The Commonwealth Club program on Will-AM played an October presentaion by retired general and former presidential candidate Wesley Clark.
He spoke of the mismanaged and lack of a coherent foreign policy when he was in the military (and how this is a problem of both major political parties), the invasion mentality of the most influential advisors of the current president, and the directions the U.S. needs to take to maintain its position as a global leader.
Some of his experiences concerning national foreign policy are very unnerving, and worth listening to
To hear his remarks, go to the following link and scroll down to the Oct 3rd program
http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/
Wesley Clark would seem a better president than any of the current candidates, either Republican or Democrat.
I heard a bunch of this interview and was struck by how smart Clark sounded. It really made me wish he'd tried again this year. However, my primary concern with him wasn't daunted, which is that having a General in charge means having someone whose instincts and knowledge leads them to wage war in the best, most strategic and tactically efficient ways---instead of having someone whose instinct is to avoid war in the first place.
"having a General in charge means having someone whose instincts and knowledge leads them to wage war in the best, most strategic and tactically efficient ways---instead of having someone whose instinct is to avoid war in the first place."
That is absolutely not true, even in a general sense (so to speak). Most career military hate wars. They fight them only out of a sense of duty, and only when directly ordered to by the CIC.
It is particularly not true in regard to Gen. Clark, who is about as anti-war as it gets. As a decorated infantryman in Vietnam and later over a long, distinguished command career, he knows better than any chickenhawk how desperately awful war really is. As a result, he also has consistently maintained that war is always, always, always, the absolute last resort after every other resource has been exhausted, and even then only in self-defense or in defense of others.
He opposed the invasion of Iraq at the time, which is something not all of our current crop of candidates can honestly say. And while he successfully oversaw the Bosnian campaign when called upon to do so, most of his job as Supreme Commander of NATO was diplomatic rather than bellicose. His biggest criticism of Bush has been the complete abandonment of diplomacy.
I was proud to serve as one of his delegate candidates four years ago. I still think he's smarter by half than anyone running this time or last time, and I was deeply disappointed that he chose not to run again. There's no one you'd rather have to finish a war someone else has started, but Clark would never, ever start a war himself.
The past military experience can certainly influence how hawkish a candidate may be, but it doesn't seem to necessarily influence them one direction or the other as a general rule. I'd say that it overwhelmingly leaves them with the view that war is a horrible thing, but whether or not it is necessary in certain situations comes down to a host of other factors. Yesterday's hawk could be tomorrow's dove and vice versa depending on the situation. Similarly the use of combat experience to justify or avoid war by leadership on the grounds that one understands it better can be seen as hawkish or dovish depending on how the rationale is interpreted by the rest of the country when it comes to necessity.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Thanks for the info Kevin---I wasn't aware of his positions on those issues. Your points are well taken.